Obama: Iran nuclear program poses continued threat

[oberliner]

Source: Associated Press

CANNES, France (AP) — President Barack Obama says Iran's nuclear program continues to pose a threat, and that he and the president of France want the international community to keep pressuring Iran to come clean about its intentions.

Obama commented Thursday as the International Atomic Energy Agency was preparing to soon reveal intelligence on Iran's alleged nuclear arms experiments.

Iran has consistently denied that it is trying to build nuclear weapons. It insists its program is for peaceful purposes.

The U.S., Britain and France want the IAEA to share what it knows. Russia and China are pressing for the report to be delayed or scrapped entirely.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-iran-nuclear-program-poses-continued-threat-103247880.html

[arcane1]

1. *yawn* are they buying aluminum tubes now?

How about significant quantities of uranium from Africa? :eyes:

[oberliner]

2. This is not the Bush administration

Do we not give Obama a bit more benefit of the doubt?

[Tempest]

5. Not when he's warmongering like the Bush administration

Some of us are at least consistent.

[oberliner]

7. Where is the warmongering?

There is nothing inconsistent about supporting Obama and opposing Bush.

That is, I believe, part of what we are all about here.

[Tempest]

18. Do you think this is the first time Obama has addressed this?

Like Bush, he is continuing a pattern of painting Iran as evil and has ignored international reports which show no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

[bananas]

30. Iran is violating its IAEA agreements and is developing nuclear weapons capability

That's not a good thing.

[bananas]

31. He's not war-mongering, the pro-nukes are in denial. nt

[AverageJoe90]

52. Agreed.

[ixion]

6. no, we don't

to give a pol the benefit of the doubt is to open yourself up for being a sucker.

It's called moral relativism, and it stinks, in my opinion.

[oberliner]

8. I think we do

With all the work we put into getting this person elected (and trying to get the previous one voted out), I would think that would mean that we have some respect for his opinions.

There is no moral relativism at work at all here - Bush and Obama are not the same.

Who got us into Iraq and who got us out?

[ixion]

12. whatever

get on with your bad moral relativist self. :eyes:

[oberliner]

14. There is no moral relativism

Bush and Obama are different people, different ideals, different policies.

That ought to be clear to everyone here.

[ixion]

29. no, they're not.

They are both career politicians. Obama has continued NUMEROUS BushCo era policies.

The only difference is the letter in front of the name, which ultimately means nothing.

[tcaudilllg]

16. What it shows is that you can't think for yourself.

It's pathetic.

[oberliner]

19. It does not

I do think for myself. I evaluate people based on past actions. I read the article carefully (did you?) and I see many differences between Obama's approach now and Bush's then. You don't?

[tcaudilllg]

28. It ends at the same point.

The Right reinforces the Right; reaction creates reaction. When war comes to a country's doorstep, moderates become conservative quick. I expect all hell to break lose if the U.S. gets involved in a strike. We've never hit Iran before. What would be the likely Iraqi reaction? Where does this end?

[City Lights]

26. If you're referring to the troop withdrawal by the end of 2011, it was Bush.

Bush got us in and Bush got us out.

The US declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq in 2010. The deadline for complete troop withdrawal by end of 2011 was set during former President George W Bush's term in office.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15410154

[Celefin]

35. The Obama administration pleaded with the Iraqis to let the US military stay.

Without Bush's deadline, the occupation would have continued.
And the soldiers are not 'coming home' by the way.

They will be 'get out' to Kuwait.
Ready to show 'Our continuing commitment to Iraq and to protect the region fro outside interference' -Hillary Clinton

It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[totodeinhere]

57. Prime Minister Maliki got us out, not Obama. n/t

[krabigirl]

11. Sounds the same to me.

[oberliner]

15. How so?

I think quite the opposite.

[spotbird]

13. Why indeed.

[oberliner]

17. What are you suggesting?

Obama is far from Bush on foreign policy - can we agree on that?

[liberation]

27. I don't think "benefit of the doubt" means what you think it does...

[oberliner]

33. Here's what I think it means

"To believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either"

Source: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/give+the+benefit+of+the+doubt

[yurbud]

54. not when he is peddling the same shit

[yurbud]

55. no one is a nuclear threat to us except Russia and MAD kept them from launching for decades

every other country with nukes has a fraction as many as us, so if they launched any us it would be USHOSAD US hurt, other side assured destruction.

No country wants to be on the wrong side of that equation, and they know the math is the same if they give or sell a nuke to terrorists.

[KansDem]

3. Agreed...we've heard this all before...

:boring:

[oberliner]

9. No we haven't

Maybe read the article...

This has nothing to do with aluminum tubes.

[KansDem]

24. This has everything to do with Iran being one of the "Three Axis of Evil"

...along with Iraq and North Korea.

We're suppose to distrust Iran and keep it isolated...except when we want to do business with it like the Koch Brothers did...

[L0oniX]

4. Note: lack of jobs ...number one threat to the USA.

[oberliner]

10. So - no foreign policy, then?

Generally, presidents have to handle issues both foreign and domestic.

[L0oniX]

25. Right ...foreign policy trumps jobs ...like the unemployed really give a shit about that.

:eyes:

[oberliner]

32. Just saying a president needs to deal with both at the same time

Can't totally ignore foreign policy in my opinion.

Though I agree the primary focus ought to be on domestic issues.

[tcaudilllg]

20. See, the Obamites are going to try to force us into another war!

They'll use the alliance between Iran and Syria as a pretext to strike Assad.

[Dover]

21. Some other pieces to this story - Israel's saber rattling and Iran's new pipeline deal

Israel Threatening Military Strikes on Iran

JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli official said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program — a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.

It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19246473

With Iran's defensive partner Syria currently preoccupied with its own survival, perhaps Israel is seeing the potential for a successful attack heightened.
Iran and Syria have an agreement to provide mutual defensive assistance.

-----

And this pipeline deal Iran has with Iraq and Syria that directly competes with the West's own pipeline deal
may also be playing into this:


Iraq and Iran are moving closer, having recently signed an agreement to develop and build a $10 billion “Islamic Gas Pipeline” to move natural gas from Iran to Europe. The pipeline will be thousands of miles long, extending from Iran’s South Pars oil and gas field through Iran, Iraq and Syria, and eventually ending up at a port in Lebanon, where it can be shipped. At the same time, trade between the two countries is booming. Currently its about $6 billion a year. Iran expects it to soon reach $10 billion annually.


http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/... /

http://pipelinesinternational.com/news/iran_iraq_and_sy... /

[City Lights]

22. Gee, now where have I heard that before?

:freak:

[haikugal]

23. The neocons are alive and well....*sigh*

[Butch350]

34. Start screwing around with Iran...

you gonna have to contend with Russia and China - A big no-no is in order here!

[jakeXT]

36. U.S. Keeps Focus on Sanctions for Iran, Amid Speculation Over Israeli Strike

Source: Associated Press, FOX News

The Obama administration is cautioning the international community to stick with economic sanctions against Iran, as developments in Israel and at the United Nations fuel speculation about a possible military strike being pushed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran has returned to the front of the foreign policy agenda, as the U.N. atomic agency prepares to release a key report next week on Tehran's nuclear program. It is expected to reveal intelligence suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead, among other details, though the Iranian foreign minister calls the claims a fabrication.


...

Sources close to senior Israeli cabinet officials told Fox News that senior ministers who used to oppose a strike are now for it.

They believe sanctions won't be tough enough on Iran, and point to Israel's 1981 attack on an Iraqi nuclear facility -- which was never rebuilt -- as compelling precedent.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/us-keeps-focus-on-sanctions-for-iran-amid-speculation-over-israeli-strike/

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Booga, booga, booga!

And here I thought Halloween was over.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Israel needs to be sanctioned

[on point]

39. Israel and the US here are the aggressors, threatening others with nuclear weapons

[Behind the Aegis]

40. When did this occur?

[Cali_Democrat]

41. I'm not sure if Israel or the US has threatened nuclear attack

Although Hillary did make some comments about obliteration in 2008, but that could be interpreted in different ways.

It's quite obvious that the real belligerents are Israel, the US and NATO. Collectively, those countries have been engaged in war after war for the past two decades. They have bombed country after country in that time span. The same cannot be said for Iran.

I can't blame Iran for wanting to pursue a nuclear program. Look what happened to Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. They were without nukes and were promptly attacked. North Korea, on the other hand, was not attcked and it's believed that they several nuclear weapons.

It could be argued that Iran is perusing self defense mechanisms to protect themselves against the belligerents (US, Israel and NATO).

[Behind the Aegis]

42. OK

Clinton's comment was very specific, but I understand how that fact doesn't matter. Oh and that it was made almost 4 years ago.

So, you are a supporter of nukes? Interesting.

Edit: Had to change subject line, different poster.

2nd edit: BTW, why does Israel need be sanctioned?

[Cali_Democrat]

45. I want the world to be free of nuclear weapons

But since the belligerent countries (US, Israel and NATO) won't give up their nukes any time soon, it's easy to see why Iran might want to pursue a nuclear program for self defense. They probably think it's the best way to protect themselves from belligerent nations that have been bombing and attacking country after country in the Middle East and South Asia for decades.

If those countries weren't so bellicose, perhaps they would have an argument against an Iranian nuclear program. The problem that their belligerent behavior has caused Iran to become very defensive.

Iran is surrounded by US forces on all sides. The US has military resources in Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Afghanistan. Iran is completely surrounded by the US military. It's easy to see why they feel threatened.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. So it is wrong for Iran to feel threatened, but ok if it is Israel.

Curious.

You also seem not to know much about conflicts involving Israel, but, I am not at all surprised.

Also, no matter the actions of your laundry list, Iran is a member of NPT and is obliged to that contract. It could easily withdraw like North Korea.

The US has military forces in Turkey?

[Cali_Democrat]

47. Turkey is a NATO country that maintains NATO bases

You bet the US military has assets there. You seem to not know much about this and I'm not surprised. The US launched attacks against Iraq from Turkey throughout the 1990's.

Again, it's no surprise that Iran feels threatened.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. nevermind.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. .

.

[on point]

61. Iran has NOT been shown to have violated the NPT

Under the NPT they HAVE the legal right to process and refine uranium for peaceful purposes. We are implying they have violated the agreement, but they have not.

Israel is the very dangerous nucear armed country that has attacked others already.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. It hasn't been shown yet (thus the upcoming report).

If they have violated this agreement, there is a problem; well, except with posters like yourself.

Your comment about Israel: :rofl:

[on point]

63. Which shows nothing. They are still in compliance.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. You have seen the report? Do share!

[oberliner]

44. So you think Iran is in fact pursuing a nuclear weapons program?

And that they are justified in doing so?

[Cali_Democrat]

48. I don't know if they are.

[bemildred]

51. "All options are on the table" is a threat of nuclear attack.

At least when the US says that, that is what is to be inferred.

[AverageJoe90]

53. I'm afraid you're wrong on that.

The Iranian government has repeatedly agressed against certain other nations; it's just that right now, they don't have the means to carry their wishes out. Once they get the first few bombs, EVERYONE surrounding them could be in danger..........yes, even Russia, too.(The Iranians have supported Chechen terrorists from time to time.)

[on point]

60. They have not aggressed against anyone so far

The US attacked them in 1953, over threw their democratic government
Iraq attacked them in the 80's

Who did they attack???

Don't try to include Israel because supporting the natives against invaders is a just cause, no different than supporting the French resistance against German invaders.

Israel has no right to steal someone else's land, but the victims of the theft have a right to resist, even including the use of force. And Iran has a right to support that resistance just like the US supported the French resistance in WWII.

[on point]

58. Read the news. When you threaten another country with 'all options' that is what you are doing

[dipsydoodle]

43. Is this LBN ?

Did the Obama administration is caution the International community within the past 12 hours ?

[yurbud]

56. A one minute video review of who's a nuclear threat to the US:

http://www.youtube.com/user/yurbud#p/u/16/dqySikgiviw

[harun]

59. Reality is a beautiful thing, too bad many in this thread are ignoring it.

[Islandlife]

65. What we need is a SUPER sanction

Or do these sanctions really work? We've been doing this over and over for many years. Maybe we should try something else?