ANuclear Proliferation in Iran: A Cause for Concern or an Unfair Target?

[edward]

Okay, class! Please address the question, can/will/should the U.S. attack Iran?
Explain your answer.

No we should not attack Iran. If the reason is that they might one day five or ten years from now develope a nuke, then we should immediately attack North Korea, they already have Nukes. Our real prolblem with Iran is their plan to start their own oil commodity trade program, and do it in Euro's per barrel, not dollars. This essentially means that Iran has declared war on the U.S. dollar.

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7] The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17451

From my personal point of view this is why Condi Rice is running rampant with the WMD ball once again.

 

[ChrisW]

we should immediately attack North Korea, they already have Nukes.

Why do people always go to this defense?

Let's compare the two situations in lesser terms.

Iraq = 5 year old with a plastic baseball bat
Iran = 10 year old with a hammer
N. Korea = 15 year old with a shotgun

You know -Iraq- wants you dead (hypothetically, not trying to justify the war) and you also know -Iraq- will grow up and one day have access to more powerful weapons. In other words in the FUTURE -Iraq- will be tougher to deal with. So instead of waiting, you go steal -Iraq's- baseball bat and he cries and runs to his mommy and leaves you alone. Same deal with -Iran-, but that hammer could sting if he wacks you with it!

Now -N. Korea-... Hmm... You going to pick a fight with a teenager with a shotgun?

I mean I'm not trying to justify war or anything, but it's just common sense that you DON'T pick on countries that you can't handle! I'd love to see a free N. Korea, but it's simply not going to happen currently without the use of nuclear weapons, that is NOT acceptable. However if we can prevent a situation like this from developing in Iran I'm all for it. With that said I wouldn't condone war with Iran, but I would condone the use of military force against any nuclear facility that may be used to create weapons grade fissile material.

 

[Lisa!]

You know attacking Iran in order to prevent it from getting nukes , is like killing a child because we think he might grow up as a dangerous criminal! Perhaps you need to go and read this thread.

 

[fargoth]

You know attacking Iran in order to prevent it from getting nukes , is like killing a child because we think he might grow up as a dangerous criminal! Perhaps you need to go and read this thread.

well, saying its like killing the kid is an exaggeration.

imagine youre captured in the same room with a mad kid, who got his shotgun parts and is trying to assemble it, most probably to kill you, because he said he would do it sometime before, although now he's saying he won't do it, and he wants the shotgun just to kill roaches (though he evillly grins at you when he say that...).

destroying the nuclear centers are like taking away from this kid the parts he bought inorder to assemble his shotgun, which you think he might be aiming at you after his done.

ofcourse it should be done with the lowest possible number of cassultie for all sides, war is an ugly thing, but when your existence is challenged, there is no other way.
you can't wait to be sure if the kid will shoot you after he got his shotgun working, it'll be too late then.

 

[Lisa!]

well, saying its like killing the kid is an exaggeration.

imagine youre captured in the same room with a mad kid, who got his shotgun parts and is trying to assemble it, most probably to kill you, because he said he would do it sometime before, although now he's saying he won't do it, and he wants the shotgun just to kill roaches (though he evillly grins at you when he say that...).

destroying the nuclear centers are like taking away from this kid the parts he bought inorder to assemble his shotgun, which you think he might be aiming at you after his done.

ofcourse it should be done with the lowest possible number of cassultie for all sides, war is an ugly thing, but when your existence is challenged, there is no other way.
you can't wait to be sure if the kid will shoot you after he got his shotgun working, it'll be too late then.

You're the 1 who's exaggerating the threat of Iran to the world here! How on the Earth that kid wants to assembe his shotgun while evryone's keeping an open eye on his activities? Oh and you'd better to do something about US, because this mad kid(not a kid anymore) has already his shotgun .
Anyway, Iran must be crazy to use nukes against Israel since they think Israel has nukes too and even if it doesn't have, it can get them simlpy from US!
Anyway be sure your existence would be challenged during the war not before it.

*P&WA is really like hotel California. *

 

[fargoth]

You're the 1 who's exaggerating the threat of Iran to the world here! How on the Earth that kid wants to assembe his shotgun while evryone's keeping an open eye on his activities? Oh and you'd better to do something about US, because this mad kid(not a kid anymore) has already his shotgun .
Anyway, Iran must be crazy to use nukes against Israel since they think Israel has nukes too and even if it doesn't have, it can get them simlpy from US!
Anyway be sure your existence would be challenged during the war not before it.
*P&WA is really like hotel California. *

i thought we agreed that iran can make their nukes secretely, the international inspectors can't be sure theyre seeing everything.

and the spreme leader of iran said that if nukes were to hit israel it will blow israel completely and won't leave anything. so he thinks israel won't be able to retaliate.
so i don't think it seems that crazy to him.
(i quoted him saying that on this thread, if you want i can find it for you...)

the existence is chalanged only by the threat, the action would not chalange the existence but eliminate it.

 

[Lisa!]

i thought we agreed that iran can make their nukes secretely, the international inspectors can't be sure theyre seeing everything.

No, we've not agreed on anything! I said they could have a good control since no country would prevent them from doing their job! Anyway if you think they can get their nukes secretly, it makes the situation even worse by starting the war. Since the war isn't going to last only a few days, certainly they can get nukes during the war. so just think what happen when the both sides use nukes in a war! so again we go to the conclusion that war could be the worst and stupidest solution!

and the spreme leader of iran said that if nukes were to hit israel it will blow israel completely and won't leave anything. so he thinks israel won't be able to retaliate.
so i don't think it seems that crazy to him.
(i quoted him saying that on this thread, if you want i can find it for you..

Yes, please! I'd be grateful if you do it!:shy:

 

[fargoth]

"After meeting Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin in 1998, Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed that Iran would not recognize Israel "even for one hour" and would "continue to struggle against this cancerous growth." In 2000, he explained that the only "remedy" for Israel was "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis," and in a statement reported by Reuters later in the year he called Israel a "cancerous tumor" which "should be removed from the region." The next year, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, widely regarded as a pragmatist, noted that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." For his part, former president Mohammed Khatami, often held up as Iran's leading moderate, has described Israel as "a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world" and argued that "all of Palestine must be liberated.""
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=w051031&s=karshmiller103105"

"the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

and as for building the nukes secretely, i think its very much possible, see my post below about the power of IEAE and UN over iran.

if the first thing that will be done in the war is destroying the nuclear centers of iran they won't be able to produce the nukes secretely during the war, it'll be far less dangerous.

if youd ask me, waiting till they get their nukes will be the stupidiest thing to do.

 

[edward]

I mean I'm not trying to justify war or anything, but it's just common sense that you DON'T pick on countries that you can't handle!

So far we haven't even been able to handle the Occupation of Iraq without great loss of American lives and tremendous expenditures. Why would we be able to handle Iran?

Again just like with Iraq who supposedly had WMD, we are talking about attacking Iran who might one day acquire WMD. And just like with Iraq, the real underlying reason for threatening Iran is more about oil than anything else.

The religious hatred has always been and will always be a factor, but not the deciding factor as far as the USA is concerened.

Iran's bourse has the potential to turn the "PetroDollar" into the "PetroEuro" which could be devastating to our economy. Because the Euro is stronger than the dollar, we would be facing major inflation.

If Iraq wants a nuke, it is to give them the same degree of ability to financially blackmail the world, that North Korea has. That is our real fear.

 

[fargoth]

oh, and here's your UN power:
"Iranian President MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD signed a legislation that would limit UN nuclear inspections if Tehran’s case is sent to the Security Council, the semi-official Fars agency reported on Saturday."
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10337

and aljazeera is -not- pro-zionist and for some histroy...In 2002, two previously unknown nuclear facilities were discovered in Iran. One in Arak produces heavy water, which could be used to produce weapons. The other is in Natanz. An Iranian opposition group claimed that Iranian officials removed sensitive equipment installed at Natanz to hide it from IAEA inspectors who were scheduled to visit the plant.

In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced the discovery of uranium reserves near the central city of Yazd and said Iran was setting up production facilities “to make use of advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes” (AP, February 11, 2003). This was an alarming development because it suggested Iran was attempting to obtain the means to produce and process fuel itself, despite the agreement to receive all the uranium it would need for civilian purposes from Russia.

The Iranian government, confronted in February 2004 with new evidence obtained from the secret network of nuclear suppliers surrounding Khan, acknowledged it had a design for a far more advanced high-speed centrifuge to enrich uranium than it previously revealed to the IAEA. This type of centrifuge would allow Iran to produce nuclear fuel far more quickly than the equipment that it reluctantly revealed to the agency in 2003. This revelation proved that Iran lied when it claimed to have turned over all the documents relating to their enrichment program.

In another disclosure that contradicted earlier claims, Iran admitted in June
2005 that it conducted experiments to create plutonium, which is used only in weapons and not for energy production, for five years beyond the date when it previously insisted it had ended all such work. Iran had said that the experiments were completed in 1993 and that no plutonium had been separated since then, but an IAEA investigation found that it had processed uranium as recently as 1998.

After pledging to suspend its nuclear program, the IAEA reported in June 2004 that Iran was continuing to make parts and materials that could be used in the manufacture of nuclear arms. The report also cited continuing evidence that Iran misled inspectors with many of its early claims, especially on questions about where it obtained critical components. For example, Iranian officials admitted that some of those parts were purchased abroad, after initially insisting that Iran had made them itself.

On July 27, 2004, the Telegraph reported Iran had broken the seals on nuclear equipment monitored by UN inspectors and was again building and testing machines that could make fissile material for nuclear weapons. Teheran's move violated an agreement with European countries under which Iran suspended “all uranium enrichment activity.” Defying a key demand set by 35 nations, Iran announced September 21, 2004, that it has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A couple of weeks later, Iran announced it had processed several tons of raw ''yellowcake'' uranium to prepare it for enrichment - a key step in developing atomic weapons - in defiance of the IAEA (AP, October 6, 2004).

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, suggested the Iranians were potentially closer to building a bomb than either the U.S. or Israeli intelligence analysts predicted. Even though it may take two years for Natanz to become fully operational, ElBaradei, warned in December 2005 that once the facility is running, the Iranians could be “a few months” away from a nuclear weapon (The Independent, December 5, 2005).

Shortly after the Iranian-European agreement, the National Council of Resistance said Iran had bought blueprints for a nuclear bomb and obtained weapons-grade uranium on the black market. The group also charged that Iran was still secretly enriching uranium at an undisclosed Defense Ministry site in Tehran. The claims could not be independently verified, and independent nuclear experts were divided about whether they could be true, but the group was responsible earlier for revealing the existence of two secret Iranian nuclear facilities. (New York Times, November 18, 2004).

On September 2, 2005, the IAEA reported that Iran had produced about seven tons of the gas it needs for uranium enrichment since it restarted the process the previous month. A former UN nuclear inspector said that would be enough for an atomic weapon. In unusually strong language, an IAEA report also said questions remain about key aspects of Iran's 18 years of clandestine nuclear activity and that it still was unable “to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran” (Chicago Tribune, September 3, 2005).

IAEA are very efficient arent they?, got lots of influence

 

[Lisa!]

"the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."
and as for building the nukes secretely, i think its very much possible, the UN was permitted to enter the nuclear center in israel and didnt find anything, but still there are claims that israel made their nukes.
there's even a movie with computer simulation discribing how they hid it according to vanunu.
if the first thing that will be done in the war is destroying the nuclear centers of iran they won't be able to produce the nukes secretely during the war, it'll be far less dangerous.
if youd ask me, waiting till they get their nukes will be the stupidiest thing to do.

Ok thank you! You go to the conclusion that they're going to use nukes against Israel only because the former president of Iran has talked about nuclear bomb in his speech.(I might accept it as a threat, if I could read the whole speech not only a picked-up sentence form it) It more sounds to me in this way that some country has threatened muslim countries by a nuclear bomb and he's going to comment on that! Anyway let's agree with you here!
I TOLD YOU PEOPLE STILL THINKS THAT ISRAEL HAVE NUKES SINCE THEY DON'T THINK US LET THE INSPECTORS TO DO THEIR JOB. BUT HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THAT ANYONE WOLD BE IN DOUBT THAT IRAN HAS ALREADY NUKES?
so that means they believe inspectors have done their job perfectly.

For sure forcing and helping them to get their nukes is more stupid than what you said. You're saying they might be able get nukes if US wouldn't attack Iran, so certainly you mean they're not going to work on it in their well-known centers and they would do it on secret centers, right? So how US wants to find their secrec centers and bomb them right after starting the war?

PS I recommend you to go and read http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=240082 on the same issue.

 

[Lisa!]

oh, and here's your UN power:
"Iranian President MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD signed a legislation that would limit UN nuclear inspections if Tehran’s case is sent to the Security Council, the semi-official Fars agency reported on Saturday."
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10337
and aljazeera is -not- pro-zionist
and for some histroy...
In 2002, two previously unknown nuclear facilities were discovered in Iran. One in Arak produces heavy water, which could be used to produce weapons. The other is in Natanz. An Iranian opposition group claimed that Iranian officials removed sensitive equipment installed at Natanz to hide it from IAEA inspectors who were scheduled to visit the plant.
In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced the discovery of uranium reserves near the central city of Yazd and said Iran was setting up production facilities “to make use of advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes” (AP, February 11, 2003). This was an alarming development because it suggested Iran was attempting to obtain the means to produce and process fuel itself, despite the agreement to receive all the uranium it would need for civilian purposes from Russia.
The Iranian government, confronted in February 2004 with new evidence obtained from the secret network of nuclear suppliers surrounding Khan, acknowledged it had a design for a far more advanced high-speed centrifuge to enrich uranium than it previously revealed to the IAEA. This type of centrifuge would allow Iran to produce nuclear fuel far more quickly than the equipment that it reluctantly revealed to the agency in 2003. This revelation proved that Iran lied when it claimed to have turned over all the documents relating to their enrichment program.
In another disclosure that contradicted earlier claims, Iran admitted in June
2005 that it conducted experiments to create plutonium, which is used only in weapons and not for energy production, for five years beyond the date when it previously insisted it had ended all such work. Iran had said that the experiments were completed in 1993 and that no plutonium had been separated since then, but an IAEA investigation found that it had processed uranium as recently as 1998.
IAEA are very efficient arent they?

I've not read your post, but somehow you're going to say IAEA isn't efficient. So who knows perhaps Iran has already nukes! Oh I guess I just realized why you're so scared and want to see another war. Remember that's what you're sayng not me!

 

[fargoth]

I've not read your post, but somehow you're going to say IAEA isn't efficient. So who knows perhaps Iran has already nukes! Oh I guess I just realized why you're so scared and want to see another war. Remember that's what you're sayng not me!

okay, then read my post and then reply... it is said they will have nukes soon, even the IAEA says so.

 

[Lisa!]

okay, then read my post and then reply... it is said they will have nukes soon, even the IAEA says so.

OK so if US' attack would help them to get them EVEN sooner!

 

[fargoth]

OK so if US' attack would help them to get them EVEN sooner!

i think stopping the known centers from working will slow them down, and not make them do it faster.
they'll probably want to make it faster, but it'll be much harder for them.

 

[fargoth]

Ok thank you! You go to the conclusion that they're going to use nukes against Israel only because the former president of Iran has talked about nuclear bomb in his speech.(I might accept it as a threat, if I could read the whole speech not only a picked-up sentence form it) It more sounds to me in this way that some country has threatened muslim countries by a nuclear bomb and he's going to comment on that! Anyway let's agree with you here!

even if the part i cited was out of context and its not a threat, i can't see how you can ignore the fact he believes israel could be completely wiped out with a nuclear bomb - that means he think there will be no retaliation from israel's side..

i can find enough threats from his mouth in several news site... including big ones like CNN.
just google for "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei destroy israel" and pick one up, there must be someone there that you find credible (add some international news corporation name to the search to see what they're saying)

anyway, this former president is the current supreme leader
so i think its pretty valid.

 

[SOS2008]

Or perhaps the 300,000 arabs who despite securing a UN resolution granting them the right to return have been refused permission to do so by Israel.

First off I personally have no problem with Israel and fully support their right to continue to exist as an independant state although to be honest because of the way they behave I am very glad I don't have them for neighbours.

I also believe they have the right to defend themselves against their enemies but all too often their 'defensive' measures in response to terrorist attacks seem more petty and spiteful than effective counter-measures.

As for your admitted dual standards; again as I have already said I would not like to see Iran (or anybody else) developing nuclear weapons but I think this should be achieved in a global context of nuclear disarmament rather than the "he can have them because he's my buddy but he can't cause I don't like him" If the US wants to follow the 'might is right' policy then fine, there's not a lot anybody can do about it at this time but it would be nice if they just came out and said it instead of treating the rest of the world as if we were cretins feeding us pathetic propaganda to justify the unjustifiable.

As usual, well said on all points.

I agree about the controversial nature of who has what, and criteria for who should have what, or more importantly who has the right to decide the criteria for who should have what. Nuclear proliferation is an unpleasant concept. But once technology is known, can it be controlled anyway? Certainly a global effort toward non-proliferation seems most prudent, though applicable to everyone including the U.S., no?

Iran is different from Iraq in more ways than just being a more (much more) powerful country. Iran is and has been ripe for improved relations with the U.S. for some time now. I find it very disconcerting that neocon imperialism (or the Wolfowitz doctrine) could well drive the U.S. to continue a policy of unilateralism and preemptive military action. The only saving grace is decreased popularity of Bush/GOP, which is in large part due to the pitifully poor execution of intervention in Iraq.

Of course U.S. bias toward Israel is the root of all controversy in the ME and will continue to be an issue for debate, especially if Iraq becomes an anti-American theocracy. Oh the can of worms we opened…

 

[EnumaElish]

I hope your warm and safe, if your thoughts were to manifest you would be sitting in the dirt in a third world country possibly teaching your child to be a homicidal bomber. If you can't defend our country in thought and deed , why don't you leave. Thoughts can be treasonous in a time of war,which we are now involved. This is our nature deal with it.

Lunatic, you are forgetting that these forums are not U.S. property; there are many non-U.S. people posting and many, many more viewing the posts. Heck, there may be people from Iran posting and reading posts. Unless what you meant to say is that they should leave the forum, not the country. That, however, would be an even sadder statement.

 

[Art]

Fargoth will you please provide the links for your quotes. Folk here would like the opportunity to see first where the quotes are from and secondly if you are being selective in your quoting particularly as some of the comments are unbelievably far-fetched whilst others are simply wrong.

 

[fargoth]

since my main site was this one:
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html

and i guess youd say its zionist lies, i found you other sites that has equivalent quotes, which i think you won't blaim for lying.

oh, and here's your UN power:
In 2002, two previously unknown nuclear facilities were discovered in Iran. One in Arak produces heavy water, which could be used to produce weapons. The other is in Natanz. An Iranian opposition group claimed that Iranian officials removed sensitive equipment installed at Natanz to hide it from IAEA inspectors who were scheduled to visit the plant.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/1819.html

In February 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami announced the discovery of uranium reserves near the central city of Yazd and said Iran was setting up production facilities “to make use of advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes” (AP, February 11, 2003). This was an alarming development because it suggested Iran was attempting to obtain the means to produce and process fuel itself, despite the agreement to receive all the uranium it would need for civilian purposes from Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2743279.stm

The Iranian government, confronted in February 2004 with new evidence obtained from the secret network of nuclear suppliers surrounding Khan, acknowledged it had a design for a far more advanced high-speed centrifuge to enrich uranium than it previously revealed to the IAEA. This type of centrifuge would allow Iran to produce nuclear fuel far more quickly than the equipment that it reluctantly revealed to the agency in 2003. This revelation proved that Iran lied when it claimed to have turned over all the documents relating to their enrichment program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/p...&en=087ec529f89183a8&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

In another disclosure that contradicted earlier claims, Iran admitted in June
2005 that it conducted experiments to create plutonium, which is used only in weapons and not for energy production, for five years beyond the date when it previously insisted it had ended all such work. Iran had said that the experiments were completed in 1993 and that no plutonium had been separated since then, but an IAEA investigation found that it had processed uranium as recently as 1998.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

After pledging to suspend its nuclear program, the IAEA reported in June 2004 that Iran was continuing to make parts and materials that could be used in the manufacture of nuclear arms. The report also cited continuing evidence that Iran misled inspectors with many of its early claims, especially on questions about where it obtained critical components. For example, Iranian officials admitted that some of those parts were purchased abroad, after initially insisting that Iran had made them itself.

i even got aditional info here:
Early this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is responsible for monitoring nuclear proliferation, issued its fifth quarterly report in a row stating that Iran was continuing to misrepresent its research into materials that could be used for the production of nuclear weapons. Much of the concern centers on an underground enrichment facility at Natanz, two hundred and fifty miles from the Iran-Iraq border, which, during previous I.A.E.A. inspections, was discovered to contain centrifuges showing traces of weapons-grade uranium. The huge complex, which is still under construction, is said to total nearly eight hundred thousand square feet, and it will be sheltered in a few months by a roof whose design allows it to be covered with sand. Once the work is completed, the complex “will be blind to satellites, and the Iranians could add additional floors underground,”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040628fa_fact

On July 27, 2004, the Telegraph reported Iran had broken the seals on nuclear equipment monitored by UN inspectors and was again building and testing machines that could make fissile material for nuclear weapons. Teheran's move violated an agreement with European countries under which Iran suspended “all uranium enrichment activity.” Defying a key demand set by 35 nations, Iran announced September 21, 2004, that it has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A couple of weeks later, Iran announced it had processed several tons of raw ''yellowcake'' uranium to prepare it for enrichment - a key step in developing atomic weapons - in defiance of the IAEA (AP, October 6, 2004).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...7.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/07/27/ixportal.html

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, suggested the Iranians were potentially closer to building a bomb than either the U.S. or Israeli intelligence analysts predicted. Even though it may take two years for Natanz to become fully operational, ElBaradei, warned in December 2005 that once the facility is running, the Iranians could be “a few months” away from a nuclear weapon (The Independent, December 5, 2005).

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090008

Shortly after the Iranian-European agreement, the National Council of Resistance said Iran had bought blueprints for a nuclear bomb and obtained weapons-grade uranium on the black market. The group also charged that Iran was still secretly enriching uranium at an undisclosed Defense Ministry site in Tehran. The claims could not be independently verified, and independent nuclear experts were divided about whether they could be true, but the group was responsible earlier for revealing the existence of two secret Iranian nuclear facilities. (New York Times, November 18, 2004).

http://www.nci.org/04nci/11/pbs/ExilesAdd.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact

On September 2, 2005, the IAEA reported that Iran had produced about seven tons of the gas it needs for uranium enrichment since it restarted the process the previous month. A former UN nuclear inspector said that would be enough for an atomic weapon.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/03/Worldandnation/UN__Iran_has_tons_of_.shtml
http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4438and while I am at it...
"There are ongoing investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors"

from http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/enjoy the reading... and if you want additional sources, google it up, i found lots of news sites with these events...

 

[Art]

As I thought even a quick glance shows your selective editing - For example you forgot to quote this bit

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan arms control group in Washington, said, "The timing of these revelations raises suspicions that the group is attempting to derail Iran's deal with the Europeans, particularly since there is no evidence to back up any of these claims."
He added that the allegation that Pakistan supplied Iran with highly enriched uranium in 2001 "seems preposterous, given the fact that was a year when the United States was really cracking down on Pakistan's nuclear export activities."

 

[alexandra]

If the US wants to follow the 'might is right' policy then fine, there's not a lot anybody can do about it at this time but it would be nice if they just came out and said it instead of treating the rest of the world as if we were cretins feeding us pathetic propaganda to justify the unjustifiable.

Excellent point, Art - this is the most annoying thing of all - the infantile lies, the assumption that people are stupid and can't see what's really happening. While you're right that there's not a lot anybody can do about it at this time, perhaps they're scared there will be a time when people can do something about it? Staving off catastrophe...

 

[alexandra]

On July 27, 2004, the Telegraph reported Iran had broken the seals on nuclear equipment monitored by UN inspectors and was again building and testing machines that could make fissile material for nuclear weapons. Teheran's move violated an agreement with European countries under which Iran suspended “all uranium enrichment activity.” Defying a key demand set by 35 nations, Iran announced September 21, 2004, that it has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. A couple of weeks later, Iran announced it had processed several tons of raw ''yellowcake'' uranium to prepare it for enrichment - a key step in developing atomic weapons - in defiance of the IAEA (AP, October 6, 2004)...

etc, etc, blah-blah-blah... Does this remind anyone of the lead-up to the Iraq 'war' (*cough*: invasion!). Does it remind anyone of the commercial mass media 'scomplicity in the lies claiming the certain existence of WMDs in Iraq? How stupid do these liers think people are? If you haven't read the children's story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", go read it - there are important lessons to be learned in children's stories.

 

[Lisa!]

i think stopping the known centers from working will slow them down, and not make them do it faster.
they'll probably want to make it faster, but it'll be much harder for them.

I don't think so! Note that I've not agreed with you on secret centers, and I just wanted to say a war would be even more stupid if they would have secret centers!
Sounds like you people never want to learn any lesson from the past. Bush attacked Iraq for finding nukes and they didn't find anything and now the same accusation against Iran and some people already accept them! BUT this war isn't like the last 1. It would lead the world to the third world war. (only if you read the link I posted in my last post, you'd realize how)

 

[Lisa!]

even if the part i cited was out of context and its not a threat, i can't see how you can ignore the fact he believes israel could be completely wiped out with a nuclear bomb - that means he think there will be no retaliation from israel's side..

Huh? Could you please explain more? You mean he's said by using a nuclear bomb, they're able to get the power of retaliation from Israel or what?

i can find enough threats from his mouth in several news site... including big ones like CNN.

And there are lots of threat against Iran from US politician's mouth as well. But anyway could you please find some of them? Note that you said threats not insults or accusations. I mean if they're something like we should remove this tumor, don't bother to post them here. But if you can find something like 'we're going to bomb Israel or start a war against them', that could be something!
You know I googled for it and I just find your article(which is not credible because of choosing only some part of their speech. it's like you say 'I hate people who're stupid.' and then I quote the first part of your speech and cliam he hates people.)
and that's what I found these , and I don't think there's anything important in them by a quick look.
Something like 'Arabs still want to destroy Israel' or others' prediction of Iran's future plans for Israel!
So please let me know if I miss any direct threat in this articles!:shy:

anyway, this former president is the current supreme leader
so i think its pretty valid.

BUT he lost the election to the current president. That means something! and yeah, this current peresident has said 'Israel should be wipped off the map', but he's never mentioned how or by who, has he? and do't forget something very important, Iran isn't = only its politicians.

 

[SOS2008]

Excellent point, Art - this is the most annoying thing of all - the infantile lies, the assumption that people are stupid and can't see what's really happening. While you're right that there's not a lot anybody can do about it at this time, perhaps they're scared there will be a time when people can do something about it? Staving off catastrophe...

Certainly it is about control. All countries want nukes if for no other reason than to prevent invasion, and I don't blame them with Bush in the WH. At the same time the U.S. doesn't like the idea of a bunch of N. Koreas out there that can't be easily dealt with via invasion if so desired.

Will Iran use nukes on Israel? No. What would they gain from it? The rhetoric is no different than Saddam’s when he claimed he had WMD. I’ve said it before that Iran has hoped to start a dialogue with the U.S., but how can that happen when they are on the rather extensive list of “rogue states” and part of the “axis of evil.” Aside from failure to consider motives and benefits, it bothers me that this is the immediate question in regard to Iran. Why not ask if Israel would use nukes on Iran or any other Arab neighbor? It bothers me that invasion is the immediate solution. Suppose we started a dialogue instead?

My concern is proliferation and possible escalation—no matter what country initiates it. Why isn’t this the discussion? Because of the neocon agenda of imperialism, pro-Israel bias, the anti-Arab culture being fostered in the U.S., not to mention U.S. consideration of using nukes itself.

 

[fargoth]

As I thought even a quick glance shows your selective editing - For example you forgot to quote this bit

i did mantion on my original "selective editing" that this is oposition group, The claims could not be independently verified, and independent nuclear experts were divided about whether they could be true.

i don't think your addition dismissed it more then my quote.
i didnt intentionally dropped the part you mantioned, it just seemed unnecessary since i said it the opposition group... though they did say some right things in the past, their word should not be taken as a fact.

 

[fargoth]

Huh? Could you please explain more? You mean he's said by using a nuclear bomb, they're able to get the power of retaliation from Israel or what?
And there are lots of threat against Iran from US politician's mouth as well. But anyway could you please find some of them? Note that you said threats not insults or accusations. I mean if they're something like we should remove this tumor, don't bother to post them here. But if you can find something like 'we're going to bomb Israel or start a war against them', that could be something!
You know I googled for it and I just find your article(which is not credible because of choosing only some part of their speech. it's like you say 'I hate people who're stupid.' and then I quote the first part of your speech and cliam he hates people.)
and that's what I found these , and I don't think there's anything important in them by a quick look.
Something like 'Arabs still want to destroy Israel' or others' prediction of Iran's future plans for Israel!
So please let me know if I miss any direct threat in this articles!:shy:
BUT he lost the election to the current president. That means something! and yeah, this current peresident has said 'Israel should be wipped off the map', but he's never mentioned how or by who, has he? and do't forget something very important, Iran isn't = only its politicians.

hmmm... the one who has control over the military is the supreme leader... so id think the former president got promoted, not dumped by his people.

and as for threats, it'll be really stupid of iran to be making real threats at a time like this.
saying "were going to attack israel next year with a nuke" is most unprobable.
so i guess that if the fact they don't like israel and want it destroyed "somehow" is not enough, then iran isn't dangerous

as for doing things secretely - they did already had two undeclared big centers, and they did secretely made plutonium which can be used only for nuclear weapon... look at my big post, its there.

 

[Lisa!]

etc, etc, blah-blah-blah... Does this remind anyone of the lead-up to the Iraq 'war' (*cough*: invasion!). Does it remind anyone of the commercial mass media 'scomplicity in the lies claiming the certain existence of WMDs in Iraq? How stupid do these liers think people are? If you haven't read the children's story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", go read it - there are important lessons to be learned in children's stories.

Sometimes I think the problem with war lover is their childhood. Perhaps they think war is a kind of game.

 

[fargoth]

I don't think so! Note that I've not agreed with you on secret centers, and I just wanted to say a war would be even more stupid if they would have secret centers!
Sounds like you people never want to learn any lesson from the past. Bush attacked Iraq for finding nukes and they didn't find anything and now the same accusation against Iran and some people already accept them! BUT this war isn't like the last 1. It would lead the world to the third world war. (only if you read the link I posted in my last post, you'd realize how)

what link? this one?
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=240082
this thread you posted has no one defending iran... almost everyone there says it'll be attacked, and that on EU3 they called for more restrictions, so its not only the US and israel that are concerned...

 

[fargoth]

Sometimes I think the problem with war lover is their childhood. Perhaps they think war is a kind of game.

who's a war lover?

 

[Lisa!]

hmmm... the one who has control over the military is the supreme leader... so id think the former president got promoted, not dumped by his people.

Please tell me who's a supereme leader and who chooses him?

and as for threats, it'll be really stupid of iran to be making real threats at a time like this.
saying "were going to attack israel next year with a nuke" is most unprobable.
so i guess that if the fact they don't like israel and want it destroyed "somehow" is not enough, then iran isn't dangerous

So Israel and US must be stupid, huh? because they're threatening Iran all the time. Oh perhaps plans for bombing or attacking a country aren't considered as threats?
Please go and take a look on these articles, they're really funny. It's like I say 'Arabs still want to destroy Israel' and then you accused me of having plans for attacking Israel.
or how about this? Someone who dislikes me, is going to buy a shotgun. For sure you jump to conclusion that he's going to kill me(certainly someone should kill him right away since I think he wants to use his shotgun for killing me)

as for doing things secretely - they did already had two undeclared big centers, and they did secretely made plutonium which can be used only for nuclear weapon... look at my big post, its there.

So think about A NUCLEAR WAR, THEN! I don't know what we should think of a person who's in favor of nuclear war.

 

[Lisa!]

who's a war lover?

People who wants to solve the world problems by starting another war, IMO!

what link? this one?
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/...d.php?p=240082
this thread you posted has no one defending iran... almost everyone there says it'll be attacked, and that on EU3 they called for more restrictions, so its not only the US and israel that are concerned...

I didn't mean anyone's defending Iran, there. I think there is a good point in #15!

 

[fargoth]

Please tell me who's a supereme leader and who chooses him?
So Israel and US must be stupid, huh? because they're threatening Iran all the time. Oh perhaps plans for bombing or attacking a country aren't considered as threats?
Please go and take a look on these articles, they're really funny. It's like I say 'Arabs still want to destroy Israel' and then you accused me of having plans for attacking Israel.
or how about this? Someone who dislikes me, is going to buy a shotgun. For sure you jump to conclusion that he's going to kill me(certainly someone should kill him right away since I think he wants to use his shotgun for killing me)
So think about A NUCLEAR WAR, THEN! I don't know what we should think of a person who's in favor of nuclear war.

you won't find any israelli government that says they'll attack iran, on the cantrary, say said they wouldnt...
and i don't think the US said it would either.

saying youd attack is declaring war, no one did it yet, and i think it would be stupid for both sides to declare the war before attacking.

anyway, i don't think someone who sees war as a necessary defense is a war lover.

a war lover would go to war just for getting more power, this may be the case for US if you accept the claims that they want war because of the convertion to petroeuro.
but israel will not gain more power for attacking iran, if they'd do it it'll be only because of existence threat.

and by the way, i said it earlier but you seem to ignore it - i don't think iran -has- nukes yet, they -will- have, it won't be nuclear war if it'll start in the near future.
and i -dont- think a fiull scale war would happen, nor should it.
i think that if things will be done quietly, it'll save a lot of human life.
but something must be done in my opinion.

as for going to war with someone who already has nukes, that'll end the world in my opinion, so its highly not recommanded

 

[Lisa!]

a war lover would go to war just for getting more power, this may be the case for US if you accept the claims that they want war because of the convertion to petroeuro.
but israel will not gain more power for attacking iran, if they'd do it it'll be only because of existence threat.

well, people have different ideas! You have the freedom of thoughts anyway.
Now Could you please answer my question::shy:
1. I asked you for clarification on #95.
2. I asked you who's a supereme leader and who gets to choose him?

Thanks