PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues IAEA shows photos alleging Iran nuclear missile work


Donger
09-16-2008, 08:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/nuclear_iran_iaea_dc;_ylt=Ai.D6.yR6XEJrmc3dQdnvKGs0NUE

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog showed documents and photographs on Tuesday suggesting Iran secretly tried to modify a missile cone to fit a nuclear bomb, diplomats said, and Tehran again dismissed the findings as forged.

Iran said an International Atomic Energy Agency inquiry into its nuclear activity was at a dead-end because the IAEA was demanding Tehran reveal conventional military secrets without nuclear dimensions. Iran has denied seeking atom bombs.

The Vienna-based U.N. watchdog said in a report on Monday that Iranian stonewalling had brought an agency inquiry to resolve whether Tehran had covertly researched ways to make a nuclear bomb to a standstill.

Britain has accused Iran of showing contempt for the U.N. watchdog and, with the United States and France, vowed to seek harsher sanctions on Tehran over its defiance of U.N. demands for full disclosure and a suspension of uranium enrichment.

The IAEA wants Iran to clarify intelligence material pointing to links between Iranian projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify the cone of its long-distance Shahab-3 missile in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

The Islamic Republic has denied the allegations but the IAEA says Iran must substantiate its position by granting access to sites, documents and relevant officials for interviews.

Herman Naeckerts, the agency's head of inspections in the Middle East region, briefed its governing board on the report's findings on Tuesday ahead of a meeting by the 35-nation body next week likely to heighten pressure on Iran to cooperate.

Washington's IAEA envoy said Naeckerts presented photos and diagrams of Iranian work on re-designing a Shabab-3 "to carry what would appear to be a nuclear weapon."

"VERY CREDIBLE"

"The (IAEA) Secretariat told us the information they have is in their words, 'very credible', unquote, and they have asked Iran to provide 'substantive responses', unquote," Ambassador Gregory Schulte told reporters.

He said Naeckerts told the closed meeting Iran had refused IAEA requests to interview engineers involved in the work and visit their ostensibly civilian workshops, depicted in photos.

Other diplomats in the meeting said Naeckerts emphasised the information remained unverified. "His presentation was professional and balanced," one said, asking for anonymity.

Another diplomat said some countries on the board questioned the IAEA's mandate to judge intelligence data related to ballistic missiles and high explosives.

Iran repeated that the intelligence was forged or pertained only to conventional arms. It said Iran faced extraordinary and unacceptable pressure to prove unverified allegations were wrong by revealing information vital to its national security.

"No country would give information about its conventional military activities," Iran's IAEA ambassador said.

"I said in this briefing, 'Who in the world would believe there are a series of top secret documents U.S. intelligence found in a laptop regarding a Manhattan Project-type nuclear (bomb programme) in Iran and none of these documents bore seals of 'high confidential' or 'secret'?" Ali Asghar Soltanieh said.

"This matter is over, as far as we are concerned."

Western concern was heightened by a revelation in the IAEA report that Iran may have had "foreign expertise" helping in experiments on a detonator applicable to an implosion-type nuclear blast occurring at high altitude.

Informed diplomats said the expertise appeared not to have been given by a government such as North Korea or any remnants of the ex-A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network that supplied Iran in the past, but by other non-state actors.

The IAEA has called for an explanation from Iran.

bango
09-16-2008, 09:20 PM
That is it we need to invade them. Turkey too. Turkey to show that we mean business.

Programmer
09-16-2008, 09:28 PM
:rolleyes:

tiptap
09-16-2008, 09:33 PM
I love it. Do you think Pakistan or India or China are going to some re targeting. Let the locals deal with it and let's get back to the Western Hemisphere. Please..

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:36 PM
I love it. Do you think Pakistan or India or China are going to some re targeting. Let the locals deal with it and let's get back to the Western Hemisphere. Please..

I wouldn't think that Pakistan, India and China would be included in the target package of any Iranian nuke.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 09:37 PM
And that targeting will be returned. It is a mexican standoff or a cold war standoff. I tell you it will be much better to let those natural animosities deal with this. Just butt out.

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:39 PM
And that targeting will be returned. It is a mexican standoff or a cold war standoff. I tell you it will be much better to let those natural animosities deal with this. Just butt out.

Israel won't tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 09:40 PM
They can't reach the US proper. I guess they could hit Israel but Jerusalem is considered pretty holy to Muslim beliefs so it would have to be because they were pushed hard and didn't have everything to lose from the Israeli retaliation.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 09:41 PM
I do not believe in the Bush . . . I mean Jerusalem Doctrine.

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:43 PM
They can't reach the US proper. I guess they could hit Israel but Jerusalem is considered pretty holy to Muslim beliefs so it would have to be because they were pushed hard and didn't have everything to lose from the Israeli retaliation.

Can't reach the US? By ICBM? No, they can't yet. But then again, delivery method isn't really the hard part.

How about Tel Aviv?

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:44 PM
I do not believe in the Bush . . . I mean Jerusalem Doctrine.

It doesn't really matter what you (or I) believe in. What matters is what Iran is doing and how Israel will respond.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 09:47 PM
http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/images/onoz_omg2.gif

Bill Parcells
09-16-2008, 09:48 PM
And that targeting will be returned. It is a mexican standoff or a cold war standoff. I tell you it will be much better to let those natural animosities deal with this. Just butt out.

Those people are ****ing nuts. they are not reasonable human beings. any country that raises their young to ''martyr'' themselves in the name of Allah has a lot of ****ing screws loose. and you think they're responsible enough to own nukes?

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:49 PM
http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/images/onoz_omg2.gif

I'm not sure I understand your point. You don't think Iran possibly pursuing a physics package is disturbing?

tiptap
09-16-2008, 09:49 PM
Can't reach the US? By ICBM? No, they can't yet. But then again, delivery method isn't really the hard part.

How about Tel Aviv?

Mutual Self Destruction deterrence.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 09:51 PM
We have them, so why shouldn't they? /left/

Bill Parcells
09-16-2008, 09:52 PM
We have them, so why shouldn't they? /left/

We won the cold war
/left/

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:53 PM
Mutual Self Destruction deterrence.

MAD might apply to Iran. But, considering their support of radical Islam, I think most reasonable people would have reason to have pause.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 09:53 PM
I'm not sure I understand your point. You don't think Iran possibly pursuing a psychics package is disturbing?

No, I don't.

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:55 PM
No, I don't.

How come?

tiptap
09-16-2008, 09:56 PM
Those people are ****ing nuts. they are not reasonable human beings. any country that raises their young to ''martyr'' themselves in the name of Allah has a lot of ****ing screws loose. and you think they're responsible enough to own nukes?

All countries have people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. And there have been plenty of countries that have been based upon religious identification. The most important thing is not make those people feel they have no choices, that they are cornered against their beliefs. Because I do understand they are willing to sacrifice us if we were to really threaten them. After all Korea blew up Hiroshima. . . no wait that was us.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 09:58 PM
All countries have people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. And there have been plenty of countries that have been based upon religious identification. The most important thing is not make those people feel they have no choices, that they are cornered against their beliefs. Because I do understand they are willing to sacrifice us if we were to really threaten them. After all Korea blew up Hiroshima. . . no wait that was us.

:spock:

Donger
09-16-2008, 09:59 PM
All countries have people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. And there have been plenty of countries that have been based upon religious identification. The most important thing is not make those people feel they have no choices, that they are cornered against their beliefs. Because I do understand they are willing to sacrifice us if we were to really threaten them. After all Korea blew up Hiroshima. . . no wait that was us.

Sacrifice us? How would they do that? Iran is pursuing enrichment for the purposes of energy, not weaponry, right?

Bill Parcells
09-16-2008, 10:02 PM
All countries have people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. And there have been plenty of countries that have been based upon religious identification. The most important thing is not make those people feel they have no choices, that they are cornered against their beliefs. Because I do understand they are willing to sacrifice us if we were to really threaten them. After all Korea blew up Hiroshima. . . no wait that was us.

Radical Americans? interesting, what books have you been reading?

Iran blew up over 200 US marines in Lebanon that were there with the UN as peace keepers. Iran kidnapped countless Americans in Lebanon simply because they were Americans. Iran held our hostages for over a year in defiance of the entire world 29 years ago.

A reasonable person should be concerned about them getting nukes.

And the A Bomb saved millions of American lives that might have been lost if an invasion of Japan was necessary.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 10:03 PM
If you are only good for two words . . I said corner them like in a pincher movement, with tanks and such, I am sure they wouldn't hesitate to A-bomb an invading army or such.

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:05 PM
If you are only good for two words . . I said corner them like in a pincher movement, with tanks and such, I am sure they wouldn't hesitate to A-bomb an invading army or such.

Huh?

tiptap
09-16-2008, 10:06 PM
Radical Americans? interesting, what books have you been reading?

Iran blew up over 200 US marines in Lebanon that were there with the UN as peace keepers. Iran kidnapped countless Americans in Lebanon simply because they were Americans. Iran held our hostages for over a year in defiance of the entire world 29 years ago.

A reasonable person should be concerned about them getting nukes.

And the A Bomb saved millions of American lives that might have been lost if an invasion of Japan was necessary.

And you inflate the danger because you want to live in Lebanon or Tehran. I am not interested in this part of the world. Let them go after each other. You are inventing enemies because you have no faith.

Bill Parcells
09-16-2008, 10:08 PM
And you inflate the danger because you want to live in Lebanon or Tehran. I am not interested in this part of the world. Let them go after each other. You are inventing enemies because you have no faith.

What a crock of shit that is. no US President will let Israel go down the shitter, the quicker you realize that the quicker you'll understand the situation.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:08 PM
How come?

Israel has tons of US supplied nuclear weaponry. Iran is looking for a deterrent to both Israel and the United States.

I find it puzzling that the same people who are most aghast at this development are also the same people who advocate a missile defense shield for the United States.

People want to pretend that the United States and its surrogates are overwhelmingly responsible with the bomb and that's just not the case. Curtis LeMay wanted to bomb the Soviets to hell with it. Hell, he's the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. Macarthur wanted to use it in Korea, which would have led to hellacious international backlash as well.

Funny how the Soviets presented a plan to the US for full nuclear disarmament on May 10, 1955 and the US rejected it, considering it "too good to be true".

tiptap
09-16-2008, 10:10 PM
I use to fall asleep every night with ICBM's just 90 miles down the road south and scores of Russian Missiles pointed toward them. I can assure you that if you invite irrational behavior by threatening Iran, thus you will get what you are entreating. Let the economic isolation do its work and remove the military threat.

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:12 PM
Israel has tons of US supplied nuclear weaponry. Iran is looking for a deterrent to both Israel and the United States.

I find it puzzling that the same people who are most aghast at this development are also the same people who advocate a missile defense shield for the United States.

People want to pretend that the United States and its surrogates are overwhelmingly responsible with the bomb and that's just not the case. Curtis LeMay wanted to bomb the Soviets to hell with it. Hell, he's the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. Macarthur wanted to use it in Korea, which would have led to hellacious international backlash as well.

Funny how the Soviets presented a plan to the US for full nuclear disarmament on May 10, 1955 and the US rejected it, considering it "too good to be true".

So, just to be clear, you think that Iran is indeed lying when they say that they do not want nuclear weaponry, and that you are fine with that?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:12 PM
We have them, so why shouldn't they? /left/

:spock:

Are you implying that is a bad strain of logic or that you disagree?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:16 PM
So, just to be clear, you think that Iran is indeed lying when they say that they do not want nuclear weaponry, and that you are fine with that?

Of course they are lying. If they weren't lying, B-2's would have already run about 120 sorties to bomb their entire infrastructure to hell.

Whether or not I'm "ok" with that is immaterial. Do I find the fact that they are lying about their objectives with nuclear material to be sufficient reasoning to go to war? Absolutely not.

Moreover, we have no moral high ground in this situation. It's blatant hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. Had we not rejected SALT talks on the flimsiest of tertiary reasons, broken countless arms treaties, and put together such hackneyed proposals as the Baruch Plan, I might see your point.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 10:17 PM
:spock:

Are you implying that is a bad strain of logic or that you disagree?

Just trying to get the standard line out there to save someone a post. I'm a public servant.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 10:17 PM
What a crock of shit that is. no US President will let Israel go down the shitter, the quicker you realize that the quicker you'll understand the situation.

And no Iranian is going to bomb Israel without cause, physical attack. So the idea that Israel will go down the shitter is just that. Israel should be more afraid of Pakistani radicals getting the bomb since they already have plenty. You guys just can't live without a booggey man.

The Iranians are a much less of a threat, even to Israel, than China was to the US in the 60's even with their nuclear weapons. And after a while, when the rest of the world builds a better world, they will want to come along to and realize it ain't by holding on to nuclear weapons.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:17 PM
Just trying to get the standard line out there to save someone a post. I'm a public servant.

And the /left/ part is a coincidence then?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:19 PM
Of course they are lying. If they weren't lying, B-2's would have already run about 120 sorties to bomb their entire infrastructure to hell.

Whether or not I'm "ok" with that is immaterial. Do I find the fact that they are lying about their objectives with nuclear material to be sufficient reasoning to go to war? Absolutely not.

Moreover, we have no moral high ground in this situation. It's blatant hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. Had we not rejected SALT talks on the flimsiest of tertiary reasons, broken countless arms treaties, and put together such hackneyed proposals as the Baruch Plan, I might see your point.

You find a nuclear-armed Iran to be acceptable? Is that correct?

tiptap
09-16-2008, 10:22 PM
That is your language. I find it tolerable and accept that Brazil has the bomb.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 10:23 PM
And the /left/ part is a coincidence then?

It's a left-wing talking point. I assumed this was self-explanatory.

mikey23545
09-16-2008, 10:24 PM
I do not believe in the Bush . . . I mean Jerusalem Doctrine.

No, like most liberals, you believe in the Chamberlain Doctrine....

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:24 PM
You find a nuclear-armed Iran to be acceptable? Is that correct?

Can you ever have an honest policy debate without being hopelessly reductive?

Life isn't a series of fill-in-the-blank answers. It's nuanced. It requires thought and analysis. I don't understand why that is so lost on you. It's not a "gotcha" game, and our answers aren't going to be used in political ads. I don't fathom why you seem to be wholly incapable of realizing this.

Now, since I'm sure you'll ignore all of the above as you are the equivalent of an ideological word-search puzzle, I'll simply say "no more so than Pakistan, Israel, India, or South Africa."

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:25 PM
It's a left-wing talking point. I assumed this was self-explanatory.

So you disagree?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:25 PM
Now, since I'm sure you'll ignore all of the above as you are the equivalent of an ideological word-search puzzle, I'll simply say "no more so than Pakistan, Israel, India, or South Africa."

Thank you.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:26 PM
Thank you.

Pathetic.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:27 PM
Can you ever have an honest policy debate without being hopelessly reductive?

Life isn't a series of fill-in-the-blank answers. It's nuanced. It requires thought and analysis. I don't understand why that is so lost on you. It's not a "gotcha" game, and our answers aren't going to be used in political ads. I don't fathom why you seem to be wholly incapable of realizing this.

Now, since I'm sure you'll ignore all of the above as you are the equivalent of an ideological word-search puzzle, I'll simply say "no more so than Pakistan, Israel, India, or South Africa."

Or Petoria. :harumph:

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 10:28 PM
"no more so than Pakistan"

This is your best piece of evidence.

Icantgetajob's vocal nature (see: crazy x 10) is what separates him from most of the leaders of the other countries that you've listed.

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:28 PM
Pathetic.

I'm not sure what is pathetic. You just equated Iran with the countries you listed. If you think that, fine.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 10:30 PM
Germany was a country with the most Noble Laureate Scientists. (luckily the Nazi's kicked some them over to us.) They had a large and vibrant manucfactoring sector. They threatened with a growing armament that was all of their own manufactoring. And Hitler was an European nut case. Not a religious zealot. The Chamberlain Appeasement has not been offered to Iran. No territory is being offered. And there has been no invasion of "Poland" with us having no response to be offered if they were to act aggressively. That is just plain stupid. Go back to space (your basement).

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 10:31 PM
So you disagree?

It's a shallow argument. One that's only persuasive based on one's view of this country's moral equity, as this thread has demonstrated.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:34 PM
This is your best piece of evidence.

Icantgetajob's vocal nature (see: crazy x 10) is what separates him from most of the leaders of the other countries that you've listed.

Maybe you should actually read the entirety of my posts in this thread and think about them comprehensively, rather than showing your ass by word searching for something and boiling it down to a 9th grade civics level.

Just a thought.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:35 PM
I'm not sure what is pathetic. You just equated Iran with the countries you listed. If you think that, fine.

Your intellectual laziness and patent dishonesty is pathetic. What a waste. Welcome to iggy.

Mecca
09-16-2008, 10:35 PM
Maybe it's just me but I could really give a rats ass about Israel.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:36 PM
It's a shallow argument. One that's only persuasive based on one's view of this country's moral equity, as this thread has demonstrated.

Do tell.

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:36 PM
Your intellectual laziness and patent dishonesty is pathetic. What a waste. Welcome to iggy.

Bye.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 10:38 PM
Maybe you should actually read the entirety of my posts in this thread and think about them comprehensively, rather than showing your ass by word searching for something and boiling it down to a 9th grade civics level.

Just a thought.

ROFL

I'd love to see how you take criticism, since this is how you react when one points out a strength of your own position. Ironic that this is "showing [my] ass."

For the record, you could have quoted my initial post in this thread and saved time in replying to Donger.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 10:43 PM
ROFL

I'd love to see how you take criticism, since this is how you react when one points out a strength of your own position. Ironic that this is "showing [my] ass."

For the record, you could have quoted my initial post in this thread and saved time in replying to Donger.

I grow tired of all the willing idiocy in this subforum. People don't want to look at the historical record, they just search for that which confirms their existing worldviews.

I enjoy the few posters on here who can actually partake in a debate of sorts, rather than engaging in ideological masturbation and the dissemination of prevarication.

Mecca
09-16-2008, 10:46 PM
Donger was basically playing the keywords game nothing more, it's simply put being a douche and ignoring any sort of real debate to go "see!" what is he 10?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:49 PM
Forgive me, but I'm not in lover with Hamas' voice as apparently he is. If he equates Iran to the countries he listed, that's fine, as I said. Nuclear weapons are, in fact, a rather black and white issue.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 10:50 PM
I grow tired of all the willing idiocy in this subforum. People don't want to look at the historical record, they just search for that which confirms their existing worldviews.

I enjoy the few posters on here who can actually partake in a debate of sorts, rather than engaging in ideological masturbation and the dissemination of prevarication.

Don't you think your tone contributes to this when you engage certain individuals?

As I'm sure you're well aware, an historical record is a rhetorical construction, and you've put something together to fit your own ideological view. Some con. will likely come along on p. 10 and do a far less articulate job.

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:51 PM
I must admit, it is amusing. Didn't Hamas enter this thread with a cartoon?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:51 PM
Forgive me, but I'm not in lover with Hamas' voice as apparently he is. If he equates Iran to the countries he listed, that's fine, as I said. Nuclear weapons are, in fact, a rather black and white issue.

Hypocrisy is as well.

Explain to me how we can have WMDs but other countries who are opposed to our views (Well within their capacity, I might add.) can't?

Are they not privy to the same amount of defense we have?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:53 PM
Hypocrisy is as well.

Explain to me how we can have WMDs but other countries who are opposed to our views (Well within their capacity, I might add.) can't?

Are they not privy to the same amount of defense we have?

Do you really think that Iran is (allegedly) pursuing nuclear weapons for defense?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020630.html

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:55 PM
Do you really think that Iran is (allegedly) pursuing nuclear weapons for defense?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020630.html

My opinion on the matter of whether they are allegedly pursuing WMDs doesn't matter much.

However, the broader scope of the matter is: Does it matter? If so, why?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:56 PM
BTW, Barack Hussein is pretty adamant that Iran must not acquire a physics package. Do you followers just ignore that fact?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:57 PM
My opinion on the matter of whether they are allegedly pursuing WMDs doesn't matter much.

However, the broader scope of the matter is: Does it matter? If so, why?

They've made it rather clear that we are their enemy. Personally, I'd rather my enemies not have access to nuclear arms.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:57 PM
They've made it rather clear that we are their enemy. Personally, I'd rather my enemies not have access to nuclear arms.

Interesting. I assume you'd hold that position no matter where you lived?

Donger
09-16-2008, 10:58 PM
Interesting. I assume you'd hold that position no matter where you lived?

If Iran considered me to be an enemy? Yes. Unequivocally.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 11:00 PM
If Iran considered me to be an enemy? Yes. Unequivocally.

And if you lived in Iran? :)

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:00 PM
If Iran considered me to be an enemy? Yes. Unequivocally.

This is why people have a problem with you. You know perfectly well what I was getting at. Playing stupid only goes so far.

If you lived in Iran, would you then be afraid that the US had WMDs?

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 11:00 PM
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:01 PM
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Wow, it was really hard to see what I was getting at.......

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:02 PM
This is why people have a problem with you. You know perfectly well what I was getting at. Playing stupid only goes so far.

If you lived in Iran, would you then be afraid that the US had WMDs?

I don't care if people have problems with me.

If I were an Iranian, I would only be afraid that the US had WMDs if my government was lying about their own program.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 11:02 PM
Wow, it was really hard to see what I was getting at.......

I didn't think you'd seriously complete the thought...but...you did.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 11:04 PM
If I were an Iranian, I would only be afraid that the US had WMDs if my government was lying about their own program.

ROFL

And you have to keep feeding the fire.

Wait, is that organ music?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:04 PM
I don't care if people have problems with me.

If I were an Iranian, I would only be afraid that the US had WMDs if my government was lying about their own program.

Thank you. I win.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 11:05 PM
I don't care if people have problems with me.

If I were an Iranian, I would only be afraid that the US had WMDs if my government was lying about their own program.

and that's the only time...

LOL

I forgot the law that states we can only use wmd's on folks whose govt was lying about having their own.

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 11:05 PM
Thank you. I win.

If the Chiefs could declare victory in similar fashion, they'd be dangerous.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:07 PM
Thank you. I win.

If you wish to join the team that thinks that any and every country is welcome to possessing WMDs, congratulations, I suppose.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:08 PM
If the Chiefs could declare victory in similar fashion, they'd be dangerous.

I'm sorry, did I not win?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:08 PM
If you wish to join the team that thinks that any and every country is welcome to possessing WMDs, congratulations, I suppose.

As long as we have them, I see no reason to object.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:09 PM
and that's the only time...

LOL

I forgot the law that states we can only use wmd's on folks whose govt was lying about having their own.

Please continue. Explain why you think that Iran should be allowed to become nuclear weapon-armed.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:10 PM
Please continue. Explain why you think that Iran should be allowed to become nuclear weapon-armed.

They should have every right to a defense as we do.

Are you going to contend our nuclear stockpile is not for a deterrence or defense?

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:10 PM
As long as we have them, I see no reason to object.

Then you disagree with Barack Hussein on this issue, yes?

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:11 PM
They should have every right to a defense as we do.

Are you going to contend our nuclear stockpile is not for a deterrence or defense?

It is indeed. It is also offensive.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:11 PM
Then you disagree with Barack Hussein on this issue, yes?

Yep, and have no problem doing so. He's not, how shall we say, militaristically minded.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:11 PM
Yep, and have no problem doing so. He's not, how shall we say, militaristically minded.

Very well.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:11 PM
It is indeed. It is also offensive.

If it is a defense, why should other countries not be privy to them?

DeezNutz
09-16-2008, 11:12 PM
I was at Bass Pro the other day, and I THOROUGHLY ripped the manager for not keeping the AK-47's fully stocked.

So, what are you saying? The U.S. is the world's police? This is ok? You agree?

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:14 PM
If it is a defense, why should other countries not be privy to them?

Because they are also offensive weapons of tremendous power and destruction.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 11:15 PM
Please continue. Explain why you think that Iran should be allowed to become nuclear weapon-armed.

that is not what I said

You said they should only worry about us having wmd if their govt was lying about having some of their own

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:16 PM
that is not what I said

You said they should only worry about us having wmd if their govt was lying about having some of their own

No, I didn't say that.

But, do you think that Iran should be allowed to become nuclear weapon-armed.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:16 PM
Because they are also offensive weapons of tremendous power and destruction.

Oh, so, really, we shouldn't have them either?

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:18 PM
Oh, so, really, we shouldn't have them either?

I don't equate the United States with countries like Iran.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:19 PM
I don't equate the United States with countries like Iran.

So, really, you have no problems with elitism? Got it.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:21 PM
So, really, you have no problems with elitism? Got it.

The Islamic Republic of Iran? I would imagine that, based on your disdain for organized religion, you would have the same opinion.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:22 PM
The Islamic Republic of Iran? I would imagine that, based on your disdain for organized religion, you would have the same opinion.

My opinion of Iran and, subsequently, Islam have nothing to do with my view on another country obtaining a defense mechanism - the same one we have.

Moreover, you deflected. It's interesting that you'd call out Obama for being elitist while being elitist yourself.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:25 PM
My opinion of Iran and, subsequently, Islam have nothing to do with my view on another country obtaining a defense mechanism - the same one we have.

Moreover, you deflected. It's interesting that you'd call out Obama for being elitist while being elitist yourself.

As has been said, repeatedly, nuclear weapons are not merely defensive weapons. The fact that you continue to claim they are solely is disingenuous.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:26 PM
As has been said, repeatedly, nuclear weapons are not merely defensive weapons. The fact that you continue to claim they are solely is disingenuous.

I'm not claiming that at all. But it is part of it, and I can exercise that portion of their use.

Keep deflecting, though.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm not claiming that at all. But it is part of it, and I can exercise that portion of their use.

Keep deflecting, though.

I'm not deflecting anything. I know that is the mantra of some, but I actually respect your opinion. Please don't be so hackneyed.

Considering that it can (and has been) used an an offensive weapon, one cannot deny that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, they would have an offensive threat. Yes?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:31 PM
I'm not deflecting anything. I know that is the mantra of some, but I actually respect your opinion. Please don't be so hackneyed.

Considering that it can (and has been) used an an offensive weapon, one cannot deny that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, they would have an offensive threat. Yes?

Yes.

So is Korea. Hell, we KNEW they had WMDs before we invaded Iraq. But we didn't invade them, did we?


You still haven't answered my question, though admittedly, it wasn't a question earlier. Why do you condemn Obama for being elitist and yet you yourself are elitist?

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:34 PM
Yes.

So is Korea. Hell, we KNEW they had WMDs before we invaded Iraq. But we didn't invade them, did we?


You still haven't answered my question, though admittedly, it wasn't a question earlier. Why do you condemn Obama for being elitist and yet you yourself are elitist?

And you think that an enemy of ours and one of our allies in the ME having nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't condemn Barack Hussein for being an elitist. He merely is.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 11:34 PM
Interesting discussion and information.

I definitely see both sides of this issue.

1. Iran shouldn't be able to have a nuke because they are a terrorist sponsored state

2. Iran will NEVER be like Russia in the 80's and they will never have the capacity to destroy our country

3. What would Iran gain from taking out one of our cities? Not much because if that happened their whole country would be wiped off the map.

4. The real threat is to Israel and IMO they can take care of themselves so let them.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:35 PM
Interesting discussion and information.

I definitely see both sides of this issue.

1. Iran shouldn't be able to have a nuke because they are a terrorist sponsored state

2. Iran will NEVER be like Russia in the 80's and they will never have the capacity to destroy our country

3. What would Iran gain from taking out one of our cities? Not much because if that happened their whole country would be wiped off the map.

4. The real threat is to Israel and IMO they can take care of themselves so let them.

I don't disagree, particularly with #4.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:38 PM
And you think that an enemy of ours and one of our allies in the ME having nuclear weapons is acceptable?

I don't condemn Barack Hussein for being an elitist. He merely is.

Well, this gets slippery. I don't like that we have an alliance with Israel. It's part of the reason I think that most of the ME is in turmoil.

So, should Iran have WMD? Well, considering it is defending itself against Israel (considering proximity), I don't see why not.

If we were to revoke all WMDs from Israel, we may have some ground to ask for a disarmament. Even then, they'll point to Russia, which is a fair point.

It slides all the way down to the bottom line: Either everyone has nukes or no one has nukes.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 11:38 PM
I don't disagree, particularly with #4.

We actually agree on something!!

PBJPBJPBJPBJPBJPBJ

Mecca
09-16-2008, 11:38 PM
I'd like to know why Israel is such a big deal, why can't we just let them deal with shit themselves.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:39 PM
I'd like to know why Israel is such a big deal, why can't we just let them deal with shit themselves.

I've always wondered this. And I've always wanted a President to be smart enough to sever ties. Period.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 11:41 PM
why can't we just let them deal with shit themselves.

I'm of that opinion as well.

They have the military capability of destroying Iran and Iran knows that. The only problem is the rest of the ME countries hate Israel so you could potentially get a war with everyone in the ME against Israel.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:43 PM
Well, this gets slippery. I don't like that we have an alliance with Israel. It's part of the reason I think that most of the ME is in turmoil.

So, should Iran have WMD? Well, considering it is defending itself against Israel (considering proximity), I don't see why not.

If we were to revoke all WMDs from Israel, we may have some ground to ask for a disarmament. Even then, they'll point to Russia, which is a fair point.

It slides all the way down to the bottom line: Either everyone has nukes or no one has nukes.

Well, the whole Israel issue boils down to one thing: the Jews DO exist in vast numbers. We either support them or we don't. They are surrounded by enemies that wish they were all dead, and none of them really like us. World affairs are a messy business, at best. Personally, I'd rather have an ally in the region.

The fact is that nuclear weapons exist. The fewer countries that have them is better for the world. As an American, the fewer countries that have them that are hostile to us, the better. Period.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:43 PM
I'm of that opinion as well.

They have the military capability of destroying Iran and Iran knows that. The only problem is the rest of the ME countries hate Israel so you could potentially get a war with everyone in the ME against Israel.

Hence, why I don't mind Iran obtaining nukes.

Truthfully, I'm pretty sure the only reason they have nukes is because we gave Israel some.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:47 PM
Hence, why I don't mind Iran obtaining nukes.

Truthfully, I'm pretty sure the only reason they have nukes is because we gave Israel some.

What?

Mecca
09-16-2008, 11:47 PM
The only reason the other people in the middle east don't like us is our support of Israel if we had never stuck our noses in that shit we wouldn't have any of that hatred.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:48 PM
Well, the whole Israel issue boils down to one thing: the Jews DO exist in vast numbers. We either support them or we don't. They are surrounded by enemies that wish they were all dead, and none of them really like us. World affairs are a messy business, at best. Personally, I'd rather have an ally in the region.

The fact is that nuclear weapons exist. The fewer countries that have them is better for the world. As an American, the fewer countries that have them that are hostile to us, the better. Period.

Us included. Period.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:48 PM
The only reason the other people in the middle east don't like us is our support of Israel if we had never stuck our noses in that shit we wouldn't have any of that hatred.

Nonsense. The Kingdom, "Iraq," Jordan. The list goes on.

dirk digler
09-16-2008, 11:55 PM
Well, the whole Israel issue boils down to one thing: the Jews DO exist in vast numbers. We either support them or we don't. They are surrounded by enemies that wish they were all dead, and none of them really like us. World affairs are a messy business, at best. Personally, I'd rather have an ally in the region.

The fact is that nuclear weapons exist. The fewer countries that have them is better for the world. As an American, the fewer countries that have them that are hostile to us, the better. Period.

I totally agree Donger.

I am curious though why we are such good allies with Israel. I happen to think it is the whole guilt for the Holocaust thing and us not being able to stop it.

Donger
09-16-2008, 11:57 PM
I totally agree Donger.

I am curious though why we are such good allies with Israel. I happen to think it is the whole guilt for the Holocaust thing and us not being able to stop it.

Guilt is part of it, I suppose. But I'd wager that geo-political influences are the primary reason.

dirk digler
09-17-2008, 12:02 AM
Guilt is part of it, I suppose. But I'd wager that geo-political influences are the primary reason.

Yep I think you are right. I am going to bed now and wake up from this nightmare of agreeing with you. :)

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 12:09 AM
FTR, I'm not saying we aren't safer with Iran or other countries not having nukes. Likewise, I'm not quivering that other countries do.

Donger
09-17-2008, 12:12 AM
FTR, I'm not saying we aren't safer with Iran or other countries not having nukes. Likewise, I'm not quivering that other countries do.

If we aren't safer with Iran or other countries having them, why do you support them having them or having the right to develop them?

Donger
09-17-2008, 12:13 AM
Yep I think you are right. I am going to bed now and wake up from this nightmare of agreeing with you. :)

You can't be wrong all the time.

:)

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 12:19 AM
If we aren't safer with Iran or other countries having them, why do you support them having them or having the right to develop them?

Because there is no reason we should be able to have them while we dictate to to others that they cant. The same would be true if someone told us we couldn't have them. Would we comply? I doubt it.

Saggysack
09-17-2008, 12:24 AM
You want to solve the problems with Israel and it's neighbors. Solve the Golan Heights water rights issue. That is more than half the battle. Who obtains/possesses nuclear weapons is the distraction from the real issue.

Donger
09-17-2008, 12:30 AM
Because there is no reason we should be able to have them while we dictate to to others that they cant. The same would be true if someone told us we couldn't have them. Would we comply? I doubt it.

Let's deal with facts. We have them. They don't. Again, why do you support them having them or having the right to develop them? Just because we do?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 02:51 AM
You want to know why we support Israel, Dirk?

Dems support Israel because Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Republicans support Israel because they are a state through which they can conduct proxy wars, plus having an Israel fits the religious nutjobs' requirements for Armageddon.

tiptap
09-17-2008, 08:10 AM
Let's deal with facts. We have them. They don't. Again, why do you support them having them or having the right to develop them? Just because we do?

No one supports Iranians having Nuclear Weapons. We just think that like the Soviet Union, (and maybe the US today) when such large amount of economic resource are invested in military non productive products you seed your own downfall. The tightening of economic pressure world wide, the moving off oil to green energy production and enough of a military to respond to real aggressive behavior are enough to see Iran fail over time at a discount. Unlike the premium we are paying to have "reformed" Iraq.

tiptap
09-17-2008, 08:13 AM
You guys need to play more GO instead of Chess.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 10:10 AM
Let's deal with facts. We have them. They don't. Again, why do you support them having them or having the right to develop them? Just because we do?

I support anyone's right to defend themselves and have the opportunity for a strike if they have been attacked. (I'm not a fan of the Bush doctrine.)

patteeu
09-17-2008, 11:15 AM
Mutual Self Destruction deterrence.

MAD doesn't work between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power. Based on your previous comments about getting back to the western hemisphere, I'm going to assume that you aren't willing to commit the US nuclear umbrella to the defense of non-nuclear countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The most immediate threat of an Iranian nuke is what it will do to Iranian conventional aggressiveness, either directly or, more likely, through it's proxy armies.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 11:37 AM
I'm sorry, did I not win?

You can't win as long as you stick to that lame "our side does it so why shouldn't we be copacetic with our enemies doing it too" foolishness.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 11:44 AM
So, really, you have no problems with elitism? Got it.

You're killing me.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:44 AM
You want to solve the problems with Israel and it's neighbors. Solve the Golan Heights water rights issue. That is more than half the battle. Who obtains/possesses nuclear weapons is the distraction from the real issue.

Agreed and the settlements.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 11:48 AM
Hence, why I don't mind Iran obtaining nukes.

Truthfully, I'm pretty sure the only reason they have nukes is because we gave Israel some.

You're the second person in this thread to suggest that the US supplied Israel with their nuclear capability. While it's possible that we gave them covert assistance, I don't think there's any credible proof of that and I think it's probably untrue. Do you have a link?

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 02:16 PM
You can't win as long as you stick to that lame "our side does it so why shouldn't we be copacetic with our enemies doing it too" foolishness.

It is absolutely a winning argument. First, it destroys the "moral high road" that people love to throw out. Second, it's 100% true. Who are we to go around saying that you cannot have nukes, you over there can, and we will?

Essentially, it the stance that you take is TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE ***** YEAH!!!

You're killing me.

Do tell.

You're the second person in this thread to suggest that the US supplied Israel with their nuclear capability. While it's possible that we gave them covert assistance, I don't think there's any credible proof of that and I think it's probably untrue. Do you have a link?

I don't have any proof and neither do you. However, since we supply them with many other assortments of military gear, equipment, vehicles, etc, it doesn't seem impossible we would have supplied them with a nuke or two.

tiptap
09-17-2008, 02:27 PM
MAD doesn't work between a nuclear power and a non-nuclear power. Based on your previous comments about getting back to the western hemisphere, I'm going to assume that you aren't willing to commit the US nuclear umbrella to the defense of non-nuclear countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The most immediate threat of an Iranian nuke is what it will do to Iranian conventional aggressiveness, either directly or, more likely, through it's proxy armies.

Actually I am willing to commit conventional forces to meet a conventional threat in this theater. But I am unwilling to provide a easy target nearby just so it can provide a pretense for an escalated response. I am willing to consider a nuclear umbrella as well. But it has to be worked out by treaty and a premium payed for the protection.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 03:09 PM
If people honestly believe that the US pursued nuclear weapons and new delivery vehicles post WWII for deterrence they are sheep. Brinksmanship ≠ deterrence.

WilliamTheIrish
09-17-2008, 04:06 PM
Donger, can you clarify something for me?

Am I correct in thinking you feel that Iran with nukes is a great threat?

Donger
09-17-2008, 04:58 PM
Donger, can you clarify something for me?

Am I correct in thinking you feel that Iran with nukes is a great threat?

Great threat? No, not to us. Considering, however, their position regarding us, I do think that they become a threat if they acquire nukes.

To Israel? Yes, I would say that a nuclear-armed Iran is a great threat to Israel.

WilliamTheIrish
09-17-2008, 05:10 PM
Great threat? No, not to us. Considering, however, their position regarding us, I do think that they become a threat if they acquire nukes.

To Israel? Yes, I would say that a nuclear-armed Iran is a great threat to Israel.


So, they aren't a great threat to the US, correct? In what way do they become a threat to the US when they DO acquire?

Because in my mind they will acquire nukes. It's a matter of time.

Donger
09-17-2008, 05:22 PM
So, they aren't a great threat to the US, correct? In what way do they become a threat to the US when they DO acquire?

Because in my mind they will acquire nukes. It's a matter of time.

Because they are an enemy nation with whom we have no formal diplomatic ties.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 06:13 PM
It is absolutely a winning argument. First, it destroys the "moral high road" that people love to throw out. Second, it's 100% true. Who are we to go around saying that you cannot have nukes, you over there can, and we will?

Essentially, it the stance that you take is TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE ***** YEAH!!!

It's a dumb argument. It fails to take into account human nature. It's incompatible with national security. It doesn't destroy the moral high road, it assumes that every nation is equally moral which is a joke.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 06:20 PM
Do tell.

In your rush to find ways to criticize your country or Donger or anyone else you don't agree with, you draw absurd equivalences. In my last post I referred to your ridiculous assumption that all countries are equally moral. In this case, you're killing me by suggesting that all "elitism" is equally bad. The "elitism" present when a guy like Donger says he doesn't consider Iran to be the moral equal of the US is completely different than the "elitism" represented by Obama when he talks about the rubes who are clinging to their guns and religion. It's perfectly reasonable for one type of elitism to be objectionable while you embrace a different type.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 06:23 PM
I don't have any proof and neither do you. However, since we supply them with many other assortments of military gear, equipment, vehicles, etc, it doesn't seem impossible we would have supplied them with a nuke or two.

I need to remember not to believe the things you post without substantiation, I guess.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 06:38 PM
It's a dumb argument. It fails to take into account human nature. It's incompatible with national security. It doesn't destroy the moral high road, it assumes that every nation is equally moral which is a joke.

No, it's not a dumb argument. You find it dumb because it goes against your worldview that America is the best nation on the planet ever in the history of the world and can do no wrong.

It destroys the moral high road for us to go around claiming people can't have them while ourselves have them. That is the definition of hypocrisy, which is what destroys any moral high road you create.

What exactly does it mean for a nation to be equally moral? Hell, speaking of assumptions, you assume that each country does not have it's own right to a defense.

In your rush to find ways to criticize your country or Donger or anyone else you don't agree with, you draw absurd equivalences. In my last post I referred to your ridiculous assumption that all countries are equally moral. In this case, you're killing me by suggesting that all "elitism" is equally bad. The "elitism" present when a guy like Donger says he doesn't consider Iran to be the moral equal of the US is completely different than the "elitism" represented by Obama when he talks about the rubes who are clinging to their guns and religion. It's perfectly reasonable for one type of elitism to be objectionable while you embrace a different type.

Pat the Rat, how nice of you to come out.

Yeah, they're WAY different elitist types. WAY DIFFERENT!

I need to remember not to believe the things you post without substantiation, I guess.

Pots and kettles, ladies and gentlemen.