To let Iran go nuclear would be mistake: Cheney

[Neil D]

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney said on Saturday it would be a serious mistake if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power.

In talks with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Cheney said the United States and its allies were pursuing diplomacy as their preferred course on Iran but repeated previous comments that "all options were on the table".

"We believe it would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran were to become a nuclear power," he told reporters.

His comments came after Iran ignored a U.N. deadline to stop work on enriching uranium which the West says will be used to make nuclear weapons. Iran says it plans only the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The Weekend Australian newspaper reported on Saturday that Cheney had endorsed U.S. Republican Senator John McCain's proposition that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

Cheney told the newspaper in an interview that he had no doubt that Iran was striving to enrich uranium to the point where it could make nuclear weapons.

Howard, one of Washington's firmest allies in the Iraq war, said he was concerned that if the United States and its allies were to retreat from Iraq, one of the most serious consequences would be a boosting of Iran's influence.

Anti-war protesters scuffled with police during Cheney's visit.

Australia has vowed to keep its battle group of 520 soldiers in southern Iraq.

Cheney has stressed the importance of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to stop "jihadists" gaining a base from which to spread violence across the Middle East.

[bevin]

Let's see.

Letting the USSR go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting France go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting China go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting India go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting Pakistand go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting South Africa go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting Israel go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting North Korea go nuclear was a mistake.

so now letting Iran go nuclear is a mistake.

Cheney is demonstrably an idiot.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

As the President of Iran pointed out, there are no moral grounds for the above countries to keep more countries out of the club. It is simply a matter of the USA trying to use its military muscle to the USA's advantage. As President Putin of Russia pointed out last week, that behavior is a specific cause of these countries wanting to go nuclear.

Oh, yes - did I mention Brazil's nuclear program? Or Japan's?

The only way for these countries to defend themselves from countries that use military force to try to dominate them is to go nuclear.

Which would explain why Cheney is complaining about China's military build-up - even though the USA has only 20% of China's population and has a vastely bigger military and military budget.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

...and two more points:

1. More drumbeats for the war none of us want except this guy

2. As I've said here repeatedly, Iran is a huge distance from making weapons with enriched uranium. This is more 'smoking gun/mushroom cloud' lies from this mob. The only thing of interest is to see whether they can sucker us yet again.

[Nan]

This is from Mike Carlton's column in the Sydney Morning Herald today. His leanings are obvious - Rudd is the newly elected leader of the federal opposition party -

"Rudd's latest wheeze is to create the impression that Deadeye Dick Cheney has arrived in Australia solely to see him. The US Vice-President would be getting a stiff talking-to about Iraq and Iran, and no mistake. You would have paid a lot of money to eavesdrop on that encounter.

All in all, it has not been a good week for the Prime Minister. The opinion polls have gone feral on him, not least the one which suggested, rather fancifully perhaps, that he might be in danger of losing his own seat of Bennelong at the election. His decision to pack another busload of army advisers off to Iraq was met largely with incredulity and, worse, was followed up by Tony Blair's unwelcome announcement that Britain will begin withdrawing some 1600 troops from the war zone.

Not that is a withdrawal of course. It is a draw down, or a redeployment, or an adjustment, depending on which spin doctor has the megaphone.

ETHICALLY bankrupt, morally repugnant and a warmonger to boot, Cheney embodies all that is awful about the American system.

At the polar opposite, Major Michael Mori, the US Marine lawyer, is gratifying proof that American decency lives. He is out in Australia again, pursuing his crusade to obtain justice for David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay."

Just wondered how some of those in the Top Bunk react to this ?

[there buster]

Quote:

Letting the USSR go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting France go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting China go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting India go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting Pakistand go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting South Africa go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting Israel go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting North Korea go nuclear was a mistake.

so now letting Iran go nuclear is a mistake.

If you view all of those countries as morally equivalent, your position makes sense.

[there buster]

Quote:

1. More drumbeats for the war none of us want except this guy

2. As I've said here repeatedly, Iran is a huge distance from making weapons with enriched uranium. This is more 'smoking gun/mushroom cloud' lies from this mob. The only thing of interest is to see whether they can sucker us yet again.

Bravus, Feb 2006

Quote:

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say (illegible) and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side.

Charlse Lindbergh, Sept 11, 1941

[Dr. Shane]

The problem with Iran is their threatening of Israel. I think the US simply needs to tell Iran that if it develops nuclear weapons, Israel, Turkey and Iraq (if they ever have a stable government) will be allowed to purchase any and all desired nuclear weapons systems to defend themselves. It is widely believed bow that Israel has nuclear weapons but I do not believe they have confirmed it.

So then Iran will know that if they develop them, they will have started an arms race in the middle east.

[Bravus]

Ed: When Iran invades *anywhere* I will accept that parallel with Nazi Germany. My entire point is that there is no casus belli, whereas by 1941 there very clearly was one. There is no evidence except what Cheney is telling us... and his record shows he can't be trusted.

[bevin]

Quote:

If you view all of those countries as morally equivalent, your position makes sense.

Each of those countries, along with the USA, has gone nuclear to defend its current status quo against a threat from another country

USA - fear of Germany going nuclear was the initial motivation, followed by it being a cheap way to end the war

USSR - heavily threatened by the USA, as well as provably attacked twice without provocation in less than 50 years by Germany

France - long history of conflict with England, Germany, and now the USSR has the bomb...

China - The Korean was an attack on Chinese security, Japan had already attacked them and was a USA ally.

India and Pakistan - a matched set

South Africa - the whole western world wanted regime change there

Israel - I can't imagine why they feel endangered :-)

North Korea - I can't imagine why they feel endangered, but it MIGHT be something to do with a moronic USA president who cancelled the previous deal, declared them part of an axis of evil, and then invaded the one just ahead of them on the list

Iran - they, of course, have not been attacked by anybody recently (aside: Iraq had the USA's blessing in attacking Iran), and nobody has been threatening them by (for instance) putting huge quantities of mobile armed troops into an adjacent country, moving extra naval fleets into the area, advocating sanctions, threatening other countries that don't join in the sanctions, labelling them part of an axis of evil, ...

Bush et al are a foreign policy disaster. On the other hand they have made a lot of money for the USA's arms manufacturers and oil companies and "no-bid" contractors like Halliburton

/Bevin

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/asia_cheney

Here he is again - Mr "we know where the WMD are" "flowers in the streets" "won't need 200,000 troops" "lets put anyone we don't like in secret jails" "torture is good thing" Cheney himself...

Love these quotes

Quote:

"But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he said, leaving open the possibility of military action.

Quote:

Cheney — due to leave Australia on Sunday — promised that an Australian who has been detained without trial at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for more than five years was "near the head of the queue" of possible military trials.

...

"I can assure you we will be doing everything we can to deal with these matters in as expeditious manner as possible," Cheney said.

Expeditious? The man has done everything he possibly can to deny anyone in Qitmo a trial, let alone a timely one

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Let's not forget 'last throes', that was one of Cheney's too.

[there buster]

I was going to answer your post. But it's clear your position is rooted in the reality of 50 years ago, and not in the low-intensity, non-state conflicts world in which Hizbollah, funded and armed by Teheran, inflicts terror on soft targets (you know, ordinary folks at a restaurant) without regard to international borders or international law.

You also either fail to remember, or simply do not know, that the Iranian invasion of the American Embassy in 1979 is an act of war in the international law you have so much affection for.

There is never any evidence for those who ignore evidence, There wasn't in 1941, and there never will be.

[Dr. Shane]

I will not discount everything a man says because of one comment that was wrong. Cheney isn't the only one concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. The greatest concern isn't that they will want them to defend themselves. It is that they will provide terrorists with them. That is the reality that needs to be discussed. There simply is no parallel with France, Israel, the USSR or South Africa. Those countries have not been in the business of supporting terrorists.

[bevin]

Unfortunately Cheney and the neo-con's view of reality is rooted in the incorrect beliefs that they can use military force to dominate any country which threatens the USA's financial well-being.

They have not faced up to the fundamental realities of the next 50 years

• There is no reason at all why the USA should have a better standard of living than other countries. There is NOTHING currently being made in the USA that can not be made elsewhere, and hence the USA is going to be just another country.
• The ability of the USA to bribe other regimes with $$$, trade, or other perks is plummeting rapidly.
• The cost of weaponry is plummeting, and will plummet further, to the point that any country with a million people will be able to afford nuclear weapons, biological weapons, smart weapons. It is already possible for NH USA high-school students to build a drone that can fly the Atlantic and deliver 2 lbs of explosive through any window in any almost any building in London.
• Government's, such as Bush's, which go around running rough-shod over the opinions of other countries can not expect those countries to ignore their own self-interest.

Mr Bush's and Mr Cheney's fundamental flaw is that they do not use carrots, only sticks. They believe that using big sticks is the way to go, and they are discovering

(a) their stick ain't big enough

( other people have sticks - and the sticks are getting bigger

© third parties get very scared when they wave it - and the third parties prepare to defend themselves for when it is waved their way

Bush/Cheney/... have done the most successful job of CAUSING nuclear proliferation of ANY government.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

There simply is no parallel with France, Israel, the USSR or South Africa. Those countries have not been in the business of supporting terrorists.

Tell that to the various countries that have been on the receiving end of what these countries have done.

Tell it to the people who died when French secret agents blew up a peaceful ship in Auckland Habor in NZ - the Rainbow Warrior.

Tell it to the many people widowed by the Israelis blowing up the King David Hotel, or by those people in Gaza killed by cars blown up by missiles.

Tell it to the victims of the USSR's actions during the Cold War, when they supplied many guerrilla groups around the world.

Tell it to the many victims of apartheid in South Africa.

Of course these countries, along with the USA, have supported actions which come under the category of "terror".

/Bevin

[Gerr]

1938. Neville Chamberlain. Remember?

Gerry

[there buster]

You're quoting bevin, not me.

[Gerr]

Yes, that quote was from Bevin. I don't know why it registered as yours.

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

The US has become a wealthy nation because of our application of capitalism. Hong Kong is another fine example of this. It has nothing to do with unique goods and services produced here or else where.

Other nations with economies growing and prospering will not hurt the US. Global trade is a win-win policy. The US does not have to have a lower standard of living in order to be equal with the rest of the world. The economies in other countries can become as strong as that in the US so that their standard of living becomes what it is in the US.

The US doesn't have a high standard of living because other nations do not. In fact, products produced in other nations and sold to Americans, like TVs, computers, cars, textiles, etc. actually benefit those countries producing such goods and help build their economies stronger. Mexico and China are both fine examples of that working.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Of course these countries, along with the USA, have supported actions which come under the category of "terror".

Most nations that have gone to war are guilty of terrorism as defined by our State Department. "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." However it is rogue terrorism that is most disturbing because it cannot be traced to a nation-state. That is the concern with Iran. Iran supports rogue terrorists. Ossama bin Laden could have safe harbor in Iran right now for all we know.

The entire discussion of Iran's nuclear ambitions must include their sponsorship of rogue terrorist organizations. If they were to develop a nuclear bomb and give it to terrorists it could go off in Tel Aviv and not be traceable to Iran.

[bevin]

We have also sponsored rogue terrorist organisations - heck, we even supported one of them invading Cuba. Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs?

But the real issue is this - given that we don't like some of the things Iran is doing, what is the most effective way of getting them to stop doing them?

Threatening them is NOT the answer.

Trying to force them to stop doing something that we are doing is NOT the answer.

/Bevin

[Woody]

In Revelation it says to destroy those who destroy the earth. I think the terrorists are destroying all innocent parts of the earth including US. So ... would this not be a Biblical injunction we should follow?

[Dr. Shane]

US support for the Bay of Pigs was not unusual or secretive. The term "rogue" does not apply. The closest example would be the Iran-Contra affair but even that the secret was trying to be kept from Congress not the world. The US was very open about its opposition to the Sandanista government.

However even if the US had done something like supporting rogue terrorists, two wrongs don't make a right. That is really faulty logic. To say we shouldn't stop Iran from being able to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, so they can blow up Israel without tracing back to Iran, because somewhere, sometime another nation has done something just as bad, is very poor logic.

That would be like saying if a person used drugs when they were younger, they shouldn't try to stop their children from using drugs.

[Neil D]

My oh my oh my...........

I put this up last night and already we have 3 pages to read thru....

Did we all wake up on the wrong side of the bed, gentlemen? Or did WW3 just erupt?

I think we all agree that there is something wrong in the MIDDLE EAST....the question is how to fix it, wouldn't you all agree to that???

And what is the best way to fix something that is currently not working..? Ed, do you think that the status quo is working? Bravus? Shane?

Well, guys, even if you don't agree in minute detail, **I** at least think that it ain't working...and am open to how to fix it....

[Dr. Shane]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Bravus would agree there is a problem. He seems to believe that Iran is only developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Again correct me if I am wrong.

Nor does it seem Bevin thinks there is a problem. He seems to be of the opinion that eventually every nation will have nuclear technology and to give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups is fair play according to the world's history book. Again correct me if I am wrong.

So what isn't working? UN efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?