o geez. fine lets give nukes to everyone since the US has em. The problem is, you think Iran is a great country who deserves to have their finger on the trigger of a nuke.
I never said that. try to pay attention.
the real problem is you like to excuse anything Israel does.
then the question becomes, does Israel have the right to attack these nuke facilities when Iran has reached this "certain amount of enriched uranium" ?
In my opinion, no. Here is why, just because Iran has X amount of enriched uranium doesn't mean that the uranium is weapons grade. From what I read in the article Israel seems to be basing it on the quantity not on the grade of uranium. Also by all reports Iran's nuclear program is not a militarized one but a civilian one. I understand that Iran has not been as cooperative or forthcoming as they should but that alone is not reason enough to attack a sovereign nation and destabilize the entire region.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You know what I wonder...
I wonder how many Americans... young Americans... would be so Gung Ho towards acts of war (even from Israel)... with our troops already in the unstable region... if there was a military draft in this country.
...
I ask this because I was talking to my brother... who is all Gung Ho... but, changed his entire arguement when i ask him, "So... what if there was a military draft? Connor (his son, my nephew is a High School Senior) would be eligible this Winter."
If you do not have a stake in the game... then, it really doesn't matter, right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
In my opinion, no. Here is why, just because Iran has X amount of enriched uranium doesn't mean that the uranium is weapons grade. From what I read in the article Israel seems to be basing it on the quantity not on the grade of uranium. Also by all reports Iran's nuclear program is not a militarized one but a civilian one. I understand that Iran has not been as cooperative or forthcoming as they should but that alone is not reason enough to attack a sovereign nation and destabilize the entire region.
my question was posed assuming they have enough uranium to make a bomb.
my question was posed assuming they have enough uranium to make a bomb.
The only way I would support any type of military action would be if Iran had enough weapons grade uranium, they where developing a delivery system and all diplomatic efferts had failed.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The only way I would support any type of military action would be if Iran had enough weapons grade uranium, they where developing a delivery system and all diplomatic efferts had failed.
right, this is what I was getting at. outlaw might chime in soon and say Israel has no fucking right to do anything but hey thats cool
You know what I wonder...
I wonder how many Americans... young Americans... would be so Gung Ho towards acts of war (even from Israel)... with our troops already in the unstable region... if there was a military draft in this country.
...
I ask this because I was talking to my brother... who is all Gung Ho... but, changed his entire arguement when i ask him, "So... what if there was a military draft? Connor (his son, my nephew is a High School Senior) would be eligible this Winter."
If you do not have a stake in the game... then, it really doesn't matter, right?
This is true to an extent.
Having a child in the military is kind of "putting your money where your mouth is," but it still doesn't make it acceptable to go to war with Iran.
Even if most americans were willing to send their boys off to war because Israel told us to, it doesn't necessarily mean that is in the USA's interest. Other factors should determine whether the war is a good choice. If someone was invading the United States, undoubtedly you'd have people who didn't want their children to be drafted, but that would be a far more acceptable time to institute the draft.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Having a child in the military is kind of "putting your money where your mouth is," but it still doesn't make it acceptable to go to war with Iran.
Even if most americans were willing to send their boys off to war because Israel told us to, it doesn't necessarily mean that is in the USA's interest. Other factors should determine whether the war is a good choice. If someone was invading the United States, undoubtedly you'd have people who didn't want their children to be drafted, but that would be a far more acceptable time to institute the draft.
...
If the U.S. was being invaded by an foriegn military... I'd pick up a fucking gun.
...
My point is basically to say, it is real easy to root for war... when it's someone else that is going to do the fighting for you. If there was a risk of Uncle Sam knocking on your door and telling you, "You're in the Army, now...", I wonder how many of the Chickenhawks would show more chicken, less hawk.
Right now, the only Americans that are shouldering this war are the soldiers and their families. The rest of us don't feel a thing... hell, we aren't even paying for it... our next couple of generations are getting that bill to pay.
No wonder it is so fucking easy for pansy-ass pussies to say, "We should kick their fucking asses... YEAH!!!" from the comfort of their living room, on the other side of the planet. Those assholes need to be the part of the 'WE' they are willing to send off and face the bullets... if they are serious about it. Otherwise, they are nothing more than panty wearing cheerleaders, singing shrill chants from the sidelines.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
uhh...so what of all these reports and findings the IAEA has come forward with that says were only looking at the 3-4% enrichment level inhehrent in power generation?
what of that?
Is that what you call me just making shit up?
Yeah... I just fabricated the IAEA, and various US inteligence agencies that claim it's legit... :rolleyes:
I don't know why I bother sometimes.... (most times)
feel free to post such a report that Iran only has 3-4% of enriched uranium. and according to you, only has the capacity to enrich 3-4% as well. if you can, I'll be happy to stand corrected. this is a message board. just because you say something, it doesnt automatically become true. see how that works?
also, what about reports that Iran will have enough enriched uranium by 2010? is that a lie?
The UN's nuclear watchdog has confirmed that it has found particles of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium in environmental samples taken at an Iranian nuclear facility. Iran denies enriching the uranium itself and continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.
or you can check the lastest UN Sanations document here.
Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the reports of 23 May 2007
(GOV/2007/22), 30 August 2007 (GOV/2007/48), 15 November 2007
(GOV/2007/58) and 22 February 2008 (GOV/2008/4) of the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has not established full and
sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy
water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747
(2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied
with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and
1747 (2007) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,Noting with concern that Iran has taken issue with the IAEA’s right to verify design information which had been provided by Iran pursuant to the modified
Code 3.1, emphasizing that in accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards
Agreement Code 3.1 cannot be modified nor suspended unilaterally and that the
Agency’s right to verify design information provided to it is a continuing right,
what is all out war? full invasion and regime change? similar to Iraq. that would never happen. this has always been about stopping their nuke program. which means bomb their nuke facilities.
Lol
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Just that you believe everything the paper tells you.
Do you still believe all the Iraq propaganda to?
Anyway i was wondering when you would be back.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html
The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna also concluded that while Iran continues to enrich uranium in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, its fuel enrichment plant has produced "well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design." The quality of the uranium also was lower than expected, the IAEA said.
However, he said that the progress is still not enough and the IAEA was still unable to give a definite verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Iran in the past few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran's current program. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient," ElBaradei said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html
The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna also concluded that while Iran continues to enrich uranium in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, its fuel enrichment plant has produced "well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design." The quality of the uranium also was lower than expected, the IAEA said.
this report is from last year. the one I posted was from a few weeks ago. things have changed.
However, he said that the progress is still not enough and the IAEA was still unable to give a definite verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Iran in the past few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran's current program. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient," ElBaradei said.
ElBaradei has been allowed to inspect the Iranian nuclear facilities SEVERAL times... In fact, I'm pretty sure Iran is the only country who complied with the IAEA inspections as much as they've had to. Iran is also a signatory on the NPT.
this report is from last year. the one I posted was from a few weeks ago. things have changed.
things changed since February? if you think nuclear weapons can be built within 6 months (which I know you don't) then you're wrong. the fact of the matter is that even IF (and this is a huge if) Iran were to be seeking nuclear weapons, they do not have the means to get them for several years.
This entire issue goes well beyond nuclear weapons. If we were to focus on establishing diplomatic ties with Iran - meaning no threats of military action, no sanctions, and no blockades, all of which would make Iran reluctant to do anything with us - then the nuclear issue does not become 'a serious' one any longer.
that's your response? The first article was from feb 08.
you posted 3 articles and I quoted the first article.....
However, he said that the progress is still not enough and the IAEA was still unable to give a definite verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Iran in the past few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran's current program. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient," ElBaradei said.
the other articles are from august 07. outdated information
you posted 3 articles and I quoted the first article.....
However, he said that the progress is still not enough and the IAEA was still unable to give a definite verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Iran in the past few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran's current program. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient," ElBaradei said.
the other articles are from august 07. outdated information
did you even read my post? I already responded to this. ElBaradei has been given more access to the Iranian nuclear facilities than any other country in the world - including the lovely democracy of Israel. your one quote of him not being completely satisfied does not contradict the fact that the IAEA report showed that there is no sign that their program is not for peaceful purposes, and that they have no been enriching uranium at a high level.
and 1 year in terms of nuclear enrichment is not very long. to say that info is outdated is an overstatement. however, you still ignored my entire response. not surprising though.
did you even read my post? I already responded to this. ElBaradei has been given more access to the Iranian nuclear facilities than any other country in the world - including the lovely democracy of Israel. your one quote of him not being completely satisfied does not contradict the fact that the IAEA report showed that there is no sign that their program is not for peaceful purposes, and that they have no been enriching uranium at a high level.
I'm only quoting what he said. yes they have been given access but IAEA is still not satisfied. what is that so hard for you to understand?
and 1 year in terms of nuclear enrichment is not very long. to say that info is outdated is an overstatement. however, you still ignored my entire response. not surprising though.
why would I respond to you crap when you thought your own article was only 6 months old. but its ok for you to ignore my post huh? here it is again since you ignored it...
or you can check the latest UN Sanations document here.
Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the reports of 23 May 2007
(GOV/2007/22), 30 August 2007 (GOV/2007/48), 15 November 2007
(GOV/2007/58) and 22 February 2008 (GOV/2008/4) of the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has not established full and
sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy
water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747
(2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied
with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and
1747 (2007) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,Noting with concern that Iran has taken issue with the IAEA’s right to verify design information which had been provided by Iran pursuant to the modified
Code 3.1, emphasizing that in accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards
Agreement Code 3.1 cannot be modified nor suspended unilaterally and that the
Agency’s right to verify design information provided to it is a continuing right,
I'm only quoting what he said. yes they have been given access but IAEA is still not satisfied. what is that so hard for you to understand?
what the hell are you talking about. the IAEA has been given a tremendous amount of cooperation by the Iranians - MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. If they aren't satisfied from Iran's cooperation, then they are SURELY not satisfied from virtually every country in the world.
why would I respond to you crap when you thought your own article was only 6 months old.
I was referring to the earlier article from February, which is so painfully obvious that it's sad to see you still argue this. you're only trying to make up bullshit excuses for not responding to my post.
but its ok for you to ignore my post huh? here it is again since you ignored it...
or you can check the latest UN Sanations document here.
Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the reports of 23 May 2007
(GOV/2007/22), 30 August 2007 (GOV/2007/48), 15 November 2007
(GOV/2007/58) and 22 February 2008 (GOV/2008/4) of the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has not established full and
sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy
water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747
(2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied
with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and
1747 (2007) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,Noting with concern that Iran has taken issue with the IAEA’s right to verify design information which had been provided by Iran pursuant to the modified
Code 3.1, emphasizing that in accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards
Agreement Code 3.1 cannot be modified nor suspended unilaterally and that the
Agency’s right to verify design information provided to it is a continuing right,
this is a UN security resolution, what the hell is your point. this proves nothing.
From one of your own articles:
"Traces of highly enriched uranium were, indeed, found at the nuclear site at Natanz. It could indicate that they had already enriched uranium," Fleming says. "But it could also indicate that the [explanation] the Iranians gave was correct -- that the [equipment] they imported from abroad had been contaminated at another nuclear site. So we don't really know right now what the origin of these traces of highly enriched uranium is.
what the hell are you talking about. the IAEA has been given a tremendous amount of cooperation by the Iranians - MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY. If they aren't satisfied from Iran's cooperation, then they are SURELY not satisfied from virtually every country in the world.
this is getting ridiculous. I quoted what ElBaradei said. not me. ElBaradei is not satisfied with Iran's cooperation. try to grasp that concept.
From one of your own articles:
"Traces of highly enriched uranium were, indeed, found at the nuclear site at Natanz. It could indicate that they had already enriched uranium," Fleming says. "But it could also indicate that the [explanation] the Iranians gave was correct -- that the [equipment] they imported from abroad had been contaminated at another nuclear site. So we don't really know right now what the origin of these traces of highly enriched uranium is.
wow, are you just said my post proves nothing? what exactly does this prove? I'll tell you..... that there is uncertainty in where the enriched uranium is coming from.
right, this is what I was getting at. outlaw might chime in soon and say Israel has no fucking right to do anything but hey thats cool
I truly hope it never comes to military action.
I too hope this issue can be resolved diplomatically, but it seems that the hawks in our government and the Israeli government don't have strong diplomacy skills. I understand that you can't show signs of weakness when dealing with this situation but this macho saber rattling from both sides is just pitiful and will get us no where.
Also Israel can't go it alone. If they do decide to take matters into their own hands it will be an utter diseaster. They do not have the bomber capabilities to effectively neutralize Iran's nuclear plants. They would need our support in that aspect. So unilateral action by Israel will only enrage the Iranians without actually dismantling their nuclear program.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
you dont think Israel has the bomber capabilities to hit nuke sites? they did it to Iraq and just recently, Syria.
its my gut feeling that no one wants military action. no one is willing to back down though with their words. the good news, Iran has been cooperating to a certain extent with the IAEA. not 100% but talks are ongoing.
you dont think Israel has the bomber capabilities to hit nuke sites? they did it to Iraq and just recently, Syria.
its my gut feeling that no one wants military action. no one is willing to back down though with their words. the good news, Iran has been cooperating to a certain extent with the IAEA. not 100% but talks are ongoing.
From what I read Israel does not have long range bombers, which would be essential in hitting Iran's facilities.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
From what I read Israel does not have long range bombers, which would be essential in hitting Iran's facilities.
hmmm Iran is not that far away at all. but I'm no expert, you could certainly be right. either way, there is no way the US would agree to come in and start bombing at the request of Israel
hmmm Iran is not that far away at all. but I'm no expert, you could certainly be right. either way, there is no way the US would agree to come in and start bombing at the request of Israel
As discussed earlier in the thread, Israel probably does have the capability. This isn't 1950, nobody except Russia flies long-range bombers anymore. Fighter-bombers like the F-15 can hit targets at long range and with a heavy payload ... They may or may not need in-flight refueling support to reach Iran. Israeli still may require U.S. support, in terms of permission to cross Iraqi airspace.
wow, are you just said my post proves nothing? what exactly does this prove? I'll tell you..... that there is uncertainty in where the enriched uranium is coming from.
you are SO ridiculous.
1. This 3% shit, that you are calling Roland out as a liar or whatever:
It IS common knowledge to ANYONE who has done ANY research on this issue that 3% (or 3 to 5%) is the average rate of enrichment for non-weapons uranium -- ie. POWER GENERATION.
Like he said.
Look it the fuck up.
We did our homework.
The least you could do, is do yours.
But here, since it seems you can't, won't or just don't want to:
B. Current Enrichment Related Activities
43. On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas.
Your obsession with the UN resolutions condeming Iran to stop enrichment are, in the view of those defending Iran's soverignty on this count, fucking ridiculous. Iran is in violation of NO law, has done NOTHING illegal with its enrichment program, and is attempting to continue following down a path towards self subsistent nuclear power generation that it was placed on over 30 years ago with the consent of the United States and the international community!
Since that time it has been NOTHING but lies, deceit, backstabbing, stalling, and backtracking from the US and the international community regarding their support for Iran's ambitions. This has NOTHING to do with any immmediate physical threat coming from Iran, and EVERYTHING to do with the IMPLICATIONS of a 1st world Iran that has achieved internaly sustainable domestic power and therefore becomes a force on the world stage of industrialized nations.
WE DON'T WANT MUSLIM STATES RISING ON THE TOTEM POLE!
That is the SOLE reason for all of this bullshit.
We are just trigger happy for an excuse to bomb the poor arabs back to the stone age. We want what we did to Iraq -- an excuse to come in and bomb away every bridge, water treatment center, flour manufacturer, power generator, radio tower, and civil infrastructure we can think of. Crippling Iran for decades, and coldly murdering several generations of soverign arab muslim citizens.
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
the real problem is you like to excuse anything Israel does.
In my opinion, no. Here is why, just because Iran has X amount of enriched uranium doesn't mean that the uranium is weapons grade. From what I read in the article Israel seems to be basing it on the quantity not on the grade of uranium. Also by all reports Iran's nuclear program is not a militarized one but a civilian one. I understand that Iran has not been as cooperative or forthcoming as they should but that alone is not reason enough to attack a sovereign nation and destabilize the entire region.
I wonder how many Americans... young Americans... would be so Gung Ho towards acts of war (even from Israel)... with our troops already in the unstable region... if there was a military draft in this country.
...
I ask this because I was talking to my brother... who is all Gung Ho... but, changed his entire arguement when i ask him, "So... what if there was a military draft? Connor (his son, my nephew is a High School Senior) would be eligible this Winter."
If you do not have a stake in the game... then, it really doesn't matter, right?
Hail, Hail!!!
my question was posed assuming they have enough uranium to make a bomb.
yikes. I have posted here for 2 days. what excuses have I made for Israel?
The only way I would support any type of military action would be if Iran had enough weapons grade uranium, they where developing a delivery system and all diplomatic efferts had failed.
right, this is what I was getting at. outlaw might chime in soon and say Israel has no fucking right to do anything but hey thats cool
I truly hope it never comes to military action.
This is true to an extent.
Having a child in the military is kind of "putting your money where your mouth is," but it still doesn't make it acceptable to go to war with Iran.
Even if most americans were willing to send their boys off to war because Israel told us to, it doesn't necessarily mean that is in the USA's interest. Other factors should determine whether the war is a good choice. If someone was invading the United States, undoubtedly you'd have people who didn't want their children to be drafted, but that would be a far more acceptable time to institute the draft.
-Enoch Powell
If the U.S. was being invaded by an foriegn military... I'd pick up a fucking gun.
...
My point is basically to say, it is real easy to root for war... when it's someone else that is going to do the fighting for you. If there was a risk of Uncle Sam knocking on your door and telling you, "You're in the Army, now...", I wonder how many of the Chickenhawks would show more chicken, less hawk.
Right now, the only Americans that are shouldering this war are the soldiers and their families. The rest of us don't feel a thing... hell, we aren't even paying for it... our next couple of generations are getting that bill to pay.
No wonder it is so fucking easy for pansy-ass pussies to say, "We should kick their fucking asses... YEAH!!!" from the comfort of their living room, on the other side of the planet. Those assholes need to be the part of the 'WE' they are willing to send off and face the bullets... if they are serious about it. Otherwise, they are nothing more than panty wearing cheerleaders, singing shrill chants from the sidelines.
Hail, Hail!!!
feel free to post such a report that Iran only has 3-4% of enriched uranium. and according to you, only has the capacity to enrich 3-4% as well. if you can, I'll be happy to stand corrected. this is a message board. just because you say something, it doesnt automatically become true. see how that works?
also, what about reports that Iran will have enough enriched uranium by 2010? is that a lie?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-030827-rferl-172732.htm
Iran: IAEA Confirms Finding Weapons-Grade Uranium
By Ron Synovitz
The UN's nuclear watchdog has confirmed that it has found particles of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium in environmental samples taken at an Iranian nuclear facility. Iran denies enriching the uranium itself and continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.
or you can check the lastest UN Sanations document here.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/unsc_res1803-2008.pdf
Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the reports of 23 May 2007
(GOV/2007/22), 30 August 2007 (GOV/2007/48), 15 November 2007
(GOV/2007/58) and 22 February 2008 (GOV/2008/4) of the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has not established full and
sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy
water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747
(2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied
with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and
1747 (2007) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,Noting with concern that Iran has taken issue with the IAEA’s right to verify design information which had been provided by Iran pursuant to the modified
Code 3.1, emphasizing that in accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards
Agreement Code 3.1 cannot be modified nor suspended unilaterally and that the
Agency’s right to verify design information provided to it is a continuing right,
Lol
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
whats so funny?
Just that you believe everything the paper tells you.
Do you still believe all the Iraq propaganda to?
Anyway i was wondering when you would be back.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
tell me where I was wrong.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6655
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html
The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna also concluded that while Iran continues to enrich uranium in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, its fuel enrichment plant has produced "well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design." The quality of the uranium also was lower than expected, the IAEA said.
However, he said that the progress is still not enough and the IAEA was still unable to give a definite verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Iran in the past few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran's current program. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient," ElBaradei said.
this report is from last year. the one I posted was from a few weeks ago. things have changed.
This entire issue goes well beyond nuclear weapons. If we were to focus on establishing diplomatic ties with Iran - meaning no threats of military action, no sanctions, and no blockades, all of which would make Iran reluctant to do anything with us - then the nuclear issue does not become 'a serious' one any longer.
you posted 3 articles and I quoted the first article.....
However, he said that the progress is still not enough and the IAEA was still unable to give a definite verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Iran in the past few months has provided us with visits to many places, that enable us to have a clearer picture of Iran's current program. However, that is not, in my view, sufficient," ElBaradei said.
the other articles are from august 07. outdated information
and 1 year in terms of nuclear enrichment is not very long. to say that info is outdated is an overstatement. however, you still ignored my entire response. not surprising though.
I'm only quoting what he said. yes they have been given access but IAEA is still not satisfied. what is that so hard for you to understand?
why would I respond to you crap when you thought your own article was only 6 months old. but its ok for you to ignore my post huh? here it is again since you ignored it...
or you can check the latest UN Sanations document here.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...s1803-2008.pdf
Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the reports of 23 May 2007
(GOV/2007/22), 30 August 2007 (GOV/2007/48), 15 November 2007
(GOV/2007/58) and 22 February 2008 (GOV/2008/4) of the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has not established full and
sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy
water-related projects as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747
(2007), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
nor taken the other steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied
with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and
1747 (2007) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,Noting with concern that Iran has taken issue with the IAEA’s right to verify design information which had been provided by Iran pursuant to the modified
Code 3.1, emphasizing that in accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards
Agreement Code 3.1 cannot be modified nor suspended unilaterally and that the
Agency’s right to verify design information provided to it is a continuing right,
From one of your own articles:
"Traces of highly enriched uranium were, indeed, found at the nuclear site at Natanz. It could indicate that they had already enriched uranium," Fleming says. "But it could also indicate that the [explanation] the Iranians gave was correct -- that the [equipment] they imported from abroad had been contaminated at another nuclear site. So we don't really know right now what the origin of these traces of highly enriched uranium is.
this is getting ridiculous. I quoted what ElBaradei said. not me. ElBaradei is not satisfied with Iran's cooperation. try to grasp that concept.
I bolded my point. I'll do it again since you seem to be struggling with this discussion...
Iran has not established full and
sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities and heavy
water-related projects
wow, are you just said my post proves nothing? what exactly does this prove? I'll tell you..... that there is uncertainty in where the enriched uranium is coming from.
I too hope this issue can be resolved diplomatically, but it seems that the hawks in our government and the Israeli government don't have strong diplomacy skills. I understand that you can't show signs of weakness when dealing with this situation but this macho saber rattling from both sides is just pitiful and will get us no where.
Also Israel can't go it alone. If they do decide to take matters into their own hands it will be an utter diseaster. They do not have the bomber capabilities to effectively neutralize Iran's nuclear plants. They would need our support in that aspect. So unilateral action by Israel will only enrage the Iranians without actually dismantling their nuclear program.
its my gut feeling that no one wants military action. no one is willing to back down though with their words. the good news, Iran has been cooperating to a certain extent with the IAEA. not 100% but talks are ongoing.
From what I read Israel does not have long range bombers, which would be essential in hitting Iran's facilities.
hmmm Iran is not that far away at all. but I'm no expert, you could certainly be right. either way, there is no way the US would agree to come in and start bombing at the request of Israel
As discussed earlier in the thread, Israel probably does have the capability. This isn't 1950, nobody except Russia flies long-range bombers anymore. Fighter-bombers like the F-15 can hit targets at long range and with a heavy payload ... They may or may not need in-flight refueling support to reach Iran. Israeli still may require U.S. support, in terms of permission to cross Iraqi airspace.
you are SO ridiculous.
1. This 3% shit, that you are calling Roland out as a liar or whatever:
It IS common knowledge to ANYONE who has done ANY research on this issue that 3% (or 3 to 5%) is the average rate of enrichment for non-weapons uranium -- ie. POWER GENERATION.
Like he said.
Look it the fuck up.
We did our homework.
The least you could do, is do yours.
But here, since it seems you can't, won't or just don't want to:
From the LATEST IAEA Report on Iran ... which was Feb 08 (page 7):
Your obsession with the UN resolutions condeming Iran to stop enrichment are, in the view of those defending Iran's soverignty on this count, fucking ridiculous. Iran is in violation of NO law, has done NOTHING illegal with its enrichment program, and is attempting to continue following down a path towards self subsistent nuclear power generation that it was placed on over 30 years ago with the consent of the United States and the international community!
Since that time it has been NOTHING but lies, deceit, backstabbing, stalling, and backtracking from the US and the international community regarding their support for Iran's ambitions. This has NOTHING to do with any immmediate physical threat coming from Iran, and EVERYTHING to do with the IMPLICATIONS of a 1st world Iran that has achieved internaly sustainable domestic power and therefore becomes a force on the world stage of industrialized nations.
WE DON'T WANT MUSLIM STATES RISING ON THE TOTEM POLE!
That is the SOLE reason for all of this bullshit.
We are just trigger happy for an excuse to bomb the poor arabs back to the stone age. We want what we did to Iraq -- an excuse to come in and bomb away every bridge, water treatment center, flour manufacturer, power generator, radio tower, and civil infrastructure we can think of. Crippling Iran for decades, and coldly murdering several generations of soverign arab muslim citizens.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?