WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

gopnarak · February 1, 2012

That they signed the contract and breaking the contract would give the USA the right to attack is a troll argument.

The problem is not breaking a contract. The problem is developing a nuclear weapon when they have sworn not to.

breaking a contract as in doing what you have sworn not to do.

Okay, last round. It is still a troll argument

1. Whatever other countries have developed or not, signed a treaty or not, totally doesn't matter.

2. Iran says it sticks to the treaty and there is no evidence that they are in the process to develop nuclear weapon.

period.

But okay lets imagine for a short moment it would be the other way around:

1. Iran never signed the NPT and develops nuclear weapon.

2. Would the US reaction in that case be: Okay. never mind, up to them, they never sworn not to, so they can do what they want just like Israel, India, Pakistan did. we don't object in this case. No signed treaty, they are free to go.

I doubt that.

I think we can skip all the but Israel, Pakistan and so on has the nuke arguments, same as the US will not allow that Iran develops nuke because Iran signed a treaty argument.

Jingthing · February 1, 2012

...

Iran runs nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy.

...

Nobody believes that.

It is obviously propaganda.

Maybe you believe it, but I seriously doubt that as well.

Seriously, that rates up there with Ahmadinejad's "we have no gays in Iran" proclamations.

Any intelligent discussion of the Iranian nuclear program needs to start at a place of reality. That means of course that Iran wants at least the capability of developing nuclear weapons in a short time. I don't think it's worth people's time anymore to play fiction games with obvious propaganda as you have presented here.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Jingthing

flying · February 1, 2012

More links to a notorious Ron Paulian (of the racist hate newsletters), "libertarian" (of the Israel 911 conspiracy theory obsession), "global Zionist conspiracy" website. How very surprising! No wonder these types would be either closet or not-so-closet Iran regime cheerleaders.

??? You must be thinking of another site

Cheerleader?

It is a antiwar site so I guess they cheer antiwar & pro-market...What are you cheering?

The daily news and opinion site was founded in 1999 by anarcho-capitalists Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert to help carry on the anti-war, anti-state, pro-market work of Murray N. Rothbard.

Edited February 1, 2012 by flying

gopnarak · February 1, 2012

That you misread my post is sure, trolling possible.

If you'll actually read the link you yourself gave for the Der Spiegle interview, there are serious questions regarding Iran's intentions which are unanswered. It doesn't say "no evidence". Also, if I'm not mistaken this interview took place before the latest IAEA report came out.

I didn't misread your post. That but they signed the NPT is a null argument or not the central point as you said.

The latest IAEA report states nowhere that they have found evidence that Iran develops nuclear weapons.

That "many" "think" that Iran would do that, is no evidence and are just things that happens in the head of these manythinkthats, but not things that actually happen in Iran.

take a look at that:

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html

There might be a warehouse in the outskirts of Tehran full of guano fertilizer and cat litter, but a nuclear weapon program. No.

gopnarak · February 1, 2012

...

Iran runs nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy.

...

Nobody believes that.

It is obviously propaganda.

Maybe you believe it, but I seriously doubt that as well.

Seriously, that rates up there with Ahmadinejad's "we have no gays in Iran" proclamations.

Any intelligent discussion of the Iranian nuclear program needs to start at a place of reality. That means of course that Iran wants at least the capability of developing nuclear weapons in a short time. I don't think it's worth people's time anymore to play fiction games with obvious propaganda as you have presented here.

What have gays to do with the Iranian nuclear program?

Q: Where is the evidence for a nuclear weapon program?

A: Its all in your head.

That Iran develops nuclear weapon is an hoax almost older than Marie Curie.

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.

For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran. Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Earliest-warnings-1979-84

The Phantom Menace:

Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran's Nuclear Program

Facts rarely get in the way of American and Israeli fear-mongering and jingoism, especially when it comes to anti-Iran propaganda. For nearly thirty years now, U.S. and Zionist politicians and analysts, along with some of their European allies, have warned that Iranian nuclear weapons capability is just around the corner and that such a possibility would not only be catastrophic for Israel with its 400 nuclear warheads and state-of-the-art killing power supplied by U.S. taxpayers, but that it would also endanger regional dictatorships, Europe, and even the United States.

If these warnings are to be believed, Iran is only a few years away from unveiling a nuclear bomb...and has been for the past three decades. Fittingly, let's begin in 1984..

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html

flying · February 1, 2012

The "bad guys" aren't as innocent as you may want to believe. They are involved with terrorism and they do run a tight ship inside their country. Also not the best neighbors some countries might wish for. Haven't blown up the world or anything, but they do not play nice. "Haven't done anything wrong" is streching reality a bit.

Of course, you got other countries doing pretty much the same. Difference is Iran manages to combine vehement rhetoric (often unacceptable between countries), being strategically placed, having a lot of oil, and the capability to carry threats out.

The fact that the USA isn't the goody good hero in shiny armor doesn't necessarily make Iran into an innocent victim.

You know you speak well & I cannot say I disagree...In Fact I don't.,,,But you are misunderstanding me & perhaps that is my fault in using the words I did.

When I say Iran hasn't done anything wrong I am of course saying to warrant being bombed by the US or Israel

I do not consider the *bad* guys as you call them innocent....Nor do I consider the *bad* US & the *bad* Israelis* innocent. That would also be stretching reality as you say to consider those guys have not done anything wrong.

You say the difference is Iran manages to combine rhetoric? I say so does Israel & the US...Except they do it through a controlled media that they release often unfounded claims through.

I agree Iran is placed strategically & has a lot of oil...as for carrying out threats? So far I have only seen threats from one side & answers from Iran.

As I always say judge by what has happened not by what we think might. Otherwise how does it all work from here on in?

Is this all it will take these days to bomb a country? The threat in our minds that they may do something because we dont like their rhetoric?

Let me also say the same as you did....

The fact that the Iran isn't the goody good hero in shiny armor doesn't necessarily make US/Israel into an innocent victims.

flying · February 1, 2012

Yes, Israel may have nuclear weapons. Yes, India, the UK, Russia and the USA have nuclear weapons. However, no one is particularly worried that any of the aforementioned countries will launch a nuke at someone because of a disagreement.

You May only

Speak for yourself.....

Jingthing · February 1, 2012

Denial artists, you're just going to have to ACCEPT that the leadership in the western world thinks Iran is working on getting nuclear weapons building CAPABILITY. I think it is credible that they have not yet decided they want to go all the way to building the weapons. That's hardly super relevant as without the CAPABILITY it wouldn't matter how they have decided on that at this point in time. Once the CAPABILITY is achieved, they can decide to go ahead with the weapons quickly at any time after that. You may not think Iran having the capability is problem but the western powers DO. Back and forth "arguments" about these basic assumptions at this point on this forum are totally pointless.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Jingthing

gopnarak · February 1, 2012

A bipartisan American group suggests it is now time to show the ACTUAL willingness to use force against Iran to prevent their nuclear program falling short of using it for now. Makes total sense to me:

The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action.

http://www.haaretz.c...t-iran-1.410359

NOW it is ACTUAL the time? Makes total sense to me:

2011

The Globe and Mail, November 4, 2011

Israel signals attack on Iran is possible

Agence France Presse, November 3, 2011

In Israel, speculation over strike on Iran grows

Haaretz, September 28, 2011

France: Iran risks attack if it continues to develop nuclear program

USA Today, September 26, 2011

Report: Obama sells bunker-buster bombs to Israel

The Associated Press, May 30, 2011

Israel minister: Strike on Iran could be necessary

Ottawa Citizen, May 9, 2011

Israel 'stupid' to bomb Iran, ex-Mossad chief says

Agence France Presse, May 5, 2011

Iran won't use nuclear bomb against Israel: Barak

Agence France Presse, January 25, 2011

**Iran not working on bomb: Israel intelligence head

The Australian, January 13, 2011

Israel PM warns of N-strike on Iran,

The Associated Press, January 3, 2011

Aftenposten: Israel gears up for Iran attack

2010

Agence France Presse, December 29, 2010

**Iran 3 years from making the bomb: Israel minister

The Washington Times, December 6, 2010

Will Israel or the U.S. strike Iran first?,

The Australian, November 30, 2010

Israel sets deadline for attack on nuclear Iran

The Guardian, November 30, 2010

Motorcycle bombers mount co-ordinated attacks on nuclear scientists in Tehran

Agence France Presse, November 29, 2010

Israel could strike Iran without US help: leaked cable

Agence France Presse, August 20, 2010

**US tells Israel Iran is one year from atomic bomb

The Christian Science Monitor, August 12, 2010

Is Israel really likely to attack Iran next summer?

Agence France Presse, June 12, 2010

Saudis tests clearing skies for Israel to bomb Iran: report

Wall St Journal April 21, 2010

Israel Weighs Merits of Solo Attack on Iran

2009

The Associated Press, December 15, 2009

**Israel: Iran nearing atomic bomb capability

Washington Times, October 22, 2009

World Watch: What happens if Israel strikes Iran from the air?,

Christian Science Monitor, October 13, 2009

Could an Israeli air strike stop Iran's nuclear program?; Israel does have the capability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities,

Wall St Journal, September 22, 2009

Israel: Military Hints Strike Option is On the Table for Iran

The Montreal Gazette, September 17, 2009

Iran's nuclear facilities under fire; Israel will attack by end of year if no sanctions, ex-defence official says,

The New Zealand Herald, July 6, 2009

US 'won't stand in the way' of Israel attack on Iran - Biden

The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2009

What If Israel Strikes Iran?, By John R. Bolton

The Australian, June 9, 2009

Israel may strike Iran, says Clinton

Agence France Presse, June 3, 2009

Israel 'does not intend to bomb Iran': Lieberman

The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2009

CIA head: Israel knows attack on Iran would mean 'big trouble'

The Times (London), April 18, 2009

Israel raises the stakes over Iran as it stands ready to bomb nuclear sites

The Baltimore Sun, April 16, 2009

Gates Warns Israel Against Iran Attack

The Jerusalem Post, April 2, 2009

Petraeus warns Israel may launch preemptive strike on Iran,

Agence France Presse, March 25, 2009

**Iran able to build nuclear bomb in year: Israel

CBS News February 11, 2009

**Iran May Be Closer To Nukes Than Thought

Agence France Presse, January 11, 2009

US rejected Israel's plea for strike against Iran: report

for 1994- 2008 check this:

http://www.iranaffai...e-rattling.html

Pakboong · February 1, 2012

...

Iran runs nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy.

...

Nobody believes that.

It is obviously propaganda.

Maybe you believe it, but I seriously doubt that as well.

Seriously, that rates up there with Ahmadinejad's "we have no gays in Iran" proclamations.

Any intelligent discussion of the Iranian nuclear program needs to start at a place of reality. That means of course that Iran wants at least the capability of developing nuclear weapons in a short time. I don't think it's worth people's time anymore to play fiction games with obvious propaganda as you have presented here.

Perhaps you are right JT, but we don't bomb countries and start WW3 over what people want. You keep mentioning A---------d as if he is the new Hitler. i am not particularly crazy about the guy but I don't like Netanyahoo either. He is right wing extreme to a fault and that bothers me in this particular situation at least as much as A------------d.

I keep hearing the "wipe off the map" story which was in fact never said. I am however, quite confident that at least 1.5 of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world would similarly talk in private about how much they do not like Israel and that Israel would just disappear. NO secret and no reason to ship all the Muslims off to the camps for extermination. Isreal seems to have an image problem that they are directly responsible for and until such time as they make much more of an effort to get along with their neighbors, they will always have an image problem.

A------------d disputes the body count at Auschwitz, so what. Any scholar who considers the information also disputes the body count at Auschwitz. That does not make him anything other than one of millions if not billions who disputes the body count. Even the Jewish virtual library disputes the count and don't ask me for a link but I could find the contradiction if I wanted to take the time. I have in fact read it in the Jewish virtual Library several times. The library actually added a footnote to the contradiction a few years ago trying to explain the contradiction. To give you a quick example, the Jewish Virtual Library claims that 3 million Polish Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, there were only 3,100,000 Polish Jews. The same Jewish Virtual Library claims that one million Polished Jews escaped into Russia in advance of the German Invasion. So you want to hate A----------d for something that even the Jews aren't all the clear on.

I know your point is that A------------d runs a country that supports terrorism but clearly Netanyahoo does as well and what is good for the goose is in fact, good for the gander.

Please give it a rest, you are so much smarter than this. No need to lead into your point with any credible person would agree with me, or in this particular case, intelligent discussion would go in a way in which your point agrees. No need to do that, it weakens your arguement instead of strenghtening it.

There are two pro-Israeli posters that I consider among the smartest of the smart here on Thai Visa. It bothers me that when they involve themselves in discussions of Isreal that they slip back into the ordinary mode and completely lose the objectivity and cognitive skills that separates them from the others.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Pakboong

Pedzie · February 1, 2012

Even if Iran did make a bomb they would not fire it straight at Israel, it would be like suicide!!

Look at the other countries that have nukes, North Korea, Pakistan, no mention of wiping out their nuke capabilities!

Iran having nukes is just the cover story we're all meant to fall for, the US and It's allies want to dominate the region.

Iran also depends heavily on Russia & China for trade and exports a lot of its oil to China, it would be safe to say that Russia & China would not allow Iran to attack Israel. It would be bad for all 3 countries and indeed the world!

Pedzie · February 1, 2012

This thread is really going about in circles with the expected wacko theories presented. How about a dose of reality?

Iran has repeatedly stated it views the USA and several EU nations as an enemy. Why else would the government allow mobs to attack the US compound (which was under protection of the Swiss)? Why else would government leaders use some rather chilling language to express their sentiments? Iran has repeatedly stated that it wants Israel removed as a nation and has used nasty rhetoric in the process. Iran is the one that has obfuscated and screwed around on the nuclear facility inspections since day one.

Yes, Israel may have nuclear weapons. Yes, India, the UK, Russia and the USA have nuclear weapons. However, no one is particularly worried that any of the aforementioned countries will launch a nuke at someone because of a disagreement. However, there is worry from the rest of the world that Iran will do so. Even Russia and China acknowledge this concern. The issue that the rest of the world, particularly those at risk have is to how best to manage the situation. Ideally, this matter should be resolved peacefully, but that would require cooperation from Iran and Iran hasn't been particularly willing to discuss the matter. A breakthrough may be on the horizon if a jump in oil prices hurts Iran's largest customer, China, and if the UN drafts a statement acceptable to both Russia and China. as of yesterday, Russia was indicating it was possible as the draft proposal was incorporating Russian "language" into the wording. Both Russia and China will turn quickly if they believe their interests are at stake. As of now, they do not believe that is the case. Russia is on the hot seat now with the Arab world over its backing of the Syrian regime and it might show movement on this issue to take the pressure off.

I would be more worried of the US using a nuke before Iran, the US was the first to use them and they will be the next to use a nuke!

Ulysses G. · February 1, 2012

A------------d disputes the body count at Auschwitz, so what.

Why would you post this nonsense? He disputes that it happened at all and he does want to wipe Israel off the face of the map and has said the equivilant more than once.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

- “A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel.”

Ulysses G. · February 1, 2012

Look at the other countries that have nukes, North Korea, Pakistan, no mention of wiping out their nuke capabilities!

As has been said repeatedly, those nuts already have nukes. The Iranian nuts do not and no one wants them to get them other than al Queda and Hamas.

Pedzie · February 1, 2012

Look at the other countries that have nukes, North Korea, Pakistan, no mention of wiping out their nuke capabilities!

As has been said repeatedly, those nuts already have nukes. The Iranian nuts do not and no one wants them to get them other than al Queda and Hamas.

So what would be your idea of solving the problem with Iran ?

Once the bunker buster bombs are ready then I'm sure the megalomaniacs in the US-UK will use them, then after Iran who's next ? Look at Iran's neighbours...Iraq, lots of oil, attacked illegally by the US-UK, Afganistan also attacked under the pretext of the 'war on terror'

Can't you see that it's all about oil ! Dwindling resources, higher demand from India China etc. America wants more influence in the region to control the flow of oil.

Once again Iran with a nuke would not attack Israel, the defence systems are already in place to prevent it

Ulysses G. · February 2, 2012

You need to do a little reading on energy. New resources are being found all the time and major ones. The Middle East is important now, but that will lessen in the future, The reason that no one wants those lunatics in Iran to get nukes has little to do with oil.

As far as your insistence that Iran would not attack Israel, there are lots of people who would disagree with you and I am one of them. Also, there are no "defense systems" that can guarantee that a nuclear weapon will not reach its goal and it would only take one.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

Pedzie · February 2, 2012

You need to do a little reading on energy. New resources are being found all the time and major ones. The Middle East is important now, but that will lessen in the future, The reason that no one wants those lunatics in Iran to get nukes has little to do with oil.

As far as your insistence that Iran would not attack Israel, there are lots of people who would disagree with you and I am one of them. Also, There are no "defense systems" that can guarantee that a nuclear weapon will not reach its goal and it would only take one.

Not about oil...Laughable, again look at the map of US bases in the region, all there to protect Israel..Laughable..The US invading Iraq but nothing to do with oil...Laughable, oh wait, Saddam was a bad man yes, but with zero links to al-qaeda! We invaded 'coz them terrorists right' Laughable...

The Caspian sea, holds lots of oil, the US companies can't access it though, it would need to deal with Iran!! Wow aren't we about to target Iran..Laughable..And to get the oil from the landlocked Caspian sea,pipelines would need to be built thru Afganistan/Pakistan, wow we have a major US presence in these countries, coincidence right ??

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pedzie

Ulysses G. · February 2, 2012

How much oil has the US gotten from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The "War for Oil" thing is a fallacious argument.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Ulysses G.

flying · February 2, 2012

Look at the other countries that have nukes, North Korea, Pakistan, no mention of wiping out their nuke capabilities!

As has been said repeatedly, those nuts already have nukes. The Iranian nuts do not and no one wants them to get them other than al Queda and Hamas.

That line of reasoning makes no sense....

If the claim is the *good* guys don't want the *bad unstable* guys to have nukes then how on earth would it be ok to NOT stop other nuts as you call them once they have them?

Again & said numerous times before...That argument is pro everyone getting a nuke if for nothing else than to be left alone. The *good* guys wont threaten to bomb you if you already have one? No Matter who you are?

Obviously since the CIA see's fit to drone the heck out of Pakistan...who holds nukes.

If another possible excuse is because Iran may give one to Terrorist...Then again how is it Pakistan who we constantly call a bed of Terrorist in need of droning are allowed to have them?

This logic of allowing the neighbors of Iran to have Nukes because they already do is silly at best.

Edited February 2, 2012 by flying

geriatrickid · February 2, 2012

Despite years of claims by the USA & Israel, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, NO EVIDENCE has ever been found. At the moment there are three states, (India, Pakistan & Israel), that are classed as US "allies", that have refused to sign any treaty limiting nuclear weapons, yet the USA continues to make demands (without any factual evidence) on Iran. Perhaps they should put their allies houses in order first.

The IAEA report imakes it pretty obvious what Iran is up to as do their own actions.

As for India, Pakistan and Israel, they have signed no treaties, but Iran HAS. Iran is the one that needs to dismantle its nuclear program and live up to its obligations.

I agree that in an ideal world Iran, or any country for that matter should honour treaties they have signed, especially in matters as serious as this. But it is clearly wrong to just single out Iran, and use this as a justification to attack them. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind. America and the Uk are both signatory's to the Biological weapons Conventions of 1977, which declares biological weapons as "repugnant to the conscience of mankind", and prohibits further research and proliferation. Yet the US Defence Dept has admitted to continued research at 127 facilities throughout the country. Likewise the UK at Porton Down, ( An area i happen to know very well), continues to do the same thing. Would impartial inspectors be allowed in to these facilities? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Surely if Iran is obliged to "Live up to it's obligations and dismantle their programme", this rule of thumb should be applied to The US and UK. To suggest otherwise would surely leave one open to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards. Do as i say, not as i do is so very last century!

Not a fair nor even a logical comparison. The US and UK activity is focused on finding effective treatments to biological weapons. The weapons themselves are not being developed.The US has already had to deal with nutters trying to poison people with Anthrax. When Japan suffered the deadly sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway, the initial medical response was terrible. The Japanese had no idea what they were dealing with. By sheer luck one of the few Japanese experts on Sarin poisoning became aware of the crisis and was able to provide a possible cause. Tokyo didn't have the right sarin antidote stockpiled in sufficient quantities and was scrambling to find it, from other Japanese regions. As it was doing that it was asking the USA, Australia and the EU for emergency supplies to fill its stockpile.

Considering that response, imagine what would happen if the infectious agent was an unknown and that there was no grunt work already undertaken to be able to identify and treat some types of biological agents. It's all about prevention. By the same token, the western response to Iran and its nuclear ambitions is one of prevention. Iran is hardly a hotbed of responsible statements or of demonstrating an ability to live in peace with others.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott
formatting

Scott · February 2, 2012

There is a pedantic little argument going on between a few posters who seem to have nothing to say, but continue posting. The thread is not about logic or reasoning. These types of circular discussions are both off-topic and trolling.

You might want to re-read the rules if your confused because shortly you may receive a more formal reminder.

Wallaby · February 2, 2012

I'm more concerned about Israel than Iran.

Mossad hit squads have already carried out assassinations on key Iranian scientists and the Depth Corps has been sent deep inside Iran to prepare an all-out strike against its nuclear programme.

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/02/02/crack-israeli-commando-unit-formed-to-target-iranian-nuclear-programme-115875-23731683/#ixzz1lBg4PFst

United States intelligence officials assert that Iran has the means to build a nuclear weapon but has not yet decided to follow through, in contrast to Israel's insistence that time is running out to stop Iran from developing such a weapon.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10782770

Scott · February 2, 2012

Off-topic, argumentative posts deleted.

Morch · February 2, 2012

That you misread my post is sure, trolling possible.

If you'll actually read the link you yourself gave for the Der Spiegle interview, there are serious questions regarding Iran's intentions which are unanswered. It doesn't say "no evidence". Also, if I'm not mistaken this interview took place before the latest IAEA report came out.

I didn't misread your post. That but they signed the NPT is a null argument or not the central point as you said.

The latest IAEA report states nowhere that they have found evidence that Iran develops nuclear weapons.

That "many" "think" that Iran would do that, is no evidence and are just things that happens in the head of these manythinkthats, but not things that actually happen in Iran.

take a look at that:

http://www.wideaslee...ehoods-and.html

There might be a warehouse in the outskirts of Tehran full of guano fertilizer and cat litter, but a nuclear weapon program. No.

You obviously didn't understand my meaning then.

I said quite clearly, I think, that in my opinion the "signed a contract" issue isn't very important.

So not sure why you replied to mine as well.

And yet again - you keep insisting Iran's nuclear program got no military aspects - that's not exactly what the IAEA says. That there's no clear evidence (at least not public one, I'm pretty sure we don't get all the info on that) does not mean that it isn't so. There are serious questions raised, and no straight answers provided yet.

Also not sure what was the point of quoting this blog - to show that it takes a lot of time to get the technological capability? To show that western intel on Iran wasn't that great for a long while? That governments play the media game?

Reportedly, it took Israel about 15 years to get nuclear weapon capability. Other countries pretty much the same or even longer. Information on these programs is always tricky to get. Iran wasn't a major intel target for a long while, as most services were centered on Iraq. There's just so much resources, even for the USA. All governments play the media, Iran included.

And it's quite rich quoting an Irani blogger posting freely from Brooklyn, presenting some unpopular views. Guess that wouldn't work so well for an American trying that from downtown Teheran :-).

Morch · February 2, 2012

The "bad guys" aren't as innocent as you may want to believe. They are involved with terrorism and they do run a tight ship inside their country. Also not the best neighbors some countries might wish for. Haven't blown up the world or anything, but they do not play nice. "Haven't done anything wrong" is streching reality a bit.

Of course, you got other countries doing pretty much the same. Difference is Iran manages to combine vehement rhetoric (often unacceptable between countries), being strategically placed, having a lot of oil, and the capability to carry threats out.

The fact that the USA isn't the goody good hero in shiny armor doesn't necessarily make Iran into an innocent victim.

You know you speak well & I cannot say I disagree...In Fact I don't.,,,But you are misunderstanding me & perhaps that is my fault in using the words I did.

When I say Iran hasn't done anything wrong I am of course saying to warrant being bombed by the US or Israel

I do not consider the *bad* guys as you call them innocent....Nor do I consider the *bad* US & the *bad* Israelis* innocent. That would also be stretching reality as you say to consider those guys have not done anything wrong.

You say the difference is Iran manages to combine rhetoric? I say so does Israel & the US...Except they do it through a controlled media that they release often unfounded claims through.

I agree Iran is placed strategically & has a lot of oil...as for carrying out threats? So far I have only seen threats from one side & answers from Iran.

As I always say judge by what has happened not by what we think might. Otherwise how does it all work from here on in?

Is this all it will take these days to bomb a country? The threat in our minds that they may do something because we dont like their rhetoric?

Let me also say the same as you did....

The fact that the Iran isn't the goody good hero in shiny armor doesn't necessarily make US/Israel into an innocent victims.

The rhetoric used by Iran is unacceptable by diplomatic standards. Twisting words around doesn't change that.

The USA and Israel sure have expressed aggressive opinion toward Iran, but nowhere near what is coming from Teheran. You don't see military parades in those countries boasting missiles decorated with "marg bar Iran" slogans, for example :-).

"Released through controlled media"? What's that suppose to mean? If anything media and freedom of expression are greater in those countries compared with Iran. "Unfounded claims"? Seems they're kinda mild compared to some the conspiracy theories spewed by Iran's leaders.

It plays both ways, maybe, but Iran obviously got the upper hand when it comes to making aggressive, abusive, threatening public remarks.

I said Iran got the capability to carry out threats. Having a long range delivery system makes it so.

If it wasn't for that, I guess things wouldn't be taken so seriously. Those missiles are repeatedly paraded bearing anti-Israel slogans, btw. Been so for quite a few years now, well before the current crisis.

You say judge by actions...yet condemn the USA for an attack that did not happen yet.

As far as Israel's point of view is concerned - taking the risk of "wait and see" might be too great. Not saying that's right or wrong, but understandable considering current situation and history.

The whole innocent/villain/good/bad thing, when applied to countries, is quite ridiculous. Even governments aren't always that...:-)

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott
formatting

Steely Dan · February 2, 2012

Actually, if one was to hypothetically accept the premise that Iran's nuclear program was peaceful then the only conclusion consistent with this is that it does everything in it's power to make said program appear otherwise. Here are a few examples.

Iran is awash with oil, why does it need nuclear energy at all?
Why try to get enrichment technology when fuel rods could be purchased from elsewhere?
Why play cat and mouse with the IAEA and deny them access on their terms?
Why spend another fortune building reactors deep underground instead of allowing free inspection to surface facilities?
Why incur severe financial sanctions for not cooperating with the IAEA if the whole raison d'etre of nuclear reactors was to save money?
Why make threats to wipe out another nation if you want to portray your nuclear intentions as peaceful?
Why to great fanfare and publicity do you develop missile technology capable of carrying nuclear warheads?

I'm sure others can add to the list, but the above does not reflect the pathology of a peaceful nuclear program, everyone knows this but some still persist in the charade of pretending otherwise.

This all begs a follow up question; Why if peaceful does Iran seem to convey an opposite impression? It's almost as if Iran is inviting an attack.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Steely Dan

Wallaby · February 2, 2012

Actually, if one was to hypothetically accept the premise that Iran's nuclear program was peaceful then the only conclusion consistent with this is that it does everything in it's power to make said program appear otherwise. Here are a few examples.

Iran is awash with oil, why does it need nuclear energy at all?

Why try to get enrichment technology when fuel rods could be purchased from elsewhere?

Why play cat and mouse with the IAEA and deny them access on their terms?

Why spend another fortune building reactors deep underground instead of allowing free inspection to surface facilities?

Why incur severe financial sanctions for not cooperating with the IAEA if the whole raison d'etre of nuclear reactors was to save money?

Why make threats to wipe out another nation if you want to portray your nuclear intentions as peaceful?

Why to great fanfare and publicity do you develop missile technology capable of carrying nuclear warheads?

I'm sure others can add to the list, but the above does not reflect the pathology of a peaceful nuclear program, everyone knows this but some still persist in the charade of pretending otherwise.

'Some' also being US intelligence officials.

Pedzie · February 2, 2012

How much oil has the US gotten from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The "War for Oil" thing is a fallacious argument.

The war for oil is what it's all about, everything may seem fine now with supply's. Think 10-20 years down the line, India & China and other nations will need more & more.

Most oil producing countries have passed the peak oil stage (demand outstripping supply) Why do you think regime change in Libya was so much on the agenda of the US-UK-FR.

The Allies won't stop until there is regime change in Tehran, a government in which the west can deal with more easily, the nuke thing is just a small part of the reasoning about attacking Iran.

flying · February 2, 2012

The whole innocent/villain/good/bad thing, when applied to countries, is quite ridiculous. Even governments aren't always that...:-)

Well I agree with that but maybe not the same way as you.

Will have to agree to disagree with most of the rest you wrote.

Seeing the warnings posted I will leave it at that as I am no longer sure what is allowed.

Thanks

gopnarak · February 2, 2012

Why spend another fortune building reactors deep underground instead of allowing free inspection to surface facilities?

because there are people out who wants to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and building bigger and bigger bombs to do that.

Sign In

WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US