Now.
You want to see the US Media's "CENSORED" version of this !??!
You pick your news source
Reutuers, CBS, Washington Post ...
US Bomber Catches Fire At Base In Qatar
B-1 bomber catches fire in Qatar
Bomber burned after landing at al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar
B-1 Bomber Crash: "Blaze Set Off the Munitions"
FOLKS, OUR FUCKING INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SENT A NEAR-STEALTH BOMBER ON A MISSION TO BOMB IRAN, BUT THE FUCKING MILITARY SHOT IT
I hate to fucking say this, but who the fuck are you gonna believe? Our lying sack of shit of a government? Or the Russians? :(
Tell me you don't smell fish after the last 4 articles in this thread. Go on. Tell me.
WHY DOES NO ONE RESPOND TO THIS SHIT?
Get your heads out of Obama's asshole and wake up.
We are going to bomb the shit out of Iran and get ourselves in to another clusterfuck.
No one even wants to talk about it, though?
Actually, these types of incidents have been known to occur. In Korea, up by the DMZ, U.S apache helicopters, e.t.c, often patrol along the DMZ and if any pilot makes the mistake of flying off course, and if the message can't be transmitted by radio, then it's been known for either the U.S, or the South Korean army, to fire warning shots at the 'offending' plane in order to alert the pilot to his mistake. This is done to prevent any response from the anti-aircraft batteries lined up along the north.
This may have been what happened in Russia - maybe radio contact broke down.
Why wouldn't this be all over the mainstream media if it were true? I think this would certainly have people glued to their television in the days of 24 hour news channels.
“Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — ‘God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.’” - Kurt Vonnegut
Why wouldn't this be all over the mainstream media if it were true? I think this would certainly have people glued to their television in the days of 24 hour news channels.
Who knows. There's not even enough coverage of Iraq anymore on the mainstream media channels. Aside from a body count here and there and two of the three candidates running for President spouting bullshit about pulling troops out we honestly don't get much on Iraq from the news media.
Why wouldn't this be all over the mainstream media if it were true? I think this would certainly have people glued to their television in the days of 24 hour news channels.
The B1 incident specificaly?
I don't know.
I was reading another site that suggested it may have actualy been a test of Iranian defensive capabilities.
Perhaps our military was just not aware of it, as it was an intelligence operation, and they shot down what they thought was a potentialy hostile target. All though if you hear a guy speaking perfect english ... ?
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared a state of emergency Monday following "a barrage of hundreds of missiles from Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip," as the country's largest-ever emergency exercise, "Turning Point 2," continues[...more in article]
You don't put on an exercise like that for nothing!
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't think much of that training mission. It seems like they are making sure people are prepared for a situation that could possibly happen.
""There's no cause for alarm - these are intended purely as exercises," said Yoram Ohayon, the head of the police's operations division."
“Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — ‘God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.’” - Kurt Vonnegut
I don't think much of that training mission. It seems like they are making sure people are prepared for a situation that could possibly happen.
""There's no cause for alarm - these are intended purely as exercises," said Yoram Ohayon, the head of the police's operations division."
Ask yourself this:
Why would Syria and Lebanon suddenly start a massive bombing campaign against Israel?
Answer: If Israel started a new round of agressive military actions, they would respond.
Disclaimer: And no I'm not saying Hezbollah is a stand up group. I'm saying actions like massive rocket attacks usualy occur after Israel has done something to "stir the pot". Add this training exercise to 4 other news articles that say the US is preparing for a bombing campaign against Iran & Israel is ready to start bombing Syria and Lebanon .... and suddenly it makes a little more sense, yes?
But i understand your concern.
Surely if there was validity to any of this, the US War Monger "Media" Corporations (remeber NBC is owned by GE?) would surely tell us.
Right.
Surely.
Right.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ask yourself this:
Why would Syria and Lebanon suddenly start a massive bombing campaign against Israel?
Answer: If Israel started a new round of agressive military actions, they would respond.
Disclaimer: And no I'm not saying Hezbollah is a stand up group. I'm saying actions like massive rocket attacks usualy occur after Israel has done something to "stir the pot". Add this training exercise to 4 other news articles that say the US is preparing for a bombing campaign against Iran & Israel is ready to start bombing Syria and Lebanon .... and suddenly it makes a little more sense, yes?
But i understand your concern.
Surely if there was validity to any of this, the US War Monger "Media" Corporations (remeber NBC is owned by GE?) would surely tell us.
Right.
Surely.
Right.
what's an example of "stir the pot" ? (one that would justify a "massive bombing campaign")
what's an example of "stir the pot" ? (one that would justify a "massive bombing campaign")
a. i NEVER said it would "justify" anything.
I just said you would expect a reaction.
b. an example in this case would be Israeli bombings on Syrian targets, or Israeli troop movement in to Lebanon.
Wether the Israeli's think they are being "defensive" in going after Hebollah targets proactively or not, the countries they would actualy be ATTACKING would view this as cause for returning fire.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What was this huge April 7th announcement? I didn't hear anything out of the ordinary.
The sources for the stories you've cited at "proof" rely on statements from Russia and middle-eastern countries -- both of them have reason to, and have been shown to, issue anti-American propoganda. While you instinctively distrust news sources like CNN & Reuters, you instinctively trust other unverified sources. Why is that?
What was this huge April 7th announcement? I didn't hear anything out of the ordinary.
The sources for the stories you've cited at "proof" rely on statements from Russia and middle-eastern countries -- both of them have reason to, and have been shown to, issue anti-American propoganda. While you instinctively distrust news sources like CNN & Reuters, you instinctively trust other unverified sources. Why is that?
April 7th announcement?
Oh, Alex?
Lol.
It turned out he was adding an extra hour to his show.
Which actualy is AWESOME news, but totally unrelated.
Why do i "instinctively" trust a russian news source? I DON'T. However recently news sources out of Russia have been the first to report on Iran going off the dollar for oil, and guess what? They were right! Did the US media EVER report on that? No.
So, i don't give any extra creedence to news from those sources, but when you have 4 or 5 articles from 3 or 4 different eastern sources that all say the same thing, it starts to add up to SOMEthing.
Unless you ignorantly think that ONLY the US media tells the truth.
In which case you end up looking like a bigger fool than taking a leap of faith and assuming that maybe, just maybe, sources from the east might actualy tell the truth, if it meant getting the word out to the world about pending war.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
However recently news sources out of Russia have been the first to report on Iran going off the dollar for oil, and guess what? They were right! Did the US media EVER report on that? No.
Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.
I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.
Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.
I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.
I agree. thats what I said in the 3rd post of this thread.
Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.
I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.
Why?
It went on to explain exactly what it meant.
And putting a 100% financial global financial embargo up against ALL iranian banks is certainly an agressive act, which would traditionaly be considered one of war.
What do you think the US would do if China put out a memo to the world saying that ANY bank accepting ANY transaction from ANY US bank would face unspecified strong actions in response?
You think we would consider that an act of war or not?
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Why?
It went on to explain exactly what it meant.
And putting a 100% financial global financial embargo up against ALL iranian banks is certainly an agressive act, which would traditionaly be considered one of war.
What do you think the US would do if China put out a memo to the world saying that ANY bank accepting ANY transaction from ANY US bank would face unspecified strong actions in response?
You think we would consider that an act of war or not?
:cool:
in the minds of many war = bombs and death. like he said, its sensationalism
War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force
So here we have "any matter of controversy or dispute", correct?
Now, if Iran steps up and decides force is needed to rectify this dispute -- US banking embargo against Iran -- then the US actions become an "act of war".
On the other side, the US has ALREADY seemingly decided that Iranian pursuit of peacefull nuclear energy is a controversy or dispute that should be resolved through armed conflict.
Thus, in the eyes of the US, the mere decision by Iran to pursue nuclear energy becomes an "act of war". Of course, the official US position is that they are pursuing nuclear ARMS, so THAT is what the US MIC considers an "act of war".
See how that works?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
fair enough. but I still believe the headline could have read "a financial war". dont pretend that 9 out of 10 people would NOT have read that and assumed we have begun dropping bombs.
I also see you are completely sold that Iran is pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes. not sure why they would keep secrets from the IAEA if thats the case.
not sure why they would keep secrets from the IAEA if thats the case.
not sure what you are refering to.
Have you read any recent IAEA reports?
I have.
Their only criticism remains that "Iran has remained reactive to our requests, rather than proactive" ... and goes on about how while they have acted with full disclosure to all agency requests, a show of good faith by volunteering even more information would be good for western relations.
Yeah. Okay.
Hi, i'm Iran, and let me just volunteer to give you heaps and reams of material and information that you have yet to ask for, because we are so glad to be so arrogantly scrutinized by the west, that we would love to show our corresponding kindness to your arrogant impositions.
Why are you so sure they want nuclear arms, when IAEA reports have stated over and over since at least 2006 that enrichment remains BELOW 5%, and must exceed 95% for weapons grade use?
Iran has passed EVERY point of IAEA inspection for over 3 years.
The last time they "kept secrets" was, per Iranian officials directly, in response to US aggressive dialogue, and was being used as a bargaining chip. As in, "Hey you stupid American assholes, quit talking about war, and we might actualy show you what we are doing."
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I have.
Their only criticism remains that "Iran has remained reactive to our requests, rather than proactive" ... and goes on about how while they have acted with full disclosure to all agency requests, a show of good faith by volunteering even more information would be good for western relations.
Yeah. Okay.
Hi, i'm Iran, and let me just volunteer to give you heaps and reams of material and information that you have yet to ask for, because we are so glad to be so arrogantly scrutinized by the west, that we would love to show our corresponding kindness to your arrogant impositions.
Why are you so sure they want nuclear arms, when IAEA reports have stated over and over since at least 2006 that enrichment remains BELOW 5%, and must exceed 95% for weapons grade use?
Iran has passed EVERY point of IAEA inspection for over 3 years.
The last time they "kept secrets" was, per Iranian officials directly, in response to US aggressive dialogue, and was being used as a bargaining chip. As in, "Hey you stupid American assholes, quit talking about war, and we might actualy show you what we are doing."
maybe I haven't seen the most recent ones. care to post them? I do not think its unreasonable to not automatically trust everything Iran says.
The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material
in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the
required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and
activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the
issues raised in the context of the work plan, with the exception of the alleged studies. Iran has
provided access to individuals in response to the Agency’s requests. Although direct access has not
been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been
provided in writing to some of the Agency’s questions.
53. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the
work plan, are consistent with its findings — in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the
Gchine mine — or are not inconsistent with its findings — in the case of the contamination at the
technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues,
in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify
these issues as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran’s declarations.
54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is the alleged
studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. This is a
GOV/2008/4
Page 10
matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran’s
nuclear programme. The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3–5
February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in
response. Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated.
The Agency’s overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal
document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions
still not provided by Iran. The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to
Iran on 15 February 2008. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency’s request of that same date for
Iran to view this additional documentation on the alleged studies. In light of the above, the Agency is
not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. However, it should be
noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged
studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard. The Director General has urged Iran to
engage actively with the Agency in a more detailed examination of the documents available about the
alleged studies which the Agency has been authorized to show to Iran.
Notice that the one remaining concern, "green salt project" is a NEW (if you've been following IAEA reports) issue, and one that it (IAEA) admits is an unsubstantiated claim against iran, for which they have no proof. I wonder who would submit unsubstantiated claims to the IAEA that Iran was testing re-entry vehicles and explosive devices? Hmm. :cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
don't shoot the messenger, it's what they are saying. now, do I think it's right for the US to act so boldly about this? no. and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?
don't shoot the messenger, it's what they are saying. now, do I think it's right for the US to act so boldly about this? no. and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?
Dude.
they ALWAYS say that.
It doesn't matter HOW much info Iran provides, they always say that (go check every report), usualy just after saying that EVERYthing they requested information on turned out to be 100% in compliance with IAEA and that there was NO NONDIVERSION ...
but yet every report there is always some new issue,
and ever following report that issue is always addressed in full, and then a NEW issue is raised.
But go back and read the last 5 reports, and you will see that Iran has repeatedly and successively met and exceeded all IAEA requests and requirements.
NO NONDIVERSION. FULL COMPLIANCE.
No evidence to suggest diversion.
But then,
ALWAYS, "the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme."
So you tell me.
What are they really saying?
I have to go to lunch.
Back around 2est.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
well until they can say that, and issues STOP arising, why should we assume they are 100% honest. we are talking about nuclear technology. it's kinda a big deal
and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?
If they did it would be all throughout the media whatever suspicions they have.....kinda like the "suspicions" that started war in the first place :rolleyes:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
well until they can say that, and issues STOP arising, why should we assume they are 100% honest. we are talking about nuclear technology. it's kinda a big deal
\i think the point is that Iran as successively dealt with ALL issues and resolved them to the indication that their aims are NOT for arms use.
Of course new issues will arise,
because the IAEA is an agency doing an ongoing job.
However, you are correct that the US has no business taking such an agressive stance on this.
You know why nuclear technology is such a big deal with regards to Iran?
Because they are a soverign muslim nation that has grown weary of the west (because of repeated western covert interference with their internal policies) and if they ever actualy got off their dependence on their one natural resource -- oil -- that is quickly drying up, Iran might actualy rise to some prominence in the region.
And THAT, the US views as an imminent threat.
It has VERY LITTLE to do with nuclear arms, and EVERYTHING to do with Iran becoming a functioning soverign power in the Middle East with enough fuel and resources to fund a burgeoning economy.
Truth.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So here we have "any matter of controversy or dispute", correct?
Now, if Iran steps up and decides force is needed to rectify this dispute -- US banking embargo against Iran -- then the US actions become an "act of war".
On the other side, the US has ALREADY seemingly decided that Iranian pursuit of peacefull nuclear energy is a controversy or dispute that should be resolved through armed conflict.
Thus, in the eyes of the US, the mere decision by Iran to pursue nuclear energy becomes an "act of war". Of course, the official US position is that they are pursuing nuclear ARMS, so THAT is what the US MIC considers an "act of war".
See how that works?
Well, you're interpreting the meaning of that passage through your own bias. If I may explain:
1) Yes, we have a matter of controversy or dispute. Let's discuss that. The U.S. has said there should be a global financial embargo -- we can't force anyone to actually do it except for ourselves.
2) But, there is still a dispute with Iran. However, if Iran decides force is needed to rectify the dispute then it is Iran that is making an act of war, not the U.S.
3) In your point about the U.S. position that force is necessary you use one word that negates your argument -- "seemingly." If the U.S. actually decided that it needs to resolve the dispute through armed conflict then we would have heard about it. Sure, I'd bet there are folks within the administration that are of that opinion, but the position of a nation and the opinions of some officials administering that nation are two different things. As a nation, in regards to an issue such as being at war, you can't seemingly decide that armed conflict is necessary. You can decide it isn't necessary. You can decide it may be necessary, which in my opinion is where we're currently at and I view it as strategic posturing to influence the actions of the opposition. Or you can decide armed conflict is necessary and you declare war.
4) I'd like to see some attribution to the administration that pursuing nuclear energy is an act of war. Barring that, how about a source saying pursuing nuclear arms is an act of war? That second may be out there, but it's also possible that it isn't.
And in regards to the energy/arms question, hasn't the Iranian President said he wanted a nuclear weapon? I know he said he wanted to erase Israel, but I can't remember if he has said the country should pursue nuclear weapons. Knowing this guy's past and his intentions, I really don't trust that he's only pursuing nuclear technology for energy. Sure, the program is structured that way now. But, up to a certain point the technology and research can be applied equally to arms & energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the research switched to arms in the future, if that hasn't happened already.
Comments
Actually, these types of incidents have been known to occur. In Korea, up by the DMZ, U.S apache helicopters, e.t.c, often patrol along the DMZ and if any pilot makes the mistake of flying off course, and if the message can't be transmitted by radio, then it's been known for either the U.S, or the South Korean army, to fire warning shots at the 'offending' plane in order to alert the pilot to his mistake. This is done to prevent any response from the anti-aircraft batteries lined up along the north.
This may have been what happened in Russia - maybe radio contact broke down.
Who knows. There's not even enough coverage of Iraq anymore on the mainstream media channels. Aside from a body count here and there and two of the three candidates running for President spouting bullshit about pulling troops out we honestly don't get much on Iraq from the news media.
http://inthepresenttense.blogspot.com/
The B1 incident specificaly?
I don't know.
I was reading another site that suggested it may have actualy been a test of Iranian defensive capabilities.
Perhaps our military was just not aware of it, as it was an intelligence operation, and they shot down what they thought was a potentialy hostile target. All though if you hear a guy speaking perfect english ... ?
Anyhow what do you make of this?
"Turning Point 2" - Israel's Largest Ever Emergency Exercise Took Place on Monday
You don't put on an exercise like that for nothing!
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
""There's no cause for alarm - these are intended purely as exercises," said Yoram Ohayon, the head of the police's operations division."
Ask yourself this:
Why would Syria and Lebanon suddenly start a massive bombing campaign against Israel?
Answer: If Israel started a new round of agressive military actions, they would respond.
Disclaimer: And no I'm not saying Hezbollah is a stand up group. I'm saying actions like massive rocket attacks usualy occur after Israel has done something to "stir the pot". Add this training exercise to 4 other news articles that say the US is preparing for a bombing campaign against Iran & Israel is ready to start bombing Syria and Lebanon .... and suddenly it makes a little more sense, yes?
But i understand your concern.
Surely if there was validity to any of this, the US War Monger "Media" Corporations (remeber NBC is owned by GE?) would surely tell us.
Right.
Surely.
Right.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
what's an example of "stir the pot" ? (one that would justify a "massive bombing campaign")
a. i NEVER said it would "justify" anything.
I just said you would expect a reaction.
b. an example in this case would be Israeli bombings on Syrian targets, or Israeli troop movement in to Lebanon.
Wether the Israeli's think they are being "defensive" in going after Hebollah targets proactively or not, the countries they would actualy be ATTACKING would view this as cause for returning fire.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What was this huge April 7th announcement? I didn't hear anything out of the ordinary.
The sources for the stories you've cited at "proof" rely on statements from Russia and middle-eastern countries -- both of them have reason to, and have been shown to, issue anti-American propoganda. While you instinctively distrust news sources like CNN & Reuters, you instinctively trust other unverified sources. Why is that?
April 7th announcement?
Oh, Alex?
Lol.
It turned out he was adding an extra hour to his show.
Which actualy is AWESOME news, but totally unrelated.
Why do i "instinctively" trust a russian news source? I DON'T. However recently news sources out of Russia have been the first to report on Iran going off the dollar for oil, and guess what? They were right! Did the US media EVER report on that? No.
So, i don't give any extra creedence to news from those sources, but when you have 4 or 5 articles from 3 or 4 different eastern sources that all say the same thing, it starts to add up to SOMEthing.
Unless you ignorantly think that ONLY the US media tells the truth.
In which case you end up looking like a bigger fool than taking a leap of faith and assuming that maybe, just maybe, sources from the east might actualy tell the truth, if it meant getting the word out to the world about pending war.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Actually, I think they did. I'm pretty sure I heard about that a few weeks ago.
I just happen not to trust news sources that have a headline about the U.S. "declaring war on Iran", only to find out that a U.S. financial organization placed sanctions on Iranian banks. It's sensationalism. That source lost all credibility with me at that point.
I agree. thats what I said in the 3rd post of this thread.
Why?
It went on to explain exactly what it meant.
And putting a 100% financial global financial embargo up against ALL iranian banks is certainly an agressive act, which would traditionaly be considered one of war.
What do you think the US would do if China put out a memo to the world saying that ANY bank accepting ANY transaction from ANY US bank would face unspecified strong actions in response?
You think we would consider that an act of war or not?
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
in the minds of many war = bombs and death. like he said, its sensationalism
i'm not concerned with what the masses think.
Here.
From lectlaw - Legal Definition of War
So here we have "any matter of controversy or dispute", correct?
Now, if Iran steps up and decides force is needed to rectify this dispute -- US banking embargo against Iran -- then the US actions become an "act of war".
On the other side, the US has ALREADY seemingly decided that Iranian pursuit of peacefull nuclear energy is a controversy or dispute that should be resolved through armed conflict.
Thus, in the eyes of the US, the mere decision by Iran to pursue nuclear energy becomes an "act of war". Of course, the official US position is that they are pursuing nuclear ARMS, so THAT is what the US MIC considers an "act of war".
See how that works?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I also see you are completely sold that Iran is pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes. not sure why they would keep secrets from the IAEA if thats the case.
not sure what you are refering to.
Have you read any recent IAEA reports?
I have.
Their only criticism remains that "Iran has remained reactive to our requests, rather than proactive" ... and goes on about how while they have acted with full disclosure to all agency requests, a show of good faith by volunteering even more information would be good for western relations.
Yeah. Okay.
Hi, i'm Iran, and let me just volunteer to give you heaps and reams of material and information that you have yet to ask for, because we are so glad to be so arrogantly scrutinized by the west, that we would love to show our corresponding kindness to your arrogant impositions.
Why are you so sure they want nuclear arms, when IAEA reports have stated over and over since at least 2006 that enrichment remains BELOW 5%, and must exceed 95% for weapons grade use?
Iran has passed EVERY point of IAEA inspection for over 3 years.
The last time they "kept secrets" was, per Iranian officials directly, in response to US aggressive dialogue, and was being used as a bargaining chip. As in, "Hey you stupid American assholes, quit talking about war, and we might actualy show you what we are doing."
If I opened it now would you not understand?
maybe I haven't seen the most recent ones. care to post them? I do not think its unreasonable to not automatically trust everything Iran says.
IAEA - Iran Website
Notice that the one remaining concern, "green salt project" is a NEW (if you've been following IAEA reports) issue, and one that it (IAEA) admits is an unsubstantiated claim against iran, for which they have no proof. I wonder who would submit unsubstantiated claims to the IAEA that Iran was testing re-entry vehicles and explosive devices? Hmm. :cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
don't shoot the messenger, it's what they are saying. now, do I think it's right for the US to act so boldly about this? no. and maybe, just maybe, they (and Israel) know something the IAEA doesn't?
Dude.
they ALWAYS say that.
It doesn't matter HOW much info Iran provides, they always say that (go check every report), usualy just after saying that EVERYthing they requested information on turned out to be 100% in compliance with IAEA and that there was NO NONDIVERSION ...
but yet every report there is always some new issue,
and ever following report that issue is always addressed in full, and then a NEW issue is raised.
But go back and read the last 5 reports, and you will see that Iran has repeatedly and successively met and exceeded all IAEA requests and requirements.
NO NONDIVERSION. FULL COMPLIANCE.
No evidence to suggest diversion.
But then,
ALWAYS, "the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme."
So you tell me.
What are they really saying?
I have to go to lunch.
Back around 2est.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If they did it would be all throughout the media whatever suspicions they have.....kinda like the "suspicions" that started war in the first place :rolleyes:
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
\i think the point is that Iran as successively dealt with ALL issues and resolved them to the indication that their aims are NOT for arms use.
Of course new issues will arise,
because the IAEA is an agency doing an ongoing job.
However, you are correct that the US has no business taking such an agressive stance on this.
You know why nuclear technology is such a big deal with regards to Iran?
Because they are a soverign muslim nation that has grown weary of the west (because of repeated western covert interference with their internal policies) and if they ever actualy got off their dependence on their one natural resource -- oil -- that is quickly drying up, Iran might actualy rise to some prominence in the region.
And THAT, the US views as an imminent threat.
It has VERY LITTLE to do with nuclear arms, and EVERYTHING to do with Iran becoming a functioning soverign power in the Middle East with enough fuel and resources to fund a burgeoning economy.
Truth.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well, you're interpreting the meaning of that passage through your own bias. If I may explain:
1) Yes, we have a matter of controversy or dispute. Let's discuss that. The U.S. has said there should be a global financial embargo -- we can't force anyone to actually do it except for ourselves.
2) But, there is still a dispute with Iran. However, if Iran decides force is needed to rectify the dispute then it is Iran that is making an act of war, not the U.S.
3) In your point about the U.S. position that force is necessary you use one word that negates your argument -- "seemingly." If the U.S. actually decided that it needs to resolve the dispute through armed conflict then we would have heard about it. Sure, I'd bet there are folks within the administration that are of that opinion, but the position of a nation and the opinions of some officials administering that nation are two different things. As a nation, in regards to an issue such as being at war, you can't seemingly decide that armed conflict is necessary. You can decide it isn't necessary. You can decide it may be necessary, which in my opinion is where we're currently at and I view it as strategic posturing to influence the actions of the opposition. Or you can decide armed conflict is necessary and you declare war.
4) I'd like to see some attribution to the administration that pursuing nuclear energy is an act of war. Barring that, how about a source saying pursuing nuclear arms is an act of war? That second may be out there, but it's also possible that it isn't.
And in regards to the energy/arms question, hasn't the Iranian President said he wanted a nuclear weapon? I know he said he wanted to erase Israel, but I can't remember if he has said the country should pursue nuclear weapons. Knowing this guy's past and his intentions, I really don't trust that he's only pursuing nuclear technology for energy. Sure, the program is structured that way now. But, up to a certain point the technology and research can be applied equally to arms & energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the research switched to arms in the future, if that hasn't happened already.