Iran unlikely to make bomb: Israel army chief

[ExpandMyMind]

Israel does not openly have nuclear weapons. They have a policy of nuclear opacity. They neither admit nor deny the existence of their weapons. They've stated that they won't be the first nation to openly introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East, and the Arabs have stated that if Israel acquires nuclear weapons, they will withdraw from the NPT. It's inconceivable for Israel to threaten to use something they don't possess. All they can do is hint, which is no different than the Iranian' statements that Israel is an illegal parasite that will be destroyed, in one week, or within 15 years.

Wait, what sort of illogical, backwards, defunct reasoning is behind this post?

What the post quoted basically says: Israel does not have nuclear weapons because they have not admitted so. Whaaat? Going by your own reasoning then, it is safe to assume that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, but just didn't tell anyone, then that would be ok? Those weapons, technically, wouldn't exist? What's going on here?

Israel: 'We're not going to be the first to admit we have weapons.'

How does that lessen in any way the fact that they do indeed have them? Their possession of nukes is one of the worst kept secrets in the World. I mean they tried to sell them to apartheid South Africa! Not to mention the nuclear subs they're getting from Germany, or 101 other reasons we know they have them. What people like yourself don't realise, is that if a nuclear arms race picks up in the Middle East, it will be ISRAEL who started it.

"Iranian' statements that Israel is an illegal parasite that will be destroyed, in one week, or within 15 years."

Oh how the nonsensical and empty misinformation and propaganda just piles up.

Iran have NEVER stated that they will destroy Israel. Ever. In fact, you should check out the vid where Israel's Deputy PM admits that Iran did not say they would be wiped out.

Israel's Deputy PM Admits Iran Didn't Threaten to Wipe Israel Out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBDRqskK5y8

Edited May 3, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[+and-then]

Wow..... Iran is lucky to have such an advocate. But the bottom line is that the world looks to be headed to war over Iran's non existent intentions. Perhaps you should share some of your unassailable evidence with the US and Israel? To believe that the nation of Israel would risk thousands of lives, a good chunk of her infrastructure and what miniscule amount of goodwill she possesses among the nations just to damage temporarily a non existent weapons program is..... insane. Either her government is running a grand bluff or they are in fact willing to enter into such risk. But then, maybe they just aren't as intelligent as you, Ex.

[ExpandMyMind]

Wow..... Iran is lucky to have such an advocate. But the bottom line is that the world looks to be headed to war over Iran's non existent intentions. Perhaps you should share some of your unassailable evidence with the US and Israel? To believe that the nation of Israel would risk thousands of lives, a good chunk of her infrastructure and what miniscule amount of goodwill she possesses among the nations just to damage temporarily a non existent weapons program is..... insane. Either her government is running a grand bluff or they are in fact willing to enter into such risk. But then, maybe they just aren't as intelligent as you, Ex.

The U.S. and Israel, and countries all around the world, are already aware of everything I speak of.

If you do not understand the power struggle and geopolitical politics that exist between the involved parties by now (along with the propaganda and empty rhetoric used to further the policies against Iran), after so many people have schooled you on the subject, then that is no fault of mine.

Share with the U.S. and Israel? Some of the most powerful intelligence entities inside both countries have already disclosed what I am saying, agreeing with my claims, not to mention countless politicians from the countries.

The info is readily available for anyone with even the slightest of analytical minds to discover and deduce truth from. Not one part of any of these posts I've made is untrue. Which is why you never actually debate the content of my posts at all - all you do is spout your own doomsday-inspired conspiracy theories.

Edited May 3, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[+and-then]

The U.S. and Israel, and countries all around the world, are already aware of everything I speak of.

If you do not understand the power struggle and geopolitical politics that exist between the involved parties by now (along with the propaganda and empty rhetoric used to further the policies against Iran), after so many people have schooled you on the subject, then that is no fault of mine.

Share with the U.S. and Israel? Some of the most powerful intelligence entities inside both countries have already disclosed what I am saying, agreeing with my claims, not to mention countless politicians from the countries.

The info is readily available for anyone with even the slightest of analytical minds to discover and deduce truth from. Not one part of any of these posts I've made is untrue. Which is why you never actually debate the content of my posts at all - all you do is spout your own doomsday-inspired conspiracy theories.

That was an attempt at sarcasm. Of course they already know the truth. THAT is the whole point. No rational government would attack and risk all the adversity I mentioned just to do damage to a country that is otherwise no threat. Yes you do provide impeccable evidence that Iran is not in the act of assembling nuclear weapon. Even a simple firearm is deadly but only when loaded. It takes a moment to load. Once the frame and mechanical workings are placed together and finished, the ammunition has to be paired with it before it can do any damage. Simply endlessly droning on about Iran not building a bomb is tantamount to lying. Of course they are working toward a nuclear weapon. Only a fool or an idiot ideologue would contest that. I refuse to debate the content of your posts because they are always about an issue other than the one I'm referring to. You have long ago proven that Iran is not assembling a nuke. Even that they do not currently have the necessary materials to do so. But you never answer the question of why the world is jumping through hoops to put a stop to the process they are involved in. You could simply say that you do not care if Iran becomes a nuclear power. That Iran is as rational as Israel and that the world will not be negatively impacted by an Iranian nuke. This seems to be how you feel so why not just admit it? I wouldn't think you an antisemite for that. I would take it as you being deluded about the reality of the situation, but that's all.

BTW that "doomsday" scenario I espouse has never included Iran nuking Israel or vice versa. War certainly at some point but not nukes. Not against Israel or Iran.

[Leonardo]

That was an attempt at sarcasm. Of course they already know the truth. THAT is the whole point. No rational government would attack and risk all the adversity I mentioned just to do damage to a country that is otherwise no threat. Yes you do provide impeccable evidence that Iran is not in the act of assembling nuclear weapon. Even a simple firearm is deadly but only when loaded. It takes a moment to load. Once the frame and mechanical workings are placed together and finished, the ammunition has to be paired with it before it can do any damage. Simply endlessly droning on about Iran not building a bomb is tantamount to lying. Of course they are working toward a nuclear weapon. Only a fool or an idiot ideologue would contest that. I refuse to debate the content of your posts because they are always about an issue other than the one I'm referring to. You have long ago proven that Iran is not assembling a nuke. Even that they do not currently have the necessary materials to do so. But you never answer the question of why the world is jumping through hoops to put a stop to the process they are involved in. You could simply say that you do not care if Iran becomes a nuclear power. That Iran is as rational as Israel and that the world will not be negatively impacted by an Iranian nuke. This seems to be how you feel so why not just admit it? I wouldn't think you an antisemite for that. I would take it as you being deluded about the reality of the situation, but that's all.

BTW that "doomsday" scenario I espouse has never included Iran nuking Israel or vice versa. War certainly at some point but not nukes. Not against Israel or Iran.

The only impact Iran having nukes would have, would be to tone down the Israeli-American (and maybe the Arab) rhetoric towards it.

After all, North Korea has nukes - and the leadership of that nation is several buckets of crazy past what many perceive the leadership of Iran to be. Yet the world still revolves and we all argue about our own petty concerns while being influenced by whatever propaganda we let influence us.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

The only impact Iran having nukes would have, would be to tone down the Israeli-American (and maybe the Arab) rhetoric towards it.

After all, North Korea has nukes - and the leadership of that nation is several buckets of crazy past what many perceive the leadership of Iran to be. Yet the world still revolves and we all argue about our own petty concerns while being influenced by whatever propaganda we let influence us.

While we can agree in NK's craziness I am not convinced that Iran's mullocracy is at all comparable. When Iran decides to assemble a nuke Saudi Arabia has said they will buy one from Pakistan until they can build their own. So having gone from one nuclear power in the ME for about 40 years to suddenly having 3 within just a matter of months would be considered slightly more of an impact, I'd say. For the record I believe that Iran having a nuke is just a foregone conclusion at this point. The remaining question is how does Israel deal with it's new nuke neighbor and what ramifications does it have for the rest of us? My issue with people who discuss this topic here is the disingenuousness. It's a separate issue to speak of Iran building weapons and Iran's intent to possess nuclear weapons.

[Leonardo]

While we can agree in NK's craziness I am not convinced that Iran's mullocracy is at all comparable. When Iran decides to assemble a nuke Saudi Arabia has said they will buy one from Pakistan until they can build their own. So having gone from one nuclear power in the ME for about 40 years to suddenly having 3 within just a matter of months would be considered slightly more of an impact, I'd say. For the record I believe that Iran having a nuke is just a foregone conclusion at this point. The remaining question is how does Israel deal with it's new nuke neighbor and what ramifications does it have for the rest of us? My issue with people who discuss this topic here is the disingenuousness. It's a separate issue to speak of Iran building weapons and Iran's intent to possess nuclear weapons.

The answer to the latter depends on the answer to the former.

If Israel ratchet down their own rhetoric and starts seeking real, positive, solutions with it's partners in the various ME issues, then the ramifications for the rest of us will be minor, but positive.

If Israel decides to step up it's posture of threat, and actively seeks to initiate the "Sampson Option", then the ramifications for us are rather more dire.

So, it would seem the future, at least in the ME, rather depends on how rational the Israeli leadership turn out to be. Do you trust that leadership, or do you think they will seek to bring ruin to the region - and possibly beyond? Do you think the Israeli Govt (or the most influential of it's people) harbours an irrational belief in some 'manifest destiny' and cause them to want to bring about ruinous conflict?

[+and-then]

The answer to the latter depends on the answer to the former.

If Israel ratchet down their own rhetoric and starts seeking real, positive, solutions with it's partners in the various ME issues, then the ramifications for the rest of us will be minor, but positive.

If Israel decides to step up it's posture of threat, and actively seeks to initiate the "Sampson Option", then the ramifications for us are rather more dire.

So, it would seem the future, at least in the ME, rather depends on how rational the Israeli leadership turn out to be. Do you trust that leadership, or do you think they will seek to bring ruin to the region - and possibly beyond? Do you think the Israeli Govt (or the most influential of it's people) harbours an irrational belief in some 'manifest destiny' and cause them to want to bring about ruinous conflict?

I'm not sure about whether the government of Israel harbors such a belief. I do not believe the people of Israel want such a thing to happen because the great majority are secular. But even they can see the threat that is posed by Iran possessing a bomb. If a decision is made to act with violence toward the Iranian threat then it will be Israel's government that must take it. The people who believe in the "manifest destiny" of Israel are actually folks like me - Christian Zionists. But let me be clear, I have never called for nor do I want to see the dying that will happen when these prophesied events take place. It is possible to be messenger and a watcher and yet not be happy about the circumstances that unfold. Ultimately these things will happen. I am told in God's word that it will be and I believe it. I do not cause it to be.

I have never said that Israel has no blood on it's hands...just that it's enemies have done worse and will never allow there to be peace.

[RavenHawk]

We know that *ALL* the material is accounted for - and as I already explained, in the post you quoted no less - because the IAEA have stated this after EVERY inspection. Every single one. We know they are not working on developing a *NUCLEAR* weapon because they would need the uranium on site to do this - we know for a fact that they do not have the material on site.

I’ll say again. How do you know that *we* know that *ALL* the material is accounted for if the IAEA can’t get into the military sites?

It’s interesting that we don’t know that Israel has nukes, yet everyone knows that they have them and the IAEA has never been able to get in to inspect military sites but it’s considered hard cold fact that she has them. Then someone says that Iran doesn’t have them but the IAEA hasn’t been able to inspect the military sites and that somehow proves that they don’t. That’s just brilliant logic.

They already have weapons that could be modified to carry a warhead, so there is really no point in the IAEA asking, along with no right, to be allowed access to a militaryfacility.

Gee, that sounds pretty condemning in itself. If they already have the weapon systems to carry nukes, then the system can only be complete if they have nukes. Otherwise, why have a system with that capability and not have all the parts?

This request was made at the behest of the U.S. and Israel (through the U.S.) as a means to try to find something, anything, to make it look in the eyes of the West's governments and Western public as though Iran are doing anything at all wrong. Which they aren't.

And your proof that they aren’t doing something wrong? Given their track record and that Khamenei leads a belligerent state they must not have anything going on.

In fact, Iran have already went way above and beyond what is required of them as signatories of the NPT, yet there is still nothing which would actually lead anyone to believe they are working towards gaining a nuclear weapon.

Maybe that is what speaks the loudest. They’ve got the best PR and counter-intel people working on it. But the intent still leaks out with the words of Ahmadinejad. It’s enough to create a disconnect.

Remember, just about every entity of U.S. intelligence has stated that Iran DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. This would not happen if there was even a possibility of the statement being untrue.

That is incorrect. The wording goes something like “There is MODERATE PROBABILITY that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program”. Now those two words “MODERATE PROBABILITY” are very important. In English it means “we don’t know”, “we haven’t a fncking clue”. This is from the 2007 NIE (I believe). The Current 2011 NIE is still classified but it has been leaked that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Actually they are that good. We would know almost straight away from either of three scenarios: Either the IAEA during their next visit would notice the diversion of nuclear materials, or they would be refused entry to nuclear sites, or Iran would remove itself as a signatory of the NPT.

First of all, there are more means of detection. I.e. human intel, energy usage, eavesdropping, satellite, etc. And each one of those can be defeated. As far as diversion of materials go, you’re assuming that there is only one source. If you have a second source at a military site, you’ll never be the wiser. And there would be no diversion of materials. They are refused entry to military nuclear sites. If they didn’t have nukes, there would be no reason to be a part of the NPT. You know the saying “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”? What better way to keep your enemies closer than to be a part of the NPT.

The West would turn Iran to glass for using a nuke. To think any different is just silly.

To think so is stupid. It would be a crime against humanity. I could see very limited tactical use on a couple of targets but to use nukes in retaliation would be a big mistake all the way around. It would be just plan wrong on so many levels and unnecessary.

And I fear you completely and utterly over estimate the internal opposition to Iran's current regime. You're talking about less than 30% of the population (going by the last election - please, please don't try to claim to me it was fixed. I have debunked that silly claim far too many times on here to have to do it once again. Use forum search and you'll quickly see what I mean), of whom only probably 10% would actually rise up (estimate of course). Though we did managed to fund a minority in Libya successfully and are doing the same through back channels in Syria, not to mention we have done it countless times all over the third and developing world against the majority of the involved countries' populations, so who knows, maybe Iran could be the next in a long line of democratically elected governments to be overthrown by the West (U.S., Britain). One thing is for sure, they will be one of the only countries that have had their democratically elected government overthrown twice! Hah! Champions of freedom and democracy my a-r-s-e!

Boy! You do sound like an Iranian apologist. Secondly, Iran does not have a democratically elected government. It is a theocracy. Just having elections do not make it democratic. If you think there is a democracy in Iran then Iraq under Saddam had a democratically elected government. As far as opposition goes, you don’t need many, but I think there are many more than you claim. If you didn’t vote, that marked you as suspicious and made you a target. The streets of Tehran were fairly full of anti government patriots. Governments wouldn’t be overthrown if they were stable and not belligerent. And I think you are referring to Mosaddeq?? He was not democratically elected. He was made Prime Minister because of backroom deals in Parliament. The position of PM is an at-will position. He serves at the pleasure of the King. Mossaddeq was very popular and very close to usurping the throne. The CIA helped the rightful ruler retain the throne.

The hatred for Israel and 'The West' (not the World, as you seem to believe) from arabs does not stem from religious roots. It is primarily down to the foreign policy forcibly exerted in the region to the detriment of the collective populations. If you do not realise this, then read a history book.

The hatred stems from non Muslims being sub human. This has its root in religion. This religion gives them what I call the “Right of Arrogance” which guarantees them superiority over non Muslims whether they are secular or sectarian. It has less to do with foreign policy and more with internal instability. These Muslim nations have too many disenfranchised youth with no upward mobility and they have to direct it somehow.

[RavenHawk]

Iran have NEVER stated that they will destroy Israel. Ever. In fact, you should check out the vid where Israel's Deputy PM admits that Iran did not say they would be wiped out.

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad ad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

In an October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad stated this line. It has been translated as "Israel must be wiped off the map". Most people will agree that this is not an exact translation. A better translation would be "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now, I don’t see much of a difference between the two translations. They both derive the same intent. Someone said the following on a forum several years ago and I’ve kept it on file ever since. Yeah, it's kind of like the difference between me telling you: "you should be banned from this forum" and "the poster using your username should not be visible to us".

[Leonardo]

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad ad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

In an October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad stated this line. It has been translated as "Israel must be wiped off the map". Most people will agree that this is not an exact translation. A better translation would be "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now, I don’t see much of a difference between the two translations. They both derive the same intent. Someone said the following on a forum several years ago and I’ve kept it on file ever since. Yeah, it's kind of like the difference between me telling you: "you should be banned from this forum" and "the poster using your username should not be visible to us".

Would you not see much difference between someone saying "I would like to see America destroyed" or saying "I would like to see the American Govt collapse"?

Because that is the difference between the translations of what Ahmadinejad said. The latter, in reference to Israel's 'regime' (Govt) is the closest translation, and says nothing threatening towards the people or nation of Israel itself.

[Ealdwita]

A simple way to ensure nobody builds nuclear weapons ever again? Supply the weapons in flat-pack form and include an instruction booklet written by the same dyslexic gibbon who wrote the one for the coffee table I bought last week!

[RavenHawk]

Would you not see much difference between someone saying "I would like to see America destroyed" or saying "I would like to see the American Govt collapse"?

Because that is the difference between the translations of what Ahmadinejad said. The latter, in reference to Israel's 'regime' (Govt) is the closest translation, and says nothing threatening towards the people or nation of Israel itself.

That’s a false difference. And anyone that doesn’t realize that isn’t paying attention to the situation. Now as much as I would love to see the government of this nation collapse, it would be beneficial to start over and return to the Constitution and remove the socialist influence that poisons our society today. However, if the Israeli government collapses, what would you propose to replace it with if at all? Something more subordinate to Islam? How long do you think Israel will survive with a government like that? Well? And hence will be wiped off the face of the map. And after Israel is gone, how much territory do you think the Palestinians will be able to hang on to?

How much longer are we going to fool ourselves trying to convince ourselves that a two-state solution is plausible?

Edited May 4, 2012 by RavenHawk

[ninjadude]

Now as much as I would love to see the government of this nation collapse, it would be beneficial to start over and return to the Constitution and remove the socialist influence that poisons our society today.

You're seriously out there if you think the government will collapse or could "start over". That's not how it works. And further, there is no "socialist influence" that is "poison"ing society. You really have no idea. Do you even know what socialism means? Do you expect a military, roads, fire protection, primary school systems, police, initial space exploration, safety nets for the poor and jobless, initial R&D, minimum retirement funds, minimum medical coverage, and a very long list of other socialism eliminated? These are popular and expected socialist things that our governments provide. I think there are a couple of governments in the world that provide anarchy but I would not want to live there.

However, if the Israeli government collapses, what would you propose to replace it with if at all? Something more subordinate to Islam? How long do you think Israel will survive with a government like that? Well? And hence will be wiped off the face of the map. And after Israel is gone, how much territory do you think the Palestinians will be able to hang on to?

It's not up the the US to determine what would replace it. That's up to the Israelis. It will survive as long as the people want it to do so. You want to play God with the the middle east. Personally I'm sick of it and especially so when they all bluster on with one lie after another from all sides.

[RavenHawk]

This reply is off topic but if you wish to followup, go ahead and create an appropriate thread.

You're seriously out there if you think the government will collapse

I didn’t say that the government will collapse. I said it should.

or could "start over".

It most certainly can and our Founding Fathers provided us with that option.

That's not how it works.

It is precisely how it works. Our Founding Fathers gave us two methods to do it. By the Ballot and/or by the Gun. Why do you think that libs want to do away with the 2^nd Amendment?

And further, there is no "socialist influence" that is "poison"ing society. You really have no idea.

You really have no idea and for you to say this shows that you are either in denial or drinking the koolaid. The "socialist influence" has been with us since at least 1913. The 16^th Amendment (although not socialism in itself, paves the way for what is to come), then The New Deal (which Congress shot most of it down), then the Great Society, and the latest is Obamacare. Just a slow poisonous progression. All of this has great sounding intentions but it causes more harm than good. With the outcomes in the French and Greek elections this past weekend, we will see socialism in all of its glory. They will be the mine canary.

Do you even know what socialism means?

I do use the term Socialist when the proper term is Oligarchy, but how many people really understand what Oligarchy means? Socialism works well to describe the entire spectrum from Monarchy, Dictatorship, to Marxism, Nazism, Communism, and Democracy.

Do you expect a military, roads, fire protection, primary school systems, police, initial space exploration, safety nets for the poor and jobless, initial R&D, minimum retirement funds, minimum medical coverage, and a very long list of other socialism eliminated? These are popular and expected socialist things that our governments provide. I think there are a couple of governments in the world that provide anarchy but I would not want to live there.

It’s interesting how you wrap Entitlements in all of these. What are you hiding? This government would do a lot better with much of this cut out. It is not the place of this government to pass out dole and to nanny its people. This government has what I call 5 charges (or what this government is responsible for), To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility, To Provide for the Common Defense, To Promote the General Welfare, and To Secure the Blessings of Liberty. None of these are To Provide for Entitlement or To Steal Personal Dignity. To Promote the General Welfare does not mean to pass out welfare. It means to create an atmosphere in which its members can succeed and thrive. We can’t do that if we are nannyied.

It's not up the the US to determine what would replace it.

Did I say the US was?

That's up to the Israelis. It will survive as long as the people want it to do so.

Exactly. If they want to survive, they will need a government similar to what they have now. If they don’t want to survive, it will be one more compliant to Islam (or subordinate).

You want to play God with the the middle east.

Really, what makes you think that?

Personally I'm sick of it and especially so when they all bluster on with one lie after another from all sides.

What lies have I told?

[ExpandMyMind]

I’ll say again. How do you know that *we* know that *ALL* the material is accounted for if the IAEA can’t get into the military sites?

It is really very simple, and if you had even the most basic of knowledge on the topic of Iran's nuclear programme or the IAEA then you would already know.

As a signatory of the NPT, all nuclear material transfers to Iran are documented quite clearly. In other words, all of the nuclear material needed for enrichment inside Iran is well documented and therefore known. There is a wide consensus on this; not even slightly controversial. Now, the inspectors with the IAEA have documented in EVERY visit to nuclear sites the 'continued non-diversion of nuclear material', to quote them exactly. This means that the material is NOT being used to develop a weapon. Every visit is the same. We KNOW how much nuclear material Iran has and we KNOW that it has not been adapted in any way towards a nuclear programme.

These are cold, hard facts. If you wish to discuss such ludicrous conspiracy theories such as Iran acquiring material from somewhere else, then by all means, there is an entire section of the forums dedicated to the conspiracy theorist.

It’s interesting that we don’t know that Israel has nukes,

You should really have stopped here.

yet everyone knows that they have them and the IAEA has never been able to get in to inspect military sites but it’s considered hard cold fact that she has them.

It is, quite simply, the worst kept national secret of all time. And I believe this to be a deliberate act.

Not only did Israel try to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa ( http://www.guardian....nuclear-weapons ), if you were to investigate this subject, even for a couple of hours, it becomes rather obvious, from documented record and an abundance of quotes from U.S. officials, including presidents, Israeli officials, among a wealth of other evidence, that Israel does in fact have nuclear weapons. The latest estimate is at around 300 nuclear warheads and it is widely believed that they gained this technology at the end of the 60s. Hell, they stole weapons grade uranium from the U.S. back in the 60s, according to the CIA.

This is so far into common knowledge that even the most right wing, fanatical, nutjob Israeli that you find lurking in the corners of the web would not disagree. Which begs the question, why on earth are you trying to? It makes you come off slightly naive, not to mention a blind apologist.

Then someone says that Iran doesn’t have them but the IAEA hasn’t been able to inspect the military sites and that somehow proves that they don’t. That’s just brilliant logic.

Well, actually, as I have shown, it does - completely - prove that they don't have weapons. The IAEA have literally no authority to inspect any military sites. This request by the IAEA was part of an agenda pushed by the U.S. to try to back Iran into a corner. No sovereign country would let an outside organisation 'inspect' its military sites. The entire notion is absurd! Iran had no choice but to decline such an audacious request - a request, it should be added, that the IAEA have literally no right to put forward. Nowhere in the Non-Proliferation Treaty does it say that any signatory is obliged to allow inspectors into a non nuclear site, especially when the 'continued non-diversion of nuclear materials' has been documented. Don't you see? The IAEA is doing nothing but trying to appease the U.S. as best it can (something that became more serious since the old IAEA chief was ousted in the stead of the guy at the helm right now - a man put forward by the U.S.!), without out-rightly lying.

It seems you buy into this nonsensical propaganda even more than the average person. Possibly more even than the average ideological Israeli.

Gee, that sounds pretty condemning in itself. If they already have the weapon systems to carry nukes, then the system can only be complete if they have nukes. Otherwise, why have a system with that capability and not have all the parts?

Actually, it sounds nothing of the sort. This is another example of how little you know of this subject. Almost ANY missile-type weapons could, theoretically, be modified to deploy a warhead. Iran has ballistic missile capability. These weapons, the weapons I was speaking of, are not uniquely 'nuclear' weapons, they are simply weapons. Iran do not 'have a system but not all the parts', to paraphrase your misled and uneducated opinion (opinions seem to be all you have). They are not sitting with one half of a nuke just waiting on the other as you seem to think.

It is estimated that AFTER Iran have attained 90%+ enrichment in this hypothetical situation, it would take them another 1-2 years to complete a working weapon and have it adapted to the missiles that they use.

And your proof that they aren’t doing something wrong? Given their track record and that Khamenei leads a belligerent state they must not have anything going on.

My proof? Every single IAEA report on their nuclear weapons programme and the general consensus of intelligence agencies worldwide - even in the countries hostile towards them.

Track record? What track record? Iran has never attacked any other country in its history. If you are referring to funding of Hamas or Hezbollah then that is completely and utterly different than attacking a country. Both of those organisations are regarded by most of the world as NOT being terrorist organisations. They have both, at one time or another, been fighting against an illegal Israeli occupation of their lands.

This is ludicrous when we entertain that Iran are being out-rightly threatened, and have been for nearly two decades, by a nuclear armed Israel - a country responsible for far more 'belligerent' acts than Iran. The two are not even nearly comparable.

Maybe that is what speaks the loudest. They’ve got the best PR and counter-intel people working on it. But the intent still leaks out with the words of Ahmadinejad. It’s enough to create a disconnect.

This does not even make sense. PR? Counter-intel? Intel leaks? What are you on about?

'In fact, Iran have already went way above and beyond what is required of them as signatories of the NPT, yet there is still nothing which would actually lead anyone to believe they are working towards gaining a nuclear weapon.'

What was clearly meant my that part of my post you quoted is that Iran have actually carried out many, many acts in an attempt to appease the IAEA. They have done things that they were not required to do just to show the IAEA, or the World really, that they are doing nothing wrong. Jesus man! Iran have the most open nuclear programme in the World. This is a fact.

That is incorrect. The wording goes something like “There is MODERATE PROBABILITY that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program”. Now those two words “MODERATE PROBABILITY” are very important. In English it means “we don’t know”, “we haven’t a fncking clue”. This is from the 2007 NIE (I believe). The Current 2011 NIE is still classified but it has been leaked that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Yes, those words "MODERATE PROBABILITY" ARE very important to this discussion, for they were pulled directly from in-between your buttcheeks! Haha.

Seriously, nowhere has that statement ever been used. This is yet another example that you actually don't know much about this topic at all. Here is what is said:

U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb

The latest U.S. intelligence report indicates Iran is pursuing research that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

http://articles.lati...-intel-20120224

Translated: there is literally no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and we don't believe that they are. They are pursuing research that could enable it to do so, someday, but then, so is EVERY country with a nuclear program (excellent U.S. media wording there).

First of all, there are more means of detection. I.e. human intel, energy usage, eavesdropping, satellite, etc. And each one of those can be defeated.

This is the only part of your post that actually has any logic in it. You are correct, there are more means of detection out-with the IAEA. I actually meant to edit my post to add: 'from the top of my head', or something similar.

Regardless of this, the examples given by me would still have to become reality before the process of building a nuke began. Therefore, they would be the best means of detection or to interpret intent as they would still have to happen in this hypothetical process and would still leave literally years for the international community to react.

As far as diversion of materials go, you’re assuming that there is only one source. If you have a second source at a military site, you’ll never be the wiser. And there would be no diversion of materials.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Iran does not produce uranium. The stuff does not grow on bloody trees, and definitely not in Iran, it is brought into the country under pre set conditions and the whole process, with Iran being signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is extensively documented. I'll state one more time what all the world knows: ALL NUCLEAR MATERIAL IN IRAN IS ACCOUNTED FOR. THIS IS FACT. UNDENIABLE, NOT UP FOR DEBATE, FACT. NOT EVEN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES OF COUNTRIES HOSTILE TOWARDS IRAN DEBATE THIS FACT, SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING (AND FAILING) TO?

Edited May 7, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

They are refused entry to military nuclear sites. If they didn’t have nukes, there would be no reason to be a part of the NPT. You know the saying “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”? What better way to keep your enemies closer than to be a part of the NPT.

I feel trying to educate you is a futile exercise. If they 'didn't have nukes' there would be EVERY reason to be part of the NPT! You have that completely backwards. Countries withdraw from the NPT when acquiring nukes, not the other way around. What you on about?

You are claiming that they are only part of the NPT, where the entirety of their nuclear weapons programme is open book, so they can build a nuke? There is LITERALLY no logic behind this warped, conspiracy theorist, opinion. And I mean literally no logic. I can't believe you wasted your time replying to me with this bunk.

To think so is stupid. It would be a crime against humanity. I could see very limited tactical use on a couple of targets but to use nukes in retaliation would be a big mistake all the way around. It would be just plan wrong on so many levels and unnecessary.

I, too, think it would be wrong, as it would be wrong of Iran in the first place, but to suggest that their would not be a nuclear retaliation is simply naive. I think you'll be hard pushed to find one other person on these boards who would agree with you there.

Boy! You do sound like an Iranian apologist.

It is easy to sound like one. All one has to do is quote facts that disagree with the war machine that is Western media. And all I have done is quote facts.

Secondly, Iran does not have a democratically elected government. It is a theocracy.

It is a semi-theocracy. If you're going to debate this, at least know what you're talking about. It is primarily a democracy. You are referring to the Supreme Council, yet the Supreme Council is actually fairly democratic. It's members are all voted to power by elections voted on by the people and it's leader is then voted in by the elected members. It is hardly a dictatorship, as the Supreme Leader actually has to deal with and answer to his peers. Not only this, but the actual government is entirely democratic - even more so than most western illusions of democracy, such as the British system, for example. Things actually get done for the people of Iran, especially since Ahmadinejad came to power (which is why he is so popular, especially amongst the poor). Not only this, but Ahmadinejad is actually trying to get more power to the people, which is why there are internal disputes between him and the supreme leader.

You have simply bought into empty nonsensical and misinforming propaganda, and I truly feel sorry for you.

If you want the low down on Iran's system, search this subforum for a member called 'Ships Cat' and theocracy. He posted an extremely well educated post near to a year ago I think. You might actually learn something.

Just having elections do not make it democratic.

No, have a democratic process does. Which is what Iran has.

If you think there is a democracy in Iran then Iraq under Saddam had a democratically elected government.

How ridiculous. After reading the facts I have posted on Iran above, I really do hope you have a brain that can reason just how completely absurd that analogy is. It is laughable.

As far as opposition goes, you don’t need many, but I think there are many more than you claim.

Nope, there are not. I have read many polls, and I followed the election very closely. Independently carried out polls predicted before the election that Ahmadinejad would win by 70/30 majority, which he did. One such poll was carried out by the Washington Post. My numbers were entirely correct.

If you didn’t vote, that marked you as suspicious and made you a target. The streets of Tehran were fairly full of anti government patriots.

Nonsense. Complete nonsense.

And the second sentence is true, but what was not reported in western media was that the pro government rallies were far, far larger than the anti ones.

And, wait, I thought Iran was a Saddam-inspired dictatorship? Yet the people were allowed to march? What sort of dictatorship is this? (Before you start, the rallies only turned violent AFTER the protesters started attacking police and government buildings. I remember quite clearly reading about it as it happened. I even documented it on this site).

Governments wouldn’t be overthrown if they were stable and not belligerent.

This actually isn't a true statement. There is no way to prove that a government would not be overthrown if it was not belligerent. In fact, I dare say there are examples scattered throughout history which suggest otherwise. In fact, pick any number of the democracies the U.S. has overthrown over the decades. Democracies that in their essence were FOR the people, as opposed to U.S. business interests. An entirely untrue statement by you as it turns out.

And I think you are referring to Mosaddeq?? He was not democratically elected. He was made Prime Minister because of backroom deals in Parliament. The position of PM is an at-will position. He serves at the pleasure of the King. Mossaddeq was very popular and very close to usurping the throne. The CIA helped the rightful ruler retain the throne.

He was elected by elected officials as a 'starter'. In other words, he was the first foot into democracy.

This is where all logic dies a quick death. You have stated a dislike for dictatorships, yet here you use a statement like 'rightful ruler' when discussing an absolutely brutal dictator, who, with the backing of MI6 and the CIA, completely destroyed any hope of democracy, which was well on its way in the country, flourishing.

This flawed logic you employ is called 'double standards'. It basically means that debating you is futile, because you make up your own rules as you go along. What a ridiculous form of debate.

The hatred stems from non Muslims being sub human. This has its root in religion. This religion gives them what I call the “Right of Arrogance” which guarantees them superiority over non Muslims whether they are secular or sectarian. It has less to do with foreign policy and more with internal instability. These Muslim nations have too many disenfranchised youth with no upward mobility and they have to direct it somehow.

To say that the reasons behind hatred for the west are primarily religious in nature is quite an uneducated view. Foreign policy in the region after the U.S. (and Britain) realised (and this is an exact quote) that the regions oil reserves would be needed in the future to secure 'World domination' (like I say, that's an actual U.S. quote). From then on we have been suppressing democracy, out-right over-throwing it, and installing often brutal dictators friendly to U.S. business and oil interests. This is the nature of U.S. and British foreign policy. Read a book.

[ExpandMyMind]

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad ad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

In an October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad stated this line. It has been translated as "Israel must be wiped off the map". Most people will agree that this is not an exact translation. A better translation would be "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now, I don’t see much of a difference between the two translations. They both derive the same intent. Someone said the following on a forum several years ago and I’ve kept it on file ever since. Yeah, it's kind of like the difference between me telling you: "you should be banned from this forum" and "the poster using your username should not be visible to us".

I'll state again, just as Israel's own deputy Prime Minister id in the video I posted, 'Iran has never said it would wipe Israel out'.

I'm not getting fully into this again, but the jist of it is basically that Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel is a parasite that will not survive. He has never said anything about Iran ever attacking Israel. The same cannot, however, be said about Israel. Israel often, almost daily, threatens Iran, and has done so for nearly two decades. Get your facts straight.

[ninjadude]

I didn’t say that the government will collapse. I said it should.

I think that's called treason.

It most certainly can and our Founding Fathers provided us with that option.

It is precisely how it works. Our Founding Fathers gave us two methods to do it. By the Ballot and/or by the Gun. Why do you think that libs want to do away with the 2^nd Amendment?

The 2nd is an anachronism with little modern usage. And the majority of people misunderstand that it applies to "well regulated militias" not the average yokel.

The "socialist influence" has been with us since at least 1913. The 16^th Amendment

ok now you're off into conspiracy theories and lunacy. I guess we don't need any more discussion.

This government has what I call 5 charges (or what this government is responsible for), To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility, To Provide for the Common Defense, To Promote the General Welfare, and To Secure the Blessings of Liberty. None of these are To Provide for Entitlement or To Steal Personal Dignity. To Promote the General Welfare does not mean to pass out welfare. It means to create an atmosphere in which its members can succeed and thrive.

you do well at quoting the preamble. Did you actually get into any details? the constitution is more than the preamble. And has been amended. Times change and the "orginal intent" of things is not necessarily how it's viewed today.

[RavenHawk]

As a signatory of the NPT, all nuclear material transfers to Iran are documented quite clearly.

This is where you don’t understand. So I’ll spell it out. All material that Iran receives from foreign sources is documented. However, that’s not where Iran gets all of its material from. I’m going to insert your last paragraph here.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Iran does not produce uranium. The stuff does not grow on bloody trees, and definitely not in Iran, it is brought into the country under pre set conditions and the whole process, with Iran being signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is extensively documented. I'll state one more time what all the world knows: ALL NUCLEAR MATERIAL IN IRAN IS ACCOUNTED FOR. THIS IS FACT. UNDENIABLE, NOT UP FOR DEBATE, FACT. NOT EVEN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES OF COUNTRIES HOSTILE TOWARDS IRAN DEBATE THIS FACT, SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING (AND FAILING) TO?

Uranium is mined at Saghand, Narigan, and Zarigan. This ore is sent to Yazd for milling. Then from there it goes to Ardakan for processing into yellowcake. Then there are several enrichment sites that the yellowcake goes to, including Natanz and Qom. And this is just the civilian sites. In short, ALL NECLEAR MATERIAL IN IRAN *IS NOT* ACCOUNTED FOR! Who’s oblivious?

In other words, all of the nuclear material needed for enrichment inside Iran is well documented and therefore known. There is a wide consensus on this; not even slightly controversial. Now, the inspectors with the IAEA have documented in EVERY visit to nuclear sites the 'continued non-diversion of nuclear material', to quote them exactly. This means that the material is NOT being used to develop a weapon. Every visit is the same. We KNOW how much nuclear material Iran has and we KNOW that it has not been adapted in any way towards a nuclear programme.

The foreign material is a rouse so that the IAEA can spin their wheels. Every visit is the same because the IAEA has been lulled to sleep. That's a basic tactic of deception and to believe that Iran is not being deceptive is being super naive.

Well, actually, as I have shown, it does - completely - prove that they don't have weapons. The IAEA have literally no authority to inspect any military sites. This request by the IAEA was part of an agenda pushed by the U.S. to try to back Iran into a corner. No sovereign country would let an outside organisation 'inspect' its military sites. The entire notion is absurd! Iran had no choice but to decline such an audacious request - a request, it should be added, that the IAEA have literally no right to put forward. Nowhere in the Non-Proliferation Treaty does it say that any signatory is obliged to allow inspectors into a non nuclear site, especially when the 'continued non-diversion of nuclear materials' has been documented. Don't you see? The IAEA is doing nothing but trying to appease the U.S. as best it can (something that became more serious since the old IAEA chief was ousted in the stead of the guy at the helm right now - a man put forward by the U.S.!), without out-rightly lying.

The only thing you show is your ignorance. You want it both ways. It may be common knowledge that Israel has weapons but the IAEA has not been able to confirm that because they can’t get into military sites, just like they can’t confirm in Iran because they can’t get into military sites to inspect native uranium. But you confirm that by adding that no sovereign country would let an outside organization inspect its military sites. That there confirms the existence of material whether they are a signatory of the NPT or not. Do you need a 16 ton weight to fall on you?

It is estimated that AFTER Iran have attained 90%+ enrichment in this hypothetical situation, it would take them another 1-2 years to complete a working weapon and have it adapted to the missiles that they use.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq caused Iran to cool it for a while with their program so naturally, the delivery system would be ready before the warhead and it’s just sitting around.

Track record? What track record? Iran has never attacked any other country in its history.

Oh, you don’t want to go there. Iran/Persia has a long long history of attacking others. To utilize Godwin’s Law (only because it is appropriate), Hitler didn’t attack anyone, at least until he did. If those leaders around him had picked up on his intentions early enough, he would have been stopped in 1938. This is the same situation. The intentions are out there. Open your eyes.

If you are referring to funding of Hamas or Hezbollah then that is completely and utterly different than attacking a country. Both of those organisations are regarded by most of the world as NOT being terrorist organisations. They have both, at one time or another, been fighting against an illegal Israeli occupation of their lands.

Using a vassal state to attack someone is different eh? That way they can claim that they’ve never attacked anyone. Hamas and Hezbollah *ARE* terrorist organizations. At one time or another have had the desire to destroy Israel in their constitution. Here’s a clue, if they don’t want Israel to give them a bloody nose, then don’t egg it on.

This is ludicrous when we entertain that Iran are being out-rightly threatened, and have been for nearly two decades, by a nuclear armed Israel - a country responsible for far more 'belligerent' acts than Iran. The two are not even nearly comparable.

It is ludicrous. Why would Israel try a conquest of Iran? Why wait? Your logic falls apart.

This does not even make sense. PR? Counter-intel? Intel leaks? What are you on about?

No, not intel leaks. Ahmadinejad leaks out his intentions. Try reading. PR and counter intel indicate a lulling of the West. When a known belligerent is cooperative, that is the time to be even more vigilant. But despite this, Ahmadinejad’s (Khamenei’s Joe Biden) words signal something less benign. If you think that Iran has the most open program in the world, then you are truly following the Pied Piper.

Yes, those words "MODERATE PROBABILITY" ARE very important to this discussion, for they were pulled directly from in-between your buttcheeks! Haha.

Seriously, nowhere has that statement ever been used. This is yet another example that you actually don't know much about this topic at all. Here is what is said:

Actually you are right. I wanted to say CONFIDENCE. I was thinking something else and never caught the error. The term is “Moderate Confidence”. Either way, get ready to have your nose rubbed in it. The following are the Key Judgments from the 2007 NIE on Iran. There is a lot to it, so you have to read very carefully. I won’t go into explanations since my position has been a summary of it anyway. But pay attention to footnote 1 of item A , item B, and item F. These alone deflate your balloon. BTW, the NIE is what all our 16 intelligence agencies believe.

Key Judgments:

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons

program[1]; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is

keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence

that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium

enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing

international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously

undeclared nuclear work.

• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were

working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of

intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC

assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt

to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons

program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop

nuclear weapons.

• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently

have a nuclear weapon.

• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined

to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment

that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure

suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged

previously.

[1] For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design

and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we

do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.

B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least

some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it

has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired

from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material

for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would

need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge

with high confidence it has not yet done.

C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough

fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge

enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons

program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we

judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating

them.

• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be

technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this

is very unlikely.

• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of

producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

(INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of

foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the

possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could

be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,

Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high

confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development

projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would

also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing

to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its

options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt

it to restart the program.

• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to

international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit

approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and

military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified

international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its

security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived

by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear

weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo

the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many

within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s

key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable

effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment,

only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would

plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision

is inherently reversible.

F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—

rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a

weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium

conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably

were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been

restarted through at least mid-2007.

G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing

and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial

capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb

The latest U.S. intelligence report indicates Iran is pursuing research that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

You do realize that this is gibberish? Iran has not sought to do so because it hasn’t gotten to that point yet. You cannot derive the first sentence from the second. By doing so, sets up a false sense of security. It’s not going to spend valuable resources to just do research and not follow through. Not every country is doing nuclear research. It is too costly for the majority of them. Iran has the smoking gun. What are you waiting for?

This is the only part of your post that actually has any logic in it. You are correct, there are more means of detection out-with the IAEA. I actually meant to edit my post to add: 'from the top of my head', or something similar.

My entire post is logical. You’ve been busy bending over backward trying to deny it. Hopefully, this reply will straighten you out. I really doubt it but I was just waiting for you to step in it and you have.

Regardless of this, the examples given by me would still have to become reality before the process of building a nuke began. Therefore, they would be the best means of detection or to interpret intent as they would still have to happen in this hypothetical process and would still leave literally years for the international community to react.

Your examples are incomplete and short sighted. The intent is there and it is clear. The international community will not react until it is too late. And if they do react in time, the only weapon they have are resolutions and sanctions which will end up hurting the people.

[RavenHawk]

If you want to create a new thread, please create it.

I think that's called treason.

Well, it depends on the cause.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Our Founding Fathers knew that over a period of time, all governments become corrupt and the FF provided us with the means to correct that. In fact to sit by a do nothing is treason. And Obama is pushing the limits of despotism. But in your words, it’s just anachronism to try to correct it. Maybe we should replace our Constitution with the South African one!

The 2nd is an anachronism with little modern usage. And the majority of people misunderstand that it applies to "well regulated militias" not the average yokel.

I rest my case! You are the yokel that believes that it only applies to a "well regulated militias".

ok now you're off into conspiracy theories and lunacy. I guess we don't need any more discussion.

Just because you’ve fallen asleep, you don’t understand. You’re one of those that feel like you deserve Entitlements. You somehow believe that my money belongs to you?

you do well at quoting the preamble. Did you actually get into any details? the constitution is more than the preamble. And has been amended. Times change and the "orginal intent" of things is not necessarily how it's viewed today.

I didn’t feel like I have to go into the details here. You probably wouldn’t understand them anyway. So, in your POV, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are just an anachronism? That sounds like treason to me. Our FF gave us a living document where they knew basic human needs and provided for them free from the shackles of government. From age to age, those same basic needs never change. They are viewed the same as they were viewed then and far into the future. You’ve taken your freedom for granted.

[+and-then]

I think that's called treason.

The 2nd is an anachronism with little modern usage. And the majority of people misunderstand that it applies to "well regulated militias" not the average yokel.

ok now you're off into conspiracy theories and lunacy. I guess we don't need any more discussion.

you do well at quoting the preamble. Did you actually get into any details? the constitution is more than the preamble. And has been amended. Times change and the "orginal intent" of things is not necessarily how it's viewed today.

I'm not sure how things are done in Illinois but here in Alabama there are more than a few yokels who would passionately disagree with you on the 2nd amendment. I'm 51 and was taught as a child to live with and respect firearms. And to respect the government unless IT broke the rules. You see, we in the south had a little disagreement about that a century or so ago and our memories are long. The "militias" were just code for self defense forces protecting us from government if it got out of hand. I'm not sure how the rest of the nation would fare if such a takeover was attempted but I can promise you the new "BOSS" whoever tried to take away our freedoms....would have a very long and very intense headache in dealing with the southeastern US.

[RavenHawk]

I'll state again, just as Israel's own deputy Prime Minister id in the video I posted, 'Iran has never said it would wipe Israel out'.

I wish you people would learn how to read. Yes. I said I agree with that. Very clever. But the intent is still the same.

I'm not getting fully into this again, but the jist of it is basically that Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel is a parasite that will not survive.

There are several things here. First off, if you have a parasite, what do you do with it? Exterminate it. That is pretty much wiping it off the face of the map. You certainly don’t nurture it. And once Israel is gone, what will Ahmadinejad’s opinion of the Palestinian be? Will he stand with the Palestinian to prevent the neighbors from grabbing land? Or will he just consider them as parasites as the rest of the Arab world does? Anyway what Persian thinks that any Arab is not a parasite?

He has never said anything about Iran ever attacking Israel.

That may be true. He’s too afraid to attack Israel alone. He needs to get some poor Arab slob to do it, then he can jump in as the hero. The last time that was attempted, Nasser got his **** handed to him. It’s like walking by a caged tiger and using a stick to poke his ribs every time. You end up p***ing that tiger off and you sit back and laugh. One of these days, that cage is not going to be there.

The same cannot, however, be said about Israel. Israel often, almost daily, threatens Iran, and has done so for nearly two decades. Get your facts straight.

Think about it logically? Why would Israel threaten Iran? Does Israel have any intentions to conquer Iran? What would be the purpose? Why conquer Iran and leave all of these Arab nations in its line of supply? Or does Israel feel threatened by Iran’s saber rattling and rightfully so?