It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran continues towards confrontation

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
BTW Benevolent Heretic if the US is fixing facts then why is the EU, and even Russia very concerned about Iran's nuclear program? France Germany and Russia were so quick to get behind a Iraq Invasion.


There were plenty of countries who were fooled by our "proof" that Saddam was a threat. They were the coalition.



Does Iran even need Nuclear power?


I just don't think that's for us to determine. Maybe they want it. Maybe they want to sell their oil and use nuclear power for themselves. Maybe they're not in such an all-fired hurry to use up all the oil till there's none left. Maybe they want something cleaner. Maybe they want to have some for their legacy. Maybe they want to be rich beyond belief.


It's just not for us to say what they do about a nuclear power program. That's not against any international law or treaty.

We (the US) are not the world power police. It's none of our business.



Im not advocating any violence but people that arent concerned in the least live in a blissful fantasy world I wish I could join.


I'm not saying I'm not concerned in the least. Sorry if it sounds like that. I'm concerned, all right. I think it's important that the IAEA continue its job and that the world keep a watchful eye on Iran as well as a few others. I just think it's VITAL that we don't jump the gun like we did with Iraq. Iraq was a HUGE, terrible, bloody, deadly mistake and I'm not so anxious to make it again, with even worse consequences.

I am not anti-war. In fact, in the beginning of Iraq, when I believed what the government told us, I was all for it! But I was wrong.




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I just don't think that's for us to determine. Maybe they want it. Maybe they want to sell their oil and use nuclear power for themselves. Maybe they're not in such an all-fired hurry to use up all the oil till there's none left. Maybe they want something cleaner. Maybe they want to have some for their legacy. Maybe they want to be rich beyond belief.




I just cant buy that, I believe they want to be rich beyond belief though everyone does. If Nuclear power was a route to getting rich for countries like this Saudi Arabia would be doing it too. Iran has huge natural gas reserves that could be used cleanly and cheaper then Nuclear power. Iran has 9% of the world's proven oil reserves. But thats only the known reserves , Proven reserves are usually a very low estimate of actual oil. New methods are also making it economically feasible to extract oil from what use to be problematic sources such as oil sands.

If it was about making money its clear an investment in oil or gas would bring much greater returns. The majority of Irans energy is used for transport, and residential uses anyway and your not going to use nuclear power to power cars or heat homes.

Then Iran has a considerable potential for hydroelectric power.


Im not pro war with Iran I think they should have a right to develop peaceful nuclear power. But we are IMO justified especially in light of such Hostile comments of Irans to be skeptical regarding the claim that Iran is putting all that money into uranium enrichment to replace its abundant fossil fuel.

Im glad the France, Germany, UK and Russia among others seem to share my concern



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I just cant buy that, I believe they want to be rich beyond belief though everyone does. If Nuclear power was a route to getting rich for countries like this Saudi Arabia would be doing it too.


Yes, I know, I was trying to convey the idea of -- maybe we don't know why they want it. And we don't need to know. We (the US) are not owed an explanation. We do not have to understand the reasoning. We are not the watchers of the world. We do not have to figure out exactly what they're doing to feel like we have a handle on it.

All of your reasoning about why they're doing what they're doing or what they should be doing or not doing isn't relevant. (IMHO)


Besides, what ever happened to that secret nuclear deal between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Are you sure they're not developing them? That's not relevent, either.



Im not pro war with Iran I think they should have a right to develop peaceful nuclear power. But we are IMO justified especially in light of such Hostile comments of Irans to be skeptical regarding the claim that Iran is putting all that money into uranium enrichment to replace its abundant fossil fuel.


Yes! We are justified in being skeptical, I agree. I think we should continue to be skeptical. But because of their hostile attitude, not because we can't justify why they want or need nuclear power.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
The bottom line is that you don't know if Iran are trying to build a bomb. By the same token, I don't know either. Nobody knows - even the IAEA who's job it is don't know.


- Whilst that may well be a truism for the purposes of debate it is hardly the full story.

That's why we had inspectors and monitoring.

(Unless you go along with the idea that they, somehow, run a duplicate - and more advanced - bomb making system in secret along side the one we know about......in which case paranoia rules and nothing anyone can ever say about anything will ever satisfy and you may as well kill everyone else just in case
).


So it all comes down to trust.


- No it doesn't.
It comes down to proofs and factual information gained through engagement, monitoring and inspection, which we had.

But, as with Iraq, it is quite obvious certain people aren't really interested in any of that and simply continue to exert 'pressure' and ensure trust is at a mighty premium.
Same old same old, don't let the inspectors do their job, undermine everything they do with innuendo and outright lies and before you know it there's a new war on.


So, leaving them to their own devices and expecting them to follow international laws doesn't seem to work. So why should we trust them?


- Since when is the only other option to any of this "leaving them to their own devices"?

Who said that?
I didn't.


They need to be bought into line.


- Actually they were already fulfilling all their treaty obligations (and in fact going beyond those).


Or would you rather they were allowed to selectively ignore the rules of the NPT?


- Er, we have no problem when it comes to certain other countries.

Like I said the reality is that they were meeting their obligations and more.


Nobody is salivating over the prospect of more wars (OK, some people are...)


- I think you just answered your own assertion there; it's plain as day there are plenty out there wanting to talk war war war all day long over this.


but sometimes force is necessary if needed.


- Well there's the point; Iran was fully complying and should be encouraged to comply, not threatened.
Threats make them disengage, they have not helped as their recent talk of withdrawing permission for spot checks etc show.


Otherwise what's the point in having any international laws?


- The point of international law is that it ought to apply to all equally without fear or favour; on that point alone the Iranians can rightly talk about the fact they have been singled out despite signing and complying with international law, unlike some.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
People trying to warn Europe about Hitler while he was rearming heard the same thing. So many believed that all Hitler wanted to do was unite German speaking people


- If you can demonstrate anything like the inspection and monitoring regime Iran has agreed to be subject to with Hitler's Germany then maybe I might give this idea the time of day.

As it is these kinds of comparison are IMO shallow and worthless propagandising.


N Korea played this same nuclear game. Oh we are just using nuclear technology to make energy we dont have a nuclear weapons program. People defended N Korea program as well. Then all of a sudden N Korea shocks the world and admitted to secretly having a nuclear weapon.


- Actually North Korea has made some claims but whether or not they actually have a bomb is far from certain.
And what?


if the US is fixing facts then why is the EU, and even Russia very concerned about Iran's nuclear program?


- I think you'll find they are intent on ensuring there isn't another disastrous ME war.


France Germany and Russia were so quick to get behind a Iraq Invasion.


- Really?
When did that happen?

They helped the rebuild not the invasion.


Does Iran even need Nuclear power?


- That is not your call.

Maybe you should start pressing for the archives to be opened and find out just what it was that was so convincing that the USA said to Iran back in the 1970's that got them so interested in the idea, hmmmm?


Iran has vast oil and gas reserves for its energy needs 9% of the world's proven oil reserves, and almost 16 percent of the world's gas reserve (gas is clean buring and cheaper then nuclear power) Irans supply is estimated to be enough to last for 200 years!.


- OK, but the fact is that as they have almost nothing else to offer that can generate anything like as much foreign currency they will always be looking to export as much of that natural wealth as possible.

Going nuclear maximises their possible exports at a time when prices can only climb and climb.
Why this seems so hard for some to understand I don't know.


There are neither nuclear power plants nor plans for their development in Saudi Arabia. Most countries that generate nuclear power import the fuel they need.


- That's hardly a 'proof' of anything other than the choices they wish to make and have made to date.


Iran wants to make its own fuel.


- Quite. They want control over the entire fuel cycle.

What's so odd about that?

Come talk to me about that as amazingly unusual on the day the USA hands that part of her fuel cycle over to another nation.

Hell, let's cut to the chase and wise up, this whole ME PNAC adventure is all about securing US fuel supplies.


Then we have the simple fact that Iran has publicly called for the destruction of other countries on numerous occasions


- The Iranian government has done no such thing and has no such formal declared and legal policy.

You mean a ceremonial President (quite unlike the US version in powers) ran off at the mouth at a rally with his nasty slogans (as has happened for decades).

Hardly new and hardly the stuff to justify a new war.


Im not advocating any violence but people that arent concerned in the least live in a blissful fantasy world I wish I could join.


- Again a characterisation utterly at odds with reality.

I don't know anyone applauding the Iranian Pres when he talks like an idiot but I can be sure he cannot and will not be allowed to act out his fantasy (otherwise, if they are just itching to do so and are so utterly uncaring of the consequences, why would Iran not have used the WMDs and missiles they have had for years to attack Israel long ago?).

The fact is that the choice is not one of ramping up for another futile, devastating and murderous Illegal ME war or 'just letting them do what they like'.

We had effective engagement, monitoring and spot checks anywhere agreed and they were working.

All the 'pressure' has done is persuade the Iranians that no matter what they do certain people are intent on attacking them.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- No it doesn't.
It comes down to proofs and factual information gained through engagement, monitoring and inspection, which we had.


Oh yeah just like with N Korea. Monitoring, inspection that all worked great. We had no "proof" they were making a Atmoic bomb until the told the world they had one.

Worked great that time.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Actually North Korea has made some claims but whether or not they actually have a bomb is far from certain.
And what?


LOL you have to be kidding now whos on with the shallow and worthless propagandising.





- I think you'll find they are intent on ensuring there isn't another disastrous ME war.
.

Really and how do you know this. For one who cant see the writing on the wall you sure are insightful when it comes to the true motives of countries you couldnt possible know.





- Really?
When did that happen?

They helped the rebuild not the invasion.



That sminkeypinkey was called sarcasm but I see it was lost on you.




Going nuclear maximises their possible exports at a time when prices can only climb and climb.
Why this seems so hard for some to understand I don't know.

The money arguement again. Money poured into any of Irans existing natural resources like gas or oil would see a much larger net gain then enriching uranium.




Iran wants to make its own fuel
- Quite. They want control over the entire fuel cycle.

What's so odd about that?


Why is it most countries that use nuclear energy do not make the fuel themselves? They have no problem with that fact. Why does Iran want too so bad?




- The Iranian government has done no such thing and has no such formal declared and legal policy.

You mean a ceremonial President (quite unlike the US version in powers) ran off at the mouth at a rally with his nasty slogans (as has happened for decades).

Hardly new and hardly the stuff to justify a new war.


No who is being naive? What do you exactly think publicly calling for the destruction of Israel is? Do they have to send a formal letter to Israel LOL

The "ceremonial President" as you like to call him is not the only public offical to make such statements. Second this "ceremonial President" would not be put into power if he did not share the views of the goverment.

They have publicly been saying this stuff for years.



Iranian Leader Khamenai 2 October 2000, Radio Tehran) "A regime based on force might last a certain period, but it will fail in the end… the Palestinians struggle and the Moslems' support for them will bring us to good results and will eliminate the enemy.”






22 October 2000, Khabar TV ) “The countdown for the Zionist regime has begun.”






Head of the Expediency Council and Former President, Rafsanjani In a Friday sermon, (14 December 2000, Khabar TV )" The Jews [who immigrated to Israel] should expect a ‘reverse exodus', because one day, the tumor will be removed from the body of the Islamic World, and then millions of Jews who moved there will become homeless again"






Ayatollah Kashani, Friday Sermon in Tehran 27 July 2001, IRNA ) "death to the Zionist culture"


I could go on and on I can post pictures of state parades with missiles having “ISRAEL MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY” and so many state poster that I could fill a dozen post with this stuff.

But it would all be wasted on you its clear you have such a blinding bias when you cant even come to grips with a clear fact like Iran Publicly calling for the destruction of Israel many times.




[edit on 28-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
That's why we had inspectors and monitoring.


Yes, and the inspectors said in 2003 that Iran had a secret enrichment program dating back some 18 years! That's what started this recent crises.


It comes down to proofs and factual information gained through engagement, monitoring and inspection, which we had.


As above. We had it - but Iran were also conducting programs in secret. They were not being honest at all.


- Well there's the point; Iran was fully complying and should be encouraged to comply, not threatened.
Threats make them disengage, they have not helped as their recent talk of withdrawing permission for spot checks etc show


No, they haven't been complying! From the IAEA report.....


..Many aspects of Iran's nuclear fuel cycle activities and experiments, particularly in the areas of uranium enrichment, uranium conversion and plutonium research, had not been declared to the Agency in accordance with Iran's obligations under its Safeguards Agreement. Iran's policy of concealment continued until October 2003, and resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with that agreement...


So, rightly, we pull them up on it. Now your saying it's out fault that they've started to be awkward
It's up to them, under the NPT, to allow the IAEA to do their job.....and they're still not. Therefor, it goes to the UNSC. on Monday.


I think you just answered your own assertion there; it's plain as day there are plenty out there wanting to talk war war war all day long over this


Yes, there are. And there are also people who are happy to make excuses for states that are clearly in the wrong. I suppose (to use an extreme and unlikely example) if Iran nukes Israel in a few years it will all be the Wests fault for pushing them into it



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Oh yeah just like with N Korea. Monitoring, inspection that all worked great. We had no "proof" they were making a Atmoic bomb until the told the world they had one.

Worked great that time.


- No that is not a valid comparison.
There was never a spot checking 'go anywhere' inspection and 24/7 monitoring regime anything like what Iran has had going on in North Korea.

......and for all that you still have nothing but a self-interested claim to go on.


The money arguement again. Money poured into any of Irans existing natural resources like gas or oil would see a much larger net gain then enriching uranium.


- That is still simply your opinion and take on this;
they may well see their strategic economic interests very differently.

Like I said, why not try finding out what it was that the USA said to Iran back in the early 1970's that got them so interested in this in the first place, hmmmm?


Why is it most countries that use nuclear energy do not make the fuel themselves? They have no problem with that fact. Why does Iran want too so bad?


- Maybe it has a lot to do with their past experiences with the USA and subsequently being politically isolated and under pressure for so long?


No who is being naive? What do you exactly think publicly calling for the destruction of Israel is? Do they have to send a formal letter to Israel


- "LOL" all you like but the Iranian government did not make that comment and the circumstance in which it was said are plain.

It is not unreasonable to say that they may talk about wanting to see a political system destroyed or vanish without their intending to exterminate every person in a particular country......just as it is perfectly reasonable for people in our countries to talk about preferring to see Islamic regimes vanish off the face of the earth without intending a genocide.

But the point is hardly about quibbling over language; I don't for a moment believe that guy is a nice fellow, I don't think living under the current Iranian regime is an experience I would find acceptable.

The issue is encouraging an outcome where we do not end up in an insane either (a new ME war) or Iranian nuclear weapons.

I was seeing an Iran extending itself beyond the requirements of the various treaties she had signed up to, now thanks to increasing pressure she is moving away from that previous progress.
That strikes me as a very definite backward step.


They have publicly been saying this stuff for years.


- Precisely.
They have been chanting all sorts of offensive slogans for years, but that is all it is sloganizing.

They have not attacked anyone despite having the WMDs and the missiles to deliver them for well over 10yrs.

Experience and reality verses imagined possibility......so, who is being naive, hmmmm?


But it would all be wasted on you its clear you have such a blinding bias when you cant even come to grips with a clear fact like Iran Publicly calling for the destruction of Israel many times.


- If you want to take ideological slogans as actual government policy then that is up to you.
"Blinding bias" indeed.
Obviously the experience of reality and what has actually happened over the years despite the 'many times' you cite is wasted on you.

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

Curio, are you going to base your approach to this by what was happening pre 2003 or what progress had been made by 2006?

[edit on 28-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
They have been chanting all sorts of offensive slogans for years, but that is all it is sloganizing.

They have not attacked anyone despite having the WMDs and the missiles to deliver them for well over 10yrs.

Experience and reality verses imagined possibility......so, who is being naive, hmmmm?



Oh so since they have been publicly calling for the destruction of Israel for years its ok
Iran's public officals and State-sponsored media have time and time again called for the destruction of Israel. That is publicly calling for the destruction of another country.

Your spin attempt "all it is sloganizing" is just weak

You say they havent attacked Israel despite having WMDS. for well over 10 years
First you should learn your weapons systems because they havent had a accurate delivery system to hit Israel with a WMD for well over ten years. They just recently upgraded the Shahab-3 to do such a thing.

link

Second attacking a nuclear armed country like Israel with some Chemical missiles would be one of the most moronic moves in military history.


Iran has publicly called for the destruction of another country. It openly backed and has been a state sponsor of terrorist organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas. Anyone that wouldnt be the least bit concerned about them getting nuclear weapons is naive.


Its funny you took such offence to the Pre-WW2 Hitler reference. I would bet good money now you would have been one of the people saying Hitler would never invaded hes just trying to improve Germany


[edit on 28-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Curio, are you going to base your approach to this by what was happening pre 2003 or what progress had been made by 2006?


Well, you can't forget about what happened up to 2003 - 18 years of not being honest and ignoring aspects of the NPT isn't forgiven that easily. As for the current situation, well, the IAEA are concerned enough to be reporting Iran to the UNSC on Monday. Iran still isn't cooperating fully - there are a lot of outstanding issues that they need to provide clarification on.

And remember, this is isn't just the usual "war mongers" - the IAEA, France, Germany, etc, are concerned about Iran.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Curio]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Wired News



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States cannot say for certain that North Korea possesses any nuclear weapons but believes Pyongyang has continued to produce plutonium from its 5-megawatt Yongbyon reactor, top intelligence officials said on Tuesday.


Hate to side with Sminkey on this "one" point... There were if I recall supposed to be tests of a nuclear device at some point in N Korea?

I guess the jury is still out on that one hence the lack of determined effort.

If I remember rightly joint talks between Nkorea, China Japan and the US all fell through as NK wanted the US to sign an accord saying it will not attack, seems simple enough but it never happened, the NK incident blended into the background during Iraq, and still is back there, this is down to 2 events as far as I can see.

China as the regional power has direct talks with NK and NK stops aggressive rhetoric.

US firms up with Taiwan and opposes its desolving of the Reunification council.


I do not see an amicable way out of this situation, Iran will not give up (nor should it a "peaceful nuclear pursuit") but it should do all that it can to build confidence, this hasnt happened!

Iran is either very smart or very dumb, I fully think however that they know what they are doing and have a plan.

I think that plan is called the Iranian Oil Bourse it is the financial straw that could break the US's back and prevent it from attacking in the future, imagine this situation,

Iranian Oil Bourse comes online
Iran declares nuclear capability

that would basically guarantee it could retaliate with sufficient force to make the US think twice about attack while also crippling Zionism.

Just idle speculation on my part but it makes you wonder.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by Oilbourse2006]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
i'm just going to play devil's advocate here and bet against them doing anything with their enriched uranium except powering their country. in short, peaceful purposes. most would agree with the paradox that the shortest route to peace is the disgust for war........i.e., if they had abundant nuclear weapons NOW we'd be a lot more hesitant to attack them.

therefore if you look at it a certain way, the cause of peace is aided by means of them having nukes. if that sounds stupid, explain why the US and soviets never went to war despite having immense stockpiles of nuclear warheads AND the utmost distrust of one another's motives for over 40 years. if russia had only conventional weapons i believe we'd have had a protracted war with them many years ago.

sorry, but i think this same principle of "mutually assured destruction", on a smaller scale, will keep iran from pearl harboring anyone.

to portray the iranians as a bunch of kids with M-80s who will sneak out the back door and just light off their newfound nukes for the hell of it is illogical....there is a huge difference between "threatening" other countries and attacking them.

this is not our fight.


THAT SAID, i fully support a shock and awe retaliation if the iranians use nuclear weapons offensively. yet if they knew we meant business in that regard they'd never try any crazy stuff.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Your spin attempt "all it is sloganizing" is just weak


- It isn't mere 'spin', clearly they were just slogans as Iran has not attacked anybody...... unless you can point to them doing anything more concrete.
Of course you cannot because you know as well as I that Iran has not directly attacked anybody.


You say they havent attacked Israel despite having WMDS. for well over 10 years


- Yes they have; no "
" about it, it is a fact, both chemical and biological.


First you should learn your weapons systems because they havent had a accurate delivery system to hit Israel with a WMD for well over ten years. They just recently upgraded the Shahab-3 to do such a thing.


- I think you will find this Shahab-3 missile whilst an improvement in range on what went before is not the first to bring Israel 'within range' actually.

This link details Iran's complete missile development, by 1995 you will see several references to 1000km+ range missile tech. By 1996 it's 1600km and so on.
One can only wonder how come (if the standard propaganda is correct) they didn't just get their terrorist - state officials or malitia types - mates in Syria or wherever to just launch with the shorter range types and have done with it.
(because the idea is nonsense)
www.nti.org...


Second attacking a nuclear armed country like Israel with some Chemical missiles would be one of the most moronic moves in military history.


- By the standard reckoning yes, of course, but then Iran is widely claimed to be a specially crazed murderous and yet suicidal case.

That being so how come they have not simply tried to launch several chemical and biological warheads?
Or used the Tu22 bombers (with stand off missiles apparantly) on a one-way mission?
Where is the crazy strike by say 25 - 50 devilishly equipped missiles and to hell with the consequences we are all supposed to be frightened of?


Iran has publicly called for the destruction of another country.


- "Iran" did no such thing; their ceremonial head ran off at the mouth at a rally.
Happened before (and nothing happened) it may well happen again (and there is no reason to expect anything to actually happen then either).


It openly backed and has been a state sponsor of terrorist organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas.


- You see a terrorist creating wrong and they see a freedom fighter fighting wrong......and much of the "backing" you claim is simply sending the families of those killed some money to support them.


Anyone that wouldnt be the least bit concerned about them getting nuclear weapons is naive.


- Who said anything about being unconcerned about them getting nuclear weapons?

Once again a completely bogus characterisation of what is being said.

The fact is they haven't got any and by all sane and reasonable estimates (estimates informed by previous and rather *ahem* public failures no less) they are at least 10years away from any even if they were trying to get them......but I am pretty sure of this much, the one way to push them into trying to get them is to threaten and attempt to intimidate them as is happening now.

My concern is how this entire episode is being so obviously used to justify another counter-productive and wholly unnecessary war.


Its funny you took such offence to the Pre-WW2 Hitler reference.


- Er, I didn't take "such offence".
I just thought it was silly, totally superficial and pointless as well as fundamentally wrong and inappropriate to the issue.


I would bet good money now you would have been one of the people saying Hitler would never invaded hes just trying to improve Germany


- Right up until this type of rather silly insult this was a reasonable little to and fro.

Shall I make something really stupid and insulting up about you and call it your view?

You see the point I was trying to make earlier is that the Iranian President called for a nuclear free ME today.

.....and what did we get?

Zero comment about that, in fact we got aload of talk today about how Iran is moving closer towards "confrontation".

My news actually has a story of optimism not the reverse today -


"We are optimistic we can agree with our Iranian partners ... we think we can come to an agreement that a joint venture on the soil of the Russian Federation will be able to meet Iran's needs fully," Russian President Vladimir Putin told a news conference during a visit to Hungary.

Moscow sees the enrichment joint venture as a way out of confrontation, but diplomats in Europe and the United States doubt the proposal will satisfy Iran, which they suspect of covertly seeking nuclear weapons.

Although Tehran says it has a "basic" agreement with Russia about the scheme, it has refused so far to give up what it sees as its right to enrich uranium at home.

"We would like to enjoy our rights like Japan to have nuclear technology, of course for peaceful purposes," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Japan on Tuesday.

Reuters

- But doubtless this will go unremarked too amongst yet more 'war war war!' nonsense.



[edit on 28-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

[Mod edit - Formatting]

[edit on 1/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey



First you should learn your weapons systems because they havent had a accurate delivery system to hit Israel with a WMD for well over ten years. They just recently upgraded the Shahab-3 to do such a thing.


-This link details Iran's complete missile development, by 1995 you will see several references to 1000km+ range missile tech. By 1996 it's 1600km and so on.
One can only wonder how come (if the standard propaganda is correct) they didn't just get their terrorist - state officials or malitia types - mates in Syria or wherever to just launch with the shorter range types and have done with it.
(because the idea is nonsense)
www.nti.org...


See but I said accurate delivery system to hit Israel.

Look at the junk they were talking about in that link upgraded Scud-B, Scud-C what junk they would likely kill more palestinians then Israelis with that junk
Alot of that stuff in that link they never even got. Just mentions of them in talks about it.

I never said Iran was stupid infact its quite the opposite they are calculating. They know without nuclear weapons they can never defeat Israel and it stupid to even try until they have them. Chemical and Bio missiles vs Israeli nukes
50 or 200 of them it would still be stupid. Most of Israel have gas mask at the ready to go at any time so how effective you think those chemicals are going to be?

But its still classic how you put spin on the Publicly calling for the destruction of Israel thing. Nurmeous public officials, State controled TV and newspapers Parades all calling for the same thing.

Well if that aint calling publicly for something nothing is.

Oh and your newest spin on organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas
As freedom fighters is that what you called them? So now strapping explosives to your body for the sole purpose of blowing up a bus full of civilians is freedom fighting now sminkeypinkey


Classic



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Why wouldn't they act like big shots? they have Russian on their side and most if not all of the middle east. they are stretching their muscles and there is no way this country could take them on. Bush ahs us in too many places.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
You're government fooled you with the Iraq war, so why believe them now?


All that kind of getting nukes is a big lie. Even if it's true, they have the right to have nukes to defend themselves from USA and Israël. If Iran is to be disarmed, I want that Israël to be disarmed too.

Israël is the plague of the middle-east, they shouldn't be there. At least, they shouldn't be doing what they are doing and did for almost 50 years.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with Iran and nukes....THIS has nothing to do with Iran and nukes keep repeating that.....LISTEN! We're gonna air strike Iran, no sh*t! it's coming..most likely a convenient attack will happen here first....Forget all the small detailed talk people, and just realize everything for what it is...a huge war is going to errupt in the middle east....it's going to happen, it's been predicted to happen, it is happening....just forget about who can nuke who, and who can crush who...Nightmares are coming, bottem line....and for those that want it, your gonna get it, the change is coming, I just hope everyone is ready for it......



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
See but I said accurate delivery system to hit Israel.

Look at the junk they were talking about in that link upgraded Scud-B, Scud-C what junk they would likely kill more palestinians then Israelis with that junk


- and so what?

To justify thoughts of the imagined coming Iranian attack and their refusal to act in accordance with the usual ideas of deterrence it is often suggested the Iranian leadership would neither care about survival of themselves and their own nation nor the fate of those Palestinians that would be lost in what is often claimed to be their 'greater cause'.
This 'Caliphate' some are supposedly determined they intend to bring on.


They know without nuclear weapons they can never defeat Israel and it stupid to even try until they have them. Chemical and Bio missiles vs Israeli nukes
50 or 200 of them it would still be stupid.


- Why?

If your aim is supposed to be solely about destroying the state of Israel as a functioning political entity then what is so "lol" about a massed chemical and biological attack?

I realise those promoting the idea of this imagined scary (almost) nuclear Iran have to ignore the wider chemical and biological WMD question (yet when it came to Iraq it was the most important thing in the world) but neither you nor anyone else has satisfactorily answered this question.


Most of Israel have gas mask at the ready to go at any time so how effective you think those chemicals are going to be?


- Do you really think a poisoned land of Israel would survive a massed chemical and biological attack unscathed with gas masks?!


But its still classic how you put spin on the Publicly calling for the destruction of Israel thing. Nurmeous public officials, State controled TV and newspapers Parades all calling for the same thing.

Well if that aint calling publicly for something nothing is.


- Individuals spouting propaganda slogans whilst unpleasant and offensive are still not the policies of a government.
The fact that these slogans have been shouted for decades with no governmental action proves that labelling them as mere slogans is not mere "spin" but an accurate description of them.


Oh and your newest spin on organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas
As freedom fighters is that what you called them? So now strapping explosives to your body for the sole purpose of blowing up a bus full of civilians is freedom fighting now sminkeypinkey
Classic


- You can carry on trying to falsely characterising my comment all you like but that really is raking out the bottom of the barrel.
Talk about a weak and sad attempt at a 'when did you stop beating you wife' bait
.

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are the first to use 'terrorism' to pursue what they see as their fight for freedom and their political objectives.
In fact the state of Israel was born out of a terrorist/freedom fighters struggle itself.

Distasteful as it is, the fact remains that is how 'they' view Hamas and Hezbollah; just as pretty much every other group that has ever used terrorism on the innocents (including those acting at 'arms length' and with 'plausible deniability' for the USA......or UK for that matter) to pursue political ends has seen their activities.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Still blindly supporting Iran I see sminkey


And still contridicting yourself. According to him, if the Iranian president, or any other members in the Iranian government say something such as calling for the complete destruction of Israel, it's just talk and not government policy. But if someone in the US government says something such as "all options are on the table," then that means the official government policy is war


I'm still waiting for an explanation for that in the other thread.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
......In fact the state of Israel was born out of a terrorist/freedom fighters struggle itself......

And you still don't know your history I see.
Care to explain this statement?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Why?

If your aim is supposed to be solely about destroying the state of Israel as a functioning political entity then what is so "lol" about a massed chemical and biological attack?

I realise those promoting the idea of this imagined scary (almost) nuclear Iran have to ignore the wider chemical and biological WMD question (yet when it came to Iraq it was the most important thing in the world) but neither you nor anyone else has satisfactorily answered this question.



Do you even have to ask why? Irans goal is to get rid of Israel not get rid of Israel at the cost of wipping out their own country. Scuds with Chemical and Bioweapons wouldn't wipe Israel out but Israel nuclear weapons would indeed wipe Iran out.

I never said their " aim is supposed to be solely about destroying the state of Israel " I clearly stated they are not stupid. They are smart and calculating with theirPublic objectives with Israel.

Iran has to even the odds and that means taking as much of the impact of Israels nuclear weapons out of the equation as you can. The only realistic way to do this is to aquire your own nuclear force equal or greater to that of your enemies.

Russia did this with the US, Indian did it with Pakistan and Iran is trying to do it with Israel. Its a basic military tactic not hard to grasp for even the most baised of people.

But seeing that most of the World including Iran has already got together and decided Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing people are justified to be concerned.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Still blindly supporting Iran I see sminkey


- Oh Jayzuss, another one who'll label anyone with a contrary opinion 'a supporter of.....blah blah blah'.
That's really lame.
(or is that supposed to be some more of those attempts at side-splitting humour?
Sorry, it failed.)


if the Iranian president, or any other members in the Iranian government say something such as calling for the complete destruction of Israel, it's just talk and not government policy. But if someone in the US government says something such as "all options are on the table," then that means the official government policy is war


- The difference is in the track-record to date and also the degree of power and influence and their ability to 'project power'.

Iran's record on global dominance verses the Bush version of the USA?
Please.


I'm still waiting for an explanation for that in the other thread.


- What's left to discuss?
You see it a particular way and I another.

I am not convincing you and you certainly have not convinced me.

You can do an endless to and fro if you like but whilst I am happy to discuss things at length I am not obsessed with having the last word.
Carry on.
I'm done with it.


And you still don't know your history I see.
Care to explain this statement?


- I suggest you go acquaint yourself with the Israeli terrorists and their terrorism just before the birth of the Israeli state.

Check out the King David Hotel bombing......

......and then come back and tell me about who doesn't know their history (and if you are man enough maybe even apologize for taking silly digs about it too?)

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


Originally posted by ShadowXIXIrans goal is to get rid of Israel not get rid of Israel at the cost of wipping out their own country.


- Well that makes a change from some of the ridiculous ding-bat loons around here, fair play to you.

So in that case are you saying you do agree deterrence applies?

If so then given Israeli large nuclear weapon stockpiles (despite their not being signatories to any world treaties, being subject to inspections or monitoring etc etc) how come you claim to be so worried about the prospect of a nuclear (powered) Iranian?
Even if the Iranians acquire weapons they are countered by Israeli nuclear weapons (not forgetting any US support etc etc).

......and the idea that 'terrorists' would or could get hold of an Iranian bomb (or even a few), sneak into Israel and completely destroy Israel's retaliatory capacity is beyond credibility too......and they certainly couldn't do anything about the US capability.

In any case even nuclear weapons have a 'signature' and anything happening with an Iranian signature would invite the most devastating response (with global approval from almost everyone).

Deterrence applies, you can't get around that.

......and this is all speculation without the slightest degree of evidence Iran has or is anywhere remotely near getting a bomb.


Iran has to even the odds and that means taking as much of the impact of Israels nuclear weapons out of the equation as you can. The only realistic way to do this is to acquire your own nuclear force equal or greater to that of your enemies.


- Come off of it.
An Iranian attack would not just be countered by an Israeli response, get real.
So how on earth are they (the Iranians) ever meant to 'counter' that reality?
Even by trying to broaden the issue out to include any of their possible allies just brings us all right back to the wider issues of deterrence (vis Russia, China etc etc).

Interesting as all that is the title of this thread was " Iran continues towards confrontation".
I posted a link showing the Iranian President had called for a nuclear-free ME, not actually further 'confrontation' and certainly a move towards a more sane regional nuclear 'posture', right?

It's also very interesting that some folks around here want to label questioning the speculation and sheer propagandising for a new war as 'support' (blind or otherwise) for the Iranians and their supposed dark intent, talk about trying to shout down anyone daring to oppose!

It's noteable that there is almost not one word about the conciliatory remarks made recently and publicly.

War, war, war!
Right?
.......or is it only the supporters of increasing military involvement that get to make silly characterisations of others, hmmm?


Here's some of today's news, no breakthroughs but certainly not the movement towards 'confrontation' some think either -


Talks between Russian and Iranian negotiators on a Russian plan for joint uranium enrichment have ended with a "general" agreement but the proposal needs work, Iran's chief negotiator said on Wednesday.

Ali Larijani said talks would be continued to work out outstanding issues but he said Tehran was still insisting on its right to enrich uranium on its own soil.

"In general we are agreed on this question but we need to refine ... a few elements of this question and study it. This requires time," Larijani said after about four hours of talks with officials from Russia's Security Council

today.reuters.com...:2006-03-



[edit on 1-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join