Iran is lying about its nuke program

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

we probably agree on what the US should have done. personally, I feel he was isolated and not a threat. I'm just showing all sides.

Did you support the war before it started? If you did then we don't agree.

Do you believe George W. Bush and his band members have committed war crimes and should be persecuted? If you don't then we don't agree.

But everyone is entitled to their own view.

Edit: I was also against the UN sanctions as they were responsible for starving children and innocent civilians.

NoK

810wmb wrote:

yes that is correct

you got a problem with that?

No problem just pity.

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

"....But the Vienna-based U.N. body also said key questions remained unresolved and that Iran had significantly expanded uranium enrichment, a process to make fuel for power plants that can also provide material for nuclear bombs."

if they want it for electricity, they should be able to. if not, there are consequences.

like i said - whatever each person wants to get out of it ...

bottom line ... it would take decades to enrich enough nuclear crap to make one bomb based on the worst case scenarios - the fact we are even talking about this crap just goes to show that we haven't learnt a thing from iraq ...

jlew24asu

NoK wrote:

Did you support the war before it started? If you did then we don't agree.

no.

NoK wrote:

Do you believe George W. Bush and his band members have committed war crimes and should be persecuted? If you don't then we don't agree.

i'm talking about us agreeing on the actions US should have taken before the war.

NoK wrote:

But everyone is entitled to their own view.

unfortunately thats not true in many of the countries I mentioned earlier.

NoK wrote:

Edit: I was also against the UN sanctions as they were responsible for starving children and innocent civilians.

not sure I see the purpose of sanctions either.

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

One could also say this is political move because the Iran has the US over a barrel literally. Iran is illuminating the root cause of what the US is really about. If it's attacked, some are predicting oil will go through the roof in around the $200 a barrel range. Your opinion is great and all but Iran really could care less what people across the Atlantic think is going to happen at this point. They want people that think like you to get aggressive and do something about it, because they know you can't, and you won't. It's going to hurt too much in the pocketbook. Either way Iran wins..they have the oil.

I'll skip your suggestions on remedial reading if you don't mind.

Again you assume that I believe aggression is the only remedy to the possible problem. Iran's goals are to included in all Middle eastern affaisr, which they ahve largely been excluded from because of the US. If Iran truely wants to be a leader in that region creating nuclear weapons is not the way to go about it. It will only further isolate them and well as spread chaos through out the region. The best way, again this is just my opinion, for the US to handle the situation is through direct talks with Iran. Offer them a slice of the pie in return for transparency. Of course this administration will not do that because their heads are too far up their asses.

As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

like i said - whatever each person wants to get out of it ...

bottom line ... it would take decades to enrich enough nuclear crap to make one bomb based on the worst case scenarios - the fact we are even talking about this crap just goes to show that we haven't learnt a thing from iraq ...

decades? meaning 20 years or more?

IAEA seems to think its about 3

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/iran_needs_38_yrs_to_make_a_nuke_iaea_133352

polaris

mammasan wrote:

As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.

where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...

holy fuck, do you people not read?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071115/wl_mcclatchy/20071115bcusirannuclear_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop

but hasn't provided "full transparency" about its current activities and continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council .

mammasan

polaris wrote:

where have you read iran is not co-operating? ... as far as i can tell - the IAEA would just like some further clarification on a few issues ... but by and large - every report i've read says they are compliant and that there is no risk ...

From early reports, the latest IEAE reports will state that the level of cooperation from the Iranian government has decreased since the last report in August. Under NPT guideline and rules, countries have to fully cooperate with the IEAE. I hate to sound so black and white but when it comes to nuclear programs there is full cooperation or no cooperation, not this half assed attempt of showing you a little just to keep the dogs at bay.

Again I'm not stating that this is proof positive that Iran is in the process of weaponizing their program. We don't know that for sure but we should move forward with trying to intice Iran with being fully compliant with the IEAE.

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

no.

i'm talking about us agreeing on the actions US should have taken before the war.

unfortunately thats not true in many of the countries I mentioned earlier.



not sure I see the purpose of sanctions either.

To be honest your posts make you come off as someone who supported the war and the sanctions so I'm surprised to see you don't.

As for the other countries, you do realise that persecution of the public for holding different beliefs comes from the governments of these countries. Governments which have either been placed or supported by the West.

jlew24asu

NoK wrote:

To be honest your posts make you come off as someone who supported the war and the sanctions so I'm surprised to see you don't.

I call it like I see it. I hold no loyality to any party here in the US. I always like to see all sides of an arugment before I decide what I think is right.

NoK wrote:

As for the other countries, you do realise that persecution of the public for holding different beliefs comes from the governments of these countries. Governments which have either been placed or supported by the West.

right, so its our fault.

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

decades? meaning 20 years or more?

IAEA seems to think its about 3

http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/iran_needs_38_yrs_to_make_a_nuke_iaea_133352

interesting ... that's different from the stuff i was reading in the summer - in any case - there is still plenty of time according to this article ... why raise the tension level?

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

right, so its our fault.

Never said it was but the West is as much to blame probably even more for whats happening in the region. Ever since the 19th century they have been meddling and building hatred.

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

interesting ... that's different from the stuff i was reading in the summer - in any case - there is still plenty of time according to this article ... why raise the tension level?

better question is why lie about it? if they want electricity fine. let the IAEA have complete control. 3 years is not a long time for them to have a nuclear weapon.

jlew24asu

NoK wrote:

Never said it was but the West is as much to blame probably even more for whats happening in the region. Ever since the 19th century they have been meddling and building hatred.

the responsibility still falls on the people in those countries. I happen to believe that people should live free. that doesnt seem to be something that is accepted in the region.

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

the responsibility still falls on the people in those countries. I happen to believe that people should live free. that doesnt seem to be something that is accepted in the region.

How you define freedom is not how everyone else defines it.

We are talking about a region that was "conquered" by the Ottomans who fucked with them, then the British and the French who fucked with them, then the whole Israeli/Palestinian issue, then America.. this stuff builds a lot of hatred with time. Rulers have been continuously imposed on the people.

So when they pick a government like Hamas there is a reason they do so. You keep stabbing someone with a knife and wounding them one day they will buy a gun and shoot the fuck out of you to make it stop.

jlew24asu

NoK wrote:

How you define freedom is not how everyone else defines it.

freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. I think those are basic rights of a human being.

NoK wrote:

We are talking about a region that was "conquered" by the Ottomans who fucked with them, then the British and the French who fucked with them, then the whole Israeli/Palestinian issue, then America.. this stuff builds a lot of hatred with time. Rulers have been continuously imposed on the people.

So when they pick a government like Hamas there is a reason they do so. You keep stabbing someone with a knife and wounding them one day they will buy a gun and shoot the fuck out of you to make it stop.

you make great points. but dont you think some of the blame falls on the interpretation of the quran by some? the freedoms I mentioned above are strickly forbidden in some large areas of the region.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

Again you assume that I believe aggression is the only remedy to the possible problem. Iran's goals are to included in all Middle eastern affaisr, which they ahve largely been excluded from because of the US. If Iran truely wants to be a leader in that region creating nuclear weapons is not the way to go about it. It will only further isolate them and well as spread chaos through out the region. The best way, again this is just my opinion, for the US to handle the situation is through direct talks with Iran. Offer them a slice of the pie in return for transparency. Of course this administration will not do that because their heads are too far up their asses.

As far as the comparison between the lead up to Iraq and this is that during the lead up to Iraq the IEAE and the UN where stating that there is no proof of any WMD programs still in existance in Iraq. The IEAE has not stated that in the case of Iran. They simply do not know because Iran has stopped cooperating with them. This does not equate to Iran possessing nuclear weapons or even the desire to possess them but it definitely does imply that thee may be some shady business going on there.

Iran has made some big allies behind the US's back. It could also be a political move to see how the propaganda flies in the media so they can all take a whiff and gauge intentions. You never know what agreements are made behind closed doors, and we know Iran has been making them.

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. I think those are basic rights of a human being.



you make great points. but dont you think some of the blame falls on the interpretation of the quran by some? the freedoms I mentioned above are strickly forbidden in some large areas of the region.

It is not the interpretation of the Quran but people mongering for power and control. They could add a couple of lines in there if it helped their cause.. they couldn't care less. These people are not so much fundamentalists than people who use a tool that can sway people in their benefit. Then you have the supporters as you have in America that will believe what is told to them by their leaders without questioning its truth.

The western leaders use fear as a tactic.. these people distort religion.. both target individuals on a very personal level.

Edit: And thank you.

polaris

mammasan wrote:

From early reports, the latest IEAE reports will state that the level of cooperation from the Iranian government has decreased since the last report in August. Under NPT guideline and rules, countries have to fully cooperate with the IEAE. I hate to sound so black and white but when it comes to nuclear programs there is full cooperation or no cooperation, not this half assed attempt of showing you a little just to keep the dogs at bay.

Again I'm not stating that this is proof positive that Iran is in the process of weaponizing their program. We don't know that for sure but we should move forward with trying to intice Iran with being fully compliant with the IEAE.

everything is quite speculative ... it seems that the IEAE do not think any threat is imminent or anything ... i do think the rhetoric can't be positive tho ... the constant accusations don't seem to inspire any kind of co-operation ...