Dick waving, sabre rattling

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran

 

By THOM SHANKER

Published: December 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — The United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.

 

The officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was expected this week to approve a request by commanders for a second aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Gee, you title this as if Iran hasn't been the one doing the sabre rattling.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think it's stupid to do this right when the Iranian public seems to be rejecting the extremism of Ahmadinejad. I wonder if this sort of posturing will turn the public back toward him.

 

Also, it's important to keep in mind that, despite all of the fearmongering by the US media,

the President of Iran actually has very little actual power over foreign policy or military matters.

 

Mr. Ahmadinejad, as the President of Iran, has very limited to non-existent war-making powers. The primary responsibility of Iran's President is over the country's economic policies. In most other areas, the President is more of a ceremonial figure rather than one with actual [executive]authority.

[NoCalMike 0]

Right, it looks like the Iranian people are rejecting Ahmadinejad, so what are we going to do? Start dropping bombs to unite the country against America? Peeeeeeeeeerfect.

[Wyld Cannon 0]

Not that I would ever want it to happen, but I think it would be really interesting to see how America would act if we were taken over by a more powerful country or entity who thinks the way they do things is the "right" way.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Bah, no one is going to start dropping nukes. Quit being hyperbolic. They're just sending a message to Iran, that's all.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

there's also the realistic matter that because of Iraq we probably don't have the capability right now for anything other than launching a few missiles. Certainly not for any sort of actual invasion or regime change.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bah, no one is going to start dropping nukes. Quit being hyperbolic. They're just sending a message to Iran, that's all.

 

No one said anything about dropping nukes.

[razazteca 0]

Gee, you title this as if Iran hasn't been the one doing the sabre rattling.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that, despite all of the fearmongering by the US media,

Glen Beck showed the video of the Iranian leader's speech where he waved the sword and yelled "Jihad......cut off the head of the Jew, American, British".

[Gary Floyd 0]

Gee, you title this as if Iran hasn't been the one doing the sabre rattling.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that, despite all of the fearmongering by the US media,

Glen Beck showed the video of the Iranian leader's speech where he waved the sword and yelled "Jihad......cut off the head of the Jew, American, British".

Glen Beck sucks.

 

That out of the way, so does Ahmadinejad.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Gee, you title this as if Iran hasn't been the one doing the sabre rattling.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that, despite all of the fearmongering by the US media,

Glen Beck showed the video of the Iranian leader's speech where he waved the sword and yelled "Jihad......cut off the head of the Jew, American, British".

 

*clears throat*

 

...the President of Iran actually has very little actual power over foreign policy or military matters.

[razazteca 0]

Gee, you title this as if Iran hasn't been the one doing the sabre rattling.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that, despite all of the fearmongering by the US media,

Glen Beck showed the video of the Iranian leader's speech where he waved the sword and yelled "Jihad......cut off the head of the Jew, American, British".

Glen Beck sucks.

 

That out of the way, so does Ahmadinejad.

There is a reason why he is on Headline News and not CNN and I don't think it was Ahmadinejad doing the yelling in the video I think it was one of the religious leaders.

 

..the President of Iran actually has very little actual power over foreign policy or military matters.

The "freedom fighters" don't need official orders to do suicide bombings.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm not even sure what you're talking about, so I'm going to stop here.

[RepoMan 0]

The really screwed up part is that Iran wanted to come to the table in 2003. It would have helped vindicate the Iraq invasion, but the Bush adminstration didn't want to talk to "evil." Iran's gulf of misunderstanding with US

[theintensifier 0]

there's also the realistic matter that because of Iraq we probably don't have the capability right now for anything other than launching a few missiles. Certainly not for any sort of actual invasion or regime change.

 

You're right. Our entire military force is spread so thin, I doubt we'd have much of a chance taking over any country right now. We could just send in our national guard, national guard reserves, Marine reserves, Army reserves, Air Force, and Navy as a ground coalition. That'd difinitely be effective.

 

If we spread our forces any thiner than what we have them now, we're just asking for a ground attack on our country. I fear to say, we don't have much left in the states to stand in any oppositions way if they come knocking on our door looking for a fight in our own backyard. We have a couple thousand Marine's in Lejeune/Pendleton and in some Air Force base in Florida. They might be able to hold of the coasts. But, if it were like Red Dawn, and they dropped troops in the mid-west region, we'd surely be fucked.

[EricMM 0]

Who the FUCK is going to invade the US over the ground?

 

Canada?

 

MEXICO???

 

Come on...

[Dobbs 3K 0]

MEXICO???

 

Kind of happening in a roundabout way already.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

MEXICO???

 

Kind of happening in a roundabout way already.

 

Yeah, those ladies wrapping your burrito at Taco Bell & that guy that does your landscaping are just like those paratroopers in Red Dawn.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Who the FUCK is going to invade the US over the ground?

 

Canada?

It will be like South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut in reverse.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

MEXICO???

 

Kind of happening in a roundabout way already.

 

Yeah, those ladies wrapping your burrito at Taco Bell & that guy that does your landscaping are just like those paratroopers in Red Dawn.

 

What about the murderers and rapists? Sure, they're not taking over the country, but it's not like they're not a problem.

 

You must look forward to twenty years from now when the whole southwestern US is our own version of Kosovo.

[SuperJerk 0]

*clears throat*

 

...the President of Iran actually has very little actual power over foreign policy or military matters.

 

This is confusing, but while the president is the elected leader and head of the executive branch, but the Ayatollah is the commander-in-chief and supreme leader of the country. I don't know if that constitutes "little actual power," but it does make him a subordinate to an even crazier guy than him.

[NoCalMike 0]

Look for Iran to be attacked towards the end of Feburary. That is all.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Little actual power over foreign policy or military matters.

 

Jerk, most of the President's powers lie in the realm of domestic/economic policy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Also, I don't think Khamenei is crazier than Ahmadinejad.

 

Ali Khamenei has been supportive of science progress in Iran. He was among the first Islamic clerics to allow stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In 2004, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the country's progress is dependent on investment in the field of science and technology. He also said that attaching a high status to scholars and scientists in society would help talents to flourish and science and technology to become domesticated, thus ensuring the country's progress and development.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he condemned the act and the attackers and called for a condemnation of terrorist activities all over the world, whether in the United States, Israel, the Balkans, or elsewhere.

[Guest]

I expect the Ayatollah to issue a fatwa and then all hell to break loose.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

They might be able to hold of the coasts. But, if it were like Red Dawn, and they dropped troops in the mid-west region, we'd surely be fucked.

 

Ahem. You're clearly forgetting the Wolverines~!

[SuperJerk 0]

Little actual power over foreign policy or military matters.

 

Jerk, most of the President's powers lie in the realm of domestic/economic policy.

 

Ahem.

 

the president is the elected leader and head of the executive branch, but the Ayatollah is the commander-in-chief and supreme leader of the country.

 

In other news, I WASN'T ACTUALLY ARGUING WITH YOU.

[Art Sandusky 0]

AHEM AHEM AHEM LOL INTELLECTUAL SUBTLETY

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/23/...n.ap/index.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Saturday imposing sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, culminating two months of tough negotiations aimed at pressuring Tehran to return to negotiations and clarify its nuclear ambitions.

 

The resolution orders all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It also imposes an asset freeze on key companies and individuals in the country's nuclear and missile programs named on a U.N. list.

 

If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns Iran that the council will adopt further non-military sanctions.

 

Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at the peaceful production of nuclear energy, but the Americans and Europeans suspect Tehran's ultimate goal is the production of nuclear weapons.

 

In a lengthy speech to the council after the vote, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif denounced the council for imposing sanctions on Iran, while doing nothing about Israel whose prime minister recently confirmed long suspicions that it is a nuclear power.

 

"A nation is being punished for exercising its inalienable rights" to develop nuclear energy, primarily at the behest of the United States, Zarif said, calling the council's demand to suspend enrichment an "unlawful demand." (Full story)

 

Until the last moments before the vote, it was not clear whether all 15 Security Council members would support the resolution.

 

Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, have pressed for a step-by-step approach to sanctions, and Qatar has supported Iran's peaceful use of nuclear energy. By contrast, the United States has pushed for very tough sanctions, with Britain and France taking a slightly softer view.

 

In a final attempt to win Russian support, key European nations circulated a new text late Friday -- and that brought Moscow and Beijing on board, but only after one Iranian company -- Aerospace Industries Organization -- was dropped from the list of companies and individuals subject to sanctions to meet Russia's final demand.

 

Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nassir, the only Arab member of the council and its current president, was the last to make his country's intentions known, telling members just before the vote that Qatar would vote yes "because we are concerned about the safety of Iranian nuclear facilities."

 

Bush, Putin agreed unified position on Iran necessary

On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called U.S. President George W. Bush to discuss the Iran vote, agreeing on the need to move forward with a resolution, said Blain Rethmeier, a spokesman for Bush. The two leaders "stressed the importance of maintaining a unified position on Iran's nuclear program," Rethmeier said.

 

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Moscow voted "yes" because it wants to send "a serious message" to Iran "to lift remaining concerns over its nuclear program."

 

He stressed that the goal must be to resume talks. If Iran suspends enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution calls for a suspension of sanctions "which would pave the way for a negotiated solution," Churkin said.

 

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya expressed regret and disappointment that Iran has not responded positively to demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment and clarify its nuclear program. He called for stepped up diplomatic efforts to peacefully resolve the issue.

 

"China wishes to emphasize that sanctions are not the end but a means to urge Iran to resume negotiations," he said.

 

Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff expressed regret that "Iran continues to defy the international community by its continued enrichment activities" forcing the council to impose sanctions. He expressed hope that the sanctions "will convince Iran that the best way to ensure security is to abandon" nuclear enrichment.

 

Iran insists program for peaceful purposes

Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at the peaceful production of nuclear energy, but the Americans and Europeans suspect Tehran's ultimate goal is the production of nuclear weapons.

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Tuesday that possible Security Council sanctions would not stop Iran from pursuing uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for civilian purposes or fuel for a nuclear bomb.

 

The resolution authorizes action under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. It allows the Security Council to impose nonmilitary sanctions such as completely or partially severing diplomatic and economic relations, transportation and communications links.

 

If Iran fails to comply with the resolution, the draft says the council will adopt "further appropriate measures" under Article 41.

 

During negotiations, a mandatory travel ban was dropped at Russia's insistence.

 

Instead, the resolution calls on all states "to exercise vigilance" regarding the entry or transit through their territory of those on a U.N. list that names 12 top Iranians involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs. It asks the 191 other U.N. member states to notify a Security Council committee that will be created to monitor sanctions when those Iranians show up in their country.

 

The resolution also says the council will review Iran's actions in light of a report from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, requested within 60 days, on whether Iran has suspended uranium enrichment and complied with other IAEA demands.

 

If the IAEA verifies that Iran has suspended enrichment and reprocessing, the resolution says the sanctions will be suspended to allow for negotiations. It says sanctions will be terminated as soon as the IAEA board confirms that Iran has complied with all its obligations.

 

Before the final text was circulated, Churkin pressed for amendments to ensure that Moscow can conduct legitimate nuclear activities in Iran -- a point Churkin stressed Saturday morning.

 

Russia is building Iran's first atomic power plant at Bushehr, which is expected to go on line in late 2007. A reference to Bushehr in the original draft was removed earlier -- as Russia demanded.

 

The six key parties trying to curb Iran's nuclear program -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States -- offered Tehran a package of economic incentives and political rewards in June if it agreed to consider a long-term moratorium on enrichment and committed itself to a freeze on uranium enrichment before talks on its nuclear program.

 

That package remains on the table for Iran to consider.

 

But with Iran refusing to comply with an August 31 council deadline to stop enrichment, Britain and France circulated a draft sanctions resolution in late October, which has been revised several times since then.

 

To meet concerns of Russia and China that the original resolution was too broad, it was changed to specify in greater detail exactly what materials and technology would be prohibited from being supplied to Iran and to name those individuals and companies that would be affected.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

Good. But I'm sure the sanctions won't be nearly as bad as we want them to be. Or should be.

[RepoMan 0]

Also, I don't think Khamenei is crazier than Ahmadinejad.

 

Ali Khamenei has been supportive of science progress in Iran. He was among the first Islamic clerics to allow stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In 2004, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the country's progress is dependent on investment in the field of science and technology. He also said that attaching a high status to scholars and scientists in society would help talents to flourish and science and technology to become domesticated, thus ensuring the country's progress and development.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he condemned the act and the attackers and called for a condemnation of terrorist activities all over the world, whether in the United States, Israel, the Balkans, or elsewhere.

I agree. Khameni might be a autocratic thug, but he never went around making it look like he wanted to nuke Isreali for fun. I'm sure Khameni wants to get nukes to increase Iran's balance of power in the region but I wouldn't worry about Khameni actuallying using them.

 

Learning to live with a nuclear Iran is probably the least bad option at this point. Obviously a ground invasion is off the table. Airstrikes might set back the nuclear program a few years, so the US would have to go through a cycle of airstirkes every few years. Inside Iran, the hardliners would become more popular and emboldened and any moderate or opposition political forces would be destroyed. Iran also has the ability to mine the fuck out of the Gulf, wreeking havoc on shipping, sending oil prices soaring to previously unimagiable hieghts.