The US REJECTS Israeli arms request

1246

Comments

  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    spyguy wrote:
    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
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    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!!!
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    _outlaw wrote:
    I never said that. try to pay attention.

    ;)

    the real problem is you like to excuse anything Israel does.

    yikes. I have posted here for 2 days. what excuses have I made for Israel?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    spyguy wrote:
    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
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Cosmo wrote:
    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
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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.
    ...
    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!!!
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    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?




    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,
  • spiral out
    spiral out Posts: 1,052
    spyguy wrote:
    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.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    spiral out wrote:
    Lol

    whats so funny?
  • spiral out
    spiral out Posts: 1,052
    spyguy wrote:
    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. ;)
    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.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    spiral out wrote:
    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. ;)

    tell me where I was wrong.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    http://www.china.org.cn/international/news/2008-02/23/content_10512537.htm

    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.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    _outlaw wrote:
    http://www.china.org.cn/international/news/2008-02/23/content_10512537.htm


    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.


    _outlaw wrote:
    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.



    this report is from last year. the one I posted was from a few weeks ago. things have changed.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    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.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    article you posted was from august 07
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    spyguy wrote:
    article you posted was from august 07
    that's your response? The first article was from feb 08.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    _outlaw wrote:
    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

Categories