Iran 1 Step Closer to Nukes

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

What raises the major flag to many nations is that Iran is investing heavily in an ever expanding Uranium enrichment program while the nation does not have a single operational nuclear power reactor.

Uranium enrichment if of course the fastest way to a weapon since the relatively sophisticated implosion system is not required to achieve critical mass unlike Plutonium nor the reactors to produce said Plutonium.

Perhaps I'm not versed enough in nuclear physics to get the point, but it would seem like they would need to enrich Uranium BEFORE being able to produce a working nuclear power plant. As I understand what's been revealed to the public (which could always be wrong of course), their investment isn't so much about quantity as it is about quality. At this point they are simply trying to enrich it to the point where it could work in ANY kind of nuclear reaction, whether in a power plant or in a bomb. It's not like they are making vast quantities without using it in nuclear power plants. Like I said, while they may not be trustworthy, it seems like the path they are on would be the same regardless of their end goals of either making a bomb or nuclear power plants.

Reactor grade uranium is available form a number of sources, Russia most applicable here. Iran is finally coming close (by that I mean sometime in the next 5 years, maybe) to getting their only reactor online. They have been working on it for 30 years or so off and on. They have let no contracts to build other plants which typically takes 5 years or more once the contractors are told to start.

Normal reactor grade fuel is typically only in the single digit % of U235 content for light water reactors. Given the reported size of Iran's enrichment efforts concluding they are likely trying to build the bomb isn't much of a reach.

Well I'd suggest that maybe they want to be more energy independent, enriching their own rather than buying from Russia. I do realize that the percentage needed for reactors is less than that required for nuclear weapons, but last I heard, they weren't getting very close to reaching the purity needed for a nuclear weapon. In fact, they were barely into what I understand is the acceptable range for reactor fuel.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the Iranians by any means, I'm just suggesting that the imminent doom forecasted by a lot of folks seems a little premature.

It would likely be years before Iran could generate the required mass and purity for a weapon from what I've read.

Iran also has native uranium which they could easily ship to Russia/France/Germany/Japan/China to be processed whenever they manage to get their first reactor online. There is just no reason for them to have the fuel program they are building (for at least a decade or two) unless it involves military considerations.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

They did, huh. I must have missed that. I've certainly heard the rhetoric about "destroying America and Israel", but words are cheap, especially in that part of the world. And as far as promising to make nuclear weapons, I don't think THAT has ever been said.

Edit: As for your "self-defense" strategy, that is, with all due respect, a damn stupid approach to life. Are you telling me you go around hitting everyone who has ever talked trash in your direction? Like I said, words are cheap, and while I'd have trouble remembering all the times someone got in my face, I can count on one hand the number of times that trash talking has escalated into an actual fight. You're approach assumes everyone is some sort of violent lunatic who will always back up their words with actions, even if you see no sign on them doing so. But what you're really doing is making sure that EVERY conflict escalates as far as possible...something that wouldn't happen under most circumstances, on either a personal or nation-state level.

A far better approach is to really be able to tell the point at which you've crossed the point of no return, and that violence is the only option. "Attack first, just to be sure" is the kind of stupid-ass bullshit that causes more problems than it solves.

I said "If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face" specifically. I did not say I punch a guy for trash talking.. I can call you a dumb sh1t idiot all day without expecting you to hit me. You can call me whatever you want all day and I won't hit you... until you say you are going to cause me physical harm. "I'm gonna hit you." is a statement that threatens my very being. So, you'd get hit for it..

Feel free to respond with whatever you want. But your first tactic of raising my specific statement up a level to a blanket statement in order to argue with me makes me very uninterested in even bothering to argue with you. 'Do not argue with an idiot, lest you be an idiot.' -- Proverbs

Big difference between you hitting some idiot in a bar and starting a war which has life loss and political/economical consequences on a world stage.

 

[2Xtreme21]

What part of Ahmadinejad has no power do you people not understand? He's the equivalent of Pat Robertson with a political position in that country.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

I'm not a fan of Iran by any means, but they never said they are planning on making nuclear weapons. They have said on a consistent basis that they are developing nuclear power plants and technology for peaceful purposes.

But they (the jackass dictator of that country) have frequently called for the demise and annihilation of Israel and the US.

Iran is more then likely planning to make some nuclear weapons... you dont need 50,000 centrifuges for peaceful nuclear power...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

They did, huh. I must have missed that. I've certainly heard the rhetoric about "destroying America and Israel", but words are cheap, especially in that part of the world. And as far as promising to make nuclear weapons, I don't think THAT has ever been said.

Edit: As for your "self-defense" strategy, that is, with all due respect, a damn stupid approach to life. Are you telling me you go around hitting everyone who has ever talked trash in your direction? Like I said, words are cheap, and while I'd have trouble remembering all the times someone got in my face, I can count on one hand the number of times that trash talking has escalated into an actual fight. You're approach assumes everyone is some sort of violent lunatic who will always back up their words with actions, even if you see no sign on them doing so. But what you're really doing is making sure that EVERY conflict escalates as far as possible...something that wouldn't happen under most circumstances, on either a personal or nation-state level.

A far better approach is to really be able to tell the point at which you've crossed the point of no return, and that violence is the only option. "Attack first, just to be sure" is the kind of stupid-ass bullshit that causes more problems than it solves.

I said "If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face" specifically. I did not say I punch a guy for trash talking.. I can call you a dumb sh1t idiot all day without expecting you to hit me. You can call me whatever you want all day and I won't hit you... until you say you are going to cause me physical harm. "I'm gonna hit you." is a statement that threatens my very being. So, you'd get hit for it..

Feel free to respond with whatever you want. But your first tactic of raising my specific statement up a level to a blanket statement in order to argue with me makes me very uninterested in even bothering to argue with you. 'Do not argue with an idiot, lest you be an idiot.' -- Proverbs

Forgive me for assuming more than you meant to say, but in the real world, threats are rarely so specific. Especially when it comes to international relations, especially when it comes to rhetoric on TV, what people say is not always what they mean to do. For example, several very influential US leaders (both elected and otherwise) have suggested in public we need to bomb Iran, sooner rather than later. This is a rather specific threat of violence, would Iran be then justified in attacking us first, or at least building a nuclear deterrent? Or where the American officials in question simply trying to appear tough to their supporters? You see where I'm going with this...it can quickly get out of hand, to the point where a shooting war is sparked off by what really amounted to political posturing.

The logical fallacy you're accusing me of is the "strawman argument". You suggest that I'm overly simplifying and expanding your statement to make it easier to argue against. But what I'm really doing is asking you how your world view extends into the real world. Nobody says "I'm going to punch you in the face", what they do is somehow suggest that they are going to visit violence on you BEFORE they make any overt sign that they are going to do so. My point was that such threats may or may not be something a person ever intends to carry out, and treating it as if it is does not seem like a good approach to life.

I've studied martial arts of various forms for about 8 years, the point being to learn enough about self-defense to be able to do something at the point where physical confrontation is inevitable..."when his fist is flying at my face", as you put it. The advantage to this is that the "first strike" mentality no longer has to apply, I can wait until someone actually initiates violent action and still be able to defend myself. This works in the world of international relations as well. A better approach to Iran would be to get ready for imminent military action, and let them know we're doing so, without having to take any overt moves against them. The minute we have some sort of evidence that they are definitely moving in that direction, we hit them like the end of the world. That way we can defend ourselves without turning our fear of a war into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052
...

It would likely be years before Iran could generate the required mass and purity for a weapon from what I've read.

Iran also has native uranium which they could easily ship to Russia/France/Germany/Japan/China to be processed whenever they manage to get their first reactor online. There is just no reason for them to have the fuel program they are building (for at least a decade or two) unless it involves military considerations.

Given their obvious goal to become a regional superpower, don't you think they'd rather be self-sufficient? Being forced to rely on other countries to supply your energy needs is not a good position to be in for a superpower if it's avoidable.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052
...

It would likely be years before Iran could generate the required mass and purity for a weapon from what I've read.

Iran also has native uranium which they could easily ship to Russia/France/Germany/Japan/China to be processed whenever they manage to get their first reactor online. There is just no reason for them to have the fuel program they are building (for at least a decade or two) unless it involves military considerations.

Given their obvious goal to become a regional superpower, don't you think they'd rather be self-sufficient? Being forced to rely on other countries to supply your energy needs is not a good position to be in for a superpower if it's avoidable.

Yes, however they have nowhere to peacefully use any uranium they might enrich and won't for quite a while. Given what I know I am skeptical of their claims that their program is only peaceful in nature.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

I'm not a fan of Iran by any means, but they never said they are planning on making nuclear weapons. They have said on a consistent basis that they are developing nuclear power plants and technology for peaceful purposes.

But they (the jackass dictator of that country) have frequently called for the demise and annihilation of Israel and the US.

Iran is more then likely planning to make some nuclear weapons... you dont need 50,000 centrifuges for peaceful nuclear power...

Oh I agree and don't trust them by any means. I was just pointing out they never have specifically come out and said it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052
...

It would likely be years before Iran could generate the required mass and purity for a weapon from what I've read.

Iran also has native uranium which they could easily ship to Russia/France/Germany/Japan/China to be processed whenever they manage to get their first reactor online. There is just no reason for them to have the fuel program they are building (for at least a decade or two) unless it involves military considerations.

Given their obvious goal to become a regional superpower, don't you think they'd rather be self-sufficient? Being forced to rely on other countries to supply your energy needs is not a good position to be in for a superpower if it's avoidable.

Yes, however they have nowhere to peacefully use any uranium they might enrich and won't for quite a while. Given what I know I am skeptical of their claims that their program is only peaceful in nature.

I am too, I'm just saying that the absolute conclusions people seem to be drawing seem a little premature.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: K1052
...

It would likely be years before Iran could generate the required mass and purity for a weapon from what I've read.

Iran also has native uranium which they could easily ship to Russia/France/Germany/Japan/China to be processed whenever they manage to get their first reactor online. There is just no reason for them to have the fuel program they are building (for at least a decade or two) unless it involves military considerations.

Given their obvious goal to become a regional superpower, don't you think they'd rather be self-sufficient? Being forced to rely on other countries to supply your energy needs is not a good position to be in for a superpower if it's avoidable.

Yes, however they have nowhere to peacefully use any uranium they might enrich and won't for quite a while. Given what I know I am skeptical of their claims that their program is only peaceful in nature.

I am too, I'm just saying that the absolute conclusions people seem to be drawing seem a little premature.

I'd agree. A number of the EU nations seem to be concerned too or are keeping quiet. I think they are worried too so they are not blocking the US this time around, of course they happen to be within Iran's missile range...

They are content to stand back and offer the carrot while the US brandishes the stick. It may yet work.

 

[Lemon law]

Who is the bigger nut----GWB or Ahmadinejhad???---------now thats a real poser---but guess its GWB because he is the one who crosses his border to invade other nations.

 

[conjur]

Experts say 'frenetic activity' at Iranian enrichment plant may be mostly 'political showmanship'
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/NYT_Experts_say_frenetic_activity_at_0203.html

Further excerpts from Sunday's NY Times article:
#

What the Iranians are not talking about, experts with access to the atomic agency's information say, is that their earlier, experimental effort to make centrifuges work has struggled to achieve even limited success and appears to have been put on the back burner so the country's leaders can declare that they are moving to the next stage.

To enrich uranium on an industrial scale, the machines must spin at incredibly high speeds for months on end. But the latest report of the atomic agency, issued in November, said the primitive machines of the Iran's pilot plant ran only intermittently, to enrich small amounts of uranium. And the Iranians succeeded in setting up just two of the planned six groupings of 164 centrifuges at the pilot plant.

"It looks political unless they've made progress that we don't know about," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a weapons analysis group in London.

....

There also appear to be large doses of domestic political posturing and outright bluffing to Iran's very public declarations. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has become the face of Iranian defiance, is under growing pressure at home because of unemployment and the effect of economic sanctions -- and President Bush's advisers have said he may view a nuclear standoff with the United States as a way to help his standing. That, combined with evidence of problems at the pilot plant, suggest that the industrial push may be aimed as much at enriching Iran's political leverage as enriching uranium.

Ahmadinejad is looking more and more like Saddam with the posturing. But, why would he poke the bear knowing full well the bear will swat back, in this case, out of pure ignorance and insanity?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

I'm not a fan of Iran by any means, but they never said they are planning on making nuclear weapons. They have said on a consistent basis that they are developing nuclear power plants and technology for peaceful purposes.

But they (the jackass dictator of that country) have frequently called for the demise and annihilation of Israel and the US.

Iran is more then likely planning to make some nuclear weapons... you dont need 50,000 centrifuges for peaceful nuclear power...

Oh I agree and don't trust them by any means. I was just pointing out they never have specifically come out and said it.

By the time they admit it the only choice would be to do nothing or fight a nuclear war.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

uhm ...
They have much greater weapons today than their future small yield nuclear devices can ever do damage.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

uhm ...
They have much greater weapons today than their future small yield nuclear devices can ever do damage.

Agree biological weapons can be much more deadly at this stage then small yield nuclear devices. Could you imagine Iran launching biological weapons to military bases in Iraq and Israel (that would cause just as much chaos as a small yield nuclear device.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Maybe I'm just not watching enough Fox News scare-a-thons...but is there actually any proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other than peaceful. Obviously we'd be silly to trust them, but a truly peaceful nuclear program would look EXACTLY like what they are doing now...yet people are acting like they are conducting nuclear bomb testing at this very moment. Yes, I know, they are all terrible people who want to destroy America and all that, but the actual evidence seems in rather short supply.

They've fvcking said they're planning on making nuclear bombs. And, their fvcking president has said Israel and America will be destroyed.

If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face.

They did, huh. I must have missed that. I've certainly heard the rhetoric about "destroying America and Israel", but words are cheap, especially in that part of the world. And as far as promising to make nuclear weapons, I don't think THAT has ever been said.

Edit: As for your "self-defense" strategy, that is, with all due respect, a damn stupid approach to life. Are you telling me you go around hitting everyone who has ever talked trash in your direction? Like I said, words are cheap, and while I'd have trouble remembering all the times someone got in my face, I can count on one hand the number of times that trash talking has escalated into an actual fight. You're approach assumes everyone is some sort of violent lunatic who will always back up their words with actions, even if you see no sign on them doing so. But what you're really doing is making sure that EVERY conflict escalates as far as possible...something that wouldn't happen under most circumstances, on either a personal or nation-state level.

A far better approach is to really be able to tell the point at which you've crossed the point of no return, and that violence is the only option. "Attack first, just to be sure" is the kind of stupid-ass bullshit that causes more problems than it solves.

I said "If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face" specifically. I did not say I punch a guy for trash talking.. I can call you a dumb sh1t idiot all day without expecting you to hit me. You can call me whatever you want all day and I won't hit you... until you say you are going to cause me physical harm. "I'm gonna hit you." is a statement that threatens my very being. So, you'd get hit for it..

Feel free to respond with whatever you want. But your first tactic of raising my specific statement up a level to a blanket statement in order to argue with me makes me very uninterested in even bothering to argue with you. 'Do not argue with an idiot, lest you be an idiot.' -- Proverbs

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/03/iran.warning.reut/index.html

Plenty of American military people want the president to hold immediate and unconditional talks with Iran. They are smarter than you are.

 

[conjur]

Not to mention:

US Can't Prove Iran Link to Iraq Strife

Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release ? most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.

The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.

Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

They just need more time to squeeze the "truth" out of the analyses. DICK must be going nuts right now, what with the inability to find a way to sell attacking Iran and Libby's trial exposing all of DICK's devious actions.

 

[Jhhnn]

I said "If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face" specifically. I did not say I punch a guy for trash talking.. I can call you a dumb sh1t idiot all day without expecting you to hit me. You can call me whatever you want all day and I won't hit you... until you say you are going to cause me physical harm. "I'm gonna hit you." is a statement that threatens my very being. So, you'd get hit for it..

So, by your logic, the US should have attacked the Soviets immediately after Kruschev's "We will bury you!" speech...

Or perhaps the whole thing is just an attempt to justify a pre-meditated attack on the Iranians. Nowhere has the Iranian president stated they intended to attack- his words, although inflammatory, are more circumspect than that... and undoubtedly translated in a way favorable to those who seek justification for an attack on Iran.

As for the rest of it, the Iranians have very ambitious plans for nuclear power, and it's well within their rights to pursue them within the context of IAEA inspections. As with any power generating scenario, it's necessary to have the fuel required- building a coal-fired generator would be pointless, if the coal weren't available, for example. As the Iranians have discovered, they can't depend on outside sources for a reliable supply of anything, politics being what they are. So having a complete nuclear fuel cycle suits their purposes in ways that nothing else can. It will require thousands of centrifuges and many years to enrich enough uranium to power up a single reactor the size of Bushehr... and more down the road to keep it operating.

Trust them? Hardly. That's why there is the IAEA, and ongoing inspections. They've found no evidence to suport the claim that the Iranians have a secret weapons program, even though there is considerable pressure and suspicion to do so. I suspect that the inspectors know their business- when and if they indicate diversion of materials from the enrichment program is occurring, that's when legitimate concerns will exist, and not before.

Right now, it's all just saber rattling in pursuit of an unrelated agenda- the stated objective of creating regime change in Iran, and of furthering the Neocon agenda of global dominance thru military means. That was the real basis for the invasion of Iraq, and the basis for the ongoing campaign against Iran. If we can't see that, then we can't see the forest for the trees...

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

I said "If someone tells me 'I'm gonna hit you', I punch him first. I do not wait for his fist to come flying at my face" specifically. I did not say I punch a guy for trash talking.. I can call you a dumb sh1t idiot all day without expecting you to hit me. You can call me whatever you want all day and I won't hit you... until you say you are going to cause me physical harm. "I'm gonna hit you." is a statement that threatens my very being. So, you'd get hit for it..

So, by your logic, the US should have attacked the Soviets immediately after Kruschev's "We will bury you!" speech...

Or perhaps the whole thing is just an attempt to justify a pre-meditated attack on the Iranians. Nowhere has the Iranian president stated they intended to attack- his words, although inflammatory, are more circumspect than that... and undoubtedly translated in a way favorable to those who seek justification for an attack on Iran.

As for the rest of it, the Iranians have very ambitious plans for nuclear power, and it's well within their rights to pursue them within the context of IAEA inspections. As with any power generating scenario, it's necessary to have the fuel required- building a coal-fired generator would be pointless, if the coal weren't available, for example. As the Iranians have discovered, they can't depend on outside sources for a reliable supply of anything, politics being what they are. So having a complete nuclear fuel cycle suits their purposes in ways that nothing else can. It will require thousands of centrifuges and many years to enrich enough uranium to power up a single reactor the size of Bushehr... and more down the road to keep it operating.

Trust them? Hardly. That's why there is the IAEA, and ongoing inspections. They've found no evidence to suport the claim that the Iranians have a secret weapons program, even though there is considerable pressure and suspicion to do so. I suspect that the inspectors know their business- when and if they indicate diversion of materials from the enrichment program is occurring, that's when legitimate concerns will exist, and not before.

Right now, it's all just saber rattling in pursuit of an unrelated agenda- the stated objective of creating regime change in Iran, and of furthering the Neocon agenda of global dominance thru military means. That was the real basis for the invasion of Iraq, and the basis for the ongoing campaign against Iran. If we can't see that, then we can't see the forest for the trees...

If the Republican fools had been in charge, yeah, the World would have been snuffed out in '62.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, if they had ones we didn't know about, and wanted to keep their program "secret", why would they move ahead with Natanz, which will be under IAEA scrutiny, rather than at their "secret" facilities? Make sense out of that, if you can...

That's simple: the Iranian government seems quite willing to sacrifice Natanz while they continue to operate their "real" program in other secret facilities. They are painting big red bullseyes on Natanz and Isfahan, in an attempt to draw fire from US or Israeli forces. Meanwhile, they are probably chugging along in secret locations that do NOT include IAEA inspectors or publicaly disclosed equipment.

That's my guess...

The Iranians, and all the other signatories to the NPT, have the right to enrichment under IAEA supervision. No matter what else is being said, nobody is claiming that the Iranians aren't doing what they signed up for when they accepted the NPT years ago. They didn't sign up for open-ended regulations designed to prevent them from exercising that option, and neither did anybody else.

I'm fairly confident that there is probably a "terrorist-supporting rogue nation" clause in the NPT... at least there should be!

A deal's a deal, until you want to welch on it, which is what the Bush Admin is trying to accomplish wrt the Iranian program.

along with most of the civilized nations in the world! The US may be driving the bus, but there are dozens of major nations on board.

Shortly, I'm sure, we'll get the whole "appeasement" song and dance... There's only one 800lb gorilla in international politics, and that's the US under the Bush Admin. And everybody has been working very hard to appease that monster- from the IAEA to the security council, and even the Iranians. But there's none possible- the Admin has their hearts set on regime change in Iran, and will settle for nothing less, no matter what means are required to reach that end... they're just trying to whip up public sentiment to support their actions.

Regime change in Iran is a worthy goal.

 

[Lemon law]

Regime change in Iran is a worthy goal. ---careful for what you wish for--you could get a worse outcome.

Regime change in the USA is also a worthy goal---its already starting with the 11/06 election---now when we oust the commander and thief, it will be done by 1/09 at the latest.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the Bush admin had the slightest evidence to support the accusation of "secret facilities", Palehorse, they'd be naming names and showing satellite photos in the UN... but they're not. Why not? because they've got nothing, other than accusations...

Placing the slightest trust in the Bushistas in the wake of the Iraqi debacle would require a lobotomy, followed by months of Clockwork Orange type of conditioning... apparently that's been accomplished on more than a few...

And, yeh, regime change is a worthy goal, particularly here at home. I suspect we'll see just that, come November, 2008. Meanwhile, it's critical to prevent the Admin from doing anything truly reckless, anything that will expand the losing conflict into something larger, something so big as to basically demand total war on our part... which is precisely what waging war on the Iranians would entail.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: MadRat
They'll use a penetrator tipped with a nuke and contend it was their uranium enrichment that caused the explosion. Dumb people will believe it.

The big problem is that you can dig deep enough into a mountain to be immune to any bunker busters, etc...... Even tactical nukes can be overcome if you dig deep enough into the ground or the side of a mountain.