Iran resumes nuclear activities

[richardm]

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4131706.stm)


A reporter for the Reuters news agency said she saw two workers at the Isfahan plant lifting a barrel full of uranium yellowcake, opening its lid and feeding it into the processing line.


Assuming that's credible...?


The reporter said that earlier the plant had been surrounded by dozens of anti-aircraft batteries.


So it seems they're expecting the worst. Is the worst likely to happen? I can't believe that the US would just go ahead and bomb it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by richardm
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4131706.stm)



Assuming that's credible...?



So it seems they're expecting the worst. Is the worst likely to happen? I can't believe that the US would just go ahead and bomb it.

that (quote) doesn't much wash. A reporter for Reuters can speak for his or her self and does not need to be quoted anonymously(?). Also, how familiar is this reporter with yellowcake? Also, why would a reporter be allowed near a "production line" for yellowcake?

edit to add two images:


http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/insitu/graphics/yc1.jpg
http://www.indianspices.com/images/s0612pd4.gif

One is curry powder, the other is yellowcake.

[richardm]

Hmm, well, IAEA officials have set up cameras and supervised them cutting the seals off the barrels, so it seems legit.

[Bluegill]

There are lots of folks smarter than me around here. And also lots of crackpots who sound smarter and who have an opinion about everything.

So...

Suppose Iran keeps on going in its present course. What will happen?

Should I just start counting down to the first military raid on the facilities? Who would do it, Israel? A coalition? Would it happen next week, or in a year or two? If I were in the Middle East right now, should I hide under my desk? (More so than usual, I mean...;) )

I'm seeing a lot of stuff about this in the news, but in the mainstream media I see little real discussion of military options. If Iran doesn't change its path, is it inevitable?

[Bikewer]

Good question. Obviously, no amount of AA defenses would stop an attack by stealth aircraft or cruise missile.

We had a fairly credible report by Sy Hersh about the military actively engaging in missions to identify and locate targets.
Although the pentagon said that the report was "filled with inaccuracies", they did not deny the substance.

Pundits on NPR have indicated that much of Iran's nuclear industry and research facilities are in dispersed underground bunkers, and would be difficult to attack.

The president has said flatly that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons...

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by Bikewer


The president has said flatly that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons...

Why not, if other countries have them? Am I being too simplistic? I don't get it at all. The USA can have nuclear weapons, but says that Iran isn't allowed?

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Why not, if other countries have them? Am I being too simplistic? I don't get it at all. The USA can have nuclear weapons, but says that Iran isn't allowed?

Regardless of whether or not the threat is exaggerated, I think most people in the West would agree that Iran, or powerful elements within Iran, are prone to extremist violence. With a strong Death-to-Israel mentality, a government run by people who believe that they'll go straight to Heaven if they die in a nuclear exchange with the Great Satan and its cronies, and a large contingent of supporters of terrorism, the nuclear threat seems much closer.

With the exception of North Korea, I trust all the current nuclear states much more than Iran.

[Ed]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Why not, if other countries have them? Am I being too simplistic? I don't get it at all. The USA can have nuclear weapons, but says that Iran isn't allowed?

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.

He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".
Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

"The man who considers himself as the most able politician in the Islamic Republic utters such nonsense and empty threats at a very time that the hard line and extremist government of Israel under Mr. Ariel Sharon is looking for justification of its repressive policy against Palestinians", said Mr. Ahmad Salamatian, a veteran political analyst based in Paris.

"At a time that the right wing Israeli government is claiming that the very existence of Israel and the Jews are threatened and uses this pretext as an instrument to advance its policy of repression in Palestine, such statements and ushering such dangerous menaces by one of Iran’s top officials is nothing but bringing water to Israel’s propaganda mill, providing it with more justifications explaining its present maximalist policy", he told the Persian service of Radio France Internationale.

Though Mr. Salamatian is of the opinion that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s words are part of both his own show and the ongoing internal tensions between conservatives and reformers, however, he also agrees with other Iranian analysts that his "untimely" menace could backfire, becoming a justification for threats against Iran, at a time that the United States and its allies are determined to continue the fight against international terrorism.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it". ENDS RAFSANJANI NUKE THREATS 141201

Reprinted by permission

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Why not, if other countries have them? Am I being too simplistic? I don't get it at all. The USA can have nuclear weapons, but says that Iran isn't allowed?

Look up Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

:lister hopes he spelled that right:

As a country, once you actually have a nuke (several nukes actually, one or two is really no use) then the manner in which other countries deal with you differs considerable. The manner in which your neighbors deal with you differs considerably. It changes the entire deplomatic equation for your country. Some of the changes are good, some are not so good. No longer are you dealt with in terms of a punk, now you are dealt with in terms of a major player. Being a major player has major responsibilities and major consequences.

The greatest major responsibility is non-nuclear aggression. The greatest major consequence is total destruction in the blink of an eye. And when I say total, I mean really, really, total.

Take Israel, for example. They have a substanital stockpile of weapons. They have also bombed the nuclear facilities of another country in order to prevent them from obtaining the materials necessary to create their own stockpile.

Was that a fair move?

here's the kicker.

Was that a rational move?

rational does not always equal fair.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by richardm
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4131706.stm)



Assuming that's credible...?
Here's the pic that has been floating around, it was also in the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-05/08-09-05/0809a2b.jpg
Caption reads: (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-05/08-09-05/a02wn435.htm)Two technicians carry a box containig uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, yesterday at the Uranium Conversion Facility of Iran, just outside the city of Isfahan, 255 miles south of Tehran. Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at the facility yesterday.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Why not, if other countries have them? Am I being too simplistic? I don't get it at all. The USA can have nuclear weapons, but says that Iran isn't allowed?
You don't see the danger of an Islamic suicide-martyr "death to Israel and the Great Satan" country (which is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) in possession of nuclear weapons?

Try this analogy: "I don't see the danger of a paranoid schizophrenic having a gun, after all, hunters also have them".

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Bluegill
Should I just start counting down to the first military raid on the facilities? Who would do it, Israel? A coalition? Would it happen next week, or in a year or two? If I were in the Middle East right now, should I hide under my desk? (More so than usual, I mean...;) )
Israel doesn't have anywhere near the capability to do it*, that is certain.

It would require a determined coalition, IMHO. The stakes are too high, even Russia (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16220428%255E2703,00.html) suddenly seems to have had an epiphany. A nuclear armed Iran would easily be the greatest threat the world has seen since the Cuban missile crisis.

ETA: *short of a nuclear first strike, obviously.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by WildCat
Here's the pic that has been floating around, it was also in the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-05/08-09-05/0809a2b.jpg


Just a note to add that the guy on the right, near the partially opened barrel, is likely a well educated scientist. Three guesses to how I can tell.

[Bluegill]

Well-educated scientists always wear white lab coats. At least they do on car commercials and pharmaceuticals ads. :D

He's not wearing a mask. He's the only one. I don't know why or why not wear a mask, though.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Bluegill
Well-educated scientists always wear white lab coats. At least they do on car commercials and pharmaceuticals ads. :D

He's not wearing a mask. He's the only one. I don't know why or why not wear a mask, though.

That'a cuz he is on a regimen of homeopathic plutonium. No fear.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Bluegill
He's not wearing a mask. He's the only one. I don't know why or why not wear a mask, though.

He has both the authority to NOT wear a mask and the knowldege to know that the given circumstances (opening a barrel of yellowcake) do not require one. But there's one more less obvious reason. Give me a cyberbuck and I'll tell you.

[mr rosewater]

Do you think he wants to be identified?

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
But there's one more less obvious reason.
Do you mean the thing in his left hand?
He probably just wants to give the world an accurate four-letter description of the whole situation

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by WildCat
You don't see the danger of an Islamic suicide-martyr "death to Israel and the Great Satan" country (which is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) in possession of nuclear weapons?

Try this analogy: "I don't see the danger of a paranoid schizophrenic having a gun, after all, hunters also have them".

Yes, I clearly see the danger. My point is, no-one should have nuclear weapons in that case. I don't believe Iran should have them, and I don't believe Western countries should either. But for the West to dictate that Iran cannot take advantage of a technology that helped to make the USA so powerful seems, well, hypocritical.

It's like saying the developing countries cannot use CFC gases because they harm the environment, after we have reaped the economic benefits from those same gases then moved on to something less harmful but more expensive.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Yes, I clearly see the danger. My point is, no-one should have nuclear weapons in that case. I don't believe Iran should have them, and I don't believe Western countries should either.

I can understand not wanting western nations to have them, but what I don't understand is putting any less pressure on Iran not to develope them because you don't like that western countries already have them. Can you explain that to me?

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I can understand not wanting western nations to have them, but what I don't understand is putting any less pressure on Iran not to develope them because you don't like that western countries already have them. Can you explain that to me?

I'm sort of trying to give the argument from Iran's point of view, which is difficult because I don't like their attitude one little bit.

Personally, I absolutely agree that as much pressure as possible should be put on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, because All Nuclear Weapons Are BadTM and only harm can come of it.

[devil's advocate]

However, if I was Iran, and the West told me I couldn't have something that they have, and if one of the reasons that the West has the authority to tell me that is precisely because they already have nuclear capabilities, I would tell them to take a running jump.

The USA and UK can bomb whoever they like if they do not agree with the attitude of the leaders of that country, but Iran cannot. There is some hypocrisy there. We are supposed to live in an enlighted democracy, but our actions often do not support of advancement of the cause of human rights any more than Iran's. It just seems like they are more upfront about their motives.

[/devil's advocate]

I appreciate it's not as simple as that, but I simply don't like the "we have this but you can't because we don't trust you nya nya nya" attitude.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Why not, if other countries have them?

Originally posted by Ed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

But, Ed, that's just dead jews; since when is that of any concern in international relations? If they claimed they want to kill Muslims or Christians, you might have a case against them getting nukes... surely the elimination of israel, "the greatest threat to world peace" (just ask the Europeans), would be a good thing?

I appreciate it's not as simple as that, but I simply don't like the "we have this but you can't because we don't trust you nya nya nya" attitude

I am reminded of a story told about one of my professors. On jury duty, he was asked by the prosecutor if he was ever treated "unjustly or unfairly" by the police. He replied, "unjustly, yes; unfairly, no!". Asked to explain, it turns out that he was in a demonstration against the Vietnam war and got hit on the head by a cop's billy club. That, he explained, was unjust, because he didn't do anything to deserve it. But it wasn't unfair, because they didn't single him out--the cops were beating everybody up.

Same here. Perhaps treating Iran this way is unfair, in the same sense that it is unfair that we let law-abiding citizens have guns but not criminals: we are treating the USA better than Iran and law-abiders better than criminals. But it isn't unjust, since we have excellent reasons to do so. For starters, the attempted prevention of a second holocaust, which is Iran's stated goal.

Yes, I clearly see the danger. My point is, no-one should have nuclear weapons in that case.

Why? By the same logic, the police or hunters should not be allowed guns if paranoid schizophrenics are denied them. Surely there is no moral requirement that those who are law-abiding and (relatively) good should be equally armed as those who are dangerous, violent criminals.

As for the fact that Iran sees this as "hypocritical" and sees the US as the "real danger", etc., so what? Ask any criminal and he'll tell you that the cops are "just as violent" as he is and the "real danger" is not him raping / looting / killing / evading taxes / committing mail fraud / whatever, but the "out of control government" which is the "real evil". It's the same sort of rationalizing used in "The Godfather"--by the murderous mobsters.

[Ed]

Originally posted by WildCat
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-05/08-09-05/0809a2b.jpg
Caption reads: (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-05/08-09-05/a02wn435.htm)Technition shouts "Abdul come quickly. My organ, prized of Allah, is caught.

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Same here. Perhaps treating Iran this way is unfair, in the same sense that it is unfair that we let law-abiding citizens have guns but not criminals: we are treating the USA better than Iran and law-abiders better than criminals. But it isn't unjust, since we have excellent reasons to do so. For starters, the attempted prevention of a second holocaust, which is Iran's stated goal.

Yes, we should do everything we can to stop Iran having nuclear weapons. Absolutely. But if Iran asked the same of us, would we take any notice? I doubt it. We're alright, Jack, cause we're so damn civilised in the West. And their developing them does not give us the right to go and bomb the hell out of them to protect their neighbours. It just annoys me how superior we are with our weapons of mass destruction hidden behind our backs.

For the record, I'm a Jew, I care about Israel.

[Skeptic]

Yes, we should do everything we can to stop Iran having nuclear weapons. Absolutely. But if Iran asked the same of us, would we take any notice? I doubt it. We're alright, Jack, cause we're so damn civilised in the West.

Well, we certainly are. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which at least arguably justified, how many times did the west use nuclear weapons? It didn't.

But having it and being willing to use it in dire cases did quite a bit to stop the USSR from simply rolling over western Europe and subjugating another 400,000,000 or so to a Communist dictatorship.

The possession of nuclear weapons by the west was--and still is--one of the most important things for world peace. It was the only thing that prevented the USSR from taking over Europe, and, today, if anything will stop Islamic terrorist from setting off a nuclear weapon in the west, it is only the knowledge that Mecca would be made into a glass crater afterwards.

So, three cheers for the bomb, as far as I'm concerned.

For the record, I'm a Jew, I care about Israel.

From your posts, it's quite clear that you are by no means for Iran having nukes, only against the west having them, which is, as they say, a horse of a different color. But:

a). I think you're wrong about the west having nukes being bad (see above) and

b). in any case, if you wish to argue for western disarmament, "we would hypocritically refuse if Iran demanded it" is just about as bad an argument as you can use--because there is nothing hypocritical in a law-abiding citizen denying the requests of a criminal thug. It would, if anything, be hypocritical for Iran to demand such a thing, for the same reason it would be hypocritical for a would-be rapist to demand his victim give up her gun.

[geni]

Originally posted by WildCat
Israel doesn't have anywhere near the capability to do it*, that is certain.


Israel has balistic missiles while it proably isn't enough to totaly stop Iran's program forever it would by time.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by geni
Israel has balistic missiles while it proably isn't enough to totaly stop Iran's program forever it would by time.

Israel very likely has dozens upon dozens (possibly even a gross) of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that could stop Iran cold if worse came to worst. That may not be the official tally but you can bet it is the real one.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Israel very likely has dozens upon dozens (possibly even a gross) of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that could stop Iran cold if worse came to worst. That may not be the official tally but you can bet it is the real one.

Israel has a few hundread nukes however assuming that they are reasonabley acuret then they shouldn't need a nuclear payload for this task. If they aren't then perhaps they should spend some of their militery aid on cruise misiles

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by geni
Ireal has a few hundread nukes however assuming that they are reasonabley acuret then they shouldn't need a nuclear payload for this task. If they aren't then perhaps they should spend some of their militery aid on cruise misiles

I suspect they spend an fair portion on just that. I also suspect that was was given for.

begin derail
MY GOD GENI! You almost went an entire paragraph without spelling a single word correctly. I've seen you on chat where you spell perfectly. What an oddity you are! :)
/derail

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is Iran actually doing anything prohibited by the NPT?

As I understand it, Iran is quite at liberty to enrich yellowcake to make reactor-grade uranium (which is nothing like the same stuff as weapons-grade uranium and is made with different equipment), and to build nuclear reactors, and it's been cooperating with the IAEC inspectors.

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

[geni]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Is Iran actually doing anything prohibited by the NPT?

As I understand it, Iran is quite at liberty to enrich yellowcake to make reactor-grade uranium (which is nothing like the same stuff as weapons-grade uranium and is made with different equipment), and to build nuclear reactors, and it's been cooperating with the IAEC inspectors.

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

A number apart from anthing they have a program aimed at obtaining plutonium

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1730045,00.html

[Skeptic]

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

You mean, except for their leaders' consistent insistence that they will destroy the infidel jews with nuclear fire?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Is Iran actually doing anything prohibited by the NPT?

As I understand it, Iran is quite at liberty to enrich yellowcake to make reactor-grade uranium (which is nothing like the same stuff as weapons-grade uranium and is made with different equipment), and to build nuclear reactors, and it's been cooperating with the IAEC inspectors.

Is there any reason to believe they are building nuclear weapons other than "Durnit, it's the kind of thing they'd do!"?

I seem to recall reading about an Iranian gas enrichment process which is unnecessary for fuel but vital for making bombs.

[Manny]

And speaking of gas, Iran flares (sets on fire at the top of a well rather than collecting) 270 bcf of natural gas every year. Places that flare that quantity of gas just don't need nuclear for electricity.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by manny
And speaking of gas, Iran flares (sets on fire at the top of a well rather than collecting) 270 bcf of natural gas every year. Places that flare that quantity of gas just don't need nuclear for electricity.

Do you have similar figures for wasted energy for the countries that do have nuclear power?

A radio report I heard suggested that there were relatively regular power outages (c1 hour per month). Whether this was due to a shortage of power or problems with delivery systems etc was not made clear.

[Manny]

That would be something of an unfair statistic (to Iran), since many countries which have nuclear power don't have any appreciable gas at all. (France and Japan flare zero percent of their gas, for example, but it's zero percent of almost zero production). Worldwide, 2% of gas is flared and the outliers on the upside tend to be countries with low gas production relative to oil, remote fields and relatively low internal needs. Nigeria is the largest flarer in the world, followed by Iran, Indonesia and Angola. Among nuclear countries which are also major gas producers? US 1/2%, Canada, 1%, Russia, 0%, UK 1.5%, numbers like that. Iran is at 7%.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I seem to recall reading about an Iranian gas enrichment process which is unnecessary for fuel but vital for making bombs.

I've read a few different people claiming that there was/is hard evidence they were unambiguously up to no good. I've also read other people claiming that Iran is currently cooperating completely with IAEA officials, doing nothing forbidden by the NNPT and generally going by the book this time.

Is there an IAEA official position statement or anything floating around? At the moment it looks to me that both pro-war kooks and anti-war kooks are saying all sorts of contradictory things about what is going on, and what I'd really like is word from the horse's mouth about whether Iran is or isn't proveably breaking (or tooling up to break) the NNPT.

If that bunch of nuts are actually likely to get their hands on nuclear weapons, they have to to be stopped. Without the USA unilaterally starting another bloodbath, of course. That goes without saying. But I do harbour some concerns that this is the WMD lie coming back for seconds.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


If that bunch of nuts are actually likely to get their hands on nuclear weapons, they have to to be stopped.

How? The UN?




Without the USA unilaterally starting another bloodbath, of course.

Obligatory dig at the US noted.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Ed
Obligatory dig at the US noted.

Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

that's my job. You're on the list but, being as you are canadian, you're way, way down there.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

If they are obligatory, am I in trouble for not including one?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

It's a way of noting inflammatory but empty rhetoric without responding in kind.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why are you noting "obligatory digs" at the US, Ed? Are you compiling a list of "enemies of the US" or something?

No, it just occurs with tedious regularity.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If they are obligatory, am I in trouble for not including one?

Depends. If you have nothing that particularly contributes then it is, else not. It is when you find yourself creatively berift that it assumes the nature of an obligation. It can also be a tic, something sort of uncontrollable but that is a late stage manifestation.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
that's my job. You're on the list but, being as you are canadian, you're way, way down there.

...as they are - and should be - on every list they appear on.

I proudly declare my unreasonable loathing for Canadians. If only those with unreasonable loathing for Americans could be so honest, this forum could save a lot of space. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Ed
How? The UN?


It worked to get the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, didn't it? I realise that your current set of talking points says that the UN and France are bad this year, but I would have thought you would have remembered the first Gulf War.

It sounds like most or all of the Security Council is at least taking an interest in what Iran is up to.


Obligatory dig at the US noted.

Obligatory attempt to make this about personalities rather than facts observed. Start a thread in the flame forum if that's your idea of intelligent discussion of important current events.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
that's my job. You're on the list but, being as you are canadian, you're way, way down there.

What If I tell you that I have Arab ancestors? Will I climb up on that list? ;)

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Jocko
...as they are - and should be - on every list they appear on.

I proudly declare my unreasonable loathing for Canadians. If only those with unreasonable loathing for Americans could be so honest, this forum could save a lot of space. ;)

Well, Jocko, I must then declare my reasonable loathing for you. By the way, I don't loath americans in general, far from it. Just you. ;) For now, at least.

It is pretty rare that someone just comes out and declares himself a bigot! It's kind of refreshing!

So, who else suffers from an unreasonable loathing for Canadians? :D

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Orwell
What If I tell you that I have Arab ancestors? Will I climb up on that list? ;)

As a canadian? no.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
As a canadian? no.

Damn! Well, on the bright side, if even paranoid americans don't consider me a threat, then there's a good chance no-one will. I feel safer already! :p

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Orwell
I feel safer already! :p

We get to all names eventually. :p

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
We get to all names eventually. :p

All six billion of them? Woa! :jaw:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
It worked to get the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, didn't it? I realise that your current set of talking points says that the UN and France are bad this year, but I would have thought you would have remembered the first Gulf War.

It sounds like most or all of the Security Council is at least taking an interest in what Iran is up to.



Obligatory attempt to make this about personalities rather than facts observed. Start a thread in the flame forum if that's your idea of intelligent discussion of important current events.

May I invite you to do the same if you feel the need to reflexively flame the US?

[Skeptic]

It worked to get the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, didn't it?

Er, no. That liberation--as usual--90% the US's army effort, just as it was in Korea, Yugoslavia, and so on. If the US had not joined the war, the UN would have been impotent to do anything about it. How well the UN handles cases without the US's involvement can be seen by looking at (pre-US-invasion) Yugoslavia, Sudan, Rwanda, etc., etc., etc.

Whenever the UN is succesful, it is almost invariably because it is really the US armed forces--and, sometimes, with another free nation or two--acting under a nominal and worthless UN "leadership".

Obligatory attempt to make this about personalities rather than facts observed.

Well, that's because you have an odd personality. You accept conspiracy theories about "stolen elections" about the US president as gospel truth, but accept the word of President "we will kill all the jews in a nuclear holocaust" Rafsanjani & co. as somehow reliable.

Go figure.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Orwell
All six billion of them? Woa! :jaw:

3.321021331 billion actually. Barely half your number. Get your facts straight dude!

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
3.321021331 billion actually. Barely half your number. Get your facts straight dude!

Why that particular number? I though everyone was against you!

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why that particular number? I though everyone was against you!

Just half. Roughly.

We'll get to you. You may be eighty and using a walker but...we'll get to you. :)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by geni
Israel has balistic missiles while it proably isn't enough to totaly stop Iran's program forever it would by time.
I doubt aerial bombardment would do anything but stir up the hornets nest, the important facilities are too deeply buried. It would require troops on the ground, unfortunately, IMHO.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Just half. Roughly.

We'll get to you. You may be eighty and using a walker but...we'll get to you. :) That reminds me of the Portuguese mafia. Have you ever heard of them? Very secretive organisation. Nobody knows who they are. In spite of the name, you don't have to be portuguese to be in it! Some people are part of the portuguese mafia, and they don't even know it! if you betray them you're screwed. They always get their man (or woman). It might take decades, but in the end, they'll get you. It will look like a heart attack, a disease, an accident, it could be anything, but it will be them getting their revenge on you. Beware of the Portuguese mafia!

[Manny]

Geez, of all the threads to go off topic. Do you people have any idea how few people know how much gas Nigeria flares? Ph34r my 1337 g33k ci73s!

[Orwell]

I love thread derailments! Specially when the threads in question are heavy on rhetoric.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Orwell
I love thread derailments! Specially when the threads in question are heavy on rhetoric.

You made the list, buddy. Don't make it worse on yourself.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Ed
May I invite you to do the same if you feel the need to reflexively flame the US?

Okay.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60943

[Kevin_Lowe]

An update for anybody still reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_nuclear_program

The short version is that I think Mycroft's plutonium thing turned out to have a mundane explanation. Some equipment arrived contaminated from Pakistian and Russia contaminated with enriched uranium (not plutonium).

However tolerably credible allegations of secret nuclear facilities have been made for some time by disgruntled Iranians and by US intelligence sources, and apparently it wouldn't be the first time in history a nation secretly developed a nuclear capability while running similar reactors openly. The IAEA has had mixed treatment from the Iranians but certainly hasn't exhaustively investigated possible secret sites.

On balance, I think Iran is highly likely to be covertly pursuing a nuclear arsenal, and if ever there was a case for threatening a nation with a big UN stick this looks like it.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Orwell
That reminds me of the Portuguese mafia...


That's it! You'll now have to spend the next 3 to 6 decades looking over your shoulder...

Should have stayed quiet, wise guy...

[geni]

Originally posted by WildCat
I doubt aerial bombardment would do anything but stir up the hornets nest, the important facilities are too deeply buried. It would require troops on the ground, unfortunately, IMHO.

It would buy us time.

[Bluegill]

Just a note to add that the guy on the right, near the partially opened barrel, is likely a well educated scientist. Three guesses to how I can tell.


Rob Lister! I've been waiting and waiting. You mentioned the first two reasons (he knows it's not a situation that warrants it, and he has the authority not to wear a mask.) What is the third reason? The mystery has been killing me for two months!