US dismisses Iran nuclear report

[kalen]

The IAEA has come out with a report that does not jive with the Whitehouse world view. Therefore it will be ignored by the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth. Isn't this how the WMD issue was treated by the Whitehouse before Iraq was invaded? Look where that got us.



The US has criticised an independent investigation which found no evidence that Iran was working on a secret nuclear weapons programme.

The report said traces of bomb-grade uranium in Iran's nuclear facilities came from contaminated Pakistani equipment, not Iranian activities.


and the real kick in the pants:


However, a US state department spokesman said the report did nothing to reduce their concern at Iran's nuclear programme.

He listed a series of what he called "unresolved concerns", which included Iran's alleged dealings with clandestine nuclear procurement networks and the Bush administration's strong belief that Iran was developing and pursuing a nuclear weapon.
(my italics)

[Luke T.]

Meanwhile, from the same news source:

Iran restarts nuclear programme

UN officials say they have installed monitoring equipment Iran has resumed sensitive fuel cycle work at its uranium conversion facility near the city of Isfahan.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, confirmed work had begun at the plant, after it was suspended in 2004 to allow for negotiations with the EU.

On Saturday, Iran rejected European proposals to persuade it to give up its controversial programme.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting on Tuesday to discuss the deadlock. It will submit a report to the Security Council, which could then consider the possibility of sanctions.

The Isfahan plant is Iran's main uranium conversion facility. Conversion is an early stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, turning raw uranium - known as yellowcake - into the feedstock for enriched uranium.

Uranium enriched to a low level is used to produce nuclear fuel, while further enrichment makes it suitable for use in atomic weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4131706.stm

No evidence of bomb grade uranium yet. So the US should give up its concerns?

edited to add more quotes and a question.

[Luke T.]

And two weeks ago:

The International Atomic Energy Agency unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday demanding that Iran suspend all nuclear activities it resumed earlier this week, a diplomat said.

The diplomat from a country on the agency's 35-nation board said the resolution, drafted by France, Britain and Germany, expressed "serious concern" at Iran's resumption on Monday of nuclear work that could be used to make atomic weapons.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8835775/

[Luke T.]

France, Britain and Germany formally warned Iran on Tuesday that they will end their two-year negotiations over the country’s nuclear program and pursue punitive action if Iran carries out its threat to resume sensitive nuclear work.


The letter, which is backed by the 25-nation European Union, comes as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency, has agreed to Iran’s request to install surveillance cameras at its nuclear facility in Isfahan to enable Iran to resume its uranium enrichment activities under international safeguards.

Once the cameras are functioning, which will take about a week, Iran could resume activities and legally still be in compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, two senior IAEA officials said.

But if it did so, Iran would be breaking its voluntary agreement with the Europeans to indefinitely suspend such activities as long as negotiations continued.

The Bush administration is convinced that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons facility and is moving forward to make bombs. The Europeans also believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons, but is determined to at least stall the process through negotiations.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N30/long1.html

[Mark]

Message to the Bush Administration:

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

"Never let the same dog bite you twice. That's a smart man."---Chuck Berry
.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mark
Message to the Bush Administration:

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

"Never let the same dog bite you twice. That's a smart man."---Chuck Berry
.

Yeah, well, at least you're being consistent in that you're completely ignoring the fact that Europe is being "fooled" as well (now, as they were in 2003). But since Bush isn't the leader of a European nation, you seem quite happy to issue a pass. :rolleyes:

[Mark]

Originally posted by Jocko
Yeah, well, at least you're being consistent in that you're completely ignoring the fact that Europe is being "fooled" as well (now, as they were in 2003). But since Bush isn't the leader of a European nation, you seem quite happy to issue a pass. :rolleyes:

Shame on you.

Europe didn't lie to us over and over and over again. Bush did.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mark
Shame on you.

Europe didn't lie to us over and over and over again. Bush did.

Europe, the UN, the IAEA and pretty much every governing body was in at least some measure of agreement that Saddam's withholding of information was evidence - not proof, but evidence - that there was a legitimate WMD threat.

Well, we had received their report, declaration, about 10,000 pages from Iraq, and we had hoped that it would clarify a lot of issues that remained open since 1998. It did give information about peaceful programs concerning biology and chemistry, but it did not really shed any new evidence on the chemical weapons and biological weapons program. And this is a disappointment.

And they have not changed their position. They say there was nothing left, and they still continue to say that. So it's not surprising that there is no new... nothing new on that score. However, what we need is evidence. The U.S. and the UK say that they have evidence that the Iraqis retain weapons of this kind. We do not have such evidence here, but at the same time, we do not have the evidence from Iraq that they have finished it. And hence, our conclusion is that one cannot have the confidence that the weapons are gone.

BTW, that's Hans Blix (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/blix_12-19.html), less than 5 months before the invasion.

Oh, and please support your oft-repeated but never-substantiated "Bush lied" mantra. Then you can explain how he got Hans Blix to go along with it.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
No evidence of bomb grade uranium yet. So the US should give up its concerns?


Well, if the US concern is the "strong belief" it has that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is wrong, then yes. Give those concerns up, for now.

Maybe you're referring to other "concerns". These are almost always extremely vague statements like "destabilizing the region" and "threating neighbors" and the like. If you overlook the irony as to which country is currently the biggest destabilizing power in the region, and at the risk of derailing my own thread, what would you say is the US's primary "concern?" Please be clear and specific in your answer and state the reason why action must be taken immediately and possibly pre-emptively.

If you want to stay on topic, you can answer why the US adminstration's definition of "best available intelligence" is really always the "best available intelligence that agrees with our beliefs."

[Jocko]

Originally posted by kalen
If you want to stay on topic, you can answer why the US adminstration's definition of "best available intelligence" is really always the "best available intelligence that agrees with our beliefs."

Look two posts up if you want to see the words of another administration shill.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by kalen
Well, if the US concern is the "strong belief" it has that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is wrong, then yes. Give those concerns up, for now.

You do mean the US and Europe, right? You read the links and posts I put up?

The Europeans also believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons

And here we have Iran with a nuclear power plant capable of producing the first stage of atomic weapons grade material. But Iran is such a kind and gentle country we should not worry? Is that what you are saying?

All the IAEA report says is that they have found no weapons grade material. This nuke plant is the necessary first step toward making nuke grade material. It is not the final step.

ETA: (If they have been prevented from getting past the first step up to now, then how much of a shocking news item is it that no final product has been found? And how logical is it to intrepret that to mean we no longer need to worry?)

So why shouldn't we worry? Should we wait until an actual missile with nuclear warheads is built before we say, "You know, we really ought to do something about that!"

If you want to stay on topic, you can answer why the US adminstration's definition of "best available intelligence" is really always the "best available intelligence that agrees with our beliefs."

Ah, so this is another generic Bush-bashing topic. I see. We'll just ignore that there are other countries who are also worried about Iran. That would mean either Bush is not crazy, or they all are, and that does not agree with your beliefs.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Jocko
Look two posts up if you want to see the words of another administration shill.

OK, so there was no evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs - that according to Blix. There was also a talk by Powell at the UN where he showed lots of "evidence." So what I hear you are saying is that the US administration's view on Iraqi WMDs is alot like this guy's (http://www.victorzammit.com) view on the afterlife.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by kalen
OK, so there was no evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs - that according to Blix. There was also a talk by Powell at the UN where he showed lots of "evidence." So what I hear you are saying is that the US administration's view on Iraqi WMDs is alot like this guy's (http://www.victorzammit.com) view on the afterlife.

Slither all you like, you've been outed. Blix was the chief inspector and lead authority on the alleged threat... and a favorite source of the anti-war left now that he's conveniently changed his tune on what was found and what was not.

All you're doing is desperately trying to contort words into bizarre meanings, and moving the goalposts to suit your irrational - and now discredited - blame complex.

[geni]

What I don't get is why the US objects to the report. All is say is that right now IRan is not maikeing nuclear weapons. I says nothing about future plans.

[geni]

Originally posted by Jocko
Yeah, well, at least you're being consistent in that you're completely ignoring the fact that Europe is being "fooled" as well (now, as they were in 2003).

I don't think Europe has is being fooled they have simply maged to buy a years woth of time without have to do anything.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Jocko
Europe, the UN, the IAEA and pretty much every governing body was in at least some measure of agreement that Saddam's withholding of information was evidence - not proof, but evidence - that there was a legitimate WMD threat.



Oh, so that's why most of them opposed the invasion. Now it all makes sense. :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mark
Oh, so that's why most of them opposed the invasion. Now it all makes sense. :rolleyes:

They opposed the invasion because they don't follow through on their words. Which is so 1930s.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Luke T.
They opposed the invasion because they don't follow through on their words. Which is so 1930s.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

The Hitler card has officially been played on this thread!

In any case, the difference with Hussein is that by the time we invaded, his teeth had already been pulled and he was no threat to anyone!

If you want to compare it to the 1930s, you would have to assume that Germany had already been invaded and partially occupied. That didn't happen. It did in Iraq.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mark
Ding! Ding! Ding!

The Hitler card has officially been played on this thread!

If it makes you feel any better, the legendary intransigence of our European brethren is not the main reason I think they opposed the war. Rather, it was the lucrative and illegal oil profits (and sales paid for by oil profits) enjoyed by Germany (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,353585,00.html), France (http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7631) and Russia (http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2005/05/17/59797.html). So, along with Hans Blix, the French, German and Russian economies are also complicit in your Bush conspiracy theory.

In any case, the difference with Hussein is that by the time we invaded, his teeth had already been pulled and he was no threat to anyone!

Seriously, Mark, enough of this meme as well. Did any UN resolution ask for disarmament good enough to qualify as "no threat to anyone"? No, it asked for complete disarmament and full access to evidence that the disarmament has taken place. See, that's a lot less ambiguous than your personal criteria of having his "teeth pulled." A little trickier to nail down.

If you want to compare it to the 1930s, you would have to assume that Germany had already been invaded and partially occupied. That didn't happen. It did in Iraq.

No, you'd have to assume someone stood up to Hitler between Poland and Czecholslovakia. They didn't.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by geni
What I don't get is why the US objects to the report.
I don't see objection so much as apathy on the part of an administration that doesn't trust reports from international agencies. I don't entirely agree with that position but I do understand it. While the title says the US is dismissing the report, I really don't see that. What I see is that the US is not betting anything on the truth of the report.
I don't know i All is say is that right now IRan is not maikeing nuclear weapons. I says nothing about future plans.
Personally I'd be better prepared to accept the report if the people preparing it also happened to live at ground-zero. All things considered I don't think this is really much of a story. Nobody is going to stop looking or worrying because of a report. The report doesn't change anything, dismissing or accepting the report doesn't change anything.

Iran's been acting pretty squirrelly lately and I don't think it's because they have nukes. I think they're just trying to use the US as a convenient whipping boy to distract their citizens from growing internal dissent at the current government. The nastiest thing the US could do to the Iran theocracy right now is sit quietly in the corner, smile and offer all sorts of foreign aid to our Iranian friends.

[geni]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird

Personally I'd be better prepared to accept the report if the people preparing it also happened to live at ground-zero.
/B]

Have you any evidence that the IAEA don't know what they are doing?

[geni]

Originally posted by Jocko
No, you'd have to assume someone stood up to Hitler between Poland and Czecholslovakia. They didn't.

Suicide has never been a popular forien policy amoung European nations.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Jocko
If it makes you feel any better, the legendary intransigence of our European brethren is not the main reason I think they opposed the war. Rather, it was the lucrative and illegal oil profits (and sales paid for by oil profits) enjoyed by Germany (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,353585,00.html), France (http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7631) and Russia (http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2005/05/17/59797.html). So, along with Hans Blix, the French, German and Russian economies are also complicit in your Bush conspiracy theory.

[b]

Seriously, Mark, enough of this meme as well. Did any UN resolution ask for disarmament good enough to qualify as "no threat to anyone"? No, it asked for complete disarmament and full access to evidence that the disarmament has taken place. See, that's a lot less ambiguous than your personal criteria of having his "teeth pulled." A little trickier to nail down.

[B]

No, you'd have to assume someone stood up to Hitler between Poland and Czecholslovakia. They didn't.

I always love it when someone puts the words "conspiracy theory" in my mouth. I didn't say or imply anything of the kind and you know it. Why even try to discuss anything with you?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mark
I always love it when someone puts the words "conspiracy theory" in my mouth. I didn't say or imply anything of the kind and you know it. Why even try to discuss anything with you?

Well, you HAVE said on multiple occasions that Bush lied to get this country into a war.

He couldn't have perpetrated this fraud alone, hence conspiracy.
You have done a single thing to prove it, which is why it's a theory.

So if you think I mischaracterize your position, please straighten me out. Lord knows I do it enough for you when you mischaracterize mine.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by geni
Suicide has never been a popular forien policy amoung European nations.

Which may explain why they have always been preferential to euthenasia instead... same result, less responsibility.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, you HAVE said on multiple occasions that Bush lied to get this country into a war.

He couldn't have perpetrated this fraud alone, hence conspiracy.
You have done a single thing to prove it, which is why it's a theory.

So if you think I mischaracterize your position, please straighten me out. Lord knows I do it enough for you when you mischaracterize mine.

You have tried this crap before.

What conspiracy? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al., have lied through their teeth, right out in the open from the get go. They don't need secrecy...thay have plenty of people in this country who will believe anything they say; there is absolutely no need for a "conspiracy."

If you had any sort of decent argument, you wouldn't have to resort to lying about what I have said.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mark
Ding! Ding! Ding!

The Hitler card has officially been played on this thread!

In any case, the difference with Hussein is that by the time we invaded, his teeth had already been pulled and he was no threat to anyone!

If he was no threat, it was only because of constant pressure from the world community and our active military containment of Iraq. It certainly wasn't because Saddam was behaving out of the goodness of his own heart.

If you want to compare it to the 1930s, you would have to assume that Germany had already been invaded and partially occupied. That didn't happen. It did in Iraq.

The peace terms of the Versailles Treaty were probably more limiting on Germany than the peace terms of the first Gulf War.

And I thought we were talking about Iran.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mark
You have tried this crap before.

What, calling a feathered, quacking waterfowl a duck? Yes, I have.

What conspiracy? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al., have lied through their teeth, right out in the open from the get go. They don't need secrecy...thay have plenty of people in this country who will believe anything they say; there is absolutely no need for a "conspiracy."

And if not for clear-seeing, right-thinking people like you, they would have gotten clean away with it! Aha!

If you had any sort of decent argument, you wouldn't have to resort to lying about what I have said.

If you had a single thing to offer the conversation at all, you'd offer a source to back up your accusations.

If you prefer "organized lying" to "conspiracy," that's fine by me. You've already demonstrated a certain flexibility with the meaning of words, particularly when cornered on them. You know, little things like "AP article" and "NYT editorial." I sure hope you've resolved that little issue by now.

Prove - or at least support - your accusation that there is/was an organized attempt to lie in order to get this country into a war.

Then explain why Hans Blix seems to have gone along with the lie, since he testified to the UN as I provided above.

And Mark... please cite something that's not an opinion piece. We get quite enough unsubstantiated opinion out of you already.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Luke T.
If he was no threat, it was only because of constant pressure from the world community and our active military containment of Iraq. It certainly wasn't because Saddam was behaving out of the goodness of his own heart.



The peace terms of the Versailles Treaty were probably more limiting on Germany than the peace terms of the first Gulf War.

And I thought we were talking about Iran.

I agree completely with point #1. The international community (including, and especially the U.S.) had indeed done a good job of pulling Hussein's teeth.

It's a matter of opinion, but I do not agree the the Treaty of Versailles was as limiting as Iraq's economic sanctions; partial occupation; and constant, armed air surveillance. Not even close, IMO.

As far as Iran, I am sorry, but given that the Bush Administration are proven liars, I am not willing to take their word on anything. I can't imagine why anyone would at this point...other than blind partisan loyalty.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Jocko



Prove - or at least support - your accusation that there is/was an organized attempt to lie in order to get this country into a war.



Lie: Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. (Second Debate)
Truth:According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq:

* HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO GIVE OUT.
* “had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions� ended.
* Iraq failed “to acquire long range delivery systems “to replace inventory exhausted in the Iran/Iraq war.�
* The survey group “uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles� and “documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.�
* Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.
* “Initial, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety. . . [but] [a]ggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender compenents of the program.�
* “Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Bagdad resumed production of chemical munitions therafter.�
* “With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995 . . . Baghdad [destroyed undeclared stocks of biological weapons] and abandoned its existing BW [biological warfare] program in the belief it constituted a potential embarrassment� which would undercut any ability to lift sanctions.
* In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.�

Lie: On May 29, 2003, during a visit to Poland, President Bush declared that the U.S. had “found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. . .
Truth:A review by US and UK experts has found this claim to be false. The mobile trailers at issue were facilities to fill weather balloons. (21)

Lie:In a September 2003 interview, Cheney claimed that the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 stated there was “compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort� and the investigators will “find in fact that they are valid.�
Truth: Cheney’s reliance on the National Intelligence Estimate is misleading since he quoted conclusions which the report conceded were based on “inadequate� evidence or were disputed by intelligence sources.

Lie: On the Sunday before the war, Vice President Cheney claimed “we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Truth In February 2001, the CIA warned the White House “we do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [the first Gulf War] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs.� The report was so definitive that it led Colin Powell to state in a subsequent press conference that Iraq had “not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.�

Lie:Secretary Rumsfeld also spoke with certainty on July 13, 2003 when denied that there was any debate within the administration about whether Iraq had a nuclear program. “We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate.�
Truth: Also in February 2003, both the weapons inspectors and the IAEA told the White House that there was “no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear-related activities� and “they had not found any weapons of mass destruction.�

Lie: In his October address, Bush claimed that the “evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group of his ‘nuclear mujahedeen,’ his nuclear holy warriors.�
Truth:As explained by the Washington Post, “Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign.�

Lie:President Bush and Secretary Powell repeatedly claimed they had evidence that Iraq attempted to buy 500 tons of uranium oxide from Niger, which can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors.
Truth:When the documentation supporting this claim was provided to the IAEA, they quickly determined that the documents were obvious forgeries as its lack of authenticity was “transparently obvious.�

Lie: In response to Richard Clarke’s book, Dr. Rice asserted, “the fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.� (03.22.04)
Truth: 0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities

Lie: Press Secretary McClellan claims that fighting terrorism was a top priority before 9-11.
Truth: 0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001

Lie: Dr. Rice: “No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration� by the Clinton administration.
Truth: On the 5th day of the Bush administration (January 25), Clarke forwarded the 1998 Delenda plan and his December 2000 strategy paper to Dr. Rice which included a covert action plan from the CIA called “Blue Sky�. (13)

Lie: After September 11th, Condoleezza Rice denied attending a transition briefing in which Clinton NSC Advisor Sandy Berger warned that “the Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.� Rice’s spokesperson said she recalled no briefing where Berger was present.
Truth:Rice spoke with a New York Times reporter after the briefing who then reported that “Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that the war on terrorism – and particularly Mr. bin Laden’s brand of it – would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.�

Lie:In May 2002, after the press learned about the August 6th PDB (see Pre-9/11 Warnings below), Condoleezza Rice told reporters that Bush had requested the August briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer.
Truth:The CIA told the 9/11 panel that the briefing was not requested by the President and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA. (8)

Lie: Secretary Powell: “Our goal was to eliminate Al Qaeda. It was no longer to roll it back or reduce its effectiveness.� before 9/11. (03.23.04)
Truth:In written testimony submitted in 2002, Deputy National Security advisor Hadley said the administration’s goal “was to move beyond the policy of containment, criminal prosecution and limited retaliation for specific attacks, toward attempting to ‘roll back’ Al Qaeda.�

Lie: In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice claimed “We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets.�
Truth:The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden."

Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."

Lie: Dr. Rice: “The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold� before 9/11
Truth:The facts are the opposite, President Bush opposed additional funding. Bush

(i) rejected an FBI request for $58 million for 149 counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators;

(ii) proposed a $65 million cut for state and local counterterrorism grants; and

(iii) rejected a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism.� (11)

Lie: After September 11th, President Bush promised to take "every possible measure" to guarantee the security of the homeland.
Truth:The Council on Foreign Relations task force headed by former Republican Senator Rudman (which in 2001 warned against a catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil and called for the creation of a Homeland Security Department), concluded that the administration was spending only one-third of what is required “to adequately provide for emergency responders.�

There are many, many more.
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mark
As far as Iran, I am sorry, but given that the Bush Administration are proven liars, I am not willing to take their word on anything. I can't imagine why anyone would at this point...other than blind partisan loyalty.

Most of the article in the OP was about Europe's concerns, but none of that was mentioned.

I have posted multiple sources showing Europe's and the IAEA's concerns. So why the focus on Bush alone, Mark?

Not only that, Iran admits it is firing up its nuclear program. In defiance of Europe's wishes.

So far, pressure from Europe and the US and the IAEA have kept Iran toothless, too. They have prevented them from beginning the first step toward nuclear weapons material. Your attitude only convinces me that sooner or later you would have had us abandon our watchdogging of Hussein, and thereby allowed him to carry on with his ultimate plans as well.

What exactly do you want from Europe and the US with respect to Iran that you don't see in these press reports?

Is it really such a shock that the IAEA found no weapons material if Iran was never allowed past the first stage to begin with? Why do you have a problem with Bush saying we still need to keep them toothless?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Most of the article in the OP was about Europe's concerns, but none of that was mentioned.

I have posted multiple sources showing Europe's and the IAEA's concerns. So why the focus on Bush alone, Mark?

Not only that, Iran admits it is firing up its nuclear program. In defiance of Europe's wishes.

So far, pressure from Europe and the US and the IAEA have kept Iran toothless, too. They have prevented them from beginning the first step toward nuclear weapons material. Your attitude only convinces me that sooner or later you would have had us abandon our watchdogging of Hussein, and thereby allowed him to carry on with his ultimate plans as well.

What exactly do you want from Europe and the US with respect to Iran that you don't see in these press reports?

Is it really such a shock that the IAEA found no weapons material if Iran was never allowed past the first stage to begin with? Why do you have a problem with Bush saying we still need to keep them toothless?

Keeping them toothless is fine. No worries there. But given the Bush Administration's proven (see above post) history of lying, I am not comfortable with any unilateral U.S. action. As long as there is international consensus, I am more comfortable.

Actions have consequences. And the consequence of lying over and over and over again is that I do not trust this administration one bit. Why would I?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mark
Keeping them toothless is fine. No worries there. But given the Bush Administration's proven (see above post) history of lying, I am not comfortable with any unilateral U.S. action. As long as there is international consensus, I am more comfortable.

Actions have consequences. And the consequence of lying over and over and over again is that I do not trust this administration one bit. Why would I?

I think Bush would have a much, much harder job trying to sell a war with Iran than he did with Iraq. And I think Bush is more about economic and diplomatic sanctions than war with Iran. Even if Iran unveiled a hyrdogen bomb on live TV tomorrow, I do not think Bush would push for a war.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I think Bush would have a much, much harder job trying to sell a war with Iran than he did with Iraq. And I think Bush is more about economic and diplomatic sanctions than war with Iran. Even if Iran unveiled a hyrdogen bomb on live TV tomorrow, I do not think Bush would push for a war.

I hope that is true...

[demon]

Let's say that Iran manufactures a couple of atomic warheads (I don't think anyone's suggesting they're near developing nuclear weapons). To whom would they be a threat? Specifically, what do you think they're going to do with them?

Also, if it's wrong for Iran to develop nuclear weapons (which it is, under the Non Proliferation Treaty) does that mean you condemn the US for supporting Israel's nuclear arsenal in violation of both the NPT (to which the US is a signatory) and the US Constitution? Do you also condemn the US for supporting India's civil nuclear program when it refuses to sign the NPT?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by demon
Let's say that Iran manufactures a couple of atomic warheads (I don't think anyone's suggesting they're near developing nuclear weapons). To whom would they be a threat? Specifically, what do you think they're going to do with them?

The threat is that they might actually use them, offensively.

Also, if it's wrong for Iran to develop nuclear weapons (which it is, under the Non Proliferation Treaty) does that mean you condemn the US for supporting Israel's nuclear arsenal in violation of both the NPT (to which the US is a signatory) and the US Constitution? Do you also condemn the US for supporting India's civil nuclear program when it refuses to sign the NPT?

Did Israel signe NPT?

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by geni
Have you any evidence that the IAEA don't know what they are doing?
No, I just know it's not the IAEA and their families that get turned into glowing rubble if they happen to be wrong.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
No, I just know it's not the IAEA and their families that get turned into glowing rubble if they happen to be wrong.

Now there's some good old-fashion American logic for you!

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I think Bush would have a much, much harder job trying to sell a war with Iran than he did with Iraq. And I think Bush is more about economic and diplomatic sanctions than war with Iran. Even if Iran unveiled a hyrdogen bomb on live TV tomorrow, I do not think Bush would push for a war.

What about the risk of this hypothetical atomic bomb falling in the hands of some terrorist group?
The new Iranian premier does not seem too much a moderate

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Did Israel signe NPT? [/B]

How many Israeli fanatics would put a nuclear bomb anywhere to get to heaven with 77 virgins quickly?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by demon
Let's say that Iran manufactures a couple of atomic warheads (I don't think anyone's suggesting they're near developing nuclear weapons). To whom would they be a threat? Specifically, what do you think they're going to do with them?

Look at what few bearded terrorist have done with just some planes.
Think about what they could do with one or more nuclear bombs.
Maybe:
1) Pick up an estremist ( there should be no shortage of them );
2) Send him to the US with the bomb ( somehow, this is not impossible to do );
3) Tell him that he will go to heaven if he explodes the bomb anywhere in New York.

How many people would die?

[kalen]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Look at what few bearded terrorist have done with just some planes.
Think about what they could do with one or more nuclear bombs.

Or longer beards.

[/B]
Maybe:
1) Pick up an estremist ( there should be no shortage of them );
2) Send him to the US with the bomb ( somehow, this is not impossible to do );
3) Tell him that he will go to heaven if he explodes the bomb anywhere in New York.

How many people would die? [/B]

I don't know. How many? Would it be close to the number of innocents killed if the US decided to invade Iran? Am I close?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by kalen
I don't know. How many? Would it be close to the number of innocents killed if the US decided to invade Iran? Am I close?
Far more, I can assure you. Could easily exceed 1.5 million dead, so you're not even close.

[demon]

Matteo Martini:
"Look at what few bearded terrorist have done with just some planes.
Think about what they could do with one or more nuclear bombs.
Maybe:
1) Pick up an estremist ( there should be no shortage of them );
2) Send him to the US with the bomb ( somehow, this is not impossible to do );
3) Tell him that he will go to heaven if he explodes the bomb anywhere in New York.
How many people would die?"
================================================== ======================

What?

What's Iran got to do with 9/11 or the London bombings?
What wars of aggression has Iran been involved in?

What wars of aggression has Israel been involved in?

Have Israeli 'fanatics' been involved in terrorist killings?

Anyway, this is all completely beside the point,there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.Full stop.They have been building a nuclear energy program, which they are perfectly within their rights to do.

You appear to be trying to conflate 2 or 3 different fairly odious and quasi-rascist ideas into one pretty incoherent one.

[kalen]

Originally posted by WildCat
Far more, I can assure you. Could easily exceed 1.5 million dead, so you're not even close.

I am thinking I should start up a pool - the person with the closest guess to the official figure of the immediate casulties of an Iranian nuke in NY wins. In the event there is no bomb and no program to make one, I get to keep the money.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Look at what few bearded terrorist have done with just some planes.
Think about what they could do with one or more nuclear bombs.

Or longer beards.

[/B]
Maybe:
1) Pick up an estremist ( there should be no shortage of them );
2) Send him to the US with the bomb ( somehow, this is not impossible to do );
3) Tell him that he will go to heaven if he explodes the bomb anywhere in New York.

How many people would die? [/B]

I don't know. How many? Would it be close to the number of innocents killed if the US decided to invade Iran? Am I close?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by kalen
I don't know. How many? Would it be close to the number of innocents killed if the US decided to invade Iran? Am I close?

I do not know how many innocents would die if the US invaded Iran, but, according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/, about 25000 civilians were killed by military intervention in Iraq ( maybe mostly by Iraqi estremists and not by US troops ).
Now, considering that an atom bomb can destroy almost everything in a distance of 5, 10 or more km from the place of explosion ( depending on the size and power of the bomb ), how many civilians would be killed if such a bomb exploded in the center of NYC?
3 millions?
5 millions?

P.S.
Kalen, very nice your avatar. Is he your personal hero?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by demon
What's Iran got to do with 9/11 or the London bombings?
What wars of aggression has Iran been involved in?

What wars of aggression has Israel been involved in?

Have Israeli 'fanatics' been involved in terrorist killings?

Anyway, this is all completely beside the point,there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.Full stop.They have been building a nuclear energy program, which they are perfectly within their rights to do.


Why on earth should they be interested to develop a " peaceful " nuclear program if they are sitting on one of the world` s largest pool of cheap oil of the planet?


Originally posted by demon
You appear to be trying to conflate 2 or 3 different fairly odious and quasi-rascist ideas into one pretty incoherent one.

I am just asking questions.
I have never made any racist comment.
Or maybe you call as " racist " any person who does not express ideas you like/approve?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
No, I just know it's not the IAEA and their families that get turned into glowing rubble if they happen to be wrong.
Neither is it you, ergo your opinions are worthless according to your novel and unique branch of logic. I'm sorry but an ad hom is really a very poor substitute for an argument.

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Neither is it you, ergo your opinions are worthless according to your novel and unique branch of logic. I'm sorry but an ad hom is really a very poor substitute for an argument.
I don't quite understand how you can say my family and I are not personally at risk. Aren't there Fatwas that say it is the responsibility of every muslim to kill Americans? Aren't there fatwas which say using nuclear and chemical weapons against America is pleasing in the eyes of Allah?

What is the fault with logic that says simply: I don't entirely trust the report of the IAEA because they do not share the risk of being wrong?

Perhaps the problem is with your ability to comprehend my very poor substitute for an argument, not the argument itself.

[MarksSock]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Why on earth should they be interested to develop a " peaceful " nuclear program if they are sitting on one of the world` s largest pool of cheap oil of the planet?





Clean energy? Conservation? Global warming? Saving the oil to sell to the West at $100 a barrel?

I am not saying these are why they are doing it, merely that your implication that there are no other possible reasons is untrue.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
I don't quite understand how you can say my family and I are not personally at risk. Aren't there Fatwas that say it is the responsibility of every muslim to kill Americans? Aren't there fatwas which say using nuclear and chemical weapons against America is pleasing in the eyes of Allah?

What is the fault with logic that says simply: I don't entirely trust the report of the IAEA because they do not share the risk of being wrong?

Perhaps the problem is with your ability to comprehend my very poor substitute for an argument, not the argument itself.

So, the IAEA and their family are not at risk if they are wrong, but you and yours are - "personally." Has fear clouded your logic that much? Does it feel like they know your name, address, and where you work so they know where to send the nuke (assuming one can ever materialise)?

[Dan Beaird]

Originally posted by kalen
So, the IAEA and their family are not at risk if they are wrong, but you and yours are - "personally." Has fear clouded your logic that much? Does it feel like they know your name, address, and where you work so they know where to send the nuke (assuming one can ever materialise)?
See, the thing about weapons of mass destruction is that they don't need to be personally addressed. You just need to hit the right time zone. A threat to kill "all y'all" (as we say in Texas for some stupid reason or other) is a personal threat to anyone who considers themself a member of the group being threatened. Is there any logical reason to assume I am not personally in some danger from people threatening my country with nukes and poison?

No, fear has not clouded my logic. I don't sleep in a bomb shelter or cave like your tasteless selection of an avatar, I don't in fact really worry about any of it that much. You seem to enjoy trying to change my statement of an opinion into something that it is not.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
I don't quite understand how you can say my family and I are not personally at risk. Aren't there Fatwas that say it is the responsibility of every muslim to kill Americans? Aren't there fatwas which say using nuclear and chemical weapons against America is pleasing in the eyes of Allah?
There might be, but not every muslim follows them, in any case I doubt Texas is a particularly likely target of an Iranian nuke.

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
What is the fault with logic that says simply: I don't entirely trust the report of the IAEA because they do not share the risk of being wrong?
That it's a blantant example of the logical falacy known as an ad hom. Being threatened by something (which you probably aren't) doesn't make you more cabable of determining whether it exists.
Originally posted by Dan Beaird
Perhaps the problem is with your ability to comprehend my very poor substitute for an argument, not the argument itself.
I understand it perfectly well, it just isn't logical.

[demon]

Grammy:
"The threat is that they might actually use them, offensively."

I did mean specifically. Your response, that Iran might 'actually use them, offensively' says nothing at all -it's virtually a tautology.

I'll ask again: let's assume they manage to manufacture a couple of atomic warheads -who are they going to attack, bearing in mind that the moment Iran used them, Israel and/or the US would obliterate them? I want you to tell me, specifically, what tactical offensive advantage would a few (and it would only be a few at most) atomic weapons give Iran? The only military advantage I can see to Iran posessing WMD is as a deterrent, specifically against US or Israeli aggression. If you're arguing that it would give Iran an offensive advantage, I'd like you to explain what that might be -merely to say that they might 'use them' is hot air.


On Israel, it has refused to sign the NPT. This means that US military assistance to Israel is illegal under the Proxmire Ammendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act. Furthermore, the FAA also prohibits military assistance to any country that 'engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights' -so US aid to Israel is illegal in that respect as well.

[demon]

I'm still waiting for guys to answer my questions. Assuming that Iran develops a couple of nuclear weapons,
Who will they attack?

Why will they attack them?

What will they gain?

How will the gain outweigh being obliterated by the counter response?

Answers please.


I'd also like you to list the number of countries Iran has attacked in the last, say, thirty years and then list the number of countries Israel has attacked during the same period.


You might also want to research Israel's predilection for terrorism and for deliberate acts of 'military madness' to get what it wants -for example threatening to bomb the Saudi Oil fields in 1981 if the US backed a peace plan that was not to its liking.

Also consider this,

"[Labor Party Defense Minister Pinhas] Lavon... has constantly preached for acts of madness and taught the army leadership the diabolic lesson of how to set the Middle East on fire, how to cause friction, cause bloody confrontations, sabotage targets and property of the Powers [and perform] acts of despair and suicide."

Former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary and Other Documents", 1986, p 36.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by demon
Grammy:
"The threat is that they might actually use them, offensively."

I did mean specifically. Your response, that Iran might 'actually use them, offensively' says nothing at all -it's virtually a tautology.
Use against US allies and/or Europe and surrounding nations. K?

On Israel, it has refused to sign the NPT. This means that US military assistance to Israel is illegal under the Proxmire Ammendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act. Furthermore, the FAA also prohibits military assistance to any country that 'engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights' -so US aid to Israel is illegal in that respect as well.

Seins as how Israel never admitted to having nukes it's not at all illigal.

As for FAA, I don't think we(USA) view Israel in that way at all.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Grammatron



Seins as how Israel never admitted to having nukes it's not at all illigal.

[/B]

Uh...things are only illegal when one admits doing them?

Wow...I think I'll go rob a bank and not admit it. As a matter of fact, maybe I'll run for President on the Republican ticket! :D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mark
Uh...things are only illegal when one admits doing them?

Wow...I think I'll go rob a bank and not admit it. As a matter of fact, maybe I'll run for President on the Republican ticket! :D

Not what I meant.

There's no offical document that shows Israel having Nukes.

Also I am not sure about the accuracy of demon's statements seeing how we have relations with India and Pakistan with military assistance to both.

demon, do you have a link to that?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Not what I meant.



I know...that's why I used the smily.

[kalen]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
See, the thing about weapons of mass destruction is that they don't need to be personally addressed. You just need to hit the right time zone. A threat to kill "all y'all" (as we say in Texas for some stupid reason or other) is a personal threat to anyone who considers themself a member of the group being threatened.

OK, let's go with your logic. I consider myself a member of the human race. If Iran is threatened with a US invasion, by your logic I should feel threatened, too? The answer to that is no. Instead I feel disgust, remorse, and a feeling of "here-we-go-again."

I think, myself, I will wait until I am threatened by more than a bogeyman.


Is there any logical reason to assume I am not personally in some danger from people threatening my country with nukes and poison?

Jeez, Louise. WHAT NUKES?!?! For that matter what poison?


No, fear has not clouded my logic. I don't sleep in a bomb shelter or cave like your tasteless selection of an avatar, I don't in fact really worry about any of it that much. You seem to enjoy trying to change my statement of an opinion into something that it is not.

I changed nothing unless you didn't mean what you wrote. If that is clear, logical thinking from you, then all I can say is good luck.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by MarksSock
Clean energy? Conservation? Global warming? Saving the oil to sell to the West at $100 a barrel?

I am not saying these are why they are doing it, merely that your implication that there are no other possible reasons is untrue.

Please!
Are the ayathollahs interested in global warming?
Do they even know what it is?

[kalen]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Seins as how Israel never admitted to having nukes it's not at all illigal.

The IAEA was in the wrong country if it was looking for a clandestine nuclear weapons program. There is way more evidence of an Israeli bomb than an Iranian bomb. (Mordechai Vanunu photos, at least)

To all the people here who doubt the IAEA report:
What would you say if the IAEA went to Israel and said Israel didn't have nukes? Would you believe it?

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by demon
Grammy:
"The threat is that they might actually use them, offensively."

I did mean specifically. Your response, that Iran might 'actually use them, offensively' says nothing at all -it's virtually a tautology.

I'll ask again: let's assume they manage to manufacture a couple of atomic warheads -who are they going to attack, bearing in mind that the moment Iran used them, Israel and/or the US would obliterate them?

Because it is a holy war?
And remember that is not necessary that the Iranian government authorize the dropping of any bomb, it is enough that few terrorists somehow grab the necessary components to build a bomb, whether the Government allows them to do so or not
The Iranian security policy on nuclear matters is maybe not so strict than the US` one

Originally posted by demon

I want you to tell me, specifically, what tactical offensive advantage would a few (and it would only be a few at most) atomic weapons give Iran? T

They could scare the West to death.
And some terrorist could grab them and use them

Originally posted by demon


On Israel, it has refused to sign the NPT. This means that US military assistance to Israel is illegal under the Proxmire Ammendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act. Furthermore, the FAA also prohibits military assistance to any country that 'engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights' -so US aid to Israel is illegal in that respect as well.

The attacks in NY and London were caused by:
a) islamic terrorists;
b) Israeli fanatics?

[kalen]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Please!
Are the ayathollahs interested in global warming?
Do they even know what it is?

So.....

what you are saying is that they are too.... "stupid?"

For someone who claims not to make racist comments, you are on some pretty thin ice.

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by Dan Beaird
I don't sleep in a bomb shelter or cave like your tasteless selection of an avatar

Agreed with that!!

[Matteo Martini]

Originally posted by kalen
So.....

what you are saying is that they are too.... "stupid?"

For someone who claims not to make racist comments, you are on some pretty thin ice.

The US are not interested in global warming ( they have not even signed the Kyoto treaty ).
And almost all over the world ( Japan, Russia, China, India, Australia, Europe, US,.. ) we keep on using oil for cars and trucks and not hydrogen, we produce electricity using thermoelectric plants ( the polluting ones ) and not solar plants ( the clean ones ), and you want to tell me that the Iranians ( maybe the only people in the world who actually have any interest in keeping the world using the old oil ) are investing in clean technology?
Please..

P.S.
Next time, why not use the image of the good ol` Uncle Adolf as avatar?