IAEA Facts on Iran

[sandnsea]

Because I know you guys will want to know what is actually coming out of the IAEA itself. I do not understand the obsession with turning bad guys into good guys. Bush is a bad guy, but so is the leader in Iran. That isn't to say he's a threat, but criminy, everybody should adhere to the same nuclear process.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

[karynnj]

1. The one thing that should always be said though,

the lunatic President of Iraq does not run Iraq, the Clerics do. Just as before this election, the Pro -democracy President had no real power. Bush actively encouraged Pro=democracy people not to vote in the flawed election. At this point, I wonder if the goal was to make things more black and white. (The clerics, of course are bad, but they were the people who came in via a popular uprising, as opposed to the shaw installed by the US and Britain.

[whometense]

4. He's a complete loon.

Quote: ""Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger."

Yikes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear

[JohnKleeb]

6. He's also a vicious anti semite and holocaust denier

I'd be for one very happy if he were to lose power. I just think a war with Iran is a terrible and stupid idea. I mean I confess when I was younger I used to be of the more stupid and naive notion "If we have nukes, why shouldn't they", now that I got a little dosage of reality this is coming from a guy who has repeatly threatened Israel who we of course know is our number one ally in the region. I'll steal an arguement from a friend of mine here and add that it's also an environmental issue too becuase we know that our own nuke safety and environmental measures arent that good imagine that it in Iran. Interestingly enough this is something Kerry talked in regards to the former Soviet Union in one of the debates. A very important subject if you got an understanding of foreign policy.

[ginnyinWI]

11. sounds like something our president would say!

Really, all of *'s speeches and threatening language only serves to strengthen their president and his mandate. The opposite of what we should be doing if we want them to cooperate with non-proliferation.

People only need to look at our country after 9/11, and how magically *'s approval rating soared. Not because of anything he did, but because we were banding together against an external threat.

That said, I don't think Iran has any intention of actually shooting a nuke at anyone. They want it for their own national security, to protect themselves against Israel, or us, or anyone else that might threaten. It gives them power and presitige in front of their neighbors. But non-proliferation is certainly preferred; I wish we didn't have them, either.

Anyone doubt that *'s "Axis of Evil" speech served to empower the countries mentioned in it to jump into an arms race? Nice going, chimp. One would think he wanted to go to war...oh yeah.

[whometense]

14. Funny you should say that.

When I heard that comment that was the very first thought that came into my mind.

W may not be sowing democracy around the world, but he is making the world safe for mentally unstable knowledge-deficient diplomatically challenged megalomaniacs.

[JohnKleeb]

2. No doubt

Ahmadinjad is bad news and I've been saying that since I've learned more about the situation. If you honestly what to know what I think we should do in Iran. Since Iran has some democratic elements to it I would find a secular political party there and fund it or at least politically educate it. Iran is half under the age of 18. It is a very young country and furthermore the youth there like our culture. I think the solution to the Iranian situation would be do something similiar to what was done in Ukraine last year and attempted to do in Belarus this year. You're right everyone should adhere to the same nuclear process.

[karynnj]

3. I agree

In their case, they actually have a real existing Pro-democracy party. I don't know if it's totally secular, but it may be at least as secular as the current Republican party. The problem is that even when they are in power - the elected President has no power.

This may be a case where we blew it. After 911, the President (Pro-democracy) was one of the first leaders to send condolances. Iran was then run by the mullahs, but as you say their population has a very large number of young people who are more secular than the generation that put the Khomeini into power. Encouraging, rather than discouraging, the electoral process would be a good idea.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Yeah I know aboout Khomeni

We learned quite a bit about Iran in Political Science last year. Why Ahmadinjad got elected in to power I think was in large part because the mullahs and the like took off opposition candidates the ballot and as a result I heard many young Iranians boycotted the election. The mistake we made with Iraq in my opinion wasn't overthrowing Saddam it was that we destroyed the infrasctructre and provoked a civil war. I guess I have a combination of Cold War Liberalism combined with humanitarianism in my foreign policy thought. You know that women can't run for president over there as well? If I see anyone apologize for that joke of a government over there I'll jump on them. As bad as Bush has been this guy is infinitely worse.

[TayTay]

7. It's about Iran. And it's about us.

Iran's moves are opposed by the IAEA, the UN and the most of the civilized world. And Iran with nuclear weapons makes the whole world a more dangerous place. The whole world has a stake in making sure that doesn't happen. The whole world. We need some serious diplomacy and the kinds of carrot and stick approach that major trading and economic powers can bring to bear on a crisis.

The US is being unilateral again in it's approach. This is the disaster. It is also about the United States of America and how the country has been revamped in order to wage aggressive pre-emptive war with as little opposition as humanly possible. The President is assuming all power to declare war and make earth-shattering decisions (and this would be an earth-shattering decision) without consultation with Congress. This is very, very bad and makes Bush not just a King, but an infallible Emperor of the Earth. (He is giving himself power that no one else in the history of the planet has accumulated.)

Read this part of Sy Hersh's Iran column from this week's New Yorker:

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Rumsfeld has brought intelligence gathering operations inside the military. He did so IN ORDER to evade Congressional oversight and make that a private matter of the military. This is in line with the Bush Admin's desire to acquire the absolute right to do anything it wants without oversight, including starting a nuclear war. Who will contradict Rumsfeld's version of what is going on? The CIA is out-of-the-loop and their function to be eyes and ears on the ground and report that back through a structure that includes Congress has been usurped by a military that wants NO OVERSIGHT. This is a silent coup in the US.

Be afraid, be very afraid. This is the dismantling of Constitutional Government and the growth of The Empire.

[ProSense]

8. Not only that

dipshit is always going on about mehgeges (messages) when he is the one sending the most dangerous message to the world. There are some real despicable tyrants out there, and they would be just as despicable no matter who the U.S. president is, but American hypocrisy doesn't help. It's not the message it send to dictators, it's the message it sends to decent people. The Iraqis are a great example of this. It spawns anger.

[TayTay]

10. Connect the dots on this.

Remember the Amendments that Sens. Kennedy & Kerry added to the Intelligence Re-Authorization Bill? Those amendments specifically asked for some oversight on some of the more egregious things that this Admin is doing in the way of secret renditions and such.

Connect the dots. Why was the House so frantic to take those oversight amendments out of the bills? And why are the House and Senate Rethugs in no particular hurry to get that bill out? Could it be a two-parter; 1. We don't need no stinking oversight on this Admin and we don't want it because it is a check on neo-con power, and 2. We don't need to re-authorize in any hurry. The functions traditionally assigned to the Spy Agencies has been subsumed into Defense and that budget passed with 'the black box' entries intact.

Connect the dots here.

[ProSense]

16. That's scary!

First, what kind of infrastructure is being created and how will it be dismantled? Second, will getting rid of the Bush administration stop this power grab in its tracks?

[ginnyinWI]

12. and he also said that * has a messianic vision about Iran

He thinks he's the only president who will dare to "save Iran". Thinks it's like Germany in 1935. President Cuckoo Bananas, that is. If Jack Straw says this is "nuts", and I agree, then Gr. Britain will probably not get on board with this insanity. * will then have turned the whole world against us--we'll be the "rogue state" deserving of sanctions or whatever they do to rogue states! I don't think even this Republican Rubber Stamp Congress (RRSC) will stand for it--he'll have to do it on his own. Or rather, the evil triumvirate of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld will.

[sandnsea]

19. Sure,

But I wouldn't believe Iran on the issue any more than I believe Bush or Rumsfeld. When I read articles about the certainty of Iran's peaceful and benevolent intent, well oh my god, please. I don't see what good that sort of thing does, it screams pollyanna, reaching at anything in order to "bash Bush".

The debate should be about Bush and what this Administration is doing, because they can't be trusted as your article shows. I don't see any need to defend Iran in the process, like some people do.

[TayTay]

22. Those people are deluded. Iran is a very bad player

and the President of Iran is a bad guy. However, we also know that he is artificially holding back reform in an Iran that wants it. The last statistic I saw showed that only 15% of the people favor the hard-line approach that this guy's government is taking to power and to modernization. (Hmmm, who was it who spoke about what is holding back the forces of modernization in that region resulting in a loss of electoral and economic reform? Tall guy, seemed wicket smaht and sort of striking to observe. It's on the tip of my tongue. Sigh!)

The current Government of Iran is bad and I make no excuses for tht autocratic and prfoundly undemocratic regime. They are brutal and repress their own people as well as feed terrorist networks around the world. However, I think Bush's approach will gain supporters within the country for the regime as well as strengthen the reactionary Islamic extremist movements around the world. Sigh! Bush is simply wrong to rattle sabers this way. He is helping, not hurting, the current Iranian regime.

[sandnsea]

23. Exactly

That's why I posted the IAEA link, just to remind people who might end up in those kinds of arguments that they can just go straight to the horse's mouth on what the world expects of Iran. The Democratic Party gets smeared with the rantings of the very far left, it's one reason I really wish they'd create their own party. It would be helpful to talk about things like single payer, in a rational way. But also help to differentiate some of the more loony stuff from Democrats.

[TayTay]

24. It's insane to pretend that Iran is a fluffy puppy of a nation

They are not. They are very dangerous and are funding some really bad movements around the world. Their money and arms, we have reason to believe, are getting US troops and Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq. Obviously, that is wrong. Lefties should acknowledge that and the fact that this regime is not a liberal democratic republic.

[beachmom]

25. I think I'm back to being a "dupe for BushCo" on dKos

There is this godawful diary over there, acting like we're being lied to about what Ahmiwhat'shisface really said. So I felt the need to chime in, because, honestly, I wanted dissenter voices on that thread that not ALL liberals are so stupid as to believe the Iranian president. I tried to be nice (and still am) with no name calling or anything. But these people, I gotta say it, are anti-Israel. They think that Iran having a Bomb would stablize the region against the evil Israel's bomb. Israel, like America, should be criticized when they make mistakes and over do it. But these people are so unbelievably naive when they defend Iran, a most definite state sponsor of terrorism -- Hezbollah. People shouldn't be naive by what * is doing but they also shouldn't be so naive as to believe the Iranian president with his stupid doves in the background.

Anyway, when I first went over there, I had reached "trusted user" status and had the ability to troll rate. Now that I stated my opinion, the troll column is no longer appearing. I'm back in the doghouse at Kos.

[TayTay]

9. BTW, there is an archived SFRC hearing on Iran

That was attended by Bush Admin honchos, including Patrick Clawson, the chief proponent and architect of the neo-con response to Iran's actions. You can check it out here:

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2006/hrg060302a1.html

There is also a position paper from Clawson that you can bring up in pdf format and quickly peruse. This is original source material from one of the planners of the Bush Admin response.

(C'mon, it's a down week, there isn't that much going on. We can do one dreary hearing because it's really, really important stuff. Know your BFEE.)

[beachmom]

13. * IS playing parts of Hitler's disastorous book

Okay, so is * going to force me to eat all of my rational words on this board one by one or what?

Everything about this has been sounding so familiar, and then it hit me. This is what Hitler did. In 1939, he invades Poland and it goes well. Then he invades western Europe, which also goes well, until the Battle of Britain (Iraq), where he makes tactical errors, eventually losing interest in it. He dabbles with North Africa and the Mediterranean. But then he can go back to his obsession, which is the East (Lebensraum). So basically, the German Army is completely overstretched, and then Hitler insanely decides to invade the Soviet Union. At first it goes well, but then winter hits. Then after Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declares war on Japan (only), Hitler stupidly declares war on the U.S. As great as the industrial base of Germany is and the high quality Wehrmacht, there is NO WAY IN HELL he can win a two front war. The Germans are informed of the invasion of the Soviet Union via Joseph Goebbels with this radio address on June 22, 1941:

Weighed down with heavy cares, condemned to months of silence, I can at last speak freely -- German people! At this moment a march is taking place that, for its extent, compares with the greatest the world has ever seen. I have decided again today to place the fate and future of the Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers. May God aid us, especially in this fight.

There is no way I want to be informed by the * administration of a war with Iran like this. This is a democracy and we need Congressional oversight on this NOW. I agree with Tay Tay that this is once again unilateral, not just with the world, but within the executive branch. There is one more parallel that we forget: Stalin, by 1941, was a butcher and you could argue on and on how evil he was (numbers go up to 40 million dead under Stalin's brutal reign), but Hitler proved to be the crazier of the two with his insane invasion. The world ralled for Stalin. If we use a nuclear bomb against Iran, you can bet your life who most of the world will side with. The anti-semitic, blood thirsty, religious nut what's his name president of Iran (he needs a nickname for crying out loud -- I can never spell or remember his name!) and the Mullahs will get sympathy from all over the world.

There were so many victims of Hitler and the German people seemed to go along with so much of it, that we may not want to put ourselves in their shoes. But let's do so for a minute. They were put in a constant state of fear and nationalism, that they didn't wake up to until after Hitler had died, they were defeated, their country was occupied by foreign forces and it was utterly destroyed. They had nothing to eat, their cities and towns were in ruins, everything was gone, and they woke up to realize that for a thousand years, they would be marked as savage murderers (just go look through DU posts at how many times people don't say "Nazis" but "Germans", when referring to aggressive military behavior). Now lucky for us, there IS no United States to defeat us. We are, perhaps, the most powerful empire ever on the face of the Earth. But we can be done in, and it appears * is trying to do that, he is so drunk on his "messianic powers". Well, I as an American citizen in the first democracy of the world, will NOT stand for this. When Congress comes back into session, I will be calling all of my Republican members (yeah, even Barfbag) to urge CAUTION and SANITY on the very serious matter of Iran's quest for the Bomb.

[TayTay]

15. I completely agree

Shirer vast book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" had a lot of interesting details in it. One of the saddest was the extent to which the German people had almost no vocal opposition to Hitler. Opposition, when it could stil be voiced, simply wasn't there. Shirer makes a point of saying that the German's just sat on their hands, neither endorsing or opposing what their leader did. That is chilling. There were vocal protests, but they were in the minority. The majority of the population never really expressed an opinion one way or the other. (Good book.)

Bush believes he is divinely appointed to rid the world of these terrorist nations. He is taking an admirable goal, getting the nuclear threat of Iran and diminishing it, and screwing it up royally. In the process, he is trashing American democracy, the separations of powers and the idea that we have a check on the power of any one branch of our government. This is one of the worst periods in American history in that regard. I think this is the worst Constitutional test of powers since the Civil War.

[beachmom]

18. We can blame * and the media a lot, but . . .

There ARE many knowing collaborating Americans who are going along with this. I was enraged, when I read this, but the reality is there are a lot of people who feel this way:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/04/still_for_bush.html

Andrew printed this letter by a "dissenter", meaning at the end of the day, Andrew does NOT agree with this person. Read at your own risk of high blood pressure:

"I voted for Bush in 2004, though not in 2000. I am a long-time reader of your blog and find myself agreeing with most of your posts and positions. While I'm tempted to regret my 2004 Bush vote for many reasons, ranging from economic to civil libertarian to the way Iraq has been handled, the deteriorating Iranian situation has been a good reminder why, upon reconsideration, I am happy I voted for Bush. Should events continue to unfold in the direction we have been seeing, and should bombing Iranian nuclear sites become the only way to stop their pursuit of the Bomb, would John Kerry ever have the guts to pull the trigger? I think not.

Sy Hersh's article, intended to be a scare piece, comforted me that Bush will do what is difficult, though necessary, notwithstanding the lecturing of the Leftist and European elite. Bush's "religious" or "messianic" feeling, as Hersh derisively describes it, that Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler, is a product of the very same personality that is stubborn and the cause of much of our problems domestically and in Iraq. But ever since 9-11, Iran's pursuit of the Bomb is THE most critical moment in this struggle. For this reason - and perhaps, for only this reason - I'm glad Bush is the decision maker instead of the spineless and pathetic John Kerry."

At first, I wanted to argue with this person. Then, I realized that would be useless. This person has blood on his hands, and with his support of aggressive, insane options like a nuclear bomb, I would call him a collaborator to the insanity.

For the record, anybody else here to concur that John Kerry WOULD pull the trigger if all else failed and he knew there was a clear and present danger to the USA? He did so in Vietnam, and despite the nightmares and pain, does NOT regret killing that man who had an RPG aimed at his boat. But what he will NOT do is let his country commit suicide, which is what * wants to do. Sometimes * kills us softly, sometimes loudly, but he is destroying this country, bit by bit, and the SOB who wrote that letter is comforted by that.

[karynnj]

21. Of course he would, but not until he genuinely tried every

diplomatic technique his creative mind could conceive of. Even then he would use something other than a tactical nuclear bomb - Kerry's right, that's insane. Kerry would work with diplomats and the military to decide on the best course. In VN, he was motivated to save the boat and his crew - as President, it would be to save the country.

While the poster questions if Kerry could do what Bush could easily do, I question that Bush could do what Kerry did. By jumping off the boat, he could very easily have been killed or captured. I bet Bush would have ordered one of the men to do it and started the engines to prepare to leave quickly if it failed.

[ProSense]

17. People scoff at such comparisons, but

public complacency is one of the key drivers (e.g., going along with the war, tepid outrage now that it's clearly was wrong and going wrong, etc.). "It could never happen here." "Bush is not that bad." "What spy program (unaware)"? "Not my problem." These are typical responses at any given time, but dangerous in this time.

More signs of a power grab:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=918305&mesg_id=918305

[sandnsea]

20. Agreed

But Bush being a loon doesn't negate Ahmadinejad being a loon as well, or the intention of the IAEA and UN that Iran come into a nuclear compliance that they agree with. This isn't just Bush against Iran, although he is bluster is no more helpful than Ahmadinejad's.