View Full Version : Iran escalating?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/19/iran-nuclear-warhead-warning
Boozeburglar
19-Feb-10, 12:18
Well what do you think?
Well what do you think?
My initial thought is to say nothing (safer) but, it does seem to be a very big jump to already enriching to 20% from the previous discussion about it might take 6 to 12 months to be in a position to do that.
Coupled with the (possible) impending delivery of the Russian SS300 air defence system that is already bought and paid for.
It strikes me that the Isrealis might consider they are running out of time to act?
Boozeburglar
19-Feb-10, 13:21
I have not had much time to look at the facts.
I can't blame Iran for wanting the bomb.
Is there a way around this?
I only hope Israel allows for the revolution to grip Iran.
Isreal are wll known for striking when it feels slightly threatned so this is one to watch for this decade.
Unless we as a people outlaw the use ot Nuclear Weapons we can complain, frustrate and try and diplomatically stop countries from arming as much as we like but we have no moral high ground to do so. It was the US that dropped the Bomb and to date the only Nation to have used it.
In the eyes of the common Arab the West simply wants to keep them poor and humilated.
In the eyes of the common Arab the West simply wants to keep them poor and humilated.
Poor?
Iran oil revenues at $64 billion Press TV: Iran has earned more than $64 billion in oil revenues from March to December 2008, Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari has said.
tonkatojo
19-Feb-10, 15:27
Very little news on this subject is in the main news, it looks very dodgy !!.
Also the price of oil is rising, now that's an indicator of trouble.
Very little news on this subject is in the main news, it looks very dodgy !!.
Also the price of oil is rising, now that's an indicator of trouble.
I've just been reading about it.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=118988§ionid=351020101
Presidents and Prime Ministers they come and they go, they can lie all they want to then go on to make a fortune on the lecture circuit or become a peace envoy.
Religious leaders are there to stay, they will have to live with their words.
I've just been reading about it.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=118988§ionid=351020101
Presidents and Prime Ministers they come and they go, they can lie all they want to then go on to make a fortune on the lecture circuit or become a peace envoy.
Religious leaders are there to stay, they will have to live with their words.
Few! Thats a relief.
Poor?
Iran oil revenues at $64 billion Press TV: Iran has earned more than $64 billion in oil revenues from March to December 2008, Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari has said.
I meant the common man on the street not the few who actually benifit from oil.
Presidents and Prime Ministers they come and they go, they can lie all they want to then go on to make a fortune on the lecture circuit or become a peace envoy.
Religious leaders are there to stay, they will have to live with their words.
Very astute, Fred!
northener
19-Feb-10, 17:21
I've just been reading about it.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=118988§ionid=351020101
Presidents and Prime Ministers they come and they go, they can lie all they want to then go on to make a fortune on the lecture circuit or become a peace envoy.
Religious leaders are there to stay, they will have to live with their words.
Jolly nice of him to say that....seeing that this the country that bought it's nuclear technology from AQ Khan. The same country that swore blind that the centrifuges they had built were a home-grown invention...unfortunately one of the UN Nuclear inspectors recognised the design as the one he himself had worked on with AQ Khan back in the 1970's.
Mr Khan didn't sell 'peaceful' end use gear. He sells equipment to enable proliferation of nuclear weapons, and has been on record as saying that he believes every country should have the right to produce it's own nuclear protection.
He has sold to N Korea and Libya amongst others. Libya has openly admitted to having this nuclear WMD programme as part of being 'welcomed back'.
IIRC part of the documentation found in Iran (in a 'disused watch factory', complete with caseloads of othe documentation and traces of uranium being registered) was Chinese, part of the same series of documents blueprinting a warhead from the Chinese and containes casting details for spheres of uranium...which has only one use....and guess who supplied the documentation? AQ Khan.
Info sourced from the telly today. 'Nuclear Secrets', absolutely fascinating and not with a hidden agenda.
So I'll think I'll ignore the meaningless promises of some religious bloke (who doesn't have as much a grip on the governnance of Iran as he'd like to believe) and hope that the UN and diplomacy can set everything straight.
I meant the common man on the street not the few who actually benifit from oil.
Fair enough, you're right.
I meant the common man on the street not the few who actually benifit from oil.
I might have missed something here. Is it not obvious to the Arab in the street that it is their own governments not the west who is keeping them poor and ignorant?
And anyway Iran is not a poor society in general with a very sophisticated population (probably why there is so much decent).
I might have missed something here. Is it not obvious to the Arab in the street that it is their own governments not the west who is keeping them poor and ignorant?
And anyway Iran is not a poor society in general with a very sophisticated population (probably why there is so much decent).
Countries where the west have installed rulers, like Saudi Arabia, tend to blame us for it.
Countries where we have imposed sanctions, like Iran, do as well.
Countries where the west have installed rulers, like Saudi Arabia, tend to blame us for it.
Countries where we have imposed sanctions, like Iran, do as well.
I think we have just slipped into the realms of fantasy
Is it not obvious to the Arab in the street that it is their own governments not the west who is keeping them poor and ignorant?
And anyway Iran is not a poor society in general with a very sophisticated population (probably why there is so much decent).
There actually is hardly any decent within Iran. Dr Ahmadinejad was re-elected as president with a much, much higher majority than anyone in Britain or America can claim to have achieved.
Also you mention "their own governments." That is a step in the right direct, ducati, for you are now admitting that the people of Iran decide their own government. Not Britain, not the US, but the people of Iran.
The people of Iran are entitled to go about their business in safety and security. They are also entitled to develop nuclear power stations, which is what they are doing. They are also entitled to buy missile defense systems to protect themselves from madmen (and women).
There actually is hardly any decent within Iran.
Really? I thought there was
Also you mention "their own governments." That is a step in the right direct, ducati, for you are now admitting that the people of Iran decide their own government. Not Britain, not the US, but the people of Iran.
The people of Iran are entitled to go about their business in safety and security. They are also entitled to develop nuclear power stations, which is what they are doing. They are also entitled to buy missile defense systems to protect themselves from madmen (and women).
I don't think I have ever said anything different
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/19/iran-nuclear-warhead-warning
Have you actually read this biased nonsense?
"might be developing"
"could have looked into"
"could be under way."
"Iran had succeeded in producing 20% enriched uranium, a level of enrichment much closer to weapons grade than it had attempted before." (Nowhere near weapons grade.)
David Albright (alarm bells ringing anyone?), the head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (http://www.isis-online.org/), said: "They seem to be sending a signal. They may be trying to pressure the west to make concessions, but I think it's backfiring. They are playing with fire."
" 'We always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences,' the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday." (They have, in fact, complied with all obligations.)
"Britain, France and Germany have all distanced themselves from the US assessment, and their intelligence agencies now believe that even if Iranian work on warhead design did stop, it has now resumed. American officials have said informally they agree with that conclusion but have yet to update their official position." (Notice how the West always has to rely upon someone else's "intelligence.")
"the possible existence"
"The wording goes much further than reports by Amano's predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei, who refrained from explicitly spelling out the implications of evidence on weapons-building his inspectors had gathered. ElBaradei's caution frustrated some of the agency's inspectors in its safeguards department, who felt that it should reveal more of its evidence of Iran's intentions." (This is the essence - propaganda has now been restored by inserting Amano.)
Really? I thought there was
From where? Orchestrated incidents that just happen to be recorded by CNN, Sky and the BBC, I suppose.
Have you actually read this biased nonsense?
"might be developing"
"could have looked into"
"could be under way."
"Iran had succeeded in producing 20% enriched uranium, a level of enrichment much closer to weapons grade than it had attempted before." (Nowhere near weapons grade.)
David Albright (alarm bells ringing anyone?), the head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (http://www.isis-online.org/), said: "They seem to be sending a signal. They may be trying to pressure the west to make concessions, but I think it's backfiring. They are playing with fire."
" 'We always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences,' the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday." (They have, in fact, complied with all obligations.)
"Britain, France and Germany have all distanced themselves from the US assessment, and their intelligence agencies now believe that even if Iranian work on warhead design did stop, it has now resumed. American officials have said informally they agree with that conclusion but have yet to update their official position." (Notice how the West always has to rely upon someone else's "intelligence.")
"the possible existence"
"The wording goes much further than reports by Amano's predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei, who refrained from explicitly spelling out the implications of evidence on weapons-building his inspectors had gathered. ElBaradei's caution frustrated some of the agency's inspectors in its safeguards department, who felt that it should reveal more of its evidence of Iran's intentions." (This is the essence - propaganda has now been restored by inserting Amano.)
I get all that Stavro. But what you are not grasping is it is irrelevant what you think. What matters is what the Israelis think. And the fact that Iran is doing nothing to lower the tension and is indeed ramping it up at every opportunity.
I get all that Stavro. But what you are not grasping is it is irrelevant what you think. What matters is what the Israelis think. And the fact that Iran is doing nothing to lower the tension and is indead ramping it up at every opportunity.
No point in starting the thread then, since it is all pointless. However, you are wrong. It matters a great deal what ordinary men and women think and if they speak up for what they believe is right.
The Israelis always rely upon others to do their bidding. Hence they are desperately trying to get the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany and France into slaughtering people in Iran on nothing but the Israelis say so. As per usual.
From where? Orchestrated incidents that just happen to be recorded by CNN, Sky and the BBC, I suppose.
Orchestrated by whom?
northener
19-Feb-10, 21:09
I'd be more concerned by this report here:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100219/tts-uk-iran-nuclear-ca02f96.html
The Russians are always very slow to condemn (or even admit fears) regarding the ME. If they're stating they are worried by Irans non co-operation, then I'd say that they are deeply concerned.
No point in starting the thread then, since it is all pointless. However, you are wrong. It matters a great deal what ordinary men and women think and if they speak up for what they believe is right.
The Israelis always rely upon others to do their bidding. Hence they are desperately trying to get the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany and France into slaughtering people in Iran on nothing but the Israelis say so. As per usual.
I'm an ordinary man or women and I rather think the world would be safer (for me) if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons.
OK. What we need to do is you have to tell me your stance on absolutely everything then I can avoid disagreeing with you. I don't even like winter sports!
I'd be more concerned by this report here:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100219/tts-uk-iran-nuclear-ca02f96.html
The Russians are always very slow to condemn (or even admit fears) regarding the ME. If they're stating they are worried by Irans non co-operation, then I'd say that they are deeply concerned.
One of the reasons they are holding up delivery of the SS300 I guess.
I'm an ordinary man or women and I rather think the world would be safer (for me) if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons.
They have not got a nuclear weapon.
OK. What we need to do is you have to tell me your stance on absolutely everything ...
Well, if you insist (and since you brought up "Israel"). Here's one report I agree with -
"London is ‘angry’ over the use of stolen identities by the Dubai assassins and points its finger at the Jewish state and its notorious Mossad espionage agency. The Israeli ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, was summoned yesterday by the foreign minister to “share information”. In practice Britain has stopped short of accusing Israel of involvement in the scandalous assassination, however to signal its displeasure the Foreign Office ignored an Israeli plea to keep the summons secret."
(Source - http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-tide-has-changed-gilad-atzmon.html )
They have not got a nuclear weapon.
Well, if you insist (and since you brought up "Israel"). Here's one report I agree with -
"London is ‘angry’ over the use of stolen identities by the Dubai assassins and points its finger at the Jewish state and its notorious Mossad espionage agency. The Israeli ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, was summoned yesterday by the foreign minister to “share information”. In practice Britain has stopped short of accusing Israel of involvement in the scandalous assassination, however to signal its displeasure the Foreign Office ignored an Israeli plea to keep the summons secret."
(Source - http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-tide-has-changed-gilad-atzmon.html )
Yes, and what I find (tragically) amusing is the Israelis are saying there is no evidence of us being involved! :roll:
Slightly bizarre source for a straight news article by the way
Yes, and what I find (tragically) amusing is the Israelis are saying there is no evidence of us being involved! :roll:
At least we agree on something. :)
I'd be more concerned by this report here:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100219/tts-uk-iran-nuclear-ca02f96.html
The Russians are always very slow to condemn (or even admit fears) regarding the ME. If they're stating they are worried by Irans non co-operation, then I'd say that they are deeply concerned.
Good item and fully up to date Northener. but wait a minute no need to worry, as it also says:
"Khamenei was quoted as saying by Iranian media: "The West's accusations are baseless because our religious beliefs bar us from using such weapons ... We do not believe in atomic weapons and are not seeking that." Phew! we can all relax..
"The West's accusations are baseless because our religious beliefs bar us from using such weapons ... We do not believe in atomic weapons and are not seeking that." Phew! we can all relax..
We can relax anyway, but I agree, it is unusual to find a leader with morals in this world.
We can relax anyway, but I agree, it is unusual to find a leader with morals in this world.
how about Irony
Boozeburglar
20-Feb-10, 01:02
There actually is hardly any decent within Iran. Dr Ahmadinejad was re-elected as president with a much, much higher majority than anyone in Britain or America can claim to have achieved
Sure. Saddam was too at one time.
Idiotic.
Sure. Saddam was too at one time.
Idiotic.
Yes, it certainly is idiotic to believe the propaganda about Dr Ahmadinejad, just as you believed it about Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
I for one do not want anymore human beings (or animals, come to that) blown to pieces on the strength of propaganda and lies.
Iran is a peaceful country, minding its own business.
Iran is a peaceful country, minding its own business.
Aye right!!!!!! Have you ever been there Stavro, I have!!!!!!!!!
Aye right!!!!!! Have you ever been there Stavro, I have!!!!!!!!!
So tell me, golach, what grudge do you hold against the women and children of Iran, that you might be willing to see them slaughtered as the Iraqis were?
The Iranians have the God-given right to live in peace and to elect their own form of government.
So tell me, golach, what grudge do you hold against the women and children of Iran, that you might be willing to see them slaughtered as the Iraqis were?
The Iranians have the God-given right to live in peace and to elect their own form of government.
I am not entering into verbal fencing with you Stavro, have earned my stripes, dismissing Fred over the years, Iran and the Mullahs are out to slaughter the women and children ...not me.
I am not entering into verbal fencing with you Stavro, have earned my stripes, dismissing Fred over the years, Iran and the Mullahs are out to slaughter the women and children ...not me.
And I am not out for any form of personal argument with you, golach. You are entitled to believe the mainstream media if you wish. As I am entitled to point out that it was America, not Iran, that caused generations of birth defects in Vietnam with their Agent Orange; America, not Iran, that used atomic weapons on human beings; America, not Iran, that is causing birth deformaties in Iraq with their depleted uranium (some say that Britain has done that, too).
Iran has a governmental structure and laws that are different to Britain and America. Whether it is "inferior" or not is a matter of opinion, but Iran having the God-given right to live in peace and determine its own form of government is a matter of fact.
Stavro, you still did not answer my initial question, Have you been to Iran???...I have!!!! I have seen the Mullahs and the Republican Guard at work, again I ask have you????
Aye right!!!!!! Have you ever been there Stavro, I have!!!!!!!!!
So that's why they don't like us.
So that's why they don't like us.
Wow a funny from Fred LOL[lol]
northener
20-Feb-10, 11:27
Wow a funny from Fred LOL[lol]
It was a good one, you gotta admit it, Golach.:Razz
Boozeburglar
20-Feb-10, 13:05
Yes, it certainly is idiotic to believe the propaganda about Dr Ahmadinejad, just as you believed it about Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
What exactly do you base your presumptions about my beliefs on?
It was a good one, you gotta admit it, Golach.:Razz
I do I do [lol]
Have you actually read this biased nonsense?
"might be developing"
"could have looked into"
"could be under way."
"Iran had succeeded in producing 20% enriched uranium, a level of enrichment much closer to weapons grade than it had attempted before." (Nowhere near weapons grade.)
David Albright (alarm bells ringing anyone?), the head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (http://www.isis-online.org/), said: "They seem to be sending a signal. They may be trying to pressure the west to make concessions, but I think it's backfiring. They are playing with fire."
" 'We always said that if Iran failed to live up to those international obligations, that there would be consequences,' the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday." (They have, in fact, complied with all obligations.)
"Britain, France and Germany have all distanced themselves from the US assessment, and their intelligence agencies now believe that even if Iranian work on warhead design did stop, it has now resumed. American officials have said informally they agree with that conclusion but have yet to update their official position." (Notice how the West always has to rely upon someone else's "intelligence.")
"the possible existence"
"The wording goes much further than reports by Amano's predecessor Mohamed ElBaradei, who refrained from explicitly spelling out the implications of evidence on weapons-building his inspectors had gathered. ElBaradei's caution frustrated some of the agency's inspectors in its safeguards department, who felt that it should reveal more of its evidence of Iran's intentions." (This is the essence - propaganda has now been restored by inserting Amano.)
"Iran's envoy to the UN atomic watchdog says the concern expressed in the Agency's latest report is 'groundless,' as it is not based on any new information."
(Source - http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=119066§ionid=351020104 )
"Iran's envoy to the UN atomic watchdog says the concern expressed in the Agency's latest report is 'groundless,' as it is not based on any new information."
(Source - http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=119066§ionid=351020104 )
Well Iranian TV would say that would they not?
Well Iranian TV would say that would they not?
Then by your own logic, the BBC would say that would they not? Or, CNN would say that would they not? Or Sky "News" would say that would they not?
Then by your own logic, the BBC would say that would they not? Or, CNN would say that would they not? Or Sky "News" would say that would they not?
duhh your point is?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/19/iran-nuclear-warhead-warning
"Soltanieh said that a close look at the report showed that the IAEA had, as always, confirmed that Tehran's activities were peaceful and under Agency supervision.
"He then criticized Western powers for interpreting the IAEA report in an 'exaggerated, selective and inaccurate' manner."
Yes, logic, experience and evidence seems to agree with his observation.
(Source as above.)
northener
20-Feb-10, 15:57
Hmmm...interesting site.
This was a good piece which may throw some light on why many are suspicious of Irans' nuclear programme:
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=119024§ionid=3510303
Irans' close links with Hesbollah and other terrorist/freedom fighter (use the word you like most) is definitely one of the reasons why other nations are eyeing Iran suspiciously.
Given the precarious nature of ME politics and factions within factions - it wouldn't take much for some group to begin the process of arming a sizeable group with nuclear capability.
I think it was Fred who said Iran has never invaded another country. Maybe not, but they've been implicated in more than their fair share of 'incidents' in the ME. They're almost as good as Syria!
PressTV reminds me of the Moscow News in the 80s. The overplayed attempt at reasonableness is palpable. :lol:
Ahmadinejad was reported as saying: "Israel must be wiped off the map." but because of a misquote he actually said: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Same thing, BUT reading through his speech of Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran...
'Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran – the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
Now ain't that nice of Ahmadinejad to be grateful to the United States of America for that.. how sweet!:eek:
I think it was Fred who said Iran has never invaded another country. Maybe not, but they've been implicated in more than their fair share of 'incidents' in the ME. They're almost as good as Syria!
Iran is a Middle Eastern country, I think they have a right to be involved in Middle Eastern politics and support who they want to support. Just as Britain supports who they want to support in Europe and supplies arms to anyone they want to supply arms to.
Why is it OK when we do it and not when they do it, is it cos they's black?
northener
20-Feb-10, 17:38
Iran is a Middle Eastern country, I think they have a right to be involved in Middle Eastern politics and support who they want to support. Just as Britain supports who they want to support in Europe and supplies arms to anyone they want to supply arms to.
Why is it OK when we do it and not when they do it, is it cos they's black?
Absolutely, they should be involved in their own region.
Unfortunately, given (he said, repeating himself) the constant political upheaval, infighting, coup and counter coup, rabid extremism of a minority taking centre stage and the ability to start loosing rounds off at the drop of a hat..is it any wonder that the West is a bit iffy about anyone in the ME having nuclear capability?
They're hardly being singled out, Fred. What about India and Pakistans' nuclear race? That commanded the same amount (if not more in Pakistans case) of international criticism as Iran.
Like I said, it is fairly significant that Russia is now voicing it's concerns regarding Iran. They've spent a long time stating that iran hasn't got a weapons programme...why the sudden concern that 'things ain't going well'? genuine concern - or merely playing a longer game than this spat?
Iran is a Middle Eastern country, I think they have a right to be involved in Middle Eastern politics and support who they want to support. Just as Britain supports who they want to support in Europe and supplies arms to anyone they want to supply arms to.
Why is it OK when we do it and not when they do it, is it cos they's black?
I don't think as a country it is unreasonable to be suspicious of the motives of another country that wishes us ill.
I really don't get what you are arguing for. Would you like the US and the west in general to close our borders and just let the rest of the world get on with it.
The next time you heard from the rest of the world would be a loud bang and a big flash.
It aint going to happen so forget it!
They're hardly being singled out, Fred. What about India and Pakistans' nuclear race? That commanded the same amount (if not more in Pakistans case) of international criticism as Iran.
What about Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey? All nuclear states and all with their nuclear weapons pointed at Iran a non nuclear peaceful country that just happens to have 10% of the world's oil reserves.
How do you have the nerve to criticise Iran?
I don't think as a country it is unreasonable to be suspicious of the motives of another country that wishes us ill.
What did they ever do to us? What did we do to them?
I really don't get what you are arguing for. Would you like the US and the west in general to close our borders and just let the rest of the world get on with it.
Stop invading other countries illegally to plunder their natural resources you mean? It would be a start.
The next time you heard from the rest of the world would be a loud bang and a big flash.
If there are any big bangs and flashes it will be us responsible for it not Iran.
What about Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey? All nuclear states and all with their nuclear weapons pointed at Iran a non nuclear peaceful country that just happens to have 10% of the world's oil reserves.
How do you have the nerve to criticise Iran?
Get it through your head, we allow normal sane states to have nuclear weapons, its the nutters we worry about.
And we wouldn't nuke Iran, it would ruin the oil. [lol]
And I suppose getting back to the original point: Given the opportunity would Iran nuke Israel? and if you think the answer to that is no, you are very naive.
What did they ever do to us? What did we do to them?
Recently gave them two boats!
Stop invading other countries illegally to plunder their natural resources you mean? It would be a start.
Fine
If there are any big bangs and flashes it will be us responsible for it not Iran.
Well it doesn't really matter does it? the result is the same
(not quite sure what happened to the format there)
Ah I see, from BBC news website, yesterday:
'The IAEA report will be discussed by the agency's 35-country board at a meeting between 1-5 March.
This is the first IAEA report on Iran compiled under its new director general, Yukiya Amano.
The report says its information was "consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the timeframe in which the activities were conducted and the people and organisations involved".
It says: "Altogether this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
The report also urges Iran co-operates with IAEA investigators "without further delay" as its resistance added to concerns "about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme".
Well that's alright then.
Get it through your head, we allow normal sane states to have nuclear weapons, its the nutters we worry about.
And "we" define what is sane do we? Little kids with half their head blown away lying in Iraqi hospital beds might have a different concept of "sane" than "we" (or rather, "you") do.
And we wouldn't nuke Iran, it would ruin the oil. [lol]
Was that a joke?
And I suppose getting back to the original point: Given the opportunity would Iran nuke Israel? and if you think the answer to that is no, you are very naive.
Not quite, since Iran has no nuclear weapon.
Well it doesn't really matter does it? the result is the same
Your statement really sums up your position. :confused
And "we" define what is sane do we? Little kids with half their head blown away lying in Iraqi hospital beds might have a different concept of "sane" than "we" (or rather, "you") do.
Yep, if we don't want the big bang flash recently mentioned.
And it is pointless using immotive images in these debates because for everyone you use to demonstrate your position some one else can counter. Lets not get back into the scoring dead babies position we did a few days ago.
Was that a joke?
Yes and no
Not quite, since Iran has no nuclear weapon.
And I would like to keep it that way.
The report says its information was "consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the timeframe in which the activities were conducted and the people and organisations involved".
Reading this another way, we have that these accusations are based upon speculation and conjecture, undoubtedly to fulfil the desire to demonize Iran.
20% enrichment is nowhere near weapons grade.
Iran is entitled to develop nuclear power plants.
Iranians are entitled to chose their own government.
Dr Ahmadinejad is entitled to say that he views "Israel" as an illegal entity. And he is entitled to stand up and point out the lies, propaganda and deceit of several Western regimes.
And we would like to keep it that way.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons, look what happened to them.
Afghanistan had no nuclear weapons, look what happened to them
North Korea did have nuclear weapons look what didn't happen to them.
If any country wants nuclear weapons it's our fault.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons, look what happened to them.
Afghanistan had no nuclear weapons, look what happened to them
North Korea did have nuclear weapons look what didn't happen to them.
If any country wants nuclear weapons it's our fault.
I don't view the world as I would like it to be I view it as it is. Your utopian dream is laudable, I dont have any issue with it. But we have to deal with the world as it is and be practical.
I don't view the world as I would like it to be I view it as it is. Your utopian dream is laudable, I dont have any issue with it. But we have to deal with the world as it is and be practical.
So does Iran.
So does Iran.
Yes they should. It is exactly this sort of brinkmanship that led ultimately to the invasion of Iraq i.e. the US and others felt safety would be compromised more by leaving them alone than invading. I decision I am sure wasn't taken lightly.
Yes they should. It is exactly this sort of brinkmanship that led ultimately to the invasion of Iraq i.e. the US and others felt safety would be compromised more by leaving them alone than invading. I decision I am sure wasn't taken lightly.
Have you been hibernating for a few years, ducati? :)
Yes they should. It is exactly this sort of brinkmanship that led ultimately to the invasion of Iraq i.e. the US and others felt safety would be compromised more by leaving them alone than invading. I decision I am sure wasn't taken lightly.
Iraq was no threat to anyone, they knew it then, everyone knows it now.
Iraq was no threat to anyone, they knew it then, everyone knows it now.
You missed my point (deliberately?)
A reminder of some fairly recent history:
"In over 200 years, Iran has done absolutely nothing to infringe on its neighbours. However, quite the contrary is true. Iran has suffered regime change before at the hands of outsiders and has not forgotten it.
"For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Muhammed Mossadeq, an inspired nationalist who had the nerve to believe that Iranian oil (http://english.pravda.ru/topic/oil_prices-529) belonged to Iran. They overthrew him and installed the venal Shah (http://english.pravda.ru/filing/Shah/) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and, through a monstrous creation called Savak, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era until the current leadership formed the Islamic Revolution."
(Source - Pravda)
You missed my point (deliberately?)
Which is that the Iranian leadership (regardless of whose fault) will need to moderate their stance, cooperate with the inspectors and temper the provocative posturing, if they don't wish to receive large amounts of precisely targeted munitions. And knowing the US and Israel there will be plenty of collateral damage.
Which is that the Iranian leadership ... will need to ...
The Iranian leadership should continue what they are and have been doing - speaking the truth and standing up for the God-given rights of their country - not kowtowing to Tel Aviv, Washington or London.
The Iranian leadership should continue what they are and have been doing - speaking the truth and standing up for the God-given rights of their country - not kowtowing to Tel Aviv, Washington or London.
In that case: Boom!
Which is that the Iranian leadership (regardless of whose fault) will need to moderate their stance, cooperate with the inspectors and temper the provocative posturing, if they don't wish to receive large amounts of precisely targeted munitions. And knowing the US and Israel there will be plenty of collateral damage.
Iraq cooperated with the inspectors, didn't do them much good.
Maybe we should stop telling Iran what they should do and shouldn't do, or thinking we have the right to tell Iran what they should and shouldn't do. Knowing Russia and China the collateral damage may not be all one sided.
Can I post a link to a video that contains strong language (some swearing)?
What are the forum rules on this?
Can I post it with a warning?
Can I post a link to a video that contains strong language (some swearing)?
What are the forum rules on this?
Can I post it with a warning?
Don't post it on my account I don't have sound
Aaldtimer
20-Feb-10, 22:33
Can I post a link to a video that contains strong language (some swearing)?
What are the forum rules on this?
Can I post it with a warning?
2.5 years on the .Org, over 800 posts, and you haven't found the Forum Rules yet?:eek:
Tubthumper
20-Feb-10, 22:49
Coverage of the Iraq enquiry makes me remember the confusion I felt at the time where we were winding up to go to war for G-W2 (back to finish the job).
During Gulf War 1 we apprently nailed pretty much all of Saddams capability. Destroyed his strategic & battlefield higher command structures, vapourised his elite and first line regular formations, did a good job of demoralising his reserves and the public. Pretty much all of his high-tech stuff (planes, anti-aircraft) was wasted and we neutralised the Scud threat (for what it was worth). We celebrated containing the threat and were happy (apart from the grumblings that 'we should have finished the job' etc).
If an unidentified plane took off in the no-fly zones it got zapped. Any AA unit that lit up got an AMRAAM down its throat pretty quick. Sanctions, applied across the board, ensured that as long as Saddam was in the frame, Iraq was going nowhere, the allies satellite and AWACs coverage ensured we saw all that moved.
When 9-11 took place, I remember the incredulity registered on the news when Saddam himself sent condolences and expressed outrage at the atrocity (you never hear of that now, funnily enough).
And then suddenly, there was a major threat. Missiles capable of hitting westen assets could be deployed in 45 minutes. The Iraquis had been fooling us all along. WMD. Chemical weapons. Biological weapons. Enrichment of uranium. I thought - WTF?
And now I think: Iran's a threat - WTF?
So one minute the west can drop a bomb down your lum, can see the colour of your mam's drawers, have ensured that the population are virtually back in the stone age - the next we don't know what's going on, we can't find Osama B-L, we can't protect ourselves, it's not possible to stop the baddies from doing us harm etc.
Of course, once you've contained all the threats, and everyone is happy, the only thing that brings in the cash is selling life insurance or I-phones. Not as sexy or as profitable as Patriot missiles and F35's. And when your young men get bogged down in a shooting war - By golly, doesn't it do wonders for patriotism and citizenship!
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we've got all this entertainment going on live. It just worries me that some folk actually believe the hype...
Coverage of the Iraq enquiry makes me remember the confusion I felt at the time where we were winding up to go to war for G-W2 (back to finish the job).
During Gulf War 1 we apprently nailed pretty much all of Saddams capability. Destroyed his strategic & battlefield higher command structures, vapourised his elite and first line regular formations, did a good job of demoralising his reserves and the public. Pretty much all of his high-tech stuff (planes, anti-aircraft) was wasted and we neutralised the Scud threat (for what it was worth). We celebrated containing the threat and were happy (apart from the grumblings that 'we should have finished the job' etc).
If an unidentified plane took off in the no-fly zones it got zapped. Any AA unit that lit up got an AMRAAM down its throat pretty quick. Sanctions, applied across the board, ensured that as long as Saddam was in the frame, Iraq was going nowhere, the allies satellite and AWACs coverage ensured we saw all that moved.
When 9-11 took place, I remember the incredulity registered on the news when Saddam himself sent condolences and expressed outrage at the atrocity (you never hear of that now, funnily enough).
And then suddenly, there was a major threat. Missiles capable of hitting westen assets could be deployed in 45 minutes. The Iraquis had been fooling us all along. WMD. Chemical weapons. Biological weapons. Enrichment of uranium. I thought - WTF?
And now I think: Iran's a threat - WTF?
So one minute the west can drop a bomb down your lum, can see the colour of your mam's drawers, have ensured that the population are virtually back in the stone age - the next we don't know what's going on, we can't find Osama B-L, we can't protect ourselves, it's not possible to stop the baddies from doing us harm etc.
Of course, once you've contained all the threats, and everyone is happy, the only thing that brings in the cash is selling life insurance or I-phones. Not as sexy or as profitable as Patriot missiles and F35's. And when your young men get bogged down in a shooting war - By golly, doesn't it do wonders for patriotism and citizenship!
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we've got all this entertainment going on live. It just worries me that some folk actually believe the hype...
Well said. :)
2.5 years on the .Org, over 800 posts, and you haven't found the Forum Rules yet?:eek:
Thanks for the hint, Aaldtimer. Sometimes better than a simple answer. :)
northener
21-Feb-10, 01:04
Thanks for the hint, Aaldtimer. Sometimes better than a simple answer. :)
Uh?
Rules? Nobody said there were rules?
That could explain all those infraction thingies that I keep getting......:(
Info sourced from the telly today. 'Nuclear Secrets', absolutely fascinating and not with a hidden agenda.
Try this video instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czDi0Koct94
And while watching it remember a recent poll showed 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, just as they somehow believed Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Boozeburglar
22-Feb-10, 12:00
If Iran have anything that can be used for a dirty bomb it will eventually be used.
If Iran have anything that can be used for a dirty bomb it will eventually be used.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim or is it just based on prejudice?
What actually did happen on Feb 11th (Can our resident expert let me know?) Iran Will Deliver 'Punch' to World
Javad Moghimi, Fars News Agency 'Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says Iran will deliver a “punch” that will stun the Western world during this week’s anniversary of the Islamic revolution.
"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned,"
These comments come on the heels of Iran’s announcement that it will begin to produce enriched uranium despite worldwide protest and threats of sanctions.
Opposition protesters are expected to take to the streets in demonstrations and marches on the February 11 anniversary. "The clerics should know that since imprisonment, beatings, and other confrontational methods are done in the name of Islam and the Islamic regime, it is hurting Islam and we all should try to stop," said opposition leader Hossein Mousavi on his Web site.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/iran-will-deliver-punch-to-world/threats/
Boozeburglar
22-Feb-10, 13:35
Do you have any evidence to support that claim or is it just based on prejudice?
How could I have evidence to support a future event?
What evidence do you have that it is not the case?
It is my opinion.
I have no prejudice towards anyone, only justified fears.
How could I have evidence to support a future event?
What evidence do you have that it is not the case?
It is my opinion.
I have no prejudice towards anyone, only justified fears.
I have evidence we already have used hundreds of tons of depleted uranium in Iraq.
You just have your misguided opinion based on nothing.
You just have your misguided opinion based on nothing.
Come on Boozeburglar, you must know by now that Fred is all knowing, all seeing!
Come on Boozeburglar, you must know by now that Fred is all knowing, all seeing!
I'm not even arguing that the west is in the right here. What I am saying is that the Iranian leadership are going to bring about their own problems if they don't calm down and stop deliberately baiting the people who already have (in their view) reason to fear Iran's quest for nuclear independence.
There, is that less confrontational?
There, is that less confrontational?
Yes it certainly is.. if you keep poking a lion with a stick it'll turn round and bite;)
Yes it certainly is.. if you keep poking a lion with a stick it'll turn round and bite;)
Thanks are you talking about me or Iran;)
Come on Boozeburglar, you must know by now that Fred is all knowing, all seeing!
I know a few mines floating out into the Straights of Hormuz and you'll be paying twice as much for your Calor Gas.
I know a few mines floating out into the Straights of Hormuz and you'll be paying twice as much for your Calor Gas.
I should think that would be the least of our problems
I know a few mines floating out into the Straights of Hormuz and you'll be paying twice as much for your Calor Gas.
What a silly boy you are Fred - Calor Gas; what me? I use Oil and if you did your research on previous threads you'd see that. I was asking on behalf of a friend near Thurso.
Seems anything outside of Wiki and you're lost.
Lumberjack
22-Feb-10, 21:14
Do you think that in the event that Iran does develop a nuclear warhead they will launch it immediately?
They are intelligent enough to know that, if they do, then the backlash will be enormous.
I, for one, sleep easy at night in the belief that if a country does launch something nasty against us, we may not defeat them, but by jove we will certainly give them a bloody nose in return.
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Bhagavad-Gita)
Re-Quoted by J.Robert Oppenheimer on seeing the testing of the Atomic bomb which he developed.
Yoda the flump
22-Feb-10, 21:41
Do you think that in the event that Iran does develop a nuclear warhead they will launch it immediately?
They are intelligent enough to know that, if they do, then the backlash will be enormous.
Exactly, they have nothing to gain and an awful lot to loose by an act of folly.
For that area they are a stable country and the government will have full control of any weapons they do possess.
As said earlier if you really are worried about a nuclear warhead being fired off by some idiot, look to Pakistan, a country much less stable than Iran
Exactly, they have nothing to gain and an awful lot to loose by an act of folly.
For that area they are a stable country and the government will have full control of any weapons they do possess.
As said earlier if you really are worried about a nuclear warhead being fired off by some idiot, look to Pakistan, a country much less stable than Iran
I agree entirely.
I have no prejudice towards anyone, only justified fears.
That's a good one! :lol:
Exactly, they have nothing to gain and an awful lot to loose by an act of folly.
For that area they are a stable country and the government will have full control of any weapons they do possess.
As said earlier if you really are worried about a nuclear warhead being fired off by some idiot, look to Pakistan, a country much less stable than Iran
Not a risk we need to take. They will never get one
Boozeburglar
23-Feb-10, 01:49
I have evidence we already have used hundreds of tons of depleted uranium in Iraq.
You just have your misguided opinion based on nothing.
I thought we were talking about Iran?
Seems you have a short attention span, as well as a total disregard for reality.
My opinion is based on a world view, and I am certain my view is wide angle and sharp to your pin hole.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.