|
|
source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/nuclear_iran_iaea_dc;_ylt=ApSu1TC3C5771SonEDw3nRWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
| Quote: | TEHRAN (Reuters) -
Iran announced on Tuesday it would resume atomic fuel research and development next week, raising the spectre of a fresh showdown with the West which suspects Tehran wants nuclear technology to build bombs.
The news coincided with strong hints from Iran's Foreign Ministry that Tehran would reject a Russian compromise proposal aimed at defusing Iran's nuclear row with the West.
The two developments were likely to spark renewed calls from Washington and the
European Union for the case to be referred to the
U.N. Security Council, where Iran could face political or economic sanctions.
"The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has decided to resume from January 9, 2006, R&D (research and development) on the peaceful nuclear energy program which was suspended," Iran said in a note delivered to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Diplomats said the move, which follows Iran's resumption of uranium conversion in August, was a serious blow to diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
"This does not help the process," said an EU diplomat, referring to efforts by the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France to find a negotiated solution to the standoff.
A resumption of nuclear research and development, frozen voluntarily by Iran two years ago to defuse international pressure over its atomic ambitions, may include the manufacture and assembly of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment, the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle. It could also include some small-scale enrichment tests.
The IAEA found in 2003 that Iran had conducted considerable clandestine research, including enrichment tests and centrifuge assembly, since the mid-1980s. But it has not detected any clear proof that Tehran wants to build atomic weapons.
A Security Council referral vote could be held at the next meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation governing board, scheduled for March 6. At its last session in November, the board opted to put off any vote to give time for Russia's proposal to bear fruit.
IAEA WANTS MORE COOPERATION
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei urged Iran to cooperate more with his agency and to keep diplomatic channels open.
"The Director General ... continues to call on Iran to take the steps the IAEA requires to resolve outstanding issues regarding the nature of Irans nuclear program," the IAEA said in a statement.
"In the meantime, Dr ElBaradei also calls on Iran to take voluntary measures to build confidence, and enable the resumption of dialogue with all concerned parties."
Iran, which says its nuclear program will only be used for peaceful purposes, voluntarily suspended atomic research as well as all uranium processing and enrichment under negotiations with the EU trio that began in 2003.
Tehran began to roll back its suspension of nuclear work in August by restarting its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, prompting the "EU3" to freeze its talks with Iran. The talks resumed in December and the sides are to meet again this month.
"Iran's decision will probably raise the temperature around the talks," said a diplomat close to the IAEA.
Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, stressed that the actual enrichment of uranium, through injecting gas into centrifuges at Iran's unfinished Natanz facility, would not be resumed for now.
"That will be a separate issue on which no decision has yet been made," he told Iranian state television.
Earlier on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi poured cold water on a Russian proposal aimed at easing Western concerns that Iran could get its hands on bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium.
"The Russian proposal is ambiguous," Asefi told a weekly news conference. "If they want to propose enrichment (only) in Russia we have said it is not acceptable. But if it is a complementary or parallel plan, we will study that."
A Russian delegation is due in Tehran on January 7 to hold further talks on the proposal. |
Iran to Earth: We're going to make a bomb
Isreal to Iran: No. You're not...
I have an idea:
Nuke. Whole area. One big glass parking lot with a huge Texaco station in the middle.
Iran needs to get bitchslapped. So does north korea.
They need to wait in line until we can change barrels.
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | They need to wait in line while we can change barrels. |
Looks like they baiting Us to get some new toys 
They are building ballistic missles too. Of course these are the same people who told us Iraq had WMD's..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1677541,00.html
| Quote: | Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile
Document seen by Guardian details web of front companies and middlemen
Ian Cobain and Ian Traynor
Wednesday January 4, 2006
The Guardian
The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons programmes. |
I don't think that Iran is going to have nuclear bomb.As a resident of Iran I that they are not even in a level to think about this technology (NUKE BOMB) But if they want to have conflicts with the world , I think they'll accept their offer . I do not know why they are trying to have this technology when it'll cost in some serius sanctions from UN .
I think 9 Jan will show that Iran is going to UN security council or not .
| amirkpe wrote: | I don't think that Iran is going to have nuclear bomb.As a resident of Iran I that they are not even in a level to think about this technology (NUKE BOMB) But if they want to have conflicts with the world , I think they'll accept their offer . I do not know why they are trying to have this technology when it'll cost in some serius sanctions from UN .
I think 9 Jan will show that Iran is going to UN security council or not .
|
I didn't mean to imply that they would build it themsleves. The article said they were looking for the components.
| Quote: | The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons programmes.
Scientists in Tehran are also shopping for parts for a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, with "import requests and acquisitions ... registered almost daily", the report seen by the Guardian concludes. |
If the Iranians build a nuke, what then?
You could say they are dangerous fanatics, but the current US govmt is a bit scary, not to mention the Israelis who have quite a few nukes.
It might make people think more carefuly about illegal invasions after all...
Anyway, isn't it far more dangerous that the huge nuclear arsenals of the most powerful nations are still on cold war alert standing, and a mistake will sooner or ater end up frying quite a few of us?
| Dante wrote: |
It might make people think more carefuly about illegal invasions after all... |
Indeed, mainly Iran.
| Dante wrote: | | Anyway, isn't it far more dangerous that the huge nuclear arsenals of the most powerful nations are still on cold war alert standing, and a mistake will sooner or ater end up frying quite a few of us? |
Nope...
It has the right to acquire this techology of evry nation for peacefull purposes..
Iran never say anything like its not going to Show his nuclear plants to anyone, Atomic Energy comision were monitoruing its plants from the begining .
now they started saying iran is going to make atomic bamb. and it alrdy has acquired some components... same they did in iraq.. wrong propeganda to smooth the way for invasion,,
I'm just going to say that the only country on the face of the Earth that demostrated posing a nuclear threat is the USA, and I don't remember anybody whining about that and trying to close nuclear plants for that very reason.
I'm trying to remember the name of the only country to actually use nuclear weaponry in war. Somebody please help me........
| Carupieara wrote: | | I'm trying to remember the name of the only country to actually use nuclear weaponry in war. Somebody please help me........ |
It was the USA. And they bombed Japan. It is widely accepted that the bombings saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese AND American lives.
BTW, I forgot WHY the USA bombed them. Anyone remember? I guess it was the USA's intent right from the start when they STARTED the war with Japan. If only they had waited a few more months, Germany could have beaten the Americans to finishing the bomb and ended the war.
I think the US should remind the world of the power it has. I think a few thousand innocent lives gone in a split second is better than 100,000 ver a period of 20 years.
There will always be religious fanatics blowing sh*t up. You just have to b*tch slap them into smaller numbers. Every day there is a Muslim nutbag blowing himself and others up. A couple times a year there is some Christian nutbag blowing themselves and others up. Every religion (except Buddhism and Hinduism) has nutbags that blow sh*t up.
I think the large amount of sand in the middle east which intensifies the appearance of an explosion has something to do with it. They're probably thinking... "but it looks so cool!" Abortion clinic bombings aren't much of a sight.
Perhaps Iran wants only a peaceful program. But if that were the case, they would have accepted the aid of other nations in building a solely civilian nuclear plant. As it stands, with the amount natural resources Iran has, nuclear power is a costly and inefficient means for power production at present. It doesn't really gel. Iran also doesn't really need nukes for defense in any real way, they have no enemies at present. That's why the EU and US are hesitant about the Iranian nuclear program--aggressive possibilites seem very real.
They have the right to pursue weapons technology--the only country that might actively stop them is Israel, and that stems from the those lovely comments coming for the past 50 years about wiping Israel off the map. Then again, you haven't seen Israel use the nuke yet, and you won't. Israel's actions these days are careful balance between military action and public relations. It's one thing for them to go blow up a reactor in Iran--it would be a whole different story if Israel nuked Iran--not going to happen. That said, while the US and EU probably won't stop them, they have the option to sanction them in order to produce a policy they enjoy. That's the perogative and ability of wealthy nations in the politics of dependent ones.
I dont think they need it to start doing all this nuclear sh*t... They should more be worried about their people and not their army. I guess they are threaten though, from America invading every country which contains oil.
| Quote: | | Industries: petroleum, petrochemicals, textiles, cement and other construction materials, food processing (particularly sugar refining and vegetable oil production), metal fabricating, armaments |
| acamas wrote: | I guess they are threaten though, from America invading every country which contains oil.
|
No. More like the US being threatened by countries with nukes (or close to having them), with a track record of threatening the US with said nukes.
I don't remember the US threatening to nuke Iran any time recently...
Iran does have a right to use and benefit from atomic technology, why can the U.S. control who has and shouldn't have nukes? Even though I am pure American, it seems like the most un-American thing to do.
Iran is to be monitored closely, who really knows of their intent? They say they won't nuke us, but given the current view of the U.S. in the middle east, anything is possible.
| Soulfire wrote: | why can the U.S. control who has and shouldn't have nukes? Even though I am pure American, it seems like the most un-American thing to do.
|
I think it has to do with intent. The countries that the US is trying to prevent from getting nukes are the ones threatening the US, or those country's neighbors.
| Quote: | | who really knows of their intent? They say they won't nuke us, but given the current view of the U.S. in the middle east, anything is possible. |
HuH? Their intent is clear. Quite clear. Basically to 'wipe Israel off the map' and the destruction of the US
| Hassan Abbassi, Iranian President wrote: |
"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English. The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."'
...
The Americans are not ready to send a million men (to defeat the Islamic Republic)
...
Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | HuH? Their intent is clear. Quite clear. Basically to 'wipe Israel off the map' and the destruction of the US. |
I have to agree that they might become a big threat to Israel. Definately something to worry about. And invading a country which has real WMD isn't as easy as invading Iraq.
Israel does have nukes too, and all of them are made in USA, so, I wouldn't care if they all kill each other, as long as it serves to establish a peace that doesn't require any more deaths than there are right now.
| polarBear wrote: | I I wouldn't care if they all kill each other,
...
that doesn't require any more deaths than there are right now. |
Wow. Don't you think that if they all killed each other, there would be more deaths than there are right now?
Impressive. 
Personally I find the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction quite unappealing.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | Wow. Don't you think that if they all killed each other, there would be more deaths than there are right now?
Impressive. |
Bush was going to count them. And yes it is impressive. 
Guys what do you think Iran will do if they have a nuclear weapons !!
This is so rediculous
is the nuclear bomb just for the USA ?
so what ? USA wants a world free of weapons except her ? 
| ahmad wrote: | Guys what do you think Iran will do if they have a nuclear weapons !!
This is so rediculous
is the nuclear bomb just for the USA ?
so what ? USA wants a world free of weapons except her ? |
I thought K3ys said it pretty clearly when he quoted Iran's President...
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Hassan Abbassi, Iranian President wrote: |
"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English. The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."'
...
The Americans are not ready to send a million men (to defeat the Islamic Republic)
...
Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover |
|
| polarBear wrote: | | Israel does have nukes too, and all of them are made in USA, so, I wouldn't care if they all kill each other, as long as it serves to establish a peace that doesn't require any more deaths than there are right now. |
None are made in the USA. Israeli nuclear technology came first from France, none come from America. Britain may also have had a hand. The US was opposed to nuclear armament. Most of the technology since the original gift from the French has been developed internally, including the Jericho and Arrow missle systems, the latter being incorporated into the US's ABM program as a high-altitude interceptor as a first tier before the use of the PATRIOT. The US has supplied some missle technology, but there is no evidence to show direct gifts of atomic warheads. In fact, a lot of modern US military technology comes from R&D in Israel, not vice versa. Besides, as mentioned, that would serve no peace. And "killing each other" means the few people on both sides who are intolerant killing the millions who just want peace. Good idea.
| wikipedia wrote: | The United States had been opposed to Israel acquiring the bomb - an August 2005 BBC investigation showed that in the late 1950s the US rejected an Israeli request to sell it heavy water, because of Israel's refusal to guarantee it would be used only for civilian purposes. Consequently, because the world's largest supplier of heavy water, Norway, did not have enough stock, Britain sold Israel 20 tons of surplus heavy water, without requiring safeguards, or informing the US. The decision to ship 10 tons in June 1959, and another 10 tons a year later, appears to have been made entirely by civil servants at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, without political involvement. A 1961 request for a further five tons was declined - again without ministerial involvement - after a Daily Express report the year before on Israel's activities at Dimona had made the issue too politically sensitive.[2]
The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development programme) came in the London-based Sunday Times on October 5, 1986, which printed information provided by Mordechai Vanunu, formerly employed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, a facility located in the Negev desert south of Dimona. For publication of state secrets, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. Although there had been much speculation prior to Vanunu's revelations that the Dimona site was creating nuclear weapons, Vanunu's information indicated that Israel had also built thermonuclear weapons.
In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres admitted publicly that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." [3]. The "nuclear option" may refer to a nuclear weapon or to the nuclear reactor in Dimona, which Israel claims is used for scientific research. ("Hiroshima" refers to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, while "Oslo" refers to the Oslo Peace Accords). Peres, in his capacity as the Director General of the Ministry of Defense in the early 1960s, was responsible for building Israel's nuclear capability. |
| FAS.org about Dimona wrote: |
There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.
United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant. |
| Quote: | | he US has supplied some missle technology, but there is no evidence to show direct gifts of atomic warheads. In fact, a lot of modern US military technology comes from R&D in Israel, not vice versa. |
| Ha'aretz, Tuesday, March 14, 2000 wrote: | A PRESIDENT'S PROMISE: ISRAEL CAN KEEP ITS NUKES
Open Secrets
By Aluf Benn
Ha'aretz, Tuesday, March 14, 2000
In an appendix to the Wye agreement, President Clinton promised in writing that Israel's nuclear capabilities would be preserved if it continues its policy of 'ambiguity' |
| - Ephraim Katzir wrote: | It has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential.
|
"we didn't know about the nuclear weapons, we just knew about them" ¿what is that? And why can't Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and a long et cetera get ignored that way? It would be way too much fun.
| FAS wrote: | | Only five countries had facilities for uranium enrichment: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, in Apollo, Pennsylvania was a small fuel rod fabrication plant. In 1965, the U.S. government accused Dr. Zalman Shapiro, the corporation president, of “losing” 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Although investigated by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies and inquiring reporters, no answers were available in what was termed the Apollo Affair.[29] Many remain convinced that the Israelis received 200 pounds of enriched uranium sometime before 1965.[30] One source links Rafi Eitan, an Israeli Mossad agent and later the handler of spy Jonathan Pollard, with NUMEC.[31] In the 1990s when the NUMEC plant was disassembled, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found over 100 kilograms of plutonium in the structural components of the contaminated plant, casting doubt on 200 pounds going to Israel |
Check out the Federation of American Scientists 's website, it's huge fun
You said The US gave the nukes, not that the US knew about them. Why would you quote my post without responding to it? No one contests that Israel has nuclear capabilities. The French gave them a reactor! Clinton couldn't exactly shut an already functioning program down.
Israel has 'em. Then again, Israel also receives the most international aid from the US. Israel is democratic and a strong ally of the US. Even then the US tried to prevent the development of a nuclear program--Israel did it independently. The weapons program was well underway by the time the US found out, as you mentioned in your post. India and Pakistan also have nukes. Why do North Korea and Iran not get the same treatment? The answer was given above. This country doesn't exactly respond well to threats.
We have to keep in mind the US has not mentioned preventative military action. What the EU and US are willing to do is impose economic sanctions. That's common and normal. It's every nation's right to choose whom it trades with and how. No one is really 'stopping' Iran right now. Except of course, Israel might. But then again, doesn't that make sense?
They have to stop Iran. I think Iran is not a danger for Europe but for America. Even more than Saddam Hussein, when he was in Iraq. But America will not start a war again, because the last one in Iraq cost 2 billion dollar! I think now it's time for Europe to make a big statement on Iran. And no economic sanctions but stop that president of Iran and his gouvernment!
| Dante wrote: | If the Iranians build a nuke, what then?
You could say they are dangerous fanatics, but the current US govmt is a bit scary, not to mention the Israelis who have quite a few nukes.
It might make people think more carefuly about illegal invasions after all...
Anyway, isn't it far more dangerous that the huge nuclear arsenals of the most powerful nations are still on cold war alert standing, and a mistake will sooner or ater end up frying quite a few of us? |
i agree
Who will fire the next atomic bomb! Will it be Iran this time or will the US yet again take the honours? Looking at both those countries it's like placing 2 vicious cats and dogs next to eachother. Neither believe in "talking things out" or "peace missions". If it doesn't involve the death of at least one innocent the mission could be declared failed.
So we'll just have to wait and see what will happen eh .
| DX-Blog wrote: | Who will fire the next atomic bomb! Will it be Iran this time or will the US yet again take the honours? Looking at both those countries it's like placing 2 vicious cats and dogs next to eachother. Neither believe in "talking things out" or "peace missions". If it doesn't involve the death of at least one innocent the mission could be declared failed.
So we'll just have to wait and see what will happen eh . |
You're wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
I'll just say that 1) the US has a long history of trying to talk things out or use other methods before military force. And 2) your statement about the death of at least one innocent shows just how ignorant you are. The US military is trained to prevent the harm to civilians.
Take off the bushitler glasses the liberals stapled to your face and look at the actual policy the US uses.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | DX-Blog wrote: | Who will fire the next atomic bomb! Will it be Iran this time or will the US yet again take the honours? Looking at both those countries it's like placing 2 vicious cats and dogs next to eachother. Neither believe in "talking things out" or "peace missions". If it doesn't involve the death of at least one innocent the mission could be declared failed.
So we'll just have to wait and see what will happen eh . |
You're wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
I'll just say that 1) the US has a long history of trying to talk things out or use other methods before military force. And 2) your statement about the death of at least one innocent shows just how ignorant you are. The US military is trained to prevent the harm to civilians.
Take off the bushitler glasses the liberals stapled to your face and look at the actual policy the US uses. |
US has a long history? US history doesn't even go back further than like what? 250 years or so. When it all started out with talking peacefully with the indians I guess.
During WW2 I guess there were no alternatives to the atomic bomb? Peace talks were out of the question at that time, but was it really required to nuke an entire city? I would like to see what happens if Iran does that to New York or something, will it yet again be the "ending" or will it this time be the beginning of something since America wasn't the one to drop it?
As for vietnam, not so long ago, I guess the childeren which died due to the napalm bombings by the US were a threat to them? Talking to them was no longer required.
Between Vietnam and 2000 there have been many things going on, including stuff like training rebel forces and stuff in some fked up country in southern america, give them supplies and all to let them fight a war instead of declare a war yourselves. Guess that is the style of peace talking.
After 11-9 things became even nicer, now where were the peace talks here? O wait, the US wasn't in war with Afghanistan at all, you just had to show your power by attacking them. Bomb some cities, guess you missed the images on your television of childeren dying to this as well. Guess in secret those kids were actually Al-Qaeda members, that would be a good excuse. Or is your US military training not compatible enough for precision bombing? So hard to distinguish a happily living Afghanistan family from a militarized terrorist base ofcourse.
When it comes to Iraq I guess it went all peacefully as well? Ah, right yeh, the US prefers to talk first. I guess that's why the EU warned the US NOT to attack Iraq since talks were still going on. Instead the US couldn't leave the chance of starting yet another war.
You know, I can say with pride that my country has not started a war for decades, perhaps even 200 years or more by now. Your country hardly even exists that long and it has already started more wars than my country has had in like the past 2000 years?
It has absolutely nothing to do with bush-hitler glasses or liberals or whatever, since bush and hitler are 2 completely different people and you cant see me comparing them. You are just trying to get back to me with some worthless comment, which actually only made your post look crappy to me, but that's another point.
As for your liberal comment, the worthless liberal/democrat system is of completely no interest to me, neither is it to just about anybody else in my country and perhaps most of Europe. We can't care about how you do things in your own country, even if you would nuke every own single city of yours. What we care about is what you do to the rest of the world. We don't want to be taken down to hell along with ya guys.
The likelihood of nukes being used officially by a government is low. It's one thing if a subversive organization got their hands on one, but if a country actually used one there would be no end to political turmoil they'd face. The US and Isreali's don't need to use nukes. Both have superior military powers compared to the entire region, plenty of conventional weapons and lots of planes.
If anyone should be in fear of a nuclear attack, it would Israel. The Iranian president continues to say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" and "The Holocaust is a myth" and he continues to fund terrorist organizations. The US doesn't deal with nearly as much on its home soil that Israel does. That threat is most likely the only one that could come true--even then, I doubt it.
| DX-Blog wrote: |
US has a long history?
|
Relative to it's existance. I can see how that might have been taken out of context the way you did... I think.
| Quote: | | During WW2 I guess there were no alternatives to the atomic bomb? |
You guessed correctly. There were no alternatives.
| Quote: | | Peace talks were out of the question at that time, but was it really required to nuke an entire city? |
No, it was required to nuke TWO entire cities. And that saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives. 
| Quote: |
When it comes to Iraq I guess it went all peacefully as well? |
The deaths in the Iraqi war(s) were much less because of the precision strikes by the US. Carpet bombing is no longer necessary. (I've heard of it happening in Iraq, though)
| Quote: | | You know, I can say with pride that my country has not started a war for decades, perhaps even 200 years or more by now. Your country hardly even exists that long and it has already started more wars than my country has had in like the past 2000 years? |
I can say with pride that, in 250ish years, my country has become the single super-power of the Earth. I can also say with pride that we're doing a reletively good job, considering the alternatives.
| Quote: | | It has absolutely nothing to do with bush-hitler glasses or liberals or whatever, since bush and hitler are 2 completely different people and you cant see me comparing them. You are just trying to get back to me with some worthless comment, which actually only made your post look crappy to me, but that's another point. |
Many liberals (and most extreme liberals) I've communicated with often refer to Bush as Hitler, or a terrorist, or any other number of insinuations relating him to a nazi. Don't take it so personally, it wasn't directed at you.
| Quote: | | As for your liberal comment, the worthless liberal/democrat system is of completely no interest to me, neither is it to just about anybody else in my country and perhaps most of Europe. We can't care about how you do things in your own country, even if you would nuke every own single city of yours. What we care about is what you do to the rest of the world. We don't want to be taken down to hell along with ya guys. |
I often wish my country didn't give a crap about the well being of the rest of the free world. But unfortunately, if we let idiots keep running amuck, sooner or later it will have a profound effect on the entire world. The world is a smaller place now and what rouge countries do can effect everyone.
Go read the recent post about the crusades if you don't think there's a pattern.
this is not true
this president is not so ideot to give americans a reason for war !
this is what they want , and this is what Iran want to avoid !!
Another nice news, the iranians have been relaunching their activities for nuclear use (civil or militar...) ! If you notice all the declarations of their president about the non muslims or jews there is really a lot to worry about.
iran just do that for protecting itself, because they see that there will be real war between them and U.S government, and if they want to prevent that they must have a weapon which can frighten U.S and stop them for some years...
That doesn't particularly make sense. Both EU and US were on moderately friendly terms. The main thing they both discuss as negative was nuclear armament (and this isn't just the US, it's also Europe).
If Iraq has shown anything (faulty intel or not), it's that the fastest way to bring military conflict with the US is to have WMD's--not vice versa. If Iran is hoping to scare of the US with its mighty military, that would be possibly the most foolish military strategy I can think of. The way to stave off conflict is to play nice and keep to the international regulations set by the IAEA.
guys
know this from some one livind in the middle east
USA is doing all that to protect israel
why USA leave israel ? why to be so worry from iran ? Israel is the biggest Nuclear market on the middle east !! and USA governument is doing all that cause nukes on Iran preseny a threat to israel
so why the nuked on israel doesnt make a threat to us ? arabians ?
I hope I dont find racism here too cause i am so tired of it every way I go 
| benwhite wrote: | That doesn't particularly make sense. Both EU and US were on moderately friendly terms. The main thing they both discuss as negative was nuclear armament (and this isn't just the US, it's also Europe).
If Iraq has shown anything (faulty intel or not), it's that the fastest way to bring military conflict with the US is to have WMD's--not vice versa. If Iran is hoping to scare of the US with its mighty military, that would be possibly the most foolish military strategy I can think of. The way to stave off conflict is to play nice and keep to the international regulations set by the IAEA. |
You should not forget that Iran has one of the most feared militaries in the middle east. I lived in the middle east for a while and my dad aided the military there, I went to the military bases along with him several times and if there is one country which they all spoke high and mighty off it was Iran, not cause they love the country, but because they fear it.
The country might not be that large, but if it can manage to scare other militaries in the middle east it is something which America shouldn't underestimate.
Having them come out with this now is something which I personally don't see as foolish military strategy. Right now is a very wise decision. The US army is still fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, proclaiming to aid with building up both countries as well. If Iran gives the US a bitch slap now, like they basically did the US basically has 2 options. Ignore them and let Iran come out of this as the winner so Iran can give the US the name of frightened weak little chickens or the US can invade Iran as well, but since they have military forces in other countries fighting as well that will either give them a weakened military force, making it easier for Iran to battle them off or the US could take out forces from the other countries in order to go fight in Iran.
If the last would happen, which would strategically be the most wise decision Iran would still win in some way since yet again the US would be displayed as the country always seeking war and not keeping their promises of rebuilding the countries which they invaded earlier. Seeing as to how taking forces out appearantly makes that a low priority thing, attacking other countries is of importance first.
I doubt Iran will invade the US so that won't truly be an option, also I don't think the UN will invade Iran, seeing as to how we don't fight, we talk and rebuild the crap made by others.
So well yeh, Irans bitchslap aint foolish at all, it's just giving a hell lot of possiblities for some good media, and during a war these days that's exactly what makes a winner.
| DX-Blog wrote: |
Having them come out with this now is something which I personally don't see as foolish military strategy. Right now is a very wise decision. The US army is still fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, proclaiming to aid with building up both countries as well. If Iran gives the US a bitch slap now, like they basically did the US basically has 2 options. Ignore them and let Iran come out of this as the winner so Iran can give the US the name of frightened weak little chickens or the US can invade Iran as well, but since they have military forces in other countries fighting as well that will either give them a weakened military force, making it easier for Iran to battle them off or the US could take out forces from the other countries in order to go fight in Iran.
|
I don't think the US is running short on military at all. I'm involved in some of the current and up and coming military projects here and I can say confidently that the US DOES have the means (and balls) to take on Iran effectively without using nukes. I'm quite certain it will happen, likely within the next year or two.
| Quote: | | If the last would happen, which would strategically be the most wise decision Iran would still win in some way since yet again the US would be displayed as the country always seeking war and not keeping their promises of rebuilding the countries which they invaded earlier. Seeing as to how taking forces out appearantly makes that a low priority thing, attacking other countries is of importance first. |
Not keeping their promise to rebuild what? Iraq? Japan? Germany? Italy? etc etc etc etc etc
| Quote: | | I doubt Iran will invade the US so that won't truly be an option, also I don't think the UN will invade Iran, seeing as to how we don't fight, we talk and rebuild the crap made by others. |
Iran doesn't have the capacity to effectively attack the US on our soil.
| DX-Blog wrote: | The country might not be that large, but if it can manage to scare other militaries in the middle east it is something which America shouldn't underestimate.
Having them come out with this now is something which I personally don't see as foolish military strategy. Right now is a very wise decision. The US army is still fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, proclaiming to aid with building up both countries as well. If Iran gives the US a bitch slap now, like they basically did the US basically has 2 options. Ignore them and let Iran come out of this as the winner so Iran can give the US the name of frightened weak little chickens or the US can invade Iran as well, but since they have military forces in other countries fighting as well that will either give them a weakened military force, making it easier for Iran to battle them off or the US could take out forces from the other countries in order to go fight in Iran.
|
Angering America while the US is in Iraq is precisely why that is a bad idea--it is much much easier to mobilize troops from Iraq then from America. Iraq also had a comparatively strong military for the middle east and look how successful they were in the direct combat with America.
Being strong in the middle east really isn't enough when US technology is so high. The urban combat is the only arena where the US stands to lose troops in war. In Air and tank combat, US has a clear advantage.
Iran literally cannot throw any real kind of war on the US overseas.
I think there's a third option. Not do nothing and not make war. Joint EU and US economic sanction, as has been discussed and carried out in the past. Iran can call America weak-willed, but poweful sanctions from America and Europe have the ability to cripple dependent economies.
| polarBear wrote: | | FAS.org about Dimona wrote: |
There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.
United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant. |
| Quote: | | he US has supplied some missle technology, but there is no evidence to show direct gifts of atomic warheads. In fact, a lot of modern US military technology comes from R&D in Israel, not vice versa. |
| Ha'aretz, Tuesday, March 14, 2000 wrote: | A PRESIDENT'S PROMISE: ISRAEL CAN KEEP ITS NUKES
Open Secrets
By Aluf Benn
Ha'aretz, Tuesday, March 14, 2000
In an appendix to the Wye agreement, President Clinton promised in writing that Israel's nuclear capabilities would be preserved if it continues its policy of 'ambiguity' |
| - Ephraim Katzir wrote: | It has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential.
|
"we didn't know about the nuclear weapons, we just knew about them" ¿what is that? And why can't Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and a long et cetera get ignored that way? It would be way too much fun.
| FAS wrote: | | Only five countries had facilities for uranium enrichment: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, in Apollo, Pennsylvania was a small fuel rod fabrication plant. In 1965, the U.S. government accused Dr. Zalman Shapiro, the corporation president, of “losing” 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Although investigated by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies and inquiring reporters, no answers were available in what was termed the Apollo Affair.[29] Many remain convinced that the Israelis received 200 pounds of enriched uranium sometime before 1965.[30] One source links Rafi Eitan, an Israeli Mossad agent and later the handler of spy Jonathan Pollard, with NUMEC.[31] In the 1990s when the NUMEC plant was disassembled, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found over 100 kilograms of plutonium in the structural components of the contaminated plant, casting doubt on 200 pounds going to Israel |
Check out the Federation of American Scientists 's website, it's huge fun |
FAS is a great place. I think the situation is worse than we realize. If we look to the North Korea problem in combination with Iran and some surprise Nuke testing in the India/Pakistan region during the Clinton years it's apparent that the IAEA and Muhammad al-Baradai have some difficulty in seeing the trees through the forest.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7C4CBE33-54B9-481A-8F07-9943A932CE95.htm
Im convinced not does Israel have Nukes but alot of other unwatched countries.
By the way... Im not "the Atomic' Iran is having problems with
Peace,
Atomic
Techonologically disadvantaged military power is on some level pretty disgracefull for any country. I mean, if your nation has alot of pride, or alot of ambition. Everyone else is content to pour money into researching techonology that will raise the standard of living, i can't see the point in building weapons that with all due respect, should not be used ever.
It's like a competition of manhood. Who the hell are they going to intimidate by building wmd's? no one has allies in peace, but in war they would get SMISHED because so many other countries see the common idea that wmd's are the most ridiculous things ever made.
| manumiglani wrote: | source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/nuclear_iran_iaea_dc;_ylt=ApSu1TC3C5771SonEDw3nRWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
| Quote: | TEHRAN (Reuters) -
Iran announced on Tuesday it would resume atomic fuel research and development next week, raising the spectre of a fresh showdown with the West which suspects Tehran wants nuclear technology to build bombs.
The news coincided with strong hints from Iran's Foreign Ministry that Tehran would reject a Russian compromise proposal aimed at defusing Iran's nuclear row with the West.
The two developments were likely to spark renewed calls from Washington and the
European Union for the case to be referred to the
U.N. Security Council, where Iran could face political or economic sanctions.
"The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has decided to resume from January 9, 2006, R&D (research and development) on the peaceful nuclear energy program which was suspended," Iran said in a note delivered to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Diplomats said the move, which follows Iran's resumption of uranium conversion in August, was a serious blow to diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
"This does not help the process," said an EU diplomat, referring to efforts by the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France to find a negotiated solution to the standoff.
A resumption of nuclear research and development, frozen voluntarily by Iran two years ago to defuse international pressure over its atomic ambitions, may include the manufacture and assembly of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment, the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle. It could also include some small-scale enrichment tests.
The IAEA found in 2003 that Iran had conducted considerable clandestine research, including enrichment tests and centrifuge assembly, since the mid-1980s. But it has not detected any clear proof that Tehran wants to build atomic weapons.
A Security Council referral vote could be held at the next meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation governing board, scheduled for March 6. At its last session in November, the board opted to put off any vote to give time for Russia's proposal to bear fruit.
IAEA WANTS MORE COOPERATION
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei urged Iran to cooperate more with his agency and to keep diplomatic channels open.
"The Director General ... continues to call on Iran to take the steps the IAEA requires to resolve outstanding issues regarding the nature of Irans nuclear program," the IAEA said in a statement.
"In the meantime, Dr ElBaradei also calls on Iran to take voluntary measures to build confidence, and enable the resumption of dialogue with all concerned parties."
Iran, which says its nuclear program will only be used for peaceful purposes, voluntarily suspended atomic research as well as all uranium processing and enrichment under negotiations with the EU trio that began in 2003.
Tehran began to roll back its suspension of nuclear work in August by restarting its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, prompting the "EU3" to freeze its talks with Iran. The talks resumed in December and the sides are to meet again this month.
"Iran's decision will probably raise the temperature around the talks," said a diplomat close to the IAEA.
Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, stressed that the actual enrichment of uranium, through injecting gas into centrifuges at Iran's unfinished Natanz facility, would not be resumed for now.
"That will be a separate issue on which no decision has yet been made," he told Iranian state television.
Earlier on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi poured cold water on a Russian proposal aimed at easing Western concerns that Iran could get its hands on bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium.
"The Russian proposal is ambiguous," Asefi told a weekly news conference. "If they want to propose enrichment (only) in Russia we have said it is not acceptable. But if it is a complementary or parallel plan, we will study that."
A Russian delegation is due in Tehran on January 7 to hold further talks on the proposal. |
|
Yhey must make bombs, why not, america does too? so they can make bombs too, and they will.
Invasion of Iraq has shown that if the USA is hell bent on attacking a country, they'll do it no matter what.
And they don't need a justification for it anymore.
In fact, actually having WMDs might be Iran's best bet.
It can probably buy them some security, some deterrence.
There are many "evil" countries with nuclear weapons which hardly get so much as a nudge from the USA.
Yet Iraq was bombed and invaded despite having already destroyed all its WMD capabilities, and for that reason.
If Iran has learned anything from it's neighbour's fate, they'd try to hurry up and build some nuclear capability before it's too late for them.
(S3nd K3ys just gave them 2 short years)
Nukes ? WMDs ?
Keep some to protect yourself.
If you don't have them, you're fair game.
Not having nukes is sort of like international gun control.
And didn't I hear many of the Americans disagree with gun control ?
Also it's the USA after all who demonstrated to the world the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as "anti"-war measures.
I'm sure people of Iran want no war.
There is no doubt that Iran is a global world problem,Iran must be Attaked by Armed forces which will show them that they are not the strongest country at the whole world,and that they can't do and declare whatever they want-Iran is in not an insane country,it has a crazy citizens with a crazy monkey president,and they must feel the power of the free world-the free world won't accept this kind of behavior ,they are dangerous to the whole world,THE WORLD MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!  
By the Way for all the wiseguys!!!!!!!!
listen up!!!!!!
Israel,UNLIKE Iran-is not a global threat-it has No harmfull intentions against any other country-The country of Israel just want to live peacefully with all its neighbour countries,Israel did not declare that it will attak any other country when it will have a nuclear weapons!!! (which by the way-Israel got tons of them!).
Israel is not a hostile country towards any other country,Israel consider itself as a freindly country to all the other nations-without any exceptions,Israel just want to live in peace.
Now lets Talk about Iran:
Iran every second day declare that all the western world is its enemy,and that at the first moment they'll have a nuclear bomb they will send it towards Israel.
other than that-they declare all the time that the United States should be destroyed.
Now,do you think Iran is only a problem of Israel?
I Don't Think So...............
I agree with just about everything except this...
| ekingisrael wrote: |
Israel is not a hostile country towards any other country, |
You haven't seen Israel when they're provoked, have you? Talk about some hostile mother ****ers...
Just found this tidbit...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/14/120220.shtml
| Quote: | Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006 12:01 p.m. EST
Bush: Iran Intends to Nuke Israel
In his sharpest comments to date on the Iranian nuclear crisis, President Bush warned Friday that Iran is seeking to produce nuclear weapons and intends to use them to destroy Israel.
Speaking at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush warned:
"I want to remind you that the current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. And that's unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make them a step closer to achieving that objective."
The president said that Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a threat, not just to the Jewish state, but to the world. |
It shows how much a country like Iran really cares about the plight of the Palestinians when they're willing to kill everyone and destroy the land. Israel isn't exactly a big place.
What defensive strategy can Iran use with nukes. They can't really attack US soil unless they use a terrorist cell. They can't use it within their own borders I should hope because that would destroy their own people and land (well they could, but that's pretty sick). Or they could send it against Israel, which isn't a very nice "defensive" manuever. If Iran were to produce a weapon, I imagine it would be prevented before it was ever created.
Of course today you saw Iran say that if they are called to the security council that they will continue weapons development with predjudice.
|
