Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 06/14/2004 View Sun 06/13/2004 View Sat 06/12/2004 View Fri 06/11/2004 View Thu 06/10/2004 View Wed 06/09/2004 View Tue 06/08/2004
1
2004-06-14 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Why the world’s eyes should be on Iran’s nuclear programme
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2004-06-14 5:23:36 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Iran does not need nuclear-based electricity. It has plenty of oil and gas for generating electricity. No matter what the Iranian diplomats are saying in New York, the less-diplomatic leaders in Teheran are sending pretty clear signals that they are deceitful and non-cooperative. After November, either Dubya or Israel is going to have to level some Iranian nuclear facilities. Kerry won't have the guts to do it in time. New Yorkers had better shift their politics toward the right before Iran sneaks a nuke up the Hudson River. Next time we won't even be able to do a casualty count.
Posted by Tom 2004-06-14 8:08:07 AM||   2004-06-14 8:08:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Who is your editor McGoo? Why all the wiggle words?

Reading tThe IAEA’s reports on Iran in the past year reveal there are good reasons to fear that the mullahs, behind the guise of a civilian nuclear power programme, are secretly trying to build building an atomic bomb. or at least develop a "just in time" capability to build one at short notice.

Allow me to fix another gem:

There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear facilities are much more advanced than Iraq’s were last year.
Posted by Zpaz  2004-06-14 10:49:27 AM||   2004-06-14 10:49:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "With Saddam Hussein gone, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was finally done with the business of WMD and accusations of secret nuclear arsenals"

never heard of North Korea?
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-14 10:51:48 AM||   2004-06-14 10:51:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 It need not come to military action. The Europeans can do more to back up their tough words with credible threats of action. They should draw up a menu of EU sanctions that could be phased in if Iran does not comply with the IAEA by, say, September.

This is idiotic. Iran's mullahs are specifically engaging in a military action to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. To belive that sanctions and other toothless measures (as shown in Iraq) will work against those who do not blanch at the deepest deceits and lies is pure Pollyanna diplomacy.

The E3 had better put some retaliation plans on the table d@mn fast. Tehran's leadership is rapidly acquiring an unhealthy glow in its cheeks, the glow of Cherenkov radiation. If the mullahs are unwilling to end their pursuit of such ill-considered goals they must be treated to the smoldering glow of burning laboratories and reprocessing facilities.
Posted by Zenster 2004-06-14 1:18:46 PM||   2004-06-14 1:18:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Do we have a dot connecting problem developing? The demagogues were whining about the failure to connect the obscure dots before 9/11. Those dots were little and they were hidden amongst a bunch of other dots that didn't connect. With hindsight we learned the connected dots showed the image of falling buildings and a flaming Pentagon. Aren't these dots about the nuclear program of the world's first islamofascist state real big, and not so obscure? When connected, do they image a mushroom cloud?
Posted by Jake 2004-06-14 3:57:57 PM||   2004-06-14 3:57:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, I guess we will just have to invade Iran now. Then we know there will be terrorists there, just like there are now in Iraq. We should let the UN handle this, then the diplomatic efforts of the whole world will persuade the Iranians from developing nucular weapons. History repeats itself you know.
Posted by Jennifer 2004-06-14 4:02:00 PM||   2004-06-14 4:02:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Jennifer, that is one of the most opaque posts I've ever seen. Are you trying to be sarcastic?

At least this part is definitely sarcasm, right?:

"We should let the UN handle this, then the diplomatic efforts of the whole world will persuade the Iranians from developing nucular weapons."
Posted by docob 2004-06-14 4:12:52 PM||   2004-06-14 4:12:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Suuuuuuuure they will, Jennifer.
Kumbaya, baby.
Posted by tu3031 2004-06-14 4:17:51 PM||   2004-06-14 4:17:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Jennifer: (clang!) Wrong answer....try again.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-06-14 4:19:31 PM||   2004-06-14 4:19:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'ma swear there one born every day.
Posted by Shipman 2004-06-14 4:29:30 PM||   2004-06-14 4:29:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 We should let the UN handle this,

Like the 'wonderful job' they did in Rwanda? A six-month old baby has more teeth than any given UN action.
Posted by Raj  2004-06-14 4:32:08 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com]  2004-06-14 4:32:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 A little history by Jenn would be great! Yeah, baby, Yeah!

Nobody here wants to invade Iran Jenn, honey. Especially if they start putting nukes on the pointy end of RPGs. They might shoot one at somebody. And I doubt they would let that sort of thing get into the wrong hands. No way!
Posted by Lucky 2004-06-14 4:35:45 PM||   2004-06-14 4:35:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 The only thing the UN has "handled" with any dexterity needs to be washed - thoroughly - and put away. By somebody else - like Jennifer.
Posted by .com 2004-06-14 4:54:05 PM||   2004-06-14 4:54:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation? They have inspectors with international credibility. They carry the moral authority of the world community. They have already helped out in Iraq with the sovergnty thing. People thought they were doing their job inspecting in Iraq, when they really were but there weren't any WMDs. Then Bush lied and said there were, and we invade and now there's terrorists there. Do you want the same thing to happen in Iran??
Posted by Jennifer 2004-06-14 6:02:43 PM||   2004-06-14 6:02:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Oops - People thought they were not doing their job inspecting in Iraq, when they really were . . .
Posted by Jennifer 2004-06-14 6:04:23 PM||   2004-06-14 6:04:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Jennifer:
What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation? Rwanda ring a bell? The UN has already admitted that Iraq did in fact have banned missles and WMD and were shipping them out of the country before, during and after the war. Terrorists? Heard of Salman Pak?
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-06-14 6:12:52 PM||   2004-06-14 6:12:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation?

Close to 60 years of history.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-14 6:13:09 PM||   2004-06-14 6:13:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 And here we reach the end for this is a DU regurgitator who knows nothing, acknowledges nothing, and understands even less. Pfeh.
Posted by .com 2004-06-14 6:16:32 PM||   2004-06-14 6:16:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 DU regurgitator? I don't know what that means, but I think it is probably mean.
Posted by Jennifer 2004-06-14 6:18:44 PM||   2004-06-14 6:18:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 The Mad Mullahs will give nukes to proxies. Let someone else take the heat, so to speak.

Mad Mullahs
Mad Mullahs
Whatcha gonna do
whatcha gonna do
whatcha gonna do
when al Q nukes YOU?!
Mad Mullahs
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-14 6:34:22 PM||   2004-06-14 6:34:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 DU means Democratic Underground. Do I win a prize?
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-14 6:41:35 PM||   2004-06-14 6:41:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Jennifer - assuming you are an individual posting personally and not some asshat agent of disingenuous twaddle - you are either willfully ignorant or a silly troll. You choose.

There is a wealth of information which you obviously choose to ignore each time you post your idiot memes, such as "Bush lied" - and I have no obligation to waste my time with you. Either get up to speed (on your own, I've already raised a child) or run along and play elsewhere.
Posted by .com 2004-06-14 6:42:18 PM||   2004-06-14 6:42:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I have a Golden Retriever named Jennifer. I am glad she's smarter than this one.
Posted by Sgt.DT  2004-06-14 6:42:54 PM||   2004-06-14 6:42:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm beginning to think Jennifer = Shipman. Not intellectually of course, but who else can be this funny???
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-14 6:49:13 PM||   2004-06-14 6:49:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 ...besides mucky.
Posted by Rafael 2004-06-14 6:49:58 PM||   2004-06-14 6:49:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Yeah, AP, you win a date with Jennifer.
The airhead, not Sarge's dog.
Posted by tu3031 2004-06-14 6:51:32 PM||   2004-06-14 6:51:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Jennifer has the same intellectual skepticism as Gentle....hey! Now that I think about it....
Posted by Frank G  2004-06-14 6:53:35 PM||   2004-06-14 6:53:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 What makes you think the UN can't handle this situation?

I'd name the countries the UN screwed over for the past 60 years, but the list would get so long Fred would start charging me for bandwidth
Posted by Valentine 2004-06-14 7:26:39 PM||   2004-06-14 7:26:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Anybody think the IDF will put some ordnance on the reactors of the black-hat, mad-mullahs of Iran?
Posted by anymouse  2004-06-14 7:48:47 PM||   2004-06-14 7:48:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Jennifer, as someone who took a whole lot of bashing here until people realized that I was serious as a heart attack, permit me to recommend that you do some searches at this site regarding the UN and WMDs.

Great places to start are the Oil-for-Food scandal, Rwanda, Saddam's Scud Engines in Jordan, Saddam's WMD transported through Syria to Lebanon's Bekka valley and hundreds of several other easily searched topics.

Fred and those who help run this board have a profound respect for free speech, I'd like to think I'm living proof of that. Such restraint upon their part does not inhibit other members of this site from being a little less ... (ahem) ... polite regarding flagrant lack of erudition.

Let's move on:

#5 Do we have a dot connecting problem developing? The demagogues were whining about the failure to connect the obscure dots before 9/11. Those dots were little and they were hidden amongst a bunch of other dots that didn't connect. With hindsight we learned the connected dots showed the image of falling buildings and a flaming Pentagon. Aren't these dots about the nuclear program of the world's first islamofascist state real big, and not so obscure? When connected, do they image a mushroom cloud?

Jake, you really nailed it with your post. The 9-11 atrocity should have, for once and all, connected the dots regarding Islamist aggression for anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.
Posted by Zenster 2004-06-14 8:06:47 PM||   2004-06-14 8:06:47 PM|| Front Page Top

02:07 Zenster
01:11 Old Grouch
00:22 .com
00:21 .com
00:16 Darth VAda
00:10 Mark Espinola
00:02 Yank
23:59 Quana
23:56 joe
23:54 Pappy
23:46 Long Hair Republican
23:35 Pappy
23:35 Atomic Conspiracy
23:32 Mark Espinola
23:31 Alaska Paul
23:24 A Jackson
23:16 Pappy
23:14 Alaska Paul
23:12 Pappy
23:11 Alaska Paul
23:00 Alaska Paul
22:56 Rafael
22:54 JDB
22:48 Gromky









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com