- #71
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Count Iblis said:Because he doesn't want to make a fool of himself. Solar and wind power
What do you mean...it's his vision.
If Iran needs only needs electric...they've got lot's of sun and wind.
Count Iblis said:Because he doesn't want to make a fool of himself. Solar and wind power
AhmedEzz said:Wow, I wonder why couldn't anyone tell that to the Iranians ?
Ofcourse this has been suggested, and you would hear different answers to it but only one message confined, "We will not give up nuclear technology".
OmCheeto said:Do you think Iran would supply Hezbollah and Hamas with mini-nukes? Iran has a recent history of non-aggression, but their current dictator seems to be playing a mind game. Although I've defended Iran in the past, their apparent aloofness to the west has even me worried. I for one do not much care for these international poker games, and this one could end very badly if their ultimate intentions are not known. Some might naively say it is obvious; the removal of the Israeli government. But I think it is much more complicated, and much simpler, than that.
Obama is my age, and seems to be doing everything I would if I were in the position, and I would not hesitate to level Tehran if push came to shove. And this time, unlike Iraq, it would have nothing to do with oil.
AhmedEzz said:I am not an expert on this but enlighten me, if you will, and tell me what is the interest of American people living in North America in Israel , a new born country that (AFAIK)
AhmedEzz said:... Again, if you would enlighten me , please present what are those "obligations" that Iran needs to abide by.
AhmedEzz said:We can say the same about Israel .. oh, are am I NOT supposed to say that?
AhmedEzz said:... I certainly don't claim that I am the all-knowing authority on any subject.
And why is that?AhmedEzz said:I am not in favor of Iran at all.
However, I severely criticize EU and US for having double standards, which makes me lean towards the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian defiance of empty threats. The carrot and the stick politics are bullying and no respectful country would comply by this way of negotiating. Even if that was the case, it wouldn't be the greatest problem. The problem however, is that the same is NOT being done with N.Korea or Israel. Which makes it much more difficult to accept the so-called international (US, Israel and EU) position on Iranian NP.
emphasis hisTrita Parsi said:This policy would be based on the recognition that, like China, Iran is a country that the US cannot contain indefinitely, that Iran becomes more antagonistic when excluded, and that the US can better influence Iran by helping it integrate into the world's political and economic structure rather than keeping it out.
Barrack Obama said:We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations, with the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security,
emphasis minehttp://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2214711120071022"
Mon Oct 22, 2007
M. ElBaradei said:I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed. All the intelligence services agree on that.
I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb.
We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.
OmCheeto said:And why is that?
seycyrus;2160651 2) Israel is a U.S. ally said:I hope you had a good share of laughs because you still have not answered my question. What is it that may interest people living in North America in a state that has nothing to do with it? Let alone give it unconditional support and grant it "ally" status ? What would Israel give in return? Its greetings ?
In the spirit of "give a man a fish...' I instead offer you a path to enlightenment. Go to the IAEA webiste, look at the resolutions and figure out what obligations the committee states were broken.
Please don't lower the standards of this discussion. I have asked a serious question and you couldn't answer. But again I ask , what serious violations that Iran did that would require a military action against it ?
??Oh you can *say* anythign you want. But I'd rather look at each countries view on suicide bombings, for example.
It is just not too hard to impose any kind of sanctions, if the victim was from the ME. Let alone invading a country based on 'reports' claiming they have weapons of mass destruction. This is the kind of schoolyard bullying that countries are subject to...Do Americans really honor this kind of politics? I think not. Do Israelis honor this kind of politics? I leave that to you.
AhmedEzz said:I hope you had a good share of laughs because you still have not answered my question. What is it that may interest people living in North America in a state that has nothing to do with it? Let alone give it unconditional support and grant it "ally" status ? What would Israel give in return? Its greetings?
AhmedEzz said:Please don't lower the standards of this discussion. I have asked a serious question and you couldn't answer. But again I ask , what serious violations that Iran did that would require a military action against it?
AhmedEzz said:It is just not too hard to impose any kind of sanctions, if the victim was from the ME. Let alone invading a country based on 'reports' claiming they have weapons of mass destruction. This is the kind of schoolyard bullying that countries are subject to...Do Americans really honor this kind of politics? I think not. Do Israelis honor this kind of politics? I leave that to you.
AhmedEzz said:??
seycyrus said:My statement was made regarding the "civilized" nature of Iran v.s. Israel.
I for one would much rather live in a world ruled by Israel, as opposed to one ruled by Iran.
How about you?
seycyrus said:I did answer your question. Perhaps not to your liking, but it was answered correctly and succinctly. Israel is our ally. Iran is not.
It is a fact that the IAEA has stated on numerous occasions that Iran is not in full compliance with it's obligations.
Evidently, given the past behavior of Iran, the IAEA must have made a judgement about the relative "seriousness" of the violations.
I never brought up military action, did I? In this thread?
More misinformation. The SC violated no NPT rule, it is a deliberative international body, not a state member of the NPT.Count Iblis said:Iran is not obliged to suspend uranium enrichement according to any of the NPT rules. The Security Council did pass a resultin demanding that Iran do so and hen the IAEA is saying that Iran is not in compliance with that demand. But then the Security Council violated the rule that Chapte 7 reslution can only be adopted in case of clear and present threats to international peace and security.
mheslep said:More misinformation. The SC violated no NPT rule, it is a deliberative international body, not a state member of the NPT.
Iran was found in violation of the NPT by the IAEA, not the US, not the UK, not 'the West'. Iran subsequently received sanctions from the UNSC and they should stay in place until Iran complies. When it does so, and only then, would it be entitled to all the nuclear development terms provided by the NPT.
Yes, that's actually quite a good paraphrase of that position of mine, though I don't think I'd use the term "law enforcement operation". It is problematic...Count Iblis said:Russ more or less argued that Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear powerplant is a legal, sort of, law enforcement operation
I have said nothing of the sort and that is not my position....and that Iran would be the aggressor if they would retalliate.
Yes, and just so we're clear, whether they would doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether they should or whether it would be legal/just for them to do so.He actually argued that that Iran would not retalliate, so there would be no war.
It most certainly does not. Quite obviously, any airstrike by anyone, anywhere, is an act of war. But it seems to me that you are applying a type of logic that doesn't have any relevance and is, in any case, wrong:The fact that an Israeli attack would, in fact, be an act of war, eludes him.
Perhaps...The fact that Syrian and Iraq in the past chose not to retalliate is besides the point. There are reasons why they didn't do that.
Perhaps...The case of Iran is diferent because you need quite a large scale bombing campaign.
Iraq's reactor was most certainly not secret! The French sold it to them openly!And unlike the Iraqi and Syrian rectors, the Iranian nuclear installations are not sectret...
That's true, but that doesn't imply that they or their leaders would want to go to war over it...and the iranian people are in support of the nuclear program.
The US has far greater capacity to respond than Iran does. If Iran went after Israel, it would be devastating to Iran and that is the main reason why Iran wouldn't do it. Iran isn't quite that suicidal.So, as far as Iran would be concerned, an attack on their nuclear installatons would be no different as how the US would regard an attack on US nuclear installations.
Iran is not the US and has nowhere near the capacity to respond as we do. I realize they value honor, but to attack Israel would be suicidal. The leadership of Iran would not risk their own lives over it.So, very hypothetically, if Kim were somehow to fire CMBs and take out some targets in the US, would Obama then say: "Well, that's bad news, but we are not going to do anything against it."
So except for the violations, there were no violations? What sort of sillyness is this? You said:Count Iblis said:Except for the minor issue of failing to report the uranium from China and the plutonium extraction, there were no violations at all. So, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
So either you weren't aware of the violations or you were being purposely deceitful in your argument and were hoping I wouldn't not notice.Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003.
Reasonable approach...Why not simply consider two hypothetical Irans:
1) Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons.
2) Iran does not want to produce nuclear weapons, it wants to be able to produce fuel for nuclear powerplants.
and analyze what the best strategy for both Irans would be.
If Iran is doing the enriching in secret, why does it matter if they accept a deal or not? Heck, wouldn't it be tougher to operate the enrichment program in secret with inspectors crawling all over the country (and keeping track of the fuel)? That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable argument for accepting a deal.In case of 1) Iran would paradoxically be better off agreeing to the incentives deal. Just sign the deal, close down Natanz, get sanctions lifted. Then build a small enrichment facility in a secret location and produce the small amount of highly enriched uranium needed for a bomb over the course of several years.
So you're saying that if Iran truly wants peaceful reactors and has nothing to hide, then they should accept and adhere to the NPT? And if they want weapons, they should pretend to adhere to the NPT but actually violate it. Since we know they don't adhere to the NPT, aren't you arguing against your own point? They are acting exactly as you say they would if they were really trying to produce nuclear weapons.In case of 2) Iran wants to be able to generate the fuel in needs for a few 1000 megawatt powerplants that it intends to build in the future. It intends to do that within the NPT framework, so it will allow for inspections of the facility at Natanz. The number of centrifuges Iran needs is far larger than if they just wanted to make few bombs. To make sure Iran doesn't diver uranium for a weapons program and becase of general suspicions, Iran is willing to gree to iuntrusive inspections, provided, of course, the objections to Iran's enrichment program are dropped.
Because of these more intrusive inspections in case of 2) the hypothetical Iran that wants to make bombs in 1) would prefer not go go this route and do as I suggested above: Accept the incentives deal and then secretely violate that deal.
No. Centrifuges in parallel can create large quantities of low enriched uranium and centrifugres in series can create small quantities of high enriched uranium. It isn't like each gram or joule of uranium takes the same amount of time to separate regardless of the amount of enrichment. It takes thousands of times longer to make enriched uranium, on a per joule basis.To see the difference between the necessary enrichment capacity needed to make a nuclear device and the capacity you need to produce fuel, consider this calculation.
A 15 kiloton nuclear bomb contains an amount of fissionable energy of about 6.3×10^13 joules. A 1000 megawatt nuclear powerplant will use this in a time of:
6.3×10^13 joules/(1000 megawatt)= 17.5 hours
So, Iran would need to be able to produce this amount of enriched uranium (to low levels) in less than 17.5 hours to power just a single 1000 megawatt powerplant.
I'm not following you there - I don't think anyone has mentioned egypt.AhmedEzz said:"Historical precident" is not relevant because the circumstances are not the same Russ. You are calling for some previous similar attack, thing is , there wasn't any. The Iraqi attack was different and had different circumstances. The political setting is very different now. For example arguing that Egypt was not going to launch a war against Israel and reclaim Sinai just because of the previous "historical" encounter is not very clever.
And that worked ok* against Hussein in the '80s, but Israel today is not Iraq from the '80s.Well as you should know, Iran has sheer numbers of militia fighters. Moreover, those people being as hardliners as they are, are not simply going to lay down while their national pride is being spit at.
*It worked ok in the '80s but not great: Iran suffered hundreds of thousands of dead in the Iran/Iraq war.Annihilation ?? I thought you were smarter than that !...the "Hussein" example couldn't come in a worse time. Imagine the Iraq nightmare the US went through and multiply that by 3, that is if US will use all its might (excluding WMD). Which brings us back to Iran being the second most populous country in the ME AND to the fact that the US military is already stretched , this provides a very good encouragement that Iran retaliates.
Agreed, that's why we kept Israel out of the last two wars.US does not want an all-out-war ME , its against its interests.
Well, that and protecting themselves. An Iran with a nuclear bomb would be a serious threat.Israel on the other hand cares about one thing only, maintaining strategic advantage of being the only state with WMD.
It is a sticky question. Again, the Osirak attack is the model: there was some condemnation but not much and nothing came of it. As people knew that Iraq was a real threat, it was treated much as a case of vigilante justice. An attack on Iran for the same reason would likely get the same response.As a side note, Israel has no right to launch attacks against countries that did not wage a war against it. Anyone disagrees?
In this forum, people, including me, have heavy biases. I don't start many threads, I mostly just respond to them. So my criticism of anti-Israel statements is simply me holding a mirror up to you. Beside, think about it logically: what point is there in responding to something I agree with?My comment about russ's continuous criticism of every statement that rejects *any* of Israel's actions...
You should tell it to Iran.math_04 said:... Iran would not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, it is not sucidal. It knows Israel would annihilate Iran with its own nukes. You should ...
Rafsanjani Dec. 14 said:Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.
"[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/981727.htmlAhmadinejad said:"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.
Ahmadinejad added that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - a reference to the 2006 war between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia.
AhmedEzz said:Because there is a huge tension between Egypt and Iran. The reason for that is Iran's new politics of trying to declare itself as a dominating power over the ME (besides Israel). Egypt has always been the main power in the ME. In pursue of this Iranian agenda, Iran supported sabotage acts carried by Hezbollah on Egypt. The terrorist cell was captured a few days ago. It clearly shows the intent of Iran towards us.
So you're saying that if Iran truly wants peaceful reactors and has nothing to hide, then they should accept and adhere to the NPT? And if they want weapons, they should pretend to adhere to the NPT but actually violate it. Since we know they don't adhere to the NPT, aren't you arguing against your own point? They are acting exactly as you say they would if they were really trying to produce nuclear weapons.
Count Iblis said:No, what I'm saying is that the present behavior of Iran is consistent with Iran developing their nuclear program for the purpose of using nuclear energy, not for nuclear weapons. Whether or nor Iran "adheres to the NPT as judged of the West" is irrelevant, as the West is not a neutral observer here, it is part of the dispute..
Count Iblis said:If you look at the moves the West has made, it is quite clear that these moves are not really motivated by the small details of whether or not Iran's actions are violations of safeguard agreements. ...
Count Iblis said:AhmedEzz is 100% correct. Iran's technical violations of the NPOT safeguard rules are quite similar to those of Brazil. Brazil refused to give the IAEA data on their enrichment activities. This lead to negotiations and a compromize was worked out in which Brazil would not have to give all the details originally requested by the IAEA on the grounds that this data is an industrial secret.
Count Iblis said:The nuclear experts at the IAEA were not in favor of referring Iran to the UNSC at all. ...
Count Iblis said:A far as Russia and China are concerned, they look at what is best for them. They recognize that the US has interests in the Mid East and upsetting the US will strain relations.