Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It does indeed appear to be that way and the problem simply cannot be solved that way. The only thing that can do is to create the incentive such that they actually want to do it. You can stop it temporarily, but it will come back. What type of solution is that?
Iran has a neighbour to the East and a neighbour to the west that both have nuclear weapons, not real sure of their relationship with Pakistan, but we know there's no love lost between them and Israel, and they've both been punking each other for a long time, and presently, the Middle East is in greater turmoil then it's ever been in my lifetime. I can certainly understand that Iran might want a nuclear deterrent, but I hope in the end that that isn't their ambition, and I'd like to see the nuclear powers do the RESPONSIBLE thing and eliminate all nuclear weapons that are vastly too indiscriminate to have any legitimacy in war, ever!
Morning MMC
I said to Excon that my understanding that Iran is developing ICBMs is based on the fact that they are developing the technology to launch satellites into space.
But that aside Russia, China, India and Pakistan all have ICBMs. Does that mean that the U.S. should not negotiate deals with them? Recently, the U.S. negotiated a significant nuclear deal with India.
Over and above that, Iran has the knowledge on how to enrich uranium. Iran has the knowledge on how to launch satellites into space. Do you really think that can be changed through military means?
Lol, that you believe that. Yes, all those stockpiles north, South, East and west (of Baghdad) and their delivery systems that could have produced mushroom clouds over US cities, decayed between the time BUSHCO said it all was there, and the time Hans Blix turned the country upside down.
I agree that it is not unrealistic to think that Iran would want such a deterrent. But I think that they understand that if they were to actually try to build one that it would invite a very brutal response. Therefore they probably want to actually know how to build one. I think they already pretty much know how to do it. They probably want to be able to build one quickly if need be. What can be done realistically is not create the incentives such that they do not want to build one, and make sure that if they decide to build one, they cannot do it quickly. Rigid inspections are one way to insure that they cannot build one quickly.
Had Saddam let Blix turn the country upside down instead of Bush, there would have needed be no incursion. Everyone would have known, what had happened to the known WMD.
Oh, he did, and you missed the whole point of Bush telling him (Hans Blix) to get out of the country. WMD was the red herring. Bush intel was fixed around his pre-existing policy of regime change in Iraq.
BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.
There is lots to learn out of the lead up to Iraq2. But you miss all that if you lie about it. I find it silly to do so just for a cheap propaganda missinfo.
Who are you accusing of lying, Hans Blix??
Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
Talk about stating the obvious. Ironically the bolded also happens to be the findings of the government NIE of 2006
It is true that Blix was part of the problem. You are right.
Are you referring to my comment that Iran has maintained all along that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes?
Yes... Blix was a part of the problem.......
He was standing between America telling the Iraqis
'MERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
let's see, unlike their regional nemesis, iran is a signatory to the NPT. again, unlike its primary adversary, it has not initiated war against another state in a century, and this very thread is about its senior official expressing his willingness to accept a fairly negotiated agreement to fulfill the nation's obligations under the NPT. once that agreement is signed by the participants, will those of you who oppose iran's nuclear capacity then express support for next compelling a proven aggressor, israel to also become a compliant NPT signatory?Heya Steel. :2wave: Seems that would be based off or conceding the point to the Iranians that they are doing such for peaceful purposes. Which their intentions have shown otherwise. Their behaviors show otherwise, and even their rhetoric shows this.
iran is in compliance with the agreement it has signed:Yet even though all of the evidence undisputed for years now is that Iran has violated the commitment it made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to seek nuclear weapons. And this is not just any treaty, this is the treaty that is critical for prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons.
the iranian people are more inclined to adopt western/USA ways than any other moslem nationBo peeps way of attempting to show the Iranians.....that the US is not a threat to them. Only reinforces to them we are weak and rather than have problems with them. We will do what we can to avoid such.
You don't think should be projected to them do you?
Who are you accusing of lying, Hans Blix??
Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
Talk about stating the obvious. Ironically the bolded also happens to be the findings of the government NIE of 2006
let's see, unlike their regional nemesis, iran is a signatory to the NPT. again, unlike its primary adversary, it has not initiated war against another state in a century, and this very thread is about its senior official expressing his willingness to accept a fairly negotiated agreement to fulfill the nation's obligations under the NPT. once that agreement is signed by the participants, will those of you who oppose iran's nuclear capacity then express support for next compelling a proven aggressor, israel to also become a compliant NPT signatory?
iran is in compliance with the agreement it has signed:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf
the iranian people are more inclined to adopt western/USA ways than any other moslem nation
reaching out to them, to again become international partners, would be a good thing for our nation and our world
which is why the congress and bibi should not be allowed to undermine the current negotiations
It is true that Blix was part of the problem. You are right.
Considering the present program had its beginnings in the Iraq- Iran war, it was at a minimum borne as a deterrent to invasion and balancing the Israeli nuke ability.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html#/#time243_7203
Help From Pakistani Scientist
In the late 1980s, Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani metallurgist and the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, sells Iran, North Korea and Libya his uranium enrichment technology, and in Libya's case, a bomb design. The transactions do not become public until years later.
In 2005, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency is on the verge of reviewing Tehran's nuclear program when Iranian officials admit to a 1987 meeting with Dr. Khan's representatives. But Tehran tells the agency that it turned down the chance to buy the equipment required to build the core of a bomb.
Nuclear Program Restarts
The Iran-Iraq war, from 1980 to 1988, changes Iran's thinking about the nuclear program. With Saddam Hussein pursuing a nuclear program in Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini secretly decides to restart Iran's program and seeks the assistance of German partners to complete the construction at Bushehr, which was damaged by bombs during the war.
I see, sense Blix didn't go along with the Bush doctrine, say produce a false report that supported the Bush lies, he's part of the problem. I think you have issues dude.
It was only that he kept giving opinions without having been able to do the job. That was a problem. Had he put pressure on Saddam instead, Saddam might have folded in spite of the support from Schröder and Putin. That way he would have increased the probability of being able to find out the truth. Instead he just puffed opinion for his audience.
Ok, so Iran thought about a nuclear weapons program, then declined an opportunity to purchase the necessary components, Germany was helping Iran at first, now there on a panel to deter Iran, our own intelligence agencies have stated that they haven't the program..............look, PROVE that they have a nuke, or that they are building a nuke, then, we can discuss whether or not Iran is as likely to ever use one as the US did.
U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/w...see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=0
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb - Los Angeles Times
US/Israel: Iran NOT Building Nukes
January 24, 2012
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/24/usisrael-iran-not-building-nukes/
U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon
U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon | Reuters
'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'
'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon' - Diplomacy and Defense - Israel News | Haaretz
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people making **** up for the express purpose of perpetuating war in the Middle East, and feeding the god damn military industrial complex, and destroying this region of the world.
Ok, so Iran thought about a nuclear weapons program, then declined an opportunity to purchase the necessary components, Germany was helping Iran at first, now there on a panel to deter Iran, our own intelligence agencies have stated that they haven't the program..............look, PROVE that they have a nuke, or that they are building a nuke, then, we can discuss whether or not Iran is as likely to ever use one as the US did.
U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/w...see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=0
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb - Los Angeles Times
US/Israel: Iran NOT Building Nukes
January 24, 2012
https://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/24/usisrael-iran-not-building-nukes/
U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon
U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon | Reuters
'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'
'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon' - Diplomacy and Defense - Israel News | Haaretz
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people making **** up for the express purpose of perpetuating war in the Middle East, and feeding the god damn military industrial complex, and destroying this region of the world.
Were did I state they have a nuke- nope nothing for me to prove.
Iran has to prove that - reason why the negotiations are ongoing.
Best case is these talks, if they succeed will only provide information IF Iran decides to build a nuke.
And that is the best case that the P5+1 can conclude.
Well, tell Iran to quit feeding their military complex.....and to quit trying to procure **** they aren't suppose be trying to get.
As my colleague Benjamin Weinthal recently reported, German Customs’ criminal investigation unit noted in November 2014 that more than two thirds of all its investigations in 2012 and 2013 involved Iranian procurement efforts for sanctioned goods. In late 2013, a German court sentenced three Iranian nationals and one German to prison for procuring valves for the Arak reactor. In another case still pending in an Italian court, a US-owned company is being charged with trying to deliver industrial-sized water chillers to the Islamic Republic to be used in deep underground facilities for the development and production of weapons of mass destruction.
The US Department of the Treasury, for its part, has used existing sanctions four times in 2014 to target Iranian sanctions evasion networks. These networks have provided Tehran with illicit nuclear procurement, money laundering, and transshipment channels. Treasury has used its powers sparingly, however, and there is little evidence that Iran’s efforts to circumvent sanctions are abating. Instead, Iranian entities targeted by Western and UN sanctions continue to operate under new names.....snip~
Iran's History Of Nuclear Deceit Explains Why There Hasn't Been A Deal Yet - Business Insider
Jan. 29, 2015, 4:42 PM
I just gave you five sources stating that they aren't even building one!!!!!!! Wtf
Btw, Iran doesn't have to prove that they aren't doing something. You know what that's called???
Iran can buy whatever the **** they want to buy. Does Iran or any other country for that matter tell the US what they can and can't buy. Besides, I demonstrated that the CIA and Mossad as well as other US agencies have stated that Iran hasn't even decided to build a bomb. Stop fretting over what you're afraid might happen and start showing concern for the things that are happening.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?