Bush Draws Line in Sand with Iran

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

Bush Draws Line in Sand with Iran

#1 Postby BEER980 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:48 am

It may turn out to be the next foreign policy crisis, on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis and America’s recent showdown with Iraq. And remember, you heard it here first. NewsMax has learned from a senior State Department official that President Bush has, Alamo-style, drawn a line in the sand over Iran's nuclear weapons programs. Bush's warning: Either Iran dismantles its nuclear weapons program or else.

Here is how the “crisis” has been unfolding. On Saturday, Iran halted all international inspections of its nuclear facilities. This came, as the AP reported, “hours after the U.N. atomic agency issued a resolution censuring Tehran for hiding suspect activities.”

The agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), recently discovered that Iran had been enriching its uranium to a degree that made it crystal clear they were planning to build nuclear weapons. Faced with this evidence, Iran reneged on an agreement that it signed last year giving IAEA inspectors free access to its nuclear sites. The U.S., led by State Department Under Secretary John Bolton, has pressed for a censure by the IAEA of Iran for failing to comply with its promises.

The U.S. effort was opposed by many in the administration and the State Department. However, President Bush himself made clear his policy: Iran must comply or else.

As expected, the Iranians reacted angrily to the U.S.-sponsored IAEA resolution, with Pirooz Hosseini, Iran's permanent IAEA representative, claiming that "Iran's [nuclear] program is exclusively peaceful." U.S. chief delegate Kenneth Brill accused Iran of "continuing to pursue a policy of denial, deception and delay." The AP noted that an IAEA report last month accused Iran of hiding evidence of nuclear experiments and noted the discovery of traces of radioactive polonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons. The report also expressed concern about the discovery of a previously undisclosed advanced P-2 centrifuge system for enriching uranium.

Source
0 likes   

User avatar
cycloneye
Admin
Admin
Posts: 146139
Age: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

#2 Postby cycloneye » Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:39 am

And eventually the US will have to do the same with North Korea as they continue to keep running that plant at Yonblon where they have over 8,000 plutonimun tubes and uranimun sufficient to produce between 5-10 nukes apart from the 1-2 nukes that they already have.So it well be the AXIS OF EVIL countries left that Bush mentioned in the state of the union in 2002 that the US may engage military speaking if things dont change.Now that they went to Iraq the other AXIS OF EVIL the other 2 are now the focus.
0 likes   
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here

User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

#3 Postby BEER980 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:55 am

Sooner or later we are going to open the wrong can of worms.
0 likes   

rainstorm

#4 Postby rainstorm » Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:51 am

evil is evil. kill the worms before they can kill us. now i dont want a military invasion of iran. i believe we can help the people there overthrow the govt there through covert means
0 likes   

Anonymous

#5 Postby Anonymous » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:57 am

BEER980 wrote:Sooner or later we are going to open the wrong can of worms.


Yeah its a tough call-if we invaded them, and they have nukes...they could use them in the process against us...If we let it go, they will continue to build the nukes and could still eventually use them against us. Of course we have so many that if they used just one on us, we'd turn their country into a parking lot and that would end that problem. I dunno its like we wanna be a nuclear monopoly-the only country in the world with nukes...but it would be so much better if NO country had them in the first place imho.
0 likes   

rainstorm

#6 Postby rainstorm » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:03 am

your wrong about no country having nukes. nuclear weapons save lives. think back to right after ww2.
lets say nuclear weapons didnt exist. the russian army was waiting to invade the west. the berlin blockade could easily have statrted ww3 except for 1 thing. the threat of nuclear attack. i have no doubt at all that if nuclear weapons didnt exist ww3 would have broken out in europe after 1945. the death toll? considering 50 million died in ww2, i think we can say ww3 would have cost at least 75 million.
nuclear weapons have saved lives.
0 likes   

User avatar
therock1811
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5163
Age: 39
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:15 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

#7 Postby therock1811 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 1:30 pm

Hey Beer, I ought to have asked sooner, but what is SHTF?
0 likes   

User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

#8 Postby BEER980 » Sun Mar 14, 2004 5:00 pm

Well therock1811:
The
S = S***
H = Hits
T = The
F = Fan
:eek:
0 likes   

User avatar
Aslkahuna
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 4550
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:00 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Personally

#9 Postby Aslkahuna » Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:40 pm

I think drawing a line in the Sand with Iran borders on Insanity as we have a couple of other problem areas to deal with first such as Iraq and Al Cruda. This is especially so since one of our allies has now been knocked out by the attacks in Spain.

Steve
0 likes   

User avatar
Stephanie
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 23843
Age: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
Location: Glassboro, NJ

Re: Personally

#10 Postby Stephanie » Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:56 pm

Aslkahuna wrote:I think drawing a line in the Sand with Iran borders on Insanity as we have a couple of other problem areas to deal with first such as Iraq and Al Cruda. This is especially so since one of our allies has now been knocked out by the attacks in Spain.

Steve


I have to agree with you on that one Steve.
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#11 Postby mf_dolphin » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:00 pm

While I don't like losing Spain as an ally it was more of a symbolic thing than an actual critical ally. We have to hold the line with Iran and North Korea. Bending the rules for different countries just lets them know we won't stick to our guns...
0 likes   

User avatar
blizzard
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2527
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:04 am
Location: Near the Shores of Gitche Gumme

#12 Postby blizzard » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:55 pm

I can see Bush spreading us too thin....
0 likes   

Anonymous

#13 Postby Anonymous » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:58 pm

I think drawing a line in the Sand with Iran borders on Insanity as we have a couple of other problem areas to deal with first such as Iraq and Al Cruda. This is especially so since one of our allies has now been knocked out by the attacks in Spain.


FWIW, some of the last reports of ppl seeing Bin Laden were in Iran. You can also make the argument that a war with Iran is indirectly connected with the war on terror, regardless of those reports. I prefer the US sending in special ops, and helping the Iranians to overthrow their own government.

and....

the Iranian uprising

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1424
0 likes   

User avatar
therock1811
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5163
Age: 39
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:15 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

#14 Postby therock1811 » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:45 pm

I thought so Beer...anyway, I would tell you that for once, I think rainstorm is right about nukes saving lives, but they took innocent lives too...however, it definitely did help us avoid WWIII.
0 likes   

User avatar
sunnyday
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1592
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:16 pm

Bush draws line..

#15 Postby sunnyday » Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:04 pm

I have to agree, Steve and Steph. We don't need this..
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#16 Postby mf_dolphin » Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:08 pm

So what do we do? Just ignore the fact that they are building nuclear weapons? There's a lot that can and should be done about Iran without an invasion. We drew the same line in the sand with Lybia years ago. While it took a lot of time they did break under the constant pressure. We need to keep the pressure on Iran the same way!
0 likes   

janswizard
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 3:08 am
Location: Fort Pierce, FL

#17 Postby janswizard » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:39 am

Just curious to know if anyone knows what countries actively trade with Iran and North Korea. I know the United States stopped all trade with Libya for the longest time; perhaps the economic sanctions were part of the reason they finally caved. I don't believe we do much trade with North Korea or Iran, either, if any at all. But if other countries would agree to stop all exporting to those countries that seem to be building their nuclear arsenals, I would think they would not have the ability to continue to build them.

Does anyone know what major products Iran and North Korea export? And to who?
0 likes   
Note: Opinions expressed are my own. Please look to the NHC for the most accurate information.

User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

#18 Postby BEER980 » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:51 am

Here is Iran's export. Click here to see the dollar and weight of the products.
Image
Here is who they export to:
Exports partners: Japan 17.4%, China 8.6%, UAE 7.6%, Italy 6.6%, South Korea 4.9%, South Africa 4.4% (2002)
Last edited by BEER980 on Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
BEER980
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Ocala, Fl
Contact:

#19 Postby BEER980 » Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:05 am

North Korea is listed as:
Exports commodities: minerals, metallurgical products, manufactures (including armaments); textiles and fishery products

Exports partners: China 23.5%, Japan 19.9%, Costa Rica 12.4%, Brazil 6.5% (2002)

Economy overview: North Korea, one of the world's most centrally planned and isolated economies, faces desperate economic conditions. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and spare parts shortages. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel. The nation has suffered its tenth year of food shortages because of a lack of arable land; collective farming; weather-related problems, including major drought in 2000; and chronic shortages of fertilizer and fuel. Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the regime to escape mass starvation since 1995-96, but the population remains the victim of prolonged malnutrition and deteriorating living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Recently, the regime has placed emphasis on earning hard currency, developing information technology, addressing power shortages, and attracting foreign aid, but in no way at the expense of relinquishing central control over key national assets or undergoing widespread market-oriented reforms. In 2003, heightened political tensions with key donor countries and general donor fatigue have held down the flow of desperately needed food aid and have threatened fuel aid as well.
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#20 Postby mf_dolphin » Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:25 am

Lybia caved under an international boycott. I firmly believe that the invasion of Iraq was the thing that tilted the balance in the final stages. If international pressure was sustained against Iran hopefully the same result would happen. Keep in mind that the Iranian people had a long history of a western life style. In spite of the fundamentalist powers in control now, there is still a love of freedom there. This is something that 10 years of fundamentalism hasn't destroyed. :-)
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests