Firstly, I am not convinced that Iran is on a path towards nuclear arms
in the reasonable near future.. The evidence so far seems to be as
weak, and possibly weaker, than the evidence to attack Iraq, and we know
how weak that was.
NoKo says they have nukes and you believe them, so if it takes longer
than 10 years to develop the bomb, must have been deeeep into the
clinton's "negotiations" with them that they've been working on them,
yet you blame bush for NoKo. This, more than anything, proves the
intellectual bankruptcy of most of your arguments.
Our manhattan project only took 4 years, starting from scratch with
little more than theory. Iran's been working on it for years, and
have the benefit of the AQKahn network's help. Iran has the ability
to enrich uranium, which everyone agrees is the hardest part of
building a bomb. So, you still believe they're 10 years away?
Secondly, I have not seen anything from any other source besides BushCo
that indicates to me that Iran is not negotiating. So far as I can see
the negotiations are continuing. Tough slogging, but continuing.
The only source that says they're not stalling is the UN. Every
other party negotiating with them say they're stalling.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/02/22/003.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1699215,00.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HF30Ak01.html
They're stalling. they're not talking. just give them enough time,
and they'll enrich enough that it will be too late for negotiations.
Hizbullah and Hamas are in Iran's pockets. Is it a coincidence they
would choose now to pick a fight with Israel, a move that could
distract the world and give Iran cover for not wanting to negotiate
further with the 5+1 and the UN?
btw, most Lebanese want Israel to finish off Hizbullah. They're sick
of being held hostage by them.
http://www.free-lebanon.com/
Iran told the IAEA to fire their Iranian weapons inspector, who is
convinced Iran is hiding their facilities from the world, and
El-Baradai asked "how high should I jump?"
http://www.nysun.com/article/35728
Thirdly, the history can not be ignored. It is apparent to all nations
that the nuclear powers bluster, stonewall, and refuse to allow other
nations to have nukes, but once another nation joins the club the
harassment stops and its accepted. North Korea would be the most recent
example. Iran knows this.
Yes, exactly. Once they have nukes, they no longer have any reason to
be reasonable. but that's just dandy with you, in fact, you seem to
hope for that eventuality.
Am I afraid of North Korea having nukes? Nowhere near as afraid as I am
of Pakistan and India having nukes. Pakistan with nukes scares the
stuffin' out of me.
But let's just let everyone have nukes, 'cause the more the merrier, right?
btw, thanks for your non-answer answer. The question was:
> Tell me booth, what sort of serious consequences are you willing to
> impart against Iran if continues on it's path towards nuclear arms?
And your answer is obviously, none. no sanctions, no consequences for
pursuing nuclear weapons.
in the imortal words of Nigel Tufnel, "How much more black could this
be? and the answer is none. None more black."
thanks for playing.
