UN trying to create report that says Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons.

[Nebor]

Its about time, gotta find a new "job" for all the troops in Iraq.

All ~4,000 of them?

 

[Jhhnn]

Many of them, but you can read Jhhnn's first post in this thread, in which efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons are now all about current nuclear armed nations maintaining their "monopoly." That is apparently the new way to cast efforts to prevent proliferation of nukes.

- wolf

Nice bit of false attribution on your part, too. Signatories to the NPT were promised and have the right to enrich their own fuel, under IAEA supervision. Which is what the Iranians are demonstrably doing, and is what has the other players so upset. They'd never intended for signatories to actually obtain the technology to do so- it was a promise of deception from the start.

Inherent in that ability & the technology involved is the ability to create weapons grade material outside of the regulatory regime. It means that any nation having enrichment capabilities could stage a breakout into nukes by kicking out the inspectors & enriching uranium to the degree required for weapons. That's been the case from the beginning, and hasn't changed one little bit. It was the necessary risk nuclear weapons possessors took when they created the NPT in the first place- non-nuclear nations would simply have declined the NPT, as was their right in the first place.

What's happening now is an attempt to deny the past, to change the rules of the NPT so that signatory nations can't enrich their own fuel at all, something they never agreed to in the first place.

I do not support the acquisition of nukes by the Iranians, despite your blatant slander that I do. I do, however, believe that they have the right to enrich their own fuel under IAEA supervision, whether anybody else likes that or not. They have the obligation to honor the agreement they originally signed, long ago under the Shah's govt, and no others. They've actually gone further than that, agreeing to additional protocols called out by the IAEA, something they really didn't need to do at all.

I find it remarkable how quickly the usual ravers on this forum can switch stories- when it's underwater US homeowners, a deal is a deal, but when it's the Iranians, apparently everything is different somehow...

 

[fskimospy]

Well, the NPT is a load of shit anyway. We always make a big deal about how countries aren't supposed to develop nuclear weapons under the NPT, but an often overlooked element of the NPT is that all states that currently have them are supposed to undertake good faith efforts at total disarmament themselves... and let's be honest, that has never happened.

I'm down with opposing Iranian nuclear weapons development, but all the hand wringing over violations of the NPT always strike me as awfully selective.

 

[SamurAchzar]

For those that want this....make sure to donate some extra money so the rest of us don't have to pay for the shit you want and more importantly, make sure to sign up and and throw your own life first in line to do the actual fighting.

http://www.goarmy.com/locate-a-recruiter.html

Sure, the others should pony up and do the dirty work so your kids can live in a world where those who believe suicide bombing is moral and justified don't hold weapons that can kill millions and make entire countries inhabitable.

Just like with Iraq and Syria before: All but the most extreme of liberals will be relieved if Israel takes care of the issue itself, for the behalf of the free world. Typical Israeli bravery is the only reason why Assad, who's butchering his own civilians by dozens every day, can't threaten anyone with a nuke. Everyone, from the liberals of USA to the hypocrites of Britain to the militarily impotent French to the oppressive Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would just LOVE Israel to take care of Iran on its own, and then obviously accuse it publicly of warmongering.

This time it won't work though as without resorting to a nuclear strike itself, I don't think Israel can get the job done. So no hoping the Jews will sort it out this time too, they simply can't.

 

[SamurAchzar]

I do not support the acquisition of nukes by the Iranians, despite your blatant slander that I do. I do, however, believe that they have the right to enrich their own fuel under IAEA supervision, whether anybody else likes that or not. They have the obligation to honor the agreement they originally signed, long ago under the Shah's govt, and no others. They've actually gone further than that, agreeing to additional protocols called out by the IAEA, something they really didn't need to do at all.

And you accuse me of spinning :biggrin: Their red flag activity is experimentation with nuclear warhead design, assembly and delivery using their Shihab-3 ballistic missiles, not the enrichment which by all accounts is in adherence with NPT protocols.

 

[Nemesis 1]

All ~4,000 of them?

LOL PROOF onlt 4,000 paid fighting men in Iraq.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, the NPT is a load of shit anyway. We always make a big deal about how countries aren't supposed to develop nuclear weapons under the NPT, but an often overlooked element of the NPT is that all states that currently have them are supposed to undertake good faith efforts at total disarmament themselves... and let's be honest, that has never happened.

I'm down with opposing Iranian nuclear weapons development, but all the hand wringing over violations of the NPT always strike me as awfully selective.

Nuclear armed countries are impossible to disarm and will never do it voluntarily. The entire issue about current nuclear armed countries is a distraction from the only issue that matters: preventing any and every other nation from acquiring them. I have real trouble excusing proliferation on the grounds that current nuclear armed countries aren't disarming particularly when you're talking about is a pipe dream. Let's focus on something theoretically achievable.

The truth is we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear sites 5 years ago, when their development was concentrated in a smaller number of critical sites. But the Bush admin lied about WMD's in Iraq and we had no credibility to pursue it. Now that the IAEA who had previously been skeptical is vindicating what the US has been saying all along, it's probably too late.

- wolf

 

[Nemesis 1]

Sure, the others should pony up and do the dirty work so your kids can live in a world where those who believe suicide bombing is moral and justified don't hold weapons that can kill millions and make entire countries inhabitable.

Just like with Iraq and Syria before: All but the most extreme of liberals will be relieved if Israel takes care of the issue itself, for the behalf of the free world. Typical Israeli bravery is the only reason why Assad, who's butchering his own civilians by dozens every day, can't threaten anyone with a nuke. Everyone, from the liberals of USA to the hypocrites of Britain to the militarily impotent French to the oppressive Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would just LOVE Israel to take care of Iran on its own, and then obviously accuse it publicly of warmongering.

This time it won't work though as without resorting to a nuclear strike itself, I don't think Israel can get the job done. So no hoping the Jews will sort it out this time too, they simply can't.

What is a terrorist . We have had black ops for years . To the people and countries they work in they are terrorist . I am thinking you believe your better than these people . That would likely also make you a racist in denile.

 

[SamurAchzar]

What is a terrorist . We have had black ops for years . To the people and countries they work in they are terrorist . I am thinking you believe your better than these people . That would likely also make you a racist in denile.

I'm not particularly concerned if the Muslims - whether you or the Iranians - think of me as a terrorist. Unlike the useful - or plain old - idiots you sometimes see around, I want my side to win. And "my side" is represented by USA, Israel and the free world.
It appears like you are rooting for the other side, and that's just fine by me.

 

[Jhhnn]

And you accuse me of spinning :biggrin: Their red flag activity is experimentation with nuclear warhead design, assembly and delivery using their Shihab-3 ballistic missiles, not the enrichment which by all accounts is in adherence with NPT protocols.

If they never create weapons grade uranium or plutonium, the rest of the accusations have all the value of a cup of warm spit.

 

[SamurAchzar]

If they never create weapons grade uranium or plutonium, the rest of the accusations have all the value of a cup of warm spit.

There is much, much more to the NPT than this fact alone, especially as Iran built a vast array of centrifuges that allows them to bridge the gap between 20% and weapons grade over few months. Researching nuclear warhead detonators and assembly is a clear violation of the NPT.

 

[fskimospy]

Nuclear armed countries are impossible to disarm and will never do it voluntarily. The entire issue about current nuclear armed countries is a distraction from the only issue that matters: preventing any and every other nation from acquiring them. I have real trouble excusing proliferation on the grounds that current nuclear armed countries aren't disarming particularly when you're talking about is a pipe dream. Let's focus on something theoretically achievable.

The truth is we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear sites 5 years ago, when their development was concentrated in a smaller number of critical sites. But the Bush admin lied about WMD's in Iraq and we had no credibility to pursue it. Now that the IAEA who had previously been skeptical is vindicating what the US has been saying all along, it's probably too late.

- wolf

I think you misunderstood my post. Of course nuclear countries will never disarm, that was a ridiculous idea from the start. The NPT is based on 3 pillars however. One of them is that countries who are not nuclear capable do not become so. That's the pillar we hear about all the time. The second pillar is that countries who ARE nuclear armed take good faith steps to disarm and reach a final agreement of total, worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Now I agree that the treaty was hopelessly naive, but I find it just as silly that we complain so vigorously when non-nuclear countries seek to violate it while completely ignoring our ongoing violation of the treaty ourselves. I find it hypocritical, and I believe that the case for disarmament doesn't need to fall on the NPT anyway.

Oh, and we weren't going to start bombing Iran in the middle of 2006 with Iraq falling apart around us. That's just not realistic.

 

[Doppel]

Nuclear armed countries are impossible to disarm and will never do it voluntarily.

Almost true. I was surprised to read it, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament

Only one country has been known to ever dismantle their nuclear arsenal completely—the apartheid government of South Africa apparently developed half a dozen crude fission weapons during the 1980s, but they were dismantled in the early 1990s.

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that the difference between a bullet and a nuclear weapon being deployed is the size of the target. A reasonably sized nuke dropped on Israel would terminate Israel while one dropped on the Sahara would destroy some sand... While a bullet deployed most anywhere is rather inconsequential.
This then prods the thought process to consider who has nukes and what their propensity to use them is... and, on who or where.

The people in control of Iran are a bit nutty from my perspective and they seem capable of doing what much larger nations would consider incomprehensible.

Iran with nukes is like arming a hungry and mad Grizzly with body armor while tossing honey in the local boy scout camp and expecting the Grizzly to behave like a kitten.

Israel with nukes is not much different... They will insure their existence and I guess at the expense of being tagged as instigators and inhumane beings... No one should have nukes except us USA folks cuz were rational thinkers... maybe.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is much, much more to the NPT than this fact alone, especially as Iran built a vast array of centrifuges that allows them to bridge the gap between 20% and weapons grade over few months. Researching nuclear warhead detonators and assembly is a clear violation of the NPT.

Says a man whose favored nation, Israel, already possesses nuclear weapons and is currently run by ethno/religious psychopaths. It's not like they employed no subterfuge in creating Nukes, at all.

One way or another, it's clear that the Iranians will obtain the ability to achieve nuclear breakout. The point, of course, is to give them no reason and strong disincentives to do so. Israeli threats simply don't accomplish that, and an actual attack would ensure that they would eject inspectors, then create & test such weapons so as to deter further attacks. Israel is simply incapable of the sort of sustained campaign that would make it otherwise.

Israel is her own worst enemy, and attacking Iran would prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

So, I take it you belong to the camp that supports a nuclear-armed Iran?

Nope, nor a nuclear-armed Israel. But since they are friends with the US they can do whatever they bloody want without questions being asked, and Israel isn't asked to prove not having nukes either.

Has there been conclusive proof yet that Iran has them or develops them, or is it still 'a report will come out that might say something regarding the lines of...'? Israel has been wanting to attack Iran for quite some time now as Iran supports Palestinians. And anyone questioning Israel's need for Lebensraum is considered a valid target apparently.

If Iran is developing nukes it's best to stop them, but I'd as soon trust Israel claiming a location has to be bombed to stop them as I'd trust the Taliban claiming to put down their weapons and support democratic elections if the US would leave Afghanistan.

 

[SamurAchzar]

If Iran is developing nukes it's best to stop them, but I'd as soon trust Israel claiming a location has to be bombed to stop them as I'd trust the Taliban claiming to put down their weapons and support democratic elections if the US would leave Afghanistan.

So far Israel preemptively attacked two Arab WMD facilities, the one in Iraq in 1981 and the other in Syria in 2007. Both sites were later proved to be a part of a nuclear weapon program, so that's a pretty good track record.

Israel has been wanting to attack Iran for quite some time now as Iran supports Palestinians. And anyone questioning Israel's need for Lebensraum is considered a valid target apparently.

Many countries support the Palestinians without being threatened by Israel, so your reasoning is pretty weak. Of course, Iran is the only country that currently wages actual war on Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, which are directly controlled, trained and funded by the Iranians.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Says a man whose favored nation, Israel, already possesses nuclear weapons and is currently run by ethno/religious psychopaths. It's not like they employed no subterfuge in creating Nukes, at all.

I don't have a problem with that. I'm sure even you understand that Israel, for the better or worse, exists not on the good will of its neighbors but on its military, economic and technological strengths alone. Take away any of those and it will be overrun by a mob of angry Muslims.

One way or another, it's clear that the Iranians will obtain the ability to achieve nuclear breakout. The point, of course, is to give them no reason and strong disincentives to do so. Israeli threats simply don't accomplish that, and an actual attack would ensure that they would eject inspectors, then create & test such weapons so as to deter further attacks. Israel is simply incapable of the sort of sustained campaign that would make it otherwise.

Israel is her own worst enemy, and attacking Iran would prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The Iranians did not need any excuses when they armed and funded Syria (including the Syrian nuclear program), or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or sponsored the bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires in the early 90's. I don't know if you noticed but the people running Iran are not especially receptive to the idea of Jews living in their neighborhood.

 

[Lemon law]

As Sammy somewhat says the absurd regarding Israel and terrorists, namely, "Sure, the others should pony up and do the dirty work so your kids can live in a world where those who believe suicide bombing is moral and justified don't hold weapons that can kill millions and make entire countries inhabitable."

Yet in the miniscule mind of Sammy, its so much more moral for Israel to have all the guns tanks and planes, and as Israel bombed Lebanon in 2005, in an orgy of collective punishment directed against civilians, its so much more moral because the guys in the Israeli planes can commit mass murder without risking their lives in any way.

But as we escalate the Israeli military dominance up to the nuclear level, Israel already has nukes and will have to use them against Iran if they even hope to dent deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities, just to prevent any possibility of Iran ever having a few nukes for self defense. And even that possibility is at least three years into the future.

Meanwhile Iran is working within IAEA guide lines while Israel refuses to give up its 120+ nukes to make the mid-east a nuclear weapons free zone.

For 63 years Israel has abused its military power, launched large two wars of conquest while raping the human rights of its neighbors and 3 million of its captive Palestinian population, while Iran has engaged in no offensive wars with its neighbors during the same time. While at the same time, Iran is tolerant of its Jewish population.

Which nation has the better record? And the answer is certainly not Israel.

 

[Engineer]

Sure, the others should pony up and do the dirty work so your kids can live in a world where those who believe suicide bombing is moral and justified don't hold weapons that can kill millions and make entire countries inhabitable.

Just like with Iraq and Syria before: All but the most extreme of liberals will be relieved if Israel takes care of the issue itself, for the behalf of the free world. Typical Israeli bravery is the only reason why Assad, who's butchering his own civilians by dozens every day, can't threaten anyone with a nuke. Everyone, from the liberals of USA to the hypocrites of Britain to the militarily impotent French to the oppressive Sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would just LOVE Israel to take care of Iran on its own, and then obviously accuse it publicly of warmongering.

This time it won't work though as without resorting to a nuclear strike itself, I don't think Israel can get the job done. So no hoping the Jews will sort it out this time too, they simply can't.

Good. I'm glad to see you put some "skin in the game" for what you believe in. I won't be holding my breath to see if you fulfill that promise though. You say that I want others to do the dirty work for my kids and then you simply state that you want others to do the dirty work for you and I bet you wouldn't be willing to raise taxes one bit to even pay for it (as you're obviously against tax hikes of any type except for those at the bottom - typically the people doing the dirty work for you).

 

[woolfe9999]

I think you misunderstood my post. Of course nuclear countries will never disarm, that was a ridiculous idea from the start. The NPT is based on 3 pillars however. One of them is that countries who are not nuclear capable do not become so. That's the pillar we hear about all the time. The second pillar is that countries who ARE nuclear armed take good faith steps to disarm and reach a final agreement of total, worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Now I agree that the treaty was hopelessly naive, but I find it just as silly that we complain so vigorously when non-nuclear countries seek to violate it while completely ignoring our ongoing violation of the treaty ourselves. I find it hypocritical, and I believe that the case for disarmament doesn't need to fall on the NPT anyway.

Oh, and we weren't going to start bombing Iran in the middle of 2006 with Iraq falling apart around us. That's just not realistic.

Honestly I could care less about hypocrisy. That is an abstraction. I'm a little more concerned about countries like Iran, and possibly many others down the road, acquiring actual nuclear weapons. I don't think that painting the nations trying to prevent proliferation as the bad guys is terribly constructive. Doesn't sound to me like many on the left are much behind non-proliferation these days. Kind of seems like since the US and Israel oppose it, the left, while not terribly crazy about Iran getting nuclear weapons, just doesn't have their heart in opposing it. Maybe if the US and Israel start playing reverse pscyhology and supporting Iran getting nuclear weapons, the left will reverse course.

In all seriousness, NPT or no, we aren't going to get anywhere with non-proliferation if we aren't unified. You'd think the west could unify on this one issue, but apparently not.

- wolf

 

[SamurAchzar]

As Sammy somewhat says the absurd regarding Israel and terrorists, namely, "Sure, the others should pony up and do the dirty work so your kids can live in a world where those who believe suicide bombing is moral and justified don't hold weapons that can kill millions and make entire countries inhabitable."

Yet in the miniscule mind of Sammy, its so much more moral for Israel to have all the guns tanks and planes, and as Israel bombed Lebanon in 2005, in an orgy of collective punishment directed against civilians, its so much more moral because the guys in the Israeli planes can commit mass murder without risking their lives in any way.

But as we escalate the Israeli military dominance up to the nuclear level, Israel already has nukes and will have to use them against Iran if they even hope to dent deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities, just to prevent any possibility of Iran ever having a few nukes for self defense. And even that possibility is at least three years into the future.

Meanwhile Iran is working within IAEA guide lines while Israel refuses to give up its 120+ nukes to make the mid-east a nuclear weapons free zone.

For 63 years Israel has abused its military power, launched large two wars of conquest while raping the human rights of its neighbors and 3 million of its captive Palestinian population, while Iran has engaged in no offensive wars with its neighbors during the same time. While at the same time, Iran is tolerant of its Jewish population.

Which nation has the better record? And the answer is certainly not Israel.

I openly support Israel and would want it to possess its nuclear powers while preventing them from its adversaries. It's not secret. Who do you support?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Good. I'm glad to see you put some "skin in the game" for what you believe in. I won't be holding my breath to see if you fulfill that promise though. You say that I want others to do the dirty work for my kids and then you simply state that you want others to do the dirty work for you and I bet you wouldn't be willing to raise taxes one bit to even pay for it (as you're obviously against tax hikes of any type except for those at the bottom - typically the people doing the dirty work for you).

I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that assuring our kids grow up in a world where radical Muslims aren't armed with nukes transcends any partisan debate.

 

[BansheeX]

The military industrial complex needs a perpetual boogie man to keep the money flowing. Iran is the next logical choice.

 

[Lemon law]

Woolfe asks a the question, "In all seriousness, NPT or no, we aren't going to get anywhere with non-proliferation if we aren't unified. You'd think the west could unify on this one issue, but apparently not."

So I ask Woolfe in the same spirit, would you support Israel giving up its nukes to make the mid-east a nuclear weapons free zone if Iran did the same?

I think total world unity could be achieved on that basis.