Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 491011121314
Results 261 to 277 of 277
  1. #261  
    I read your first links... I don't have time to read all the other links you posted.... sorry... not enough time in my day to do all that reading. Quick glance and I did not see anything that was all that new though....

    I'm fairly well read on this subject though.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Just so I know where you stand, can you answer these questions:
    Do you feel it is safe for or have any concerns with Iran having a nuclear program that could be abused to be used for making nuke warheads?
    That is a loaded question. Asked in another loaded way: Do you want Iran to have nuclear capabilities so they can feed their women and children when the oil runs out?

    Iran is a sovereign entity. Last I looked, I don't have a right to tell Iran what they can or cannot have.

    Maybe Iran should come over and tell us we can't have SUVs anymore. Our SUVs are a threat to the world climate.

    How about the fact that the US recently refused to stop using cluster bombs, even though 100 countries banned their use. How about if those 100 countries demanded we destroy our stockpiles or they would come in and destroy them for us? Further they state that since we did not join in the talks that they would send inspectors to all our bases and anyplace else they wanted to visit.

    You would be the first person reaching for a gun.... I'd dust off my AK.

    If you do not have any concerns and feel that the Germany, Russia, US, France, Belgium, Spain, and the UN are wrong about their concerns with Iran, given their last 20 year history of lies, and promises to share the technology with rogue nations, and refusing to abide by the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which is required of all nuclear power nations....why do think they are all wrong?
    I think you are looking at a complex situation and wanting a simple answer.

    At any rate, if I were Iran and saw what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq, I'd want some nuclear weapons as well. Or if Israel kept bombing my sites, I'd want some extra protection.

    Israel can have nukes... Pakistan can have nukes... India can have nukes... Heck, I'd want nukes as well.


    I say give Iran enough rope to hang themselves.... then be swift, relentless, and without mercy in your action once a bomb is made... if you believe it is in your duty to do so.

    We will know if they produce a bomb anyway... eventually they have to test it. We have monitoring capabilities.
    Last edited by theog; 05/31/2008 at 12:31 AM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  2.    #262  
    As the IAEA's questions get more specific, the more Iran refuses to answer any international organization's concerns. The good news is that many conservatives from within the Iranian gov are starting to be able to publicly challenge Ahmadinejad and his draw a line in the sand approach to Europe, US, the UN, and the IAEA. Many of the conservatives do support many of the offers by the US and Russia.....Russia offers to enrich the uranium for Iran and give them the nuke fuel for nuke power for electricity....The US offered to give Iran their very own nuke reactor that can generate all of their electricity without the enrichment process.

    Iran Warns it May Limit Cooperation With U.N. Nuclear Watchdog IAEA


    Sunday, June 01, 2008

    TEHRAN, Iran — Iran warned Sunday it may limit cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, expressing disappointment over the agency's recent report that was critical of Tehran.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a report to the U.N. Security Council last week, suggested Iran was stonewalling investigators and possibly withholding information crucial to determining whether it conducted research on nuclear weapons.

    ------------

    There is growing opposition to Ahmadinejad from other conservatives such as Larijani and clerical leaders, partly over his confrontational approach in the nuclear standoff with the West.

    Iran is under growing pressure from the IAEA to explain what could be secret nuclear weapons work and it has become increasingly defensive on the issue.

    ------------------

    For years, Iran has shrugged off offers of economic and political rewards in exchange for an enrichment freeze. It has thumbed its nose both at U.N. Security Council demands that it do so, even after sanctions were imposed, and at veiled U.S. threats of a military action.

    Instead, it exploited international indecision and expanded and improved its enrichment capability.

    Diplomats said the tone of the IAEA report was unusually tough and reflected deep frustration at Iran's lack of cooperation.

    Briefing IAEA board members three days after the report's release, Olli Heinonen — the IAEA's deputy director general in charge of the agency's Iran file — said Iran's possession of nuclear warhead diagrams was "alarming."

    Iran remains defiant.

    -----------------------

    Starting last year, the IAEA began focusing on probing for evidence of activities that point more directly to a possible clandestine weapons program.

    Based on its own information and intelligence from the U.S. and other board members, it has asked — in vain — for substantive explanations for what seem to be draft plans to refit missiles with nuclear warheads; explosives tests that could be used for a nuclear detonation; military and civilian nuclear links and a drawing showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads.

    FULL ARTICLE
  3.    #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I read your first links... I don't have time to read all the other links you posted.... sorry... not enough time in my day to do all that reading. Quick glance and I did not see anything that was all that new though....
    This is a 25 year running topic...not new, just references to some of the points you seemed to be questioning, i.e. Iran's ties to terrorism, Iran's possibility of developing a nuke weapon program, the Iranian's people opinion vs the Gov opinion on the Nuke subject and Western Countries, not just a US thing that other nations are driving concerns with Iran, Iran is willing to share nuke technology to unstable govs, that Iran lied to the world for 20 years, etc...


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    That is a loaded question. Asked in another loaded way: Do you want Iran to have nuclear capabilities so they can feed their women and children when the oil runs out?
    Certainly I want Iran to have all the nuke power to feed Iranian men, women, and children today even before their oil runs out.......and so does the US, Russia, the UN, Germany, France, etc... That is why the US offered to give them their very own nuke reactor that will produce all the power needs they could need...and as many of these nuclear reactors as they wanted! Iran refused it, even though it met all of their claimed goals of getting the electricity they need to feed all of their men, women, and children, because it did not include an enrichment process to produce the nuke energy. This is the process that could be abuse for making nuke warheads. That was the only reason they refused it.

    This is also why Russia offered to do all of their enrichment for them and supply them with ALL of their nuke needs for as much nuke power as they wanted. Iran refused this as well for the exact same reason...because they were then required to return the enriched nuke fuel to Russia after they used it.

    It is important to understand that in no way is ANYONE in the world saying that Iran cannot have nuke power for electricity. The ONLY point in question is Iran's insistence that it does all of it's own enrichment. Again the very process that if carried two steps past enriching for electricity needs becomes potential nuke warhead quality. Iran has refused all offers to meet it's claimed needs with their cold water nuke reactors from the US to letting Iran continue with it's current plans for nuke electricity except by having Russia enrich the uranium for them.

    The question is NOT about a nuke program for Iran to produce electrocity...they have been offered this several times from multiple and independent sources. It is about Iran's demands that it enriches it's own uranium that can be very easily abused to produce multiple nuke warheads in a short order once in place.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Iran is a sovereign entity. Last I looked, I don't have a right to tell Iran what they can or cannot have.
    You and I don't but Iran is part of an international community. They have signed Treaties, which they have threatened to rip up several times since it came to light that they have been lying for the past 20 years.

    The IAEA is an international nuclear body that can confirm that they are done trying to make a nuke weapon, but Iran just confirmed again this weekend that after being presented with evidence of nuke warhead plans found in Iran that they are not going to or extremely limit their answers about any more questions about their nuke warheads ambitions. See the Associated Press article above.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Maybe Iran should come over and tell us we can't have SUVs anymore. Our SUVs are a threat to the world climate.
    I don't seem to see much documentation to support your point of view or any of the arguments you are presenting. Referring to the threat of the carbon footprint of an SUV is equal to a country trying to develop a nuke warhead with strong Terrorist ties that has stated that it will share this technology with unstable govs and threatening to rip up the NPT treaty seems to be stretching it quiiiiiiiiite a bit.

    Now if the US was willing to share our Nuke warhead technology with Sudan and threatened to ignore the NPT treaty and supported terrorist organizations like Hez....then yes you would be looking at an equal comparison. And yes, like I said in the last post, I would certainly expect the US to be held responsible for these actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    How about the fact that the US recently refused to stop using cluster bombs, even though 100 countries banned their use. How about if those 100 countries demanded we destroy our stockpiles or they would come in and destroy them for us? Further they state that since we did not join in the talks that they would send inspectors to all our bases and anyplace else they wanted to visit.
    Honestly, I am not up on the bans of the cluster bombs. Have they been outlawed internationally and we are using them against international law? Have we ignored any UN requests for us to stop using them or has the UN issued any unanimous resolutions or sanctions against us to stop using them? Are they against any treaty we are obligated to with our own signature?

    IF yes to any of these then YES, we would have to start answering to the international community that we made these agreements with.

    If this is the case, this is certainly worthy of it's own thread!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    You would be the first person reaching for a gun.... I'd dust off my AK.
    NO.....I have been straight from the very beginning of these threads 3 years ago and have remained consistent the whole time. I am NOT for a war against Iran. I believe the Iranian people are not for a war against any Western country. I know that there are growing political parties in the Iranian gov that do not support Iran's stance in refusing all of the solutions that have been offered by the US, Russia, and the UN to give them full nuke power for all the electricity they need. Many of the Iranian people and Iranian opposing political parties are against Iran's hard line tactics they are taking against Russia, the EU, US, and the UN. This is with the current political party in power in Iran.

    I have fully supported EVERY peaceful solution so far that has been offered by any country or international organization to meet Iran's needs without Iran doing the enrichment themselves.

    I have been following this over the last 5 years when Iran was first outed about lying to the world about their nuke program, because in spite of all the peaceful efforts, attempts to negotiate, numerous offers to supply Iran with all the nuke power they need for their immediate and future electricity needs......this could have a tiny spark on the wrong day and could result in our next war.

    With the statements from Germany, France, Belgium, US, Spain, etc... if Iran does pull a nuke warhead out of their pocket it WILL be our next war.

    But it is important to remember that there are still SOOO many peaceful opportunities for this. This has been the main topic of these threads......The peaceful attempts and offers and Iran's reaction to them. The best one I can see is that the current gov is elected out of office....if they don't ban any political party that has different views from their own from running again like they did last election that is. But there is a growing movement with increasing power in Iran that this might actually be a possibility. If this happens with the new conservative party in Iran then there is a strong hope that Iran will welcome one of the many solutions that has been offered to them for to give them all the nuke powered electricity they need and want.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I think you are looking at a complex situation and wanting a simple answer.
    Not at all. If you have read many of the discussions in these Iran threads, it is obvious this is a very serious and complicated issue with at least 13 nations involved, not including the UN. There are the issues of suppressed opposition internally in Iran about it's current stance. There is the Israel card, which is always easy to put into play in any situation like this. There is the UN politics with attempting overcome China and Russia opposition to increasing tougher sanctions due to their financial agreements with Iran. There is Iran's resistance to confirming that they are done lying with not coop with the IAEA. And how each one of these individually intertwines and effects all the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I say give Iran enough rope to hang themselves.... then be swift, relentless, and without mercy in your action once a bomb is made... if you believe it is in your duty to do so.

    We will know if they produce a bomb anyway... eventually they have to test it. We have monitoring capabilities.
    So is your solution to go ahead and let them develop a Nuclear Warhead Arsenal, and then deal with them????

    If this is correct, please share why this is the best course.

    If not, then please share how you feel we should handle the situation now so they do not get a Nuclear Weapon Arsenal.

    Any documentation for either view would be great.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/02/2008 at 03:12 PM.
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    That is why the US offered to give them their very own nuke reactor that will produce all the power needs they could need...
    That statement is the main reason why a discussion on this issue is pointless... I don't care what treaties you claim they have (treaties are a bit different in the convo - if a one-sided treaty or one in which one side is withdrawing, it is worthless, IMO) but if a country wants to produce their own power, who are we ("we" as a nation, not individual people - since you seemed confused by that last time) to stop them? Who are we to say, "We will build it for you."

    Heck, we can't even build nuclear power in our own country, but we are going to go halfway around the world and build one for someone else. Pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical.

    Bottom line is you seem to think it is ok to tell another country what they can and cannot do. I don't agree with that. You can wrap it up and justify it anyway you wish. We can read 1000 pages of political positioning and pandering, but that won't change my position.

    Now if we have credible evidence that country is involved in terrorism, or will use a bomb against us or an alley, then we deal with them with the swiftness....

    I don't seem to see much documentation to support your point of view or any of the arguments you are presenting.
    One was not needed... you missed the point I was making.


    So is your solution to go ahead and let them develop a Nuclear Warhead Arsenal, and then deal with them????
    It won't be a "nuclear warhead arsenal" (that is so OVER the top!). Fairly simple, as I've already stated, we have the monitoring capability... we were able to catch the testing in NK. Many seem to have missed that.

    If your argument is on nukes only, then it does not fly, IMO. Iraq was different, but I'd guess people already knew that...

    I'm sure Iran is jocking for positions as well... using this threat to their advantage. It is a game we have to play for right now. I've always agreed with b. clinton... hear some news that you don't like but need to take care of it, the heck with the talking, bomb them. If that is what you "think" you need to do.

    Send Israel... they seem to like doing stuff like that....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  5.    #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    That statement is the main reason why a discussion on this issue is pointless... I don't care what treaties you claim they have (treaties are a bit different in the convo - if a one-sided treaty or one in which one side is withdrawing, it is worthless, IMO) but if a country wants to produce their own power, who are we ("we" as a nation, not individual people - since you seemed confused by that last time) to stop them? Who are we to say, "We will build it for you."

    ----------

    Bottom line is you seem to think it is ok to tell another country what they can and cannot do. I don't agree with that. You can wrap it up and justify it anyway you wish. We can read 1000 pages of political positioning and pandering, but that won't change my position.
    Treaties that I claimed they have agreed to????? I am not trying to change your position just pointing out the facts that cannot be ignored at will. The fact is that Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). You say that no one has the right to inspect another country about their Nuclear ambitions simply because they are sovereign nation and can do whatever they want within their own borders. This sounds nice and warm and fuzzy, but it does not hold true with the world's international laws when it comes to countries and the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. When a country signs the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons THEY give permission at that time that at any time they are potentially in conflict with the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons then they will willingly allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect them to make sure they are not in violation of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A country cannot use nuclear power without signing the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. If they do not abide by it, they are going against the rest of the world.....which is why again so many other countries are so upset about this. Here is a summary of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the International Atomic Energy Agency:

    The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

    To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.

    Source from UN Website.
    Here are the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that deal directly with the Middle East and Nuclear agreement that Iran has already committed to:

    1/ S/23500.

    1. Endorses the aims and objectives of the Middle East peace process and recognizes that efforts in this regard, as well as other efforts, contribute to, inter alia, a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction;

    2. Notes with satisfaction that in its report Main Committee III of the Conference (NPT/CONF.1995/MC.III/1) recommended that the Conference "call on those remaining States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all their nuclear activities";

    3. Notes with concern the continued existence in the Middle East of unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, and reaffirms in this connection the recommendation contained in paragraph VI/3 of the report of Main Committee III urging those non-parties to the Treaty which operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities to accept full scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards;

    4. Reaffirms the importance of the early realization of universal adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and calls upons all States of the Middle East that have not yet done so, without exception, to accede to the Treaty as soon as possible and to place their nuclear facilities under full scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards;

    5. Calls upon all States in the Middle East to take practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress towards, inter alia, the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems, and to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of this objective;

    6. Calls upon all States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to extend their cooperation and to exert their utmost efforts with a view to ensuring the early establishment by regional parties of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

    Source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/resoluti.htm
    So the bottom line is Iran already gave their permission for the IAEA to monitor their nuke program....which they lied to the IAEA about for 20 years. They already gave their consent that they would not have any ambitions to pursue nuke weapons....which after 20 years of being lied to the IAEA is trying to confirm. So when the IAEA discovered, according to intelligence gathered by 10 different countries , draft plans to refit missiles with nuclear warheads; explosives tests that could be used for a nuclear detonation; military and civilian nuclear links and a drawing showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads....the IAEA simply followed the steps that Iran had already agreed to follow in this very scenario.

    What gets me is that Iran started out working with the IAEA (with many stalls, kicking them out and letting them back in cycles) to ensure that all the NPT directed safeguards are in place. In fact the IAEA even reported this very positive progress on Iran's part to the UN like 18 months ago.

    But then when the the IAEA started the next phase of confirming the weaponization of the nuke materials, that is when Iran really started digging in their heals and refusing to cooperate. I think this is what has alarmed so many in the international community. Then when the IAEA made their latest report of evidence of nuclear weaponization plans found in Iran, Iran really started to get defensive....almost like a gut reaction when caught with your hand in the cookie jar.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Heck, we can't even build nuclear power in our own country, but we are going to go halfway around the world and build one for someone else. Pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical.
    If you want more nuke power her in the US talk to the politicians who block it, not our capabilities of doing it. But as far as Iran......Then that is when Russia comes in. They say Iran builds everything, and that they will help Iran comply with all aspects of the NPT to ensure no one has any concerns.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Now if we have credible evidence that country is involved in terrorism, or will use a bomb against us or an alley, then we deal with them with the swiftness....
    So you still do not think Iran backs Hezbollah? Here are a few sources to show the connections.....

    From the Irian Press Service

    With one day before the United Nations Security Council meeting on Iran’s nuclear issue, and as the Lebanese Army has started confiscating arms destined to the Iran-backed Hezbollah organization

    ------------

    According to informed sources, Iran has spent more tan four billion US Dollars in arms, equipments and training to make Hezbollah a strong “deterrent force” against Israel, in case the Jewish State attacks Iranian nuclear facilities.

    http://www.iran-press-service.com/ip...ah_31806.shtml
    From the New Yorker:

    Hezbollah has an annual budget of more than a hundred million dollars, which is supplied by the Iranian government directly and by a complex system of finance cells scattered around the world....Hezbollah continues to increase its terrorist and guerrilla capabilities.

    Source

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    It won't be a "nuclear warhead arsenal" (that is so OVER the top!). Fairly simple, as I've already stated, we have the monitoring capability... we were able to catch the testing in NK. Many seem to have missed that.

    If your argument is on nukes only, then it does not fly, IMO.
    Given the stated goals of the nuke infrastructure that Iran has publicly announce, it is not over the top. Do you know how many centrifuges Iran has running now and how many they plan on installing? Right now 3,000 running with parts for 5,000. But there are new reports coming out as late as today that Iran will actually have over 6,000 centrifuges installed by Sept of this year. This is not counting any that they are planning that they have not been publicly announced. It is currently estimated with their current centrifuges in place that Iran will be able to have enough finely refined enriched uranium to produce a nuke warhead in about 18 months. But if they install all of the 6,000 centrifuges you can cut that time by half. But once that happens, if only the publicly announce ones are running and they are past the finely enrichment learning stage and into full production phase, it is only a matter of few months (8-12 months) to produce enough finely enriched uranium for multiple warheads, hence arsenal.

    I think your example of NK is a perfect example......We sure did catch NK only after the plan secured under Bill Clinton failed by only giving NK the time and financial support for NK to continue their nuke program in secret. Now they are intelligence estimates that they may have up to 10 nuke warheads (arsenal) with a deployment system that could reach anywhere on the western coast of the US and at the extreme as far as Chicago.

    You say that we should just wait until Iran conducts a successful Nuke Test and then act....so does it concern you that NK is already helping Iran do that and that an Iran nuke team were reportedly present when NK conducted their successful nuke test?


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Send Israel... they seem to like doing stuff like that....
    This is a very plausible scenario. We may not even have to send them. Iran just reiterated that they Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the map yet again this last weekend. If Israel feels that they Iran is even potentially close to a nuke weapon, I have little doubt that they will strike first. But this is as a good as the US / England striking because as soon as Iran attempts to retaliate, you can place any wager you want that they will both be there to defend Israel.






    So it seems in answer to my last two questions of my last post, you feel it better to deal with Iran AFTER it has a nuke warhead (once a successful test is conducted it is already too late, they are set) and ignore the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Okay. I accept that as your opinion, though in my opinion very misguided. So then the question would follow, should the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) be abolished from the world or enforced? Or are you for enforcing it selectively?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/04/2008 at 07:05 PM.
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post


    This is a very plausible scenario. We may not even have to send them. Iran just reiterated that they Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the map yet again this last weekend. If Israel feels that they Iran is even potentially close to a nuke weapon, I have little doubt that they will strike first. But this is as a good as the US / England striking because as soon as Iran attempts to retaliate, you can place any wager you want that they will both be there to defend Israel.
    I just read that... he is serious. Although, I've not read the exact meaning of what he said... there have been cases where what the media reported was NOT exactly what he meant, although, he did say it. If I say, "Hey, Hobbes, you are sick." That can be taken so many different ways. Not to mention if translated to Iranian... into a culture that might not understand that I just called you a "cool person."




    So it seems in answer to my last two questions of my last post, you feel it better to deal with Iran AFTER it has a nuke warhead (once a successful test is conducted it is already too late, they are set) and ignore the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
    Correct... Far as the NPT, I think something new is needed to deal specifically with Iran.

    Okay. I accept that as your opinion, though in my opinion very misguided. So then the question would follow, should the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) be abolished from the world or enforced? Or are you for enforcing it selectively?
    That enrages me! How dare you call me misguided!

    NPT sounds like BS to me... countries can withdraw, or not even be a member... even countries that withdraw we do not allow to have nuclear weapons. Then the NPT has room for disagreement... no country want people riding around their lands after what happend to Iraq... lol... heck with that.

    So yes, I guess I am saying go to the table, talk to these guys, draw up something we can all live with. If they break that, leave no room for misunderstanding that severe punishment will follow. If iran wants nukes, they will build them, sooner or later. Period.

    I'm the type of person to lay down the rules and act once the rules are broken. Not a lot of talking or explaining.... talking and explaining should be left before the rules are broken, not after (talking and explaining before the rules are signed by both parties). And begging someone NOT to do something is a waste of time IMO.

    Iran is "acting out" also jocking for political position in some form or fashion. That is my other problem.... like NK many years ago and recently, these countries do these things for money or what have you. Like a child who figured out if they holler and roll on the ground at walmart, they get what they want.

    And of course, we "need" an enemy... Iran fits the bill just as well as any other country.
    Last edited by theog; 06/03/2008 at 02:53 AM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7.    #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    That enrages me! How dare you call me misguided!
    No worries...Rest assured that, as with many who have come before you, I can gently guide you through the errors of your ways!

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I just read that... he is serious. Although, I've not read the exact meaning of what he said... there have been cases where what the media reported was NOT exactly what he meant, although, he did say it. If I say, "Hey, Hobbes, you are sick." That can be taken so many different ways. Not to mention if translated to Iranian... into a culture that might not understand that I just called you a "cool person."
    He has stated this threat to Israel at least 3 separate occasions that I know about. Each one either literally word for word or in meaning were "Israel must be wiped off the face of the map". One of the times he actually insinuated that he was the one that was suppose to be the champion to bring it about. One time can be misunderstood, but after at least 3 times in addition with multiple other occasions leading chants at national conventions like "Kill America!" and "Death to Israel", the meaning becomes a little more focused and undeniable.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    NPT sounds like BS to me... countries can withdraw, or not even be a member... even countries that withdraw we do not allow to have nuclear weapons. Then the NPT has room for disagreement... no country want people riding around their lands after what happend to Iraq... lol... heck with that.

    So yes, I guess I am saying go to the table, talk to these guys, draw up something we can all live with. If they break that, leave no room for misunderstanding that severe punishment will follow.
    I do not necessarily disagree with you as far as that a line must be drawn. This has been the explicitly expressed or implied view of France, US, England, Germany, Belgium, etc... You see, I think that you totally miss that is what the NPT is all about. It is the common ground that all nations stand on. A starting point that all nations with interest in nuclear technology have agreed upon and have committed to. Even though started decades ago it has actually grown and been updated fairly nicely with the advancement of technology and ever changing conditions around the world. It is, in short, the first line not to be crossed. The NPT and the IAEA are there as an international nuclear governing body to help prevent nuclear abuse and wars starting from from the get go with such cases of abuse....which as you can imagine when talking about nuke weapons could get pretty serious very fast. When NPT line is crossed, the IAEA steps in to hopefully define the realities of the situation. When that fails or if they find NPT offenses, then it is taken case by case before the UN (or sometimes taken into the hands of neighboring countries) to see how to proceed. Which is what is happening now. This includes, but not limited to sanctions (which the UN has issued several already) and resolutions that can include the undeniable statements that if you do this or don't do that then force will be used when triggered by a date of noncompliance and/or action on behalf of Iran....which is what you were talking about.....but again it ALL starts with the common ground of the NPT and the IAEA. That is basically what the UN guys said this weekend, that Iran is VERY close to crossing the "Red Line" with their plan to install 6,000 centrifuges, hinting that some of these next stages may start to be presented for consideration.

    The problem with your scenario is that Iran will never agree to any conditions that deals with uranium enrichment. Period. There is no talking about it. That is EXACTLY what Germany, France, Belgium, and England tried to do for TWO YEARS was to talk with Iran to reach an agreement that everyone can live with. Iran stonewalled and refused to listen to any opinion or reason but their own. This has happened and is continuing to be attempted now for 4 1/2 years with absolutely ZERO results..except that Iran has now grown their nuke enrichment from 432 centrifuges to 6,000 (that we know about). Even when they say they are ready for "serious negotiations" as they call it, they have stated that the point of enriching uranium is totally nonnegotiable and that they will not talk about it under any circumstances. That only leaves UN sanctions, UN resolutions, or a collation of nations. With the UN, you have China and Russia (2 of the 5 with veto rights in the UN) with a strong conflict of interest in Iran not being attacked because of their deep and extensive financial deals and interest with Iran....which makes it VERY hard for the UN to draw the line with defined rules or else resolution.

    Of course all of this is simply left on the table as possibilities open to use while hopefully stronger sanctions are applied (again if China and Russia would stop hindering stronger sanctions due to their financial interest in Iran not being hit too hard by sanctions), internal pressure starts taking it's toll, and more pressure from more countries continues to grow against Iran, both politically and economically.....all of which may still lead to a peaceful solution...but I am not holding my breath.






    I am always open to new ideas......So with all of the points mentioned above in mind...You don't seem to approve of any solutions where the US or Russia helps to do the enrichment (THE point of controversy)....how do you propose to draw the line to stop Iran from enriching uranium to the point of nuke warhead quality by laying down the rules / consequences for all to understand without the NPT standard and with Iran standing firm with a 5 year documented history with not being open to negotiate or even willing to talk? With the UN? (which China and Russia would make all but impossible) With public declarations that a collation of nations agrees with in spite of Iran's assured non-agreement?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/03/2008 at 12:49 PM.
  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    No worries...Rest assured that, as with many who have come before you, I can gently guide you through the errors of your ways!

    He has stated this threat to Israel at least 3 separate occasions that I know about. Each one either literally word for word or in meaning were "Israel must be wiped off the face of the map". One of the times he actually insinuated that he was the one that was suppose to be the champion to bring it about. One time can be misunderstood, but after at least 3 times in addition with multiple other occasions leading chants at national conventions like "Kill America!" and "Death to Israel", the meaning becomes a little more focused and undeniable.



    I do not necessarily disagree with you as far as that a line must be drawn. This has been the explicitly expressed or implied view of France, US, England, Germany, Belgium, etc... You see, I think that you totally miss that is what the NPT is all about. It is the common ground that all nations stand on.
    I understand the NPT... or rather how (almost) worthless it is. The United States is the only nuclear power that continues to deploy nuclear weapons outside its own territory... in direct violation of the NPT... although, many would argue it does not.

    Funny enough, all the countries you mentioned are countries that already have nukes...

    And, as I've already fully explained, the NPT is NOT a common ground that ALL nations stand on.... that is 100% incorrect.




    The problem with your scenario is that Iran will never agree to any conditions that deals with uranium enrichment. Period.
    You don't know that.

    Plus, the condition could be if you build or test a nuclear weapon we will destroy you. But said nicely.



    Iran stonewalled and refused to listen to any opinion or reason but their own. This has happened and is continuing to be attempted now for 4 1/2 years with absolutely ZERO results..
    Was that before or after the international community sat back and did nothing while Israel attacked iran... Get real...

    Israel can attack... and you don't expect iran to want to protect itself? Protect their people? Be mad at Israel? Alright....


    I am always open to new ideas......So with all of the points mentioned above in mind...You don't seem to approve of any solutions where the US or Russia helps to do the enrichment (THE point of controversy)....how do you propose to draw the line to stop Iran from enriching uranium to the point of nuke warhead quality by laying down the rules / consequences for all to understand without the NPT standard and with Iran standing firm with a 5 year documented history with not being open to negotiate or even willing to talk? With the UN? (which China and Russia would make all but impossible) With public declarations that a collation of nations agrees with in spite of Iran's assured non-agreement?
    Your argument is lopsided.

    There is no debate here... we don't agree....

    There is nothing else to discuss.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  9.    #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Funny enough, all the countries you mentioned are countries that already have nukes...
    I always seem to find the facts you base your arguments on very interesting, to the best of the world's knowledge there are only 9 countries with nukes....Spain, Belgium, and Germany are among the countries your referenced that I mentioned, do NOT have nukes...the last two being two out of the three leading forces in the negotiations directly with Iran for 2 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    And, as I've already fully explained, the NPT is NOT a common ground that ALL nations stand on.... that is 100% incorrect.
    I do concede that technically you are correct. There are currently 187 countries in the world today that hold the NPT as common ground. There are approximately 192 countries in the world. That does leave 5 countries in the world that do not consider the NPT as common ground when nuclear technology is concerned.....so yes I was not correct in stating NPT was accepted as the common ground for nuclear technology by all the countries, as I should have stated that 97.5% of the countries in the world consider the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to be the accepted standard that countries seeking nuclear technology should honor and abide by. I do apologize for my exaggeration of the facts.

    Actually I am glad you pointed out my error because out of those 5 countries that are not members of the NPT are several perfect examples of the Dual-use technology method of obtaining a nuke arsenal that have a very familiar ring with the current situation with Iran:

    India: The first nation to conduct a successful nuclear test after the initiation of the NPT. The first test (in 1974) developed after the creation of the NPT, and created new questions among many nations, the UN, IAEA about how civilian nuclear technology could be diverted secretly to weapons purposes (aka....dual-use technology). India had a secret nuke program for several decades that resulted in being too late to react because by the time the world realized what they had...they already had the nuke.

    Pakistan: Pakistan covertly developed nuclear weapons over many decades, beginning in the late 1970s. Pakistan first delved into nuclear power after the establishment of its first nuclear power plant near Karachi with equipment and materials supplied mainly by western nations in the early 1970s (aka....dual-use technology). Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto promised in 1965 that if India built nuclear weapons Pakistan would too. It is nearly certain that China supplied an old Chinese weapons design and critical ring magnets to Pakistan in the early 1980s, and enabled Pakistan to have a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability by the end of the 1980s. Sounds very similar to the NK and the Iran relationship now.

    North Korea: North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but announced a withdrawal on January 10, 2003 after the United States accused it of having a secret uranium enrichment program and cut off energy assistance under the 1994 Agreed Framework, that Bill Clinton signed giving them time and aid which they used to build their capabilities to enrich uranium (aka....dual-use technology)....which is potentially what Iran wants to do.

    Israel: Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. But it is commonly believed that they do possess nuclear weapons.
    It is this fear of repeating history for a 5th time within only the last 34 years with Iran using the Dual-use technology method to gain a nuke arsenal that is driving all the concerns raised by so many countries around the world, with the IAEA, and the United Nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Like to see the look on your (or my face) if bush says he is going to let Russians, Syrians, Iranians, and Saudis free access to the USA -- to include our military bases -- to inspect our nukes (power plants, weapons, etc), and other infrastructure.
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Like to see the look on your (or my face) if bush says he is going to let Russians, Syrians, Iranians, and Saudis free access to the USA -- to include our military bases -- to inspect our nukes (power plants, weapons, etc), and other infrastructure.
    These are a couple quotes from a couple posts back, that I kept on forgetting include my whole answer to it.....To answer this argument that Iran should not be inspected concerning their nuke program because the US would not allow the same thing done to herself.........this has already happened in the USA. The USA is one of the most transparent nuclear weapons states. Though many of the results are top secret and not public knowledge, while signing numerous treaties with Russia, the US willingly subjected our nuclear forces to independent inspection verification, i.e. 3rd party organization allowed on our soil to verify our nuclear program capacity and intentions. That is why the nuke arsenal for the US and Russia are the only ones with the best confirmed-ish, though not official, totals...that is at least until Russia broke up.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    You don't know that.
    Again, technically you are absolutely correct. I fully acknowledge that I was making nothing more than a personal judgement call based on 5 years of documented efforts from 13 different countries plus the IAEA plus the UN trying to talk with Iran about stopping their uranium enrichment program with Iran calling off every single negotiation without exception (at least 11 times that I know of) when it came to stopping enriching uranium and refusing to even talk about it any further.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Plus, the condition could be if you build or test a nuclear weapon we will destroy you. But said nicely.
    I totally agree with you about the nicely said "we will destroy you if you test a nuclear weapon" statement with the hope that this would be motivation for peaceful negotiations. It is something that I feel has to be left on the table and stated clearly. In fact this is not a new step to take as it has already been stated very frankly by the US, England, Germany, and most directly & forcefully by France (who is also a proud member of the Nuke Club). So far, it has done absolutely nothing with Iran except have them double their uranium enrichment program to move them with 18 months or less of having the capabilities of producing a bomb.

    The problem with the wait until they test a nuke until you do anything approach is then you have to deal with a country that has nuclear weapons. As shown above, there is already a repeated historical precedence that this does not work as this has already been tried 4 times in the last 34 years...and failed each time. Each time resulted in the illegal nation getting their nukes. Why will it work the 5th time around, this time with Iran?


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Was that before or after the international community sat back and did nothing while Israel attacked Iran... Get real...

    Israel can attack... and you don't expect Iran to want to protect itself? Protect their people? Be mad at Israel? Alright....
    Yes, every country has a right to defend itself. But having nuke weapons is NOT a right that is easily given in the international community to countries like Iran that support terrorist organizations, that has issued public statements that they will share their nuke technology with countries like Sudan who support slaughter of innocent civilians in Dafur, and who has already lied to the world for the past 25 years about the nuclear ambitions.

    At the moment it is Iran that is chanting "Death to Israel" and repeatedly claiming that Israel MUST be "wiped off the face of the map" multiple times while having insinuated that Iran is the country to do that....all the while expanding their uranium enrichment program that can be used to create a nuke warhead that could execute these very threats very effectively within 18 months or less.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Your argument is lopsided.

    There is no debate here... we don't agree....

    There is nothing else to discuss.
    I haven't done much more than state the facts when you raised questions or made statements of perception or fact. I have no problem that we do not agree...that just makes for a more interesting and fun debate....that when done in a nicely civil manner as it has been here, it usually brings out more information and facts to the table to ponder. And that is always a good thing.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/07/2008 at 03:13 PM.
  10.    #270  
    Wow.....over the last 3 years that we have been talking about Iran, we have tossed around the scenario of Israel making the first move and attacking Iran nuke facilities. Well this week our what if's are actually being laid on the table! Pretty scary stuff really.

    Ahmadinejad started last month with his statement during Israel's 60th anniversary saying that Israel is a stinking corpse on its way to annihilation.
    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the state of Israel is a "stinking corpse" that is destined to disappear, the French news agency AFP reported.

    "Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as having said.

    "Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

    Ahmadinejad further stated that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - referring to the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

    Source
    Then the first week in June started week long of Iran issuing multiple threats against Israel and the US all started when Ahmadinejad resurrected his threats that Israel must be wiped off the map on Monday by saying:

    "You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene," he said.

    Turning to the United States, Ahmadinejad said the era of decline and destruction of its "satanic power" had begun.
    Source
    Then if anyone thought there might have been a chance of misunderstanding what he really meant, Ahmadinejad restated the same threat the next day in Rome say one way or the other, with or without Iran, Israel was doomed to go:

    On Monday, Ahmadinejad said in Tehran that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction and that the Jewish state would soon disappear from the map, a theme he returned to on Tuesday.......that Israel was "doomed to go".
    Source
    Then on Thursday Ahmadinejad took it a step further and told Japan to prepare for a world without the U.S. in it.

    "The U.S. domination is on the fall. Iran and Japan as two civilized and influential nations should get ready for a world minus the U.S.," Ahmadinejad told Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on the sidelines of the U.N. food summit in Rome on Tuesday, IRNA reported.

    ---------------

    "No body or power can wipe Iran off the world scene and Iranian nation of course can well manage its affairs under such an atmosphere," he said.
    Source
    Ahmadinejad went on to encourage Japan and Iran promote peaceful nuke technology between the two of them by saying that Iran welcomes cooperation with Japan for peaceful use of nuclear technology. Japan responded like the rest of the world.......

    "If Iran said it would halt nuclear enrichment, it would be opening a window to international society and Japan would also be able to provide technical cooperation," a Japanese official quoted Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda as telling Ahmadinejad.

    The Iranian president flatly refused to give such a pledge
    Source
    Israel, who is not known for sitting quietly when openly threatened verbally, politically, militarily, or politically....apparently Israel has been reading this thread and took theog's suggestion to heart as they came back with laying it out on the table that if Iran pursues their nuke program and gets a bomb that they will attack Iran:

    "The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating," Mr Olmert said.

    ---------------

    "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mr Mofaz told Yediot Ahronot.

    "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," he said.

    Source
    Interesting that the active members in the Iran issue of the EU, US, or the UN have not offered any official statements of the threats from either side that are being thrown around.

    And it was this last remark by Israel that spiked the cost of oil per barrel with the biggest jump in a 24 hour period and set a new world record for the cost per barrel.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/09/2008 at 12:53 PM.
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Israel, who is not known for sitting quietly when openly threatened verbally, politically, militarily, or politically....apparently Israel has been reading this thread and took theog's suggestion to heart as they came back with laying it out on the table that if Iran pursues their nuke program and gets a bomb that they will attack Iran:
    lol... Israel instigates a lot of stuff as well... they are not the innocent victim that they claim.

    I have no doubt they will strike Iran.... unless Iran fully submits.

    That part of the ME is such a mess.... so many stories... so much history... so many lies on all sides. You don't know what is real and what is fake over there....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12.    #272  
    In the middle of several weeks of back and forth threats between Israel and Iran.....Iran is still saying that it has no intention of making a bomb, but if any of their nuke sites are hit, then they will, without fail, make a Nuclear warhead "in a very short time". So, if nothing else this shows that they claim they know they can make a nuclear bomb in a very short time from right now with their infrastructure that they have in place and are planning to have in place.

    Iran issues warning over nuclear program

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament speaker on Wednesday warned that the West could face a "done deal" if it provokes Iran, in a rare hint by an Iranian official that Tehran could build nuclear weapons if attacked.

    --------------------

    He pointed to recent comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief, who said in an interview last week that a military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast into a "ball of fire" and "prompt Iran, even if it didn't produce a nuclear weapon today, to resort to an emergency plan to produce a nuclear weapon."

    "Take Mr. ElBaradei's warnings seriously," Larijani said, addressing the West.....Larijani also warned that a "short opportunity is left" for a deal with Iran over its nuclear program.

    --------------

    Iran insists it will never suspend enrichment....

    ------------

    Larijani is a member of the Supreme National Security Council and is close is close to Khamenei. He was careful not to directly state that the country could change its intentions. His vague hint now that Iran could do so appeared aimed at signaling the possible consequences of military action and pressing the West to reach a negotiated solution.

    One hard-line newspaper was more overt about the possibility, though it too stopped short of directly threatening a move to build a weapon.

    The daily Kayhan said in an editorial that even if Iran's nuclear facilities are destroyed in a strike, they could be rebuilt "within a short period of time, but with the difference that it (a military strike) may prompt a fundamental reconsideration in intentions."

    ------------

    "If you want to move towards Iran, make sure you will bring artificial legs and walking sticks because you will not have any legs to return on should you come," the television quoted Mohammad Hejazi as saying.

    FULL ARTICLE
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    In the middle of several weeks of back and forth threats between Israel and Iran.....Iran is still saying that it has no intention of making a bomb, but if any of their nuke sites are hit, then they will, without fail, make a Nuclear warhead "in a very short time". So, if nothing else this shows that they claim they know they can make a nuclear bomb in a very short time from right now with their infrastructure that they have in place and are planning to have in place.

    Iran issues warning over nuclear program
    Out at the family farm, I have everything I need to make a bomb... fertilizer, etc... regular stuff that you have at a farm, nothing illegal. I also understand how to do it....

    Would I? No, I'm too scared for that... although, at one time I thought it would be cool to blow up a pine tree. lol

    Anyway, just because they know how does not mean they will.

    As I said before, I'm all for letting them build and test the bomb... we will know once they test it.... then we come down on them like the bubonic plague.

    I see them getting the bomb anyway... india, pakastan, iraq (through the US), and Israel all have the "bomb." We have bases in Turkey, so I'd not be surprised if they did not have the bomb as well....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  14.    #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Out at the family farm, I have everything I need to make a bomb... fertilizer, etc... regular stuff that you have at a farm, nothing illegal. I also understand how to do it....

    Would I? No, I'm too scared for that... although, at one time I thought it would be cool to blow up a pine tree. lol

    Anyway, just because they know how does not mean they will.
    The difference with your bomb from your barn is that

    one it will not incinerate an entire city
    two you do not have a ballistic deployment system that can reach all the way into Europe
    three you are are not actively and repeatedly advocating, promoting, and threatening to wipe an entire country off the face of the map while insinuating that you could be the one to do that if you only had the means

    The whole point is that they say that they do NOT have the technology to build a Nuke (and refuse to answer the evidence found and presented to state otherwise), that Iran says they had no intention to build a bomb but now say they will under conditions (which is an escalation of the situation), and that many have said they were years away from a nuke then dropped it down to just a matter of months and now Iran is confirming that short time frame from being able to actually have a nuclear weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    As I said before, I'm all for letting them build and test the bomb... we will know once they test it.... then we come down on them like the bubonic plague.

    I see them getting the bomb anyway... india, pakastan, iraq (through the US), and Israel all have the "bomb." We have bases in Turkey, so I'd not be surprised if they did not have the bomb as well....
    You have said this before several times but have not answered these questions about it......

    As I already mentioned above, Iran has already been part of testing nuclear weapons. They were invited and participated in the underground nuclear weapons test with North Korea. Which, since Iran is only interested in nuke power for electricity, why would they already have an active history of participating in nuclear weapons testing?

    Again as stated in post 169 above your wait until after they get a nuclear warhead approach has already been the international approach 4 times in the past and has failed 4 times in the past. You have expressed concern about why these countries have the nuke. The Dual-use technology method has succeeded for India, Pak, North Korea, and Israel and is WHY they all have nuke arsenals today, yet this is the same approach you want to take again with Iran. The reason they all have nuclear arsenals is that they went against the will of the rest of the world and they ALL used the Dual-use technology method....which is exactly what Iran is lining themselves to do.

    Since you support the method of wait to act until AFTER they have a nuclear warhead that has failed 4 times in the past 34 years, what evidence can you present that this stance will work the fifth time with Iran?

    The odds are historically 4 to 0 in Iran's favor that if point of a successful nuclear weapons test is reached they will keep their nuke arsenal.

    This is why strong sanctions, real sanctions not watered down by Russia and China (who both have an invested financial interest in Iran not being hit too hard with sanctions), needs to be applied. There is internal political opportunities that can work in our favor for a peaceful solution, and hard sanctions just might be the spark they need.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/28/2008 at 06:31 PM.
  15.    #275  
    Well, it looks like Iran has refuse to even talk about their continuing to enrich uranium with 6 other nations trying to negotiate with Iran. So with Iran refusing to talk or even open negotiates yet again....it looks like another push for sanctions again. Since China and Russia were officially part of this round of having the door slammed in their face, I wonder if they will still try to resist tough sanctions again?

    Iran Leader Adamant on Nuclear Issue


    Speaking just days before a deadline set by world powers for Iran to reply to proposals to curb its nuclear ambitions, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, said on Wednesday that Iran would “continue with its path” of nuclear work, which includes the enrichment of uranium.

    Ayatollah Khamenei’s comments suggest Iran may be preparing to take a hard line on the demands by six nations — United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — that it stop enriching uranium ahead of a deadline set to expire this weekend. His comments were quoted by state radio, according to news agency reports from Tehran.

    On July 19, representatives of the six world powers met with Iranian officials for talks in Geneva. For the first time at such a gathering, a senior United States official took part, although the talks produced no apparent progress on the chief demand: for Iran to stop uranium enrichment.

    -----------------

    At the Geneva meeting, Iranian diplomats reiterated their position that they considered the issue of uranium enrichment non-negotiable but the six powers gave Iran two weeks to formally respond to their latest proposal before it would be withdrawn.

    Specifically, the world powers wanted Iran to accept a formula known as “freeze-for-freeze.” According to the proposal, Iran would not add to its nuclear program, and the United States and other powers would not seek new international sanctions for six weeks to pave the way for formal negotiations.

    The proposal was first put to Iran last year and presented again last month as part of a new offer to ultimately give Iran economic and political incentives if it stops producing enriched uranium.

    Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would seek further sanctions if Iran ignored the two-week deadline.

    Full Story
  16.    #276  
    It is officially official, Iran is not friends with Isreal....like that is a shocker.

    Israelis as Friends? Iran Legislators Say No


    There are some things, Iran’s Parliament has decided, that a public official should simply not be allowed to say — especially in reference to Israel.

    Threats of a “crushing response” to Israeli aggression seem to be fine, as a representative of Iran’s supreme leader recently demonstrated. But suggesting that Iran is a friend of the Israeli people, well, that is an “unforgivable mistake,” Parliament declared Wednesday.

    In a statement signed by some 200 members of the 290-seat assembly, Iranian lawmakers called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to dismiss Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, the vice president for tourism, after he repeated on Sunday his earlier comment that “we are a friend of all people in the world, even Israelis and Americans.”


    In his comments, Mr. Mashai, a political ally of Mr. Ahmadinejad and one of his in-laws, specified “for a thousandth time” that his country was against Israel, not Jews.

    But Parliament was not placated. “We do not recognize a country called Israel and so we cannot recognize a nation called Israel,” the lawmakers said in their statement, according to Fars, the semiofficial Iranian news agency.

    “If Mr. Mashai does not have the political awareness that the Israeli people are the same people who have occupied the homes of millions of innocent and oppressed Palestinians and have created the army of the Zionist regime, he has no right to hold such a position,” the statement added.

    Full Article
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/18/2008 at 11:04 PM.
  17. #277  
    I'll be glad when Iran has the bomb so Israel can stop tormenting them...

    Pakistan is better news from that region right now... wow... lol... and talk about bombs. ROFL
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 491011121314

Posting Permissions