Japan stresses Iran's nuclear right

Despite the political scores we got - I was just pretending

The kind of rubbish being spouted by shrub and his ilk are the reason that the US has a bad name in the international community.

It's such a shame so many great people are put in the same war-loving bracket because of the actions of the few.

reply to post by budski


Hahaha,I was serioussly bout' to post something saying "I havnt heard from Budsky in a while,I bet he's making some long response"

Lol,was I right.


The point is that IF Iran is known to have made a weapon-which they SAY they have,than they need to be dealt with.By the world,not just the US,but if yall wont help,we will and can do it ourselfs.

reply to post by jkrog08


Show me where Iran has said that they have built nuclear weapons.

You can't, because they haven't.

reply to post by jkrog08

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


Show me where Iran has said that they have built nuclear weapons.

You can't, because they haven't.

Here ya go:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wednesday to governments in the West-Russia who know privately that Iran not only has a nuclear weapons program but also nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles. An invitation to discuss Teheran’s non-negotiable position. Of course governments don’t want to say publicly what they know and publicly state Iran has yet to produce nuclear warheads, but Iran revived its nuclear program in 1986 and it would not take long to produce nuclear weaponry especially with the support Beijing has provided Iran, support which China has also sent through North Korea. China’s government was eager to do so becuase they know Iran-Pakistan have the potential to weaken three of China’s rivals, the West-India-Russia. An Iranian exile once told me he last visited Iran in August 2001 and in the hotel he was staying in Teheran there were a lot of Chinese technicians he assumed were working on weapons of mass destruction.

crossfirewar.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

You should know this cause your posting on it

reply to post by jkrog08

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


I'm not anti-american, I'm anti-bush&co

And against war-mongerers in general.

If you can't back things up, then what's the point of debate or discussion?

An opinion is worth little without evidence to show what it is based on...

I don't know if you were trying to "test"me on my posting or debate skills or are just non-aware..............but anyways there you go,see if I can easily get proof of something and its obvious I will get it,even though it still won't change your mind..........you prolly dont understand what I mean but oh well.

[edit on 4/25/2008 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


Crossfire is an evangelical christian site hellbent on destroying Iran. A very terrible source.

Originally posted by niteboy82
From the header of this site:

Analysis of international events on the Eurasian continent and other regions involved in World War III 1994-2007

What kind of source is that? I have never heard of Willard Payne before.

We better be sure that Iran has these weapons, because if we go there, and discover nada, we are going to lose a lot of whatever credibility we have left.

reply to post by sty


Where have they said that? Are you referring to Israel's threats and Iran's subsequent response?

Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying "wipe the current regime off the map." Not Israel as a nation, but Israel as a political system.

Stop reading Israeli propaganda, it'll kill your soul.

reply to post by jkrog08


I said this on the other thread and I'll repeat it here, the article states the missiles are nuclear CAPABLE, nowhere does it say they have nukes.
(edited to add)
It's worth reading flice's posting in that thread of who is behind this article

[edit on 25-4-2008 by yellowbeard]

reply to post by biggie smalls


I didnt say it was a good source,Budsky just said"show me a source"...........Hell don't complain to me,it was posted here on ATS.

reply to post by jkrog08


Are you seriously citing that as a reliable source???

That's little more than a blog.

I said show proof - not some cartoon-strip attempt at journalism.

Get me quotes, verbatim, from the iranian president.

Not some "he said, and I have a friend who heard" stuff that means nothing.

Debating skills

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
1) Japan is plain stupid.

Another "terrorist" nation because they don't agree with the US' foreign policy. Right.

2) they said peaceful/civillian and we all know that Irans program is to make nuclear weapons.

Oh really? We all know that. Only the neocons "know" that, aka don't know #. You don't know the Iranians want nuclear weapons, sorry bud. They want nuclear power, sure. Don't we all want "clean", reliable, and relatively cheap fuel?

Even if they want nuclear weapons, it is only for their protection. They're not stupid enough to use them. It seems the fear mongering worked on you though.

Those "evil" Iranians are out to get you.

3)Japan intends too build nuclear reactors to make fuel for nuclear weapons itself and so it is openly supporting peaceful nuclear power.

Uhuh. Where's your proof of this ridiculous statement as well?

4) I wonder what Japans reaction would be to the US agreeing to allow N.Korea to have nuclear reactors/weapons????????

North Korea already has nuclear weapons, too late. They seem to be fine with it.

reply to post by jkrog08


Just because it was posted on ATS doesn't make it a reliable source. WND is posted here quite frequently, heck I've even cited it, that doesn't make it reliable.

You need to check your references and make sure there's more than 1 source saying the same thing.

Sorry I don't trust war mongering christian fundy mental ists.

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's). Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

If Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. This could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region.

Obvioussly you knew I couldnt provide you with PROOF that RIGHT NOW Iran has nukes,but it is obvious they SOON(2YRS)WILL.

So I got you this,which states the obvious to you,that Iran is trying to get nukes and will have them very soon.Thus,they ned to be dealt with BEFORE they have them.
LINK



[edit on 4/25/2008 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
You are just anti American towards everything arn't you,not just Bush and co.

Questioning US foreign policy and the US government is as American as you can get. Ever hear of the freedom of speech? Even though I completely disagree with pretty much everything that comes out of your mouth, I will fight for your right to speak freely.

The US has already said that we will not worry about Russia's nuclear reactor they are building,cause we KNOW that it will be used for peaceful purposes.

We know Russia is peaceful now? During the cold war that didn't seem to be the case. First the communist scare, now its fundamental islam. Give me a break.

The government creates wars so it can continue its stranglehold on this country and world.

Another reason Iran is so dangerous with nukes is the amount of terrorist there that would have access to them.

As the US funded Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, I'd say we're far more dangerous than Iran.

Bush is not the first prez. to worry about Iran.

Bush/Cheney have been the only ones inciting fear about an Iranian invasion. No one else has done that before.

America is NOT against peaceful energy related nuclear reactors.

America IS against nuclear reactors used for the purpose of making weapons.

We only want to allow countries who are on our "good" list to use nuclear weapons and power. The "axis of evil" is not allowed to have nuclear power or weapons.

Pretty hypocritical.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by jkrog08

 

Show me where Iran has said that they have built nuclear weapons.

You can't, because they haven't.

Here's what I actually said.

Where IRAN has said they have nuclear weapons.

Not "oh my fathers cousins friend knows a guy who's a cleaner at the UN and he overheard some arabs talking in the bathroom"

In that case, everything ever said about anything would be true.

reply to post by jkrog08


So now it's changed from "they definitely have them"

To

"They'll have them in two years"

Like I said, the russians are giving them the fissile material on the condition that all spent fuel is returned - meaning they'll have nothing to make the nukes out of.

reply to post by jkrog08


Brought to you by the same people who said Iraq had WMDs...Sorry I don't buy it.

Let's just start bombing more countries. Who needs peace right? Perpetual war is good for everyone.

Take your daily dose of fear, its in that vitamin jar over there.

WOW,you all(Budsky and Biggiesmalls)seem to have ALL THE ANSWERS TO WORLD PEACE.I guess the WORLD should just elect you BOTH President,or one Prez. and one Vice.


LOL,So what would you BOTH do different,what would yall do if you WERE in control?

reply to post by jkrog08


And all you seemto want is more and more war.

However.

For a start I wouldn't be in Iraq without a UN mandate.

Nor would I pander to the israeli's - support them to an extent, but not back them up over everything they do.

And I would be doing just about everything I could to heal the rifts caused by US policy in the mideast for the last 50 years or so.

If the US hadn't stuck their noses into iranian politics and tried to control the country via a puppet, it wouldn't be the mess it is now.

Instead, the UK and france would still be the most hated nations in the region.

A little simplistic, because there is the banking system to consider.


[edit on 25/4/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by jkrog08
WOW,you all(Budsky and Biggiesmalls)seem to have ALL THE ANSWERS TO WORLD PEACE.I guess the WORLD should just elect you BOTH President,or one Prez. and one Vice.

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I know that what we've been doing the past 50 some odd years with our foreign policy is a huge reason the rest of the world hates us.

LOL,So what would you BOTH do different,what would yall do if you WERE in control?

Maybe we should stop invading sovereign nations, become energy independent, and treat our own civilians with some respect.

The rest of the world is not full of terrorists, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. There's no global jihad bent on the pacification of Westerners. That's what the government wants you to think.

They want you to be afraid. Before Islam it was the Communists, before that it was the Nazis, and before that we were isolationists.

That worked out pretty well for us. We didn't stick our noses in business that wasn't our own, didn't invade anyone (for the most part), and we did alright.

I don't expect us to go back to isolationism. In an increasingly globalized world, that's just not going to happen. What we can do is keep to ourselves and not mess with the middle east, africa, south america, and asia like we do.

How about we follow self-determination for once whereas "all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." Woodrow Wilson, a former US President called for this attitude. He was spot on.

We'd be viewed as world saviors, not hypocrites and thugs as we are now.

[edit on 4/25/2008 by biggie smalls]