Latest disclosure about Iran's Clandestine Nuclear sites

[Alborz Taha]

Get more information on following address and post your commetnt.

http://www.english.mojahedin.org/pagesEn/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=625 & cat=354f

[Popeye]

Get more information on following address and post your commetnt.

http://www.english.mojahedin.org/pagesEn/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=625 & cat=354f

Like it or not, Iran is a sovereign nation and has a right to have a nuclear bomb. Israel, India, Pakistan, among others, all have nuclear weapons and we not only condone it, but give them billions in aid. Did anybody ever think that the catalyst for Iran's nuclear program has been fear? After all, a certain imperialist nation, we all know, seems to be employing a new form of manifest destiny in the middle east.

[USMC the Almighty]

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. hasn't captured any Israeli or Indian soldiers in Iraq trying to kill Americans. Can't say the same about Iran.

I agree with you regarding Pakistan. They are one coup away from being a nuclearly-armed terrorist state.

Are you really comfortable sitting idly by while America's, arguably, biggest threat acquires nuclear weapons?

[Bunz]

The bottom line with Iran and nukes is that they are a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and in violation of it. I know that other countries are as well and that isnt right. But one must draw a line somewhere and with the rhetoric about Israel, the meddling in Iraq, the line needs to be here. That being said, I dont think an invasion is at all wise or even really possible considering the state currently in our armed forces. Now surgical airstrikes...?

[heyjude]

I think that after the creep in the WH announced that he had of list of nations the US is going to invade, and Iran is on it, that the least the leaders of the country can do is defend themselves. What in the heck did we expect them to do? It frightens me that Bush has nukes to play with!

[USMC the Almighty]

It frightens me that Bush has nukes to play with!

Why.?

[ArmChair General]

The bottom line with Iran and nukes is that they are a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and in violation of it. I know that other countries are as well and that isnt right. But one must draw a line somewhere and with the rhetoric about Israel, the meddling in Iraq, the line needs to be here. That being said, I dont think an invasion is at all wise or even really possible considering the state currently in our armed forces. Now surgical airstrikes...?

1. How is Iran in violation of the treaty?

2. India, Pakistan, and Israel have refused to sign the treaty, yet they all have Nukes. (I guess Iran shouldn't have signed the treaty and nobody would care huh?)

[ArmChair General]

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. hasn't captured any Israeli or Indian soldiers in Iraq trying to kill Americans. Can't say the same about Iran.

I agree with you regarding Pakistan. They are one coup away from being a nuclearly-armed terrorist state.

Are you really comfortable sitting idly by while America's, arguably, biggest threat acquires nuclear weapons?

Iran isn't a threat to the States...at all.

[Bunz]

from wikipedia:
Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government asserts that this enrichment program is a step towards a civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under the terms of the NPT. However, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iran to halt its activity.[24] The United States and some members of the European Union have accused Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, which would be in violation of article II of the NPT. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[25] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.[26] The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.

[USMC the Almighty]

Iran isn't a threat to the States...at all.

That's up for debate.

However, if the AQ does attain any kind of significant power in Iran the prospect of a nuclear holocaust rises dramatically.

[ArmChair General]

That's up for debate.

However, if the AQ does attain any kind of significant power in Iran the prospect of a nuclear holocaust rises dramatically.

The BIg AQ is enemys with Iran.

[ArmChair General]

from wikipedia:
Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government asserts that this enrichment program is a step towards a civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under the terms of the NPT. However, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iran to halt its activity.[24] The United States and some members of the European Union have accused Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, which would be in violation of article II of the NPT. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[25] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.[26] The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.

You should know that I don't have much faith in what the Bush Administration sais about Iran. As they say, fool me once...

[souran mardini]

Is the clash of civilisation inevitable, religious or otherwise?
Do we see any signs of it? and what is the remedy, if at all?
Souran

[Cookie Parker]

Like it or not, Iran is a sovereign nation and has a right to have a nuclear bomb. Israel, India, Pakistan, among others, all have nuclear weapons and we not only condone it, but give them billions in aid. Did anybody ever think that the catalyst for Iran's nuclear program has been fear? After all, a certain imperialist nation, we all know, seems to be employing a new form of manifest destiny in the middle east.

Great post...common sense...reality...you're a democrat or independent, correct?;)

[Cookie Parker]

That's up for debate.

However, if the AQ does attain any kind of significant power in Iran the prospect of a nuclear holocaust rises dramatically.

How can you say that? OUr nation is the only one to have ever unleashed the bomb...and what of our dirty bombs?

[USMC the Almighty]

How can you say that? OUr nation is the only one to have ever unleashed the bomb...and what of our dirty bombs?

What does that have to do with anything?We used it over 60 years ago to end a world war and save lives. To the best of my knowledge the U.S. hasn't vowed to wipe any countries off the face of the map.

[Popeye]

What does that have to do with anything?We used it over 60 years ago to end a world war and save lives. To the best of my knowledge the U.S. hasn't vowed to wipe any countries off the face of the map.

To be honest with you, I think Cookie makes a valid point. We, go around the world acting high and mighty, dictating to the rest of the world as to who is allowed to have nuclear weapons and who isn't. Threats are one thing, but in the history of warfare, only two nuclear bombs have been detonated, both by the US. I don't care whether it was 60 years ago or not, the repercussions of Nagasaki and Hiroshima will always be with us. You're right, we haven't "vowed to wipe any countries off the face of the map", but we sure have implied it by our past actions.

[Lasher]

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. hasn't captured any Israeli or Indian soldiers in Iraq trying to kill Americans.-------------
If we did, they wouldn't be punished. Remember the USS Liberty?


Can't say the same about Iran.
-------------
Iranians are killing Americans in Iraq?


I agree with you regarding Pakistan. They are one coup away from being a nuclearly-armed terrorist state.
----------
Just like Israel, huh?


Are you really comfortable sitting idly by while America's, arguably, biggest threat acquires nuclear weapons?
------------
Just why is Iran America's biggest threat? Have they threatened us? How long did you live in Israel?

[Lasher]

What does that have to do with anything?We used it over 60 years ago to end a world war and save lives.
--------------
Killing saves lives? Is it still 1984?


To the best of my knowledge the U.S. hasn't vowed to wipe any countries off the face of the map.
---------------
We're more action than talk!!

[USMC the Almighty]

To be honest with you, I think Cookie makes a valid point. We, go around the world acting high and mighty, dictating to the rest of the world as to who is allowed to have nuclear weapons and who isn't.

And what's wrong with that? However cynical, "nationalistic" or "jingoistic" it sounds, this doesn't bother me at all. I elect my leaders to do everything in their power to defend this country and our Constitution. This is also why I chose to become an officer in the United States Military.

If our politicians allowed our enemies and people who have vowed to destroy our allies to gain nuclear weapons without any opposition, they would be severely neglecting their oath of office.

Threats are one thing, but in the history of warfare, only two nuclear bombs have been detonated, both by the US. I don't care whether it was 60 years ago or not, the repercussions of Nagasaki and Hiroshima will always be with us.

Why will it always be with us? We were living in an entirely different era and you have to keep in mind that dropping the bomb saved lives (Japanese and American) by almost all account.

You're right, we haven't "vowed to wipe any countries off the face of the map", but we sure have implied it by our past actions.

What actions have implied this, popeye?

[USMC the Almighty]

If we did, they wouldn't be punished. Remember the USS Liberty?

Yes, it was a mistake that occured in 1967 before all the radar technology that both the U.S. and Israel have today. Keep in mind, that the day before the Arab-Israeli war started, the U.S. promised General Yitzhak Rabin both privately and via the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in a public statement who said that the U.S. had no warships within a 350 mile radius.

The Israelis mistakenly identified it as the Egyptian ship El Quseir and since they had the word of the U.S. that there were no American ships in the area, they went ahead with the attack.

In addition, what possible motive would Israel have? We were their biggest ally in their fight against the Islamic aggressors.

Iranians are killing Americans in Iraq?

Yes, and Afghanistan.

Just like Israel, huh?

Except that Israel doesn't have a population and religious leadership that is dedicated to destroying another country, much less our country.

Just why is Iran America's biggest threat? Have they threatened us? How long did you live in Israel?

I said arguably. The reason is because Ahmadinejad has about the same approval rating as President Bush and a complete takeover by Islamists even more radical than him is quite likely. And yes, this population and religious leadership has threatened, no not threatened, promised to either convert the "Great Satan" (as the mullahs call it) to sharia law or see to its destruction.

[USMC the Almighty]

Killing saves lives? Is it still 1984?

In some cases, yes. I understand that you live in a simple, socialistic world full of rainbows and butterflies but sometimes might is right.

We're more action than talk!!

Oh really? So which countries have we wiped off the face of the earth? Just a neat, organized list will do.

[Lasher]

Yes, it was a mistake that occured in 1967 before all the radar technology that both the U.S. and Israel have today. Keep in mind, that the day before the Arab-Israeli war started, the U.S. promised General Yitzhak Rabin both privately and via the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in a public statement who said that the U.S. had no warships within a 350 mile radius.

The Israelis mistakenly identified it as the Egyptian ship El Quseir and since they had the word of the U.S. that there were no American ships in the area, they went ahead with the attack.

In addition, what possible motive would Israel have? We were their biggest ally in their fight against the Islamic aggressors.



Yes, and Afghanistan.



Except that Israel doesn't have a population and religious leadership that is dedicated to destroying another country, much less our country.



I said arguably. The reason is because Ahmadinejad has about the same approval rating as President Bush and a complete takeover by Islamists even more radical than him is quite likely. And yes, this population and religious leadership has threatened, no not threatened, promised to either convert the "Great Satan" (as the mullahs call it) to sharia law or see to its destruction.

You really haven't given much study to the Liberty affair, have you, old sport?
Every high-ranking politician in Washington D.C. at the time (except for Robert Strange McNamara) believed the attacks were intentional. For their names, go to www.ussliberty.org and you might get educated. The Israelis did not misidentify it as the Egyptian ship El Quseir, but if they did, they weren't qualified to be identifying ships, because the two vessels looked nothing alike. It was a deliberate attack that failed to sink the Liberty as planned. It was not a "warship" either, and was in international waters off the coast of Egypt.

The motive was probably to lay the blame on Egypt in order to get America involved in a war on the ground with Egypt, or it could be that the Liberty had intercepted messages that were harmful to Israel. No matter what the cause, it was an act of war against the United states, and people like you continue to make excuses for it.

Israel has more people in America working for Israel's interests than we do those working for our interests - Zionists don't care about America's security as long as Israel is safe. We need to start thinking more about our interests than hers. When Israel wants something done that isn't in our best interest, it gets done regardless. America has already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, with good prospects of invading Iran next. Whose interest is that in if not Israel's?

[Lasher]

Get more information on following address and post your commetnt.

http://www.english.mojahedin.org/pagesEn/newsdetails.aspx?newsid=625 & cat=354f


Latest disclosure about Iran's Clandestine Nuclear sites

How about some disclosure about Israel's clandestine nuclear sites?

[USMC the Almighty]

You really haven't given much study to the Liberty affair, have you, old sport?
Every high-ranking politician in Washington D.C. at the time (except for Robert Strange McNamara) believed the attacks were intentional. For their names, go to www.ussliberty.org and you might get educated.

So people back then thought it was deliberate. Just goes to show you that it is prudent to reserve judgement until all the facts come out. Recently declassified documents and recordings of the Israelis confirm that they did indeed believe it was an Egyptian ship.


The Israelis did not misidentify it as the Egyptian ship El Quseir, but if they did, they weren't qualified to be identifying ships, because the two vessels looked nothing alike. It was a deliberate attack that failed to sink the Liberty as planned. It was not a "warship" either, and was in international waters off the coast of Egypt.

The motive was probably to lay the blame on Egypt in order to get America involved in a war on the ground with Egypt, or it could be that the Liberty had intercepted messages that were harmful to Israel. No matter what the cause, it was an act of war against the United states, and people like you continue to make excuses for it.

Israel has more people in America working for Israel's interests than we do those working for our interests - Zionists don't care about America's security as long as Israel is safe. We need to start thinking more about our interests than hers. When Israel wants something done that isn't in our best interest, it gets done regardless. America has already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, with good prospects of invading Iran next. Whose interest is that in if not Israel's?

For whatever strange reason you have some irrational and passionate hatred for Israel. No amount of facts or logic is ever going to change that.

[Lasher]

So people back then thought it was deliberate. Just goes to show you that it is prudent to reserve judgement until all the facts come out. Recently declassified documents and recordings of the Israelis confirm that they did indeed believe it was an Egyptian ship.



For whatever strange reason you have some irrational and passionate hatred for Israel. No amount of facts or logic is ever going to change that.

I am the one with the facts, you are the one who will issue an apologia for any terrorist act Israel performs. I will bet my life you're a Jew.

www.ussliberty.org

[Bunz]

I will bet my life you're a Jew.
Thats an awfully large statement there. Id think it might be wise to reconsider this bet.
Would it be fair to assume you are a Muslim?

[Lasher]

Not at all, but it would certainly be safe to assume you are a perfidious Jew.

[USMC the Almighty]

Lasher, you're ridiculous. I am fairly confident that Bunz, like myself, is not a Jew.

[vyo476]

Lasher, you're ridiculous. I am fairly confident that Bunz, like myself, is not a Jew.

And even if either of you was, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter. Especially not in a place like this.