How many people here really think the Iranians have nukes?

[devilgrrl]

Personally, judging from the steady stream of lies brought forth by this mis-Administration, I say it's a huge steaming pile of bullshit.

Then again, I do believe North Korea is close to having them and therefore, should be ignored. :sarcasm:

[FreedomAngel82]

1. What I think

is that they don't have anything but they're teaming up with North Korea and that's why they're testing their nuke's in case Iran gets attacked North Korea can hit their enemy from behind and surprise everybody. According to the Blair memo that was recently released it said that Iran didn't have much and compared them to Hussein etc.

[seabeyond]

3. Iran didn't have much and compared them to Hussein

i didnt hear that. ahvent been reading on the iran issue, nor korea for that matter. the thing about bush, he brings these thing, then it is research time, and you learn all there is to know, then move to the next subject he brings us. cause it isnt like we are going to get any facts or truth from bush

[seabeyond]

2. hesitantly raising hand

i dont believe iran has them, but are well on there way. and i believe korea has one or two dont they

still dont htink going to war is the answer by any means, not what i am suggesting. further, before bush took office, iran was worried about their country being overthrown by the educated youth. isnt it true they are exceptionally high in youth comparatively speaking. and they were afraid, the current government of this youth making/demanding changes. would have been a wonderful opportunity for u.s. to take advantage of this and feed, feed the democracy for middle east in a postive and productive, non violent manner

[leveymg]

4. The Iranians don't even have nuclear fuel yet, much less nuclear weapons

An attack on Iran would be entirely preemptive.

On the other hand, North Korea reportedly has as many as six fission bombs, and are preparing to demonstrate one of them.

Bush won't attack North Korea.

See the logic in obtaining nuclear weapons? Bush's policies almost force states he might attack to try to obtain them. This, in turn, justifies the attacks.

:bounce: :nuke: :dunce: :grr:

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. The media campaign has already begun to convince us that Iran will

nuke us if we don't get them first. I recommend reading through all of this thread, especially the video of Corsi's lecture and the planned TV ads associated with his big publicity stunt scheduled later this month. This is deadly serious. The title of the TV ad, for example, is "An Atomic 9/11."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1768708#1769520
Thread title: "Is anyone watching Jerome Corsi saying Iran planning to nuclear-bomb {the US, presumably New York?}

edited to add: Jerome Corsi was co-author of the Swift Boat Liars book. He has already been shown in a lecture on this subject on CSPAN2 (video link in the thread). There has also been a 60 minute Fox TV show on it, featuring Ariel Sharon (there are hints that Israel may attack Iran first) and Rick Santorum.

[leveymg]

9. Somehow I missed that thread this past weekend .

Did Corsi do his "Iran freedom walk"? It got no press. He's not taken seriously by the establishment MSM and I suspect the most lunatic fringe neocons are being swatted back (Bolton is a prime example, and the indictment in the OSP-AIPAC scandal is significant).

I think the Republican leadership and the Pentagon are now trying to distance themselves from Likkud's little party plans for Iran. I got the sense that Sharon didn't quite get what he wanted when he met with Bush a couple weeks ago. Maybe I have too much faith in the survival instincts of the ruling elites, but I'm not entirely convinced convinced this bird is going to fly.

June is just around the corner, and if this were a Go we'd be in the midst of a MSM feeding frenzy, right now. Instead, it's eerily quiet.

What do you think?

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. The 209-mile "Iran Freedom Walk" starts May 16

Here's the post from that other thread on this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1768708&mesg_id=1771479

Ariel Sharon & Rick Santorum were on a Fox TV 60 minute show on the "nuclear threat from iran" not long ago - I'd have to check the other thread, but it was only a couple of days ago. The planned Corsi "Atomic 9/11" ad campaign is ready to go if he has funding, and I'm betting he does.

This is very, very scary to me. The hints are that Israel would attack iran first - but who knows? Corsi really relishes talking about what a nuclear bomb would do to New York City. The man is obscene. He will be doing everything he can to terrify people into going to war again - and this time there are not enough troops, so what will they do instead?

I really need to rewrite that long thread and try to condense the main things into an opening post of a new thread. This needs attention.

[leveymg]

14. I agree. This subject needs everyone's attention.

But, I still sense the wind's not in the sails of those who really want to do Operation Sampson, if indeed that's what the IDF is calling it. Next two weeks will tell.

Is Ariel still in the US? Was he in the studio with Santorum, or was it a remote from Jerusalem?

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. I didn't see the broadcast, only the listing. He did visit the US a month

ago; no telling when the show was taped.

"Operation Samson" may well be Corsi's own term - I'd have to watch that video of the Heritage Foundation lecture again to get a better idea. He thinks quite highly of his own daring, insight and cleverness. But he's been quite a useful mouthpiece in the past with the Swift Boat Liars travesty and he is getting support from somewhere now.

[Last Lemming]

6. IRAN!!!!!!!

Give me a break--
and apparently our thoughts about N. Korea are paranoid to the extreme.
Two weeks in a third world country should easily convince you what few resources a fourth world country can muster

[KharmaTrain]

7. Nukes As In Bombs?

Iran has had a nuclear program going back to the days of the Shah...and guess who helped him get that program started. :grin:

IIRC, this reactor has been in existance since the 70's and Soviets and others were brought in to run it when we were kicked out. Beyond that, I doubt, based on this nation's "excellent" intelligence, we really have a clue what's going on there. Or, we do, but the powers-that-be need this hushed up, just like Israel.

My question when it comes to this strawman, is how would Iran or Iraq or North Korea deliver the weapon and where? The assumption was Iraq was going to drop their nuke on Israel (even though I'll bet a majority of dittoheads thought he actually had 3-stage missiles that could reach their little VFW hall) but Saddam knew any strike would mean instant retribution and in a big way. It'd make our "shock & awe" look like a kid's birthday party.

Now where would Iran drop one? Israel again? That would require a fairly large missile, again...and have those been detected? Again, a strike on Israel means retaliation from the Israeli arsenal. This area has its own MAD showdown.

Next is Korea. Does Kim Jong Il drop a nuke on Seoul...frying millions and the possibility of fallout dropping on his country? And does he want to kill all these Koreans when he considers America the enemy? The ti-po dong missile? A weather balloon stands better chance and accuracy.

The right wing's modus operendi has always been to have a strawman to justify their power and money grabs. Communism worked great since it was a "threat" at one time and the image was burned into several generations. Now they're just recreating new ones. Instead of Russian and Chinese accents (even though they still hate those folks, too), it's now embraced anyone who is brown-skinned and not xtian.

[Frederik]

17. Iran has the missiles

They have missiles that can reach Israel, if I'm not mistaken. They are just deterrance though. There's really no reason to fear an Iranian missile assault on Tel Aviv except as a response to an attack by the US and/or Israel, I think.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Just Think? Do We Go To War This Way?

We were told Iraq had missiles as well...and, I'll be one who said, if they were discovered I wouldn't have been surprised, but I doubted the size of the "arsenal" Powell and the other liars were claiming in the run-up to that invasion. Remember we were told Iraq had planes that were ready to fly to Europe? Found out those were crop dusters.

I haven't seen any real verification that Iran has missiles like you claim, yet the weaponry to put atop that missile. Also, before you shoot one of those things, wouldn't it be smart to test it? Wouldn't that mean launches that would have been detected? I know these silly details keep getting in the way of reality. If they weren't tested, then how acurate could they be?

We got stuck into one ugly invasion based on cooked intelligence, lies and greed, I guess this country is now ready for a second one.

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. Corsi is trying to convince people that there are Iranian "sleeper cells"

in this country with everything they need except the bomb itself - which they would quickly get as soon as Iran made it, which is very soon - ready to set it off. "If they have it, they will use it," he likes to say. He also clearly relishes describing what would happen to NYC if this bomb was set off.

He has started a media campaign. The question is, can he and other propaganda tools be enough to terrify the American people into supporting this war? And if not, what would it take to convince them? Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter and Corsi himself all talked about June being when Iran would be invaded.

Other than these maddening hints and rumors and deliberate propaganda, we know nothing.

[Frederik]

30. They have tested them

It's not something they keep secret, in fact it was very public on the part of the Iranian authorities. So I don't think it's someting Bush made up.

They don't have the nukes to put in them, though, just the missiles. It's of course no threat to the US or no reason to invade anybody. I'm just pointing out the facts.

[KharmaTrain]

32. Short Range Korean Missiles

I've seen various reports over the years, again, sources from sources type stuff, that the Koreans have sold short range ballistic missiles...a poor man's skud, to many countries and Iran has been mentioned. These missiles also were sold, and in probably far greater quantities, to Pakistan. Again, this is all "through the grapevine" stuff...no way to verify any of this other than the places you get the information from...aka The Guardian or Janes.

These missiles aren't capable of nuclear payloads and then there's the big leap to go from having missiles to "tipping them" to testing and then building silos and targeting them.

If I were Iran, damn straight I'd be looking at a strong missile defense with the BFEE sitting on two of my borders and rattling sabres. A topic I rarely see discussed, but had in past military missions, is the size of the Iranian Air Force as well as Iran's own missile defense system.

Are the neo con's so cock sure that we can just fly F-15s and "shock and awe" regime change or whatever chaos they want to create? Maybe you have an insight onto this endgame.

Cheers.

[Frederik]

33. Hey, I'm with you

I was merely correcting a statement about them not having missiles. I believe they have tested a home-made medium-range missile but I don't have time to check it so I could well be wrong.

If I were in charge in Tehran I'd be looking into nuclear weapons for sure, it appears to be the only effective deterrent against American agression these days. But it is clear that Iran is not in posession of nuclear weapons at this point, it's not even certain that they plan to acquire them.

I'm against attacking Iran in any way, shape or form and in favour of an unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Yes, the Iranian military is in a very different league than Iraq's decimated army and non-existing air-force. Iran would be a whole other ball game than the, ahem, cake walk in Iraq.

[punpirate]

8. Okay, defining terms...

... do you mean "nukes" as in weapons? If so, no, I don't think so.

That said, do I think they know how to build them? Yes. The information's been available for a long, long time.

The issue is will they use the non-weapons technology they have to produce fuel for weapons. Yes, very possibly. But, having said that, one can't dispute that providing an artificial advantage to Israel makes the region less stable and promotes weapons development elsewhere in the region.

My hope, still, is that the IAEA will keep the lid on this, will convince the Iranians that talking tough and threatening the nuclear west isn't in their best interest. That will be hard to do, after the invasion of Iraq, but it still needs to be done.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Question

What does this mean: "one can't dispute that providing an artificial advantage to Israel makes the region less stable and promotes weapons development elsewhere in the region?"

[punpirate]

13. Ah, well, it's not up to me...

... to educate you in Middle Eastern politics, but, the US has been heavily supporting Israel ever since it discovered that Israel had a nuclear weapons program in 1959. Before that time, the US maintained a very neutral posture toward Israel.

Israel is the dominant nuclear power in the region, and it has done everything it can to maintain that hegemony. It has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. It does not allow inspections of its nuclear facilities, most especially at Dimona or at its weapons stockpiling areas. Nevertheless, it expects that nations such as Iran comply with IAEA guidelines, when it does not.

Israel's nuclear weapons program is the destabilizing force in the region. Iran's, if there is one, is very likely a response to Israel's capability.

The artificial advantage, quite simply, is the US defense of Israel's nuclear dominance in the region. When the US condemns weapons proliferation selectively, it invites charges of hypocrisy. That undermines the entire non-proliferation process.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Interesting

Trust me, I don't need you teaching me about ME politics or history, I am well-versed in it. I simply wanted an explanation for your statement. Hypocrisy seems to be a necessity for politics.

[punpirate]

18. If you don't need instruction,...

... then why are you asking questions which invite the same? (Unless your desire is simply to provoke, as I suspect.)

[Behind the Aegis]

21. What?

Asking a question is inviting one to educate me on the policies of the Middle East? I don't think so. I was asking about a particular statement you made and how you, personally, arrived at that conclusion. As for your suspicions, well, you are the master of your own mind and you are free to suspect anything you want. I asked a question, got an answer, and was happy.

[leveymg]

19. I would imagine that Iran has targeted those same Israeli nuclear plants

with their newest intermediate range missiles topped with the deadliest chemical and biological agents in their arsenal.

While this would likely not prevent Israel from continuing to produce nuclear weapons, it might be a fitting last gesture by the Iranian commanders.

Then, there are the Pakistanis . . .

The more I think about this, the sicker I get in my stomach.

[lala_rawraw]

10. The facts are that they do not currently have nukes...

They have the potential for nukes via their current efforts to begin their various enrichment programs. They are doing it for several reasons. The first is that they are in need of alternative energy, much like the rest of the world. The other reason, is that they know what is coming. They know why Iraq happened... in other words, we have created a situation in which countries will no longer stop these programs in hopes of avoiding American slapping sessions... there is no point. We sent the msg that we will do what we want for our own reasons and we will make sure to lie about it. In any case, they are still several years off.

[Frederik]

15. They don't.

Not even the Israelis are saying that. What they fear is that they may be able to make them soon, that's all. Nobody really knows if they even have a programme, although that's not all that unlikely. If I were in charge in Tehran, I'd want to have a couple of nukes to deter potential agressors.

[LynnTheDem]

20. I don't care if they do or not. We have nukes, and we have the only

"leader" threatening PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear strikes, including on nations who don't have nukes.

As long as that is the case, every other nation in the world with any common sense whatsoever will be rushing to buy nukes.

And as long as the "leader" of our nation acts like Hitler with his supreme crime wars of aggression and hypocritical stance of do what America says not what America does, the arms race will continue.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. I doubt it

I strongly think they do not have nukes. Personally, I don't even think they are close to having nuclear weapons. I do think North Korea has them, but any attempt to use them would result in the destruction of NK. I think some are concerned that any plants built will not be built for energy and power, but for weapons. However, they are still a ways away from real weapons like "nukes."

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. In Jerome Corsi's terror-propaganda on this he says there are "sleeper

cells" of agents of the Iranian "moolahs" set up in this country all set up wiith what they need to detonate a nuclear bomb - and he keeps talking about it happening in New York - as soon as they have a warhead. (He says certain Democratic senators - Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and Biden - are the Iran-bought "appeasers" responsible for this situation.) This gets around the need for them to have a missle capable of delivering the payload. In this fantasy, the "sleeper cells" are all ready to set off the bomb the instant the warhead is made.

Total nonsense, but the propaganda he has prepared will terrify a lot of people if allowed to be broadcast.

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. Guess who is responsible for Iran having nuclear technology?

It's a final irony that Iran HAS nuclear technology because of the neocons:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1773720#
Thread title: How Conveniently They Forget--WE helped Iran go "nukular"

The Washington Post reported that an initially hesitant President Ford was assured by his advisers that Iran was interested only in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Ford's Defense Secretary was Donald Rumsfeld, his Chief of Staff was Dick Cheney and his man in charge of nonproliferation efforts at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was Paul Wolfowitz.

[htuttle]

27. I don't care if they do or not

I've spent my entire life with thousands of Soviet and Chinese missiles aimed at me.

You think I'm going to go all weak-kneed because Iran gets ahold of one or two of them? Ha! that would be a coward's reaction -- or a Republican's.

[Nothing Without Hope]

29. Corsi's not even trying to claim they have missles, he's talking about

"sleeper cells" of Iranian terrorists secretly moving a bomb into place in an American city - he really likes the idea of it being NYC - and setting it off. He's doing everything he can to terrify people into believing it's us or them. Is the administration behind his propaganda? If so, for what purpose? Is it to soften up resistance to helping Israel attack Iran? Or something else?

[Solly Mack]

31. I don't care if they do

and I don't believe anything coming from Bush Inc.

I don't want anyone "pushing the button" for any reason...but I'm not going to get my knickers in a wad over some other country having weapons my own country possesses. I don't happen to believe America is more responsible with the weapons they own than other countries are or would be...

[maveric]

34. Can you blame them if they do? Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, China..

all either border Iran or are in close proximity. They ALL have nukes.
Iran doesnt have the right to defend itself?

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Defense

They do have the right to defend themselves. The idea that one nation has nukes gives rise to others "needing" them.