Story here
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Toughening its stance in advance of a meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Iran on Saturday said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the "nuclear club."Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi rejected further outside influence on Tehran's nuclear ambitions two days before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets to discuss Iran's highly controversial program.
"We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."
Oh, it's quite reversible, you drooling fanatic.
Remember back in 1981 when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq? They took a lot of heat for doing so, but it was the right thing to do. We should now do the same in Iran.
I'm not talking invasion, occupation, nation-building, regime-change, or any of that. Just drop Daisy Cutters on everything in that shithole of a country that appears to be in any way involved with their nuclear program. Is that too much to ask?
And if we don't? In a few years, we are likely to wake up one morning to hear that Israel has ceased to exist, thanks to an Iranian surprise nuclear attack. While the anti-Semitic may have no problem with this prospect, I find it horrifying.
Or maybe they'll just hand their nukes off to anti-American terrorists, who will smuggle them across our porous Mexican and Canadian borders and into our major cities. This possibility must not be ignored.
Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs.Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which Iranian officials have maintained was from contaminated imported materials.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - SFC Ski
The above should incite much comment.
A surgical stirke done by the USAF has a very good chance of success, but I don't believe it ould be our first action unless we have solid proof they are giving nukes to terrorists. I realy doubt IRan will overtly strike the US or Israel, it would invite sure and harsh retaliation. I have no doubt that IRan having supported Hizbollah for so long, would not give them a nuke to use against Israel or the US. That OK, though ,because we are imperialists, and We deserve a good whavking by the folloers of the religion of peace.
2 - Jim Carruthers
Merely confirms my hunch RJ doesn't only wack off to kiddie porn, unlimited global war does the trick too.
His postings remind me of junkies who shit and piss in the stairwell of apartment buildings because they figure if they are miserable, everybody else should be too.
3 - Mac Diva
Yup, Jim. Doesn't need much comment at all. Someone should get this callow youth a date, either straight, or as increasingly seems more applicable, gay, before he does himself real harm. Sublimation through fantasies of murding thousands of people is not adequate.
4 - Mac Diva
Oops! 'Murdering.' Ski's spelling problem may be contagious.
5 - CW Fisher
I'm getting sick of that Pakistan, myself. They could use a little pre-emptive. And as long as we're there, may as well take on India while we still can. They're easy, and they're used to it. Just makes our neighborhood all the larger.
6 - CW Fisher
Say what you want about RJ, he has a talent for posing questions that are difficult NOT to respond to.
And I always thought he and Diva would make a nice couple.
7 - Ms. Tek
I think we should bomb India and China... mostly because they are little brown and yellow people with slanty eyes who speak like this:
"Ching, chang, chang, chinky, wang, wang, Stalin".
I also think we should apply pressure to those gays and their chocolate starfish parties. You know how them gays rape little boys while wearing strange leather outfits. I also think the congress with the devil but I am not entirely sure on that yet.
I think we should also bomb Egypt because its there and they are brown people too.
I also hate the French and because they can't do what we tell them to and they have nukes, I think we should bomb them first... but not before we rape and pillage their women, cheese, and wine cellars.
The Germans should be bombed next just because their women are ugly and they make all the deviant pooper porn that is popular wit dem ho-mo-sek-uals who rape little boys while smoking dope and having spontaneous abortions just because its "in". They also don't shave their armpits and smell almost as bad as the French.
Then we would bomb Canada because they like Michael Moore followed by actually bombin Michael Moore who is so fat he will requite two bombs.
Then we should bomb the United Kingdom because of the bad teeth and they have a lot of muslims there who we all know are either brown, yellow, speak funny, and are evil. They may also possibly be closeted homos- just like them Scots... I mean why else would the men wear dresses or skirts.
And we better bomb the ghettos too... them blacks are getting too uppity with their talk of reparations and its about time for them to have another silly little riot because it has been awhile.
8 - RJ Elliott
Interesting responses. I post information about the terrorist state Iran's nuclear ambitions, and I'm called a queer, a warmonger, a junkie, and a pedophile.
I'm more than happy to be judged by my enemies: An anti-American communist Canuck, and an angry, anti-White black nationalist with delusions of grandeur.
9 - Ms. Tek
Aww RJ
I'm called a queer, a warmonger, a junkie, and a pedophile.
Those are really nice things to be called in comparison to what people are probably calling you in their mind. I could think of a lot worse things to call you... Hell I already have! =)
10 - Shark
"It's Time for RJ to Volunteer to Serve In The Military!"
I think we should stage an international version of "American Idol"
Take all the world's leaders, let each one do a song, and the one Simon and Co. (along with a nationwide phone vote) pick DOESN'T get bombed. The rest either get nuked or have William Hung piped into their countries 24/7 via the Voice of America.
FOX, gimmee a call!
BTW: I'll be announcing my candidacy for President of the US shortly.
11 - Al Barger
The pinkos display perfectly their essential childishness and irresponsibility here: Iranian mullahs, probably THE biggest supporters of terrorism in the world, appear to be on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons.
How do we respond to this obvious grave danger? Call a blogger bad names. There. NOW the crazy people won't get nuclear weapons and start WWW III. Problem solved the liberal way.
Hmm, don't see how you can lose on election day with THIS platform. Sheer genius.
12 - RJ Elliott
"The pinkos display perfectly their essential childishness and irresponsibility here: Iranian mullahs, probably THE biggest supporters of terrorism in the world, appear to be on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons.
"How do we respond to this obvious grave danger? Call a blogger bad names. There. NOW the crazy people won't get nuclear weapons and start WWW III. Problem solved the liberal way."
LOL!
I find it amusing (and all-too typical) that the Leftists who responded had absolutely nothing of value to add.
Should we attack Iran with airstrikes that take out their nuclear capability? Or should we do nothing and hope for the best?
I support the former. I have explained, in my post, my reasons for this.
What do you all think? Yea or nea? If yea, why? If nea, why not?
That is how serious people discuss serious topics. Unortunately, there seems to be a dearth of serious posters on the Left here at BCs...
13 - Duane
I wouldn't bomb Canada. Alex Trebek is from Canada. In fact, he is the 14th most important Canucklehead in history. And that's saying something.
14 - Shark
Al Barger: ...NOW the crazy people won't get nuclear weapons and start WWW III.
Sorry, but Bush already has nuclear weapons.
And Al, haven't you heard: history won't judge us: WE'LL ALL BE DEAD.
15 - Shark
Elliot: "...I find it amusing (and all-too typical) that the Leftists who responded had absolutely nothing of value to add."
That's because it doesn't matter WHAT WE SAY. You and your neo-con buddies are determined to stick your dicks in the sand of Iran looking for more oil, um, I mean weapons of mass destruction, and nothing any sane or insane 'leftist' says is going to dissuade you.
We can only make jokes in the face of your rush to Armageddon. We're whistlin' in the dark.
PS: And if it's so fucking serious, when are you enlisting, Elliot? Curious minds want to know. You and Al should be over there fighting for what's right instead of tossing little toy hand grenades onto a message board filled with liberal pinkos.
Walk the walk, soldier boy.
16 - Mac Diva
Curt, I don't change diapers. So, neither RJ Elliott or Shark would do.
'Nothing of value to add'? There's nothing of value in the entry. RJ Elliott got just the kind of response he deserved.
17 - Eric Olsen
This is a very important topic handled well - a real issue of concern - and how we deal with it will have direct repercussions for every one of us.
One does not have to agree with RJ's proposed solution to take the topic seriously. Nor does it address the subject to suggest that only those currently serving in the military have the right to address potentially military matters - does it then follow that only musicians can talk about music, authors books, academy members films, AFTRA members TV? Does one have to be on the 40-man roster to discuss baseball? Should the fact that RJ consistently brings up important and/or uncomfortable topics automatically render him the object of ridicule?
I don't have an answer for this topic yet, but we sure as hell better think about it because inaction is a form of action.
18 - boomcrashbaby
Iran's nuclear capabilities should be of concern, however this post should make us all aware of the dangers of allowing this type of thought process in the White House. If Bush is reelected, he just may continue this philosophy.
We can't just go bomb everybody because we are afraid they might hurt us. This is not a good strategy to defeating terror and it's amazing to me how many Americans including those in power, believe that it is.
What kind of strategy is 'cripple the world until we are safe'?
There isn't a conservative around who can dispute that terroristic activities and terror group memberships are on the rise. Even the government in the last few days, has had to acknowledge that it is so, contrary to what they have been saying up to this point.
Is a nuclear bomb our only threat? Is it all that we are afraid of? If we are absolutely immune to ANY other kind of terror threat (9/11 says we're not), then yea, just bomb the hell out of anybody that has nuclear capabilities and we're done. We're safe. So this is the neo-con strategy?
Please folks, get this kind of thinking out of the White House or we are all doomed. It makes no sense. We felt the need to take Saddam down, because we thought he might have the capability of harming thousands with WMD. Now, we're trying to rationalize taking down Iran because they might have a nuclear weapon capable of harming thousands?
Has everybody forgotten that a plane into a building has no WMD, no nukes, and can still kill thousands? Should we start bombing countries that have airline travel? After all, we can't be the ones to secure their airports, can we? What about a hijacked airplane that crashes in the U.S. but not with a nuclear weapon, but with a biological agent readily made with ingredients/instructions found on the internet? What if Al Queda made that toxin in New Zealand? The Phillipines? Britian? Montana or Oregon? What good does bombing Iran do then?
One country, one man, with nuclear capability is no more deadly, than millions of people who hate us but don't happen to have a big bomb at the ready. They will find other ways.
Increasing the ranks of those who hate us is not a sound foreign policy. And it's scary that around half of the country is okay with it.
19 - bhw
I'm with Eric on this one....I don't know what the right course of action is, but we can't completely rule out military action right from the get-go.
I favor diplomacy first. But what if it doesn't work? Lots to think about....
20 - boomcrashbaby
Right wing sites are jumping up and down that we've found evidence of Saddam's WMD. Evidence folks. That means we aren't holding his WMD in our hands. They're still out there somewhere. Along with millions more Muslims who hate us.
We bomb Iran. Who's to say we won't find 'evidence' that they had a nuclear bomb? Maybe we will. By then, the nuke could be in Jordan, Syria, anywhere in the world. Finding 'evidence' is not what makes us safer. Finding the actual device is more likely to, don't you think?
Are you going to find the device by bombing the shit out of the place, or by infiltration? Oh God this country is just going to hell in a handbasket. How can people be so naive?
21 - Eric Olsen
I totally agree that infiltration and "human intelligence" in general are the absolute core of success in the war on terror, and something we have had a very spotty record on, as 9/11 horribly and amply demonstrates.
BUT success with infiltration and human intelligence is rarely a final answer, more like a means to an end. Something has to be done with that intelligence and sometimes military action is the appropriate action.
22 - Ms. Tek
Boomcrash...
Don't give up yet. I was feeling very down about it all but lately, I have been seeing signs that perhaps Americans might be willing to think independently and for themselves again. They are starting to see that "the guns don't work". At least in this case.
Now, if only we can get some better education about the culture of the Middle East and the history of Islam in the hands of more Americans (Perhaps we can make it into some sort of reality TV show), more people will understand what we are dealing with and what will and will not work.
As far as RJ and Barger joining the Military, there are some weight/age restrictions. You must have a certain level of physical fitness. The Navy will take you into your early 30's but the rest will not unless you are a Doctor, Lawyer, or Clergy.
23 - boomcrashbaby
Yeah, but I think a good sound strategy would be to do the human intelligence part accurately and before the military part, and not as an afterthought, which seems to be the preference here.
24 - Eric Olsen
I agree with that as well, but that still doesn't mean that military action in Iraq was inappropriate, although certainly HOW it was conducted has not been close to perfect.
25 - Bernard
I can quote as well as the next guy...
The song was released in 1972. Foresight, hindsight or just insight?
Randy Newman: Political Science
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they Grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now