Iran is lying about its nuke program

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There was some article I remember reading saying they found traces of plutonium in Iran... perhaps I dreamt it. i can;t remember. It's not worth splitting hairs for brownie points imo.

We'll see if this trend continues, however I find it interesting people are equating it immediately to nuclear weapons being launched at everything now. That's the propaganda/hype portion.

Nobody is equating Iran having a bomb and actually using it except people, like yourself, who want to distort the views of those they disagree with in order to dismiss and castigate them as "fear-mongerers/war-mongerers/propganda-spreaders".

If Iran has a bomb is there a chance they could use it - sure. But that is hardly the real worry here. The essential problem is that most of the Western world disagrees with Iran on many, many issues. These issues range from international and regional conflicts (i.e. Iraq and Palestine) to historical disagreements (Holocaust) to domestic and cultural issues (ruling by religous edict/treatment of women/homosexuals/banning western music, etc.)

Furthermore, Iran is not an isolationist nation. They have created an maintained a proxy army called Hezbollah which has been active in undermining and controling the governments in Syria and Lebanon for over a decade, not to mention attacking Israel with terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is of the Al Quada stripe (we hide behind inocent women and children to kill inocent women and children). So Iran is trying to spread and encourage their brand of government/religion to other parts of the Middle East.

Any reasonable person can understand that if Iran obtains a bomb, then nearly all leverage will be lost to negotiate and find mutual solutions to these problems. Does it make sense that Iran is trying to get a bomb - you're damn right it makes sense for them. Does that make it legitimate, hell no! I don't know where you people get that from...

As JLEW pointed out. If Iran truly wanted peaceful nuclear energy, then no other nation would have a solid argument against it. It is the fact that Iran is being militant in attitude, defiant in the face of international pressure and refusing to be completely honest and forthright with their program that draws the ire of other nations.

So the problem is that if Iran has a bomb, other nations will lose their ability to influence that country. The Mullahs pretty much know their day is comng. The world is liberalizing, even their own citizens do not like their present government. And so they are buyinh their regime life insurance with a bomb.

Can you please understand this and stop trying to dismiss those that oppose a nuclear Iran as "fear-mongers or sheep or propaganda spreaders" becuase they think Iran is going to nuke everyone???

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

well ... i don't think its as simple as that ... if i had a garage and you wanted one but had to jump thru so many more hoops then me ... i'm guessing you aren't gonna be too happy ...

whether it be the 3 or 8 years ... nobody at the IEAE seems to concerned right now ...

mammasan wrote:

But I am not basing my opinion on what the US government is saying but on what the IEAE is saying.

It doesn't matter all that much. the IAEA is a third party, and an essential part of the process. They will give their report, then all the media stories will fly, and everyone will watch and read. If Iran says behind closed doors "hey guys guess what? I'm going to pull back on co-operating a little bit. Watch for all the hate articles that parade through the media saying I'm going to blow up the middle east now."

You never know, very possible it is politics.

I'd like to know more particulars of what the IAEA is saying.

NCfan wrote:

Nobody is equating Iran having a bomb and actually using it except people, like yourself, who want to distort the views of those they disagree with in order to dismiss and castigate them as "fear-mongerers/war-mongerers/propganda-spreaders".

If Iran has a bomb is there a chance they could use it - sure. But that is hardly the real worry here. The essential problem is that most of the Western world disagrees with Iran on many, many issues. These issues range from international and regional conflicts (i.e. Iraq and Palestine) to historical disagreements (Holocaust) to domestic and cultural issues (ruling by religous edict/treatment of women/homosexuals/banning western music, etc.)

Furthermore, Iran is not an isolationist nation. They have created an maintained a proxy army called Hezbollah which has been active in undermining and controling the governments in Syria and Lebanon for over a decade, not to mention attacking Israel with terrorist attacks. Hezbollah is of the Al Quada stripe (we hide behind inocent women and children to kill inocent women and children). So Iran is trying to spread and encourage their brand of government/religion to other parts of the Middle East.

Any reasonable person can understand that if Iran obtains a bomb, then nearly all leverage will be lost to negotiate and find mutual solutions to these problems. Does it make sense that Iran is trying to get a bomb - you're damn right it makes sense for them. Does that make it legitimate, hell no! I don't know where you people get that from...

As JLEW pointed out. If Iran truly wanted peaceful nuclear energy, then no other nation would have a solid argument against it. It is the fact that Iran is being militant in attitude, defiant in the face of international pressure and refusing to be completely honest and forthright with their program that draws the ire of other nations.

So the problem is that if Iran has a bomb, other nations will lose their ability to influence that country. The Mullahs pretty much know their day is comng. The world is liberalizing, even their own citizens do not like their present government. And so they are buyinh their regime life insurance with a bomb.

Can you please understand this and stop trying to dismiss those that oppose a nuclear Iran as "fear-mongers or sheep or propaganda spreaders" becuase they think Iran is going to nuke everyone???

So what you're saying is the US should retain control over Iran by preventing this?

Iran is not only oppressing and holding its own citizens back, it is holding the entire region back. They rule according to religious guidelines and force those rules on everyone. As history has shown for the last 2,000 years - this is just backwards and never works.

The only reason Iran is able to do this is because of oil wealth. That's it! That is the only source of stable income the country has.

Instead of tapping into the resources of their citizens to create a more robust and diverse economy, they simply tap a new oil well.

Instead of facing the realities of international pressure towards their form of rule, they insultate themselves by signing huge oil contracts with the likes of Russia and China to make sure they are immune from UN resolutions and military attack.

Iran does not want to face the music, literally. Listening to the Beatles over there is against the law. Obtaining a bomb will only prolong the oppression and the problems that are plaqing the Middle East.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It doesn't matter all that much. the IAEA is a third party, and an essential part of the process. They will give their report, then all the media stories will fly, and everyone will watch and read. If Iran says behind closed doors "hey guys guess what? I'm going to pull back on co-operating a little bit. Watch for all the hate articles that parade through the media saying I'm going to blow up the middle east now."

You never know, very possible it is politics.

I'd like to know more particulars of what the IAEA is saying.

A third party with no alligiance to the US. There report will be un-baised as the IEAE has butted head with the US before and does not bow to our whims. If the IEAE reports states that there are concerns over the nuclear program you can bet that it's not simple war or fear mongering.

mammasan wrote:

A third party with no alligiance to the US. There report will be un-baised as the IEAE has butted head with the US before and does not bow to our whims. If the IEAE reports states that there are concerns over the nuclear program you can bet that it's not simple war or fear mongering.

Right and that's the benefit of a unbiased third party. If Iran says to his newfound allies "hey watch this" and the western media quickly jumps gun and obliges with a string of Iran is going to build a bomb and start bombing people, the alliance would be strengthened.

It all pretty much depends on the climate of US reputation what is to come for Iran. It's a popularity contest (Iran's oil reserves don't hurt either...as money talks)

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Right and that's the benefit of a unbiased third party. If Iran says to his newfound allies "hey watch this" and the western media quickly jumps gun and obliges with a string of Iran is going to build a bomb and start bombing people, the alliance would be strengthened.

It all pretty much depends on the climate of US reputation what is to come for Iran. It's a popularity contest (Iran's oil reserves don't hurt either...as money talks)

Well as far as Iran's allies, even Russia has stated that they are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe China did as well, but I'm not sure. So it's not just the US and our allies who are against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

NCfan wrote:

No, I'm not surprised, actually. These are not my own words, but I agree with them.

"The Chinese, have only one foreign policy, given its own autocratic nature: to the degree any government sells us oil or minerals, we support it. The Russians have one foreign policy: to the degree, any government incites international chaos, raising the price of oil or causing the U.S. a headache, we support it."

The Chinese and Russians aren't worried about an Islamic bomb, becuase more than likely it would not be used against them. China and Russia, unlike the US could care less about the condition of human rights in countries like Iran. They see radical Islam as a problem for the West, not the East.

I think the US should figure out how not to make retaliation from Islam a problem in the future (if that's at all possible). I think it's still salvageable. Maybe that's not the plan. Iran did undergo 8 years of suffering, and it really wasn't that long ago from a bad memories, and sentiment perspective. This new threat to Iran was also not such a great idea. This taking it by force thing is only going to go so far, and Iran is holding the spigot on the oil that everyone wants. If I was the US, I would dump it all into alternate energy, divorce it (oil), and pray it pays out. The alternative seems to be balls all sand to glass.

jlew24asu wrote:

seriously, does everyone think its ok for Iran to have nukes?

Does everyone think its ok for the US to have nukes? After all it is the only country to have ever used them against anyone - TWICE.