PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites


Donger
11-29-2009, 01:21 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_nuclear;_ylt=AgoI68BKbB7coKrlEmJknEWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0NTFkYXU0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTI5L21sX 2lyYW5fbnVjbGVhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2lyYW5hcHByb3Zlcw--

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran approved plans Sunday to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion that represented a slap to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, days after it demanded Tehran stop construction on one plant and halt all enrichment activities.

Iran's defiance will likely heighten tensions with the West, which has signaled it is running out of patience with Iran's continuing enrichment and its balking at a U.N. deal aimed at ensuring Tehran cannot build a nuclear weapon in the near-term future. The U.S. and its allies have hinted at new U.N. sanctions if Iran does not respond.

The White House said the move "would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself."

"Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

On Friday, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency issued a strong rebuke of Iran over enrichment, infuriating Tehran. Parliament speaker Ali Larijani threatened on Sunday to reduce cooperation with the IAEA.

"Should the West continue to pressure us, the legislature can reconsider the level of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA," Larijani told parliament in a speech carried live on state radio.

Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also Iran's nuclear chief, said Sunday's decision was "a firm message" in response to the IAEA. He told state TV that the agency's censure was a challenge aimed at "measuring the resistance of the Iranian nation."

Any new enrichment plants would take years to build and stock with centrifuges. But the ambitious plans were a bold show by Iran that it is willing to risk further sanctions and won't back down amid a deadlock in negotiation attempts.

Iran currently has one operating enrichment facility, at the central town of Natanz, which has churned out around 1,500 kilograms (3,300 pounds) of low-enriched uranium over the past years — enough to build a nuclear weapon if Iran enriches it to a higher level. Iran says it has no intention of doing so, insisting its nuclear program aims only to generate electricity.

The revelation of a second, previously unannounced facility, under construction for years at Fordo near the holy of Qom, raised accusations from the United States and its allies that Iran was trying expand enrichment in secret out of inspectors' sight. Iran denied the claim.

On Sunday, a Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building five uranium enrichment plants at sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months, the state news agency IRNA reported. All would be at the same scale as Natanz.

The new sites are to be built inside mountains to protect them from possible attacks, said Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also Iran's nuclear chief. They will also use a new generation of more efficient and more productive centrifuges that Iran has been working to construct, he and Ahmadinejad said.

In Vienna, spokeswoman Gillian Tudor said the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have no comment on Tehran's announcement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for "a concentration of sanctions and pressure on the Iranian regime, which is vulnerable economically" to rein in its nuclear ambitions. Israel has not ruled out military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites if its program is not stopped.

The IAEA censure against Iran on Friday was seen as a show of international unity behind demands that Tehran rein in its nuclear program — though there does not yet appear to be consensus on imposing sanctions.

The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for secretly building the Fordo site and defying the U.N. Security Council call for a suspension of enrichment.

It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed "serious concern" that Iran's stonewalling of an agency probe means "the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" cannot be excluded.

The U.N. seeks to stop Iran's enrichment, because the process can be used to produce either fuel for a reactor or a warhead. In the process, uranium gas is spun in centrifuges to be purified — to a low degree for fuel, to a higher level for a bomb. Iran denies U.S. claims that it secretly aims to produce a nuclear weapon.

The United States and the top powers at the U.N. have been focused on winning Iran's acceptance of a deal under which it would ship abroad most of its low-enriched uranium stocks to be processed into fuel rods for a research reactor in Tehran. The move would leave Iran — at least temporarily — without enough uranium to produce a bomb.

But Iran has balked, presenting a counter-proposal for a simultaneous swap. The West has demanded it accept the proposal as is.

In the wake of the IAEA rebuke, Iran has sought to signal that it can lash back if pushed. On Saturday, one hard-line lawmaker warned that parliament might withdraw the country from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stop all U.N. inspections — a move that would sharply escalate the standoff with the West and cut off the U.N.'s only eyes on Iran's nuclear program.

But parliament took a lesser step on Sunday: 226 of the 290 lawmakers signed a letter urging the government to prepare a plan to reduce Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA in response to its resolution.

Iran touted the expansion of enrichment as necessary for its plans to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through multiple nuclear power plants in the next 20 years.

Ahmadinejad said 500,000 centrifuges will be needed in the new plants to produce between 250 to 300 tons of fuel annually, IRNA reported. About 8,600 centrifuges have been set up in Natanz, but only about 4,000 are actively enriching uranium, according to the IAEA. The facility will eventually house 54,000 centrifuges. The Fordo site is smaller, built for nearly 3,000 centrifuges.

Donger
11-29-2009, 01:22 PM
This is weird. I thought Obama's policy of engagement was supposed to improve relations with Iran and bring them in line?

BigRedChief
11-29-2009, 01:38 PM
This is weird. I thought Obama's policy of engagement was supposed to improve relations with Iran and bring them in line?I believe that the straegy was to try it. See if they come to the table. If not then we can go back to the allies and Russia and China and say....see... we tried. Now we have no choice but sanctions.

Lest we forget we didn't get much support from our allies and other nations seeking the same end game as us because of George W.'s go it alone approach to any of the world's problems.

The Iranians are not scared of us. We can't make them scared of us. They know we are already involved in 2 wars and a recession. They are willing to kill their own people. We need regime change but we can't force that. The Iranians have to choose that themselfs.

Bringing about regime change in Iran will require a "world" approach, not a USA only approach. And you can't get the world behind Iramnian sanctions unless you tried the diplomatic carrot approach first.

Donger
11-29-2009, 01:46 PM
We need regime change but we can't force that.


It worked once before, mind you.

Personally, I don't think that anything short of force will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

BucEyedPea
11-29-2009, 02:26 PM
Personally, I don't think that anything short of force will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

Who cares? Who elected you/us to be the judge, jury and executioner of the world?

Donger
11-29-2009, 02:40 PM
Who cares? Who elected you/us to be the judge, jury and executioner of the world?

Us? You are aware that many nations do not think that Iran should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

CoMoChief
11-29-2009, 03:04 PM
God I love our president. :rolleyes:

Ebolapox
11-29-2009, 03:34 PM
quite the diplomat, that obama.

BucEyedPea
11-29-2009, 07:35 PM
Us? You are aware that many nations do not think that Iran should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

Shall we adopt a high school clique mentality and be the cool kids?
Who elected them to be busybodies too?

Aries Walker
11-29-2009, 08:00 PM
It worked once before, mind you.

Personally, I don't think that anything short of force will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.
How about a revolution? That's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

dirk digler
11-29-2009, 08:07 PM
This is just in response to the IAEA statement that was backed by Russia and China. Oh I forgot no one mentions how the US got the Russians and Chinese to back the IAEA. I wonder why that is?

Saul Good
11-29-2009, 09:46 PM
Who cares? Who elected you/us to be the judge, jury and executioner of the world?

Who elected us to act in our own best interests? Is that your question?

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 09:57 PM
Who cares? Who elected you/us to be the judge, jury and executioner of the world?

It's one of those things that if someone doesn't stand up and take the lead the whole world will suffer. I'm not willing to stand by and watch the baloon go up because there is a crazy man in charge of building nukes in Iran.

I don't agree with sitting down and talking with that nut job, he would tell Obama anything he wanted to hear and then continue to do what he felt necessary to achieve his goal of destroying Israel. Doing that will most likely trigger those with nukes to unleash them in more than Iran and Israel. Do you want nukes going off in your back yard? That wouldn't be in my plan for the next few years.

They have been censored by the U.N., you know them, the toothless entity that is supposed to be the global police force of which our guys seem to be the larger portion of those used in police actions.

BWillie
11-29-2009, 10:04 PM
UNITED STATES: You are f*cking crazy. You cannot have nuclear arms. But we can, and we'll allow Israel to but yeah, not you, because you are f*cking crazy. We can have nukes, because we are the US. And we just don't like you.

IRAN: But you unleashed the deadliest nuclear arsenal in the history of mankind.

UNITED STATES: Yeah, but your crazy. And we are better than you, and because I said so?

IRAN: Ooookay...

Bearcat2005
11-29-2009, 10:20 PM
Why not lift the economic and diplomatic restrictions against Iran? Like many other government intentions its purpose, that purpose being failing to align Iranian policies with our foreign policy interests. I do understand how an unaccountable regime can destabilize the region further, however I feel economic liberalization can foster political liberalization, and within the Iranian society we are already seeing signs of such. The drawback to this is that it is a process that requires more patience that we are used to, or may not afford. Needless to say this is a very tough decision and I do not envy the Obama administration on this call.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 10:20 PM
UNITED STATES: You are f*cking crazy. You cannot have nuclear arms. But we can, and we'll allow Israel to but yeah, not you, because you are f*cking crazy. We can have nukes, because we are the US. And we just don't like you.

IRAN: But you unleashed the deadliest nuclear arsenal in the history of mankind.

UNITED STATES: Yeah, but your crazy. And we are better than you, and because I said so?

IRAN: Ooookay...

We used two in WWII. Since then all they stand for is a deterrant. We may have more than we need, but there are more floaters out there than anyone really wants to know about. We know where all of ours are, does anyone know where all of the old Soviet Block nukes might be?

BigRedChief
11-29-2009, 10:32 PM
We used two in WWII. Since then all they stand for is a deterrant. We may have more than we need, but there are more floaters out there than anyone really wants to know about. We know where all of ours are, does anyone know where all of the old Soviet Block nukes might be?Just FYI, your posts are hard to follow. Don't make a lot of sense and bounce around all over the place. Some of your views are really stupid and dangerous, much like this one. I will no longer be responding to any of your posts. It's just not worth the trouble.

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 11:06 PM
Just FYI, your posts are hard to follow. Don't make a lot of sense and bounce around all over the place. Some of your views are really stupid and dangerous, much like this one. I will no longer be responding to any of your posts. It's just not worth the trouble.

I have no problem with you being an idiot and incapable of understanding that having nukes are nothing more than a deterrent for those idiots (Iran) that feel it's OK to have them AND use them.

We have not unleashed nuclear weapons of any kind against anyone after we dropped those in Japan.

Taco John
11-29-2009, 11:07 PM
This is weird. I thought Obama's policy of engagement was supposed to improve relations with Iran and bring them in line?


In line?

In line with what?

Norman Einstein
11-29-2009, 11:08 PM
In line?

In line with what?

The Obama agenda of course.

Taco John
11-29-2009, 11:11 PM
If I was Iran, I would recognize that being a nuclear power was in my best interest, and be emboldened by the fact that a whacked out Bush administration couldn't do anything to stop me, and thus nothing can. My posture would be, "bring it on world, attack us and we all go to hell together."

You people are insane if you think Obama can stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Bush couldn't. Why would Obama be able to? Of course he can't.

Taco John
11-29-2009, 11:12 PM
The Obama agenda of course.

This is why I avoid conversations with you. You say stupid things that don't really make sense.

BigRedChief
11-29-2009, 11:43 PM
This is why I avoid conversations with you. You say stupid things that don't really make sense.yep, my point. Thats why I'm just not going to respond to his posts anymore.

Norman Einstein
11-30-2009, 06:41 AM
This is weird. I thought Obama's policy of engagement was supposed to improve relations with Iran and bring them in line?

In line?

In line with what?

Apparently you haven't been following the thread.

BUT, john don't respond. Your position on virtually everything I believe is opposite, I believe you are mostly wrong but I'm sure you have the same opinion of my beliefs.

I don't expect BRC to respond, he is totally durnk on the Obama koolaid regardless of his attempts to show he is ambivilent to some of his blunders.

Norman Einstein
11-30-2009, 06:42 AM
yep, my point. Thats why I'm just not going to respond to his posts anymore.

You don't have a point unless you can get some other weak minded poster to agree with your POV.

Donger
11-30-2009, 08:58 AM
Shall we adopt a high school clique mentality and be the cool kids?
Who elected them to be busybodies too?

Let me get this straight: there should be no international law?

Bill Parcells
11-30-2009, 09:02 AM
Let me get this straight: there should be no international law?

Thats what Neville chamberlin thought too ;) his signed agreement with the fuehrer meant that England and Germany will never war again.

ROFL


Obama = Chamberlin

ROYC75
11-30-2009, 09:30 AM
This is weird. I thought Obama's policy of engagement was supposed to improve relations with Iran and bring them in line?

But ,but, but, he hasn't had time to sit down with Iran yet to talk it over.

InChiefsHell
11-30-2009, 10:02 AM
The UN to Iran: "STOP! Or we'll say stop again. And we'll MEAN it!!"

I don't know what could really be done to stop Iran from getting nukes, but if you think that nukes in the hands of Iran is the same as nukes in the hands of the US, you are nutty as a fruitcake.

talastan
11-30-2009, 11:39 AM
I'm for leaving this in Israel's hands IMO. They are obviously the nation most affected by this and they should be the ones taking the steps, whether dipolmatically or militarily. That means that whatever they decide we need to keep our noses out of it. JMO though... I think this is the real goal of Obama in this situation. This way he can claim he was right. If Israel is successful then he can say he made the right decision in staying out of it. If Israel isn't successful then he can come back and tell Israel "I told you so.".

mlyonsd
11-30-2009, 11:59 AM
If I was Iran, I would recognize that being a nuclear power was in my best interest, and be emboldened by the fact that a whacked out Bush administration couldn't do anything to stop me, and thus nothing can. My posture would be, "bring it on world, attack us and we all go to hell together."

You people are insane if you think Obama can stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Bush couldn't. Why would Obama be able to? Of course he can't.

Yup.

alnorth
11-30-2009, 12:09 PM
Thats what Neville chamberlin thought too ;) his signed agreement with the fuehrer meant that England and Germany will never war again.

ROFL


Obama = Chamberlin

Stupid analogy.

Who has Iran attacked? We have a lot of bluster and screaming, but no real credible threat. At least with Iraq you could make the argument at the time that they had invaded their neighbors a few years ago.

fan4ever
11-30-2009, 12:30 PM
Shall we adopt a high school clique mentality and be the cool kids?
Who elected them to be busybodies too?

Wow. I don't think I've ever heard a more simplistic viewpoint of a complex situation.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 12:32 PM
I believe that the straegy was to try it. See if they come to the table. If not then we can go back to the allies and Russia and China and say....see... we tried. Now we have no choice but sanctions.

Lest we forget we didn't get much support from our allies and other nations seeking the same end game as us because of George W.'s go it alone approach to any of the world's problems.

The Iranians are not scared of us. We can't make them scared of us. They know we are already involved in 2 wars and a recession. They are willing to kill their own people. We need regime change but we can't force that. The Iranians have to choose that themselfs.

Bringing about regime change in Iran will require a "world" approach, not a USA only approach. And you can't get the world behind Iramnian sanctions unless you tried the diplomatic carrot approach first.

You seem pretty clueless about all this. George W. didn't have a "go it alone" approach. In fact, his inclusiveness in Afghanistan turned out to be part of the problem there. The countries that complained about US policy during the run up to the Iraq war did so because they didn't see their interests aligned with ours regardless of how much sweet talk was or was not coming out of Washington. And as evidence that the "Bush approach" wasn't the deal killer that you seem to think it was, those countries either elected governments that moved closer to the Bush administration just a few short years later (France and Germany) or aren't interested in the same things in that region as the US is even now (Russia and China).

What happens when Obama goes back to Russia and China and says "we tried" and they respond with indifference? There will be no world approach to regime change in Iran. The choice is between gathering a coalition of the willing (which won't include Russia or China and may not include a traditional ally or two) or watching Iran become a nuclear power.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 12:36 PM
Why not lift the economic and diplomatic restrictions against Iran? Like many other government intentions its purpose, that purpose being failing to align Iranian policies with our foreign policy interests. I do understand how an unaccountable regime can destabilize the region further, however I feel economic liberalization can foster political liberalization, and within the Iranian society we are already seeing signs of such. The drawback to this is that it is a process that requires more patience that we are used to, or may not afford. Needless to say this is a very tough decision and I do not envy the Obama administration on this call.

You mean that if only defense contractors could freely sell weapons and nuclear program materials to Iran and if only US diplomats could be seen bowing to the Iranian regime in Tehran, political reform might take place there?

Donger
11-30-2009, 12:39 PM
You seem pretty clueless about all this. George W. didn't have a "go it alone" approach. In fact, his inclusiveness in Afghanistan turned out to be part of the problem there. The countries that complained about US policy during the run up to the Iraq war did so because they didn't see their interests aligned with ours regardless of how much sweet talk was or was not coming out of Washington. And as evidence that the "Bush approach" wasn't the deal killer that you seem to think it was, those countries either elected governments that moved closer to the Bush administration just a few short years later (France and Germany) or aren't interested in the same things in that region as the US is even now (Russia and China).

What happens when Obama goes back to Russia and China and says "we tried" and they respond with indifference? There will be no world approach to regime change in Iran. The choice is between gathering a coalition of the willing (which won't include Russia or China and may not include a traditional ally or two) or watching Iran become a nuclear power.

That's the amusing part for me. It will be a vindication of Bush's policy, IMO.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 12:40 PM
Stupid analogy.

Who has Iran attacked? We have a lot of bluster and screaming, but no real credible threat. At least with Iraq you could make the argument at the time that they had invaded their neighbors a few years ago.

Lebanon, Israel, and the US, for starters.

Donger
11-30-2009, 12:40 PM
In line?

In line with what?

With compliance of an international treaty that they signed.

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 01:00 PM
You seem pretty clueless about all this. George W. didn't have a "go it alone" approach. In fact, his inclusiveness in Afghanistan turned out to be part of the problem there. The countries that complained about US policy during the run up to the Iraq war did so because they didn't see their interests aligned with ours regardless of how much sweet talk was or was not coming out of Washington. And as evidence that the "Bush approach" wasn't the deal killer that you seem to think it was, those countries either elected governments that moved closer to the Bush administration just a few short years later (France and Germany) or aren't interested in the same things in that region as the US is even now (Russia and China).

What happens when Obama goes back to Russia and China and says "we tried" and they respond with indifference? There will be no world approach to regime change in Iran. The choice is between gathering a coalition of the willing (which won't include Russia or China and may not include a traditional ally or two) or watching Iran become a nuclear power.I didn't mean to say the "go it alone" point was only about Afghanistan. I was generalizing the worlds opinion in late 2009. The main reason for that feeling that the USA "will go alone" is Iraq, very few countries saw Saddam as an immediate threat. Boy did Bush/Cheney see it differently. now, we know who was right and who was wrong. No WMD were found. The intelligence was faulty. The decision to invade Iraq was wrong.

Donger
11-30-2009, 01:06 PM
I didn't mean to say the "go it alone" point was only about Afghanistan. I was generalizing the worlds opinion in late 2009. The main reason for that feeling that the USA "will go alone" is Iraq, very few countries saw Saddam as an immediate threat. Boy did Bush/Cheney see it differently. now, we know who was right and who was wrong. No WMD were found. The intelligence was faulty. The decision to invade Iraq was wrong.

Do you think that Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear arms? Even if that means the use of military force by us?

alnorth
11-30-2009, 01:14 PM
Do you think that Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear arms? Even if that means the use of military force by us?

Frankly, no.

If we want to use diplomatic or economic pressure, I have less objections to that, though in the case of Iran, it is pretty difficult to dismiss the Libertarian "it is none of our damned business" argument.

MAD worked fine with Russia, and I think it would be utterly stupid to spend huge amounts of money and resources that we do not have, sending our country spiralling further into a black hole of debt, for no real gain.

alnorth
11-30-2009, 01:15 PM
Lebanon, Israel, and the US, for starters.

The nation of Iran indisputably attacked all three? In which generation?

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 01:20 PM
Do you think that Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear arms? Even if that means the use of military force by us?The short answer is yes. With many but's....

In the short term we should allow Israel to take out the reactor to buy us a couple of more years of time for regime change to happen internally.

In the long term keeping WMD's out of terriost 's hands is going to be a long term project that we can't do alone. We have to work together with other nations. It's in everybody's best interest to keep the nuclear club a members only club and accepting no new members as a policy. Not fair to other countries? Hypocritical? sure.

If we get aggressive by ourselfs in Iran, it will backfire just like it did with the Shah. We would have some short term goals but in the long run we can't win a war with a Billion religiously motivated muslims.

Calcountry
11-30-2009, 01:21 PM
Who cares? Who elected you/us to be the judge, jury and executioner of the world?Our guns did.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 01:24 PM
I didn't mean to say the "go it alone" point was only about Afghanistan. I was generalizing the worlds opinion in late 2009. The main reason for that feeling that the USA "will go alone" is Iraq, very few countries saw Saddam as an immediate threat.

I was talking about the general reality, not the common misconception that you apparently share. The Afghanistan point was just an example. The US didn't "go it alone" in Iraq. Hell, the US was even able to get some of the countries that were against the Iraq war to back a UN resolution demanding an accounting from Saddam (a resolution with which he failed to comply).

Boy did Bush/Cheney see it differently. now, we know who was right and who was wrong. No WMD were found. The intelligence was faulty. The decision to invade Iraq was wrong.

From the way you're talking, it doesn't sound like you know who was right and who was wrong. Despite the faulty intelligence on WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration got very little wrong about Saddam's Iraq. As our post-war inspections validated, Saddam never abandoned his WMD ambitions and he had a long history of using terrorists to achieve his foreign policy goals. If Bush hadn't forced regime change in Iraq, we'd eventually be facing the same thing there that we're now facing in Iran (unless war broke out in the meantime).

mlyonsd
11-30-2009, 01:28 PM
If Bush hadn't forced regime change in Iraq, we'd eventually be facing the same thing there that we're now facing in Iran (unless war broke out in the meantime).

Yup.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 01:29 PM
The nation of Iran indisputably attacked all three? In which generation?

Yes. In your generation. Iran has attacked all three using it's Hezbollah proxy army.

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 01:34 PM
I was talking about the general reality, not the common misconception that you apparently share. The Afghanistan point was just an example. The US didn't "go it alone" in Iraq. Hell, the US was even able to get some of the countries that were against the Iraq war to back a UN resolution demanding an accounting from Saddam (a resolution with which he failed to comply).
Thats not my preception but the worlds preception of the Bush administration. You can say they are FOS. Fine and dandy. But even a false preception sometimes becomes a reality.


From the way you're talking, it doesn't sound like you know who was right and who was wrong. Despite the faulty intelligence on WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration got very little wrong about Saddam's Iraq. As our post-war inspections validated, Saddam never abandoned his WMD ambitions and he had a long history of using terrorists to achieve his foreign policy goals. If Bush hadn't forced regime change in Iraq, we'd eventually be facing the same thing there that we're now facing in Iran (unless war broke out in the meantime).
Thats right eventually, maybe somewhere down the road. You could reasonably say the same thing about 10-15 other countries also. According to your logic we should be invading all of those countries now. Preventive strike etc., correct? We can't militarily rid ourselfs of all of our enemies in the world. We don't have the resources to invade 10 - 15 countries at the same time.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 01:45 PM
Thats not my preception but the worlds preception of the Bush administration. You can say they are FOS. Fine and dandy. But even a false preception sometimes becomes a reality.

It's not a reality no matter whose perception it was/is.

Thats right eventually, maybe somewhere down the road. You could reasonably say the same thing about 10-15 other countries also. According to your logic we should be invading all of those countries now. Preventive strike etc., correct? We can't militarily rid ourselfs of all of our enemies in the world. We don't have the resources to invade 10 - 15 countries at the same time.

No, you're not using my logic. You're making up your own logic that fails to account for the unique factors that make Iraq different from whatever 10-15 countries you have in mind. Which 10-15 countries have a long track record of working with islamist terror organizations to further their foreign policy goals. Which of those 10-15 countries also have a history of belligerence toward the US? Which of those countries are located in the heart of the middle east, preferably bordering Iran? Which of those countries has broken a long series of UN resolutions designed by the civilized world to diminish them as a threat? Which of those countries is led by a repressive dictator who practically eliminates the possibility of an internally-initiated regime change? Which of those countries has a track record of attacking it's neighbors not once but twice? Which of those countries has a relatively sophisticated population that is likely to be capable of taking on the task of self-government after we change their regime? And on and on and on. Which of the 10-15 countries you have in mind match all of these criteria? The answer is that none of them do.

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 02:03 PM
The short answer is yes. With many but's....

In the short term we should allow Israel to take out the reactor to buy us a couple of more years of time for regime change to happen internally.

In the long term keeping WMD's out of terriost 's hands is going to be a long term project that we can't do alone. We have to work together with other nations. It's in everybody's best interest to keep the nuclear club a members only club and accepting no new members as a policy. Not fair to other countries? Hypocritical? sure.

If we get aggressive by ourselfs in Iran, it will backfire just like it did with the Shah. We would have some short term goals but in the long run we can't win a war with a Billion religiously motivated muslims.
So you are saying we should set a smaller nation next door to millions of enemies take the fall for the control of Iranian nuclear armaments?

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 02:05 PM
BEP - Curious about your take on Iran and their refusal to allow uranium to be processed outside their nation for fuel purposes.

Honestly, I find that it falls perfectly in line with the other major clues that they are planning long term nuclear armaments.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 02:30 PM
BEP - Curious about your take on Iran and their refusal to allow uranium to be processed outside their nation for fuel purposes.

Honestly, I find that it falls perfectly in line with the other major clues that they are planning long term nuclear armaments.

She doesn't care. She doesn't think the US should be doing anything about it, and for the most part, she blames the US for any anti-US aggression on the part of the Iranians or any other belligerent middle east group.

Calcountry
11-30-2009, 02:35 PM
She doesn't care. She doesn't think the US should be doing anything about it, and for the most part, she blames the US for any anti-US aggression on the part of the Iranians or any other belligerent middle east group.So, she is happy about Obama's foreign policy so far. Appologise to everyone, make us week for more terrorist attacks.

She was probably happy about Major Hasan's attack. Tought them dirty Jew loving American military soldiers a lesson.

Chief Henry
11-30-2009, 03:11 PM
The thought of Akmahd Ineedajob using nukes in a few years to bargain with some of his camel humping terrorsit butt buddies is more than a bit concerning.

ROYC75
11-30-2009, 03:20 PM
Anybody who thinks Iran with nukes is a good thing has literally lost their mind.

Pants
11-30-2009, 03:27 PM
Meh, unleash Israel on dey ass. I'd give Iran 4 days before it was over.

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 03:31 PM
So you are saying we should set a smaller nation next door to millions of enemies take the fall for the control of Iranian nuclear armaments?No, I'm saying its asine for the USA to intervene in Iran at this moment in history. They are nowhere near actually producing a bomb for at least 2 years. In 2 years the mullahs could be out and a more pro western government is in place without our fingerprints all over the regime change. If the mullahs are in charge and they are getting close to a nuclear weapon, I just don't see how Russia and China also don't view that as a threat to them.

HonestChieffan
11-30-2009, 03:54 PM
No, I'm saying its asine for the USA to intervene in Iran at this moment in history. They are nowhere near actually producing a bomb for at least 2 years. In 2 years the mullahs could be out and a more pro western government is in place without our fingerprints all over the regime change. If the mullahs are in charge and they are getting close to a nuclear weapon, I just don't see how Russia and China also don't view that as a threat to them.

Is there some evidence that the radical muslims are falling in power or going to suddenly become good world citizens?

Akmanutjob and his mullahs can all be sniper bait as far as I care. Drop all we can as fast as we can.

Fox has to be smarter than the bunny.

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/lenda.jpg

Bill Parcells
11-30-2009, 04:33 PM
Stupid analogy.

Who has Iran attacked? We have a lot of bluster and screaming, but no real credible threat. At least with Iraq you could make the argument at the time that they had invaded their neighbors a few years ago.

They support Hamas...Hezbollah is trained and financed by The Iranians...who by the way took U.S. hostages in the 80's and killed them and endorse the spread of terrorism in the middle east. Israel just stopped a huge naval arms shipment heading to that area..loL...its not stupid when the leader of that country has openly admitted he wants Israel wiped off the planet.

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 04:51 PM
Akmanutjob and his mullahs can all be sniper bait as far as I care. Drop all we can as fast as we can.I'd hope that we had evolved to being smarter than a fox.

So another unneccesary war is okay with you? You volunteering to pay the taxes to fight it? Die for it? or is this just macho internet BS.

HonestChieffan
11-30-2009, 05:09 PM
I dont see a war as un necessary if it is with someone who wants you dead. I dont want you dead. I want him dead if thats what the choice is. We have not started this, we don't foster it. The mullahs and radical muslims are the ones in error.

I pay whatever taxes I am told to just like you do.

I suppose if they want to take 57 year old guys into the service, I would go but somehow I dont think that will happen. Im a right smart shot but cant run very far or jump very high.

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 05:17 PM
I dont see a war as un necessary if it is with someone who wants you dead. I dont want you dead. I want him dead if thats what the choice is. We have not started this, we don't foster it. The mullahs and radical muslims are the ones in error.

I pay whatever taxes I am told to just like you do.

I suppose if they want to take 57 year old guys into the service, I would go but somehow I dont think that will happen. Im a right smart shot but cant run very far or jump very high.
Don't you realize how many people hate us in the world? How many people would cheer an attack on the USA? Are we suppose to go kill every one of them? Hating America is not a crime thats a justification for war.

As I've said many time in the past....We should hunt down and kill every single Al-quaeda SOB regardless of what country or cave they are hiding in. They have taken up arms against americans. Thats the difference between a shooting and dying war and just people marching in the streets shouting death to America.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 05:27 PM
Don't you realize how many people hate us in the world? How many people would cheer an attack on the USA? Are we suppose to go kill every one of them? Hating America is not a crime thats a justification for war.

As I've said many time in the past....We should hunt down and kill every single Al-quaeda SOB regardless of what country or cave they are hiding in. They have taken up arms against americans. Thats the difference between a shooting and dying war and just people marching in the streets shouting death to America.

The Iranian leadership aren't just marching in the streets shouting death to America. They're investing in it.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/03/30/iran_weapons_iraq.jpg

HonestChieffan
11-30-2009, 05:39 PM
Don't you realize how many people hate us in the world? How many people would cheer an attack on the USA? Are we suppose to go kill every one of them? Hating America is not a crime thats a justification for war.

As I've said many time in the past....We should hunt down and kill every single Al-quaeda SOB regardless of what country or cave they are hiding in. They have taken up arms against americans. Thats the difference between a shooting and dying war and just people marching in the streets shouting death to America.

Yes I think so. Standing up for your country is not justification for disrespect either.

But Ive traveled a lot and I believe in every country I have been in there are more who resect the US than Hate. On the otherhand I do not see the radical muslim hate as "country centric" its no matter to me where a radical terrorist muslim is, Id just as soon he be on to paradise as not.

I dont feel compelled to go attack Canada but I am sure there are some of our northern neighbors who use the word hate much like you do. But its not really hate.

Hate is a strong word. And its often used to much and in place of words like dislike. I dislike broccoli but I say I hate it. . I dont feel that same sort of ingrained real hate from others generally.

Marching is one thing, killing soldiers in Texas, the 9-11 attack, killing a army recuiter in Memphis....all those are much more than a street march.

BigRedChief
11-30-2009, 05:39 PM
The Iranian leadership aren't just marching in the streets shouting death to America. They're investing in it.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/03/30/iran_weapons_iraq.jpg
I'm under no assumptions that these are boy scouts. That if they had the capability they would do harm to America. My point is that there are too many people in the world with those same thoughts and desire to see us harmed. We can't go to war with all of them.

patteeu
11-30-2009, 07:32 PM
I'm under no assumptions that these are boy scouts. That if they had the capability they would do harm to America. My point is that there are too many people in the world with those same thoughts and desire to see us harmed. We can't go to war with all of them.

They're not all on the verge of developing nuclear weapons with a history of using terrorist groups as proxy armies.

We can let whatever window for military action there is pass if we want, but we have to be clear with ourselves that when that window closes, we'll have a nuclear-armed Iran who, for practical purposes, will be immune to our influence at that point. They'll be free to wreak whatever havoc they wish with their proxy armies and even with their conventional forces knowing that they have a nuclear umbrella to hide behind. There will be no conventional deterrent at that point.

Easy 6
11-30-2009, 08:02 PM
They're not all on the verge of developing nuclear weapons with a history of using terrorist groups as proxy armies.

We can let whatever window for military action there is pass if we want, but we have to be clear with ourselves that when that window closes, we'll have a nuclear-armed Iran who, for practical purposes, will be immune to our influence at that point. They'll be free to wreak whatever havoc they wish with their proxy armies and even with their conventional forces knowing that they have a nuclear umbrella to hide behind. There will be no conventional deterrent at that point.

Absolutely, once they have it all bets are off.

They've made it abundantly clear that they could care less about the worlds concerns or their own people for that matter. As crazy as N. Korea is, Iran scares me more by far.

Easy 6
11-30-2009, 10:06 PM
Absolutely, once they have it all bets are off.
As crazy as N. Korea is, Iran scares me more by far.

To clarify, Jong-Il wants the worlds attention. Hardline Iran wants more, a lot more IMO.

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 12:09 AM
No, I'm saying its asine for the USA to intervene in Iran at this moment in history. They are nowhere near actually producing a bomb for at least 2 years. In 2 years the mullahs could be out and a more pro western government is in place without our fingerprints all over the regime change. If the mullahs are in charge and they are getting close to a nuclear weapon, I just don't see how Russia and China also don't view that as a threat to them.

No, your exact words were "allow Israel"..

You are stating you don't mind Israel dictacting policy for us. FWIW, I don't either, but I am honest about it. However, sanctions don't mean shit to a country that doesn't allow growth for the lower class.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 12:11 AM
...its not stupid when the leader of that country has openly admitted he wants Israel wiped off the planet.
And believes the holocaust to be a lie
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 12:12 AM
I'm under no assumptions that these are boy scouts. That if they had the capability they would do harm to America. My point is that there are too many people in the world with those same thoughts and desire to see us harmed. We can't go to war with all of them.
Which of these other nations support known terrorist groups like Hezbollah?
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:04 AM
Who elected us to act in our own best interests? Is that your question?

How is that in our own interests? Where does the US Constitution cover our "interests"? It's arguable that this is in our interests. Every country has a right to defense or it's not really sovereign.
Bush Doctrine made this stuff more likely. It didn't work did it?

This may just be another one of Donger's news links filled with half-truths and omissions to make things look worse. This is another Iraq in the making.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:09 AM
Yup! I knew I'd find something contrary to Donger's latest on setting the stage for another war...this time with Iran.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's announcement of plans to build 10 more uranium enrichment facilities is largely bluster after a strong rebuke from the U.N.'s nuclear agency, analysts said Monday. Nonetheless, the defiance is fueling calls among Western allies for new punitive sanctions to freeze Iran's nuclear program.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Purpose of the UN? Is for being meddling busy bodies creating more new wars for America's armed forces to commit to.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:11 AM
Which of these other nations support known terrorist groups like Hezbollah?
Posted via Mobile Device

Does Hezbollah come to US soil to do their dirty work?
Isn't that one of Israel's terror groups? I think so. It certainly isn't ours....not unless we put ourselves over there in the thick of their conflct.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:14 AM
Absolutely, once they have it all bets are off.

They've made it abundantly clear that they could care less about the worlds concerns or their own people for that matter. As crazy as N. Korea is, Iran scares me more by far.

Well we have such weapons and we don't care to claim we don't think anything of our own people. They have an energy crisis. Their oil is expensive. They need nuclear energy. Puts less demand on oil supply.

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 02:25 AM
Does Hezbollah come to US soil to do their dirty work?
Isn't that one of Israel's terror groups? I think so. It certainly isn't ours....not unless we put ourselves over there in the thick of their conflct.

A terrorist group against a supported Democracy? Yes, that is what Hezbollah is, you are right.

But you failed to answer my first question. How do you feel about Iran denying the request to refine their uranium outside their nation?
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 02:27 AM
Well we have such weapons and we don't care to claim we don't think anything of our own people. They have an energy crisis. Their oil is expensive. They need nuclear energy. Puts less demand on oil supply.

That is a load of bunk that no one with common sense is buying. The oil isn't expensive, refining it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

InChiefsHell
12-01-2009, 06:37 AM
That is a load of bunk that no one with common sense is buying. The oil isn't expensive, refining it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

Definitely not expensive for them, they are sitting on a shit ton of it. Hell, the higher the price of oil, the happier they are. They don't need nukes for energy. I can't believe anyone would be comfortable with the idea of a nuclear Iran...

BigRedChief
12-01-2009, 07:31 AM
No, your exact words were "allow Israel"..

You are stating you don't mind Israel dictacting policy for us. FWIW, I don't either, but I am honest about it. However, sanctions don't mean shit to a country that doesn't allow growth for the lower class.
Posted via Mobile Device
What a crock of BS you are spinning. If Israel was left to make its own decisions on this issue they would have already bombed the reactors. We have not allowed them to do it. We are dictating to them, they are not dictating to us. By "allowing" Israel to bomb them we are just not using our economic and diplomatic muscle to stop them. If push comes to shove and Israel feels threatned, it will do whatever it feels is in its best interests to survive, including going against the USA. Just like we would if the tables were turned around.

And you are completely clueless if you think that the use of the American military in Iran will make us safer. At some point, a point years in the future, we may have to use the military option but that won't make us any safer.

BigRedChief
12-01-2009, 08:20 AM
Does Hezbollah come to US soil to do their dirty work?
Isn't that one of Israel's terror groups? I think so. It certainly isn't ours....not unless we put ourselves over there in the thick of their conflct.
Not so fast there young lady...

Hezbollah blames U.S. for all terrorism

Beirut, Lebanon (CNN) -- Hezbollah's chief on Monday announced the group's new "manifesto," which calls on all countries to "liberate Jerusalem" and declares the United States a threat to the world.
"American terrorism is the source of every terrorism in the world," Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech from an undisclosed location.
It was his first address since a unity government formed in Lebanon this month, ending a crisis that had left the country with no government since June's parliamentary elections.

Hezbollah (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Hezbollah), a political party in Lebanon, is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. Nasrallah does not appear in public amid concerns for his safety.

"We invite and call on all Arabs and Muslims and all countries keen on peace and stability in the world to intensify efforts and resources to liberate Jerusalem from Zionist occupation and to maintain its true identity and its Islamic and Christian sanctities," Nasrallah said.

Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks. It has been linked to attacks against against American, Israeli and other Western targets.

In his remarks, which included about 80 minutes of reading the manifesto followed by answering questions from reporters, Nasrallah sought to reject the "terrorist" label, repeatedly saying Hezbollah is a "resistance" force.
"The U.S. administration under President George W. Bush equated the concepts of terrorism and resistance to deny the right of resistance for the people," he argued.

He praised Iran and Syria, which are Hezbollah's chief backers.
"Iran plays a central role in the Muslim world" and "stood with courage and determination with Arab and Islamic issues, especially the Palestinian issue," Nasrallah (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Hassan_Nasrallah) said.

"Damascus stood with and supported the resistance's movements in the conflict. We emphasize the need to adhere to the distinguished relations between Lebanon and Syria," he added.

A battle to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Lebanon) led to protests and confrontations in the streets in 2005, which was labeled the Cedar Revolution. Syria eventually withdrew its troops from the country.
In his "manifesto" Monday, Nasrallah also touched on domestic issues.
"We want a government that works for its citizens and provides the appropriate services in their education and medical care and housing to secure a decent life and to address the problem of poverty and provide employment opportunities," Nasrallah said.

"We want a government that works to strengthen the role of women in society and enhance their participation in all fields," he added.
Nasrallah also called for Palestinians in Lebanon to "be given basic human rights which at the same time protect their identity and their cause."
Under Lebanese law, Palestinian refugees have no social and civil rights, limited access to public health or educational facilities, and no access to public social services, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

"The majority rely entirely on UNRWA as the sole provider of education, health and relief and social services," the agency says on its Web site. "Considered as foreigners, Palestine refugees are prohibited by law from working in more than 70 trades and professions. This has led to a very high rate of unemployment amongst the refugee population."
More than 422,000 Palestinian refugees are registered with the agency in Lebanon, the group says.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/30/lebanon.hezbollah/index.html

</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Easy 6
12-01-2009, 10:54 AM
Well we have such weapons and we don't care to claim we don't think anything of our own people. They have an energy crisis. Their oil is expensive. They need nuclear energy. Puts less demand on oil supply.

I get that, lots of nations are facing an energy crunch. But do you believe that energy is the only reason for their activity?

If they get the bomb, they will flaunt it & threaten with it more than N. Korea ever thought of IMO.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 12:54 PM
I get that, lots of nations are facing an energy crunch. But do you believe that energy is the only reason for their activity?

Yes I do. But if it changes it would have to do with defense due to an invasion on their east and west by a nation that talks belligerently about them and is hell bent on making over the world.

If they get the bomb, they will flaunt it & threaten with it more than N. Korea ever thought of IMO.

They actually have been, for a long time, for a nuclear free ME ( meaning bombs). They signed a nuclear treaty that ALLOWS them the right to develop nuclear energy. I'd watch what they do regarding the IAEA more. And don't think US intel doesn't put false reports on the newswires because they do and have for a long time. The sources on these reports go back to Mossad who is using some discreditable Mujaheeden and which has turned out false intel before. Kinda like using Chalabi on Iraq. AIPAC, who owns our Congress, is pushing a war on Iran whereas J Street is opposed.

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:04 PM
They actually have been, for a long time, for a nuclear free ME ( meaning bombs). They signed a nuclear treaty that ALLOWS them the right to develop nuclear energy. I'd watch what they do regarding the IAEA more. And don't think US intel doesn't put false reports on the newswires because they do and have for a long time. The sources on these reports go back to Mossad who is using some discreditable Mujaheeden and which has turned out false intel before. Kinda like using Chalabi on Iraq. AIPAC, who owns our Congress, is pushing a war on Iran whereas J Street is opposed.

The IAEA isn't convinced that Iran's program is peaceful at all:

The outgoing head of the UN's atomic watchdog has expressed "disappointment" over Iran and said efforts to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear drive had reached a dead end.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:08 PM
That is a load of bunk that no one with common sense is buying. The oil isn't expensive, refining it is.
Posted via Mobile Device

Oh really? That was originally reported iirc by our own National Institute of Science. Lack of refineries is one their problems largely because they are socialist and rely on an inefficient state-planned economy which underlies their problem—energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment, wanting clean energy,none of which is relation to "peak oil."

The also have increased domestic demand too.


http://www.pnas.org/content/104/1/377.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=25&hits=25&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=roger+stern&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/12/irans-oil-problem.html

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:10 PM
The IAEA isn't convinced that Iran's program is peaceful at all:

The outgoing head of the UN's atomic watchdog has expressed "disappointment" over Iran and said efforts to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear drive had reached a dead end.

That's funny because I read that they say Iran has cooperated.....unless you're relying on interpretations or cherry picking by those who from the get-go long before this wanted to take over Iran. The UN isn't clean either.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:13 PM
A terrorist group against a supported Democracy? Yes, that is what Hezbollah is, you are right.
I don't support democracy, one of the worst forms of govt and which is not even our form of govt. Israel is rigidly socialist. Call it a homeland for Jews but please don't appeal to the democracy claim.

But you failed to answer my first question. How do you feel about Iran denying the request to refine their uranium outside their nation?
Posted via Mobile Device

Because I didn't see your question. I haven't been here much and came into this late. Now that I see it, Iran has every right as a sovereign nation to deny such a request just as we would. They also have a treaty they signed that allows them the right to enrich uranium in their own country. Quit being a meddler.

Why hasn't Israel signed such a treaty?


Oh and I reserve the right to not have to be compelled to answer any question. I grant the same to you as well. The right to free speech has as a corollary the right to not speak.

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:13 PM
That's funny because I read that they say Iran has cooperated.....unless you're relying on interpretations or cherry picking by those who from the get-go long before this wanted to take over Iran. The UN isn't clean either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/world/28nuke.html?_r=2&hp

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:16 PM
The IAEA isn't convinced that Iran's program is peaceful at all:

The outgoing head of the UN's atomic watchdog has expressed "disappointment" over Iran and said efforts to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear drive had reached a dead end.
Since when is the UN a credible institution to you or the right?

Some members of the UN were complicit in the Iraq debacle regarding the fact he disarmed too. Don't forget they want global governence and more of it all the time....and five countries dominate the UN too. The hardliners simply hold the upper hand in framing the argument. Places like the War Street Journal etc.

That being said, I have had contrary facts on that. My sources have been far more correct once things have played out than yours.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:21 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/world/28nuke.html?_r=2&hp

So, it's one of the bully heads at the UN. Like I said your sources are the wrong guys. Don't forget the NY Times was promoting Iraq, had Judith Miller as a WH plant and even hired arch NeoCon Kirstol.
They turned out wrong on Iraq.

I see you're a UN supporter and do not support national sovereignty. We'll be next if you keep it up.

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:21 PM
Since when is the UN a credible institution to you or the right?

Some members of the UN were complicit in the Iraq debacle regarding the fact he disarmed too. Don't forget they want global governence and more of it all the time....and five countries dominate the UN too. The hardliners simply hold the upper hand in framing the argument. Places like the War Street Journal etc.

That being said, I have had contrary facts on that. My sources have been far more correct once things have played out than yours.

Because the IAEA have actually had inspectors on the ground in Iran.

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:21 PM
Like I said your sources are the wrong guys. Don't forget the NY Times was promoting Iraq, had Judith Miller as a WH plant and even hired arch NeoCon Kirstol.
They turned out wrong on Iraq.

They are just reporting what the IAEA has stated.

KC native
12-01-2009, 01:22 PM
Like I said your sources are the wrong guys. Don't forget the NY Times was promoting Iraq, had Judith Miller as a WH plant and even hired arch NeoCon Kirstol.
They turned out wrong on Iraq.

:shake: No, I'm not a chickenhawk at all but you are a schmuck if you think Iran isn't trying to build the bomb.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:24 PM
They are just reporting what the IAEA has stated.

I've seen comments earlier by IAEA that differ and have posted them in some of your earlier threads showing what was missing in those reports.
This tells me someone may be getting to them. It's happened before.

Now what part of the words national sovereignty or none of our business do you not understand?
Or are you really a progressive in conservative clothing?

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:25 PM
I've seen comments earlier by IAEA that differ and have posted them in some of your earlier threads showing what was missing in those reports.
This tells me someone may be getting to them. It's happened before.

Now what part of the words national sovereignty or none of our business do you not understand?

Are you not aware that Iran is a signatory of the NPT?

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:31 PM
Are you not aware that Iran is a signatory of the NPT?

Yes I am. Iran defends it. That treaty also affirms the inalienable right of all other NPT states to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy "without discrimination." It was the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia that persuaded about 150 other states that didn't have nukes to become signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.


However, Israel has balked at calls for them to sign it in oder to submit their nuclear facilities to the same oversight as the rest of the world does.

Donger
12-01-2009, 01:37 PM
Yes I am. Iran defends it. That treaty also affirms the inalienable right of all other NPT states to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy "without discrimination." It was the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia that persuaded about 150 other states that didn't have nukes to become signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.


However, Israel has balked at calls for them to sign it in oder to submit their nuclear facilities to the same oversight as the rest of the world does.

And Iran must be able to demonstrate that their nuclear program is not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

BucEyedPea
12-01-2009, 01:42 PM
And Iran must be able to demonstrate that their nuclear program is not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

I've had this argument with you before, endlessly, but it never sinks in and becomes circular. The inspections, are not set up in a way to get you the information you desire just as they weren't under SH; inspections I might add that were infiltrated by our own CIA trying to use them to wage a coup. Both sides have no reason to trust one another. This is how one side can make accusations that are not based on any certain facts.

Using duress to force someone to sign a new agreement is not a valid contract.

patteeu
12-01-2009, 01:49 PM
Yes I do. But if it changes it would have to do with defense due to an invasion on their east and west by a nation that talks belligerently about them and is hell bent on making over the world.



They actually have been, for a long time, for a nuclear free ME ( meaning bombs). They signed a nuclear treaty that ALLOWS them the right to develop nuclear energy. I'd watch what they do regarding the IAEA more. And don't think US intel doesn't put false reports on the newswires because they do and have for a long time. The sources on these reports go back to Mossad who is using some discreditable Mujaheeden and which has turned out false intel before. Kinda like using Chalabi on Iraq. AIPAC, who owns our Congress, is pushing a war on Iran whereas J Street is opposed.

I've asked you this before, but I'll try again. What false intel did Chalabi provide?

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 12:40 AM
Because I didn't see your question. I haven't been here much and came into this late. Now that I see it, Iran has every right as a sovereign nation to deny such a request just as we would. .

I thought as much.

We both know the only reason Iran (whom you believe to be too poor to refine their own oil) would turn down FREE enrichment of their uranium from other nations. I am the only honest one about it though.