No Doubt Now that Iran is Making a Nuke

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
SECRET CENTRIFUGES PROVE IRAN WANTS NUKES

BBC:Pakistan has confirmed that the former head of its nuclear weapons programme, AQ Khan, gave centrifuges for enriching uranium to Iran. It is the first time Pakistani officials have publicised details of what nuclear materials the disgraced scientist passed on to Iran. Information minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told the BBC’s Urdu service that “a few” centrifuges were involved.

This should be the last straw, as far as BOTH Putin and Iran are concerned: it’s time to issue both ultimatums:

To Putin we should say, “Cancel all nuclear contracts, or else suffer expulsion from G8, and international trade sanctions.” If he refuses, well… then he would have made clear to all whose side he’s really on.

To the mullah-tyrants in Iran we should say, "Dismantle all non-civilian nuclear sites, handover all dual use nuclear equipment and all centrifuges, and allow us to inspect anywhere/anytime (because you have now been caught LYING twice about your nuclear programs) or we will destroy all your nuclear sites - civilian and non-civilian, and destroy your navy *and *your air force with a sustained cruise missile attack that will make Operation Desert Fox - (which Clinton waged for 10 days against Saddam in 1998 - WITHOUT Congressional, NATO, or UNSC approval) - look like a picnic. We only give the mullah-tyrants as much time as it takes to stage all necessary assets to attack them.

from: astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/03/secret-centrifuges-prove-iran-wants.html

===

The only question is, what will the international community do now?
 
40.png
gilliam:
The only question is, what will the international community do now?
Click to expand...
My guess would be the same thing it always does, - talk a lot. And as quickly as they can, leave the camera range, try and negotiate to sell Iran whatever it needs.
 
A simple question…

Why is it alright for the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran?
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
A simple question…

Why is it alright for the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran?
Click to expand...
Because Iran gives arms to terrorists.
 
Didn’t we give arms to Saddam at one time? And what about the Saudis? Don’t we give arms to them?
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Didn’t we give arms to Saddam at one time? And what about the Saudis? Don’t we give arms to them?
Click to expand...
Do you just like to argue or what? I am sure you don’t want nukes in the hands of terrorists.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Didn’t we give arms to Saddam at one time? And what about the Saudis? Don’t we give arms to them?
Click to expand...
thank you, i dont know why eevryone in the US thinks that we have the right to blow people up and noone else does. the use of all wmds is evil, so i dont know how you can say the US has more of a right to do evil. were the only country that has used nukes, which is the #1 reason why we shouldnt even have any. we are currently the biggest threat. noone can tell us to get rid of our nukes because were a superpower.
 
40.png
Mycroft:
thank you, i dont know why eevryone in the US thinks that we have the right to blow people up and noone else does. the use of all wmds is evil, so i dont know how you can say the US has more of a right to do evil. were the only country that has used nukes, which is the #1 reason why we shouldnt even have any. we are currently the biggest threat. noone can tell us to get rid of our nukes because were a superpower.
Click to expand...
The US and EU have a right to defend themselves (see the Catholic Catechism), it is part of Natural Law. Iran has all but declared war on the west and has been preaching about a new Caliphate for years. Simply sitting back and allowing them to have nukes now is as irrational as allowing Germany to have nukes in 1936.

I am not advocating going in and blowing up Iran, but I am advocating other measures to prevent this from happening.

I also advocate the freedom of the Iranian people!
 
40.png
gilliam:
The US and EU have a right to defend themselves (see the Catholic Catechism), it is part of Natural Law. Iran has declared war on the west. Simply sitting back and allowing them to have nukes now is as irrational as allowing Germany to have nukes in 1936.
Click to expand...
i never said we dont have a right to defend ourselves. we are the only country that has abused the power of nuclear weapons and yet we also consider ourselves the country that dictates whether or not anyone else can have nukes. and thats not “defwending” ourselves, cus noones attacked us.
 
Mycroft and thats not “defwending” ourselves said:
Iran supports Hezbullah directly. Hezbullah killed 250 US marines in Lebanon.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act lasted 444 days after murdering the US council general there by drowning him (they stuck a pipe down his throut and pored water down it). They sent the tape to the CIA director in Washington who is said to have panicked and came up with the Iran-Contra concept.

Oh, yea, never forget 9/11.
Click to expand...
 
oh yeah even though the US said the 9-11 terrorists didnt have any links with iraq? you cant just blame a country for what a few people did.
 
I think we really ought to think about the points raised by Mycroft.

First, no nation ever develops weapons systems with the conscious intent to ‘invade’, ‘attack’, or act in an offensive way. It’s always done, or at least put forward as being done, as a defensive measure. We have nukes to ‘defend’ ourselves; never to threaten anybody. The problem is that in political terms, these are extremely relative perceptions. One person’s ‘attacker’ is another’s ‘defense’. This is especially true in the Middle East.

The Iranians have not been blind to what’s been going on. The U.S. govt has put them specifically in its crosshairs (‘axis of evil’ = Iraq, Iran, North Korea). They have seen what happens to countries without nuclear weapons (Iraq) that cross the U.S. govt. They get invaded and conquered. They also see what happens to countries with nukes that cross the U.S. (North Korea); those countries get negotiated with and not invaded. So the Iranians may well rationally conclude that the best way to get the U.S. off their backs is to get a nuclear weapon ASAP.

In an ideal world, no one would have nuclear weapons. Mycroft makes an excellent point in that the only country to have used nuclear weapons in wartime is the United States. It’s completely understandable that other countries, as a protective measure, would want to protect themselves from the wrath of the U.S. by developing a nuke.

The us vs them, good guy vs bad guy rationale only works for public consumption in the home country. We shouldn’t be surprised if the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
I think we really ought to think about the points raised by Mycroft.

First, no nation ever develops weapons systems with the conscious intent to ‘invade’, ‘attack’, or act in an offensive way. It’s always done, or at least put forward as being done, as a defensive measure. We have nukes to ‘defend’ ourselves; never to threaten anybody. The problem is that in political terms, these are extremely relative perceptions. One person’s ‘attacker’ is another’s ‘defense’. This is especially true in the Middle East.

The Iranians have not been blind to what’s been going on. The U.S. govt has put them specifically in its crosshairs (‘axis of evil’ = Iraq, Iran, North Korea). They have seen what happens to countries without nuclear weapons (Iraq) that cross the U.S. govt. They get invaded and conquered. They also see what happens to countries with nukes that cross the U.S. (North Korea); those countries get negotiated with and not invaded. So the Iranians may well rationally conclude that the best way to get the U.S. off their backs is to get a nuclear weapon ASAP.

In an ideal world, no one would have nuclear weapons. Mycroft makes an excellent point in that the only country to have used nuclear weapons in wartime is the United States. It’s completely understandable that other countries, as a protective measure, would want to protect themselves from the wrath of the U.S. by developing a nuke.

The us vs them, good guy vs bad guy rationale only works for public consumption in the home country. We shouldn’t be surprised if the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way.
Click to expand...
Good post. I would argue though that Japan and Germany prior to WWII built large offensive forces specifically for tactically offensive reasons. Anyway, I do agree that if you asked them at the time they would have told you they were for defensive purposes.

I still don’t want nukes in the hands of terrorists or countries that have been directly supporting terrorists for years and is planning a greater ‘Caliphate’. That would include Iran. The chances of a catastrophic result upon innocent civilians is too great.
 
how about everyone gets rid of their nukes.

and we fight eachother with swords instead.
 
If Iron makes nuke, what is the problem with that? U.S is the biggest threat to the world, and U.S never obeys to U.N order.
 
All the critics of the Bush Strategy have it wrong, the basic strategy is sound; where it needs to be strengthened is in the area of deterrence. The Bush strategy statements in Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction really fail to warn others, whether they are friend or foe, from proliferating technologies to second or third parties that may result in a catastrophic event on U.S. soil. Needless to say a nuclear detonation in a major U.S. city would have incalculable, far-ranging global reverberations beyond the direct physical destruction. Therefore, what is required is a new statement of U.S. proliferation deterrence that addresses what the U.S. response might entail in the event that a catastrophic WMD attack occurs on U.S. soil as a result of an asymmetric, terrorist strike… That statement roughly formulated should say to effect: “If you are a state sponsor of terror, with or without a WMD research base; or are an avowed enemy of the U.S., and you have a public policy that espouses the hope and bent for the destruction of the U.S.; you clandestinely proliferate (buy or sell) WMD technologies outside international agreements and inspection regimes, then you are subject to being immediately held strategically culpable should there be a catastrophic WMD event inside the U.S…"

(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com …

Interesting view… don’t know if I endorse it though
 
I still don’t want nukes in the hands of terrorists or countries that have been directly supporting terrorists for years and is planning a greater ‘Caliphate’. That would include Iran. The chances of a catastrophic result upon innocent civilians is too great.
Click to expand...
I don’t want nukes in the hands of terrorists, either, which is why we should be devoting all our resources to neutralizing the threat posed by Al Queda. We probably only disagree over how best to accomplish this.

As far as Iran, they can plan all they want, but the chances of Iran becoming the seat of the new Muslim Caliphate are infinitesimally small. For one thing, Iran is ruled by the minority Shiite sect, something which the majority Sunni Muslims would probably never accept. Also, in the 25 years the ayatollahs have ruled, their influence has spread little beyond their own country and even there, it appears to be waning. Alot of Iranians are unhappy being ruled by mullahs. The one thing that could strengthen the mullahs’ hand would be pressure exerted by an outside infidel power (i.e., the United States). While many Iranians chafe under the ayatollahs, they are also patriotic people who would fight for their country no matter who rules it. This is why the U.S. policy of brinksmanship and intimidation is so counterproductive.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
I don’t want nukes in the hands of terrorists, either, which is why we should be devoting all our resources to neutralizing the threat posed by Al Queda. We probably only disagree over how best to accomplish this…
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization out there.

Hezbullah has killed hundereds of Americans already. Then there is Islamic Jihad and a host of other Islamoterrorists out there who have threatened the US.

A new Caliphate only requires that the individual Shieks (Iran can have one) pledge their allegiance.

We need to have a global and strategic strategy if we ever expect to overcome all this. Read: The Pentagon’s New Map
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top