Netanyahu literally draws a red line on Iranian uranium enrichment
36 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37827663]Israel wouldn't invade anyways. There are obvious logistical issues with a small country moving an invasion force from the mediterranean to the persian gulf.
They would probably just bomb Iran's reactors like they did with with Iraq.[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry, that's what I meant; the US isn't going to assist in any attack against Iran.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37827450]You mean the United States. Israel has been so eager to attack Iran that Netanyahu literally lectured and rebuffed Obama on Iran. And every two weeks you're going to hear Netanyahu say "diplomacy and sanctions do not work, let's attack now!"[/QUOTE]
Can you quote a news article when Netanyahu said he wanted to attack now?
No, I didn't think so. And guess what, sanctions aren't working. How about that? Iran is just chugging right along. Producing higher enriched uranium than it would ever need for medical purposes.
And truth be told, it is very hard to take anything you say seriously when your avatar is a picture of Hitler. Even if Israel did everything the world wanted it to do, you would still find some fault.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37821981]Ignoring the moral issues of Iran's right of whether to obtain nuclear weapons or not. If the red line is at 90% enrichment, I really see no issues here.
[editline]27th September 2012[/editline]
But knowing Netanyahu, he'll still push for war even if Iran's only enriching safe medical levels at 20%.[/QUOTE]
I really wouldn't include the right to pursue immensely destructive weapons within the natural sovereign rights of a nation. With the liklihood of them ever using them being so low, it's really only for prestige and political domminance, same as 19th century countries naming colonies among their rights.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37827450]You mean the United States. Israel has been so eager to attack Iran that Netanyahu literally lectured and rebuffed Obama on Iran. And every two weeks you're going to hear Netanyahu say "diplomacy and sanctions do not work, let's attack now!"[/QUOTE]
Blue member so I don't have search but does someone wanna look back and see how long they've been calling for war and threads claiming any day now? Must be at least a year and it seems like they're doing a good job of restraining themselves.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37827663]Israel wouldn't invade anyways. There are obvious logistical issues with a small country moving an invasion force from the mediterranean to the persian gulf.
They would probably just bomb Iran's reactors like they did with with Iraq.[/QUOTE]
We've had this discussion so many times. Neither Iran, Israel or the US wants to invade because it's a natural disadvantage. There's also the matter of Iran's facilities being built into mountainsides and made to withstand attacks and that they're running now so Chernobyl 2.0 maybe. The only conflict would be an air war and bombings with nothing being achieved and without full backing of the US to do something, it'd be pointless.
Of course an enemy without distracts from everyone's horrible political position so this rhetoric will keep up even if they're just waiving their dicks around.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;37828510]I really wouldn't include the right to pursue immensely destructive weapons within the natural sovereign rights of a nation. With the liklihood of them ever using them being so low, it's really only for prestige and political domminance, same as 19th century countries naming colonies among their rights.[/QUOTE]
You're speaking under assumption as if they're in pursuant. And even if so, given the amount of provocative actions against Iran, a nuclear deterrence is required. The campaign to stop Iran's program is not fueled by mistrust of how they'd handle nuclear weapons but rather it would disrupt the United State's hegemony in the Middle East.
[quote]Blue member so I don't have search but does someone wanna look back and see how long they've been calling for war and threads claiming any day now? Must be at least a year and it seems like they're doing a good job of restraining themselves.[/quote]
Really, just a year since the last time Netanyahu whined about sanctions and diplomacy? Here are four separate instances within 2012 of him begging for war. All the way from February, to August 21st.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19081612[/URL]
[URL]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154471#.UGUza1GK5qI[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190903,00.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/netanyahu-time-has-run-out-on-iran/[/URL]
[QUOTE=>VLN<;37828482]Can you quote a news article when Netanyahu said he wanted to attack now?[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19081612[/URL]
[URL]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154471#.UGUza1GK5qI[/URL]
[URL]http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190903,00.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/netanyahu-time-has-run-out-on-iran/[/URL]
[quote]No, I didn't think so. And guess what, sanctions aren't working. How about that? Iran is just chugging right along. Producing higher enriched uranium than it would ever need for medical purposes.[/quote]
"Producing higher enriched uranium than it would ever need for medical purposes"
Right off the bat I know you're talking out of your ass/politically inept. Show me a single source which exhibits that Iran is enriching higher than at least 30 percent. For Iran to make a weapon, they would need to enrich to 90%. They're at safe medical levels.
[quote]And truth be told, it is very hard to take anything you say seriously when your avatar is a picture of Hitler.[/quote]
You're an idiot man.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37828742]You're speaking under assumption as if they're in pursuant. And even if so, given the amount of provocative actions against Iran, a nuclear deterrence is required. The campaign to stop Iran's program is not fueled by mistrust of how they'd handle nuclear weapons but rather it would disrupt the United State's hegemony in the Middle East.[/quote]
Yeah but are you really gonna make the case that everyone deserves nukes just because? When no-one except the superpowers can invade a country worse than Afghanistan geograpically, you'd have to give them a damn good reason to deal with that shit. Not saying it's not a deterrent, but the pursuit of it is also provocation and if no-ones invading on the verge of a nuke, its hard to think of a situation where they would. Nukes also don't protect against subversive action and civil unrest which is undoubtedly the route the US is taking, particularly with the sanctions.
No-one gives a shit about US hegemony, Iran has been out of the loop since the revolution and no-ones trying to patch it up. I'd think not having a nation that is openly hostile to the Great Satan possessing nukes is a far more likely reason than garbage theories on imperialism.
[quote]Really, just a year? Here are four seperate instances within 2012. All the way from February, to August 21st.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19081612[/url]
[url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154471#.UGUza1GK5qI[/url]
[url]http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4190903,00.html[/url]
[url]http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/netanyahu-time-has-run-out-on-iran/[/url][/quote]
Couldn't find any further back than that? Still proves the point that they can yank the chain all they want but no-ones budging. Comparing them sitting on the border provoking Saddam to asking not to attack them if they attack their ally you'd almost think they want no part of a war.
Just let Iran get it's Nuke fucking nuke goddamn, all these threats only gives them a bigger reason to produce one if entire nations threaten to bloody invade them over the matter.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37828742]You're speaking under assumption as if they're in pursuant. And even if so, given the amount of provocative actions against Iran, a nuclear deterrence is required. The campaign to stop Iran's program is not fueled by mistrust of how they'd handle nuclear weapons but rather it would disrupt the United State's hegemony in the Middle East.[/QUOTE]
Because Iran could totally be trusted with nukes - just because the states and israel have them, it doesn't mean Iran should automatically be allowed them too - hey man we should have given iraq some nukes in 2001, we had nukes back then, why cant they have them too??
Putting aside all hate for Netanyahu, who clearly has been pushing for an attack on Iran for a while, it's quite obvious that Iran really isn't the sort of country you want having nukes.
It's a difficult position to take - on the other hand, they do feel threatened by the US and Israel, and understandably so, and they feel nukes are the only way to adequately defend themselves.
It's tough because there's no real way to be sure what sort of enrichment levels they're at from our position - but I think it's relatively clear that the people in high positions are well aware. If they were able to get stuxnet into their program, I think they'd have a decent idea of what's going on.
The red line harms nobody, it just warns Iran that if they do try enrich to higher levels, they are going to be attacked. If they go over that line, they're making nukes, they get smashed. They stick to their "medical research", and nobody gets hurt and we all live happily ever after.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.