Iran: Attack by Israel "impossible"

[RondoAllegro]

Iran has said it considers a military attack on its nuclear facilities by Israel as "impossible".

"Such audacity to embark on an assault against the... territorial integrity of our country is impossible," said spokesman Gholam Hoseyn Elham.

The statement follows reports in the US media that Israeli aerial manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean were a possible test-run for a strike on Iran.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

It has repeatedly rejected demands to halt enriching uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants or material for weapons if refined to a greater degree.

More... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7467164.stm)

I wonder what the Terrorist State of Israel™ is conspiring right now...

[Polkovnik]

this isn't good at all.
even if iran got a few nukes - so what? they would never use them. besides, the states have 10,000x more.

that doesn't matter though, it looks awfully bleak.

[GhostJang]

I don't like a lot of the shit Israel does either, but please stop with the "Terrorist State of Israel™" shit.

[halloo]

iran and peace don't exactly match.

i say nuke the fuckers and kill every single person living there.











































:confuzed:

[kingofallmedia]

as long as a get pulled out of college soon and forced to waste my life fighting in iran i will be satisfied

[shade]

iran and peace don't exactly match.

i say nuke the fuckers and kill every single person living there.
:confuzed:
What? What have they done?

Now before American Infadel & Fuggin start throwing accusations, let me re-iterate.

What have they DONE? Proveable things, not propaganda.

[ric]

What? What have they done?


Israel needs to do what it must to protect itself. Bullshit sanctions have a lousy wimpy track record and are more likely to inflict harm on Iran's guys and gals than on its regime. They also take a long time to implement or take 'fruit' to have any discernible effect. Israel/US know this.

The only remaining option is an airstrike.

Btw - Get your bicycle in working condition or start catching a bus to work...You'll need to do it, once gas hits 8, 9, $10 a gallon

[Jordan]

Israel needs to do what it must to protect itself. Bullshit sanctions have a lousy wimpy track record and are more likely to inflict harm on Iran's guys and gals than on its regime. They also take a long time to implement or take 'fruit' to have any discernible effect. Israel/US know this.

The only remaining option is an airstrike.

Btw - Get your bicycle in working condition or start catching a bus to work...You'll need to do it, once gas hits 8, 9, $10 a gallon

Sorry, you might have missed the question:

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

[Polkovnik]

exactly. nothing at all.
doesn't stop anyone, though.

[Face Plant]

I think air strikes are not going to happen from Israel. Israel had to defeat Iran's proxy Hezbollah in South Lebanon (2006) to pave the way for air strikes, that didn't happen. If Israel attacks Iran, Hezbollah starts unleashing thousands of rockets and missiles over the border

The IDF performed poorly in that war, they didn't even get a 5:1 kill ratio. A professional army should get at least a 10:1 kill ratio against a guerrilla militia, but even that does not guarantee you victory. The IDF may be the most over rated armed forces in the history of mankind

[dcam0326]

Iran has said it considers a military attack on its nuclear facilities by Israel as "impossible".

"Such audacity to embark on an assault against the... territorial integrity of our country is impossible," said spokesman Gholam Hoseyn Elham.

The statement follows reports in the US media that Israeli aerial manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean were a possible test-run for a strike on Iran.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

It has repeatedly rejected demands to halt enriching uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants or material for weapons if refined to a greater degree.

More... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7467164.stm)

I wonder what the Terrorist State of Israel™ is conspiring right now...

How could nuclear programs in any way be for peaceful reasons.

[MelL]

How could nuclear programs in any way be for peaceful reasons.

For producing electricity. Mmmm, power.

[Polkovnik]

How could nuclear programs in any way be for peaceful reasons.

seriously? and even if it isn't for nuclear power, we should not be bothered. what happened to the us policy of self determination?
i'm all for iran developing their own weapons, too. no one will ever use them, or they will be raped.
(in before "AMANDINAJAD IS A CRAZY GUY D00DE HE'LL USE 'EM FO' SHO'!!")

[halloo]

Sorry, you might have missed the question:

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

public hangings, president denies the holocaust and it's an islamic state.

:ohnoes:

[BlueQuarter]

seriously? and even if it isn't for nuclear power, we should not be bothered. what happened to the us policy of self determination?
i'm all for iran developing their own weapons, too. no one will ever use them, or they will be raped.
(in before "AMANDINAJAD IS A CRAZY GUY D00DE HE'LL USE 'EM FO' SHO'!!")

The sSates and other European countries offered to help Iran with their Nuclear power under strict UN rules and overview. Fuck, States would have paid for most of it.. but they kept denying their offers.

This was back in 05/06, I believe.
What are they hiding?

But on the other hands.. You cannot build a nuclear bomb in a closet. You need lots of space and room and every goddamn room and facility, supposedly, has been checked by the IAEI and they said everything was "clear".

[ROFLStomp]

Sorry, you might have missed the question:

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis

Of course Jimmy Cartah's beautiful "actions" to save those innocent people worked brilliantly. Only when a real man like Reagan stepped in did the Iranians actually let the hostages go. Lol, the day after Reagan becomes president the pussies let them free.

That, denying the holocaust, building nuclear weapons, to name a couple of things.

And for anyone saying Iran developing weapons is okay, First off, why would they need them? They have to be planning for something, and secondly, the day they can put a nuclear bomb in a briefcase is the day a terrorist ignites himself in the center of new york city.

[chrisvet]

iran and peace don't exactly match.

i say nuke the fuckers and kill every single person living there.
:confuzed:Sarcasm I trust, after a 300 year track record of peace.

How could nuclear programs in any way be for peaceful reasons.Cause when you got da nukes, nobody fucks wit you. Instant respect.

[Face Plant]

They have to be planning for something, and secondly, the day they can put a nuclear bomb in a briefcase is the day a terrorist ignites himself in the center of new york city.

Unlikely, nukes have signatures that can be traced back to the source. If an Iranian nuke were to go off in New York its provenance would be known, Iran would be obliterated

Suitcase nukes closer to fiction than reality
It seems highly unlikely that a country would knowingly cooperate with terrorists because the device would bear the chemical fingerprints of that government. "I don't think any nation is willing to participate in this type of activity," http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-11-10-suitcasenukes_N.htm

[Deamatix]

And for anyone saying Iran developing weapons is okay, First off, why would they need them? They have to be planning for something, and secondly, the day they can put a nuclear bomb in a briefcase is the day a terrorist ignites himself in the center of new york city.

Oh, I don't know, could have something to do with the world's strongest military standing at both the front and back doors, being commanded by a warmonger who can direct war simply by slapping the "Terrorist" sticker on the target (which Iran has been handed that sticker), saying the exact same things about Iran that were said about Iraq prior to invasion, not to mention having one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

But that's just a guess.

Also nobody would dare detonate a nuke in the United States, because the day that happens is the day their country disappears.

[BlueQuarter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis

Of course Jimmy Cartah's beautiful "actions" to save those innocent people worked brilliantly. Only when a real man like Reagan stepped in did the Iranians actually let the hostages go. Lol, the day after Reagan becomes president the pussies let them free.

That, denying the holocaust, building nuclear weapons, to name a couple of things.

And for anyone saying Iran developing weapons is okay, First off, why would they need them? They have to be planning for something, and secondly, the day they can put a nuclear bomb in a briefcase is the day a terrorist ignites himself in the center of new york city.

Didn't Deny the Holocaust never happened.. They believe it wasn't 7 million people killed. Building weapons is just speculation. How does one put a nuclear bomb in a briefcase? The US cannot even do this.. and also, how does one from the middle-east get a suitcase bomb over here?

[RondoAllegro]

The US cannot even do this
You think that the country that developed nukes, the only country that has ever inherently used a nuke...can't do this?

What makes you think so?

Read it and weep:
Thus far, only the United States and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation are known to have possessed nuclear weapons programs developed and funded well enough to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons. Both the United States and the Soviet Union have acknowledged producing nuclear weapons small enough to be carried in specially-designed backpacks during the Cold War, but neither have ever made public the existence or development of weapons small enough to fit into a normal-sized suitcase or briefcase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb

how does one from the middle-east get a suitcase bomb over here?
Russia.

[Papero]

Btw - Get your bicycle in working condition or start catching a bus to work...You'll need to do it, once gas hits 8, 9, $10 a gallon

Most people won't have jobs when gas is $8,$9 and $10/gallon.

[RondoAllegro]

Nonsense. We'll turn lazy socialism...jobs? Who needs a stinkin' job!

[BlueQuarter]

You think that the country that developed nukes, the only country that has ever inherently used a nuke...can't do this?

What makes you think so?

Read it and weep:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb


Russia.


US probably Could, but never would... Why??

Russia? You mean by launching a long range missile with a warhead on it?

That would only sink them deeper into a shit hole.

[RondoAllegro]

No, the geographic location of Iran and Russia, as well as political ties and shit make it more likely that Iranians will obtain weapons from Russia (which they have, they have arms deals).

[American Infidel]

What? What have they done?

Now before American Infadel & Fuggin start throwing accusations, let me re-iterate.

What have they DONE? Proveable things, not propaganda.

To begin with, it's spelled, "Infidel".

Iran is the prime monetary and arms sponsor of the Hezbolla terrorists. Or did that slip your mind, when you posted? And why hasn't anybody else pointed out this obvious fact?

Also nobody would dare detonate a nuke in the United States, because the day that happens is the day their country disappears.

That's what so many people would expect. The reality is that the President would be pressured into not retaliating with nukes, from environmentalists, driving for a "lesser" detrimental retaliation to the environment, involving airstrikes and an infantry assault...or, more likely, no reaction, at all.

That is, if there's anyone left in America to respond. Thank you liberals -- Obama, especially -- for fighting against weaponizing orbital reactive platforms and defensive anti-missile technology, dropping behind China's continually unregulated progress... All of this, in the future, of course.

Unlikely, nukes have signatures that can be traced back to the source. If an Iranian nuke were to go off in New York its provenance would be known, Iran would be obliterated

Shari'a doesn't recognize mass-suicide as a detriment, so long as they kill their enemies in the process. They are convinced that each and every one of them will receive 72 virgins in heaven, after killing us infidels. Why would they care that a "fingerprint" is left behind, after two hundred thousand people are killed in New York, from a coordinated "dirty bomb" attack? They know we won't use nuclear weapons.

The Israeli's, though...

[Polkovnik]

US probably Could, but never would... Why??

Russia? You mean by launching a long range missile with a warhead on it?

That would only sink them deeper into a shit hole.

If the russians wanted to, the federal government could easily have a guy with a suitcase bomb get on an outgoing passenger plane into the states. or something like that.

i just noticed you're from calgary. where in Calgary do you live so i can come and rape you?

[MelL]

That's what so many people would expect. The reality is that the President would be pressured into not retaliating with nukes, from environmentalists, driving for a "lesser" detrimental retaliation to the environment, involving airstrikes and an infantry assault...or, more likely, no reaction, at all.


If the reaction to the attacks on September 11 are any indication, I would say your conclusion is baseless. We lost two buildings and had another damaged and we ended up retaliating with a ground invasion. That is an escalation, would you not agree? So trading a nuke for a nuke would not really be out of the realm of believability, especially when one also factors in the need to maintain the credibility of our nuclear force as a deterrent to powers like China and Russia.

[Face Plant]

Shari'a doesn't recognize mass-suicide as a detriment, so long as they kill their enemies in the process. They are convinced that each and every one of them will receive 72 virgins in heaven, after killing us infidels. Why would they care that a "fingerprint" is left behind, after two hundred thousand people are killed in New York, from a coordinated "dirty bomb" attack? They know we won't use nuclear weapons.

The Israeli's, though...

WTF do you mean "They know we won't use nuclear weapons". If a nuke can be traced back to its source the US would almost certainly retaliate, no question

As for not caring that a fingerprint will be left behind, thats ridiculous. Martyrdom is for the few, not an entire civilization. Self preservation is fundamental to the human condition and trumps any religious dogma

[Danimal87]

Conflicts between Israel and its enemies are none of our business. We have nothing to gain and a lot to lose when we get involved in war's that are none of our concern.

[Dayve]

Iran hasn't done anything worth invading them for. If we compare America, Iran and Israel, Iran has behaved astonishingly well compared to the USA and USrael.

When the USA does invade Iran, i hope they fucking obliterate Israel before falling. Any sympathy i had for Israel's situation left me when i learned of all the crimes they have been committing for the last 5 decades.

[RondoAllegro]

Where's csite when you need him...

[Deamatix]

That's what so many people would expect. The reality is that the President would be pressured into not retaliating with nukes, from environmentalists, driving for a "lesser" detrimental retaliation to the environment, involving airstrikes and an infantry assault...or, more likely, no reaction, at all.

That is, if there's anyone left in America to respond. Thank you liberals -- Obama, especially -- for fighting against weaponizing orbital reactive platforms and defensive anti-missile technology, dropping behind China's continually unregulated progress... All of this, in the future, of course.

I know that's not what you honestly believe. You're just taking every little stab at "Teh evil liberals" as you can. You know damn well the moment a nuclear bomb goes off in the U.S, or anywhere in the world for that matter, all other issues get cast aside, and the American people are going to be bloodthirsty, and demanding immediate revenge.

[Dayve]

There won't be time to demand revenge. If any muslim nation let a single nuke off they would be destroyed in the blink of an eye by the entire west. Iran knows this, and that's why they won't use it.

The real reason the US and Israel don't want Iran to have nuclear power is because the US and Israel are the dominant powers in the most important region of the world, and between them they use their power and intimidation to their own advantage. If Iran became a major power in the region the US and Israel might have to stop bullying lesser countries into bending over and taking it up the ass.

I'm in support of Iran having nuclear weapons. It's basic military... A hostile nation has 100,000 troops and a large navy parked in your neighbouring country and are being very hostile to you, you gear up for war. We all know the US and Israel want to attack Iran and Iran knows it too. They want the ability to defend themselves incase it happens, and rightfully so.

Israel was allowed to acquire nukes to defend itself after all that shit in the 50's, 60's and 70's, Iran should be allowed to do the same.

[RondoAllegro]

The fact that Amrikkka has used nukes to purposely kill civilians makes it the only Terrorist State to day...

[ric]

Sorry, you might have missed the question:

WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

Don't fuck with the Jews.. Plain and simple

Mining the harbors at Bandar Abbas and Bushehr is also on the table

[Jordan]

That, denying the holocaust, building nuclear weapons, to name a couple of things.

And for anyone saying Iran developing weapons is okay, First off, why would they need them? They have to be planning for something, and secondly, the day they can put a nuclear bomb in a briefcase is the day a terrorist ignites himself in the center of new york city.

Denying the holocaust? You've lost all credibility right there for not being able to do the research and coming to conclusions not fed to you by the MSM.

Enough of you, be gone. Child.

[_Joe]

Why don't we simply oversee their nuclear program to ensure none of their uranium goes to making nukes.... or snukes for Hillary's snizz?

[ric]

You've lost all credibility right there for not being able to do the research and coming to conclusions not fed to you by the MSM.


Israel is the only economically viable nation in the middle east. They have no oil, yet the standard of living is better than anyone else close to them. If that isnt an indicator of fundamental problems in the Arab culture, I can't imagine what is.

[kevinsmith]

Israel is the only economically viable nation in the middle east. They have no oil, yet the standard of living is better than anyone else close to them. If that isnt an indicator of fundamental problems in the Arab culture, I can't imagine what is.

RACIST!
;)


I wonder what the reaction of those who are fine with Iran building nukes would be if American decided to build more. Really, we haven't built more nukes, instead decreasing our stockpile over the years. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong. But less nukes in the world to me sounds like a good idea.

[Jordan]

Israel is the only economically viable nation in the middle east. They have no oil, yet the standard of living is better than anyone else close to them. If that isnt an indicator of fundamental problems in the Arab culture, I can't imagine what is.

I'm not sure exactly what this was a counter to, what are you trying to suggest with that statement?

America has a better standard of living than Mexico and I'm assuming Canada, what does that mean then?

And if you seriously think Israel is the only economically viable nation in the middle east, I suggest you do some more research.

Edit: To kevin, the thing that most people here, and who watch FOX news don't seem to realize is that this isn't about nukes. This is about nuclear technology, plain and simple. The US and Israel have been the ones throwing around the notion that Iran might develop nukes, wonder why eh?

We have yet to see viable evidence to support to the argument that Iran is building nukes, and if speculation is all the supporting evidence we have against them, then I say shut the fuck up(not to you kevin).

It's time people stopped saying, "well they COULD make nukes", and instead started asking, "Well...what evidence is there to support that?".

[RondoAllegro]

India, Pakistan, Israel, China, Russia all have nukes. Yet, they're all around Iran.

And with 150,000 troops in Iraq to the west, 20,000 in Afghanistan to the east...yeah, of course they feel threatened because they know they're next!

[ric]

I'm not sure exactly what this was a counter to, what are you trying to suggest with that statement?


1) The Jews already got screwed by the Nazis. It would be foolish for them to wait for Iran to do it to them.

2) Israel always seems to back up what it says and...

3) Iran is Iraq's most serious threat to stability

Iran is going down, dude

[Deamatix]

Hell yeah Iran is going down, dude! So get ready to take them down, every able-bodied American male citizen between 18 and 26!!!

[Liberator13]

Suitcase nukes closer to fiction than reality

Bullshit. We (US) have what the military calls "rucksack nukes". Can you guess what they fit in?

[ric]

Hell yeah Iran is going down, dude! So get ready to take them down, every able-bodied American male citizen between 18 and 26!!!

One of Israel's strong points is their desire and dedication to protect themselves from annihilation at all costs and they will not ask permission to do so, BUT will notify the US of their intentions and we will SUPPORT them behind closed doors...That's something that you and others have to deal with :)

Now, just picture a scenario where the US radar picks up the Israeli flight and says squat. IRAQI radar does not (how convenient) WE didn't give Israel permission to overfly Iraq, we just tell the Iraqis that they were doing so.

The Iraqi government is then free to get a little pissed at the violation of their national airspace (big fucking deal). The Jews apologize, and everyone gets to enjoy the column of smoke rising from Iran

Big ass power play in action. Clever and action packed

End of story.

[Liberator13]

Suitcase nukes closer to fiction than reality

Follow up.


Excerpts taken from Roughneck Nine-One, by Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori, US Army (Retired), and Hans Halberstadt.

So I went and talked to a recruiter and told him I wanted an MOS (military occupational specialty) that had a lot of technical training that would be useful when I finally was able to go to Penn State and fulfill that dream of becoming an engineer. The recruiter went through all the job descriptions and came up with something that seemed to match: 55 Golf, Nuclear Weapons Specialist. It sounded perfect, and I signed the enlistment contract.

I finished and was assigned to Fort Bragg. My job was to support a Special Forces A-team that had an interesting mission. During the height of the Cold War, Special Forces possessed a small nuclear bomb that fit in a rucksack. It was called SADM, or Small Atomic Demolition Munition, and was also known as the "backpack nuke."

[chrisvet]

1) The Jews already got screwed by the Nazis. It would be foolish for them to wait for Iran to do it to them.

2) Israel always seems to back up what it says and...

3) Iran is Iraq's most serious threat to stability

Iran is going down, dude

I luv ya buddy, but you're jewish right? Bit biased against a country that hasn't waged war in 300 years?

Iran Nuking anybody is impossible unless they get nuked first. We're bullying them on Isreal's behalf, and nothing more.

India, Pakistan, Israel, China, Russia all have nukes. Yet, they're all around Iran.
Summary: Countries with Nukes generally don't get fucked with by the US, and visa versa.


And with 150,000 troops in Iraq to the west, 20,000 in Afghanistan to the east...yeah, of course they feel threatened because they know they're next!Of course they are scared shitless and know they're the next victim of the US via Isreali control. Iran is as harmless as a fly in pudding.
They want to be left alone to live in their own world free of bullshit from the rest of the world. Sounds like sovernty to me.

[Liberator13]

If you've been paying attention in recent threads, I've been one advocating against a war with Iran, and one that has kept saying that it isn't going to happen.

Now that that is out of the way.. how is it impossible for Iran to nuke someone first? I'm not trying to start a "holy shit Iran may have nukes" argument, I would just like to hear your reasoning, chris.

[chrisvet]

If you've been paying attention in recent threads, I've been one advocating against a war with Iran, and one that has kept saying that it isn't going to happen.

Now that that is out of the way.. how is it impossible for Iran to nuke someone first? I'm not trying to start a "holy shit Iran may have nukes" argument, I would just like to hear your reasoning, chris.

If Iran nukes someone first there is no more Iran. Its that simple bud.

Edit: Added to previous post for elaboration.

[ROFLStomp]

Denying the holocaust? You've lost all credibility right there for not being able to do the research and coming to conclusions not fed to you by the MSM.

Enough of you, be gone. Child.

How dare you insult me with the term child. Thanks alot for responding to my Iranian hostage crisis link and how I answered your question. And as for holocaust denial, I prefer to look at some of the leaders and their statements...

They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...(The West) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophets

Ahmadinejad


He also freaking held a conference to examine "the truth" of the holocaust, which was basically a gathering of holocaust deniers.


So, have you stalled enough time to conjure a respond to the Iranian hostage crisis?

[Liberator13]

If Iran nukes someone first there is no more Iran. Its that simple bud.

Ok, I was just wondering where you were going with that. And I agree with you.

[chrisvet]

Ok, I was just wondering where you were going with that. And I agree with you.

Really, someone here agrees with me? :lol: Seriously I hate what the US is doing.

[Liberator13]

I agree with the Iran would be destroyed part of what you said. I don't think I'd enjoy Iran having nuclear weapons. I have absolutely no problem with them having nuclear power plants, I think it is a large portion of the future of energy production.

[chrisvet]

I agree with the Iran would be destroyed part of what you said. I don't think I'd enjoy Iran having nuclear weapons. I have absolutely no problem with them having nuclear power plants, I think it is a large portion of the future of energy production.

I hate to say this, but I actually want Iran to get nukes so everybody would stop fucking with them. *covers head to avoid incoming* ;)

[MelL]

One of Israel's strong points is their desire and dedication to protect themselves from annihilation at all costs and they will not ask permission to do so, BUT will notify the US of their intentions and we will SUPPORT them behind closed doors...That's something that you and others have to deal with :)

Now, just picture a scenario where the US radar picks up the Israeli flight and says squat. IRAQI radar does not (how convenient) WE didn't give Israel permission to overfly Iraq, we just tell the Iraqis that they were doing so.

The Iraqi government is then free to get a little pissed at the violation of their national airspace (big fucking deal). The Jews apologize, and everyone gets to enjoy the column of smoke rising from Iran

Big ass power play in action. Clever and action packed

End of story.


"Clever" would be the last word I would use. Let's look at a handy-dandy map:

***Beware, this a PDF File***

Clicky here for a Map (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.pdf)

***Beware, this a PDF File***


As we can see, and as you mentioned, we have a number of interesting countries lying between Israel and Iran. A list of countries who we can see as being candidates for a flyover include Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and maybe even Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, though Kuwait looks like it could be avoided and we would certainly hope Israel would avoid Saudi Arabia.

But with the countries listed, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, who would be willing to open their airspace? Syria is an instant 'no' after the Israeli airstrike within their borders recently. Jordan? All is quiet there, it seems. Do we really want unrest to spread there if it truly is calm? Then we come to Iraq. Imagine, a new government seen as being unable to prevent Israel from invading their air space or, maybe worse, being seen as complicit in American and Israeli designs. Not a good way to make them look legitimate.

And of course we have our own position. Do we let them through to hit Iran? If we do, we are seen as inept if we decide to play blind or complicit in 'new aggressions against yet another Islamic state' if we said we saw them and stood aside. Either way, our guys and gals stand to be on the receiving end of what, no doubt, would be an excellent recruiting tool to extremists to revitalize their efforts.

And let's face it, with the size of Iran, I have to question the ability of Israel to project the amount of strength necessary to do more than do token damage to Iran using conventional weaponry. Maybe they have it, but 500+ miles from the border of Israel to Iran one-way is a long way to go over a lot of hostile natives.

Just my two cents. :)

[Liberator13]

I'm much more worried about possible programs in Syria, Pakistan, and N. Korea than I am about Iran, but it still is something I wouldn't be happy with.

[Spike Lee]

I'm amazed at the the Republican double standard of not helping out society with government programs but they are so quick to go ahead and put the national security of Israel over the poor in this country.

[chrisvet]

I'm much more worried about possible programs in Syria, Pakistan, and N. Korea than I am about Iran, but it still is something I wouldn't be happy with.

I hear you. After Iran is taken out, I think Syria is next. Time will tell.
I'm amazed at the the Republican double standard of not helping out society with government programs but they are so quick to go ahead and put the national security of Israel over the poor in this country.

I'm impressed Spike! You're absolutely bang on.
Moving on:
Gov't programs don't work, never have, you can't come up with 1 example that does. Pandoras box is open, Rumble time, prepare for defeat. :boink:

[Liberator13]

The Syria situation will be addressed Wednesday. I just started a thread about it in this section.

[Jordan]

Now that that is out of the way.. how is it impossible for Iran to nuke someone first? I'm not trying to start a "holy shit Iran may have nukes" argument, I would just like to hear your reasoning, chris.
Hope you don't mind me taking a crack at that question.

Speculation Liberator, at this point that's all the US gov't has against Iran.

I can ask "How is it impossible for US to nuke Canada?", The reality of it is what exactly would Iran have to gain for nuking another country? You look at the pros and cons of it, and one SEVERELY out-weighs the other, that's why I just don't think Iran would ever build, arm, and then nuke another country such as Israel.

[chrisvet]

Hope you don't mind me taking a crack at that question.

Speculation Liberator, at this point that's all the US gov't has against Iran.

I can ask "How is it impossible for US to nuke Canada?", The reality of it is what exactly would Iran have to gain for nuking another country? You look at the pros and cons of it, and one SEVERELY out-weighs the other, that's why I just don't think Iran would ever build, arm, and then nuke another country such as Israel.

I think Liberator agrees with you, and in this case me on this issue. Building nukes to actually use them means no more Iran. Self defeating on all levels, allah would damn them all to hell for destroying their own sacred civilization.

[Liberator13]

I know speculation is all they have, I was just floating a question out there hoping to learn something.

[chrisvet]

I know speculation is all they have, I was just floating a question out there hoping to learn something.

Quoted for truth. A shitload of my own posts involve questions that aren't loaded, but simply to learn Moar. :p

[Jordan]

I know speculation is all they have, I was just floating a question out there hoping to learn something.

Atleast people are not buying into what Bush says he THINKS Iran could do with nukes without any clear evidence.

Everytime I turn on a news channel there's always some headline that tries to connect Iran with terror or danger/threat, it's ridiculous.

I think people won't fall for this type of fear propoganda to get us to invade another country under false pretenses this time.

[Yuseke]

I have yet to figure out what the big ass deal about Israel is. I know that the religious right feels the need to protect their Christian counterparts from teh evil Muslims, but other than that, why are we willing to risk it all for Israel?

[ric]

Indeed a fascinating and horrifying scenario....Read on

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF05Ak02.html

Thus, if Israel decides to commence the war with a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear research and production facilities, shown in the report as lying in a northwest/southeast axis from Lashkar A'bad on the southwestern shores of the Caspian Sea to Gachin, just west of the Strait of Hormuz, it could do so without inflicting the massive casualties of a nuclear strike on Teheran.

Included in the report are satellite images of the Iranian nuclear facilities at Arak and Isfahan; to me, they look a lot like what an Israeli pilot in his F-16, or maybe an American pilot in his F-22, would tape to the canopy of his cockpit in order to provide a visual verification that he was bombing the right target.

The Iranians lack the ability to precision-target their weapons in the same manner in which the Israelis can, so the report postulates that the main targets for their nukes would be the core coastal Israeli metropolis, from Haifa in the north to Ashkelon just north of the border with Gaza. Haifa, the report notes, is surrounded by hills, which means that the destructive force of any nuclear device detonated over the city would bounce off the mountains and double back onto the city, greatly amplifying its damage. Tel Aviv is on a long, flat coastal plain, but it is a very densely populated city, with an estimated 7,445 of population per square kilometer.

Of course, if the war commenced not with the "limited" Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear production facilities (this attack would be classified as "counterforce" by the nuclear cognoscenti ), but with a full-blown "countervalue" Iranian strike against Israel's cities, it is doubtful that the Israelis would feel obligated to limit their retaliatory vengeance to just Iran's military targets.

From out of their hardened silos would fly the Israeli missiles and bombers, with their primary target being Tehran, along with Iran's other population centers. With over 7 million people just within the bounds of Tehran itself, 15 million in the surrounding metropolitan area, the city contains over 20% of Iran's population and is the center of the nation's communications, production, educational and cultural infrastructure.

Casualties from this exchange would be nightmarish, horrific, incalculable - except by Cordesman and his CSIS team.

The lower yield and less accurate Iranian volley, sparing Jerusalem due to its centrality to the Moslem faith, would inflict between 200,000 to 800,000 Israeli fatalities along the coastal plain in the first 21 days. These are called "prompt" casualties; it's who dies before people start dropping from longer-term radiation exposure. Any surviving residents of the central core of urban Tel Aviv would still be exposed to 300 REM (roentgen equivalent man) of radiation 96 hours after the blasts, as opposed to an exposure during an average dental X-ray of about .010 REM.
The more accurate and bigger Israeli nukes, the report speculates, would inflict a far greater toll on Iranian cities - in between 16 million and 28 million in just "prompt" fatalities. The report says that that an Israeli recovery from its damage would be "theoretically possible in population and economic terms", whereas an Iranian recovery would be "not possible in normal terms"; in essence, the Iranian nation will be destroyed.

Thus, what the report is saying is that one day next decade you might wake up with an Iran, after almost 6,000 years as a national entity and still there at sunrise, would be wiped off the map by sunset.

The rest of the report speculates on various other assorted scenarios for Mid-East Armageddon. Syria, generally assumed to be many years away from possessing a nuclear capacity, might, for some reason, decide to launch a CBW (chemical, biological weapon) missile strike on Israeli population centers.

Israeli dead under this scenario would once again be between 200,000 and 800,000. Recovery, however, would be quicker, since this type attack spares civilian buildings and infrastructure. Syria, with 80% of its population concentrated in just 11 cities, would suffer between 6 million and 18 million dead in a counterattack; the higher number would represent about 95% of its estimated 2007 population. Not since the Roman destruction of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War in 146 BC would one nation have made another suffer so dearly as punishment for losing a war.


I also think a combined US/Israeli air force will completely decimate Iran's armored divisions with JDAMs.

[Liberator13]

Too badd F-22's don't bomb shit.

[Deamatix]

Like the article itself says, if Iran or any other nation uses nuclear weapons on Israel, they will be struck with devastation on an unbelievable scale. All the more incentive NOT to use nuclear weapons in the first place.

[chrisvet]

I have yet to figure out what the big ass deal about Israel is. I know that the religious right feels the need to protect their Christian counterparts from teh evil Muslims, but other than that, why are we willing to risk it all for Israel?

They own us.

The Iranians lack the ability to precision-target their weapons in the same manner in which the Israelis can,

No doubt, when 50% of the total US foreign aid over the past 60 years has been given to Isreal, they didn't blow it all on barmitsfa orgies.

[elvis]

the iranian president isn't insane. if you heard him speak at columbia unversity you would have seen hes a fairly intelligent man. He pretty much owned the the questions being thrown at him by students and faculty. kind of funny to think that someone that smart would be willing to put his own life at risk to "nuke new york" or something like that

[chrisvet]

the iranian president isn't insane. if you heard him speak at columbia unversity you would have seen hes a fairly intelligent man. He pretty much owned the the questions being thrown at him by students and faculty. kind of funny to think that someone that smart would be willing to put his own life at risk to "nuke new york" or something like that

95% of western media is owned by 6 mega corps tied to Zionist Interests. I need not say more when we repeatedly get disinformation rammed down our throats.

[Mojoe77]

the iranian president isn't insane. if you heard him speak at columbia unversity you would have seen hes a fairly intelligent man. He pretty much owned the the questions being thrown at him by students and faculty. kind of funny to think that someone that smart would be willing to put his own life at risk to "nuke new york" or something like that

I knew he was intelligent when he said "there are no gays in Iran".

[Dayve]

Everytime I turn on a news channel there's always some headline that tries to connect Iran with terror or danger/threat, it's ridiculous.

I think people won't fall for this type of fear propoganda to get us to invade another country under false pretenses this time.

2/3 of this forum have already fallen for it... what makes you think the rest of the US haven't?

The Christian Jew lovers of the US fell for it without even being given a reason, such as Ric and American Infidel... The only reason they need to support it is that we will be killing muslims, and killing anybody who isn't a Christian or Jew to them is like a fucking orgasm times 10.

[Face Plant]

Bullshit. We (US) have what the military calls "rucksack nukes". Can you guess what they fit in?

I think your missing the point. The fiction is that a nation would give its nukes to a terrorist organization, thats the fiction, who fucking cares what size it is. The aftermath of a blast would reveal signatures and the provenance of the device. Iran couldn't hide the fact that it was theirs. The whole scenario of suit case nukes being brought into the US by terrorists is pure fiction

[ROFLStomp]

Atleast people are not buying into what Bush says he THINKS Iran could do with nukes without any clear evidence.

Everytime I turn on a news channel there's always some headline that tries to connect Iran with terror or danger/threat, it's ridiculous.

I think people won't fall for this type of fear propoganda to get us to invade another country under false pretenses this time.

Thanks for replying to my post, btdubs.

Yeah, and every time I turn on the news channel I have to listen to some shit about how great Obama is and how we are losing the war in Iraq when we aren't....your telling me the news is liberal-biased? As far as I am concerned, people won't feel threatened by Iran until we are actually attacked by them. Its just another country....out there. Only when we are attacked will people get rallied for a short time...FDR knew it, he had to devise a plan to have Japan bomb us and Germany declare war on us for the US to actually care about foreign policy.

[Liberator13]

I think your missing the point. The fiction is that a nation would give its nukes to a terrorist organization, thats the fiction, who fucking cares what size it is. The aftermath of a blast would reveal signatures and the provenance of the device. Iran couldn't hide the fact that it was theirs. The whole scenario of suit case nukes being brought into the US by terrorists is pure fiction

It's generally well known/accepted that there are missing nukes of various sizes from when the USSR fell.

[chalupa]

It's generally well known/accepted that there are missing nukes of various sizes from when the USSR fell.

Well, technically they are "unaccounted for" and are still being recovered from abandoned sites.

Or, at least, that's how i get to sleep at night.

[Face Plant]

It's generally well known/accepted that there are missing nukes of various sizes from when the USSR fell.

Not so, this is a myth. Not one confirmed Russian nuclear weapon has ever gone missing

[Liberator13]

You really think Putin would let his government and military look that bad in the world's view?

[chrisvet]

You really think Putin would let his government and military look that bad in the world's view?

Exactly, and I only hope Faceplant is correct.

[Polkovnik]

You really think Putin would let his government and military look that bad in the world's view?

it wasn't his government or military that was in control immediately after the coup, why would he look bad?

[Liberator13]

He's still Russian...

There were hundreds of scientists that left the country right before and after the collapse. You really think none of them may have sold weapons? How about any of the generals who were now SOL?

[rebeldave]

I think most of the people that have no problem with a nuclear Iran are overlooking the fact that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, both in Iraq, and in Israel. Of course Iran would never launch a nuclear ballistic missile on Israel, or our troops in Iraq, but they have been supplying conventional weapons to people willing to kill Israelis and Americans. The Iranians aren't stupid. They realize that they cannot directly kill Israelis and Americans, but that has not stopped them from supporting non-state actors that don't have to give a damn about diplomatic relations. The Iranians keep their hands clean and they still get to see dead infidels on the news. It is extremely hard to make an air tight case for the origin of a specific weapon, conventional or nuclear. The U.S. has approached Iran several times about the amount of arms streaming across its border into Iraq, and all they have said was "prove it." And while we have enough evidence to convince anyone with a logical brain, but that doesn't exactly matter once politics becomes involved. I see no reason to believe that this sponsorship of terrorism would change if Iran was given nuclear capabilities.

One more thing to consider, Iran holds the second largest reserves of natural gas, and 3rd largest reserves of oil in the world. It would be cheaper and better for the Iranian economy to tap that oil than to develop nuclear energy. If all they wanted was energy, why not pursue a more effective alternative that would not meet with any resistance from the rest of the world?

[Face Plant]

He's still Russian...

There were hundreds of scientists that left the country right before and after the collapse. You really think none of them may have sold weapons? How about any of the generals who were now SOL?

another myth. The question I'd ask is who are these scientists and where did they go. Like gimme one name of a prominent scientist

No Brain Drain
There is no "brain drain" of Russian nuclear scientists. In the early 1990s, there were claims that Russian nuclear scientists would emigrate to sell their skills to the highest bidders. Aside from unsubstantiated, sporadic rumors of their presence in North Korea and China, there is no evidence of unemployed Russian scientists building nuclear weapons for rogue states. Although there is no exodus to stop, the U.S. subsidizes the International Science and Technology Center in Moscow to keep unemployed Russian nuclear scientists off the streets.

To maintain the integrity of Russia's nuclear complex, the U.S. spends roughly $400,000,000 per year on the Nunn-Lugar initiative, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. Moreover, Russia is not broke. Despite economic hardship, it invests billions in defense modernization.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2622_v125/ai_19217176

[Liberator13]

We know, for a fact - via Ken Alibeck, former Biopreperat head, defector - that many of his comrades in the biological weapons program in the USSR went to Iran. Don't give me that "omg myth scare tactic" shit.

[Jordan]

One more thing to consider, Iran holds the second largest reserves of natural gas, and 3rd largest reserves of oil in the world. It would be cheaper and better for the Iranian economy to tap that oil than to develop nuclear energy. If all they wanted was energy, why not pursue a more effective alternative that would not meet with any resistance from the rest of the world?

Why? Why the fuck should they have to do ANYTHING they don't want to do just because it would be met with resistance from the rest of the world? Why the hell should they have to pick and choose which type of direction they want their technology advancement to pursue just because countries like the US and Israel don't want big bad Iran to gain nuclear technology?

The only country in the world to have used a nuke as a weapon has been the states, TWICE, and they are the ones preaching about how bad it would be for Iran to gain nuclear technology?

Give me a break. They havn't shown any signs or evidence that they will create nuclear weapons, so why should they be forced halt their research? The only argument ever being imposed here is speculation, which fortunately is not good enough to wage war for.

Unless of course you are America.

[chalupa]

Why? Why the fuck should they have to do ANYTHING they don't want to do just because it would be met with resistance from the rest of the world? Why the hell should they have to pick and choose which type of direction they want their technology advancement to pursue just because countries like the US and Israel don't want big bad Iran to gain nuclear technology?

The only country in the world to have used a nuke as a weapon has been the states, TWICE, and they are the ones preaching about how bad it would be for Iran to gain nuclear technology?

Give me a break. They havn't shown any signs or evidence that they will create nuclear weapons, so why should they be forced halt their research? The only argument ever being imposed here is speculation, which fortunately is not good enough to wage war for.

Unless of course you are America.

Because some people are only happy when they have someone to hate.

[Face Plant]

We know, for a fact - via Ken Alibeck, former Biopreperat head, defector - that many of his comrades in the biological weapons program in the USSR went to Iran. Don't give me that "omg myth scare tactic" shit.

Alibek's expertise is not nuclear. I also question his motives, this is a guy who has obtained millions in grant money from the US gov, not to mention the consulting fees and speaking engagement fees from bogey man tales. He also sold vitamins over the internet like some snake oil salesman. Basically he's full of shit

Selling the threat of bioterrorism
And, as Alibek raised fear of bioterrorism in the United States, he also has sought to profit from that fear.

By his count, Alibek has won about $28 million in federal grants or contracts for himself or entities that hired him.

_______

Dr. Philip K. Russell, a retired Army major general and physician who joined the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004 to confront the perceived threat of smallpox, said he was convinced that Alibek had solid firsthand information about the former Soviet Union's production of anthrax. But regarding other threats, such as genetically engineered smallpox, Russell said he "began to think that Ken was more fanciful than precise in some of his recollections."

"He would claim that certain things had been done, and then when you came right down to it, he didn't have direct knowledge of it -- he'd heard it from somebody. For example, the issue of putting Ebola genes into smallpox virus. That was viewed, at least in many of our minds, as somewhat fanciful. And probably not true."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/la-na-bioterror1jul01,0,4265756,full.story

[rebeldave]

Why? Why the fuck should they have to do ANYTHING they don't want to do just because it would be met with resistance from the rest of the world? Why the hell should they have to pick and choose which type of direction they want their technology advancement to pursue just because countries like the US and Israel don't want big bad Iran to gain nuclear technology?

The only country in the world to have used a nuke as a weapon has been the states, TWICE, and they are the ones preaching about how bad it would be for Iran to gain nuclear technology?

Give me a break. They havn't shown any signs or evidence that they will create nuclear weapons, so why should they be forced halt their research? The only argument ever being imposed here is speculation, which fortunately is not good enough to wage war for.

Unless of course you are America.

Because making nuclear weapons is the only reason for an oil rich country like Iran to choose nuclear power over oil. If they want energy, the U.S. and Russia have offered them energy, but they turned it down. When a country has a clear and consistent history of funding and arming terrorists, they flat out should not be given anything resembling the ability to make nuclear weapons. I am not willing to take their word for it. Neither is any other country in the world. That's why the UN voted to order Iran to stop its Uranium enrichment programs. Its failure to do so is in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions. "Because I want to," might work on the schoolyard, but it simply doesn't cut it when it comes to producing nuclear material.

[ROFLStomp]

Why? Why the fuck should they have to do ANYTHING they don't want to do just because it would be met with resistance from the rest of the world? Why the hell should they have to pick and choose which type of direction they want their technology advancement to pursue just because countries like the US and Israel don't want big bad Iran to gain nuclear technology?

The only country in the world to have used a nuke as a weapon has been the states, TWICE, and they are the ones preaching about how bad it would be for Iran to gain nuclear technology?

Give me a break. They havn't shown any signs or evidence that they will create nuclear weapons, so why should they be forced halt their research? The only argument ever being imposed here is speculation, which fortunately is not good enough to wage war for.

Unless of course you are America.

do you not see me or my posts targeting you? :lol:

Of course the states should preach how bad nukes are, we used them and saw the results. Are you a supporter of the US invading Japan? It had to be done.

I'm sorry, I don't trust a terrorist conscripting nation to be able to posses the capabilities of nuclear weapons. If they have all of that oil, why the hell are they using nuclear power? Building nuclear power plants and saying your not going to build weapons is like having marijuana growing in your basement and your excuse is that is for medicinal reasons.

Do I see Iran firing a nuke at Israel in the future and saying "KABOOM"? Not likely, but it certainly could be a possibility. Do I see them using their nuclear weapons as defensive protection to prevent invasions so they can continue sponsoring terrorists? Yes. Do I see them selling nuclear weapons to terrorists so they can secretly blow it up without anyone knowing? Yes. I don't want another North Korea that actually sponsors terrorists and will constantly be a major thorn in the Western Power's side, regardless of the next president.

[GhostJang]

It doesn't matter how much oil they have, whether it's a drop or an ocean of it. We have no business telling them they can't develop nuclear power.

No one ever says a damn word about Israel having nuclear weapons but everyone jumps on Iran for trying to develop nuclear ENERGY. Not even weapons.



Uh oh, Iran sponsored some terrorists? The United States has sponsored many terrorists in it's history. It has done MANY fucked up things. Hmm, should we not trust America with nuclear weapons?


God people are so fucking two-faced it makes me sick.

[Liberator13]

Alibek's expertise is not nuclear. I also question his motives, this is a guy who has obtained millions in grant money from the US gov, not to mention the consulting fees and speaking engagement fees from bogey man tales. He also sold vitamins over the internet like some snake oil salesman. Basically he's full of shit

Selling the threat of bioterrorism

Of course he's going to overplay his importance, but if you look at the core of nearly everything he said, it's scary. I didn't use him as a source for something regarding nukes either, you (or someone else?) claimed that no former USSR scientist had worked for anyone but the USSR/Russia, and I used him to refute that.

[BJ and UT5]

Because making nuclear weapons is the only reason for an oil rich country like Iran to choose nuclear power over oil. If they want energy, the U.S. and Russia have offered them energy, but they turned it down. When a country has a clear and consistent history of funding and arming terrorists, they flat out should not be given anything resembling the ability to make nuclear weapons. I am not willing to take their word for it. Neither is any other country in the world. That's why the UN voted to order Iran to stop its Uranium enrichment programs. Its failure to do so is in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions. "Because I want to," might work on the schoolyard, but it simply doesn't cut it when it comes to producing nuclear material.

Everybody's memory is so selective on this issue. We gave money and weapons to the Contras and Al Qaeda. We've backed Pinochet, Marcos, Diem, the list goes on and on... Yet the legitimacy of our nuclear weapons program goes without question. Pakistan recently gained nuclear weapons. They're a country that harbors terrorists. I don't remember hearing George Bush say anything about their nuclear program. Iran isn't doing anything new. Funding Hamas is no different than us funding Saddam to fight Iran. We can't come up with a consistent standard for why Iran can't have nuclear weapons and the people who do have them can. It boils down to the fact that we want influence in that region and if Iran gets nuclear weapons we can't intimidate them any more.

[Jordan]

Because making nuclear weapons is the only reason for an oil rich country like Iran to choose nuclear power over oil. If they want energy, the U.S. and Russia have offered them energy, but they turned it down. When a country has a clear and consistent history of funding and arming terrorists, they flat out should not be given anything resembling the ability to make nuclear weapons. I am not willing to take their word for it. Neither is any other country in the world. That's why the UN voted to order Iran to stop its Uranium enrichment programs. Its failure to do so is in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions. "Because I want to," might work on the schoolyard, but it simply doesn't cut it when it comes to producing nuclear material.

Tell me then, what evidence do you have to support your argument that," Because making nuclear weapons is the only reason for an oil rich country like Iran to choose nuclear power over oil." ?

If not, you have once again reverted to speculation.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6655
The mainstream media has failed to report the agreement reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iranian government in regards to the Iranian nuclear energy program. An understanding has been reached between the two. The IAEA has given Iran's nuclear program a clean bill of health.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-nuclear-watchdog-rebuts-claims-that-iran-is-trying-to-make-abomb-502798.html
The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing to publish evidence that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons programme, undermining a warning of possible military action from President George Bush.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52673-2004Nov15.html
In its most positive assessment of Iran in two years, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported yesterday that it had found no evidence the nation had a nuclear weapons program and that Tehran's recent cooperation with the agency has been very good.

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/305961/cs/1/
U.S. intelligence has concluded that Iran is not building nuclear weapons.


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23235&Cr=iran&Cr1


13 July 2007 – The United Nations nuclear watchdog announced today that it has reached agreement with Iranian authorities to allow new inspections and safeguards at some of its key facilities.

They're no co-operating?

Please, STOP SPECULATING. Your argument that Iran funds and supports terrorists? That's your best argument for not letting them have nuclear technology to support their country? Do you dare use this argument after what America has funded in it's last century of major world power?

Why won't Iran accept energy from Russia or U.S.? Because they don't want it. Are you going to force them to accept your energy? if not, please move along and carry on with your TV dinner plate.

[Liberator13]

Pakistan scares me more than any other country, and Syria is a very close second, but you never hear a goddamn thing about either of them.

[rebeldave]

Tell me then, what evidence do you have to support your argument that," Because making nuclear weapons is the only reason for an oil rich country like Iran to choose nuclear power over oil." ?

If not, you have once again reverted to speculation.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6655


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/un-nuclear-watchdog-rebuts-claims-that-iran-is-trying-to-make-abomb-502798.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52673-2004Nov15.html


http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/305961/cs/1/


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23235&Cr=iran&Cr1




They're no co-operating?

Please, STOP SPECULATING. Your argument that Iran funds and supports terrorists? That's your best argument for not letting them have nuclear technology to support their country? Do you dare use this argument after what America has funded in it's last century of major world power?

Why won't Iran accept energy from Russia or U.S.? Because they don't want it. Are you going to force them to accept your energy? if not, please move along and carry on with your TV dinner plate.

Stop picking and choosing certain lines from an article you want to use. ElBahradei did say that he saw no evidence of Iran having an active weaponization program, but he also said that there was not sufficient access given to give Iran passing marks for the inspection. That is why the UN security council voted to further the sanctions against Iran. Lets also not forget that ElBahradei also only inspected Iran's DECLARED sites. No attention whatsoever was paid to undeclared sites. Also, the U.S. intelligence reports on Iran stated that while Iran's weapon program was not actively seeking nuclear weapons, it also stated that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was never dismantled to the point that it could not be started back up at a moments notice. As for Iran not accepting an energy deal with Russia and the U.S., like I said before, "Because I want to" doesn't cut it when we are talking about producing nuclear material. If they wanted energy, the U.S., Russian, and EU3 plan would have given them extremely generous energy solutions. That would have solved all of their problems and increased their country's security. Instead, they chose to reject the plan and place their country at risk from an Israeli air strike. If they wanted peaceful energy, they could have had it, but that's not what they want. Call it speculation if you want, but if it is, then the entire global intelligence community is based purely on speculation. I'd rather rely on that kind of speculation than taking the word of the Ayatollah at face value as you seem to be hell bent on doing. What works on the individual level does not translate into the global level, and you just can't seem to understand that.

[ROFLStomp]

Jordan, at least acknowledge my posts like a man. Its annoying as shit to post useful stuff and have people just completely side step it.

[Jordan]

Stop picking and choosing certain lines from an article you want to use. ElBahradei did say that he saw no evidence of Iran having an active weaponization program, but he also said that there was not sufficient access given to give Iran passing marks for the inspection.
Stop picking one source and choosing to base your entire argument on one inspectors inability to further inspect facilities.

In other sources I provided, the UN clearly states Iran has been co-operative in allowing inspectors to check their nuclear facilities. They didn't have to do a damn thing but still allowed people to come into THEIR country and snoop around. So don't tell me that they havn't been uncooperative.



That is why the UN security council voted to further the sanctions against Iran. Lets also not forget that ElBahradei also only inspected Iran's DECLARED sites. No attention whatsoever was paid to undeclared sites.
And that's Iran's fault because.....?

Again, speculation that now the un-declared sites are the REAL ones holding information back. No evidence.
Also, the U.S. intelligence reports on Iran stated that while Iran's weapon program was not actively seeking nuclear weapons, it also stated that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was never dismantled to the point that it could not be started back up at a moments notice.
Excuse me for taking any U.S. intelligence with a grain of salt.


As for Iran not accepting an energy deal with Russia and the U.S., like I said before, "Because I want to" doesn't cut it when we are talking about producing nuclear material. If they wanted energy, the U.S., Russian, and EU3 plan would have given them extremely generous energy solutions. That would have solved all of their problems and increased their country's security. Instead, they chose to reject the plan and place their country at risk from an Israeli air strike. If they wanted peaceful energy, they could have had it, but that's not what they want.
Already stated it once, but I'll go ahead and say it again.

Why should they be forced to accept energy from countries that for decades have been hostile towards them?

They don't want to accept foreign aid, that's not a crime. ACCEPT IT.

Call it speculation if you want, but if it is, then the entire global intelligence community is based purely on speculation.
I will call it speculation, thank you.

I'd rather rely on that kind of speculation than taking the word of the Ayatollah at face value as you seem to be hell bent on doing. What works on the individual level does not translate into the global level, and you just can't seem to understand that.

You'd rather rely on speculation than evidence? Thank you. Good to know.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't take Iran's word for it that their nuclear program is purely for energy purposes, it's the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary to suggest otherwise. I don't have something for Iran and something against the U.S. at all, it's just that I'd rather rely on evidence before speculating.

One more thing, in order for Iran to first, gain the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, build it, and arm it, it would take them up until 2010-2015 to have one ready to use. Second, for them to even make it sure it works, they would need to have it tested, therefore detonating it somewhere, which would then be known by the rest of the world right away, just like N.Korea.

They can't just make one and poof, send it away. The world would know if they truly had a fully stabilized nuke. Iran is not stupid to blow away centuries of peace, one making one nuke to attack Israel. Stop speculating.

[ric]

One more thing, in order for Iran to first, gain the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, build it, and arm it, it would take them up until 2010-2015 to have one ready to use. Second, for them to even make it sure it works, they would need to have it tested, therefore detonating it somewhere, which would then be known by the rest of the world right away, just like N.Korea.

They can't just make one and poof, send it away. The world would know if they truly had a fully stabilized nuke. Iran is not stupid to blow away centuries of peace, one making one nuke to attack Israel. Stop speculating.

You attack cancer in its initial stage not when it has metastasized

[chalupa]

You attack cancer in its initial stage not when it has metastasized

Well, then, we should just kill everyone else but us, because eventually every country in the world has the capacity to become a threat.

Pre-emptive war on Lichtenstein! Bring it, you Lichtensteinie bitches!

[rebeldave]

Stop picking one source and choosing to base your entire argument on one inspectors inability to further inspect facilities.

In other sources I provided, the UN clearly states Iran has been co-operative in allowing inspectors to check their nuclear facilities. They didn't have to do a damn thing but still allowed people to come into THEIR country and snoop around. So don't tell me that they havn't been uncooperative.




And that's Iran's fault because.....?

Again, speculation that now the un-declared sites are the REAL ones holding information back. No evidence.

Excuse me for taking any U.S. intelligence with a grain of salt.



Already stated it once, but I'll go ahead and say it again.

Why should they be forced to accept energy from countries that for decades have been hostile towards them?

They don't want to accept foreign aid, that's not a crime. ACCEPT IT.


I will call it speculation, thank you.



You'd rather rely on speculation than evidence? Thank you. Good to know.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't take Iran's word for it that their nuclear program is purely for energy purposes, it's the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary to suggest otherwise. I don't have something for Iran and something against the U.S. at all, it's just that I'd rather rely on evidence before speculating.

One more thing, in order for Iran to first, gain the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, build it, and arm it, it would take them up until 2010-2015 to have one ready to use. Second, for them to even make it sure it works, they would need to have it tested, therefore detonating it somewhere, which would then be known by the rest of the world right away, just like N.Korea.

They can't just make one and poof, send it away. The world would know if they truly had a fully stabilized nuke. Iran is not stupid to blow away centuries of peace, one making one nuke to attack Israel. Stop speculating.

You are the one that brought up the U.S. intelligence report as evidence. I merely brought to your attention that you didn't read everything it said. If you want to use it as evidence that Iran doesn't have an active weapons program, I am certainly going to use it as evidence that Iran hasn't even begun to dismantle their nuclear weapons program. If you want to completely throw out the NIE, you cant start your argument by quoting from it. If you want to quote ElBahradai, I am certainly going to quote the IAEA when they say they have not been able to give Iran a passing grade, and that Iran must stop its enrichment procedures. If you would like to read what the rest of the NIE said, you can read about it here.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10601584

I am not operating on speculation. I am operating on history. Did you know Iran is the only country in the history of the world to make a uranium enrichment facility without building a single civilian reactor to burn its output? Ahmadinejad has never explained that little curiosity. Now why would Iran be building uranium enrichment plants without building reactors needed to supply a country with energy? I wonder..... Either way, it doesn't really matter, because contrary to what you may think, Iran does not have some inalienable right to do whatever they want under some imaginary law you have cooked up. Every country is going to act in its best interest, including Israel. Israel has the means to destroy these facilities, and it is up to Iran to convince them that it is in Israel's best interest not to destroy them. That is a task that Iran doesn't seem too interested in right now. Israel will destroy these facilities, and like it or not, Iran can't do jack about it.

[Jordan]

You attack cancer in its initial stage not when it has metastasized

I don't want to get into semantics, okay?


I'll play into your game though, do doctors check for cancer everytime a patient walks through their door? No, only when there are signs, symptoms and evidence that cancer may be present in the patient.


EDIT: Reserved for rebel over there, going to go eat first.

[chalupa]

I don't want to get into semantics, okay?


I'll play into your game though, do doctors check for cancer everytime a patient walks through their door? No, only when there are signs, symptoms and evidence that cancer may be present in the patient.

I think the doctors should just kill every patient to prevent the possibility of cancer.

[ric]

No, only when there are signs, symptoms and evidence that cancer may be present in the patient.


The only "signs, symptoms and evidence" that you'll see... are the 'smoke, rubble and pics' after the raid takes place

[Yuseke]

The only "signs, symptoms and evidence" that you'll see... are the 'smoke, rubble and pics' after the raid takes place

No, the signs, symptoms, and evidence is the intelligence you acquire before the raid takes place. The ends do not justify the means.

[ric]

evidence is the intelligence you acquire before the raid takes place.

Already in place. Learn from history. The Jews know who and what their enemy is all about

Small aka 'hunter killer' units engaged in conducting small ops are already in place, dude

[chrisvet]

It doesn't matter how much oil they have, whether it's a drop or an ocean of it. We have no business telling them they can't develop nuclear power.

No one ever says a damn word about Israel having nuclear weapons but everyone jumps on Iran for trying to develop nuclear ENERGY. Not even weapons.



Uh oh, Iran sponsored some terrorists? The United States has sponsored many terrorists in it's history. It has done MANY fucked up things. Hmm, should we not trust America with nuclear weapons?


God people are so fucking two-faced it makes me sick.

Full agreement / reminder the media repetition changes perception, I'm not convinced people are always 2 faced. Constantly bombarded by 1 sided media arguments that benefit isreal? More likely. I attribute it to Zioinist controlled media, subsequent ignorance.

Shaw in Iran, Saddam Hussain, all conveniently instilled by us.
Set the bad guys so we can take them out & have full control over their countries @ a future date? Yup, no doubts @ this end. Its modern day conquest while saving face.

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst*suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran-against-egypt.htm

[ChristopherM]

this isn't good at all.
even if iran got a few nukes - so what? they would never use them. besides, the states have 10,000x more.

that doesn't matter though, it looks awfully bleak.

How do you know they would never use them? Some of the Mullahs have already said that they are willing to sacrifice Tehran (7 million people) to take out Israel.