Iran warns U.S. not to play with "fire", Germany warns of tougher measures
- Thread starter Zero Cool
- Start date
Truthfully, look at WW II. Our Naval capabilities were destroyed yet we still managed victory almost total by ourselves on the pacific. But a war with Iran would not rally anyone's patriotic side. Recruiters would forever fail to meet their goals. I do not understand how they can put the pros against the cons and come up with the idea that the war would be a good idea. Like old Duyba said many y ears ago, this is ' fuzzy math. ' I supported the war in Iraq at the early stages but is disarming someone who does not plan on using it's bombs on any country that has a significate effect on the world worth it? Is it worth the lives of all those soldiers who were told that they are fighting for the freedom of American people? They are being told to fight for the freedom of other countries. Not to mention that Britian would more than likely support this war as well. That means our countries would be even more in debt. We are also on the brink of war with N.K. as well, this is getting ridiculous. I believe that U.s or U.k forces could defeat any of these countries one on one, hell even the uk and us could defeat both of them yet at what cost? How many more futures need to be destroyed because of Dubyas desire to take away weapons of the middle east..
Zero u are misguided if u think that Iran is intending on acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Currently all of it's activities have been towards developing nuclear power. It has failed on some points of the NPT of fully declaring all activities regarding this development, and as agreed with Germany UK and France has currently suspended the development of some of its facilities.
Under the NPT iRAN is allowed to develop nuclear power facilities and technologies, however it must fully disclose all activities to the IAEA and allow them to inspect all facilities. Iran has agreed with these terms and have allowed IAEA full access to their sites.
If you're worried about nuclear proliferation u should look towards North Korea which is a more pressing matter at the moment as it already has Nukes aimed at American cities.
Under the NPT iRAN is allowed to develop nuclear power facilities and technologies, however it must fully disclose all activities to the IAEA and allow them to inspect all facilities. Iran has agreed with these terms and have allowed IAEA full access to their sites.
If you're worried about nuclear proliferation u should look towards North Korea which is a more pressing matter at the moment as it already has Nukes aimed at American cities.
Completely untrue. Iran has and continues to be a threat regarding the development of nuclear weapons. The IAEA has stated this on numerous occasions. For most recent evidence of Iranian intentions consider this statement by Iranian spokesman Hamid Reza:
"They know our capabilities. We have clearly told the ... Americans not to play with fire."
Only the blind would have you believe that the Iranian's are developing exclusively peaceful projects. Iran, as all the western powers recognize, remains a belliegerent threat to world stability.
"They know our capabilities. We have clearly told the ... Americans not to play with fire."
Only the blind would have you believe that the Iranian's are developing exclusively peaceful projects. Iran, as all the western powers recognize, remains a belliegerent threat to world stability.
Lol, so from that statement, you have conclusive evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons progamme.
Iran has so far agreed to abide by all the rules of the NPT, and has allowed the IAEA full access to all of its facilities. The problem lies in the fact that the enriched uranium can also be used in weapons. So far there have been no discoveries of any facility to accomplish this and there is no evidence of any facilites being to built to achieve this either.
So my original argument stands. If there was even the slightest evidence of Iran having facilities to produce nuclear weapons they would have been in front of the Security Council a long time ago. And lets not forget that the IAEA can detect radiation from enriched uranium from space so there is no hiding place for Iran to develop these programs secretly.
The only thing stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is the NPT, and considering Iran has to date accepted all conditions placed by IAEA, I think it is a little arrogant to immediately label them a threat, without any evidence. Had Iran truly wanted to develop a nuclear arsenal all it would have to do is withdraw from the NPT, this way there is no need for it to comply with any of the conditions within the NPT, and as a result it could not be sanctioned. Any war to disarm Iran of its nuclear arsenal would be illegal and Iran would be able to call on the UN to defend its sovreignty.
On a side note how more dangerous would a nuclear Iran be than a nuclear Israel? or Pakistan or India or North Korea for that matter, and why shouldnt Iran have the right to develop nuclear weapons?
Iran has so far agreed to abide by all the rules of the NPT, and has allowed the IAEA full access to all of its facilities. The problem lies in the fact that the enriched uranium can also be used in weapons. So far there have been no discoveries of any facility to accomplish this and there is no evidence of any facilites being to built to achieve this either.
So my original argument stands. If there was even the slightest evidence of Iran having facilities to produce nuclear weapons they would have been in front of the Security Council a long time ago. And lets not forget that the IAEA can detect radiation from enriched uranium from space so there is no hiding place for Iran to develop these programs secretly.
The only thing stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is the NPT, and considering Iran has to date accepted all conditions placed by IAEA, I think it is a little arrogant to immediately label them a threat, without any evidence. Had Iran truly wanted to develop a nuclear arsenal all it would have to do is withdraw from the NPT, this way there is no need for it to comply with any of the conditions within the NPT, and as a result it could not be sanctioned. Any war to disarm Iran of its nuclear arsenal would be illegal and Iran would be able to call on the UN to defend its sovreignty.
On a side note how more dangerous would a nuclear Iran be than a nuclear Israel? or Pakistan or India or North Korea for that matter, and why shouldnt Iran have the right to develop nuclear weapons?
The bottom line is that Iran has as much right to Nuclear arms as the United States does. If America invades once again on the grounds of WMD its going to be even more hipocritical than the last time.
I personally do not see America wanting a piece of Iran when they havent even cleaned off Iraq yet.
Until the US gives up its monopoly on Weapons Of Mass Destruction I am all for North Korea and Iran having them. Id rather and un easy global ballance than a global nuclear dictatorship ran by America, especially with its economy in trouble.
I personally do not see America wanting a piece of Iran when they havent even cleaned off Iraq yet.
Until the US gives up its monopoly on Weapons Of Mass Destruction I am all for North Korea and Iran having them. Id rather and un easy global ballance than a global nuclear dictatorship ran by America, especially with its economy in trouble.
I said evidence of Iranian intentions not Iranian capability.
Time after time the Iranians have been shown up be totally uncooperative with the IAEA, here's an excerpt from an article I posted earlier which gives just a smidgen of evidence vis-a-vis the lack of Iranian co-operation.
"One of the more disturbing points included in the report detailed undeclared Iranian efforts over the past two decades to develop a uranium centrifuge enrichment program and a laser enrichment program, and Iranian success in producing small amounts of low-enriched uranium and plutonium. These efforts, particularly those related to laser enrichment, were assisted by nuclear and technical cooperation with at least four different countries. The report also included Iranian failures to report—and in fact, intentional efforts to conceal—"a large number of conversion, fabrication, and irradiation activities involving nuclear material," as well as facilities where those activities were conducted. These included failures to report testing of centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company in 1999 and 2002; the import of natural uranium in 1994 and its subsequent transfer for use in laser enrichment experiments (which included the production of enriched uranium); and the production and irradiation of uranium targets."
As stated in the original article I posted Iran will be referred to the Security Council if it's continues it's belligerent opposition to western attempts to halt it's nuclear programme.
Jumping to conclusions here aren't we? Who ever suggested a preventitive war to disarm the Iranians? All the western powers want is the Iranian government to disclose their nuclear intentions and co-operate with the IAEA, hardly too much to ask is it? If Iran continues it's belligerent behaviour it remains a threat to world stability.
Because unlike Israel, Pakistan or India Iran is run by a group of theocratic nuts who have no regard for anyone but themselves. Equipped with nuclear weapons they pose a real and serious threat to world security much like their sister Axis state North Korea. Both threats are certainly real and must be taken seriously.
Time after time the Iranians have been shown up be totally uncooperative with the IAEA, here's an excerpt from an article I posted earlier which gives just a smidgen of evidence vis-a-vis the lack of Iranian co-operation.
"One of the more disturbing points included in the report detailed undeclared Iranian efforts over the past two decades to develop a uranium centrifuge enrichment program and a laser enrichment program, and Iranian success in producing small amounts of low-enriched uranium and plutonium. These efforts, particularly those related to laser enrichment, were assisted by nuclear and technical cooperation with at least four different countries. The report also included Iranian failures to report—and in fact, intentional efforts to conceal—"a large number of conversion, fabrication, and irradiation activities involving nuclear material," as well as facilities where those activities were conducted. These included failures to report testing of centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company in 1999 and 2002; the import of natural uranium in 1994 and its subsequent transfer for use in laser enrichment experiments (which included the production of enriched uranium); and the production and irradiation of uranium targets."
As stated in the original article I posted Iran will be referred to the Security Council if it's continues it's belligerent opposition to western attempts to halt it's nuclear programme.
Jumping to conclusions here aren't we? Who ever suggested a preventitive war to disarm the Iranians? All the western powers want is the Iranian government to disclose their nuclear intentions and co-operate with the IAEA, hardly too much to ask is it? If Iran continues it's belligerent behaviour it remains a threat to world stability.
Because unlike Israel, Pakistan or India Iran is run by a group of theocratic nuts who have no regard for anyone but themselves. Equipped with nuclear weapons they pose a real and serious threat to world security much like their sister Axis state North Korea. Both threats are certainly real and must be taken seriously.
And exactly what intentions do you derive from the statement you quoted? To me the statement reads that the Iranians do not intend to bow down to American pressure and they will put up a fight if it comes to that. I do not see any difference between that statement and the countless statements from the Bush administration labelling Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil".
I have already addressed this point in my earlier post:
What belligerent opposition? It has already suspended all nuclear development, disclosed fully all of it's nuclear activities, and has engaged in talks with the EU and IAEA regarding its nuclear development.
It seems you have misread my original post, I was discussing what actions Iran would need to take if it truly wanted to develop nuclear weapons. All it has do to is (like NK) withdraw from the NPT, which will allow it to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants to. If it were to withdraw from the NPT, it would be under no obligation to either the IAEA or the UN to disclose any information, or adhere to any rules or regulations. The IAEA would not be able to refer it to the Security Council and therefore no sanctions could be placed on Iran. If the USA decided that a nuclear Iran poses a threat and decided to invade, just like it did in Iraq, Iran would be able to call on the UN to defend it's sovreignty.
It has already complied with these condiions, by suspending its nuclear development, allowing IAEA full access to all its facilities, and engaging in discussions with the EU and IAEA.
I think the US and its unabated global domination aspirations pose a bigger threat to world stability than the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is founded on the same theocratic ideologies as Iran. It was ruled by a military dictator when it was in the final stages of its nuclear development who is still in power today. Provided funding, technology, armaments, logistics, recruitment and military support to the Taliban and Al-Quaida during and after the operations against the USSR and to the mujahadeen in Kashmir. The founder of their nuclear programme, Dr A Khan sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. The laws within both countries are pretty similar, as is the infrastructure, the main differnce between the two, Iran is majoritly a Shiah country, whereas Pakistan is mainly Sunni. Yet you seem to see Iran as a bigger threat.
I have already addressed this point in my earlier post:
What belligerent opposition? It has already suspended all nuclear development, disclosed fully all of it's nuclear activities, and has engaged in talks with the EU and IAEA regarding its nuclear development.
It seems you have misread my original post, I was discussing what actions Iran would need to take if it truly wanted to develop nuclear weapons. All it has do to is (like NK) withdraw from the NPT, which will allow it to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants to. If it were to withdraw from the NPT, it would be under no obligation to either the IAEA or the UN to disclose any information, or adhere to any rules or regulations. The IAEA would not be able to refer it to the Security Council and therefore no sanctions could be placed on Iran. If the USA decided that a nuclear Iran poses a threat and decided to invade, just like it did in Iraq, Iran would be able to call on the UN to defend it's sovreignty.
It has already complied with these condiions, by suspending its nuclear development, allowing IAEA full access to all its facilities, and engaging in discussions with the EU and IAEA.
I think the US and its unabated global domination aspirations pose a bigger threat to world stability than the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is founded on the same theocratic ideologies as Iran. It was ruled by a military dictator when it was in the final stages of its nuclear development who is still in power today. Provided funding, technology, armaments, logistics, recruitment and military support to the Taliban and Al-Quaida during and after the operations against the USSR and to the mujahadeen in Kashmir. The founder of their nuclear programme, Dr A Khan sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. The laws within both countries are pretty similar, as is the infrastructure, the main differnce between the two, Iran is majoritly a Shiah country, whereas Pakistan is mainly Sunni. Yet you seem to see Iran as a bigger threat.
It doesen't take a genius to work out the meaning of "They know our capabilities. We have clearly told the ... Americans not to play with fire." But wait the Iranian government is bent on exclusively peaceful means right? Open your eyes. Just today the Iranians announced the formation of a "united front" with Syria against the United States. Now more than ever she is a threat to world peace.
Fully disclosed all her nuclear activities! I don't know how you came to that conclusion but you clearly need to re-examine the facts. Iran, on countless occassions, has been shown to be hiding many facets of her nuclear programme not least in the area of uranium enrichment. Just recently Mohammed El-Baradi stated conclusively that Iran's co-operation has been "well below satisfactory." Full scale co-operation from the Iranian government? Don't make me laugh.
Pakistan is a burgenoning democracy and a crucial ally of the United States in the war on terror. She poses little threat to the west unlike Iran or it's allies namely Syria. You say Pakistan "Provided funding, technology, armaments, logistics, recruitment and military support to the Taliban and Al-Quaida during and after the operations against the USSR" but did the U.S. not do precisley the same? After all was it not a Cold War era conflict? Let's deal with the here and now instead of harking back to old conflicts which do nothing for your argument.
Fully disclosed all her nuclear activities! I don't know how you came to that conclusion but you clearly need to re-examine the facts. Iran, on countless occassions, has been shown to be hiding many facets of her nuclear programme not least in the area of uranium enrichment. Just recently Mohammed El-Baradi stated conclusively that Iran's co-operation has been "well below satisfactory." Full scale co-operation from the Iranian government? Don't make me laugh.
Pakistan is a burgenoning democracy and a crucial ally of the United States in the war on terror. She poses little threat to the west unlike Iran or it's allies namely Syria. You say Pakistan "Provided funding, technology, armaments, logistics, recruitment and military support to the Taliban and Al-Quaida during and after the operations against the USSR" but did the U.S. not do precisley the same? After all was it not a Cold War era conflict? Let's deal with the here and now instead of harking back to old conflicts which do nothing for your argument.
I'm still waiting to hear what you have derived from that statement. I have already stated what I think it means. As for the statement of a "united front with Syria against the United States" as u put it, perhaps u should read more carefully as to what was said by both the Syrians and the Iranians.
Once again u have claimed that Iran poses a threat to world peace yet you fail to provide any evidence other than heresay. Maybe you can explain in more detail why you believe that this is the case.
I have already said that Iran failed on some points of disclosing all nuclear activities to the IAEA, however, since last year it has rectified these mistakes and as a measure of goodwill has halted all nuclear activities.
Harking back to old conflicts? Look closely i said during and AFTER, as recently as 2003 Pakistan was supporting mujahadeen in Kashmir. The term mujahadeen and taliban are interchangeable, they train at the same training camps, have the same objectives, chain of command and ideologies. Al-Quaida is mainly an Arab organisation that has joined with the Afghan and Pakistan fighters. With the same objective, to fight the Jihad against the oppressors of Islam.
Pakistan is not the great ally of USA u might think, Musharraf had no choice but to side with USA after 9-11, as it was THE major sponsors of the Taliban, and it was only one of a handful that recognised the Taliban as the legitimate governemnt of Afghanistan. Had it not co-operated with USA it would have been included with Afghanistan. In exchange for its co-operation, Pak got half its debt wiped and the promise of more loans and better trade relations.
As for doing nothing for my argument let me use your own words "a bunch of theocratic nuts who think of nothing but themselves" - This is what u claim is the reason why Iran will pose a threat if it acquired a nuclear arsenal yet the same can be said for Pakistan.
So why does Iran pose a bigger threat to "World Peace"?
Once again u have claimed that Iran poses a threat to world peace yet you fail to provide any evidence other than heresay. Maybe you can explain in more detail why you believe that this is the case.
I have already said that Iran failed on some points of disclosing all nuclear activities to the IAEA, however, since last year it has rectified these mistakes and as a measure of goodwill has halted all nuclear activities.
Harking back to old conflicts? Look closely i said during and AFTER, as recently as 2003 Pakistan was supporting mujahadeen in Kashmir. The term mujahadeen and taliban are interchangeable, they train at the same training camps, have the same objectives, chain of command and ideologies. Al-Quaida is mainly an Arab organisation that has joined with the Afghan and Pakistan fighters. With the same objective, to fight the Jihad against the oppressors of Islam.
Pakistan is not the great ally of USA u might think, Musharraf had no choice but to side with USA after 9-11, as it was THE major sponsors of the Taliban, and it was only one of a handful that recognised the Taliban as the legitimate governemnt of Afghanistan. Had it not co-operated with USA it would have been included with Afghanistan. In exchange for its co-operation, Pak got half its debt wiped and the promise of more loans and better trade relations.
As for doing nothing for my argument let me use your own words "a bunch of theocratic nuts who think of nothing but themselves" - This is what u claim is the reason why Iran will pose a threat if it acquired a nuclear arsenal yet the same can be said for Pakistan.
So why does Iran pose a bigger threat to "World Peace"?
What I derive from that statement is exactly what it implies. If the U.S. continue opposing us they will find out exactly what we're capable of. I read extensively what both the Syrians and Iranians said. As they put it their alliance is a "common front to face threats."
Both parties were also quoted as saying:
"In view of the special conditions faced by Syria, Iran will transfer its experience, especially concerning sanctions, to Syria, at this sensitive point, the two countries require a united front due to numerous challenges" said Iranian spokesman Mr. Reza Aref.
Mr. Otari (the Syrian representitive) concurred. "The challenges we face in Syria and Iran require us to be in one front to confront all the challenges imposed by others".
What would you deduce from such behaviour?
Hardly. I've given you evidence of Iranian non-cooperation in both negotiations with the E.U. (see original article) and the IAEA yet you simultaeously reject both. You then deride them as "heresay". I have trouble comprehending exactly how you can call something backed up by facts heresay. Your whole argument is based on ad homineum reasoning.
Iran poses a bigger threat to world peace for two reasons.
1) Unlike Pakistan Iran is ruled by dictatorial clerics who bitterly hate the western way of life (personnified in the United States) and everything it stands for. Since 1979 it has been their aim to rid the Middle East of western influence. I don't see that changing, do you?
2) Hardliners (who have a huge amount of influence in the Iranian power structure) are continually pressing for rejection of negotiations with the E.U. and withdrawl from the Non-Proliferation treaties. If Khatamei falls (as could very likely happen) then Iran will continue non-cooperation and follow an even tougher line vis-a-vis the IAEA. If negotiation succeeds (as I hope it does) then this problem will be solved but it's been going on so long that other roles are clearly at play here. Much like Hitler the Iranian leadership view success in foreign policy as a way of strengthening their influence with the people, when dealing with such leaders a real and present threat always exists.
Both parties were also quoted as saying:
"In view of the special conditions faced by Syria, Iran will transfer its experience, especially concerning sanctions, to Syria, at this sensitive point, the two countries require a united front due to numerous challenges" said Iranian spokesman Mr. Reza Aref.
Mr. Otari (the Syrian representitive) concurred. "The challenges we face in Syria and Iran require us to be in one front to confront all the challenges imposed by others".
What would you deduce from such behaviour?
Hardly. I've given you evidence of Iranian non-cooperation in both negotiations with the E.U. (see original article) and the IAEA yet you simultaeously reject both. You then deride them as "heresay". I have trouble comprehending exactly how you can call something backed up by facts heresay. Your whole argument is based on ad homineum reasoning.
Iran poses a bigger threat to world peace for two reasons.
1) Unlike Pakistan Iran is ruled by dictatorial clerics who bitterly hate the western way of life (personnified in the United States) and everything it stands for. Since 1979 it has been their aim to rid the Middle East of western influence. I don't see that changing, do you?
2) Hardliners (who have a huge amount of influence in the Iranian power structure) are continually pressing for rejection of negotiations with the E.U. and withdrawl from the Non-Proliferation treaties. If Khatamei falls (as could very likely happen) then Iran will continue non-cooperation and follow an even tougher line vis-a-vis the IAEA. If negotiation succeeds (as I hope it does) then this problem will be solved but it's been going on so long that other roles are clearly at play here. Much like Hitler the Iranian leadership view success in foreign policy as a way of strengthening their influence with the people, when dealing with such leaders a real and present threat always exists.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.