US Says Iran's Nuclear Claim is Hype

reply to post by Xcathdra


Eh, but they are using the 20 percent in their research reactor. It's a long way off from the 90 percent enriched they need. Also, I think you missed the point of my first post, but it wasn't really that important.

It's funny that the US started them on this nuclear path isn't it?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Eh, but they are using the 20 percent in their research reactor. It's a long way off from the 90 percent enriched they need. Also, I think you missed the point of my first post, but it wasn't really that important.

It's funny that the US started them on this nuclear path isn't it?

edit on 18-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Well if you want to look at it that way then sure..

All the more reason to end their program now before they decide to use it later on.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Would the esteemed member from the great state of denial yield for a question?

What you see are facts. Iran has acknowledged the concerns the West has while meeting with the IAEA. Iran claims to be transparent yet they have been anything but. You dismiss the visit request, even though its a violation of the IAEA agreement. The recent ability for inspectors to go back to Iran is nothing but a stalling tactic. People also seem to ignore the fact that Iran went a year plus refusing inspectors any access to their facilities, again against IAEA agreements.

If left unchecked and Iran acquires the bomb and decides to use it, then what? Should we speculate some more while ignoring the incident and discuss how speculative it is??

More if's and maybe's and so on... Yeah that's a good justification for war

Originally posted by PsykoOps
More if's and maybe's and so on... Yeah that's a good justification for war

More ifs and maybe's and so on... Yeah thats a good justification to ignore the problem resulting in war.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Would the esteemed member from the great state of denial yield for a question?

What you see are facts. Iran has acknowledged the concerns the West has while meeting with the IAEA. Iran claims to be transparent yet they have been anything but. You dismiss the visit request, even though its a violation of the IAEA agreement. The recent ability for inspectors to go back to Iran is nothing but a stalling tactic. People also seem to ignore the fact that Iran went a year plus refusing inspectors any access to their facilities, again against IAEA agreements.

If left unchecked and Iran acquires the bomb and decides to use it, then what? Should we speculate some more while ignoring the incident and discuss how speculative it is??

Facts? All you've shown me is some stuff off of the internet.

We cover Iran all the time where I do my studies. I learn real facts there. I really only come on ATS to see if there are actually intelligent people around with experienced arguments, or if there's only people who regurgitate a few facts from some websites. There's a big difference between inherently understanding something and using "facts" to prove your perceived argument.

The funny thing is that with a situation like the Iran nuke debate, real and unbiased facts are obviously hard to come by so what makes you think that I will flatter myself with what you've dug up? It's not like I don't look at them- it's just that I already know what I need to know. I don't fall for some convenient facts to justify one side in such a "conflict" when the bigger picture has already shown what the true motives are.

I mean, seriously, you expect me to believe what you have to claim about Iran's nuclear weapons program after I spent the last 8 years or so watching your country decimate Iraq for its supposed WMD weapons that were apparently such a grave threat? Lots of "facts" were presented by top level people back then too, guess what those "facts" turned out to be? Bullsh*t.

And you want to talk about how suspicious it is for Iran to not allow inspectors into all of their facilities? Do you not remember how Saddam allowed inspectors into his facilities when your country threatened to bomb him if he refused? And then your country told Saddam to dissassemble all of his most capable weapons or face military invasion- so he complied. And then what happened? US invaded, and Iraq was left without its best weapons AND its major installations were already scoped out by inspectors. I cannot blame Iran for employing common sense to avoid the same conclusion.

THIS WAS TO XCATH.. for some reason I clicked and replied to myself originally.


I don't think they would ever use it unless it was used on them.. I mean, maybe if they had the means to produce massive amounts of warheads, but I don't ever see them handing a nuke over to a group like hamas or hezbollah. It would be too risky. The group could sell it or even have someone that is covert for MEK or some group use it against Iran themselves. I just don't know about all this Iran wants to nuke anyone stuff.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I do think Israel is just as much of a problem. How come we haven't forced transparency on them? They have a lot of nukes that could potentially be stolen that no one knows about and the world would never know if one went missing. A lot of people think the first nuke NK tested was Israeli made.

reply to post by sy.gunson


I like the way you presented your argument and it made some sense. I like reading these threads because you sure learn a lot. Do you have a source for this?

Iran however has lied about it's nuclear weapons project repeatedly, has threatened to destroy the US, Isreal, and all of USA's allies in the Gulf and in Europe.

...or was it your opinion?

Thanks.