I don't mean to come off as crazy or paranoid here, but I was just watching CNN, and some guy was talking about how Bush has plans to bomb Iran if they don't comply 100% with his demands. Does this confuse anyone else? The man's in a risky situation, and from what I understand, he's asking that Iran completely dismantle its nuclear program. Not just weapons, but the entire thing.

So my questions to those who are more informed on this entire situation than I am are: Why would Bush make such expansive and harsh demands when the situation he's facing is an extremely risky one? What gives us the right to tell another sovereign nation that they aren't allowed to have a peaceful nuclear program? Finally, would he actually be stupid enough to go through with an unprovoked attack on Iran?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

well they haven't been made official yet. it's still only reports that bush would.



on one hand:

-- iran has threatened that israel should be 'wiped off the map' repeatedly.

on the other:

-- we don't have the right.

I got news for you, but Bush has plans for bombing Nepal.

There's an entire core inside the Pentagon (high ranking officers), who's job it is to devise these "what if" schemes. The use their imaginations, come up with all kinds of scenarios involving all kinds of nations and situations, and they draw up detailed plans on what we're gonna do. This even gets down to what company's and what units will do what.

Bush having plans for bombing Iran should be a relief. Not a worry. What would you guys be saying if Bush was doing nothing about Iran?

either way, i'm worried about a nuclear war.

This is somewhat of a relief, but it seemed to be implied that Bush was becoming set on seeing them through and the several of his chief advisors were vehemently against it. That's the part that worried me. The fact that he's making such unrealistic and unfair demands, coupled with him eying a plan for a possible air attack on Iran.

I'm a little more concerned with the most isolated country in the world having a multi-thousand mile missile with an unknown payload ON THE FUCKING LAUNCH PAD!!

I wish our president thought like you.

Do you seriously think he doesn't?

Iran Delivers Decision on Nuclear Incentives Package

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209722,00.html

Tuesday , August 22, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Tuesday that Tehran was ready to enter "serious negotiations" over its disputed nuclear program but did not say whether it was willing to suspend uranium enrichment — the key Western demand.

Iran, however, did not release any details of about its response to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program.

Ali Larijani, the top nuclear negotiator, hand-delivered Iran's response to the incentives package to ambassadors from Britain, China, Russia, France, Germany and Switzerland, state-run television reported.

"Iran is prepared as of Aug. 23rd to enter serious negotiations" with the countries that proposed the package, state-run television quoted Larijani as telling the envoys.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in a statement that Iran's response needed a "detailed and careful analysis" and vowed to remain "in open contact" with Larijani until the process is completed.

The United States' ambassador to the United Nations said Washington will "study the Iranian response carefully" but was prepared to move forward with sanctions against Tehran if its response to the incentives package was not positive.

"We are also prepared if it does not meet the terms set by the permanent five foreign ministers to proceed here in the Security Council, as ministers have agreed, with economic sanctions," Ambassador John Bolton said the U.N. headquarters in New York.

Iranian officials close to the meeting said Iran's response has offered a "new formula" to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

"Iran has provided a comprehensive response to everything said in the Western package. In addition, Iran, in its formal response, has asked some questions to be answered," one official said without providing more details.

State-run television said Iran's response meant Tehran was committed to its promises.

"Iran's response suggests Iran is committed to dialogue and its promises. ... It is in contrast with America's policy of unilateralism," the television said.

The permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany in June offered Iran the package, and Iran had promised it would offer a "multifaceted response."

The United States was represented by Switzerland Tuesday, which looks after U.S. interests in Tehran because it has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979 when Muslim fundamentalists overran the U.S. Embassy.

Larijani said Iran wanted to "open the way for talks" despite a U.N. Security Council resolution passed last month that threatens Tehran with economic and political sanctions if it doesn't suspend uranium enrichment by Aug. 31.

"Although there is no legal justification for the Security Council's illegal action, based on (U.N. Secretary-General) Kofi Annan's recommendation, we prepared the response to the proposed package with a positive view," Larijani said, according to state-run television.

In published remarks Tuesday, Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, had said Iran's response to the package was "a comprehensive reply that can open the way for resumption of talks for a final agreement."

Even so, Iran on Monday twice showed its determination to push ahead with its nuclear program. It turned away International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from an underground site meant to shelter its uranium enrichment program from attack, and its top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that Tehran will continue to pursue its nuclear activities.

The United States and some of its Western allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the charges saying its nuclear program is merely aimed at generating electricity, not bombs.

The Islamic republic has repeatedly said it will never give up its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions.

---------------------------------------------------------

i think sanctions could be a problem. and i don't like the incentives at all -- stop and we'll give you some of our technology. fuck that! iran doesn't want U.S. technology

they're technology is becoming so advanced, why should we halt it where it is? why is that fair? how much would they lose by being stopped?

and i go back and forth over this issue -- they're saying this is only for nuclear power. why should we stop them from producing it?

prior actions and present situations answer that question easily... the problem is that it isnt stupidty, it is a fanatical quest for global hegemony and control of a resource rich region... not to mention the massive profits raked in during war for the military-industrial-complex

Do you really think that this war is fought so that the "military-industrial-complex" can line its pockets with money? In other words, those that made the decisions in conducting the Worldwide War on Terror had profits in mind??

When has war not been a money-making venture?

"War is a racket"

There are few quotes with more truth to them.

Sure, there are companies that profit during wartime. I don't dispute that for a second.

Getting back to the original assertion - is it really believed that, after 9/11, President Bush called a secret meeting of his inner circle and figured out how they can maximize monetary profits and this, not national security, was the main motivaton for invading Afgahnistan and Iraq? If so, please explain.

bush said something very interesting in his speech today:

"Nuclear power is safe and nuclear power is clean and nuclear power is renewable," the president said.

hmmm...

What does this have to do with Iran's pursuit of a Nuclear Bomb?

Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.

"The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it," he said.

never once has the iranian president said he's using nuclear power to build a bomb. if the u.s. can use nuclear power, why can't anyone else?

You actually believe him when he says that their program is for useful purposes?

You do realize that the UN incentive proposal included enriched uranium (on Russian soil, to guarantee that it could not be weaponized) and reactor parts that the US would supply, don't you? You do realize that the Russians have a contract to build nuclear reactors in Iran, don't you?

Gee, I don't doubt for a second that Iran wants nothing more than nuclear power. I would too...especially if my country was floating on oil.

would bush accept those offers if it were presented to us? hell no. he'd react the same way ahmadinejad has. why should iran depend on other nations?

which is funny -- iran is trying to depend on themselves for power...and bush makes a speech today saying the u.s. must break their foreign oil dependence.

depend on yourselves, right?