Will America attack Iran?

[Famine]

Why Iran and not Rwanda or Sudan?

He was referring to Afghanistan, not Iran, but neither Rwanda nor Sudan pose any significant risk to the US, nor their own neighbours.

The US aren't being World Police - they're looking after their own interests. Sometimes this coincides with being World Police (removing the Taleban and Ba'ath party, enforcing the NPT), sometimes it does not.

 

[Danoff]

He was referring to Afghanistan, not Iran, but neither Rwanda nor Sudan pose any significant risk to the US, nor their own neighbours.

The US aren't being World Police - they're looking after their own interests. Sometimes this coincides with being World Police (removing the Taleban and Ba'ath party, enforcing the NPT), sometimes it does not.

Thank you. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to figure this out.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

He was referring to Afghanistan, not Iran,

Thanks for the clarification.

but neither Rwanda nor Sudan pose any significant risk to the US, nor their own neighbours.

The US aren't being World Police - they're looking after their own interests. Sometimes this coincides with being World Police (removing the Taleban and Ba'ath party, enforcing the NPT), sometimes it does not.

Exactly my point.

 

[Danoff]

Exactly my point.

So why were you making the point that we removed an oppresive pseudo-government in Afghanistan for our own safety? For what reason did you bring this up? Does it devalue our actions in Afghanistan that they helped us as well as the locals? Does it make us bad people because we had an ulterior motive?

For an act to be good must it be entirely selfless? Does that act require no benefit whatsoever to the doer? Do you understand the implications of that statement? I'll tell you, it makes it impossible for a person or nation that acts in its own self-interest at any point to be moral. The end result is the slavery of individuals (or individual nations) to all others.

Surely you don't support that, so you don't support that selfish motives devalue a kind act... so you must not think that it matters that we got any benefit from eliminating the Taliban, so you had no reason to make it your "point" that we had any interest in helping the people of Afghanistan.

 

[ledhed]

I hate to keep getting back to an old Famine Sig...
But the " I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent " line just never gets old here .

BTW has anyone noticed that the whole point of negotiations with Iran is to allow them a peacefull nuclear energy program under international safeguards and compliance with the NPT ??? I believe its been in the news for what ...YEARS ????

And to stop them from getting into the production of weapons grade materials..since they alreeady have the delivery systems ....

Some you can take to a forrest and they still insist there are no tree's .
You would at least expect someone to have just a smidgen of knowlage on a subject before they go on to take a positition .

Hmmm I style mysellf as a leftwing supporter of the oppresssed so nothing that wont fit in my box is to be believed or acknowlaged even if its the truth...its for the greater good I do this ...


VS .

I style myself a supporter of the rightouse and the forces of good in the world and nothing that wont fit in MY box is to believed nor acknowlaged even if it is factual and may even be true...

Who wins ?

The world needs an enema... support nuclear proliferation now !

My new bumper sticker .

 

[Keef]

Seriously guys, what's worse: A nuclear enema or an actual enema? I'd rather be glowing in the dark than covered with the poop of every inhabitant of this fine planet. Besides we all know that nuclear radiation is no match for the volatile stench of White Castle crap. And poop doesn't kill oyu immediately, so you'd actually have to be around to smell and possible taste it, whereas with a nuclear enema we'd all be dead.

 

[TurboSmoke]

NPT - all the signatory countries agreed that those that had nukes could keep them and those that didn't have them couldn't develop them. All of them. The treaty was negotiated and ratified - it's not a case of the US saying "We've got nukes and we aren't giving them up.". They have the right to have nukes because it has been almost-globally agreed.

I am aware of the details of the treaty. You have missed my point. The question was rhetorical.

Iran has signed the NPT and has allowed the IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear facilties. Their report states that all enriched uranuim has been accounted for and is to be used for cilvilain purposes. The also stated that there is absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons progam in Iran.

 

[Keef]

Who stated that? Iran or the IAEA? Do you think we should just stop talking to Iran? Stop telling them to quit even so much as suggesting they have a nuclear weapons program? Why are they being so suspicious? If they didn'y make us think they had the stuff by saying they were going to obliterate Isreal and such we wouldn't be worrying about anything.

 

[Famine]

I am aware of the details of the treaty. You have missed my point. The question was rhetorical.

I was only answering the question you had asked. What gives the USA the right to have nukes? Answer: everybody else gave them that right.

Iran has signed the NPT and has allowed the IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear facilties. Their report states that all enriched uranuim has been accounted for and is to be used for cilvilain purposes. The also stated that there is absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons progam in Iran.

I would add at this point that I do not think we have requisite evidence for Iranian non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet. I also think that nuclear energy is the BEST way of getting massive-scale energy/electricity and all countries should be allowed, under strict IAEA supervision, to develop it - but the line is very, very thin indeed, and sabre-rattling with highly aggressive statements and posture toward neighbouring nations is not helpful to the Iranian case.

 

[ledhed]

I quote the " Talking heads " in this case

Stop making sense .

 

[TurboSmoke]

Who stated that? Iran or the IAEA? Do you think we should just stop talking to Iran? Stop telling them to quit even so much as suggesting they have a nuclear weapons program? Why are they being so suspicious? If they didn'y make us think they had the stuff by saying they were going to obliterate Isreal and such we wouldn't be worrying about anything.

The IAEA stated that all urainum was accounted for and there is aboslutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Sorry for repeating but some people are still asking the same (already answered) questions.

so much is suggesting that they have a nuclear weapons program? if you are referring to the US intellegence agency then i would think very hard about thier track record of reporting on weapons programs of so called rogue states.

I would trust the IAEA and the UN inspectors before i trusted anyone else. They were right last time. You were wrong.

There is no evidence to support your outregaous claims. Hunches, heresay and political progaganda are not included in the particulars of the Non Prolifiration Treaty.

No matter what way you look at this, you're hitting a brick wall. You figure it out.

 

[Kylehnat]

The IAEA stated that all urainum was accounted for and there is aboslutely no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

Iran was found to have uranium enriched to over 50%. The amount of enrichment for nuclear fuel is 5%. Historically, the only use for highly-enriched uranium is weapons.

Iran's leader is nuts (is that just my opinion....or is it fact?). He has stated his desire for nuclear capabilities (ambiguous), and his desire for a world without the United States and Israel (not so ambiguous).

Evidence of nuclear weapons? Hardly. Worthy of ignoring? Only a complete fool would.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Iran was found to have uranium enriched to over 50%.

Hi Kylehnat,

who found this Uranium and why wasnt the Atomic Energy Acency informed of it?

Iran's leader is nuts (is that just my opinion....or is it fact?). He has stated his desire for nuclear capabilities (ambiguous), and his desire for a world without the United States and Israel (not so ambiguous).

Only a psychiatric assessment will prove this to be a fact or not. I am not a psychiatrist, but it appears there are many on here and on the Bush admin.

A nuclear attack on the US and her allies may result in heavy US casualties but it will result in complete annilihation of Iran and her allies. Not an option for Ahmadinejad.

Evidence of nuclear weapons? Hardly. Worthy of ignoring? Only a complete fool would.

No, ignore it at your peril, I agree. Monitoring and investigation must be carried out exhaustively. No one is advocating giving them uranuim and letting them do what they wish. But attacking them before asking questions and finding out the facts? Utterly insane and illegal.

 

[ledhed]

More Uranium Reportedly Found in Iran
May 12 9:31 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer


VIENNA, Austria


The U.N. atomic agency has found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday. The finding added to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared close to or beyond weapons grade _ the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


OTHER TOP STORIES

I imagined that I was reading that .


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_3

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1954122


notice that some of the stories say " MORE" weapons grade uranium...you see when MORE of anything is found...that means that in the PAST that anything was around to be found...so you have been finding the stuff and consider it important to point out. it also would seem to suggest that in the past weapons grade uranium was an issue in Iran...not the stuff you need to fuel a peacfull energy program..


tisk tisk.

 

[luftrofl]

Israel's tolerance of the situation (which will probably be low). If Israel wanted to take care of things for us, I'm sure we'd be happy to let them.

I have a problem with that statement. If we do decide to go in, I would want Israel to be as disassociated as possible with the operation.

With all the people in that region that hate Israel, wouldn't that just give them more reason to hate and possibly to take action on Israel?

 

[TurboSmoke]

I imagined that I was reading that .

your last post on this issue is dated 11th May, your article is dated 12th May. You couldnt have been citing that.

tisk tisk

No, why not go and invent some more rubbish..

notice that some of the stories say " MORE" weapons grade uranium...you see when MORE of anything is found...that means that in the PAST that anything was around to be found...

the Atomic Energy Acency is aware of the previous findings and don't consider them a threat. Remember when i said that no evidence of nuclear weapons was found? Thier words, not mine. Put simply, they dont believe that the uranium particles are part of anything other than a civilian program.

 

[Famine]

The date of the report isn't as important as the date of the sampling...

IAEA found highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at several sites in Iran in 2003 - though they believe the particles came from "contamination on second-hand Pakistani equipment".

They acquired samples from a site known as Lavizan-Shiyan in 2004 and reported to the UN Security Council in April of this year that they'd found traces of HEU in the swabs from equipment at that site - specifically equipment that is needed to enrich uranium, but which Iran said was not being used for that purpose. But the Lavizan facility was razed to the ground before the IAEA could inspect it...

In the words of the IAEA "It's no smoking gun. There could be many explanations. But it increases pressure on Iran to come clean about Lavizan."

who found this Uranium and why wasnt the Atomic Energy Acency informed of it?

The IAEA did. And they were.

 

[ledhed]

If I wanted to travel forward in time to make my point..I would have wasted my time on stock tips ...not trying to educate a brick .

 

[TurboSmoke]

The date of the report isn't as important as the date of the sampling...

[snip]...[/snip]

In the words of the IAEA "It's no smoking gun. There could be many explanations. But it increases pressure on Iran to come clean about Lavizan."



The IAEA did. And they were.

you have underlined my point beautifully.

If I wanted to travel forward in time to make my point..

that is exactly what you have claimed you have done.

...not trying to educate a brick .

you're not attempting to educate, you are spreading rumours and war mongering. You have no facts or basis for your rumours. I dont blame you personally lead-head, the political environment that you live in implants these insidious ideas in your head. Very difficult to ignore.

 

[Famine]

you have underlined my point beautifully

Well quite - but it is what everyone else is also saying, ledhed included.

There is not sufficient evidence right now that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. However, there are many indicators that they are and inconsistancies with their version of events. They are uncooperative and bellicose - taking every opportunity to distance themselves from the outside world and the treaty they've signed. The NPT must be enforced - and "force" is a key part to that - and while there is no clear evidence that they've broken it yet, the UN, the IAEA, the EU and the US are becoming increasingly concerned - even the French are on board with sanctions, and they don't get decisive about anything. Maybe.

Waiting until they actually have the nukes is waiting too long - just the development of them is a breach of the NPT - and they already have delivery systems. So being prepared for war is the sensible thing to do:


"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" - Vegetius.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Well quite - but it is what everyone else is also saying, ledhed included.

There is not sufficient evidence right now that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. However, there are many indicators that they are and inconsistancies with their version of events. They are uncooperative and bellicose - taking every opportunity to distance themselves from the outside world and the treaty they've signed. The NPT must be enforced - and "force" is a key part to that - and while there is no clear evidence that they've broken it yet, the UN, the IAEA, the EU and the US are becoming increasingly concerned - even the French are on board with sanctions, and they don't get decisive about anything. Maybe.

Waiting until they actually have the nukes is waiting too long - just the development of them is a breach of the NPT - and they already have delivery systems. So being prepared for war is the sensible thing to do:


"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" - Vegetius.

great, not too much to disagree with there..

i am totally in favour of strict supervision and openess and i believe that Iran is wrong to conduct themselves the way they are. Enriched Uranium may be volatile if a pre-emtive rocket assault is launched on one of thier suspected facilties. Agreed? You are in agreement with current US thinking that this is the safest way forward?

as you say, the US is preparing for war, which is most likely in the form of direct military response rather than opting for a diplomatic solution. This, on a suspected nuclear installation. Not wise.

just on a side note: type 'Uranium' into Yahoo! search and you'll get an advert from Ebay...'looking for Uranium? try Ebay!'

 

[Danoff]

as you say, the US is preparing for war, which is most likely in the form of direct military response rather than opting for a diplomatic solution. This, on a suspected nuclear installation. Not wise.

In order to get decent yield out of a nuclear explosion, you have to contain the explosion carefully. Yes, a missile strike on a facility that contained nuclear material would spread radiation, but it would be highly localized contamination, we're not talking Hiroshima or Nagasaki here, we're talking a few dozen cases of leukemia. Yes, there would probably be collateral damage, as would always be the case with hitting a building that might have people in it - but it may be necessary in order to avoid a far worse result.

I still wouldn't be surprised if Israel decided to take this one into their own hands. Iran has made it clear that Israel is at the end of the gun barrel.

 

[TurboSmoke]

In order to get decent yield out of a nuclear explosion, you have to contain the explosion carefully. Yes, a missile strike on a facility that contained nuclear material would spread radiation, but it would be highly localized contamination, we're not talking Hiroshima or Nagasaki here, we're talking a few dozen cases of leukemia. Yes, there would probably be collateral damage, as would always be the case with hitting a building that might have people in it - but it may be necessary in order to avoid a far worse result.

thanks for that, i know that radioactive material requires nuclear fission to create an explosion of energy, something that wont happen with a missle strike. But what if there is already a warhead in place when the strike occurs, would this be enough to trigger detonation?

seriously, if anyone knows this i would be interested to know.

I still wouldn't be surprised if Israel decided to take this one into their own hands. Iran has made it clear that Israel is at the end of the gun barrel.

i would like to think that Israel would stand up and take it, but i fear that for three fundanemtal reasons it wont.

1. Israel is no match for Iran
2. Israeli allies will interviene as a matter of protocol. USA being thier biggest ally. An attack on Israel is an attack on her allies.
3. The middle east peace process will be set back 1000 years.

 

[TurboSmoke]

It seems that a potential oil bourse for Iranian Oil may be behind the strikes against Iran. Insiders say that it is the financial markets that are the real targets, not the nuclear facilities.

If the bourse trades in Euros (which it will) the USD will suffer badly. The US cannot allow this to happen.

Along with nuclear strikes you'll see Tehrans financial centers targetted too.

Another cover up, another hidden agenda, another lie.

Watch this space.

 

[Famine]

1. Israel is no match for Iran

It really is. It has one of the most advanced airforces in the world and is already capable of delivering nuclear warheads right into the dead centre of Tehran.

 

[Danoff]

thanks for that, i know that radioactive material requires nuclear fission to create an explosion of energy, something that wont happen with a missle strike. But what if there is already a warhead in place when the strike occurs, would this be enough to trigger detonation?

seriously, if anyone knows this i would be interested to know.

No, that's how our missile defense concept works. In order for a full scale nuclear explosion to occur, the explosion has to be contained and controlled. But who knows, maybe Iran will realize that their nuclear facilities could be targets, and decide to spare their people any radiation by *gasp* complying with the treaty they signed.

i would like to think that Israel would stand up and take it,

You mean just tough out the nuclear attack Iran has essentially promised? I'd like to think Israel isn't that stupid.

1. Israel is no match for Iran

That's not what history shows.

2. Israeli allies will interviene as a matter of protocol. USA being thier biggest ally. An attack on Israel is an attack on her allies.

I'm talking about a preemptive precision strike against nuclear facilities. They've done it before, and if they do it again, there won't be an opportunity for us to intervene.

3. The middle east peace process will be set back 1000 years.

Intolerance and terrorism are the biggest reasons the middle east isn't enjoying peace today.

 

[TurboSmoke]

No, that's how our missile defense concept works. In order for a full scale nuclear explosion to occur, the explosion has to be contained and controlled. But who knows, maybe Iran will realize that their nuclear facilities could be targets, and decide to spare their people any radiation by *gasp* complying with the treaty they signed.

again, there is no evidence to suggest that they are not complying, you just dont get this, do you?

and i think i have uncovered data to support the idea that a missile stike could force a detonation of a stationary armed nuclear warhead

You mean just tough out the nuclear attack Iran has essentially promised? I'd like to think Israel isn't that stupid.

Its Israels fight...thier foe not ours.

That's not what history shows.

meanwhile, back in the real world....it could be different

I'm talking about a preemptive precision strike against nuclear facilities. They've done it before, and if they do it again, there won't be an opportunity for us to intervene.

the last time you did a pre-emtive stike you missed, by several hundred miles. Precision?..yeah right.

Intolerance and terrorism are the biggest reasons the middle east isn't enjoying peace today.

yep, a precursor to war.

 

[Danoff]

again, there is no evidence to suggest that they are not complying, you just dont get this, do you?

This was taken care of just a few pages back (with the uranium enrichment discussion). You're not listening and I have no desire to go back through it.

and i think i have uncovered data to support the idea that a missile stike could force a detonation of a stationary armed nuclear warhead

"Armed" being the operative word there. They don't sit in warehouses armed.

Its Israels fight...thier foe not ours.

That's what allies and treaties are for eh?

meanwhile, back in the real world....it could be different

Could be... not likely.

the last time you did a pre-emtive stike you missed, by several hundred miles. Precision?..yeah right.

I was talking about ISRAEL!!! Try to follow along (and we didn't miss).

 

[TurboSmoke]

I was talking about ISRAEL!!! Try to follow along (and we didn't miss).

of course not, you hit Saddam right on the head...

 

[Danoff]

of course not, you hit Saddam right on the head...

Jesus Christ Turbo, trying actually responding to the point for a change!