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.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact