Ray

Look chaps,

I am an outsider but I am very keen to understand what is the real McCoy,

And here you all go on with useless banters which is so immaterial.

Something like you guys felt when the Indo Pak banters used to go on.

I am sure you know what you all are talking about, but to me it is Greek.

Same as you guys must have felt in the India Pakistan series.

OK.

Get yourself a load of BUTTERCOOKIES for a change!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

TopHatter

Sir, it's nowhere near the level of the previous Indo-Pakistani butter cookies

dalem

Ray:

astralis

an interesting idea, i have to say.

----

http://www.slate.com/id/2148993/

The 5-Percent Solution
One proposal for solving the Iranian dilemma.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006, at 5:38 PM ET
It's time once again to deal with the knottiest problem in world politics today: what to do about Iran?

On July 31, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1696, demanding that Iran stop all activities involving the enrichment of uranium (a process that can lead to the production of nuclear weapons) and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect all their nuclear facilities.

The resolution set a deadline of Aug. 31. On that date, the IAEA issued a report to the Security Council, noting that Iran was still enriching uranium (though in small quantities) and still refusing access to certain records and facilities.

Back in July, the members of the Security Council agreed to impose at least some economic sanctions if Iran was found to be in defiance of the resolution. But when the deadline came, Russia, China, and even some of the European nations backed away, saying penalties would be "premature" and might damage the chance of negotiations.

Many had predicted this would happen. The Russians have supplied Iran with a nuclear reactor. The Chinese and some Europeans are dependent on Iranian oil. (The United States receives no oil from Iran.) Sanctions could hurt them as much as the Iranians.

In the meantime, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while calling for broad nuclear talks, insists he will never surrender what he calls the "inalienable right" to enrich uranium.

Is uranium enrichment really an "inalienable right"? Does the Iranian program pose an imminent danger? Are there alternative penalties besides sanctions?

Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—which Iran has signed—does state that the treaty's parties have the "inalienable right … to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

However, Article III of the treaty obliges signatories to accept "safeguards," including IAEA inspections at all sites involved in nuclear activities, to verify that materials aren't being diverted for military use. In 1997, an amendment, called the "Additional Protocol," expanded the IAEA's powers by letting its agents inspect not only sites officially declared to be nuclear facilities but also sites that the IAEA suspects might involve clandestine nuclear programs.

In other words, this "inalienable right" is not as permissive as Ahmadinejad suggests. First, there is no explicit right to enrich uranium. (Enrichment can be part of a program to produce peaceful nuclear energy, but it's not a necessary element.) Second, the right is granted, in any case, only to those who comply with safeguards—and, according to the IAEA, Iran is not fully complying.

Here is where comparisons between Iran and prewar Iraq break down. Before the American-led invasion of Iraq, the IAEA and several members of the Security Council contested some of the Bush administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction; when it comes to Iran's program today, there is no dispute about the basic facts. In early 2003, Iraq had no nuclear program of any sort, nor was there direct evidence of one; Iran, on the other hand, indisputably and openly has an enrichment facility, centrifuges, uranium hexafluoride, and so forth.

But having a nuclear program doesn't necessarily mean being anywhere close to a weapon. Last week's IAEA report notes that Iran's facility at Natanz has enriched uranium to a level where U-235 (the isotope that can make bombs) comprises 5 percent. (The rest of it is U-238, which has no use in bomb-making. In "enrichment," a cascade of centrifuges spins and separates the lighter-weight U-235 from the heavier U-238, thus collecting and isolating the "purer" type of uranium.) Weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to roughly 80 percent U-235. In other words, Iran remains a long ways away—by most estimates, at least three years—from getting the bomb.

In an analysis of the IAEA report, David Albright and Jacqueline Shire of the Institute for Science and International Security express surprise at how little progress Iran has made. They recall that back in April, the Bush administration and the IAEA expected that by August the Iranians would have a cascade of five machines, each with 164 centrifuges. In fact, they have just three machines, only one of them is up and running, and it's operating at reduced efficiency and output. There are no signs that a fourth or fifth machine is even being installed.

This is a significant shortcoming because, as Albright and Shire write, "To demonstrate proficiency in cascade operations, Iran must run these cascades together for an extended period of time." (Italics added.)

The Iranians also told the IAEA last spring that they'd be installing 3,000 centrifuges in a separate research facility by now. That hasn't happened, either.

Senior IAEA diplomats have told Albright that they're not sure whether the Iranians have slowed down deliberately in the face of (admittedly uneven) diplomacy or whether they're experiencing technical difficulties (as they did a couple of years ago in this field).

Either way, there might—might—be an opening for a bold move. Consider this: Ahmadinejad is insisting on the right to enrich; he hasn't said a word on how much to enrich. Last May, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the chief of Iran's atomic energy organization, said that he planned to enrich uranium to a level of 5 percent U-235 and no more. Where does the enrichment stand now? According to the IAEA, at 5 percent. (Again, this would be enough for nuclear energy but not nearly enough for nuclear weapons.)

There's no reason to trust these statements—there's no reason to trust Iranian statements on anything about their nuclear program—but it might be worthwhile to give them a whirl.

Here is the situation:

—Ahmadinejad has put such a premium on his "right" to enrich, has enmeshed it so tightly with issues of sovereignty, pride, and populist bluster, that foreigners' pressures, even sanctions, are unlikely to budge him and may, in fact, bolster his strength.

—Meaningful, multilateral sanctions seem a dead end at this point, in any case; to continue to push for them, when crucial governments are set against them, only makes the United States and the United Nations look more foolish. (Washington could rally a handful of nations to impose sanctions, but they would have scant effect.)

—Military options, though apparently still favored by some in high places, would be disastrous. We don't have the manpower for an invasion. Airstrikes would, at best, set back Iran's nuclear program by a few years and would, meanwhile, incite every terrorist organization in the world, discredit every moderate Muslim movement, and shore up Iran's unpopular government like no action could.

In short, the West's options are limited; Iran's leverage, especially given its wealth from high oil prices, is considerable. So, here's an alternative diplomatic tack: Let Iran enrich uranium, but to no higher level than 5 percent U-235. In exchange, Iran must grant IAEA inspectors full access to all facilities that they find remotely suspicious. Iran must also drop its plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in one of its research facilities. As a bonus, the West might offer the same economic incentives and security guarantees that have been discussed in the earlier negotiations.

This is a risky proposal. It is easy for foreign inspectors and remote surveillance to distinguish the difference between no enrichment and some enrichment—very difficult to distinguish 5-percent enrichment from 10 percent or 20 percent. Iran's leaders may refuse the degree of intrusive inspections that the deal requires. And if their real goal is nuclear weapons, the idea is doomed from the start.

But there's nothing to be done at the moment anyway, so why not try playing back the Iranians' own words, putting them on the table, and seeing what happens?

buisness man

All diplomatic efforts should be exhausted before we go to war because war is hell but if it is hell he chooses then as far as im concerned he can go straight to HELL.thank you very much

Anon

And the lies keep right on a rollin'.

Nope, that's not good enough for me.

You made a distinct claim, back it up.

The fact that you have not just laid out the p's and q's of your service at first challenge is a big fat black flag to begin with.

YOU made the claim you served in the military of a nation that was at the time engaged in war. What nation? What war? Under what circumstances? What was your rank? Your branch of service? Your MOS or equivelent? Your unit?

C'mon hotrod, spit it out.

Anon

Our reputation should never be a reason to not act if we truly believe a course of action to be right. Never.

Agreed.

Iran must be stopped.

Parihaka

The Incoherence Of Iran
September 11, 2006

At the end of a 10-day visit in Tehran, I am struggling with a question: Is the Iranian revolution of 27 years ago following the normal arc of history and moving toward a rational and stable society? Or is this country still exploding with radical energy and a desire to export its revolution to other Muslim nations?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that while Iran is maturing as a nation, the heat of the Islamic revolution is still intense - and dangerous. This should be Iran's moment, in which this big, dynamic country claims its place as the region's dominant power, with commensurate responsibilities. But its leaders seem unable to make the compromises that would lock in Iran's gains. They have an "up" staircase toward confrontation, but not a "down" staircase toward agreement.

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS
The standoff over Iran's nuclear program is dangerous in part because the Iranians are counting on the West's prudence to save them from their own actions. You hear over and over again versions of a comment made at a conference by Iran's deputy foreign minister, Ali Reza Sheik Attar: "Why won't America attack us? Because we consider that America is not naive enough to do that."

Iran is one of the most surprising and confounding countries I've visited. It's more modern than one expects, more open, more diverse. You hear conflicting opinions on almost every topic - from different factions within the government, the clergy, the media, the business community. This isn't North Korea, or even China - where a ruling party enforces consensus. At the center of the Iranian government is a black hole, a group of senior clerics whose decisions are wrapped in mystery. That's the essence of the problem - there are so many competing factions, and so many checks built into the system, that sometimes nobody seems to be steering the ship of state.

Which is the real voice of the country - the fulminating rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the measured tones of Iranian parliament member Kazem Jalali, who insists in an interview that Iran is ready for negotiation with the West? It is the gravelly sermon of Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who leads the crowd of worshippers in chants of "death to America" at Friday prayers at Tehran University?

You sense this split personality in the two worlds of Tehran, north and south. In the apartments of the Iranian elite in North Tehran, the headscarves and matronly manteaux of the women disappear and the conversations are as animated as anything you might hear in Paris or London. This is post-revolutionary Iran.

An example of this progressive Iran is Rajab Ali Mazrooei, who heads the association of Iranian journalists. His son was arrested for running one of the thousands of Internet blogs here, yet he insists that despite Ahmadinejad's zeal, "the whole society is moving toward freedom and democracy."

But in the sprawling slums of South Tehran, where Ahmadinejad draws his power, the revolution seems very much alive. I visited the famous martyrs' cemetery south of the city, and encountered Mohammed Rashidi, 73, standing over the grave of his son Jaafar, who died 20 years ago in the Iraq-Iran war. "We have no problem with another war starting," he says. "Iran is powerful. Martyrdom is its slogan."

Iran's business leaders know that in a global economy, Iran needs foreign investment. "Growth is closely related to cooperation with the international economy," says Ali Naghi Khamoushi, president of the Iranian chamber of commerce at a conference for foreign investors here. But after 27 years, Iran is used to going it alone, and business leaders don't seem too worried about sanctions. Indeed, Iranians see a perverse economic benefit in defying the international community. "If we cooperate, oil is $7 a barrel. If we don't, it is $70," former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani observes at the investment conference.

Upon leaving this puzzling country, I ask myself what policy would make sense for America and its allies. The best answer may be the same one George Kennan proposed in 1947 for countering a rising Soviet Union: A policy of containment - backed by the threat to use military force - that seeks to limit the damage Iran can do while its revolution runs its course. Kennan's version of containment worked because the Soviets believed America's military threat was real. The Iranians I met seem to doubt it. Oddly, that calm attitude is what worries me most.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...headlines-oped

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Ray

Aha!

The shoe pinches?

Whatever.

I am very keen to know what's happening and everything is lost in the fog of war!

Officer of Engineers

And where in all of that did you get that we were supposed to be on Saddam's side?

Real bad analogy.

You've got a guy under house arrest after he did a home invasion (Kuwait War). He's under watch and is still committing crimes such as illegal discharge of firearms (Air War), attempted murder (Bush Sr Assassination Attempt), pocession of illegal susbstances (AS rockets, 12 chemical artillery shells), and he's screaming that the top of his lungs that he would burn the entire block down (Rings of Death). It was time to put the nut away.

__________________
Chimo

buisness man

Its amazeing how simmerla ahmadinijads beliefs are to christian beliefs,ahmadinijad believes the appocalyps is going to happen soon and christians believe the tribulations going to hapen soon and ahmedinijad believes the hidden eman mesiah is coming soon and christians believe jesus is coming soon,ahmadinijad believes israel is the little satan and america is the big satan and christians believe acts of terrrorism are from satan ,some even say some muslim extremist are demon possesed.with natural disasters of the scale in the last few years with the asian tsynami and hurricane katrina and earthquake after earthquake in the ocean muslim and christians have mixed beliefs about it, is it jesus letting satan to cause blood to flow on earth because of sin or is it punishment from alah because of sin is the end near or are these just acts of mother nature who knows i dont believe in any god but he could exsist i wouldnt count it out but will the end be soon only time will tell.

Julie

We should have been meddling with neither side....Saddam nor Iran.



So we put him away.....why do we have to be in the neighborhood for 5 years after we go there to get him? You had a guy under the house, and it should have been secured around the house prior to entering and exiting....what's the problem?

Anon

Containing the islamic revolution was a very important goal.

Julie

Shipping chemicals to Iraq is not containing them. Shipping arms to Iran is not containing them.

That's like putting a chicken in a pressure cooker and turning the heat to high.....eventually it will explode.....and the shiit will be all over the place.

Officer of Engineers

We were not. We were containing the USSR ... and we succeeded.

We were in the neigbourhood for 11 years (Air War) precisely because he can't behave.

Excuse me?