PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues why Does Iran Need Missiles?


KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 05:22 PM
Why does Iran need missiles than can deliver nuclear payloads if they don't plan on enriching their uranium to weapons grade?
Posted via Mobile Device

BigRedChief
09-28-2009, 05:25 PM
Why does Iran need missiles than can deliver nuclear payloads if they don't plan on enriching their uranium to weapons grade?
Posted via Mobile Device
Just who is stupid enough to believe that building secret underground nuclear facility is for peaceful purposes? They are going full bore to get a nuclear weapon and as sooon as they get it, they will threaten with it.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 06:37 PM
I hope just threaten, but I bet not.

Mini Hitler does not deserve to be in charge of a McDonalds deep fryer, let alone a nation.
Posted via Mobile Device

banyon
09-28-2009, 06:39 PM
Ask BucEyedPea, it's just a misunderstanding perpetrated by the Zionists.

He's really a swell guy.

BigRedChief
09-28-2009, 06:40 PM
Ask BucEyedPea, it's just a misunderstanding perpetrated by the Zionists.

He's really a swell guy.
Freaking Jews, Can't trust them, they run the banks you know.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-28-2009, 06:41 PM
Excuse me but aren't we supposed to be over their helping them build Nuclear Power? We have no room to complain under the Nuclear non proliferation treaty.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 06:44 PM
Excuse me but aren't we supposed to be over their helping them build Nuclear Power? We have no room to complain under the Nuclear non proliferation treaty.

A country rich in oil and instead of cheaper refineries being built there we want to build nuke power plants, when we don't want anymore built here???
Posted via Mobile Device

KILLER_CLOWN
09-28-2009, 06:45 PM
A country rich in oil and instead of cheaper refineries being built there we want to build nuke power plants, when we don't want anymore built here???
Posted via Mobile Device

We need nuclear power here as well, we agreed to help them build Nuclear power there what better way to see what their doing than by being there?

Friendo
09-28-2009, 06:52 PM
my guess is it would be more likely he'd try to funnel to Hamas

wild1
09-28-2009, 07:13 PM
Yes, I learned on this internet forum that it's all just a Zionist conspiracy, so there's nothing to worry about.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 07:22 PM
We need nuclear power here as well, we agreed to help them build Nuclear power there what better way to see what their doing than by being there?

The nation that has been blocked for more than 30 yrs in building a single new nuclear power reactor should lobby for others to build new reactors? You realize Dems have killed more than 6 bill initiatives to develop more nuke power plants in this nation?
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 07:23 PM
my guess is it would be more likely he'd try to funnel to Hamas
It wouldn't surprise me, Arafat did until the day he died.
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:27 PM
This Sejjil-2 is actually a pretty impressive piece of missile technology.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 07:30 PM
This Sejjil-2 is actually a pretty impressive piece of missile technology.
And can be adapted to carrry medium range nuclear payloads. Evidently what they shot today was a short range unmodified. But can quickly be changed over.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 07:34 PM
More importantly, what does this say about Amabombyou and his mentality toward the upcoming armament talks with the POTUS. Basically he just flipped him off a couple of days before the meeting.
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:36 PM
And can be adapted to carrry medium range nuclear payloads. Evidently what they shot today was a short range unmodified. But can quickly be changed over.
Posted via Mobile Device

You worry too much. Obama's going to talk to them about hope and change. He fooled millions of Americans, so I fail to see why his oratory won't sway the Iranians.

Saul Good
09-28-2009, 07:39 PM
Just who is stupid enough to believe that building secret underground nuclear facility is for peaceful purposes?

I dOn't knOw.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 07:47 PM
Why does Iran need missiles than can deliver nuclear payloads if they don't plan on enriching their uranium to weapons grade?
Posted via Mobile Device

To prevent an invasion from those who believe in the Bush Doctrine. Afterall, it is this doctrine that has heightened a new arms race.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 07:49 PM
Just who is stupid enough to believe that building secret underground nuclear facility is for peaceful purposes? They are going full bore to get a nuclear weapon and as sooon as they get it, they will threaten with it.

There's no evidence they're developing a bomb even if they have already had missile capability. Even, if they do get a bomb, I doubt they'd threaten with it when the US, Israel and France have them too.
Why would they want leave real estate toxic for the Arabs anyway? I think they'd want to leave it intact especially the Temple Mount? Makes no sense.

This stuff is following the exact same pattern as was followed on Iraq....and by all the same people on both sides of the aisle. Hillary is acting like a Valkyrie.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-28-2009, 07:49 PM
The nation that has been blocked for more than 30 yrs in building a single new nuclear power reactor should lobby for others to build new reactors? You realize Dems have killed more than 6 bill initiatives to develop more nuke power plants in this nation?
Posted via Mobile Device

I agree that it's BS, Nuclear is where it's at. Cheap and effecient.

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:50 PM
To prevent an invasion from those who believe in the Bush Doctrine. Afterall, it is this doctrine that has heightened a new arms race.

You are aware that they began developing their MRBMs before Bush was even in office, yes?

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:54 PM
There's no evidence they're developing a bomb even if they have already had missile capability. Even, if they do get a bomb, I doubt they'd threaten with it when the US, Israel and France have them too.
Why would they want leave real estate toxic for the Arabs anyway? I think they'd want to leave it intact especially the Temple Mount.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are wastelands today.

Anyway, per the NPT, Iran is in violation of the treaty. But, you know that.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 07:55 PM
Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are wastelands today.

Anyway, per the NPT, Iran is in violation of the treaty. But, you know that.

Show me. Because each time I've heard you say something like that it turns out to be either some missing information that fleshes it out as false or some sort of false intel ( from groups like MEK).

Deja Vue

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:59 PM
Show me. Because each time I've heard you say something like that it turns out to be either some missing information that fleshes it out as false or some sort of false intel ( from groups like MEK).

Deja Vue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500289_pf.html

A key question regarding the Qom site is whether Iran violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regarding when it has to inform international authorities of a new nuclear facility. Under the original treaty, such declarations were not required until six months before fuel was introduced into the facility.

In 1992, however, the IAEA board determined that six months was not enough time to organize required inspections, and amended the rule to require nations to inform it at the time the initial decision was made to build a facility, before construction began. The amendment, called "Code 3.1," was mandatory; Iran and all other signatories agreed to it.

But in 2006, angered over an IAEA decision to refer its case to the U.N. Security Council, Iran said its parliament had decided it would revert to the non-amended treaty and six-month notification.

The IAEA took the position that no country could legally revert to the old system, and that Iran and all countries were bound by the new rule.

"This is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program," Obama said Friday morning. "The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program."

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 08:08 PM
Hmmmm your link says that page can't be located.

I have this http://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/09/25/enough-rope-yet/ by Gordon Prather. I wouldn't trust the Post on this....very much. It serves the interests of our bipartisan FP elites. This is being instigated by Bonkers Bolton and his acolytes in the Obama administration And it's the US that is in violation of how the NPT treaty is supposed to work.

Donger
09-28-2009, 08:14 PM
Hmmmm your link says that page can't be located.

I have this http://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/09/25/enough-rope-yet/ by Gordon Prather. I wouldn't trust the Post on this....very much. It serves the interests of our bipartisan FP elites. This is being instigated by Bonkers Bolton and his acolytes in the Obama administration And it's the US that is in violation of how the NPT treaty is supposed to work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092500289_pf.html

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 08:16 PM
t’s hard to tell whether someone like Jeffrey Smith – who masquerades as a "reporter" for the Washington Post – is a true card-carrying member of the Anti-Everything-Nuclear crowd, who habitually conflate "nuclear" with "nuclear-weapons," or is merely a Likudnik toady.

Take Jeffrey’s latest column, where he "reports" ... (
http://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/09/11/likudnik-toady-or-anti-everything-nuclear/)
You are being cleverly lied to, AGAIN, and you believe want to believe because you just don't like the fact that the mullahs drove out the CIA installed Shah which resulted in British Petroleum packing or you feel we should start a war for Israel.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 08:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092500289_pf.html

Ah yes, from the 5 countries that dominate over the rest of the world at the UN. We know something smells in France with a NC for its head of govt now.

The CIA, along with its British and French counterparts, spent the summer compiling a dossier of information that administration officials said they had not yet decided how and when to reveal. Their hand was forced, they said, by a letter the Iranian government sent to the IAEA in Vienna on Monday.
Don't forget Bush cleaned house of the CIA and replaced the dissenters with lackeys. And some of that information, as I told you before is coming from an unrealiable source called MEK which Mossad has been relying on. They're about as reliable as Chalabi was. Wonder how many forgeries are being used this time too?

Donger
09-28-2009, 08:46 PM
You are being cleverly lied to, AGAIN, and you believe want to believe because you just don't like the fact that the mullahs drove out the CIA installed Shah which resulted in British Petroleum packing or you feel we should start a war for Israel.

Lied to? THE IRANIANS ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BUILDING A SECRET ENRICHMENT FACILITY.

Who the f*ck is "lying" here?

BigRedChief
09-28-2009, 09:51 PM
There's no evidence they're developing a bomb even if they have already had missile capability. Even, if they do get a bomb, I doubt they'd threaten with it when the US, Israel and France have them too.
Why would they want leave real estate toxic for the Arabs anyway? I think they'd want to leave it intact especially the Temple Mount? Makes no sense.

This stuff is following the exact same pattern as was followed on Iraq....and by all the same people on both sides of the aisle. Hillary is acting like a Valkyrie.You are really naive.

BigRedChief
09-28-2009, 09:54 PM
Lied to? THE IRANIANS ADMIT THAT THEY ARE BUILDING A SECRET ENRICHMENT FACILITY.

Who the f*ck is "lying" here?BEP, Please read this statement and learn it. Iran and the mullahs with a nuclear weapon is something we can't allow to happen.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 09:56 PM
He said enrichment facility. BFD.

I bet I could sell you two a bridge...afterall, look at how many bought one from the same purveyers before on Iraq. Need I say more?

It's simple: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me. Same sources, interest and people and I said long before the war drums would beat on Iran that they would be next.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 10:06 PM
He said enrichment facility. BFD.

I bet I could sell you two a bridge...afterall, look at how many bought one from the same purveyers before on Iraq. Need I say more?

It's simple: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me. Same sources, interest and people and I said long before the war drums would beat on Iran that they would be next.

In this case it could be fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, cook Tel Aviv to 300,000 kelvin.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 10:07 PM
BFD
Just more verbal sleight of hand. (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-required-iran-informs-iaea-about-new-enrichment-site/)

Western leaders reacted with a combination of indignation and outrage today when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed that Iran had informed them it was in the process of constructing a second uranium enrichment facility.

Several officials used the revelation as a call to action against the Iranian government, just days before six-party talks with the nation about its civilian nuclear program. But despite a flurry of claims that the West had uncovered the “secret” facility it seems unclear that Iran actually did anything wrong.

The IAEA only actually requires that it be informed six months before an enrichment facility comes online, and the new site is at least that far from completion. (http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/ahmadinejad-iran-is-not-violating-iaea-rules-3/)Nuclear material has not been added, and the IAEA says that the data they’ve been given suggests that as with the existing Nanatz facility, the new site is only designed to enrich uranium to 5%, useful for energy production at the nation’s Bushehr power plant but not for military purposes.

Western leaders are now demanding that UN inspectors be given access to the new site. Such a demand would be seemingly reasonable, if Iran hadn’t already promised to do so days ago to the IAEA and publicly said hours before the “demands” that they have every intention of doing so.

If anything the revelation coming from Iran is inopportune for the US in pressing sanctions on the nation, as they had reportedly known about the construction for “a few years” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125392005480142473.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop) and were planning to use the revelation to spur their call for “crippling” sactions when they discovered that Iran had already told the IAEA, as required. [ Like I said, "Liars"!]


LOL!

nstygma
09-28-2009, 10:09 PM
He said enrichment facility. BFD.

I bet I could sell you two a bridge...afterall, look at how many bought one from the same purveyers before on Iraq. Need I say more?

It's simple: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice same on me. Same sources, interest and people and I said long before the war drums would beat on Iran that they would be next.so, there really is no enriched uranium and no missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads? just wondering.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 10:09 PM
BFD
Just more verbal sleight of hand. (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-required-iran-informs-iaea-about-new-enrichment-site/)




LOL!

Actually, not entirely true. The IAEA is to be notified six months prior to construction of a facility to enrich, not six months prior to enrichment. The interpretation you noted is the one Amabombyou is using and blatantly false.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 10:11 PM
Actually, not entirely true. The IAEA is to be notified six months prior to construction of a facility to enrich, not six months prior to enrichment. The interpretation you noted is the one Amabombyou is using and blatantly false.

'er...not exactly what the quote claims. It says it's unclear if they did anything wrong. Still, they already offered to allow inspections. So where's the beef?

There isn't any.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 10:14 PM
'er...not exactly what the quote claims. It says it's unclear if they did anything wrong. Still, they already offered to allow inspections. So where's the beef?

There isn't any.

Yup, Hussein offered as well.

We will see.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 10:16 PM
so, there really is no enriched uranium and no missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads? just wondering.

You mean uranium for energy? That's what the International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.
They have a right to develop nuclear power. They actually have had an energy crisis too.

Iran already had missiles ( I'd have to double check but they're not long range ones) and that is being exploited to ratchet up the fear component for another pre-emptive war.

Wonder who the faction in our govt pushing this stuff will say is the next Hitler after this, in order to take down another nation?

Bonkers Bolton is the instigator on this stuff. He was wrong before. Odds are he's wrong again.

Taco John
09-28-2009, 10:17 PM
For that matter why does anybody need missles. Iran probably wants them for the same reason that any country wants them.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 10:20 PM
You mean uranium for energy? That's what the International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.
They have a right to develop nuclear power. They actually have had an energy crisis too.

Iran already had missiles ( I'd have to double check but they're not long range ones) and that is being exploited to ratchet up the fear component for another pre-emptive war.

Wonder who the faction in our govt pushing this stuff will say is the next Hitler in order to take down another nation.

Bonkers Bolton is the instigator on this stuff. He was wrong before. Odds are he's wrong again.

Medium range missile are all Iran has right now. They can be modified for nuclear payloads. The range is capable of Israel with no problem.

Also note that it would be cheaper to develop 3 or 4 refineries than 1 nuclear power plant. A nation that is top 5 in oil production would be wiser to do so than develop uranium enrichment.

If we get in and can view the facilities, without restriction, then I will agree with you. But as it stands now, it is a wacko who lied by omission to the IAEA to develop his facilities and continues to develop without the assent of any fellow nation on the planet.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 10:23 PM
Yup, Hussein offered as well.

We will see.

You missed extensive arguing about that from your absence. Scott Ritter, former Marine and inspector who was there when the Iraq inspections were conducted, said our CIA had corrupted the inspections process by trying to gain access to unauthorized areas in order to wage a coup. SH and his inner sanctum knew that and even people lower asked what they were really trying to do. Clinton was a liar too. Those inspectors were never even thrown out, it was Clinton who told them he was sending a missile in during this Lewinsky scandal and if they wanted to be safe they ought to get out.

That whole thing, like I said earlier in this thread, was made up of lies. And a lot of other people knew it was lie besides Clinton even Europeans and people at the UN. SH had materially disarmed. Even his chief over his WMD, who now lives in the US, was on Fox making the same claim well after we invaded. Even his FBI interrogator shed light on his motives for not countering the false reports that he hadn't disarmed. He didn't want Iran to know out of fear they'd invade or do something to take advantage of that knowledge. And nothing was really found in the end either. There's no arguing with those results or lack of.

The problem is the MSM is a lackey for our no longer American govt.

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 10:25 PM
You missed extensive arguing about that from your absence. Scott Ritter, former Marine and inspector who was there when the Iraq inspections were conducted, said our CIA had corrupted the inspections process by trying to gain access to unauthorized areas in order to wage a coup. SH and his inner sanctum knew that and even people lower asked what they were really trying to do. Clinton was a liar too. Those inspectors were never even thrown out, it was Clinton who told them he was sending a missile in during this Lewinsky scandal and if they wanted to be safe they ought to get out.

That whole thing, like I said earlier in this thread, was made up of lies. And a lot of other people knew it was lie besides Clinton. SH had materially disarmed. Even his chief over his WMD, who now lives in the US, was on Fox
making the same claim well after we invaded. Even his FBI interrogator shed light on his motives for not countering the false reports that he hadn't disarmed. He didn't want Iran to know out of fear they'd invade or do something to take advantage of that knowledge. And nothing was really found in the end either. There's no arguing with those results or lack of.

The problem is the MSM is a lackey for our no longer American govt.

As I said, I am on your side, provided the IAEA and their inspectors are allowed unmitigated inspection and nothing is revealed.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 10:26 PM
Medium range missile are all Iran has right now. They can be modified for nuclear payloads. The range is capable of Israel with no problem.

Also note that it would be cheaper to develop 3 or 4 refineries than 1 nuclear power plant. A nation that is top 5 in oil production would be wiser to do so than develop uranium enrichment.

If we get in and can view the facilities, without restriction, then I will agree with you. But as it stands now, it is a wacko who lied by omission to the IAEA to develop his facilities and continues to develop without the assent of any fellow nation on the planet.
It's not cheaper for them though. They're socialist too.

Which wacko are you referring to....Bonkers Bolton?

BucEyedPea
09-28-2009, 10:27 PM
As I said, I am on your side, provided the IAEA and their inspectors are allowed unmitigated inspection and nothing is revealed.

The inspections are set up under certain guidelines that have to be followed. So I don't know if you'll get unmitigated anything. For that reason I expect folks like Bonker's Bolton Hillary the Valkyerie to exploit that just as was done regarding Iraq.

nstygma
09-28-2009, 11:41 PM
You mean uranium for energy? That's what the International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.
They have a right to develop nuclear power. They actually have had an energy crisis too.

enrichment is the hardest part of the nuke process, right? say they had a fully functional power plant... would it even take a year to design and build a bomb?


This has created plenty of bad blood with the United Nations agency. The departing chief of the I.A.E.A., Mohamed ElBaradei, recently argued that the case for urgent action against Iran was “hyped.” He acknowledged, however, that Iran has refused, for two years, to answer his inspectors’ questions about evidence suggesting that it was working on weapons design.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/middleeast/29nuke.html

JohnnyV13
09-29-2009, 01:40 AM
Why does Iran need missiles than can deliver nuclear payloads if they don't plan on enriching their uranium to weapons grade?
Posted via Mobile Device

You're a dolt. Don't you realize that Iran is a "green" country? The only safe way to dispose of nuclear waste is to launch it into the sun.

Seesh. Don't you know anything?

Donger
09-29-2009, 02:01 AM
BFD
Just more verbal sleight of hand. (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-required-iran-informs-iaea-about-new-enrichment-site/)




LOL!

Did you even read what I posted?

In 1992, however, the IAEA board determined that six months was not enough time to organize required inspections, and amended the rule to require nations to inform it at the time the initial decision was made to build a facility, before construction began. The amendment, called "Code 3.1," was mandatory; Iran and all other signatories agreed to it.

donkhater
09-29-2009, 05:11 AM
For that matter why does anybody need missles. Iran probably wants them for the same reason that any country wants them.

Beat me to it. That's exactly my question.

Iran wants a nuke for the same reason anyone else does.

Leverage. Until they have nuclear capabilities, the US and Isreal will continue to threaten them to do what they want. Funny how the tenor with North Korea is different than it is with Iran. Any guesses as to the reason why?

HonestChieffan
09-29-2009, 06:50 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PxZyE6Jgabo/SsDCN6deljI/AAAAAAAAIM4/60fexoxTrGc/s400/theo1.gif

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:20 AM
Excuse me but aren't we supposed to be over their helping them build Nuclear Power? We have no room to complain under the Nuclear non proliferation treaty.

We're not living in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We're living in reality.

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:24 AM
Just who is stupid enough to believe that building secret underground nuclear facility is for peaceful purposes?

BucEyedPea and her thought leaders at antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com.

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:28 AM
Why does Iran need missiles than can deliver nuclear payloads if they don't plan on enriching their uranium to weapons grade?
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't think Iran will use it's nuclear weapons once they have them (unless it's by proxy). More likely, IMO, is that they will use their nuclear capability as a shield while they go on the offensive with their proxy armies (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah) and maybe with their own conventional forces.

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:30 AM
To prevent an invasion from those who believe in the Bush Doctrine. Afterall, it is this doctrine that has heightened a new arms race.

Is that why they were pursuing nuclear weapons before Bush was even elected too? They may have intensified their efforts after the Bush reaction to 9/11, but they were already headed in that direction.

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:32 AM
Ah yes, from the 5 countries that dominate over the rest of the world at the UN. We know something smells in France with a NC for its head of govt now.


Don't forget Bush cleaned house of the CIA and replaced the dissenters with lackeys. And some of that information, as I told you before is coming from an unrealiable source called MEK which Mossad has been relying on. They're about as reliable as Chalabi was. Wonder how many forgeries are being used this time too?

What was Chalabi unreliable about?

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:35 AM
You mean uranium for energy? That's what the International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.
They have a right to develop nuclear power. They actually have had an energy crisis too.

Iran already had missiles ( I'd have to double check but they're not long range ones) and that is being exploited to ratchet up the fear component for another pre-emptive war.

Wonder who the faction in our govt pushing this stuff will say is the next Hitler after this, in order to take down another nation?

Bonkers Bolton is the instigator on this stuff. He was wrong before. Odds are he's wrong again.

What was Bolton wrong about?

patteeu
09-29-2009, 07:38 AM
Beat me to it. That's exactly my question.

Iran wants a nuke for the same reason anyone else does.

Leverage. Until they have nuclear capabilities, the US and Isreal will continue to threaten them to do what they want. Funny how the tenor with North Korea is different than it is with Iran. Any guesses as to the reason why?

Which is an excellent reason for preventing them from developing these weapons.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:27 AM
Did you even read what I posted?
Yes I did.

Now did you read mine?

In 1992, however, the IAEA board determined that six months was not enough time to organize required inspections, and amended the rule to require nations to inform it at the time the initial decision was made to build a facility, before construction began. The amendment, called "Code 3.1," was mandatory; Iran and all other signatories agreed to it.

This is discussed in my link.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:27 AM
Beat me to it. That's exactly my question.

Iran wants a nuke for the same reason anyone else does.

Leverage. Until they have nuclear capabilities, the US and Isreal will continue to threaten them to do what they want. Funny how the tenor with North Korea is different than it is with Iran. Any guesses as to the reason why?

Exactly.

Donger
09-29-2009, 08:30 AM
Yes I did.

Now did you read mine?



This is discussed in my link.

Yes, I did. You and Ahmadinejad are wrong.

Donger
09-29-2009, 08:32 AM
Exactly.

Wait. Are you suggesting that Iran is enriching uranium in order to create a physics package?

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:33 AM
America Is Led and Informed by Liars-by Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts273.html)

Roberts is former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury under Ronald Reagan, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and is a true conservative, not a neocon.

There you have it. The president of the United States and his European puppets are doing what they do best – lying through their teeth. The US "mainstream media" repeats the lies as if they were facts. The US "media" is again making itself an accomplice to wars based on fabrications. Apparently, the media’s main interest is to please the US government and hopefully obtain a taxpayer bailout of its failing print operations.

As there is no legal basis for action against Iran, the Obama regime is creating another hoax, like the non-existent "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." The hoax is that a facility, reported to the IAEA by Iran, is a secret facility for making nuclear weapons.

Just as the factual reports from the weapons inspectors in Iraq were ignored by the Bush Regime, the factual reports from the IAEA are ignored by the Obama Regime.

Like the Bush Regime, the Middle East policy of the Obama Regime is based in lies and deception.

Who is the worst enemy of the American people, Iran or the government in Washington and the media whores who serve it?

Read all of it, not just the excerpt to have the missing holes and explanations filled in on the MSM reports. Rahm Emmanuel, former Israeli citizen is likely breathing hot and heavy down Obama's back. Obama's natural instincts are much better than this influence. The NeoCons are leftist progressives who believe in using military intervention for progressive purposes in a sort of social engineering of the planet ( just as our state's rights were destroyed). They are in both parties. Ever wonder why the Rs in congress went on a spending binge as well. That's because they're not really Republicans. If you conservatives want limited govt, think again, you can't promote starting wars of aggression for progressive reasons. You can't have our Constitution remain intact and keep liberty alive at home, you can't have less spending, smaller deficits etc. Continuous warfare comes with a welfare state. And Ronald Reagan did not go this far...he didn't start a single war of aggression. His use of the military was more restrained than the belligerents controlling the FP of our govt.

Donger
09-29-2009, 08:40 AM
America Is Led and Informed by Liars-by Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts273.html)

Roberts is former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury under Ronald Reagan, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and is a true conservative, not a neocon.



Read all of it, not just the excerpt to have the missing holes and explanations filled in on the MSM reports. Rahm Emmanuel, former Israeli citizen is likely breathing hot and heavy down Obama's back. Obama's natural instincts are much better than this influence. The NeoCons are leftist progressives who believe in using military intervention for progressive purposes in a sort of social engineering of the planet ( just as our state's rights were destroyed). They are in both parties. Ever wonder why the Rs in congress went on a spending binge as well. That's because they're not really Republicans. If you conservatives want limited govt, think again, you can't promote starting wars of aggression for progressive reasons. You can't have our Constitution remain intact and keep liberty alive at home, you can't have less spending, smaller deficits etc. Continuous warfare comes with a welfare state.

From your own article: "The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007"

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:41 AM
Wait. Are you suggesting that Iran is enriching uranium in order to create a physics package?

If you're going to keep repeating the same questions like a broken record when you've repeatedly seen my position regarding this matter, including your question here then I'm not going to bother engaging you.

I'll ask you: "Did you read my posts?"

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:44 AM
From your own article: "The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007"

Go back and re-read what I posted before finding that article.....I pointed out to another poster, that my other quote said it wasn't clear Iran had done anything wrong. You're saying they had as a hard fact.
Further, Iran still plans on allowing inspections on this. So as I said before, "Where's beef?" Those are contrary facts; you cherry picked this one and removed other context.

Donger
09-29-2009, 08:45 AM
If you're going to keep repeating the same questions like a broken record when you've repeatedly seen my position regarding this matter, including your question here then I'm not going to bother engaging you.

I'll ask you: "Did you read my posts?"

Yes, I did. I even bolded the part of it where the article you chose to post shows that Iran is choosing to not comply with the mandates of the NPT.

Donger
09-29-2009, 08:47 AM
Go back and re-read.....I pointed out to another poster, that my other quote said it wasn't clear Iran had done anything wrong.
Further, Iran still plans on allowing inspections on this. So as I said before, "Where's beef?" Those are contrary facts; you cherry picked this one and removed other context.

It is clear. You've been given the facts as to why it is clear. You are choosing to ignore those facts because they don't fit your world view.

If Iran allows inspection, fine and good. That doesn't change the fact that they have been in violation of the NPT.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:50 AM
The whole section from which Donger cherry-picked and removed facts that present the whole picture:

In keeping with the safeguard agreement that the IAEA be informed before an enrichment facility comes online, Iran informed the IAEA on September 21 that it had a new nuclear facility under construction. By informing the IAEA, Iran fulfilled its obligations under the safeguards agreement. The IAEA will inspect the facility and monitor the nuclear material produced to make sure it is not diverted to a weapons program.

Despite these unequivocal facts, Obama announced on September 25 that Iran has been caught with a "secret nuclear facility" with which to produce a bomb that would threaten the world.

The Obama regime’s claim that Iran is not in compliance with the safeguards agreement is disinformation. Between the end of 2004 and early 2007, Iran voluntarily complied with an additional protocol (Code 3.1) that was never ratified and never became a legal part of the safeguards agreement. The additional protocol would have required Iran to notify the IAEA prior to beginning construction of a new facility, whereas the safeguards agreement in force requires notification prior to completion of a new facility. Iran ceased its voluntary compliance with the unratified additional protocol in March 2007, most likely because of the American and Israeli misrepresentations of Iran’s existing facilities and military threats against them.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 08:50 AM
It is clear. You've been given the facts as to why it is clear. You are choosing to ignore those facts because they don't fit your world view.

If Iran allows inspection, fine and good. That doesn't change the fact that they have been in violation of the NPT.

You're a liar.
That makes you a NeoCon.

Donger
09-29-2009, 09:03 AM
The whole section from which Donger cherry-picked and removed facts that present the whole picture:

Iran AGREED to the revised provision, BEP. They then decided to ignore it. They are in violation, period.

Radar Chief
09-29-2009, 09:07 AM
You're a liar.
That makes you a NeoCon.

Actually he is correct, so that makes you a “liar” for calling him one, which, by your definition, makes you a NeoCon.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 10:22 AM
Iran AGREED to the revised provision, BEP. They then decided to ignore it. They are in violation, period.

No, you're twisting it around, omitting other data in order to suit your own NC antagonism.

Donger
09-29-2009, 10:31 AM
No, you're twisting it around, omitting other data in order to suit your own NC antagonism.

No, you are ignoring the facts.

1) Iran is a NPT signatory.

2) They are mandated to follow Code 3.1 of the NPT

3) They did NOT disclose this new enrichment operation as required by Code 3.1 and the NPT in general.

4) Therefore, they are in violation of treaty.

I'm twisting nothing. I challenge you to show otherwise.

nstygma
09-29-2009, 11:08 AM
this entire article is a good explanation, what do you think?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/09/has-iran-violated-its-nuclear-safeguards-obligations.html

snippet:
If the decision to construct the facility was made before February 2003 and preliminary work on it began before that date, Iran has not violated any of its obligations regarding declaring its intentions. There is nothing in the Safeguards Agreement that says that new versions of it are retroactive. If the decision was made between February 2003 and March 2007, then given that Iran had agreed to voluntarily observe the modified code 3.1, then it would represent a violation of its Safeguards obligation. If, however, the decision and construction began after March 2007, Iran has not violated its obligations.

nstygma
09-29-2009, 11:12 AM
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23884&prog=zgp&proj=znppno

However, even if Iran only decided to build the facility after March 2007 then the charge of non-compliance still stands because Iran is not permitted to modify its subsidiary arrangements without the permission of the IAEA. Indeed, when Iran first announced it was "suspending" application of the modified Code 3.1, the IAEA stated that:

In accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, agreed Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be modified unilaterally; nor is there a mechanism in the Safeguards Agreement for the suspension of provisions agreed to in Subsidiary Arrangements.[2]

Iran justified its action by saying that the modification to Code 3.1 had not been ratified by the Majlis.[3]

The problem with this argument is that, like every other state, Iran did not ask its parliament, the Majlis, to ratify its original Subsidiary Arrangements! To claim that a modification to these arrangements requires ratification is therefore absurd.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 11:19 AM
Carnegie Endowment? Ohhhh brother, we're in trouble now.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 11:20 AM
You believe in lies Donger and keep forwarding them too.
I already countered your points.
There's no hard evidence on Iran developing nuclear energy for a bomb at this point.
Even if they have one, it's not the dire straits it's being made out to be.

HonestChieffan
09-29-2009, 11:24 AM
You believe in lies Donger and keep forwarding them too.
I already countered your points.
There's no hard evidence on Iran developing nuclear energy for a bomb at this point.
Even if they have one, it's not the dire straits it's being made out to be.

Id like to know what would have to be shown to change your mind? I understand and respect where you are coming from on this but you seem really entrenched.

KCWolfman
09-29-2009, 12:10 PM
You believe in lies Donger and keep forwarding them too.
.
Ironic that this is your statement when defending a country led by a man who states the holocaust never happened.

vailpass
09-29-2009, 12:11 PM
Loose the Jews with Saudi overfly blessings.

KCWolfman
09-29-2009, 12:15 PM
Loose the Jews with Saudi overfly blessings.

I am sure the Saudis are overreacting, according to BEP. What do they know? People continually develop underground weapons and fail to report until busted. Hell, I was doing that last week.

vailpass
09-29-2009, 12:19 PM
I am sure the Saudis are overreacting, according to BEP. What do they know? People continually develop underground weapons and fail to report until busted. Hell, I was doing that last week.

There are pie-in-the-sky ideas and then there is the real world.

The closer you live to nuclear-weapons-developing-maniacs who live by a 5th century code and are bent on taking you over the more you tend away from the former and towards the latter.

JohnnyV13
09-29-2009, 12:22 PM
No, you are ignoring the facts.

1) Iran is a NPT signatory.

2) They are mandated to follow Code 3.1 of the NPT

3) They did NOT disclose this new enrichment operation as required by Code 3.1 and the NPT in general.

4) Therefore, they are in violation of treaty.

I'm twisting nothing. I challenge you to show otherwise.

All you need is a priori logic, and you will understand:

1) Every problem with the US economy has been caused by the Fed. Most of the problems with the world economy were also caused by the Fed.

2) Every problem with foreign policy is caused by actions of the US President.

Saudi Arabia declaring they will allow Israel to fly over their airspace to bomb Iran's enrichment sites is not an economic problem, therefore it was not caused by the Fed Bank.

However, it is an international diplomatic problem, hence it is a foreign policy problem, hence it was caused by the US President.

THe solution: elect Ron Paul.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by Donger View Post
No, you are ignoring the facts.

1) Iran is a NPT signatory.

2) They are mandated to follow Code 3.1 of the NPT

3) They did NOT disclose this new enrichment operation as required by Code 3.1 and the NPT in general.

4) Therefore, they are in violation of treaty.

I'm twisting nothing. I challenge you to show otherwise.
Point #2....I showed you that this was not ratified and your continued use of it is a LIE and a red herring.
You are lying through the use of omission.
Your challenge was accepted, taken and is over.

Fact:
There is only ONE Middle East country that has WMD and it isn't Iran.

My sources were correct about these allegations about Iraq. This means they are more likely to be correct about these allegations about Iran.
It says more about your willingness to accept such allegations from the same sources as was used on Iraq. From a faction in our govt that flat out believes in
use of the Noble Lie on the masses. Fool you twice, shame on you.

I expect every Obama supporter here to side with such allegations since it's now their man doing it now. Afterall, such things are a hallmark of the left.
There is no difference between the parties on FP. We live is a fascist ( national socialism) state starting wars of aggression, minus the racial aspects but with the superior country aspect such as the belief
in American Exceptionalism ( promoted by NC Fox news and NC Michelle Malikin)

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 12:45 PM
I am sure the Saudis are overreacting, according to BEP. What do they know? People continually develop underground weapons and fail to report until busted. Hell, I was doing that last week.

SA is just as oppressive to its people as the Iranian govt but they're our ally and puppets.

Your side was wrong on Iraq why should I trust it regarding Iran? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

JohnnyV13
09-29-2009, 12:46 PM
Point #2....I showed you that this was not ratified and your continued use of it is a LIE and a red herring.
You are lying through the use of omission.
Your challenge was accepted, taken and is over.

Fact:
There is only ONE Middle East country that has WMD and it isn't Iran.

My sources were correct about these allegations about Iraq. This means they are more likely to be correct about these allegations about Iran.
It says more about your willingness to accept such allegations from the same sources as did on Iraq.
Fool you twice, shame on you.

I expect every Obama supporter here to side with such allegations since it's now their man doing it now. There is no difference between the parties on FP.
We live is a fascist state starting wars of aggression.

Ummm.... BEP....slight deflection?

The issue is whether Iran has to conform to NPT with respect to reporting construction of a nuclear enrichment plant.

Now, you've shifted the argument to "only one ME country has a WMD", (by which, I presume you mean Israel).

Then you topped it off with," my sources were right about Iraq, and now you're believing the same sources that were wrong about Iraq about Iran."

Again, that point is irrelevant to the issue. Iran has an enrichment facility. They declared it to the world. THe issue is if Iran's reporting behavior with respect to said facility violates the NPT, which is a matter of international law.

These points you raise are entirely extraneous to the issue.

Btw, since neither you nor Donger are experts in international law, I don't expect reasoned analysis on this point. Heck, I don't feel competent to offer reasoned discourse on this point, and I've actually done something neither of you have: taken and recieved credit for a course in international law.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 12:50 PM
I did not deflect. You are projecting your own deflecting by omitting the first part of my post.
I am allowed to add other information that is relevant to who has WMD in the ME ...that's not a deflection when I responded in the first part of the post. Please read.

Commenting on my sources is not at all irrelevent. It is entirely relevant because Donger sources are the same as was used on Iraq and turned out wrong. It goes to credibility of facts, omissions, misrepresentations
and how the argument is being framed.

These points are not inapplicable to the argument. That they are not is just your own deflection because you have no refutation to such points which are factual. It's just your opinion JohnnyV.

JohnnyV13
09-29-2009, 01:02 PM
I did not deflect. You are projecting your own deflecting by omitting the first part of my post.
I am allowed to add other information that is relevant to who has WMD in the ME ...that's not a deflection when I responded in the first part of the post. Please read.

Commenting on my sources is not at all irrelevent. It is entirely relevant because Donger sources are the same as was used on Iraq and turned out wrong. It goes to credibility of facts, omissions, misrepresentations
and how the argument is being framed.

These points are not inapplicable to the argument. That they are not is just your own deflection because you have no refutation to such points which are factual. It's just your opinion JohnnyV.

What I meant was you guys are both just citing opinions about international law with respect to amendments to treaties.

The international law question is simply, 'must admendments be seperately ratified by signatories for those amendments to be binding, IF the nation in question agreed to act in conformity with said amendment before "opting out" at a later date'?

WMD's in Israel are totally irrelevant to Iran's behavior with respect to an enrichment facility and their NPT duties.

The rightness of either of your sources with respect to Iraq's possession of WMD's is irrelevant to their ability to analyze a point of international law.

Its like saying, "SI writer Joe Posnanski sure was right about his Zack Greinke story, I guess that means his interpretation about the constitutionality of health care reform must be right as well".

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 01:10 PM
What I meant was you guys are both just citing opinions about international law with respect to amendments to treaties.

The international law question is simply, 'must admendments be seperately ratified by signatories for those amendments to be binding, IF the nation in question agreed to act in conformity with said amendment before "opting out" at a later date'?



WMD's in Israel are totally irrelevant to Iran's behavior with respect to an enrichment facility and their NPT duties.

The rightness of either of your sources with respect to Iraq's possession of WMD's is irrelevant to their ability to analyze a point of international law.

Its like saying, "SI writer Joe Posnanski sure was right about his Zack Greinke story, I guess that means he must be right about his interpretation about the constitutionality of health care reform".
You did not read my link to understand my argument. If mine is irrelevant than so is Robert's but it isn't. See quote below. International Law my arse. That's more on my side.

No WMD in Israel are entirely relevant because they want to be the only ones that have them . So this is being advanced for Israel's sake not the US. Iran, as Iraq, did not fly planes into the WTC. It's another incongruency that doesn't fit the picture. This is not our fight.


Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a rare man of principle who has not sold his integrity to the US and Israeli governments, refuted in his report (September 7, 2009) the baseless "accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran’s nuclear programme. I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member states, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."

Unbelievable, how you cite irrelevancies and deflection but brought up the Federal Reserve into this argument. Classic projection.

HonestChieffan
09-29-2009, 01:48 PM
Oh never mind

JohnnyV13
09-29-2009, 02:03 PM
You did not read my link to understand my argument. If mine is irrelevant than so is Robert's but it isn't. See quote below. International Law my arse. That's more on my side.

No WMD in Israel are entirely relevant because they want to be the only ones that have them . So this is being advanced for Israel's sake not the US. Iran, as Iraq, did not fly planes into the WTC. It's another incongruency that doesn't fit the picture. This is not our fight.




Unbelievable, how you cite irrelevancies and deflection but brought up the Federal Reserve into this argument. Classic projection.


I did read your link, and I couldn't read dongers because it was moved. I only read his exerpt. What I didn't see was any citation of international law or an expert on international law. Your article states that the amendment was invalid because it wasn't ratified by the Iranian legislature. Donger's exerpt states "The IAEA took the position that no country could revert to the "old way"."

What you have is a point about international law and ratification of treaty amendments. Your quote from the "good" IAEA director simply states that Iran is "hiding nothing", and, at best, addresses the international law issue only by inference.

I am somewhat more persuaded by Donger's post simply based on the idea that Iran, at first, acted in conformity with the amendment, then repudiated it at a later date. This violates an Anglo-saxon legal concept known as "estoppel". Basically, estoppel states that you cannot take one legal position, cause others to change their position to their detriment in response, then turn around and take a contrary legal position for your benefit.

If estoppel applies {or some international law concept analogous to estoppel), then Iran's legal argument has a serious hole.

As for the overall "rightness" of this argument (which the points I call extraneous seem to address), I actually have more sympathy for Iran than you might expect.

By an odd coincidence, it was reading the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that convinced me that the "reasoning" behind international law was a complete joke.

Basically the NPT states: "we the nuclear club have nukes, but, gosh, other people getting nukes would be dangerous. Therefore, you shouldn't have them. And, the reason you shouldn't have them and we should....is welll....we already have them and if you try to get them, we'll stop you."

And, as other nations like India and Pakistan have managed to join the nuclear club, people say, "OK...India and Pakistan have them, but the rest of you shouldn't!"

Whether the "international community" enforces the NPT against a prospective nuclear club nation, depends on that nation's "popularity" with the powerful nuclear club members.

With respect to Iran, do you for a minute really believe they aren't working toward going nuclear? Please. They don't want to feel like Israel can bully them Also, a nuke might be useful to stop the "international community" from toppling an Iranian government.

As for why we're involved, its more than just Israel. The Saudis definately don't want a nuclear Iran, and I'll bet Libya, Syria, and Eygpt don't want a nuclear Iran either. The Saudis are like the proverbial virgin with a pot of gold walking through the forest at night. They might not really like the big ugly knight (the US) that patrols the road, but at least they get to spend their gold and not get ass-r***d by highwaymen. Of course, they aren't happy about having to flutter their eyelids at the big ugly knight.

JohnnyV13
09-29-2009, 02:25 PM
Unbelievable, how you cite irrelevancies and deflection but brought up the Federal Reserve into this argument. Classic projection.

That wasn't a serious argument, it was parody.

I admit, it was aimed at you and the other Ron Paul acolytes. It's also aimed at the a priori reasoning behind Austrian economics. What's scary is that ridiculous syllogism is about 90% accurate in predicting how a Ron Paulite will attribute blame about any news item.

ROYC75
09-29-2009, 02:47 PM
Why ? I dunno, let's just let every country in the world have missiles, even nuclear missiles.

That's pretty liberal, right?

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 02:49 PM
http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/is-iran-nearing-a-bomb.html- By Paleo-Con Pat Buchanan

Iran's explanation: This facility is benign, a backup to Natanz, to enable Iran to continue enriching uranium to fuel grade, should America or Israel bomb Natanz. It is a hedge against attack. And contrary to what Barack Obama implies, the facility is designed to enrich uranium only to the 5 percent needed for nuclear fuel, not the 90 percent needed for nuclear weapons.


Despite last week's revelation, the Obama policy of talking to Tehran makes sense. Whatever the ayatollah's intentions, IAEA inspectors have his lone ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz under observation. To enrich it to weapons grade, it must be moved.

America's twin goals here are correct, compatible and by no means unattainable: no nukes in Iran, no war with Iran.

Bombing would unite that divided country behind a regime whose repressed people detest far more than we, as they have to live under it. Patience and perseverance, as in the Cold War, may be rewarded with the disintegration of a state that is today divided against itself.

We outlasted the Red czars. We will outlast the ayatollahs.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2009, 02:49 PM
To keep those out who wish to push the same IMF fraud and ruin on their people? what do i win?

KCWolfman
09-29-2009, 02:51 PM
To keep those out who wish to push the same IMF fraud and ruin on their people? what do i win?

Medium range missiles reach the US?

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 03:03 PM
That wasn't a serious argument, it was parody.

I admit, it was aimed at you and the other Ron Paul acolytes. It's also aimed at the a priori reasoning behind Austrian economics. What's scary is that ridiculous syllogism is about 90% accurate in predicting how a Ron Paulite will attribute blame about any news item.

Everything you have ever stated about Austrian Economics tells me you've never studied it directly but only through the lens of its Keynesian critics. You completely misunderstand it if you say something like this.

It is the furthest thing from "a priori" knowledge which means it is independent of experience. It isn't. It's based on what actually happens and relies more on inductive reasoning. Keynesian is based on a mathematical model devoid of human action. The model was constructed by some man in an Ivory Tower and has little to do with how people make choices while they deal with the problem of scarcity in the real world. Yet, you use it for deductive reasoning. No economist can completely predict, using such models, what people will do. Your school is the theoretical school.

You have been mis-educated into falsehoods which prevent assimilation of new data preventing an understanding of the Austrian school. I have no desire to get into a long discussion here about it in the middle of this thread except for what I am saying here.


BTW I learned about the Austrian School many years before I encountered much, or anything, about Congressman Paul. Not everyone who supports Paul is an Austrian either. In fact one small faction, are themselves pro-central bank and somewhat fascist.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2009, 03:06 PM
Medium range missiles reach the US?

Nah there appears to be nowhere to hide from globalism and the slavery it encompasses.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 03:11 PM
Iranians reported it to the IAEA team...and US knew about it since 2006
Pay attention to the non-ratification point made on the supplemental protocol with the west ( report when start building) at 4:48. I mean you Donger.
It's like our president signing a treaty without our Senate ratifying it. It's not binding or valid. Their govt didn't approve it.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YGiuF97fRE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YGiuF97fRE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Radar Chief
09-29-2009, 04:20 PM
100.

Donger
09-29-2009, 04:40 PM
Point #2....I showed you that this was not ratified and your continued use of it is a LIE and a red herring.
You are lying through the use of omission.
Your challenge was accepted, taken and is over.

Fact:
There is only ONE Middle East country that has WMD and it isn't Iran.

My sources were correct about these allegations about Iraq. This means they are more likely to be correct about these allegations about Iran.
It says more about your willingness to accept such allegations from the same sources as was used on Iraq. From a faction in our govt that flat out believes in
use of the Noble Lie on the masses. Fool you twice, shame on you.

I expect every Obama supporter here to side with such allegations since it's now their man doing it now. Afterall, such things are a hallmark of the left.
There is no difference between the parties on FP. We live is a fascist ( national socialism) state starting wars of aggression, minus the racial aspects but with the superior country aspect such as the belief
in American Exceptionalism ( promoted by NC Fox news and NC Michelle Malikin)

Your entire point is that Iran has not ratified the amendment? Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't do that?

Because they are mostly likely pursuing a nuclear weapon, which also violates the NPT.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 04:44 PM
Your entire point is that Iran has not ratified the amendment? Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't do that?

Because they are mostly likely pursuing a nuclear weapon, which also violates the NPT.
Eh, you need to listen to that more closely as to how it failed to be ratified. As well, as not phrase things as my "entire" point. It is not. It's one of many.
You take no responsibility for the careless rhetoric from a certain militant faction in our govt, that apparently now has Obama in it's grips. Even Arianna Huffington has
turned into a warmonger.

You have no hard evidence—at all. It's speculation based on some circumstantial points most of them wrong once the facts are filled in.

Donger
09-29-2009, 04:45 PM
http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/is-iran-nearing-a-bomb.html- By Paleo-Con Pat Buchanan

That's completely incorrect. Natanz is perfectly capable of enriching to weapons-grade.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 04:46 PM
That's completely incorrect. Natanz is perfectly capable of enriching to weapons-grade.

Have you been there on site to say that as a fact?

Donger
09-29-2009, 04:47 PM
Eh, you need to listen to that more closely as to how it failed to be ratified. As well, as not phrase things as my "entire" point. It is not. It's one of many.
You take no responsibility for the careless rhetoric from a certain militant faction in our govt, that apparently now has Obama in it's grips.

You have no hard evidence—at all. It's speculation based on some circumstantial points most of them wrong once the facts are filled in.

Do you acknowledge that Iran is enriching uranium?

Donger
09-29-2009, 04:49 PM
Have you been there on site to say that as a fact?

Personally? No. But with the number and type of centrifuges that they already have in operation (and verified by the IAEA), it would only be a matter of time to enrich to weapons-grade.

This fact really isn't news to people who actually know a thing or two about the process.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 05:13 PM
Personally? No. But with the number and type of centrifuges that they already have in operation (and verified by the IAEA), it would only be a matter of time to enrich to weapons-grade.
How could the IAEA have verified the number and type of centrifuges when IAEA has requested Iran to provide specific information and access to this new facility which hasn't happened yet?

This fact really isn't news to people who actually know a thing or two about the process.

Let's be very clear: I've claimed only that the inspections process is not set up in a way to provide the information required ....therefore there is a lack of evidence to say it's for a bomb.
I also feel they should have a right to have a defense that can match any threat from other nuclear powers otherwise it's not a defense.

Donger
09-29-2009, 05:16 PM
How could the IAEA have verified the number and type of centrifuges when IAEA has requested Iran to provide specific information and access to this new facility which hasn't happened yet?

Because I was responding to your post about Natanz.

I've claimed only that the inspections process is not set up in a way to provide the information required ....therefore there is a lack of evidence to say it's for a bomb.

No, we do not yet have any definitive proof that Iran is actually building a physics package. But they certainly have access to the required ingredients, and their decision to hide the other enrichment plant makes it more likely (and will speed up the enrichment process) that they will go weapons-grade.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 05:18 PM
Because I was responding to your post about Natanz.



No, we do not yet have any definitive proof that Iran is actually building a physics package. But they certainly have access to the required ingredients, and their decision to hide the other enrichment plant makes it more likely (and will speed up the enrichment process) that they will go weapons-grade.

Except, I just showed you that they did not hide this information. Why do you continue to state such lies that have been debunked. We've known about this plant since 2006.

Donger
09-29-2009, 05:22 PM
Except, I just showed you that they did not hide this information. Why do you continue to state such lies that have been debunked. We've known about this plant since 2006.

Are you kidding me? "We" didn't know anything about it at all. Our government, and other governments did, however. It was not public knowledge.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 05:34 PM
What about physicist James Gordon Prather knowledge? He served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Wouldn't he know something about this? He refutes your cherry picked intel and half truths.

He's written earlier articles disputing certain facts about the centrifuges, the the type and quantity of centrifuges. He gets into scientific particulars too. As does former CIA man Ray McGovern, who btw calls the Washington Post Pravda when Bush was in power.

I'll see if I can relocate these.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 05:57 PM
Persian Gulf Junk- Gordon Prather (http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4184)


Uranium-Enrichment Myths Busted- Gordon Prather (http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4016)


In order to obtain the desired enrichment of the U-235 isotope, it is necessary to connect a large number of centrifuges together in series and in parallel. This arrangement of centrifuges is known as a cascade.

Passing through the cascade, U-238 isotopic atoms in the uranium hexafluoride gas are progressively removed, resulting in a gradual "enrichment" of the U-235 isotope.

Nuclear power plant fuel is typically 3 to 5 percent U-235. Weapons-grade HEU is typically 90 percent U-235 or greater.

In first-generation centrifuges, the rotors were made of aluminum and the bearings were not frictionless. Hence they were relatively low-efficiency machines – incapable of operating at high velocities – which translates into many more centrifuges being required in the cascade. Thousands of them.

If the Iranians wanted to design and engineer a missile-deliverable nuke, they'd need the equivalent of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory.

Meanwhile, some media type ought to visit Urenco and put to rest the neo-crazy idea that having a uranium-enrichment capability is tantamount to having nukes.

I am aware of the dates on this but like I said he discussed the centrifuge points earlier.

Donger
09-29-2009, 06:03 PM
Persian Gulf Junk- Gordon Prather (http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4184)


Uranium-Enrichment Myths Busted- Gordon Prather (http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4016)




I am aware of the dates on this but like I said he discussed the centrifuge points earlier.

Yes, thousands of them. The IAEA says they have more than 7,000 in operation.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 06:06 PM
Yes, thousands of them. The IAEA says they have more than 7,000 in operation.

Link?

Is it the IAEA or Bonkers Bolton claiming it's the IAEA? Or any other second-hand source passing on altered words from IAEA?

And if those centrifuges are not frictionless then more are needed.

Donger
09-29-2009, 06:12 PM
Link?

Is it the IAEA or Bonkers Bolton claiming it's the IAEA? Or any other second-hand source passing on altered words from IAEA?

And if those centrifuges are not frictionless then more are needed.

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/IAEA_Iran_Report_5June2009.pdf

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 06:19 PM
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/IAEA_Iran_Report_5June2009.pdf

That's quite a lot of reading and I am actually working while posting here. Can you tell me what page, section and paragraph it says it has 7000 centrfuges and if they're the right kind for making a weapon ( only because you said the kind shows it's for a bomb too)?

Donger
09-29-2009, 06:22 PM
That's quite a lot of reading and I am actually working while posting here. Can you tell me what page, section and paragraph it says it has 7000 centrfuges and if they're the right kind for making a weapon ( only because you said the kind shows it's for a bomb too)?

First page, footnote 2. And, there is no "right kind" of centrifuge needed for enriching to weapons-grade. You just need a bunch of them in cascade. Thousands of them.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 06:26 PM
First page, footnote 2. And, there is no "right kind" of centrifuge needed for enriching to weapons-grade. You just need a bunch of them in cascade. Thousands of them.

Thank you. You said the amount and kind earlier. That's the only reason I said that. Per Prather the kind can matter if they're low efficiency, which these apparently are.

Donger
09-29-2009, 06:38 PM
Thank you. You said the amount and kind earlier. That's the only reason I said that. Per Prather the kind can matter if they're low efficiency, which these apparently are.

What your chap said was this:

"In first-generation centrifuges, the rotors were made of aluminum and the bearings were not frictionless. Hence they were relatively low-efficiency machines – incapable of operating at high velocities – which translates into many more centrifuges being required in the cascade. Thousands of them."

As you can see, Iran does have thousands of centrifuges.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 06:48 PM
What your chap said was this:

"In first-generation centrifuges, the rotors were made of aluminum and the bearings were not frictionless. Hence they were relatively low-efficiency machines – incapable of operating at high velocities – which translates into many more centrifuges being required in the cascade. Thousands of them."

As you can see, Iran does have thousands of centrifuges.
He also said it needed as much as Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory too. How many do they have?

Donger
09-29-2009, 06:53 PM
He also said it needed as much as Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory too. How many do they have?

To the best of my knowledge, neither complex has ever had cascade centrifuges in operation.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 07:12 PM
Are you involved in the sales of anything related to nuclear power or weapons in general?

Oh! This came up
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran
Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529

This latest U.S. intelligence-community assessment is potentially controversial for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is at odds with more alarming assessments propounded by key U.S. allies, most notably Israel. Officials of Israel's conservative-led government have been delivering increasingly dire assessments of Iran’s nuclear progress and have leaked shrill threats about a possible Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, an atomic-weapons expert who follows Iranian nuclear developments closely, said the U.S. government's current judgments will continue to provoke contention and debate. "People are looking at the same information and reaching different judgments," he said. "Given all the developments in Iran, these assessments are hard to believe with any certainty. Nobody's been able to bring total proof either way."

Donger
09-29-2009, 07:17 PM
Are you involved in the sales of anything related to nuclear power or weapons in general?

Oh! This came up
Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran
Secret updates to White House challenge European and Israeli assessments

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529

In a round-about way of things, yes.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 07:19 PM
In a round-about way of things, yes.

I kinda thought so. Are you part of the military industrial complex?

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 07:35 PM
So those labs must use a newer process then?

From what I'm looking up centifruges are used for nuclear power for energy.

According to report "Iranian authorities have said the country needs 50,000 centrifuges in order to supply low-enriched uranium for its future nuclear power plants."

I wanted to use something outside the US.

Donger
09-29-2009, 07:42 PM
I kinda thought so. Are you part of the military industrial complex?

No.

Donger
09-29-2009, 07:44 PM
So those labs must use a newer process then?

From what I'm looking up centifruges are used for nuclear power for energy.

According to report "Iranian authorities have said the country needs 50,000 centrifuges in order to supply low-enriched uranium for its future nuclear power plants."

I wanted to use something outside the US.

I don't know what any of this means.

Taco John
09-29-2009, 08:23 PM
If I was the leader of Iran, I would build nuclear weapons without a damn care for what any other nation thought of it. It would be in my national best interest. Especially since building nuclear weapons means that the United States will up their financial aid to us once we do it. I'd want to get on that gravy train as quickly as possible.

greg63
09-29-2009, 10:28 PM
why Does Iran Need Missiles?

To start thermonuclear war???

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 11:11 PM
To start thermonuclear war???

Is that why we have them? And France, India etc? Or for defense?

Taco John
09-29-2009, 11:13 PM
I'm more frightened of Texas than I am of Iran.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2009, 11:19 PM
I'm more afraid of the US govt today than I am of Iran. Including plunging us to a possible WW.

KCWolfman
09-30-2009, 12:26 AM
If I was the leader of Iran, I would build nuclear weapons without a damn care for what any other nation thought of it. It would be in my national best interest. Especially since building nuclear weapons means that the United States will up their financial aid to us once we do it. I'd want to get on that gravy train as quickly as possible.

You certainly wouldnt build it in plain view as you could a power facility either.

KCWolfman
09-30-2009, 12:27 AM
Is that why we have them? And France, India etc? Or for defense?

None of which have a leader which has decried another race and lied outright regarding the attempted decimation of that race.

BucEyedPea
09-30-2009, 12:34 AM
None of which have a leader which has decried another race and lied outright regarding the attempted decimation of that race.

That's actually a false report based on a Farsi mistranslation that wound up getting passed on. Ahmadinejad never said that.

Even Phil Weiss, founder of JStreet admited it on his site, Mondoweiss, that Ahmadinejad never said that. He said Israel would one day disappear from the map over time. ( that's not getting wiped out by a sudden nuke) http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/neocons-pushing-regime-change.html

It's "the" rumour of the century.

Of course, certain elements in our govt have exploited the hell out of it for their own agenda.

It was parsed here in this forum a while ago if you want to use the search.

KCWolfman
09-30-2009, 12:44 AM
That's actually a false report based on a Farsi mistranslation that wound up getting passed on. Ahmadinejad never said that.

Even Phil Weiss, founder of JStreet admited it on his site, Mondoweiss, that Ahmadinejad never said that. He said Israel would one day disappear from the map over time. ( that's not getting wiped out by a sudden nuke) http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/neocons-pushing-regime-change.html

It's "the" rumour of the century.

Of course, certain elements in our govt have exploited the hell out of it for their own agenda.

It was parsed here in this forum a while ago if you want to use the search.

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'massacre of the Jews,' and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves"

During the same televised speech he told either North America or Europe to host the Jews.

You are correct, he didn't say he wanted the Jews wiped out, however, all major news outlets as well as the live coverage plainly show him denying the holocaust happened.

Even during his retraction he stated he was misunderstood BUT THE EVENT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION before it can be called history is what he said.

patteeu
09-30-2009, 05:35 AM
I'm more frightened of Texas than I am of Iran.

Why are you afraid of Texas?

BigRedChief
09-30-2009, 06:28 AM
"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'massacre of the Jews,' and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves"

During the same televised speech he told either North America or Europe to host the Jews.

You are correct, he didn't say he wanted the Jews wiped out, however, all major news outlets as well as the live coverage plainly show him denying the holocaust happened.

Even during his retraction he stated he was misunderstood BUT THE EVENT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION before it can be called history is what he said.
When he said thay Israel should be wiped off the face of the world, do you think he meant to put all those jews currently living there on boats and ship them to America and Europe?

He needs further investigation to see if the holocast happened? All the personal stories are lies, the physical evidence at the camps, all the regular GI Joes from several countries that witnessed the camps in liberation, all the photographic and video evidence before the advent of photoshop? Just what more evidence do you need?

BucEyedPea
09-30-2009, 07:22 AM
When he said thay Israel should be wiped off the face of the world,

He never said that. It's flat out false.
Earlier I put the translation with the Farsi and English up.

BigRedChief
09-30-2009, 07:28 AM
He never said that. It's flat out false.
Earlier I put the translation with the Farsi and English up.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html
Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800098.html
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=t11 id=inputDate>Last update - 05:44 13/12/2006 </TD><TD>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD><TD>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD><TD>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD></TR><!-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --><!-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --><!-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --><TR><TD class=t18B vAlign=top colSpan=2>Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out' </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD></TR><!-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --><TR><TD class=t11B vAlign=top colSpan=2>By Haaretz Service and Agencies </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD></TR><!-- ------------------------------ Article Tags ---------------------------------- --><TR><TD colSpan=2 height=1><LINK href="/common/scripts/styles.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet></TD></TR><!-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --><TR><TD>
<!-- --------------- Display Advertisement if Exists --------------------- -->Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday told delegates at an international conference questioning the Holocaust that Israel's days were numbered.

Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the systematic murder of six million Jews in World War II as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map", launched another verbal attack on Israel.

"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is [headed] downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD rowSpan=2>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif</TD><TD class=t9>Advertisement</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

His words received warm applause from delegates at the Holocaust conference, who included ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist Jews and European and American writers who argue the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.

The White House on Tuesday condemned the gathering of Holocaust deniers in Tehran as "an affront to the entire civilized world as well as to the traditional Iranian values of tolerance and respect</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I really need to google some more?

BucEyedPea
09-30-2009, 07:28 AM
"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'massacre of the Jews,' and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves"

During the same televised speech he told either North America or Europe to host the Jews.

You are correct, he didn't say he wanted the Jews wiped out, however, all major news outlets as well as the live coverage plainly show him denying the holocaust happened.

Even during his retraction he stated he was misunderstood BUT THE EVENT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION before it can be called history is what he said.

Since when does being a denier of something mean they want thermonuclear war?

There are people who believe that in this country too. Ergo, they want a nuclear war too.

Nuclear war wouldn't serve their interests, unlike it would have with the Soviets more. It would kill the Muslim Palestinians too. Terrorism works better for them through attrition.

Even the talking heads twisted his UN speech around which I listened to, mostly. Some people want another preemptive war, period and they will do, use and say anything to get one. Ergo, it's war mongering.

Pre-emptive war, based on the idea of what might do because of their beliefs or words is immoral. That's the stuff of real psychos. It violates Christian Just War Doctrine. Only a loominng imminent threat justifies such an act.

BucEyedPea
09-30-2009, 07:31 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html
Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

That link has been removed.:hmmm:

Look, I know he's anti-Israel. Just as Cuba's been anti-US. Just as Chavez is anti-US. Tough talk doesn't always mean a desire for a nuclear war. That's not hard evidence. Factions in the US have had a problem with Iran having nuclear power since the 90's before we invaded Iraq.

If they have switched for any reason to bomb making capabilities, it's due to the belligerence of the Bush Doctrine. Why do we have a right to invade countries, particularly ones that are weak and can't fight back and committed no military attacks on us here?

If we could outlast another superpower with a lot more nukes with tough talk then why not a much weaker nation?

Starting a series of first aggressive acts, or pre-emptive wars, is a very dangerous trend for America when they're based on what one might do in the future. It's a violation of Christian Just War Doctrine. I don't understand why some of them support it for that reason. But it's also the action of a psychopath. We know who I am referring to here.

BigRedChief
09-30-2009, 07:33 AM
That link has been removed.:hmmm:
google Ahmadineja wipe out Israel

first result

BucEyedPea
09-30-2009, 07:41 AM
google Ahmadineja wipe out Israel

first result

I already did. But I could only find the rumour you're using. That's all over the place.

BucEyedPea
09-30-2009, 07:48 AM
I get where y'all coming from now. It's words we're going to kill civilians over now. We're afraid of words. These require the possibility of another world war. Completely insane.

And I thought the left was afraid of warm weather. Geesh!

patteeu
09-30-2009, 07:51 AM
That link has been removed.:hmmm:

Look, I know he's anti-Israel. Just as Cuba's been anti-US. Just as Chavez is anti-US. Tough talk doesn't always mean a desire for a nuclear war. That's not hard evidence. Factions in the US have had a problem with Iran having nuclear power since the 90's before we invaded Iraq.

If they have switched for any reason to bomb making capabilities, it's due to the belligerence of the Bush Doctrine. Why do we have a right to invade countries, particularly ones that are weak and can't fight back and committed no military attacks on us here?

If we could outlast another superpower with a lot more nukes with tough talk then why not a much weaker nation?

Starting a series of first aggressive acts, or pre-emptive wars, is a very dangerous trend for America when they're based on what one might do in the future. It's a violation of Christian Just War Doctrine. I don't understand why some of them support it for that reason. But it's also the action of a psychopath. We know who I am referring to here.

What makes you think that "desire for nuclear war" should be the threshold for deciding whether or not an outlaw nation's attempts to become a nuclear outlaw nation ought to be tolerated?

What you call a "series of first aggressive acts" is really a late-coming set of responsive acts to decades of provocation including, but not limited to, the taking of hostages from our embassy and the bombing of the baracks in Beirut.

patteeu
09-30-2009, 07:52 AM
I get where y'all coming from now. It's words we're going to kill civilians over now. We're afraid of words. These require the possibility of another world war. Completely insane.

Iran hasn't been killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with mere words.

greg63
09-30-2009, 10:13 AM
Is that why we have them? And France, India etc? Or for defense?

Good point. I, also, think it a bit disingenuous for us to stockpile these weapons while insisting that others dismantle and stop development. I guess I like to think that our own government isn't as insane, but we are talking about our government here. :doh!:

KCWolfman
09-30-2009, 10:44 AM
Since when does being a denier of something mean they want thermonuclear war?

There are people who believe that in this country too. Ergo, they want a nuclear war too.

Nuclear war wouldn't serve their interests, unlike it would have with the Soviets more. It would kill the Muslim Palestinians too. Terrorism works better for them through attrition.

Even the talking heads twisted his UN speech around which I listened to, mostly. Some people want another preemptive war, period and they will do, use and say anything to get one. Ergo, it's war mongering.

Pre-emptive war, based on the idea of what might do because of their beliefs or words is immoral. That's the stuff of real psychos. It violates Christian Just War Doctrine. Only a loominng imminent threat justifies such an act.

You are overly simplistic at times.

First of all, you were incorrect - instead of admonishing me on another topic, admit you were. Amabombyou used anti-Semitic speech when he VULGARLY stated the holocaust did not occur.

Secondly, the people in this nation who believe the holocaust didn't occur are not world leaders, their opinions don't matter to me.

This is a man who falsely states the holocaust didn't occur. He further stated in the same speech that Europe and the US need to take the Jews out of the Middle East and he is building secret enrichment facilities underground.

He deserves no quarter until he proves himself. If he opens his facilities IMMEDIATELY 100% according to the expected reviews and nothing is there then you have an argument. Until then he has not earned the benefit of the doubt.

KCWolfman
09-30-2009, 10:47 AM
google Ahmadineja wipe out Israel

first result

Actual translation states that Israel will eventually no longer be there.

I am not defending the nutjob (like BEP does) but I will be honest.

KCWolfman
09-30-2009, 10:48 AM
I get where y'all coming from now. It's words we're going to kill civilians over now. We're afraid of words. These require the possibility of another world war. Completely insane.

And I thought the left was afraid of warm weather. Geesh!

Words. YOu think that is all it is?

If that's the case tell Iran and Syria to stop sending "words" to attempt to kill our troops.

BigRedChief
09-30-2009, 10:54 AM
Actual translation states that Israel will eventually no longer be there.

I am not defending the nutjob (like BEP does) but I will be honest.
Actual translation of a commandment states.....Thou shall not murder....not Thou shall not kill....

Doesn't matter though. If Israel is no longer there, where do all those Jews go? No way they just up and voluntarily get on boats and airplanes for America and Europe. The mullahs in Iran would like nothing better than to nuke Tel Aviv. And any world leader that denies the holocaust took place has a screw loose and can't be trusted especially with nuclear weapons.

HonestChieffan
09-30-2009, 12:27 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PxZyE6Jgabo/SsNvNRlxE6I/AAAAAAAAIWQ/hROMVG8oReI/s400/theo2.jpg