| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is Iran's current intent to make nuclear weapons? |
| Yes, and that's bad |
|
45% |
[ 15 ] |
| Yes, and that's good |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| Yes, but I don't know how I feel about it |
|
6% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, let's everyone get off their backs already! |
|
6% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, but I still think they should play nice... |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
| Not sure |
|
30% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Reggie wrote: |
The logical thing to do would be to require Israel and Iran to undergo identical inspections and prohibit both of them from having nuclear energy, but that would probably be considered anti-semitic. 
. |
Why would that be the "logical" thing?
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
Israel is not.
So Iran should abide by its agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Reggie wrote: |
The logical thing to do would be to require Israel and Iran to undergo identical inspections and prohibit both of them from having nuclear energy, but that would probably be considered anti-semitic.
. |
Why would that be the "logical" thing?
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
Israel is not.
So Iran should abide by its agreement. |
I'm not talking about flippantly discarding the lives of 4,000+ of our soldiers over non-existant WMDs, I'm talking about a non-violent inspection and elimination of actual WMDs. If a square deal like that could resolve the issue between Israel and Iran, it would seem preferable to war, especially since we can't win the ones we're already in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I definitely agree that Israel giving up its nuclear weapons in return for the allowance of peaceful, constantly on-going inspection of Iran to ensure it remains free of nuclear weapons would be a great deal for everyone involved, if it could be worked out.
Israel doesn't really need nuclear weapons so long as it has Western allies, especially if giving them up were to ensure Iran lacks them as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I definitely agree that Israel giving up its nuclear weapons in return for the allowance of peaceful, constantly on-going inspection of Iran to ensure it remains free of nuclear weapons would be a great deal for everyone involved, if it could be worked out.
Israel doesn't really need nuclear weapons so long as it has Western allies, especially if giving them up were to ensure Iran lacks them as well. |
Why should Israel be penalized for Iran's truculence? This sets a horrible precedent.
And Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons anyway...doubt they'd change that stance.
And even if they did...they'd never agree to this. Iran has no business demanding that ANY nation give up its nukes. THEY broke the treaty, so we reward them by trying to pressure Israel to give up its nuclear missiles?
When the next Middle East country to follow Iran's example comes along (and it will be emboldened by Iran's example) what will we do then? Tell Israel to disband its army?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When did Iran break the treaty? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| When did Iran break the treaty? |
Hey. What are you. Anti-American? Camon. It is time for Obama to act "presidential".
Scott Ritter posed a great question on the antiwar radio link I put in my 2003 thread. When the Americans attack and Iran shoots down a bunch of planes and takes hostages, what next? Will Obama escalate that? A big dick contest with Mahmoud? Sarkozy is taller than Mahmoud. Let's introduce a Napoleon complex! Shall he then carpet bomb Tehran? Will hyper-sensitive beta please love me Obama allow himself to become a mass murderer par excellence? I think maybe he hasn't thought this whole thing out.
Anybody else have a serious case of d�j� vu? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Israel is supposed to have made public in 1973 that it had nukes. Supposedly in the middle of an attack by Syria, Egypt and Lebanon.
Since that date, 36 yrs ago, there hasn't been another major war against them by a nation state. Thier enemies have all used terrorists to attack them.
Major war in the middle east hasn't been started by Israel or against them. Nukes have allowed Israel to exist.
Iran with nukes just upsets the apple cart. Also has anyone proven recently that the Persians (Iran) would not accept the casualties of Arabs (Palestine) caused by a nuke.
Because History seems to have missed the love that Persians and Arabs have for each other or Shiites and Sunnis for that matter or am I missing something.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I definitely agree that Israel giving up its nuclear weapons in return for the allowance of peaceful, constantly on-going inspection of Iran to ensure it remains free of nuclear weapons would be a great deal for everyone involved, if it could be worked out.
Israel doesn't really need nuclear weapons so long as it has Western allies, especially if giving them up were to ensure Iran lacks them as well. |
Why should Israel be penalized for Iran's truculence? This sets a horrible precedent. |
It's not a penalty unless Israel suffers because of it. Nuclear weapons are only as valuable as the security they offer; if that security can be obtained through other ways, nuclear weapons hold no especial defensive value.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Iran has no business demanding that ANY nation give up its nukes. THEY broke the treaty, so we reward them by trying to pressure Israel to give up its nuclear missiles? |
I'm not trying to pressure anyone to do anything, nor suggesting it. All I said is that I think it would be a reasonable trade-off for Israel. You're correct that Israel probably wouldn't play ball, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| When did Iran break the treaty? |
NPT
| Quote: |
Article III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere. |
Two questions:
Did Iran fail to comply with IAEA verification procedures by only now disclosing its nuclear processor at Qom?
Is the Qom plant a diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to weapons uses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran to allow nuclear inspections: EU envoy
| Quote: |
Iran has pledged to open its recently revealed uranium enrichment plant to UN inspectors, possibly in the next few weeks, according to a senior EU envoy involved in the negotiations.
Javier Solana, who formally headed the negotiations Thursday in Switzerland, said Iran and six world powers also agreed to a second round of talks regarding Tehran's contentious nuclear program.
Iranian officials met with permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in Genthod, northeast of Geneva, in an attempt to persuade Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment program.
And in a surprise development, American and Iranian delegates reportedly held their first known one-on-one meeting in years.
U.S. President Barack Obama called the meetings a "constructive beginning."
However, he stressed again that Iran must grant inspectors open access within two weeks to a recently disclosed uranium enrichment facility.
"Talk is no substitute for action," Obama said in Washington. "Our patience is not unlimited."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the talks had "opened the door" to potential progress on clarifying Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But she was cautious in her assessment.
"It was a productive day but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we'll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do," Clinton said.
The U.S.-Iran meeting, the Iranian pledge to open the plant to inspectors, and the round of talks are seen as encouraging signs that the discussions might be more fruitful than originally believed.
Western officials were discussing the imposition of new sanctions on Iran after learning last week of a second uranium enrichment plant under construction. |
Bad news for chickenhawks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Iran to allow nuclear inspections: EU envoy
| Quote: |
Iran has pledged to open its recently revealed uranium enrichment plant to UN inspectors, possibly in the next few weeks, according to a senior EU envoy involved in the negotiations.
Javier Solana, who formally headed the negotiations Thursday in Switzerland, said Iran and six world powers also agreed to a second round of talks regarding Tehran's contentious nuclear program.
Iranian officials met with permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in Genthod, northeast of Geneva, in an attempt to persuade Tehran to freeze its uranium enrichment program.
And in a surprise development, American and Iranian delegates reportedly held their first known one-on-one meeting in years.
U.S. President Barack Obama called the meetings a "constructive beginning."
However, he stressed again that Iran must grant inspectors open access within two weeks to a recently disclosed uranium enrichment facility.
"Talk is no substitute for action," Obama said in Washington. "Our patience is not unlimited."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the talks had "opened the door" to potential progress on clarifying Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But she was cautious in her assessment.
"It was a productive day but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we'll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do," Clinton said.
The U.S.-Iran meeting, the Iranian pledge to open the plant to inspectors, and the round of talks are seen as encouraging signs that the discussions might be more fruitful than originally believed.
Western officials were discussing the imposition of new sanctions on Iran after learning last week of a second uranium enrichment plant under construction. |
Bad news for chickenhawks. |
This is good. Iran is trapped, and with Russia on board with the West, China is unlikely to help Iran substantially. Iran is taking matters much more seriously now than Saddam ever did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope Russia continues to stay on side. With better relations with the US thanks to the new administration I think they will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cherrycoke
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| where is the evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons? Seriously where is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I know I constantly complain about Obama and how he's wrecking our economy. But in fairness, I appreciate his ability to get along with Russia and hopefully use them to defuse the Iranian nuclear program. That's a departure from the arrogance, belligerence, and wrecklessness that has cost us so dearly in years past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
GENEVA � Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said.
Iran�s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing � if it happens � would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran�s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.
If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/middleeast/02nuke.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
The second part sounds like a positive step as well.
Wonder what the newest round of right-wing fear mongering will have to offer as an alternative to diplomacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
