Because F*cking Up In Iraq Wasn't Enough

TehBorken · Apr 12 06 08:58

[span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"] Yeah, let's get that media drumbeat going so we can feel good about invading Iran........[/span]
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"][p style="font-weight: bold;"][font class="headline" size="5"]Rice Calls for 'Strong Steps' Against Iran[/font][/p][font class="byline" size="1"]By BARRY SCHWEID
[/font][font class="date" size="1"]AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON
[/font] [/p] [font class="story"]Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course. [/font][/p][font class="story"] Rice also telephoned Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ask him to reinforce demands that Iran comply with its nonproliferation requirements when he holds talks in Tehran on Friday. [/font][/p][font class="story"] [img]http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006/4/12/D8GUHRR81/D8GUHRR81_preview.jpg" align="left" hspace="3" vspace="3"] [/font][/p][font class="story"] While Rice took a strong line, she did not call for an emergency meeting of the Council, saying it should consider action after receiving an IAEA report by April 28. She did not elaborate on what measures the United States would support, but economic and political sanctions are under consideration. [/font][/p][font class="story"] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announcing on Tuesday that his country had crossed the line into enrichment, said Iran's objectives were peaceful. Iran is said by many analysts to lack the equipment, including a nuclear reactor, to make nuclear weapons. [/font][/p][font class="story"] But Rice brushed aside suggestions Iran was far from the goal the United States and its allies suspect _ nuclear weaponry. [/font][/p][font class="story"] She said the world believes Iran has the capacity and the technology that lead to nuclear weapons. "The Security Counil will need to take into consideration this move by Iran," she said. "It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintrain the credibility of the itnernational community." [/font][/p][font class="story"] "This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power," she said while greeting President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Moasogo of Equatorial Guinea. "This is a question of, ... the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the tehnology that could lead to a nuclear weapon." [/font][/p][font class="story"] White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday, "Defiant statements and actions only further isolate the regime from the rest of the world." [/font][/p][font class="story"] "This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community," McClellan said. "Instead, they're moving in the wrong direction. This is a regime that has a long history of hiding its nuclear activities from the international community, and refusing to comply with its international obligations." [/font][/p][font class="story"] At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said he would not engage in "fantasy land" speculation about a possible U.S. attack on Iran, though he said the administration was concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. [/font][/p][font class="story"] "The United States of America is on a diplomatic track," Rumsfeld said.[/font]

[a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/12/D8GUHRR81.html"]http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/12/D8GUHRR81.html[/a]

soapbox · Apr 12 06 10:26

they have only processed the fuel to 3% enrichment.this is normal for commercial purposes.

weapons fuel must be enriched to 80% or more.

they only have about 70 centerfuges that ran for about 5 days....they would need hundreds and hundreds of these centerfuges operating for a year or more 7 days a week and that possibilty is years away (about 5 with russian help).

point is.....there is going to be no invasion.the US cannot afford it or sustain it.there may be convential airstikes strikes in the near future however and as the british said, a nuclear strike is "completely nuts".

iraq will cost about 800 billion to 1.2 trillion (economist magazine) by 2010. current cost is around 300 billion or 100 billion a year with pressure for withdrawl.an election coming up and a push for capping the costs by congress.

there is no way under these circumstances US forces will move on iran.

tenkani · Apr 12 06 10:53

I agree. Bush would have to be out of his mind to order an invasion of Iran

TehBorken · Apr 12 06 10:57

tenkani wrote:
I agree. Bush would have to be out of his mind to order an invasion of Iran [img style="font-style: italic;" src="http://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Teasing/5.gif[/img]

So you're saying it's a done deal then?

TehBorken · Apr 12 06 10:58

soapbox wrote:
there is no way under these circumstances US forces will move on iran.

You're making the tragic mistake of thinking that logic and reason have anything to do with it.

tenkani · Apr 12 06 11:04

LOL. Who f*cking knows with Bush and company in the white house. Iraq was doomed to failure IMO, yet they jumped on it. Sure, Iran is even more obviously doomed to failure, but we're talking about a man who believes we're on the verge of armageddon (in a good way) and that he is being led by Jesus Christ.

I think that if we invade Iran we would have demonstrations in the streets here in the U.S. similar to what happened in the 1960's, especially if the instituted the draft, which would be necessary at that point. But then once we were committed, it would be the same argument. We have to stay or the lives of our fallen boys will have been wasted etc etc...

Jersey · Apr 12 06 02:05

Settle down, skippy. It's not going to happen.

TehBorken · Apr 12 06 02:08

Jersey wrote:
Settle down, skippy. It's not going to happen.

[span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]Famous[/span] "Foolish Last Words". Right up there with "He'll give us the right of way!" and "Don't worry, it's unplugged".

tenkani · Apr 12 06 02:30

LOL. It probably won't happen.

But if it does, I won't be terribly surprised either.

Sportsdude · Apr 12 06 05:06

I can't wait for them to attack Iraq. Why?

They do anything bomb, invade, etc. Iran will shut off its oil to the world. (They are the 4th biggest producer)

What will this do? It will cause oil to go up to 200 dollars a barrel. Gas sortages will be everywhere, economies will go into recession and the great depression will start over again. Why am I rooting for this? Because this will effectively squash the conservative movement in the U.S. and Republicans will go the way of the Whigs. An FDR will take over, U.S. will become a social-democracy and a quiet revoultion will happen either way. But before that there will be anarchy.

Another reason. American public will finally see the war on terror as endless war a war that cannot be won.

Another reason. We don't have the numbers to go it alone like bush wants to do. He will have to start up the draft again, Hello Canada.

Future Canadian · Apr 12 06 07:56

An article I was reading today pointed out that Iran could not have made out better in this whole situation. They get rid of their cheif rival without firing a shot and are now well poised to influence/control it's future. They know the US has shot it's wad in Iraq and now does not have the resources or political will to take any significant action against them.
I still don't trust our "president" to f*ck it up somehow still though. Especially if there is a buck to be made or the need to distract from an impeachment hearing.