Free Republic

There's another major omission in Hans' statement: IIRC, the US and EU are only asking Iran to agree to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment before formal negotiations can begin. That is a minor concession that Iran should be willing to make if the Iranians are really interested in a diplomatic solution to this crisis. We're not demanding that Iran permanently stop uranium enrichment before talks can begin. All we're asking is that they stop working on building nuclear bombs while we negotiate a solution to this crisis. Blix is turning into a master of distortions.

Hans of course failed to mention one key element of the deal offered to Iran in June, 2006: Russia offered to enrich uranium for Iran and provide Iran with fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. With this offer, the only thing Iran didn't get was the ability to make nuclear weapons. (We cannot offer security guarantees to a country that fills up a soccer stadium every Friday with people chanting: "Death to America.") Then Iran rejected this offer and insisted on developing the ability to enrich uranium. This rejection implicitly says that Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons, and that is one reason why the US and the EU will not negotiate with Iran until they stop uranium enrichment. If we negotiate formally with them while they're still enriching uranium, then we would be signaling potential acceptance of their nuclear weapons program. That would be a very dangerous signal to send to Iran.

In conclusion, I have to say: Ignorance is Blix.

I'd like to know where they sampled the soil for that British research paper. Britain is highly developed and there isn't too much undeveloped land, so many of those samples may have been taken from farm land. If so, the loss of carbon content could be simply caused by less organic material in the topsoil because of years of farming. Scientific research is a very tricky business and you always have to check every step in the methodology.

Good point, and increasing CO2 concentrations could be both a cause and a result of warming (or only a cause or a result). A while ago, one guy posted that as the oceans warm up the dissolved CO2 in the oceans forms gas bubbles that rise out of the ocean into the atmosphere. This would only be happening to a slight extent because of the very slight warming of the oceans observed recently. It's just like the fizz bubbling out of your soft drink as it warms up in your glass.

What, you mean Algore is not being completely honest with the public? Say it ain't so, Joe.

I've worked on a couple of computer simulation models and if just one key assumption is incorrect in the model (e.g., out of 50 such assumptions), then the results can easily be thrown off by 50-100%. I'm surprised by the level of certainty that some outstanding scientists express in their testimony to congress. I'd say that some of them are exagerrating the level of certainty in this research in an effort to scare the world into action. I would rather see them say that there's a lot of uncertainty in this research, but at the same time the potential consequences of global warming are also very severe. That's a more honest approach that should get more support from the public.

But covert ops are certainly possible at any time: we might see something like a car full of Iranian nuclear technicians driving off a bridge.

"The pace of military planning in Israel, which has markedly accelerated since the start of the year, is being driven by Mossad's stark intelligence assessment that Iran, given the rate of progress on uranium enrichment at Natanz, could have enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead by 2009."

I doubt that anything exciting will happen until the second half of this year at the earliest. We might see a brief naval skirmish in the Persian gulf but that's all I can imagine until the end of this year or 2008.

I hope there is a diplomatic solution, but nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran cannot be part of that solution. I wouldn't overestimate Iran's ability to disrupt shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. They tried to disrupt shipping back in the 80s and the US Navy stopped that activity very quickly and decisively. I doubt that Iran could disrupt shipping for more than a few weeks. There's no way we will have an extended war with Iran, because we already have two extended wars going on now. But if Iran insists on building a nuclear arsenal, that could lead to airstrikes and quick raids by ground forces, followed by a short Naval battle to keep the Straits of Hormuz open.

Personally I think NATO is in Afghanistan more because of Iran than because of Al Qaeda. We could have destroyed Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan and then left rather than NATO staying there. I think we stayed there to use Afghanistan as a base for quick raids against Iran over the next 20-50 years if that kind of action becomes necessary.

Most likely this story is based on opposition in the Pentagon to a full-scale invasion of Iran, which is not going to happen anyway. Nobody is going to resign if we have to launch airstrikes and limited raids with ground troops.

You're right...those quotes and threats of resignations are most likely from imaginary unnamed sources. But I'm sure the Pentagon is opposed to a full-scale invasion and regime change, although Bush has no intention of doing a full-scale invasion anyway.

This article about US generals resigning looks like left-wing BS or disinformation. It's probably based loosely on opposition in the Pentagon to a full-scale invasion of Iran. But we're not going to do a full-scale invasion and regime change--not now and probably not ever. Serious change in the Iranian government will have to originate from within Iran. We would only do airstrikes and quick raids by limited ground forces if absolutely necessary. The reported quote from the generals that we "don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion" is totally false and laughable. On a military level, Iran is no match for US capabilities and all the generals know this. IIRC, Sarah Baxter is a big left-winger who has written a lot of anti-American articles that criticize the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam's regime.

Our military generals understand the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran better than the vast majority of Americans or Britons. Our generals know that we are much better off dealing with Iran now than dealing with Iranian nuclear weapons later.

That article about US generals resigning looks like left-wing BS or disinformation. It's probably based loosely on opposition in the Pentagon to a full-scale invasion of Iran. But we're not going to do a full-scale invasion and regime change--not now and probably not ever. Serious change in the Iranian government will have to originate from within Iran. We would only do airstrikes and quick raids by limited ground forces if absolutely necessary. The reported quote from the generals that we "don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion" is totally false and laughable. On a military level, Iran is no match for US capabilities and all the generals know this. IIRC, Sarah Baxter is a big left-winger who has written a lot of anti-American articles that criticize the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam's regime.

Our military generals understand the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran better than the vast majority of Americans or Britons. Our generals know that we are much better off dealing with Iran now than dealing with Iranian nuclear weapons later.

Lafontaine is wrong about this, of course. If the US was just trying to control oil resources, then we would have made a deal with Saddam to buy Iraqi oil and keep his oil production up by selling him oil equipment and services. There would have been no reason for an invasion of Iraq. We invaded Iraq to permanently shut down Saddam's WMD programs and start the democratization of Iraq.

Ping to post 71.

Ping to post 71.

Latest statement from our tough cop:

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday that a nuclear-armed Iran could be very dangerous - and the U.S. needs to do everything it can to prevent it happening.

He also reiterated that all options for dealing with Iran remained on the table - a phrase President George W. Bush repeatedly has invoked when asked about the possibility of using force against Iran.

In an interview with ABC News in Sydney, Cheney said: "A nuclear-armed Iran ...clearly could do significant damage. And so I think we need to continue to do everything we can to make certain they don't achieve that objective."

Cheney said that the U.S. hopes to be able to solve the problem diplomatically. "The president has indicated he wants to do everything he can to resolve it diplomatically. That's why we've been working with the E.U. and going through the United Nations with sanctions."

The U.S. and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, are meeting in London Monday to discuss a new sanctions resolution to put before the U.N. Security Council. This follows the issuance Thursday of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency report saying that said Iran has ignored a Security Council resolution to freeze uranium enrichment, a possible step toward nuclear weapons. Cheney also underscored that options other than diplomacy existed. "The president has also made it clear that we haven't taken any options off the table," Cheney said.

Asked in an interview with The Weekend Australian about the position of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has said that the only thing worse than a confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran - Cheney said: "I would guess that John McCain and I are pretty close to agreement."

(END) Dow Jones Newswires February 23, 2007 12:40 ET (17:40 GMT)

The good news is that the established liberal press is rapidly becoming irrelevant as Americans increasingly rely on the internet as their source of news. The public knows the msm has a heavy left-wing bias and the results of elections and opinion polls depend on the hard, indisputable facts in the news and not on what msm kids have to say. That's why Bush is not as politically weak as most people think--he just needs to bring the casualties and level of violence down in Iraq and keep the economy rolling ahead with low inflation. My sense is that while Bush's approval ratings are fairly low, the itensity of disapproval is also low except among the far left-wing moonbats. Some good news from Iraq and a continued strong economy could quickly shift his approval numbers back upwards. But there's a limit to how high approval polls can go in the final two years of a second term.

Nonetheless, our decisions about how to deal with Iran will be based on long-term geopolitcal strategy and will not be driven by opinion polls.

I do think also that it may be time for MI5 to check on whether Sir Richard has been making any phone calls to Switzerland lately.

Actually Sir Richard makes a valid point here. Before using military force we must be sure that Iran is already working seriously on nuclear weapons. Otherwise the use of force could push them to start developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent to future attacks. But when you take a long look at the statements made by Bush & Blair and notice just how seriously the major powers in the world are taking this Iranian nuclear issue (leading to the first UNSC sanctions), then you have to conclude that the major powers are certain that Iran already has a serious nuclear weaopns program in place.

As usual, in their endless small-minded liberal consistency, the BBC fails to mention all the evidence that Iran already has a serious nuclear weapons program.

If you think that a return to the peak real estate prices of 2004-2005 could take fifteen years, I think that's entirely possible. We may see prices stabilize and go nowhere for 5-10 years, considering how much home prices rose between 1995 and 2005. But I doubt that this will create an economic train wreck. It could end up being a long phase of slow growth in the home building industry, but that industry is only a small part of the US economy. (I'm skeptical of these people who say things like 20% of jobs in America are in the home building industry. I think they're adding in commerical construction and all construction material suppliers with residential construction.) We are fortunate to have a huge and highly diversified economy and when one economic sector gets weak, two other sectors strengthen to offset that weakness.

One of the strongest areas in our economy right now is networking equipment and services, which is seeing major growth because of rapidly increasing use of digital video, as you demonstated by linking to Youtube. This is only the beginning too and serious thinkers like Bill Gates are already predicting the end of conventional television and its replacement with digital video delivered over the internet. I suspect that President Bush is about to benefit politically from the same internet boom that helped Clinton keep the economy rolling.