*BREAKING* Iran plans to go nuclear this year!
by bluenc, Sat Mar 25, 2006 at 09:20:14 PM EST
by bluenc, Sat Mar 25, 2006 at 09:20:14 PM EST
Your headline contradicts everything that our own experts have been telling us about Iran -- that it's nuclear program is years away from going online, much less actually being able to weaponize any sort of nuclear weapon.
As for the source... well, let's just say that am not willing to take anything having to do with WMD, nuclear or not, whether it refer to Iran, Iraq or some other country, at face value -- specially when information on such subjects appears to conform to the story line coming out of Bush's White House. To my ear this story fits too neatly into the narrative that Bush & Co. are selling to the public and I just can't trust it.
Finally, making Iran a political issue in 2006 would alter the current political terrain back in favor of republicans and of Bush. Why? Because, again, the Iran threat is a narrative that they have already been out there trying to sell. Iraq needs to be the focus and, there, on that issue, Democrats need to paint a clear contrast between Bush republicans and the 60+ percent that now believe that Iraq was a mistake -- let's not loose sight of the goal by playing into the republican Iran-smoke screen.
I can see why you didn't bother to quote the article. Your headline made it look like they would have the bomb. In reality the article said they would have a reactor.
No I don't believe this is an issue. If it is, why aren't we pissed about Bush allowing India to have a reactor? This is neocon agitprop, just like the mushroom cloud over washington that Rice talked about in the buildup to the war on Iraq.
I am no surprised though. The neocons are pumpin this line hard. Yesterday, Haaretz quoted an unnamed UN diplomat(probably Bolton, the guy most responsible for stovepiping intelligence on WMD) that Iran would have nukes in 3 years. Unfortunately Dems are falling for it again and running to Bush's right on the war. I think the story of Russia giving intelligence to Saddam looks fishy as hell too.
Your poll is too narrowly focused to respond to.
Yeah... if by 'going nuclear' you mean... 'have a civilian nuclear program' then they are 'going nuclear' which is not breaking news... they said they wanted to do that from the beginning, and it is their right as a sovreign nation and a signatory of the Non-Proliferation treaty.
This is a TERRIBLE diary!
Obviously this was a reply to the main diary, not to dameocrat... sorry dameocrat
There is nothing magic about intelligence gathering, and since they will not let in weapons inspectors (will the U.S., Britain, or Israel?), we can only give approximations. I would guess maybe seven years. But nuclear bombs are relatively harmless, anyway, in comparison with newer weapons.
I would bet, however, 10 to 1 that they have perfected a lot of biological items like bloodpox and bird flu.
So let me get this straight: if event A conforms with something, anything, that Republicans have ever said, it is probably a myth invented by the neocon conspiracy. Nevermind the fact that people on both sides of the aisle have been warning against this. If a Bush crony says something, we have to go the other way. Seems like bad logic.
Let's face it: Iran is not a friend of the U.S. or its allies. The idea of a nuclear Iran should be troublesome. I don't care what they say, they don't want those reactors so that they can power their blenders.
Let's face it: Iran is not a friend of the U.S. or its allies.
Like the U.S. now has any actual allies?
Like Hitler had actual panzers at Normandy. (Which was invaded literally while he was dreaming!)
The real worries for the Iranians are not what the dunderhead media regime would have people believe. You could say that they are not happy about our insane military presence on their doorstep. They do not exactly have a warm and fuzzy relationship with the Israeli Government. They presumably are concerned over their small Khuzestan Province, the one where the oil is.
Let's put it this way: If they happen to desire nuclear reactors, for whatever reason (yes, Virginia, the oil will run out in 20 years), does that make them unique in today's world??? In fact it does not (and we will be vastly more comfortable if we just don't examine the details of that issue too closely).
And let's focus on the truly Big Picture here. Which happens to show rather clearly that anything our Dear Leader attempts to do about the issue is guaranteed to be either stupid, expensive, catastrophic, or, far more likely, all three.
so the answer is to do nothing? i can't accept that, and i shouldn't have to. it would be one thing if iran wanted to simply develop civilian nuclear technology, but they have resisted efforts to allow the international community to make sure they don't develop nuclear weapons. this regime is not trustworthy, so if they want reactors, they should be open with the rest of the world. otherwise, they don't get to play with the stuff.