Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 277
  1.    #81  
    Any surprise?

    Ahmadinejad Rejects U.N. Resolution Threatening Sanctions

    Tuesday, August 01, 2006


    TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday rejected a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give his nation until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment.

    Instead, Ahmadinejad insisted Tehran would pursue its nuclear program

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

    Ahmadinejad said Iran will not give in to threats from the United Nations.

    "If some think they can still speak with threatening language to the Iranian nation, they must know that they are badly mistaken," he said in a speech broadcast live on state-run television.

    Full Story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206555,00.html
  2. #82  
    Pretty obvious what happens:

    Iran gets nukes, and then starts doing whatever they want without recrimination, because they will use a nuke against whoever tries to stop them.

    Iran may premptively use the nuke weapons, but I would think more likely they would give to some other group, who who then blow it up in the US or Israel or whoever they have a beef with.

    The person who posted the Churchill comments about appeasement was dead-on.

    We can either deal with it sooner or later, with later being very ugly.

    This isn't about US imperialism or anything else - most of the world, all rhetoric aside, likes the US and sees Iran them as a threat, and expects the US to do something about it.

    It's sad and it sucks, but as long as there are Islamofascists out there running a powerful country, we will have to do something.

    I do agree, that Israel won't wait....they will act in self-preservation first before anyone else.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec
    most of the world, all rhetoric aside, likes the US
    This has been my experience around the world.
  4.    #84  
    Again, no surprise to anyone......they are continuing their tactics in stalling and playing the UN for all it's worth. Playing all the players of Russia, EU, China, USA against each other as much as they can.


    Iran Won't Obey U.N. Nuke Plan
    TEHRAN, Iran, Aug. 20, 2006
    "We have made clear that if Iran fails to comply with the Security Council's mandate, we will move quickly at the United Nations to impose sanctions," White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said Sunday.

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

    Iran, which claims it only wants reactors to generate electricity, has rejected the resolution as "illegal," saying it has not violated any of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Asefi said the world could not afford to join the United States in imposing sanctions.

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

    In a further show of military might, Iran test-fired a new short-range missile during a series of large-scale military maneuvers geared at testing the country's defensive doctrine, state-run television reported.

    The 10 surface-to-surface short-range Saegheh missiles fired Sunday have a range of between 50 and 150 miles the report said. It did not specify whether the missile was capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but it was not believed to be.

    State-run television said the missile was built based on domestic know-how, although outside experts say much of the country's missile technology originated from other countries.

    Iran is already equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.

    Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough for the country's military.

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

    Tehran rejects as "illegal" the U.N. Security Council binding resolution passed last month that calls for Iran to suspend enriching uranium.

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

    Asefi warned that Europe would be the "loser" if it followed the U.S. in imposing sanctions against Iran under the U.N. resolution.
    Part 1 Video: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explained to "60 Minutes' " Mike Wallace what he believes is the divine act of suicide deaths. And he defends Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy.
    FULL STORY AND "60 Minute" INTERVIEW VIDEO: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1913998.shtml
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/21/2006 at 11:19 PM.
  5.    #85  
    9 days left until a U. N. Security Council deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment or face economic and political sanctions. Iran has flat out refused to halt or suspend "nuclear activities" — or uranium enrichment.

    Iran has offered to.....yet again (after withdrawing from similar negotiations at least 2-3 times already).....to enter into "enter serious negotiations". That is negotiations where they are not willing under any circumstances negotiate or concede any movement or action pertaining to their nuclear program, which is what the negotiations are suppose to be be about.

    Will the UN have the guts to stand up to it's own resolutions to impose sanctions if Iran did not suspend it's nuke program? Or will they simply give another one saying they will do something later after another deadline and another resolution to consider the possibility of the threat sanctions only to have a another resolution about the seriousness of the last resolution with another one to discuss the consequences if the next one is not fulfilled.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/22/2006 at 03:37 PM.
  6.    #86  
    A few weeks ago Iran said they are ready start "Serious Negotiations" now about their Nuke program just before they were faced with possible UN sanctions. This is apparently their definition of serious negotiations:

    Iranian President Ahmadinejad: We Won't Give Up 'One Iota' of Nuclear Rights
    "Our response to them is that no one has the right to give up the rights of the Iranian nation........The Iranian nation won't retreat from its right one iota," he was quoted as saying."
  7.    #87  
    Most Dems and some Reps are questioning the real possibility of a first strike on Iran. If so, this can raise whole lot of questions:
    • Are we depending on the Intel Community? This has been brought up by a lot of people as an alternative in the War on Terror. What if they have proof of a nuke program. Will it be trusted then?
    • Is / Could the situation in Iraq being used as a cover for a build up for Iran?
    • Could this be in preparation with inside knowledge of a possible Isreal strike first. This would give the US a clean pass to enter the confrontation if Iran retaliated against Isreal.
    • Over the years I have heard many on the left say that they would have supported going after Iran instead of Iraq at the time. Does that still apply now that there is possible real potential for a nuke program, especially since we did not even know about the Iran nuke program until 3 months after we invaded Iraq.


    Rep. Gilchrest Urges Congressional Approval Before U.S. Takes Action Against Iran

    Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., joined a group of representatives Thursday in supporting a pre-emptive move to check any U.S. military action against Iran, which President Bush has accused of supporting attacks on American troops in Iraq.

    This joint resolution would require congressional approval before any military force is used against Iran unless Iran attacks the United States first.

    Gilchrest is also among many in the president's party who opposed Bush's call for an additional 21,000 troops to be sent to Iraq. It is a move, Gilchrest said, that "is not likely to be successful."

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

    Many found language in Bush's speech last week on changes in Iraq policy to signal possible military extension into Iran.

    Iran has resisted pressure from the international community to dismantle its nuclear arms program, leading many to see the refusal of diplomacy as replication of the Iraq situation, which began after suspicions that the country was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the administration has said Iran is supplying explosives and other materiel for anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.

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

    Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, warned that the odds of a U.S. attack upon Iran are "greater than 50/50."

    Abercrombie said that the presence of a new aircraft carrier group outside Iran is clear evidence that the United States is planning to enter the country.

    The U.S. sent the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group to the Persian Gulf in December, and the USS John C. Stennis strike group was ordered there as well earlier this month.

    FULL ARTICLE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244982,00.html

    It is a Fox News story, so those who are Faux News fans take it for what you will.
  8.    #88  
    Iran's defiance with their nuke program is starting to have a ripple effect in the region:

    Jordan's King Abdullah II wants his own nuclear program

    Jordan's King Abdullah II told an Israeli newspaper his country wants its own atomic program, a development he said came in response to desires expressed by other countries in the region to become nuclear powers.

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

    The king's remarks came as Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear program despite international protests and U.N.-imposed sanctions.

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

    Shlomo Brom, a researcher at the Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, said the Jordanian king was probably trying to make the point that if Iran is allowed to become a nuclear power, a regional nuclear race will be unavoidable.

    "Abdullah might be saying that if the Iranians aren't prevented from getting a nuclear program, Jordan and everyone else will want one of their own," said Brom, who is also the former head of strategic planning for the Israeli military.

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

    Israel fears Iran's nuclear program, which the Iranian government says is for civilian purposes, is actually intended to produce nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, has said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

    Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, but has never officially confirmed that it does.

    Last month, the oil-rich Arab states on the Persian Gulf said they would consider starting a joint nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

    The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, said in a statement it had commissioned a study on setting up "a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," which would abide by international standards and laws.

    Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told reporters the group did not want to be "misunderstood," saying its aim "is to obtain the technology for peaceful purposes, no more no less."

    The Arab states around the Persian Gulf have not previously pursued nuclear power because they possess substantial oil resources and have lacked the scientific know-how, but their statement said they will look into the uses of atomic energy.


    FULL STORY: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...s_x.htm?csp=15
  9.    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Most Dems and some Reps are questioning the real possibility of a first strike on Iran. If so, this can raise whole lot of questions:
    • Are we depending on the Intel Community? This has been brought up by a lot of people as an alternative in the War on Terror. What if they have proof of a nuke program. Will it be trusted then?
    • Is / Could the situation in Iraq being used as a cover for a build up for Iran?
    • Could this be in preparation with inside knowledge of a possible Isreal strike first. This would give the US a clean pass to enter the confrontation if Iran retaliated against Isreal.
    • Over the years I have heard many on the left say that they would have supported going after Iran instead of Iraq at the time. Does that still apply now that there is possible real potential for a nuke program, especially since we did not even know about the Iran nuke program until 3 months after we invaded Iraq.


    Rep. Gilchrest Urges Congressional Approval Before U.S. Takes Action Against Iran
    This adds a little more to the story:

    U.S. Launches Armed Force to Block Iranian Influence in Iraq

    The U.S. military has launched a special operations task force to break up Iranian influence in Iraq, according to U.S. News sources. The special operations mission, known as Task Force 16, was created late last year to target Iranians trafficking arms and training Shiite militia forces.

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

    The new classified directive is part of an escalation of military countermeasures against Iran, authorized by President Bush, to strike back at what military officials describe as a widespread web of Iranian influence in Iraq that includes providing weapons, training, and money to Shiite militias.

    "It's present, and the issue is how do you deal with it," says a senior U.S. military official. "That's the question of the day. Those networks are something you've got to deal with. You've got to figure out, bottom line, who plans them, who finances them, who brings stuff across the borders."

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

    On the heels of Bush's speech, U.S. forces grabbed five Iranians with alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, reportedly using stun bombs, seizing computers, and taking down an Iranian flag from the raided building's roof. Iran claimed the building was a consulate and the men were diplomats. One of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians condemned the raid, calling it an attack on Iraq's sovereignty.

    Iran's efforts to foment chaos in Iraq are primarily carried out by the Iranian intelligence service and the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds (Jerusalem) Brigade, the foreign operations arm of the Iranian military, which also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. The most visible Iranian political and militia involvement has been in predominantly Shiite southern Iraq, especially in and around the oil export city of Basra. Iran is also seen as a major backer of anti-American Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, blamed for abducting and killing Iraqi Sunnis.

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

    U.S. officials see Iranian fingerprints in violent attacks throughout Iraq and all but blame Iran for complicity in the deaths of American soldiers.

    The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, voiced such concerns in Senate testimony last week, saying that "we know that Iranian-supplied and -made weapons are on the streets of Baghdad killing our troops." U.S. officials, including the president, have stopped just sort of directly blaming Iranian government leaders for American deaths in Iraq–a claim that, if made, could lead to pressure for U.S. military action against Iran itself.

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

    In Baghdad neighborhoods like Karrada, south of Sadr City, U.S. soldiers confiscate Iranian cellphones in Shiite militia strongholds and have arrested suspects who speak only Iran's Farsi language. A U.S. soldier south of Sadr City adds that he is increasingly told by locals that Iranians are coming to live in certain areas.

    "Iranians are moving in," he says, adding that there is evidence that they train Mahdi Army snipers and help direct militia activity.

    But it can often be unclear whether, for instance, munitions are coming at the direction of the Iranian government or are being provided by arms dealers or others who may be acting on their own. And U.S. officials sound a note of caution.

    "A lot of people say there are Iranians here, there, and everywhere," says one U.S. military officer. "Lots are Shiites that fled [Iraq] during the Iran-Iraq War, went over to Iran for 20 years, and are now infiltrating back into Iraq," he says. "Are they are Iraqi or Iranian?"

    FULL STORY: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...18military.htm
  10. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #90  
    Why does no one threaten Iran with nuclear holocaust if they do not stop?

    if they are going to use it on us, why not warn mr nutjob of iran that we are fully prepared, as well, to launch a nuclear weapon of epic proportions in his land, the likes of which would permanently exterminate all that we know to be the nation of Iran.

    Why do they not realize they are WAY out of their league in terms of nuclear might? We and our allies are the most powerful countries militarily in the world. Why does a hostile 3rd rate country like Iran feel they have a place at the table like this?

    I guess I'm just surprised these "little guys" think they wield such a threat, when we could, at any time we choose, bake them all with another Hiroshima experience?

    Honestly, they talk so tough, but we could exterminate the whole Iranian race if they pushed us to it!!!
    I gotta have more cowbell
  11. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #91  
    I'm not saying that's what I want to see happen, or that that is what WOULD happen, but we have that capability.

    should a tragedy like a nuclear bomb in our country take place, I am quite confident that while they may get some of us in the thousands, there would be no one left AT ALL in Iran after we're finished with them.

    Why would they even entertain such a suicidal stance?
    I gotta have more cowbell
  12. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #92  
    Maybe they wouldn't mind having Tehran relandscaped for them to look more like the Tunguska blast site from 1908, ya know? if they feel they could use the change of look, we just might provide that to them free of charge.




    nah, hell, send em the bill too.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  13. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #93  
    And another thing, (im a one-man show here lol ) but I have to ask:

    why should anyone believe the oil-rich iran, being the number one sponsor of terror, number one denier of the holocaust, and the nation quoted as being interested in wiping israel off the map, be interested in anything "peaceful" regarding nuclear energy?!!!

    ITS A JOKE. Take em out.
    If china keeps this crap up with knocking satellites out of the sky, then they should be given some old-fashioned discipline as well.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  14. #94  
    Hobbes, the title of this thread make me wonder, are you still trying to convince someone that Iran really IS trying to make nuclear bombs? Because I think everyone has known this for a long time.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Hobbes, the title of this thread make me wonder, are you still trying to convince someone that Iran really IS trying to make nuclear bombs? Because I think everyone has known this for a long time.
    Sounds just like the consensus around Saddam's WMDs before the invasion.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Sounds just like the consensus around Saddam's WMDs before the invasion.
    Ha ha, don't worry SamKim, even if you believed the WMD story, you are still OK in my book
  17.    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Hobbes, the title of this thread make me wonder, are you still trying to convince someone that Iran really IS trying to make nuclear bombs? Because I think everyone has known this for a long time.
    No....the title is ironic. It is more of a jab at Iran's continued flip flopping twisting logic and insane claims.

    The purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone of anything. It is simply to follow a subject that interests me.....the events involving the development of Iran's nuke program, how Iran is handling it, and how other countries are reacting...nothing more.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/21/2007 at 12:38 PM.
  18.    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Because I think everyone has known this for a long time.
    Actually what makes this interesting is that we have NOT known about this for a long time. The world's intelligence community didn't have a clue about this secret for 20 years and the first confirmation didn't come to the UN until 3 months after we invaded Iraq.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/21/2007 at 12:34 PM.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    No....the title is ironic. It is more of a jab at Iran's continued flip flopping twisting logic and insane claims.
    OK, I can appreciate the irony, now that you put it that way. And I agree also that the historical perspective is interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Actually what makes this interesting is that we have NOT known about this for a long time. The world's intelligence community didn't have a clue about this secret for 20 years and the first confirmation didn't come to the UN until 3 months after we invaded Iraq.
    If you are suggesting that Iran's nuclear program was a 20 year well kept secret, I would beg to differ. We have known for many years that Iran has had the beginnings of a nuclear program under their belts.

    http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html

    Actually, as I am sure you know, the United States helped start the nuclear program in Iran during the Ford administration, and somehow, back then, the fact that Iran had a lot of oil did not seem to deter our enthusiasm for getting Iran into the nuclear power business.

    You talk about irony? I would say that's pretty darn ironic myself.

    Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy
    March 27, 2005
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar26.html
    Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

    Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

    Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

    Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. companies, including Westinghouse and General Electric, scrambled to do business there.

    "I don't think the issue of proliferation came up," Henry A. Kissinger, who was Ford's secretary of state, said in an interview for this article.

    The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb.

    After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

    That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.

    "If we were facing an Iran with a reprocessing capability today, we would be even more concerned about their ability to use plutonium in a nuclear weapon," said Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear specialist with the Institute for Science and International Security. "These facilities are well understood and can be safeguarded, but it would provide another nuclear option for Iran."

    Nuclear experts believe the Ford strategy was a mistake. As Iran went from friend to foe, it became clear to subsequent administrations that Tehran should be prevented from obtaining the technologies for building weapons. But that is not the argument the Bush administration is making. Such an argument would be unpopular among parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which guarantees members access to nuclear power regardless of their political systems.

    The U.S.-Iran deal was shelved when the shah was toppled in the 1979 revolution that led to the taking of American hostages and severing of diplomatic relations.
  20.    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    If you are suggesting that Iran's nuclear program was a 20 year well kept secret, I would beg to differ. We have known for many years that Iran has had the beginnings of a nuclear program under their belts.
    Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy
    March 27, 2005
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar26.html

    The U.S.-Iran deal was shelved when the shah was toppled in the 1979 revolution that led to the taking of American hostages and severing of diplomatic relations.
    Everything you posted fits what I have been saying. I didn't realize that our involvement with Iran's nuclear program in the 70s was a secret. But as the article you quoted says, all deals were off and Iran's nuke program was assumed and presumed dead (or at least significantly reduced) 20 years ago. It is during these 20 years that the intel community were ignorant of the extent that Iran was going to to continue to develop their nuke program. As the timeline you linked to shows, there were rumors, and unsubstantiated evidence (often times the sources are 5-10 years after the fact). But the full extent of it didn't come out until 2002.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/21/2007 at 06:28 PM.
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions