US fears Israeli strike against Iran over latest nuclear claim

NCfan · November 2007

mammasan wrote:

I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon either but there is no proof that their program is designed for weaponization. All the existing evidence points to the contrary, that their program is for energy purposes ONLY. So all this saber rattling and sanction by the US are acts of agression by our government simply because Iran is not listening to us. They are cooperating with the IAEA and as long as the IEAE reports that Iran nuclear program is within guidelines we should stop fucking with them.

I disagree. Whether or not their nuclear program is designed for weapons is irrelevant.

What matters is that a government that oppresses it's people, curbs a free press, an independent judicial system and whose overall bureaucracy is subject to the tenets of a religion is enough to oppose a nuclear program. No theocracy should be allowed to have a nuclear program. (Israel is not a theocracy). A government that bans its citizens from listening to the Beatles should not be allowed to have a nuclear program... I'm sorry. That just doesn’t compute.

The reasons I pointed out above alone, are enough to perceive an Iranian nuclear program as a threat. But there is more. I haven't even mentioned the arms race it would set off in the Middle East. Or the fact that Hezbollah is practically an extra appendage of the Iranian state. Or the fact that having a bomb, or the means to develop one on short notice would be life insurance to help preserve a corrupt Iranian government.

fuck · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

I disagree. Whether or not their nuclear program is designed for weapons is irrelevant.

Now you're just going against everything the IAEA, NPT, etc stand for. The rest of your arguement should be void.

What matters is that a government that oppresses it's people, curbs a free press, an independent judicial system and whose overall bureaucracy is subject to the tenets of a religion is enough to oppose a nuclear program.

I thought this was about Iran? Why are you talking about the US now?

No theocracy should be allowed to have a nuclear program. (Israel is not a theocracy). A government that bans its citizens from listening to the Beatles should not be allowed to have a nuclear program... I'm sorry. That just doesn’t compute.

And a government that occupies other people, kills innocents and has done so for over 60 years, starts wars, etc... yeah they can have a nuclear program/weapons. Because you know... war and terror and occupation by the israelis is something, but not being able to listen to the beatles.... the iranians dont deserve ANYTHING!

The reasons I pointed out above alone, are enough to perceive an Iranian nuclear program as a threat. But there is more. I haven't even mentioned the arms race it would set off in the Middle East. Or the fact that Hezbollah is practically an extra appendage of the Iranian state. Or the fact that having a bomb, or the means to develop one on short notice would be life insurance to help preserve a corrupt Iranian government.

see, now you're talking about a bomb. but before you said

NCfan wrote:

I disagree. Whether or not their nuclear program is designed for weapons is irrelevant.

so what ARE you even talking about

mammasan · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

I disagree. Whether or not their nuclear program is designed for weapons is irrelevant.

What matters is that a government that oppresses it's people, curbs a free press, an independent judicial system and whose overall bureaucracy is subject to the tenets of a religion is enough to oppose a nuclear program. No theocracy should be allowed to have a nuclear program. (Israel is not a theocracy). A government that bans its citizens from listening to the Beatles should not be allowed to have a nuclear program... I'm sorry. That just doesn’t compute.

The reasons I pointed out above alone, are enough to perceive an Iranian nuclear program as a threat. But there is more. I haven't even mentioned the arms race it would set off in the Middle East. Or the fact that Hezbollah is practically an extra appendage of the Iranian state. Or the fact that having a bomb, or the means to develop one on short notice would be life insurance to help preserve a corrupt Iranian government.

None of the reason's you mentioned, in your first paragraph, are good reasons to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear power for civilian use. By believing what you do you are no different than the mullahs who impose their will on the people.

As long as a nation is abiding by the rules and guidelines of the IEAE I have see no reason to prevent them from developing a nuclear program for energy purposes. Further more it would take a hell of a lot more than moments notice for a country to weaponize their program, at which point apporpriate action can be taken.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would even suggest that we deny a country the ability to provide power for it's people simply based on their form of government. Who are we to decide which form of government should run which country. Instaed of constantly sticking our noses in other people's business we should take a hard long look in the mirror and fix the cluster-fuck we have in our own yard.

Intothewild · November 2007

mammasan wrote:

I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon either but there is no proof that their program is designed for weaponization. All the existing evidence points to the contrary, that their program is for energy purposes ONLY. So all this saber rattling and sanction by the US are acts of agression by our government simply because Iran is not listening to us. They are cooperating with the IAEA and as long as the IEAE reports that Iran nuclear program is within guidelines we should stop fucking with them.

Um.....there's no proof because Iran has closed it's doors to inspectors. And they are not cooperating with the IAEA. If there is nothing to hide, open your doors.

Intothewild · November 2007

spiral out wrote:

What are you talking about?

They were given the land by the british after WWII, the land grab started after that.

Im not going to bother with another history lesson.

Intothewild · November 2007

mammasan wrote:

None of the reason's you mentioned, in your first paragraph, are good reasons to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear power for civilian use. By believing what you do you are no different than the mullahs who impose their will on the people.

As long as a nation is abiding by the rules and guidelines of the IEAE I have see no reason to prevent them from developing a nuclear program for energy purposes. Further more it would take a hell of a lot more than moments notice for a country to weaponize their program, at which point apporpriate action can be taken.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would even suggest that we deny a country the ability to provide power for it's people simply based on their form of government. Who are we to decide which form of government should run which country. Instaed of constantly sticking our noses in other people's business we should take a hard long look in the mirror and fix the cluster-fuck we have in our own yard.

and exactly WHY does one of the world's richest oil producers need nuclear energy? if they had no energy reserves, like say France, or Israel I might understand.

fuck · November 2007

Intothewild wrote:

Um.....there's no proof because Iran has closed it's doors to inspectors. And they are not cooperating with the IAEA. If there is nothing to hide, open your doors.

uh you are disgustingly incorrect.

do some research and educate yourself. Iran HAS been cooperating with the IAEA and "opened their doors" more than ANY country EVER has. While a country like, say, Israel has NEVER allowed any inspections, NEVER opened its doors, and NEVER even signed a damn treaty.

Intothewild wrote:

Im not going to bother with another history lesson.

maybe you should because you obviously didnt pay attention in school. or read any credible information.

Intothewild wrote:

and exactly WHY does one of the world's richest oil producers need nuclear energy? if they had no energy reserves, like say France, or Israel I might understand.

uh, oil IS going to run out sometime soon, and people are going to want iran to SHARE their oil. you act as though they have all this oil for themselves. everyone needs to have an alternate source of energy. not just countries like france and israel.

wasting my time arguing with a charlatan like yourself is pretty annoying.

NCfan · November 2007

mammasan wrote:

None of the reason's you mentioned, in your first paragraph, are good reasons to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear power for civilian use. By believing what you do you are no different than the mullahs who impose their will on the people.

As long as a nation is abiding by the rules and guidelines of the IEAE I have see no reason to prevent them from developing a nuclear program for energy purposes. Further more it would take a hell of a lot more than moments notice for a country to weaponize their program, at which point apporpriate action can be taken.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would even suggest that we deny a country the ability to provide power for it's people simply based on their form of government. Who are we to decide which form of government should run which country. Instaed of constantly sticking our noses in other people's business we should take a hard long look in the mirror and fix the cluster-fuck we have in our own yard.

The problem is that having the capacity to produce nuclear fuel, means that at the very least Iran could pass that fuel to a terrorist organization for a "dirty bomb". It also means that Iran is much, much more capable of producing a bomb in secret. No it wouldn't happen at a moments notice, but it could happen in a matter of months. That is too short! It's almost as good as having one, really. And furthermore, not being quite sure if Iran has a bomb or not is also nearly as good as them actually having one.

I love the "who are we to judge" attitude. It makes absolutely no sense when world leaders hang their homosexual citizens, or beat their women for not wearing a head scarf in public. Basically ruling by religious edit and not allowing free, open elections. Yea, who are we to say that's wrong... I wonder how you can sleep at night with kind of attitude.

Although you refer to our government as a "cluster-fuck" it's prettyfar from it.

mammasan · November 2007

Intothewild wrote:

and exactly WHY does one of the world's richest oil producers need nuclear energy? if they had no energy reserves, like say France, or Israel I might understand.

First of Iran is in discussion with the IEAE and a report is due out next month on Iran's nuclear program. Second with peak oil having been reached or soon to come I think it is extremely responsible, and good business sense, for a oil production nation to start converting to nuclear energy in order to extend their reserve allowing more of it to be sold to foreign nations.

NCfan · November 2007

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

uh you are disgustingly incorrect.

do some research and educate yourself. Iran HAS been cooperating with the IAEA and "opened their doors" more than ANY country EVER has. While a country like, say, Israel has NEVER allowed any inspections, NEVER opened its doors, and NEVER even signed a damn treaty.

maybe you should because you obviously didnt pay attention in school. or read any credible information.

uh, oil IS going to run out sometime soon, and people are going to want iran to SHARE their oil. you act as though they have all this oil for themselves. everyone needs to have an alternate source of energy. not just countries like france and israel.

wasting my time arguing with a charlatan like yourself is pretty annoying.

Just a quick google search... I know what the IAEA has reported recently about Iran not having a covert program. But they have not been too cooperative with IAEA, and they have all but given the UN the finger with regards to suspending their Uranium enrichment... Why do you act as if we don't know what we're talking about or didn't pay attention in school or whatever.... it's all black and white

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-11/15/content_733403.htm

NCfan · November 2007

mammasan wrote:

First of Iran is in discussion with the IEAE and a report is due out next month on Iran's nuclear program. Second with peak oil having been reached or soon to come I think it is extremely responsible, and good business sense, for a oil production nation to start converting to nuclear energy in order to extend their reserve allowing more of it to be sold to foreign nations.

You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.

If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.

Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2007

The propaganda is two layers deep. First they are hell bent on making nukes, and second they want to start firing them at everyone.

Perhaps to the first one and wrong to the second one.

It a lot more about this schoolyard in;t big enough for the both of us and we don't want to have to listen to you as viable race of people...shut up and give us your goods.

The US rewards counties for getting nukes, they also deal with them in a more civil manner. Foreign policy 101.

Intothewild · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.

If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.

Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?

Um........because then they wouldn't be able to build their nukes...which everyone here seems to think would neeeever happen being that their government is so peace loving.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · November 2007

Intothewild wrote:

Um........because then they wouldn't be able to build their nukes...which everyone here seems to think would neeeever happen being that their government is so peace loving.

Holy hypocrisy...

Barf up some of that propaganda...you're poisoned...

mammasan · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

The problem is that having the capacity to produce nuclear fuel, means that at the very least Iran could pass that fuel to a terrorist organization for a "dirty bomb". It also means that Iran is much, much more capable of producing a bomb in secret. No it wouldn't happen at a moments notice, but it could happen in a matter of months. That is too short! It's almost as good as having one, really. And furthermore, not being quite sure if Iran has a bomb or not is also nearly as good as them actually having one.

I love the "who are we to judge" attitude. It makes absolutely no sense when world leaders hang their homosexual citizens, or beat their women for not wearing a head scarf in public. Basically ruling by religious edit and not allowing free, open elections. Yea, who are we to say that's wrong... I wonder how you can sleep at night with kind of attitude.

Although you refer to our government as a "cluster-fuck" it's prettyfar from it.

I sleep very well at night, except for when my sleep apnea acts up. You are so quick to criticize Iran's treatment of their citizens but you seem to be at peace our association with Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, etc. These countries are just as bad if not worse that Iran as far as human rights abuse.

Also to clarify I do not equate civilian nuclear power to militarized nuclear power as you do. I tend to see a difference between the two. Iran would never use a nuclear weapon nor allow Hezbollah or Hamas to do so for the same reason the Soviet Union and the US never used them on each other. Mutual destruction. Ahmedenajad is an idiot but he is not that stupid. The Ayatollah, the true ruler of Iran, would never allow for that to happen. So all this fear mongering is simply just that. A way to drum up support for our continued presense in the region.

We would be better off engaging Iran instead of isolating them, but then again we don't want to work with them we want to over throw their government and install one who is open to US intervention instead of Russian or Chinese. How quickly we forgot how well that worked out the first time we did that.

mammasan · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.

If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.

Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?

Well maybe if we stopped threatening to invade them, we also have this nasty habit of overthrowing governments to install our own puppet Shah ring a bell, there wouldn't be a need to develope a weapons as a deterent. Secondly Iran has the right to build it's own reactors and enrich it's own uranium, for civilian purposes, as stated in the NPT. Why should they do otherwise. Just because we want it that way does not make it law. We have to start understanding that not every country on this planet is going to do things our way or to our approval. Unless they start developing a nuclear weapon, which they haven't as of the last IEAE report in August 2007, they are free to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes as stated by international law no matter how much we bitch about it.

NCfan · November 2007

mammasan wrote:

I sleep very well at night, except for when my sleep apnea acts up. You are so quick to criticize Iran's treatment of their citizens but you seem to be at peace our association with Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, etc. These countries are just as bad if not worse that Iran as far as human rights abuse.

Also to clarify I do not equate civilian nuclear power to militarized nuclear power as you do. I tend to see a difference between the two. Iran would never use a nuclear weapon nor allow Hezbollah or Hamas to do so for the same reason the Soviet Union and the US never used them on each other. Mutual destruction. Ahmedenajad is an idiot but he is not that stupid. The Ayatollah, the true ruler of Iran, would never allow for that to happen. So all this fear mongering is simply just that. A way to drum up support for our continued presense in the region.

We would be better off engaging Iran instead of isolating them, but then again we don't want to work with them we want to over throw their government and install one who is open to US intervention instead of Russian or Chinese. How quickly we forgot how well that worked out the first time we did that.

You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.

I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.

Intothewild · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.

I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.

Dont confuse em with the facts

polaris · November 2007

the powers that be will NEVER let Iran have a nuclear weapon/bomb or whatever ... air strikes would be coming so fast it wouldn't be funny ...

all this BS is about building the case for war by which the apathetic people of the world will simply just ignore ... it is about whether or not this administration can boost military spending to astronomical levels before they lose control ... but at the very least - they can continue to fuck around in the middle east where they really have no business being ... keep it politically unstable ...

the worst thing that could happen to the US is a peaceful middle east ...

mammasan · November 2007

NCfan wrote:

You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.

I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.

I understand that Iran having a nuclear weapon is a tremendous threat to security and stability in the Middle east and trust me I don't want that as much as you do, but Iran has broken no laws. Under the NPT, which Iran signed, they are allowed to to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and as I stated, as of the last IAEA report in August, that is exactly what they have been doing. If when the final report is published in December and if it states that Iran has not met the IEAE demands for free inspections, then I will change my stance, but until then I stand firmly that Iran has done nothing wrong. As for the continuation of their program they have to agree to the IEAE guidelines if they don't then we pressure them to do so. As long as they abide by international law we have no right to tell them what to do regardless of their government and how much we may hate it.

As for our relationship with the other countries I mentioned, in the past I could see the need to associate with them, but as of today I don't understand why we still do, specially Saudi Arabia. We knew back in the 1970's during the oil shortages that our dependence on Saudi oil would be problematic but we did nothing. We continued to suck on the Saudi teet ignoring all the warning signs and now it's too late. The center of the Islamic militant world has always been Saudi Arabia, and now it includes Pakistan, and because of our relationship with the two our efforts have been hampered.

US fears Israeli strike against Iran over latest nuclear claim

Comments

Categories