Iran welcomes US nuclear report

[Ins0mniac]

[deleted] - accidental double post

Edited December 4, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[stevewinn]

I asked you whether Iran's uranium enrichment programme or the fact that it had a reported 3000 centrifuges was incontravertible evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme and only a nuclear weaponisation programme. Or, put another way, could both equally be part of the development of a peaceful nuclear energy programme?

The document you linked to didn't answer this, or if it did I missed it and would appreciate you pointing it out.

The first part i cant get back onto the UN page, its saying not redirecting properly, so i'll have a full read of it when i can

So, Iraq's WMD wasn't a problem until it invaded Kuwait, but it's okay for the US, the UK and its coalition members to have them, notwithstanding the fact that it has now invaded Iraq?

C-Machine i cant believe you would class the glorious nations of France and the United states and a little more glorious United Kingdom, the same as the mad Mullahs of Iran, The Coalition countries who have nuclear weapons would use the weapons as a last resort, if you cant see the dangers of Iran having nuclear weapons its a waste of time trying to point out the reasons why,

[ships-cat]

I thought the newly formed U.N gave them Israel.

A common misunderstanding. The UN proposed the plan, but it was rejected by the Arab League. The Jews then took it upon themselves to call Israel into being despite the objections of the Arabs. The UN took no part in the actual creation of the state of Israel. (indeed, I believe they actually resisted it ??)

The Arabs may well have become increasingly violent, but Jewish terrorist groups were also blowing up hotels and killing British citizens at the time weren't they?

Sadly so. The nascent Jewish nationalist groups at the time (the Irgun ????) considered Britain to be a hostile influence to the creation of Israel. (which - of course - they where).

I don't think religious ideas are a good method for defining international relations, especially when it comes to nation building. I'd hate to see what certain Muslim groups would be justified in doing if that were the case.

Look around

I'm not entirely sure of the history of Mecca, but I thought they were already there and didn't need to take control away from anyone's homeland.

Mecca was a multi-cultural multi-religious Arab city state untill Islamic armies - led by the Prophet Muhammed (MERIH) invaded the city after a long seige, and aided by Muslims who had already 'settled' in the city in advance, forming a "5th column".

This was in the 7th century. The Kabah (the current nexus of the pilgrimage - the building with the black stone) was already a temple, but Mohammed ordered the surrounding statues torn down, and the site was reconsecrated as a holy shrine to Allah.

Meow Purr.

[coughymachine]

The first part i cant get back onto the UN page, its saying not redirecting properly, so i'll have a full read of it when i can

No probs

C-Machine i cant believe you would class the glorious nations of France and the United states and a little more glorious United Kingdom, the same as the mad Mullahs of Iran, The Coalition countries who have nuclear weapons would use the weapons as a last resort, if you cant see the dangers of Iran having nuclear weapons its a waste of time trying to point out the reasons why,

I'm not making any comparisons. I'm simply asking whether people find it acceptable that there is one rule for us and another for them. After all, it is the 'glorious nations' that have developed the rather nasty habit of thinking they're entitled to pre-emtively invade and occupy sovereign states, not the 'mad Mullahs of Iran'.

[Ins0mniac]

I'm not making any comparisons. I'm simply asking whether people find it acceptable that there is one rule for us and another for them. After all, it is the 'glorious nations' that have developed the rather nasty habit of thinking they're entitled to pre-emtively invade and occupy sovereign states, not the 'mad Mullahs of Iran'.

Well, I think you will find that international relations has never been based on fairness so much as an every man for himself type situation.

Personally, I'd feel pretty unsafe if the West didn't have WMDS and rest did.

But ultimately if you want peace, you want stability. And Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is just going destabilise the Middle East because it will upset Israel and it will cause a nuclear arms race as other nations in the region clamber to regain their relative power position. Not good.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[Q24]

Have you ever stopped and wondered WHY so many Arabs hate?

Exactly what I was going to say - there is usually good underlying reason for hatred. This should be taken full account of when judging the attitude of some Arabs/Middle Easterners to the West.

A common misunderstanding. The UN proposed the plan, but it was rejected by the Arab League. The Jews then took it upon themselves to call Israel into being despite the objections of the Arabs. The UN took no part in the actual creation of the state of Israel. (indeed, I believe they actually resisted it ??)

The UN proposed and endorsed the plan for the creation of the State of Israel. When the plan was rejected by the Arabs (interestingly as a side note, not by Iran at the time), Israel went ahead with the proposition anyway. After signing the Declaration of Independence, it took the US all of 11 minutes to formally recognize the State of Israel with the Soviet Union following suit three days later - so much for UN 'resistance'. Almost immediately Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia amongst others (it cannot be a good sign if you are upsetting that many countries at once!) and at the end of this Arab-Israeli war the State of Israel had increased its occupied territory by approximately 50%.

[stevewinn]

No probs

I'm not making any comparisons. I'm simply asking whether people find it acceptable that there is one rule for us and another for them. After all, it is the 'glorious nations' that have developed the rather nasty habit of thinking they're entitled to pre-emtively invade and occupy sovereign states, not the 'mad Mullahs of Iran'.

Yep its simple really, we in the west with Nuclear weapons, UK, France, USA all three governments can be trusted not to use them unless its a last resort and even then we'd think twice, unlike the regime in Iran, the secruity of the nuclear material can be assured in countries like the UK, france and the US it cant in Iran, when you talk about the nasty habit of glorious nations preemtive striking/invading that has nothing to do with us owning nuclear weapons, that falls into looking after are interests, think about all the conflicts after the end of WW2, has anyone used their nukes?

[Q24]

Do you really think Iran would, even if in a position to do so, strike the first blow at another country? You think the Iranians will go on a crusade across the Middle East if they did acquire nuclear weapons? When was the last time Iran pre-emptively attacked another country?

Any arms build up Iran are, or are not, carrying out is likely for self defense in the case they are attacked. The Mullahs are intelligent enough to know their country would be decimated in a military conflict against the West and Israel.

[coughymachine]

This is full of sweeping generalisations, which are driven by prejudice and cannot be substantiated.

Yep its simple really, we in the west with Nuclear weapons, UK, France, USA all three governments can be trusted not to use them unless its a last resort and even then we'd think twice, unlike the regime in Iran

Yet our having them as a threat allows us to believe we are entitled to rampage around the world launching unprovoked attacks against countries that don't have them. That constitues an abuse of power.

In any event, you cannot prove that:

a] Iran has nuclear weapons; or

b] that even if they did, they'd use them in circumstances other than as a last resort.

the secruity of the nuclear material can be assured in countries like the UK, france and the US it cant in Iran

Your proof of this....?

when you talk about the nasty habit of glorious nations preemtive striking/invading that has nothing to do with us owning nuclear weapons, that falls into looking after are interests, think about all the conflicts after the end of WW2, has anyone used their nukes?

And yet you would deny Iran and other countries the right to look after their best interests. This is double standards.

Edited December 4, 2007 by coughymachine

[stevewinn]

This is full of sweeping generalisations, which are driven by prejudice and cannot be substantiated.

Yet our having them as a threat allows us to believe we are entitled to rampage around the world launching unprovoked attacks against countries that don't have them. That constitues an abuse of power.

In any event, you cannot prove that:

a] Iran has nuclear weapons; or

b] that even if they did, they'd use them in circumstances other than as a last resort.

Your proof of this....?

And yet you would deny Iran and countries the right to look after their best interests. This is double standards.

your first parts, no i can not prove anything, last part on double standards you are correct it is double standards,

but in this world you cant fool yourself that we're all equal and what applies to one applies to all, we're living in a world were you need to defend your interests, this has been the way of the world for hundreds of years and will always be so, when it comes to double standards i dont care has long as my own countries interests are defended, and we have to deal with any country who stands in the way, every single country has to operate this way, and Iran is getting in the way of our interests,

[ships-cat]

Iranian leaders have a track record of making belicose and threatening statements about other countries, notably Israel, American and Russia. (though curiously not about Iraq, despite having been invaded by them). They whip their population up to chant "Death to America... Death to Britain".

These are the people that are working to develop nuclear weapons.

Comfortable ?

Meow Purr.

[coughymachine]

your first parts, no i can not prove anything, last part on double standards you are correct it is double standards,

Appreciate the frank reply.

but in this world you cant fool yourself that we're all equal and what applies to one applies to all, we're living in a world were you need to defend your interests, this has been the way of the world for hundreds of years and will always be so, when it comes to double standards i dont care has long as my own countries interests are defended, and we have to deal with any country who stands in the way, every single country has to operate this way, and Iran is getting in the way of our interests,

And here I guess is where we take divergent paths. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that countires - and indeed individuals - tend to act to protect their interests, what I see here is not that our interests are being threatened, but that we are the ones threatening the interests of others. We were the aggressors in Iraq and we are now threatening aggression against Iran. I cannot see how the aggression against Iraq has served our interests (I speak as a Brit) and I cannot see how an attack on Iran, predicated upon a weapons programme that doesn't exist, would serve our best interests either.

[coughymachine]

Iranian leaders have a track record of making belicose and threatening statements about other countries, notably Israel, American and Russia. (though curiously not about Iraq, despite having been invaded by them). They whip their population up to chant "Death to America... Death to Britain".

And the US and the UK have a recent history of invading and occupying a sovereign state, and of mass-murdering its civilians. Which is worse: hot-headed threats or indiscriminate murder?

These are the people that are working to develop nuclear weapons.

This is just scaremongering. You cannot substantiate this claim - in fact, it's been shown that neither the US intelligence community nor the IAEA believe Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

[AROCES]

Sure, why not just allow any country to have nuclear weapons.

That would give Bush and the all the GOP reason to build our Military even bigger and stronger and make the neocons richer!

We have to go back to deterence, if Iran has 100 nukes then we will have 500 to deter them.

Would be good for defense contractors!

[coughymachine]

Sure, why not just allow any country to have nuclear weapons.

But that isn't what we're talking about, since Iran has no nuclear weapons capability and has no prgramme in place to develop it, as much as you'd love to argue otherwise.

What I've been discussing with others is the double standards vis-a-vis our (the West's) belief that we have the divine right to act in what we consider to be our interests, yet we deny others the right to act similarly to protect what they conside to be theirs.

We have to go back to deterence, if Iran has 100 nukes then we will have 500 to deter them.

Even if Iran had 100 nukes - which it doesn't, it has NONE - the US already has enough of a deterent.

[ships-cat]

And the US and the UK have a recent history of invading and occupying a sovereign state, and of mass-murdering its civilians. Which is worse: hot-headed threats or indiscriminate murder?

Mass murdering civilians ? Indiscriminate murder ? You are flagrently misrepresenting the situation.

This is just scaremongering. You cannot substantiate this claim - in fact, it's been shown that neither the US intelligence community nor the IAEA believe Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

Explain, then , why Iran has refused to accept fuel rods for it's (incomplete) reactor from other countries (on the basis that it returns the spent rods afterwards) ? If it wanted a civilian power generation program, it could have had one years ago. Instead, it is going for a domesticly produced - and hence unmonitored - supply of medium-enriched industry-grade uranium.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iran refuses to engage in such an arrangement because it intends to do something ELSE with the fuel rods other than simply leave them in the reactor. (and return them once spent).

If you withdraw the rods earlier, (MUCH earlier) the result is Uranium that is enriched to military-grade.

Meow Purr.

[coughymachine]

Mass murdering civilians ? Indiscriminate murder ? You are flagrently misrepresenting the situation.

No, I'm not. The coalition has killed tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans and Iraqis in its War on Terror.

Explain, then, why...

Stop right there. Don't try to shift the burden to me; you have a case to prove. Show me proof - not prejudicial speculation - that Iran has an active nuclear weapons programme.

Edited December 4, 2007 by coughymachine

[Spurious George]

two quotes from Bush, the first from his 'World War III' comment and the second a recent comment made regarding this report.... emaphasis mine.

"So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously."

"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

I see these statements as being very carefully worded... it isnt about Iran wanting or having nukes its about them possessing the knowledge to make them, a country having the 'knowledge' to make a nuke is much easier to prove or falsify than actually proving a country has them or is making them... the media of course reports it as if he said 'if they have nukes', this is how to lie without lying

[stevewinn]

No, I'm not. The coalition has killed tens, perhaps hundreds of thousand innocent Afghans and Iraqis in its War on Terror.

Stop right there. Don't try to shift the burden to me; you have a case to proove. Show me proof - not prejudicial speculation - that Iran has an active nuclear weapons programme.

Iran under pressure over uranium

US President George W Bush has condemned Iran over its nuclear programme, as reports say United Nations nuclear inspectors have found traces of highly-enriched weapons-grade uranium at a second site in the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3140104.stm note the date, 2003

IAEA Confirms Finding Weapons-Grade Uranium

By Ron Synovitz

The UN's nuclear watchdog has confirmed that it has found particles of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium in environmental samples taken at an Iranian nuclear facility. Iran denies enriching the uranium itself and continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...ferl-172732.htm

it raises an eyebrow, and this was 4 years ago, so have they advanced their program since?

[AROCES]

But that isn't what we're talking about, since Iran has no nuclear weapons capability and has no prgramme in place to develop it, as much as you'd love to argue otherwise.

Fine then, let us not do anything until Iran detonates one, for trying to stop them from developing one seem to be just a headache and makes America looks evil and not fair.

What I've been discussing with others is the double standards vis-a-vis our (the West's) belief that we have the divine right to act in what we consider to be our interests, yet we deny others the right to act similarly to protect what they conside to be theirs.

Alright, we treat any country fairly. Even those who openly say they hate us and wants us on our knees.

Like I said, we then will match them whatever they want to do.

Even if Iran had 100 nukes - which it doesn't, it has NONE - the US already has enough of a deterent.

Fine, they have none. so we just wait until they really have one.

And when Iran start sharing it with other countries, then the US won't have enough.

Edited December 4, 2007 by AROCES

[coughymachine]

it raises an eyebrow, and this was 4 years ago, so have they advanced their program since?

But we're not basing our decision on what was or what wasn't suspected four years ago. Right here and now the US intelligence community and the IAEA are both satisfied that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons programme. That's the bottom line.

Going back to a point in time when it was thought they did is tantamount to asserting that Iraq has a WMD programme based upon the evidence presented ahead of the invasion in 2003.

[coughymachine]

Fine then, let us not do anything until Iran detonates one, etc, etc, etc

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. But at least wait until we have evidence that they are trying to develop them. Right now, we don't.

[Unlimited]

Iran is getting in the way of our interests,

how is Iran getting in the way of our interests? you mean your interest in that oil...I ask again when did Iran attack anyone?...where does this fear everyone has of lil ol Iran come from?...bush and his propoganda for starters...

[Lt_Ripley]

people who are just in ' attack Iran ' mode obviously are unwilling or incapable of looking at facts but are running of fear and propaganda. It is the same thinking that took us illegally into Iraq. Mob mentality. Mobs don't tend to think.

[coughymachine]

... it isnt about Iran wanting or having nukes its about them possessing the knowledge to make them, a country having the 'knowledge' to make a nuke is much easier to prove or falsify than actually proving a country has them or is making them...

And this is how the aggressors will maintain their drive towards war, by shifting the goalposts.

If we can't prove Iran has nuclear weapons, then allege they want them now; if we can't prove they want them now, then allege they did want them at some point in the past; and if we can't prove they wanted them at some point in the past, then allege they possess the knowledge.