Iran to Share Nuclear Secrets

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050915/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Okay. This shit is getting out of hand now.

"The United States, which suspects Iran may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and European countries warned last week that Tehran is running out of time to freeze uranium processing activities or face referral to the Security Council.

But Tehran, which says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy production, has rejected the threat and has warned the United Nations not to go down that road."

I am calling so much BULLSHIT on this. We’ve already seen in the other Iran thread we had here recently, or at least I posted the info about the Iraniani reactor which could produce 400 nuclear bombs per year. Now they are saying that they will share the technology with other “Muslim States”.

Fuck this, son. Just what we need: Syria with nuclear bombs. The UN is trying to bribe the Iraniani president with “economic incentives” and talk. Like that’s going to work. The clock is ticking here people. The longer we stall, the longer this Iraniani asshole has to continue developing his weapons program.

Are we going to sit here and let this happen? Maybe we are. I don’t know.

2

and what will happen if syria has a nuclear bomb?
and what’s wrong with iran having a nuclear bomb?

so it’s ok for an agressive terrorist country like the USA to have as many nukes as it wants, while it attacks some poor country like every year… while weak countries like syria and iran cant have any kind of protection? everything you here is just lies- exactly like iraq… before the USA attacked/invaded Iraq, they made it sound like they were one of the most powerful countries in the world an an imminent threat on the USA and the whole world. bullshit… they were weak and had absolutely nothing. their army vanished within a week or two. tell me, what country did they threaten?

you think these countries would dare attack anybody? and you’re stupid enough to think they would dare nuke anyone? there is no danger there.

3

lothario…

The answer is “no”…we will not let it happen…

IF diplomacy fails…either we (or the Israeli’s) will take the reactors out before they become “hot” and are loaded with fuel…

(In 1981, the Israeli’s struck the Osiraq facility in Iraq and destroyed it when diplomacy with Saddam failed…)

Baghdad’s response?

“The French atomic reactor was designed for research and for the eventual production of electricity” in a statement issued after the raid. (At that time, Saddam was AGGRESSIVELY seeking Nuclear Strike capabilities).

Mufasa

4

[quote]silencer wrote:
and what will happen if syria has a nuclear bomb?
and what’s wrong with iran having a nuclear bomb?

so it’s ok for an agressive terrorist country like the USA to have as many nukes as it wants, while it attacks some poor country like every year… while weak countries like syria and iran cant have any kind of protection? everything you here is just lies- exactly like iraq… before the USA attacked/invaded Iraq, they made it sound like they were one of the most powerful countries in the world an an imminent threat on the USA and the whole world. bullshit… they were weak and had absolutely nothing. their army vanished within a week or two. tell me, what country did they threaten?

you think these countries would dare attack anybody? and you’re stupid enough to think they would dare nuke anyone? there is no danger there.
[/quote]
you’re not supposed to drink the bong water.

5

[quote]silencer wrote:
and what will happen if syria has a nuclear bomb?
and what’s wrong with iran having a nuclear bomb?[/quote]

You realize that it’s not cool to live in your parent’s basement, right?

[quote]so it’s ok for an agressive terrorist country like the USA[/quote] STOP right there. Please do what your username suggests and silence yourself. You are retarded. Get a helmet and be quiet, grown-ups are talking right now.

6

All I have to say right now is thank god we went to Iraq. We have a bunch of military right next door to Iran. If this nuclear situation gets too weird, then at least we have the option do something.

Coincidence… or psychic phenomenon?

7

Gotta love the myths…
Here’s “realpolitik” 101, to use Bismarck’s word:
The US tends to attack poor, weak, Thirld Countries, who cannot defend themselves, and who do not have powerful allies. As one example, they attacked South Vietnam who, as the CIA reported to Kennedy in 1963, had no connection to Moscow. And yes, I mean “South” Vietnam. If anyone disagrees, please compare this action to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and let me know what’s the difference. (I’ll make it easy: local dictatorship fights unsuccessfully against local insurgency, then calls in their superpower ally to put down its own people. If one prefers numbers, between 75-80% of the three megatons of bombs dropped in Vietnam were in the South). Once the country gets attacked, they go to the only place they could, meaning the Russians. i.e. American policy becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, and the country becomes a Russian ally. For more info read www.chomsky.info This was repeated in other places, like Cuba, Nicaragua, various Arab countries. But I digress…
The lesson has been learned that the only way to stand up to the world’s remaining superpower is to acquire nuclear weapons. (No more Soviet Union to run to, though it does appear to be rising again, possibly in an alliance with China.) That is why you see a number of countries aggressively pursuing these programs. This will only gets worse, as the bullying doesn’t seem to stop.
As for Iraq, their nuclear reactor was inspected before 1981, and it was declared incapable of producing nukes. So, the Israeli bombing “stopped” a non existent program. Not only that, but the Israeli attack actually started Sadam’s efforts to acquire nukes, since he learned the lesson, that that’s the only deterent he’ll ever have.
As for the “400 nukes per year” comment, check your sources. The US and Russia are the only countries capable of doing that, if they put their production lines back to work, which would take awhile.

8

[quote]danweltmann wrote:
. As one example, they attacked South Vietnam who, as the CIA reported to Kennedy in 1963, had no connection to Moscow. And yes, I mean “South” Vietnam. If anyone disagrees, please compare this action to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and let me know what’s the difference. (I’ll make it easy: local dictatorship fights unsuccessfully against local insurgency, then calls in their superpower ally to put down its own people. If one prefers numbers, between 75-80% of the three megatons of bombs dropped in Vietnam were in the South). Once the country gets attacked, they go to the only place they could, meaning the Russians. i.e. American policy becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, and the country becomes a Russian ally. .[/quote]

Interesting parallel to Iraq with it’s supposed terrorist camps and links to Al Qaeda which never existed, until the US invaded, and untold new terrorists were created, Al Qaeda found a foothold, and terrorists flocked there from all over the Muslim world.

9

Oh hell, I must apologize to my T-brethren. I have no idea where that 400 atmoic bombs number came from, maybe it’s because I’m so tired tonight. Maybe it’s all that Tallahassee Toke I’ve been doing gravity-bong hits of, I don’t know.

From my post in the “Force Against Iran” thread:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...an/bushehr.htm

I like the last passage in the report:

“According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nonproliferation Treaty and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal says is enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. See also Plutonium from Light Water Reactors as Nuclear Material, Harmon W.Hubbard, April 2003.”

So to repeat myself, it’s NOT 400 bombs, it’s only thirty per year. I guess that would thirty more than I would like to see in the hands of terror-supporting, fundamental hard-line, zealot goat-ramming, Iranianians.

10

[quote]danweltmann wrote:
As for Iraq, their nuclear reactor was inspected before 1981, and it was declared incapable of producing nukes. So, the Israeli bombing “stopped” a non existent program. Not only that, but the Israeli attack actually started Sadam’s efforts to acquire nukes, since he learned the lesson, that that’s the only deterent he’ll ever have.[/quote]
Sorry Dan, I’m gonna have to bust you on this one.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

As we can see in the second link, not only was the Osiraq reactor capable of producing nukes, the Iraqis even attempted a hasty “Get-A-Nuke” program on the reactor. From the text:

“After invading Kuwait, Iraq attempted to accelerate its program to develop a nuclear weapon by using radioactive fuel from the Osiraq reactor. It made a crash effort in September, 1990 to recover enriched fuel from this supposedly safe-guarded reactor, with the goal of produced a nuclear weapon by April, 1991. The program was only halted after Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on 17 January 1991.”

Wow. Good thing the US military got involved back in 1991, or we might have been dealing with an Atomic Saddam for the past decade and a half. Also props to the Israeli Air Force for NOT sitting idly by and taking shit into their own hands back in 1981.

An interesting thing in the first link above. Did you notice the sidebar?

"French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac cultivated France’s special relationship with Iraq during the 1970s to maintain an influence in a region dominated by Anglo-Saxons and boost trade links with the oil-rich nation.

He led the universal condemnation of Israel’s attack on Osirak.

Then, 22 years later - as French president - Mr Chirac was vehemently against the USA and Britain going to war with Iraq over the issue of weapons of mass destruction."

That fucker has been in bed with Iraq for over thirty years! Why am I not surprised about the OFF scandal?

11

Just to add to what lothario posted…

You can’t wait for a reactor to become “hot” before it is neutralized…Chernobyl would pale in comparison…

The Israelis simply couldn’t “wait” to figure out if Osiraq “could” or “might” produce weapons grade Uranium…

Mufasa

12

By the way…

One of our biggest worries now are not neccesarily full tonnage, thermonuclear devices…but “dirty” bombs" where essentially nuclear byproducts and/or waste are blown up in a major U.S. City…

This is a scenario that is too close for comfort, because waste, byproduct and old weapons are EVERYwhere…

Mufasa

13

Also…

The leaders in Iran are FULLY aware that every one of their nuclear capable facilities have had their coordinates fully plotted and sited in the guidance systems of a number of Tomahawks…with enough Fire Power in the Mediterranean alone to lay waste to the entire Middle East…

Hopefully the deterent is there to bring them to the table…

Is this “bullying”?

No…it’s the sad reality of the World we live in…

Mufasa

14

Time to send a clear signal to them to cut through the muddy waters the Europeans have strirred up.

15

Looks like Bush is trying to appease Iran and get it back to the bargaining table…

Bush Gives Iran-EU Talks New Life
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050916/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_bush_dc

[i]Speaking to Reuters in Tehran, Aghamohammadi highlighted Bush’s comments this week in which he acknowledged Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology for power generation and suggested Washington would be happy for Iran to import nuclear fuel to feed atomic reactors.

“Bush’s speech has provided the Europeans with the space they needed to continue talks with Iran,” he said. “Bush’s speech was an obvious retreat from his past stances, thus paving the way for further negotiations.”[/i]

16

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
silencer wrote:
and what will happen if syria has a nuclear bomb?
and what’s wrong with iran having a nuclear bomb?

You realize that it’s not cool to live in your parent’s basement, right?

so it’s ok for an agressive terrorist country like the USA STOP right there. Please do what your username suggests and silence yourself. You are retarded. Get a helmet and be quiet, grown-ups are talking right now.[/quote]

Stiffiling rational questions with slurs is a sign a weak argument. A strong argument would be able to answer thoese questions by its self.

Paul Craig Roberts:

“the equating of factual objections or “reality-based” analysis to treason” or some other such slur maybe like yours “You are retarded”

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050915_coup.htm

"…Despite having been fought to a stalemate by a few thousand insurgents in Iraq, the Bush administration continues to issue thunderous threats to Syria and Iran.

To press its fabricated case against Iran?s alleged weapons of mass destruction program, the Bush administration is showing every foreign diplomat it can corral an hour-long slide show titled, “A History of Concealment and Deception.” Wary foreigners are reminded of the presentations about Iraq?s WMD and wonder who is guilty of deception, Iran or the Bush administration.

Now that the war in Iraq has established that US ground forces cannot easily prevail against insurgency, the Bush administration is bringing new military threats to the fore. The neocon orchestrated “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” abandons the established doctrine that nuclear weapons are last resort options. The Bush administration is so enamored of coercion that it is birthing the doctrine of preemptive nuclear attack. US war doctrine is being altered to eliminate the need for a large invasion force and to use “preventive nuclear strikes” in its place.

Is this the face that the American people want to present to the world? It is hard to imagine a greater risk to America than to put the entire world on notice that every country risks being nuked based on mere suspicion. By making nuclear war permissible, the Bush administration is crossing the line that divides civilized people from barbarians.

The United States is starting to acquire the image of Nazi Germany. Knowledgeable people should have no trouble drawing up their own list of elements common to both the Bush and Hitler regimes: the use of extraordinary lies to justify military aggression; reliance on coercion and threats in place of diplomacy; total belief in the virtue and righteousness of one?s cause; the equating of factual objections or “reality-based” analysis to treason; the redirection of patriotism from country to leader; the belief that defeat resides in debate and a weakening of will; refuge in delusion and denial when promised results don?t materialize.

As Professor Claes Ryn made clear in his book, America the Virtuous, the neoconservatives are neoJacobins. There is nothing conservative about them. They are committed to the use of coercion to impose their agenda. Their attitude is merciless toward anyone in their way, whether fellow citizen or foreigner. “You are with us or against us.” For those on the receiving end, the Nazi and Jacobin mentalities come to the same thing.

The Bush administration has abandoned American principles. It is a Jacobin regime. Woe to its citizens and the rest of the world."

17

Thats the way it goes, vroom…

Appease in public…raddle the Gulf and Mediterranean fleets chock full of Tomahawks and Trident II’s in private…

Mufasa

18

It’s a “stalemate” now. I thought the lefties were calling it a “quagmire”.

It is a quagmire…for the insurgents. They would stay in their bases…if they had one.

19

[quote]hedo wrote:
It’s a “stalemate” now. I thought the lefties were calling it a “quagmire”.

It is a quagmire…for the insurgents. They would stay in their bases…if they had one.[/quote]

Agreed. The insurgents are terribly desperate, thus the latest attacks on civilians.

The Iraqis are becoming very sorry they backed the insurgents early and now they have to suffer the pain of getting rid of them.

In spite of the worst fears of the US and European wacko fringe and the Iraqi people, the US did not go to Iraq to steal oil. The Iraqi people are slowly learning that the Americans are really the good guys and the insurgents are the bad guys.

20

[quote]silencer wrote:
and what will happen if syria has a nuclear bomb?
and what’s wrong with iran having a nuclear bomb?

so it’s ok for an agressive terrorist country like the USA to have as many nukes as it wants, while it attacks some poor country like every year… while weak countries like syria and iran cant have any kind of protection? everything you here is just lies- exactly like iraq… before the USA attacked/invaded Iraq, they made it sound like they were one of the most powerful countries in the world an an imminent threat on the USA and the whole world. bullshit… they were weak and had absolutely nothing. their army vanished within a week or two. tell me, what country did they threaten?

you think these countries would dare attack anybody? and you’re stupid enough to think they would dare nuke anyone? there is no danger there.

[/quote]

is it me or is this guy missing the point? Anyway isn’t Iran’s president the one of the captors of the U.S. Hostages during the early 80’s. Didn’t one of the hostages come out and say he (iranian president) was of the guys that held them prisoner? Didn’t you see the pic of the guy (iranian president)on CNN with the hostages ?

Isn’t PART of the reason’s we don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons isn’t because of fear they would use it but fear they would let it fall into terrorist hands … I’m not saying going in there with tanks and troops but common lets not be too passive.

America is a terrorist nation huh?
That’s too funny! …carry on with the rest of your day