REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Iran

POSTED BY: GINOBIFFARONI
UPDATED: Sunday, February 21, 2010 15:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3358
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, February 15, 2010 10:22 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Another interesting Eric Margolis column


IRAN’S AHMADINEJAD STRIKES AGAIN
February 15, 2010
To fete the 31st anniversary of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gleefully announced his nation will enrich uranium to 20%.
The bombastic Ahmadinejad seems to delight in provoking howls of outrage from the West. They were not long in coming.

Western media and politicians loudly denounced Iran’s latest nuclear effort, claiming it would put Tehran within striking distance of achieving the 85-90% enrichment needed for nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Florida-based US Central Command has been busy reinforcing US military units and Arab allies in the Gulf to counter any potential Iranian retaliation for an American attack.

In fact, the latest Iranian-American brouhaha was pretty much a tempest in a nuclear teapot.

Iran will only enrich 22 lbs of low-grade uranium to 20% level in order to fuel a small research reactor in Tehran to produce medical isotopes for cancer treatment and imaging. Iran insists it has no plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Tehran has offered to swap its low enriched uranium for fuel rods from Europe and Russia. But Iran says the swap must be simultaneous, while the US-led Western powers demand Iran hand over its 22 lbs of uranium first, then get the fuel rods at some later date – if it behaves.

This rather silly fracas comes as Iran slowly develops a nuclear power industry to produce what it maintains will be electricity. Iran’s oil is being depleted. Forty other nations are at similar or more advanced stages of nuclear power generation. This is all quite legal under UN nuclear agency rules.

Both UN nuclear inspectors and US intelligence say there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Documents purporting to show Iran working on nuclear warheads have been debunked as fakes.

But this did not stop US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from insisting Iran was working on nuclear weapons. Apparently, she puts more credence in Israel’s intelligence estimates than those of the United States.

She also blasted Iran for becoming `a military dictatorship,’ seemingly heedless of the fact that Egypt, one of America’s key Arab allies, has been a military dictatorship for decades. Or that Washington is now all smiles and hugs with the ghastly dictatorship in Uzbekistan where opponents of the regime are boiled alive. Such selective morality is a leading cause of anti-Americanism around the globe.

Meanwhile, nuclear-armed Israel and its American partisans warn Iran is rapidly developing nuclear weapons and demand severe sanctions or war. European nations with rightwing governments also support the US position – more out of fear of the economic disruptions a US-Iranian conflict would bring than out of fear of Iran, a major European trading partner.

Why does Iran keep provoking Western anger, defying the Security Council, inviting sanctions, and risking devastating Israeli attack when it could simply buy fuel rods from Europe that cannot be used for nuclear weapons?

Thirty-one years ago Iranians overthrew the hated, US-backed monarchy of Reza Shah Pahlavi. The revolution was led by an exiled Shia cleric, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and an old university friend of mine, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh. This historic uprising was ignited by Iranian’s anger at being misruled by a Western-installed despot who mocked Islam, allowed his rapacious family to loot the nation, and spent billions on US and British arms when his people went hungry and illiterate.

The dreaded US and Israeli-trained secret police, Savak, kept the Shah in power through a reign of terror and torture. Iranians later blamed the US and Britain for engineering and financing Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion of Iran which cost one million Iranian casualties.

In the 1970’s, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld went to Tehran to offer to sell the Shah’s regime 31 nuclear reactors. Israel reportedly offered to swap medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads for oil. But after the revolution, Iran was declared a `terrorist regime’ when Khomeini demanded that Mideast oil money be shared by its people rather than go to 1,400 Saudi princes and other US-supported monarchies, and championed the Palestinian cause.

Nuclear power has become Iran’s key national issue. Ali Khamenei, Iran’s current spiritual guide, claims Britain and the US are determined to deny the Muslim world modern technology in order to keep it backwards, weak, and forced to buy Western arms and exports. Imperial Britain did the same to India, keeping its colony economically backwards for two centuries,

For most Iranians, developing nuclear power means breaking out of their Western-imposed technological ghetto and modernization. It’s a matter of profound national pride and defiance: Iran was repeatedly invaded by Britain and Russia, its governments were overthrown by Western powers, and its oil exploited.

Nuclear technology offers independence, and, potentially, weapons for self-defense, if Tehran so chooses. This writer has long believed that one day Iran will opt to deploy nuclear weapons for self-defense. The Western and Israeli claim that Tehran’s `mad mullahs’ are intent on inflicting worldwide nuclear doomsday is ludicrous and absurd.

To Western dismay, most of the current Iranian protest movement’s leaders back its nuclear program. If Ahmadinejad were replaced, Iran’s nuclear efforts would continue unless the US and Britain managed to achieve their strategy of imposing a new, compliant royalist regime in Tehran.

In the Iranian view, if France and Britain, and neighbors Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India (now with US help) can have nuclear arms, why can’t Iran at least boil water for tea using nuclear energy?

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/irans-ahmadinejad-s
trikes-again.aspx




I really wish China and Russia to tell Hillary to fuck off





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 15, 2010 1:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


bump

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 15, 2010 6:15 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Bump, indeed.

Stand back - snarky rejoinder coming forthwith!

For some reason, the U.S. just cannot handle the idea that Iran might be trying to have a more robust energy plan than we do, or that they might actually believe in putting government money into healthcare and research.

Just drives us completely bugfuck to even hear about it, apparently.



Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 15, 2010 7:11 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Notice its only certain countrys no matter what they do...

Iran -- Evil

Cuba -- Evil

Russia -- evil

China -- quasi evil


while

Israel -- good

Saudi -- good

Egypt == good


no matter the actions





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 15, 2010 7:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Careful, Gino - you know we're looking for a new SecState, right?

Be careful, or you'll find yourself being made an honorary American citizen! (And then you'll lose your healthcare)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 15, 2010 7:57 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Careful, Gino - you know we're looking for a new SecState, right?

Be careful, or you'll find yourself being made an honorary American citizen! (And then you'll lose your healthcare)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde




I don't think I fit the evil criteria necessary for the position...

you need to delivery the blood of six newborn babies in a blueberry smoothy to Cheney still right ?




But seriously, who would you pick to replace Hillary?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:23 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


LOL

get this

Iran could spark nuclear arms race: Clinton

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/iran-nuclear-clinton.html


So, Iran... who has Israel, Pakistan, India, and Russia surrounding it... and the US on the doorstep. All with nukes, and they are starting an arms race ?


"If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that hope disappears," she said, "because then other countries which feel threatened by Iran will say to themselves, 'If Iran has a nuclear weapon, I better get one, too, in order to protect my people.' "

Doesn't this argue for Iran to get some weapons ?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:52 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Careful, Gino - you know we're looking for a new SecState, right?

Be careful, or you'll find yourself being made an honorary American citizen! (And then you'll lose your healthcare)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde




I don't think I fit the evil criteria necessary for the position...

you need to delivery the blood of six newborn babies in a blueberry smoothy to Cheney still right ?




But seriously, who would you pick to replace Hillary?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"




Well, when it comes to Cheney, there's no need to hide the blood in a blueberry smoothie - he likes the taste of blood. And besides, it isn't just the babies' BLOOD he wants; he wants the whole babies. He actually prefers if you put them in the blender feet first, so he can see the expression on their faces.

He's gangsta like that.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

"If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that hope disappears," she said, "because then other countries which feel threatened by Iran will say to themselves, 'If Iran has a nuclear weapon, I better get one, too, in order to protect my people.' "

Doesn't this argue for Iran to get some weapons ?




Oh, now you're just being silly, Gino, and trying to apply "logic" to foreign relations. When has that ever worked?

Besides, everybody knows that the nukes possessed by Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India are just FRIENDLY nukes, and they'd never harm a soul...






Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:08 AM

MINCINGBEAST


Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.




I think you have Iran confused with George W. Bush.

Of the two, one of them believes in science. (Hint: It isn't Bush)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:56 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.




In another thread we were discussing how Iran, despite its problems is more progressive that almost any of its neighbors, INCLUDING ALL of the US aligned countrys...

In the top post, it showed how Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to broker a deal for the US to sell Iran dozens of reactors under the oppressive Shah, but now lead the freak out against the semi democratic Iran...

BTW where " has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times "

Bush was more the end times guy, like Kwicko said...

Iran has not started any wars, but have been attacked with US backing in the decade long Iran / Iraq war...

who is threatening who ?



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:13 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I think he's heard that old line about "wipe Israel off the map" - a line which has been roundly and soundly debunked, because Ahmedinejad never said it. What he actually SAID was that in time Israel would be forgotten in the dust of history.

And it looks like the WRONG translation came from... Israel.

Surprise surprise.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:15 AM

LITTLEBIRD


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.




There has been a lot of PR spin to Iran wanting to destroy its neighbors.

Here is an article explaining in detail what they really said and the context in what it was said.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Edit: I see Kwicko beat me to the punch on this one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:54 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


I have read, and could find cites if anyone is interested

that Ahmadinejad doesn't want to wipe out Israels Jewish population, he wants to not have a Jewish state, but instead a state where one group doesn't dominate or control the rest of the population...

More of a one state solution, than the two state favored by the US ( which doesn't seem like it will ever work )


where is Wulf to attack the "Propaganda Storm" all over this topic, lol







Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Anyone stupid enough to accept MEMRI's so-called "translations" without three crosschecks isn't gonna give one ounce of credence to stuff like pesky facts anyways, folks.

Allowing MEMRI to translate for middle eastern countries is like letting joseph goebbels translate Russian TV broadcasts in the 1940's...

Seriously, they're like the Baghdad Bob of translators, everyone prettymuch KNOWS this, so if someone is putting forth a MEMRI translation, they're doing so deliberately and for reasons having nothing to do with accuracy.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:19 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:26 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com



But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?


The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Littlebird:

Edit: I see Kwicko beat me to the punch on this one.




No worries, Birdie, and good looking out. :) The more people who know this stuff, the better.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:39 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Here is todays statement

"

Iran's president has said insisted that a UN-drafted uranium exchange deal remains a possibility with talks on the proposal "not yet closed".

Speaking in Tehran on Tuesday, Mahmoud Ahmadinjad dismissed the assertions of the United States and its allies that the plan was effectively dead after Iran had begun the process of further enriching uranium to 20 per cent.

"We have already announced that we are ready for a fuel exchange within a fair framework," Ahmadinejad said during the televised news conference.

"We are still ready for an exchange, even with America," he said. "

The hangup is the US wants Iran to hand over its Uranium, which would be made into fuel rods and given back sometime down the road.

Iran, with little reason to trust the US, wants Fuel Rods exchanged one for one at the same time for its Uranium. As I can picture the US finding all sorts of reasons to take Irans Uranium and walking away for the deal afterward, I think its a reasonable position.


This part cracks me up

Ahmadinejad's comments came on the same day that Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, warned that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Speaking to students at Dar el-Hekma women's college in the Red Sea port of Jeddah, she rejected Iran's insistence that it is not producing a nuclear bomb, saying: "the evidence doesn't support that".

However, when asked by a student why Israel did not have to give up its nuclear weapons, Clinton did not respond "

What did we say about double standards...


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102161317475763
64.html





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?



That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:53 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?



That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com


You know the phrase you can't fight city hall ?

Well if they ended their public arguments and move for nuclear power ( remember they say they are not making weapons ), what is to stop the US from coming out with more RapFacts and accuse them of building weapons anyway... like say Iraq ?

Besides, it is now a matter of national pride to get their nuclear power generation plan off the ground, to back down would make them look all manner of stupid to their own people.

I think its better they have nukes, it would shut down the sabre rattling against them and give them a voice in the region the US could not so easily ignore, and that voice would represent alot of folk who have no voice in the US installed regimes.

edit to add, like the post at the beginning, over 40 countrys already enrich Uranium as they want to... why pick on them ?











Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:30 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States. And, if you'll recall, there's exactly ONE nation on Earth to ever have used nuclear weapons against another in anger.

So we're not exactly sitting on the moral high ground.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:43 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


The other thing I'm am thinking of

is the right for countys not to have to do what the United States tells them to...

I'm probably going to hear about the analogy, but

Ahmadinjad has become the Rosa Parks of the middle east, and will not sit in the back of the bus no matter what Hillary has to say...


Reform the UN into a fair body, not dominated by the security council, and make what it decides binding, even on the US and China, etc

Then maybe we would have a world where talk wasn't cheap... but until then we have posturing

So there we are







Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:27 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:30 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.


A point worth making, Pizmo.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:32 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.



We can't even handle 2 military locations Mike, Iran has to see that. They're just posturing. That's almost ALL they do.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:10 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com


I know you said not me, but I will answer that anyway pizmo, it is a good point you make.

I would let them have their nuclear power... and if they felt they needed to go to nuclear weapons, well ok

but that line about great power equals great responsibility...

You make the point ( not just with them, but everyone with nukes... ) perhaps a new treaty would be quite appropriate, that such weapons are for defensive purposes only, and that any country launching a first strike with them, or passing weapons or tech to third party automatically becomes the enemy of all the other signatorys...

ie Iran pre-emptively nukes Israel, US, Russia and China Nukes Iran

or US nukes Iran pre-emptively then Russia, China, and India nukes US

legal use requires a majority vote, or you are the next target...

some type of collective security arrangement that would make these weapons one of very last resort ie never to be used, including American ones.

Because Bush aside, why trust US leaders either ?

" That was within this country = different. "

why does it have to be ? if we reguarded folk as folk and treated everyone else as we would be treated, and not vilify some with RappyFacts when it suits us... would not many of our problems go away ?

sure it is bigger than individuals, but why do group rights fiqure lower than individual rights ?

as a species I think we need to have more respect for each other, and forget the race, religion, citizenship crap that divides us... that will be the next big evolution.

or maybe I'm too optimistic



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:16 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.



We can't even handle 2 military locations Mike, Iran has to see that. They're just posturing. That's almost ALL they do.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com


thats is today, remember the US backed the decade long Iraqi attack against them, they lost ( I think near a million ) people... can't expect them to have short memorys over that...

and now the rhetoric Hillary and Israel spout every day.....


maybe they think now is the time, as the US cannot support another major war. Wait until the US gets it shit back together and its too late

They have a window and they are using it




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:49 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

Well there's that prospect of a middle east nuclear arms race that might concern you a little bit.

Ultimately whether you think non-proliferation is hypocritical or not, this ultimately becomes a question of whether we *want* every country that desires its own nukes to have them, or not (or, like Gino, whether you think a country like Iran acquiring a nuke would improve the nuclear balance).

If no to both questions, then non-proliferation is an imperative - and one we can't afford to not enforce rigidly.

A debate on the apparent hypocrisy is ok I guess - it speaks to the question of whether all nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals in the future, or eliminate them completely (there'd be downsides to this, even if it could be achieved). But I question the value of apathy/hand-wringing on this issue...

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:23 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

Well there's that prospect of a middle east nuclear arms race that might concern you a little bit.

Ultimately whether you think non-proliferation is hypocritical or not, this ultimately becomes a question of whether we *want* every country that desires its own nukes to have them, or not (or, like Gino, whether you think a country like Iran acquiring a nuke would improve the nuclear balance).

If no to both questions, then non-proliferation is an imperative - and one we can't afford to not enforce rigidly.

A debate on the apparent hypocrisy is ok I guess - it speaks to the question of whether all nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals in the future, or eliminate them completely (there'd be downsides to this, even if it could be achieved). But I question the value of apathy/hand-wringing on this issue...

Heads should roll




Like I said earlier...

If heading off an arms race is so important, why didn't this come up with Israels nukes ?

There was attempts to stop Pakistan, but as India was there to, it was let go to preserve a balance...

I would be all for making the middle east a nuclear weapons free zone, but don't see how it could be done. How willing would Israel be to give up their arsenal ?

Are you willing to start another war over this KPO ?

and this time with a country that hasn't been starved, bombed and terrorized into submission for a decade ?

I think nothing would unite Iran, like the US firing missiles into their country, and I really believe they would not let that stand...

Your troops in Iraq could face not only a Shia uprising, but a full on Iranian counter attack at the same time...

It is not an issue for the US to decide anymore,

unless your going to use nukes, and become what you say you fear them of them becoming...






Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.



I'm right there with ya on that last paragraph. On the rest, though, we kinda have to take a bit of a leap of faith. We're paranoid about Iran; they're paranoid about us. Somebody has to just refuse to be scared at some point.

You're saying we shouldn't trust them. But you seem to be saying they SHOULD trust us. Given our recent history in the area, and our longer-term history just in that particular nation (Iran), would YOU trust us?

As for a nuclear arms race, isn't there already one going on in the Middle East? Is there any reason Israel should have nukes, and not Egypt? Pakistan, but not Iran? Is one of those countries crazier than the others? Does one of those countries have a track record of invading its neighbors and enacting genocidal policies against them? (Hint: It's not Egypt, Pakistan, or Iran)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:40 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.



We can't even handle 2 military locations Mike, Iran has to see that. They're just posturing. That's almost ALL they do.



Well, yes - but you have to give them kudos for waiting until we were well and truly bogged down and overextended militarily to START their posturing. By the way, this would also be an ideal time for India and China to start making extra demands of us as well. We've put ourselves in a position - both economically AND militarily - that there aren't too many nations we can really say no to about quite a few things.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:47 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com



I know you said not me, but I will answer that anyway pizmo, it is a good point you make.

I would let them have their nuclear power... and if they felt they needed to go to nuclear weapons, well ok

but that line about great power equals great responsibility...

You make the point ( not just with them, but everyone with nukes... ) perhaps a new treaty would be quite appropriate, that such weapons are for defensive purposes only, and that any country launching a first strike with them, or passing weapons or tech to third party automatically becomes the enemy of all the other signatorys...

ie Iran pre-emptively nukes Israel, US, Russia and China Nukes Iran

or US nukes Iran pre-emptively then Russia, China, and India nukes US

legal use requires a majority vote, or you are the next target...

some type of collective security arrangement that would make these weapons one of very last resort ie never to be used, including American ones.

Because Bush aside, why trust US leaders either ?

" That was within this country = different. "

why does it have to be ? if we reguarded folk as folk and treated everyone else as we would be treated, and not vilify some with RappyFacts when it suits us... would not many of our problems go away ?

sure it is bigger than individuals, but why do group rights fiqure lower than individual rights ?

as a species I think we need to have more respect for each other, and forget the race, religion, citizenship crap that divides us... that will be the next big evolution.

or maybe I'm too optimistic



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"




Yes. And I'd also include in that great responsibility the idea that we tell Iran point blank: "You want to pursue nuclear weapons? That's your right, but know this: Fully one third of our CONSIDERABLE nuclear arsenal is now targeted at every city in your country, every town of over a hundred people. If ONE mishap occurs, if even ONE of your nuclear weapons finds its way into the hands of any rogue nation or terrorist group, we will hold you responsible for their actions, and your entire nation, your culture, your history, and your people will simply cease to exist, and will be forever lost in the dustbin of history. But hey, have fun with your toys!"

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:54 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

Well there's that prospect of a middle east nuclear arms race that might concern you a little bit.

Ultimately whether you think non-proliferation is hypocritical or not, this ultimately becomes a question of whether we *want* every country that desires its own nukes to have them, or not (or, like Gino, whether you think a country like Iran acquiring a nuke would improve the nuclear balance).

If no to both questions, then non-proliferation is an imperative - and one we can't afford to not enforce rigidly.

A debate on the apparent hypocrisy is ok I guess - it speaks to the question of whether all nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals in the future, or eliminate them completely (there'd be downsides to this, even if it could be achieved). But I question the value of apathy/hand-wringing on this issue...

Heads should roll




Like I said earlier...

If heading off an arms race is so important, why didn't this come up with Israels nukes ?

There was attempts to stop Pakistan, but as India was there to, it was let go to preserve a balance...

I would be all for making the middle east a nuclear weapons free zone, but don't see how it could be done. How willing would Israel be to give up their arsenal ?

Are you willing to start another war over this KPO ?

and this time with a country that hasn't been starved, bombed and terrorized into submission for a decade ?

I think nothing would unite Iran, like the US firing missiles into their country, and I really believe they would not let that stand...

Your troops in Iraq could face not only a Shia uprising, but a full on Iranian counter attack at the same time...

It is not an issue for the US to decide anymore,

unless your going to use nukes, and become what you say you fear them of them becoming...



Well said, Gino.

One small bone of contention: Pakistan. We didn't just let them go ahead to even them out with India. We also HELPED them get their nukes, in payment for them turning a blind eye to what we were doing with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the late 70s-early 80s. And as kind of an "eff-you" to India, to show that we weren't automatically on their side, either. And of course, we WANT India to have nukes, because they're what we consider a "buffer" between China and the rest of south and southwestern Asia, and it wouldn't hurt the US's feelings if India and China went to war against each other (but we can never say that out loud, can we?).

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:13 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


lol I know, Canada was involved in that in a big way too...


Didn't want to over complicate the point too early...





Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:29 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com



I know you said not me, but I will answer that anyway pizmo, it is a good point you make.

I would let them have their nuclear power... and if they felt they needed to go to nuclear weapons, well ok

but that line about great power equals great responsibility...

You make the point ( not just with them, but everyone with nukes... ) perhaps a new treaty would be quite appropriate, that such weapons are for defensive purposes only, and that any country launching a first strike with them, or passing weapons or tech to third party automatically becomes the enemy of all the other signatorys...

ie Iran pre-emptively nukes Israel, US, Russia and China Nukes Iran

or US nukes Iran pre-emptively then Russia, China, and India nukes US

legal use requires a majority vote, or you are the next target...

some type of collective security arrangement that would make these weapons one of very last resort ie never to be used, including American ones.

Because Bush aside, why trust US leaders either ?

" That was within this country = different. "

why does it have to be ? if we reguarded folk as folk and treated everyone else as we would be treated, and not vilify some with RappyFacts when it suits us... would not many of our problems go away ?

sure it is bigger than individuals, but why do group rights fiqure lower than individual rights ?

as a species I think we need to have more respect for each other, and forget the race, religion, citizenship crap that divides us... that will be the next big evolution.

or maybe I'm too optimistic



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"




Yes. And I'd also include in that great responsibility the idea that we tell Iran point blank: "You want to pursue nuclear weapons? That's your right, but know this: Fully one third of our CONSIDERABLE nuclear arsenal is now targeted at every city in your country, every town of over a hundred people. If ONE mishap occurs, if even ONE of your nuclear weapons finds its way into the hands of any rogue nation or terrorist group, we will hold you responsible for their actions, and your entire nation, your culture, your history, and your people will simply cease to exist, and will be forever lost in the dustbin of history. But hey, have fun with your toys!"

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde




Only problem with that is it would give a future Bush the ability to RappyFact some evidence together and nuke someone...

then point at that treaty ( like the resolutions ) and call it legal...

That is why I say a majority vote of Nuclear powers, and everyone who vote yes is all in...



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:54 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Good point.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:50 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Iran confuses again with 'further enrichment'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8503751.stm


President Ahmadinejad visits natanz plant - April 2008
Iran plans to carry out the further enrichment at a plant monitored by the IAEA

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC news website

Iran's announcement that it will further enrich its stock of uranium adds to suspicion of its ultimate intentions but leaves the United States and its allies as confused as ever.

The Iranian move came only days after President Ahmadinejad spoke positively of a deal under which the further enrichment would be done abroad.

There are still no answers to the questions: Does Iran intend to build a nuclear device one day?

Is it simply acquiring some of the know-how so that it could do so?

Is it, as it says, just developing the peaceful use of nuclear power, exercising its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (though this is for the moment superseded by the demands of the Security Council and the UN's nuclear watchdog the IAEA that it stop all enrichment activities)?

Or is it using its nuclear programme as a rallying-cry for the regime and to increase its international impact?

As is so often the case with Iran, it has, with this latest move, increased its resistance but has fallen short of reaching the significant red line of enriching to weapons-grade standard.

Medical reactor

It has said that it will raise the level of its uranium enrichment only to a level not suitable for a nuclear weapon and only for a particular purpose.

Specifically, it has said it will take some of the uranium it has enriched to the 3.5% level needed for nuclear power station fuel and will further enrich it to 20%, but not to the 90% needed for a useable nuclear bomb. One assumes it can do this, though the IAEA will have to verify it.

URANIUM ENRICHED TO...
3.5%, Iran's current level, is used in nuclear power stations
20% is used in research reactors
90% and above is used in nuclear weapons

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue
Iran's key nuclear sites

This plan, it says, would give it fuel to power a small nuclear reactor producing medical isotopes. The reactor has been operating in Tehran since 1968 (it was installed for the Shah by the Americans), but is running short of fuel. The current fuel for the reactor comes from Argentina.

Last year Iran suggested getting more fuel from abroad but was instead offered a deal under which its low-enriched uranium was taken to Russia and France for conversion into the necessary fuel rods and returned. The idea was to get the bulk of the uranium out of Iran (it is currently simply stored) and allow time for negotiations.

Despite some occasionally promising noises, this deal remains undone and would be redundant if Iran went ahead with its latest plan. Iran still says it would not need to do the extra enriching if it got fuel from elsewhere.

Arguments

In Iran's favour, it can be stated that it does have a problem with the Tehran reactor and that it has repeatedly said that it will not build a bomb.

The 20% enrichment, it also says, will be done at the Natanz plant, which is under IAEA monitoring.

Against that, it is still defying the United Nations Security Council on total enrichment suspension and refuses to enter into talks about a long-term way of ensuring that its intentions are peaceful.

There is an added loose-end this time.

It is not clear how Iran could convert - and therefore why it is doing so - the 20% enriched uranium into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor as only France and Argentina can do that at the moment.

Sanctions debate

All this leaves the countries negotiating with Iran - the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - split as to how to react.

The US, Britain, France and Germany want to increase sanctions, and aim them specifically at those involved in the nuclear work, but China has said no for the moment and Russia is uncertain.

The hope is that a policy can be agreed by the time of a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in May.

Israel seems willing at the moment to wait to see how the diplomacy works out and the US does not appear keen on military action.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has recently stressed not only the instability that would result from Iran acquiring nuclear weapons but the instability that would result from an attack on Iran.


So the new enrichment is for a medical reactor to provide material for Xray machines etc

I remember there being shortages it that material in North America after a Canadian reactor was shut down.....

and the Iranian reactor in question is one that was provided by the US, built for that purpose

and the enrichment is going to be monitored by the IAEA



hmmmmmm

sounds less frightening all the time




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:56 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day
- http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?



That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]



I seen this and I think it addresses what you were asking maybe a little more clearly than I did


http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/02/17/irans-unambiguous-ambig
uity


Iran's unambiguous ambiguity

"What is Iran hiding?" asked Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, rhetorically.

It is, she concluded on the basis of "mounting evidence" - read circumstantial evidence - developing "nuclear weapons" and that is not acceptable to the US.

True, Iran is not coming clean on its intentions over its nuclear programme. Rather it is doing the absolute minimum under its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations to underline how its nuclear programme is civilian in nature, when UN resolutions and mounting suspicion require more.

But states are in the business of hiding their intentions, especially concerning national security and sovereignty. If they were forthcoming and transparent, intelligence services would not exist.

Actually, Tehran is managing a sensitive, even dangerous balancing act. It reveals the minimum required by its international obligations while making bombastic statements about its breakthroughs in nuclear enrichment.

As it tries to please the IAEA as an accountable member of the international community, it annoys, even embarrasses, the US and its European partners to please its nationalistic popular base.

Nuclear made unclear

Why would Iran go through the trouble and risk of igniting stiffer sanctions and possible military attack?

Arguably because it reckons that is the best way to safeguard its national sovereignty and strategic deterrence in a region dominated by a US and Western military presence.

Iraq, if we care to remember, was also ambiguous about its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programme prior to the 2003 US-led invasion.

As the regime of Saddam Hussein complied with related international resolutions and destroyed all traces of whatever WMD programme (imagined or real) it had, it continued its political posturing just as it maintained its ambiguous military posture.

After his capture, Saddam Hussein told his US jailors that Baghdad did not come clean because the regime was concerned with maintaining a minimum deterrence towards Tehran. The same applied to Washington.

The Iranian regime which stood silent, even complicit, as the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, in the hope of gaining favour and influence, found itself vulnerable after 2004 when the Bush administration went wild in its crusade to transform the region's politics and stood by Israel as it invaded South Lebanon in 2006 to take on Tehran's ally, Hezbollah.

Remember in 2007, the most authoritative arm of the US government on the subject, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), concluded with "high confidence" that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme".

What is Washington hiding?

Today, as the Obama administration escalates its war in Afghanistan, redeploys in and out of Iraq, and appeases Israel, Tehran is making sure that its security is not discounted and its interests are not taken for granted.

President Obama is well aware of Tehran's strategic anxiety and its search for strategic accommodation with Washington.

Which explains why, only a few weeks after taking office, Obama spoke directly to the 'great Iranian nation' on the occasion of Nowruz - the Persian new year - of 'extending a hand to Tehran if it unclenched its fist'.

He also promised a new approach driven by pragmatism, not ideology, and on the basis of "mutual interest and mutual respect". He later approved direct negotiations with Iran - the first since 1979.

But the Iranians have rejected America's demand that talks be limited to their nuclear programme, especially when that is the domain of the IAEA, not the US and its NATO allies.

If Washington's agenda is nuclear, Tehran's agenda is national security and its future role in the region.

That is why it is disingenuous of the US secretary of state to claim that Iran refuses to sit down with Washington, and neglects to mention how Washington will not sit down with Iran to discuss the latter's regional concerns.

With its neighbours to the north and south - Iraq and Afghanistan - occupied by the US and as it is threatened by Israel, Tehran demands explicit recognition of Iran's regional status and long-term US commitments and assurances.

Which begs the question: Is the Obama administration ready to discuss Iran's vision of the region or to recognise Iran's regional power with all that it invokes in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Cairo?

Judging from the ongoing US diplomatic offensive, that is not likely for now.

Back to the future

Instead, Washington has pursued three possible alternatives: Charm/conciliation, coercion/sanctions and regime change/war.

Since the charm offensive failed to slow down Iran's uranium enrichment, let alone stop it or tone down the bombastic rhetoric, the Obama administration is moving towards the second option: Sanctions and isolation.

Its first signs were revealed on the eve of Obama's visit to China last November. He reportedly dispatched special Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to explain to the Chinese the logic behind US pressure on Iran and the danger of the alternative scenarios, such as an Israeli military operation against the Iranian nuclear programme.

Since then attempts at imposing new sanctions have grown more urgent.

Naval US deployments to the Gulf to 'defend' its allies from possible Iranian missile attack (!), through to Clinton's visit this week to enlist the support of Washington's Arab and Turkish allies, are escalating US diplomatic pressure on Iran and signal a dramatic shift in US policy despite continued hesitation, even aversion, to its new position from its interlocutors.

If sanctions do not force the increasingly "military dictatorship" to give up its nuclear enrichment, to use Clinton's words, Washington hopes Iran will implode from within in light of the potent opposition to the regime, saving America the trouble of waging another war in the Muslim world.

I expect Obama, who vowed to deny Iran nuclear weapons at any cost, to focus US efforts on sanctions and coercion in order to diminish Tehran's leverage as it bargains over its nuclear programme.

As for the war option, it will remain on the table to intimidate Iran and to tame the reservations and outright objections from friend and foe alike.




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102197251740380
0.html


'Resolutions unlawful'

Soltanieh said: "Repeated requests by the IAEA for further inspection are not acceptable for us.

"Iran will neither co-operate beyond the IAEA safeguards nor will it carry out demands of the United Nations resolutions."

He said Tehran's reasons for not doing so are that "Iran considers these resolutions to be contrary to international law".

While visiting Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar earlier in thee week, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said Iran was heading towards a "military dictatorship" and warned it posed an international threat.


So the US is rewriting international law to suit their own agenda ...agian

hard to doubt that



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 4:06 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102197251740380
0.html


'Resolutions unlawful'

Soltanieh said: "Repeated requests by the IAEA for further inspection are not acceptable for us.

"Iran will neither co-operate beyond the IAEA safeguards nor will it carry out demands of the United Nations resolutions."

He said Tehran's reasons for not doing so are that "Iran considers these resolutions to be contrary to international law".

While visiting Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar earlier in thee week, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said Iran was heading towards a "military dictatorship" and warned it posed an international threat.


So the US is rewriting international law to suit their own agenda ...agian

hard to doubt that



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 20, 2010 3:10 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Hmmmm are the IAEA reports different simply because of the author ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8524479.stm


Tougher IAEA line reflects new management

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Yukiya Amano
Yukiya Amano urged Iran to co-operate in clarifying outstanding issues

The latest report on Iran by the UN's nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reflects a tougher approach by the agency under its new director-general.

But while the language is stronger, it is less clear that the evidence is. There are still more questions than answers.

The effect, though, is that the headlines taken from this report are more dramatic and the arguments for sanctions are more pronounced.

What has happened with this report is that the new IAEA chief, Yukiya Amano, a Japanese lawyer and diplomat, is more open in saying that Iran's activities do raise concerns, not just about its past programmes but about its present.

The key new word here is "current".

"The information available to the agency... is extensive... and broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail... [and] raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," Mr Amano says.

"Iran needs to co-operate in clarifying outstanding issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions," he adds.

'Credible' evidence

You can see the difference by looking at the more cautious approach under the previous director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei.
Mohamed ElBaradei
Mr ElBaradei said there "no credible evidence" about a weapons attempt

In his last report in November 2009, this was the phrasing: "There remain a number of outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, and which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme."

Where Mr ElBaradei avoids the word "current" and is reluctant to link his "concerns" to "possible military dimensions", Mr Amano does just that.

Where his predecessor delicately sought Iranian answers in order to "exclude" the existence of "possible military dimensions", Mr Amano comes out and says there is "credible" evidence behind those concerns.

The difference might not appear large, but in the language of nuclear diplomacy it is significant.

Concerns

So what are these concerns based on?

URANIUM ENRICHMENT
BBC graphic
Iran says it is increasing uranium enrichment from 3.5% needed for commercial nuclear reactors
Iran says it has started enriching to 20%, needed for a research reactor near Tehran
Weapons-grade uranium is at least 90% enriched
Experts say achieving 20% is a key step towards weapons grade

In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle
Q&A: Iran nuclear issue

First, it is worth noting that they are not wholly about uranium enrichment. That gets most of the headlines.

The IAEA is monitoring Iranian enrichment and continues to confirm that declared material has not been diverted (to nuclear weapons use), though this time the statement is not unqualified as it usually is.

A caveat has been added saying that Iran has not given enough information to allow the IAEA to "confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities".

The concerns are also to do with other activities, about which Iran remains largely unresponsive.

The latest report lists them - notably whether Iran developed a "spherical implosion system" for a nuclear warhead; whether designs for a missile payload were for a nuclear device; plus "activities involving high-precision detonators; studies on the initiation of high explosives and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 [uranium dioxide] to UF4 [uranium tetrafluoride], known as the 'green salt project'; and various procurement activities".

Laptop

Some of the "broadly consistent and credible" evidence on which this is based came from a laptop produced by the US and said to be from an Iranian source.
Natanz uranium enrichment facility (2007)
Iran's government insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful

Iran has refused to give detailed replies to these allegations because it says the information was forged.

The IAEA has known about these allegations for some time.

What it is now more open about saying is that all these alleged activities (plus others like the development of a heavy-water reactor to which the IAEA has been denied access) form the basis for the "concerns about possible military dimensions."

In plain language, it means that there are fears that Iran has studied elements of bomb-making in the past and - the new point - it cannot be ruled out that they are still doing so.

This does not mean that they are. The Iranians deny it and their Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just repeated that Iran does not intend to make a nuclear bomb.

However, the IAEA report will probably strengthen the hand of those wanting to increase sanctions on Iran, discussions about which are currently going on in the UN Security Council.



I remember the Bushites having a hate on for ElBaradei because he disagreed with their intel and was willing to say so

But now the new guy is reinterpreting everything, and giving the US what they want... No wonder Iran is questioning the inspection process

this is a bad sign as ElBaradei was right about Iraq, and discredits the IAEA as being impartial






Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:28 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Can you say " Arms Race " where you at Hillary!



News Middle East
Israel drones 'could target Iran'
The Heron TP drone has a wingspan the same size
as a Boeing 737 passenger jet [AFP]

Israel's air force has unveiled a fleet of unmanned aircraft that its says are able to reach the Gulf, putting Iran within range.

The Heron TP drones, which have a wingspan the size of a Boeing 737 passenger jet, were presented to the media on Sunday, as Israel pushes for international action against the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme.

The aircraft, developed by the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and be used for surveillance or launching a missile attack.

"I can tell you, it can do a lot of missions. It can do some special missions, unique missions that no other UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] can do," Lieutenant Colonel Eyal Asenheim, a drone operator, told The Associated Press news agency.

Brigadier General Amikam Norkin, the head of the base that will operate the drones, said: "With the inauguration of the Heron TP, we are realising the air force's dream.

"The Heron TP is a technological and operational breakthrough."

However, Israeli military officials did not specifically say if the drones were actually designed for operations against Iran.

Israel, which accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, has been putting pressure on UN Security Council members to support US moves for fresh sanctions against Tehran.

War talk

Tehran has repeatedly said that its nuclear programme is for purely civilian purposes and has highlighted the apparent hypocrisy of Israel, which is believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear power.

On Tuesday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, said that he believed Israel was "seeking to start a war next spring or summer, although their decision is not final yet".

However, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, said that there were no plans for military action, calling Ahmadinejad's remarks "manipulations".

"We are not planning any wars," he said after meeting Russian officials to discuss tougher sanctions against Iran.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the things we are hearing are a result of Iran's feeling there is an increase in talks about sanctions."

Israel has repeatedly said that it hopes the situation will be resolved through diplomacy, but it has not ruled out military action and has frequently suggested that Iran could face a military strike.

In 1981, Israeli warplanes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, and in 2007 a suspected Israeli attack destroyed what the US said was a nearly finished nuclear reactor in Syria.



http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102211813473256
34.html






Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL