Iran to enrich uranium to 60 percent if nuclear talks fail

So how long before we are told this was just misinterpreted?

The bad thing is the longer time goes on the more radiation contamination they will get when they finally do strike. What are they waiting for? That`s right the elections how could one forget that..

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


Okay, I'll respond to every point you made.
First, I'm quite interested in stopping wars. Thus, I am very aware of propaganda from those who wish to start wars. Therefore, it is sad that people continue to support and re-post propaganda for a war. Don't take it too personally

Second: I do pass judgement, simply because I'm not a little bunny hopping about with Easter eggs. I read the source you linked. I don't write about a subject "blindly". Instead, I think about it quite a bit.

Third: It takes both nerve, and breathtaking ignorance to even imply that any country on earth has not violated a treaty. You can look through the entire history of the U.S. and find that it lives to violate treaties. But, in fact, Iran has not violated the NPT treaty. Do you know why? Simply because any treaty has a flaw already contained in the treaty: The interpretation of the language of the treaty. If you recall the no-fly zone for Libya, you'll also recall how everyone in the world found out about what a "no-fly zone" means to countries like France. It basically means that those countries wishing to have a no-fly zone are allowed to bomb the people of that country. Sorry, but I'm against nations bombing other nations. Call me stupid.

Fourth: By yelling, "Fake", I meant that it doesn't matter in the least that any country on earth develops nuclear weapons. This seemingly astonishing confession of mine is based upon what weapons many countries already have. If a country wishes to kill many people, it will. The U.S. seems to have the ability to wipe out millions, yet people think this is some anomaly, or "side issue", unconcerned with the really wonderful things the U.S. has done throughout it's young existence. What those wonderful things can possibly be are of no concern to me. Also of no concern to me is Iran having a nuclear weapon, simply because they can have whatever weapons they wish. It's the use of guns, bombs, chemical, and nuclear weapons that is of extreme concern for me. The hypocrisy of the U.S. and Israel to have the most horrible weapons on earth, and to continuously use them, while telling other countries which may actually need them to scare away these countries from invading them, is more than my little stomach can take.

Fifth: Iran could destroy Israel today, if they wished. There is no doubt about it. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. There would be nothing anyone can do to save Israel. It would be completely eliminated, and cast to memory. Hezbollah, which you seem to think is some terrorist branch of Iran always attacking Israel, is actually the only military movement willing to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression. You're upside-down on Hezbollah, probably because you read too much Israeli propaganda. So, as far as Iran attacking Israel through Hezbollah, you are quite confused. Israel is quite proud of their assassination record, and Hezbollah is quite proud of standing up to Israel. It's ugly all the way around, but I grew up on American propaganda, so I still root for the oppressed. I'm for Hezbollah.

Sixth: Here's what you wrote:
"Any superpower wants to control everybody else. That's why Russia wants ex-soviet nations to follow their political agenda (Georgia?), and that's why China wants back so many "sacred" territories. That's also why the Arab League wants certain religious rules in certain countries. I guess you don't know that."

Weirdo Saakashvili, President of Georgia, who started bombing South Ossetia at the beginning of August 2008, right after Condeleeza Rice had talks with him, and during the time that Putin attended the Olympics in China? Is this the nation you think Russia wants to follow their political agenda? I believe the political agenda in that case is to stop invading sovereign nations. I would hope that's the agenda for every nation, but I live in the U.S., and that is far from U.S. foreign policy.
I don't know enough about China to make statements. The Arab League is nothing as far as I'm concerned. They're married to the west.

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy

Originally posted by HIWATT
If I were them I'd just come right out and say "hell yes we are building nuclear weapons because we're sick and tired by getting pushed around and controlled by other nations that not only already have them, but have USED them against INNOCENT PEOPLE in the past"

Despite the constant pummeling we are getting with regards to deliberate misinterpretations of statements made by Ahmadinejad, Iran has every right to defend itself.

Israel and the US are really the most opposed to this... ironic that between the two of them they could blow the world to smithereens 50x over, and one of them already tried

If the use you are referring to are the bombs used in Japan during WW2, they weren't innocent. Civiliams were killed, but the objective of both bombs was to scare Japan into surrender and prevent an extended war in their own backyard.

Iran has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't have the right to have nuclear weapons. They signed the NPT and are members of the IAEA.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets then? BULLSH!T

The US annihilated hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in order to prove a point. That being "don't F*** with us, 'cause we have nukes"

Iran has the right to defend itself but doesn't have the right to a nuclear deterrent because.... they signed the NPT and are members of the IAEA ?!

Do you know who HAS NOT signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty??

ISRAEL !

So for all the talk and propaganda about Iran being this "axis of evil" BS, it's ISRAEL who really is the %$#@ threat because they have OPENLY ADMITTED to not giving a shyt about any rules regarding nuclear weapons by refusing to sign that treaty!

Combine that, with the fact that the United States has already murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese innocents in the flash of a bulb and well, you can smell the hypocrisy, if you have a nose at all.

Originally posted by randomname
why isn't iran allowed to have nuclear subs, when america and friends can.

last time i checked, having a sub doesn't violate international law, so what difference does it make what powers it.

america isn't ruler of the world, it can't tell another sovereign state what it can and can't do.

that's how wars start.

they can develop a 1000 nuclear weapons. if they aren't used its redundant.

if they do use them, it'll mean the end of their entire civilization.

that's a heavy price to pay because you don't like israel.

the reason the west doesn't want iran to have nuclear weapons is because they'll get the exclusive "do what every you want card" that makes you a global super power.

they can prance around the world and take what ever they want from other non-nuclear nations knowing they can't do squat to stop you.

they'll join the global wolf pack, and as long as they don't take food from each other, there'll be little chance of global nuclear war.

Why are you just mentioning America?

China,Russia and the Europeans are all against Iran

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

Oh in the general terms of right and wrong, I know iran is a long long way from innocent on any level. We owe them for a few things, in fact. Not least of which, the Marine Barracks in Beirut. Lost but never forgotten on what had to be one of the most chicken attacks imaginable. Well....At least before we started using remote control toys to do a similar thing elsewhere. Crossing the lines America has makes saying much about anyone else awfully complicated.

However, Iran does plenty and have their hands in many pies. I just do not believe one of those pies is actual nuclear weapons. Now that changes if, as the headline suggests, they take a clear and open turn to very high enrichment. At this point though, I think they're up to something but thermonuclear warheads aren't it. I made this map up to show the realities of Israel as I alluded to in an earlier post...



Nuclear weapons make sense for almost every other nation in the world because they have places to aim them that don't kill the very people it's for ...at least in public relations (and killing them all goes WAY beyond 'oops') but in a more realistic sense...even hitting Tel Aviv..which you'd think would be a hypothetical must in such a war...a no brainer...os so close to the West bank borders and Jerusalem that the fall out if not direct damage would irradiate and destroy both for generations. It just doesn't make sense.... The Shia aren't the most popular in Islam to begin with and destroying the Temple Mount wouldn't be considered a fair price with all the Palesitnians thrown in.

The Ayatollah would be a hunted man by the 1 billion or so Muslims who aren't Shia, IMO.

I'll tell ya what WOULD make sense though ...and it fits almost all of the Ayatollah's statements. It fits within his self imposed limitations and attitudes about nuclear weapons...while still giving substance to the threats or very threatening tones at times. In fact.. it makes them worse.

E.M.P. Weapons would be just like tactics in that region to come up with and use. Technology is as much a pain in their butt as a help in many parts of that region and around the world.....while the more Western a nation, the closer to 100% totally dependent on technology they are. Strategic use of high power EMP blasts would kill few, if any people......but in a modern Western nation, as I understand things and saw in Networking courses, the military might be the only thing left operating anywhere in sight for quite a while. Then again, maybe they won't be either. They have been buying to the lowest bidder....I hope it all works as advertised on shielding.

Just a thought I've been considering for what they might be up to. He's all but said they won't kill innocents en masse....but in not quite these words, he's also said the West would feel their wrath and that sure seemed connected to the nuclear program by the fact statements are made about both in the same speech by the Ayatollah. .....and the main facilities in contention are openly admitted by all to be military in nature, just not 'nuclear weapons', as they claim.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

once my former version ! wrote something like this before but that was not about submarine but oil vessels however there is no difference at all.

argued however that Western sanctions may force Iran to use new sources of fuel for big vessels during long voyages. Officials say some countries refuse to refuel Iranian ships because of the sanctions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
still I think that 5+1 do not care about what Iran is doing but to use as political pressures on Iran for other issues that they do not talk about it explicitly.
Iran as a member of NPT and chief of NAM should be really crazy if it goes after a bomb ! it is nothing but a suicide and huge isolation !

reply to post by boncho

While this whole Nuclear Days of Our Lives is developing, Iran, the antagonist in the whole story, has captured a US drone, modelled it as a children's toy and sent a pink version to the President of the United States citing it is "his favourite colour".

I don't know, maybe it's not related at all if you don't think about it....

Maybe it is...

The only thing it could be related is the attempt to spy on Iran's reactors. Other than that, no, there is no connection. Especially considering the region.

Originally posted by wingsfan

And? Nobody honestly thinks they are innocent, that's not the point anymore. Why does the West have to continuously send their best and brightest young folks over there to DIE?

Well, reasonable and educated people thinks that way.

And I don't support unnecessary war, or any sort of conflict. But if Iran goes the path that some people fear they might follow, it's a whole different issue, and it's much more than political wars.

reply to post by trysts

First, I'm quite interested in stopping wars. Thus, I am very aware of propaganda from those who wish to start wars. Therefore, it is sad that people continue to support and re-post propaganda for a war.

It's not propaganda. It's a news article. If it's propaganda, it's up for the people discussing it to prove their point, instead of making one line posts that add nothing to the reality of the discussion.

And to me, what is sad is that people preach about propaganda, but they digest the propaganda from the other side. Iran spreads as much propaganda as any other country. Just today, they clashed with protesters, just like any other type of country.

They are no worst and not any better than the countries you point fingers at. And failing to realize that is sad.

Don't take it too personally

I don't. You don't know me.

I do pass judgement, simply because I'm not a little bunny hopping about with Easter eggs. I read the source you linked. I don't write about a subject "blindly". Instead, I think about it quite a bit.

You shouldn't judge people you don't know. One of the things you don't know about me, is that - although I made a small OP - I'm a very well educated person on the issue. I've actually read, multiple times, the legislation and realities of these issues. Just because I don't share your opinion, doesn't mean you are more educated than me, or that you think more than me.

And you continue with irrelevant remarks, making yourself above what others think or say.

But, in fact, Iran has not violated the NPT treaty.

The argument is about the possibility of Iran breaching their agreement on the NPT and IAEA protocols. Not about a clear violation.

If you recall the no-fly zone for Libya, you'll also recall how everyone in the world found out about what a "no-fly zone" means to countries like France. It basically means that those countries wishing to have a no-fly zone are allowed to bomb the people of that country.

A no-fly zone (or no-flight zone) is a territory or an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly. Such zones are usually set up in a military context, somewhat like a demilitarized zone in the sky, and usually prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent nation from operating in the region.

Source

Implementation of a no-fly zone has nothing to do with military operations on the ground. The operations you are talking about were meant as support for the rebels, not as an implementation of a no-fly zone. They were separate things, although both were enforced by air.

By yelling, "Fake", I meant that it doesn't matter in the least that any country on earth develops nuclear weapons.

So, basically, you stated something about an argument that has nothing to do with that argument. If you are calling something fake, you are calling it fake. You are not saying that "it doesn't matter that any country develops nuclear weapons"...

Also of no concern to me is Iran having a nuclear weapon, simply because they can have whatever weapons they wish.

Again, they can't. They agreed to the IAEA and NPT demands.

One of the conditions required to join the IAEA is to not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has used the help from US, Russia and other IAEA members like France when it suited them. But when the IAEA calls them on their wrong-doings, they are the west spy organization.

Hypocrisy. And people fall for that...

It's the use of guns, bombs, chemical, and nuclear weapons that is of extreme concern for me.

So you are okay with Iran having nukes, but your problem is with using them? Then why does Iran want a nuke...? Everyone would be better if they had none. The world would be better if nobody had one. Yet, it's okay for Iran to have, because other countries have them... Even though those countries are trying to stop nuclear development.

Very...coherent.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. and Israel to have the most horrible weapons on earth, and to continuously use them, while telling other countries which may actually need them to scare away these countries from invading them, is more than my little stomach can take.

Israel never used nuclear weapons. And they aren't members of the NPT, and only guests at the IAEA.

The US only used nukes in WW2.

Iran could destroy Israel today, if they wished. There is no doubt about it.

No, they couldn't. You are just convinced of that. Maybe from reading too much Iranian propaganda?

[continues next post]

reply to post by trysts

Hezbollah, which you seem to think is some terrorist branch of Iran always attacking Israel, is actually the only military movement willing to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression.

he funding of Hezbollah partly occurs through donations. Lebanese Shias often make zakat contributions directly after prayers, leaving change in the two-handed Hezbollah collection tins. Also Hezbollah receives financial and political assistance, as well as weapons and training, from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The US estimates that Iran was giving Hezbollah about $60–$100 million per year in financial assistance but that assistance declined as other funding was secured, primarily from South America. Some estimates of Iran's aid are as high as $200-million annually.

Source

Hezbollah first emerged in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during the Lebanese civil war. Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Source

As the Israeli Army struggles for a fourth week to defeat Hezbollah before a cease-fire, the shipments are just one indication of how — with the help of its main sponsors, Iran and Syria — the militia has sharply improved its arsenal and strategies in the six years since Israel abruptly ended its occupation of southern Lebanon.

Source

You're upside-down on Hezbollah, probably because you read too much Israeli propaganda.

Maybe you are the one upside-down because you don't read at all? Or maybe because you read other types of propaganda...

So, as far as Iran attacking Israel through Hezbollah, you are quite confused. Israel is quite proud of their assassination record, and Hezbollah is quite proud of standing up to Israel.

Ghandi stood up to the British, and didn't hurt a soul.

Hezbollah stands up to Israel by blowing up people inside buses full of children and civilians.

It's ugly all the way around, but I grew up on American propaganda, so I still root for the oppressed.

At least you admit you are biased.

I'm for Hezbollah.

I'm for peace.

I believe the political agenda in that case is to stop invading sovereign nations. I would hope that's the agenda for every nation, but I live in the U.S., and that is far from U.S. foreign policy.

My argument was about all super-powers having the wish to control as much territory - directly or indirectly - as they can.

I don't know enough about China to make statements. The Arab League is nothing as far as I'm concerned. They're married to the west.

You seem to not know a lot about the things you talk about.

China and Japan are in a deep crisis that could spin out of control and start a large conflict that would drag the US into it. I was assuming someone as educated as yourself would know that by now. But maybe you are too busy reading the other side's propaganda to notice what is happening in the world?

Well, as long as you are not concerned with the Arab League, the world can sleep at night!

reply to post by HIWATT

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military targets then? BULLSH!T

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. His command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected. Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifty-Ninth Army, and most of the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit. The city's air defenses comprised five batteries of 7-and-8-centimetre (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns.

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.

Source

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Nagasaki had never been subjected to large-scale bombing prior to the explosion of a nuclear weapon there. On August 1, 1945, however, a number of conventional high-explosive bombs were dropped on the city. A few hit in the shipyards and dock areas in the southwest portion of the city, several hit the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, and six bombs landed at the Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital, with three direct hits on buildings there.

While the damage from these bombs was relatively small, it created considerable concern in Nagasaki and many people—principally school children—were evacuated to rural areas for safety, thus reducing the population in the city at the time of the nuclear attack.

Source

The US annihilated hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in order to prove a point. That being "don't F*** with us, 'cause we have nukes"

And with that ended a war that would continue for even more years, and killing even more people in the fighting. Assuming that the Japanese would surrender with an invasion by the Allied forces is ignoring the fact that japanese troops fight to the last drop, and when they fail their objectives, they would use suicide attacks to inflict as much damage as possible.

Yes, it was horrible. But the never-ending war would be much worst. With the bombings, Japan was allowed to have a country that was just hit in 2 areas, and was able to unite the conditions that allowed them to grow into the country they are today.

Look at what happened in Berlin, with a normal and standard invasion. The division only ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.

Iran has the right to defend itself but doesn't have the right to a nuclear deterrent because.... they signed the NPT and are members of the IAEA ?!

Basically, yes. They agreed to it. And they took the benefits from being part of the IAEA when it suited them.

Do you know who HAS NOT signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty??

ISRAEL !

...and Pakistan, and North Korea, and India... All of which never used a nuke, but developed their own nukes and technology on their own and with their partners. They didn't exploit the NPT or IAEA like Iran has.

Putting the size of the text above normal doesn't make your argument stronger.

So for all the talk and propaganda about Iran being this "axis of evil" BS, it's ISRAEL who really is the %$#@ threat because they have OPENLY ADMITTED to not giving a shyt about any rules regarding nuclear weapons by refusing to sign that treaty!

Israel feels the need to have nukes, so they haven't signed the NPT. Iran could have done the same thing, and people wouldn't complain about it, the same way they don't complain about India or Pakistan, or even North Korea.

It was their choice.

Combine that, with the fact that the United States has already murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese innocents in the flash of a bulb and well, you can smell the hypocrisy, if you have a nose at all.

And you could read and learn about the real aspects of the issue if you had eyes, with all due respect.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


Thanks for the reply, GarrusVasNormandy. The articles you linked concerning Hezbollah are from the NY Times and Wikipedia. The Wikipedia articles are referenced from The Washington Post, The Jerusalem Post, CNN, BBC, USAToday, etc. I can't find any references to Lebanese, or Iranian sources. Kind of strange isn't it?

Originally posted by trysts
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

 

Thanks for the reply, GarrusVasNormandy. The articles you linked concerning Hezbollah are from the NY Times and Wikipedia. The Wikipedia articles are referenced from The Washington Post, The Jerusalem Post, CNN, BBC, USAToday, etc. I can't find any references to Lebanese, or Iranian sources. Kind of strange isn't it?

The information must come from somewhere. If you have so high moral grounds, why don't you provide your own sources? Talk is cheap, action is gold.

You can use Iranian sources, but since they have active censorship, and their main news agencies even use The Onion (satire journal) for material, and then claim to be their own articles, I don't take them with much credibility.

Attacking the sources is very lame when you fail to provide alternatives.

ETA: By the way, the articles you mention quote governmental sources.

Ohhh geeeeeeeeee, anyone want to guess why?

Like I stated on another post:

dailycaller.com...

(snip)Iran has sleeper cells throughout the United States and the West that will unleash suicide bombings should Iranian nuclear facilities be attacked…..

(snip)Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about his concerns of Iran’s willingness to attack the United States in response to any confrontation.

Originally posted by Neocrusader
Bombs and disagreements aside
This is for sure

They can no longer argue that their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful
I mean come on .....a nuclear sub.....that's a tool of war

It will be denied, justified, rationalized and explained away...

Oh, wait

too late.

Of course the talks are going to fail.

I wish that was not the case but it seems like that
is where it is heading.

I feel for the citizens they need to get the hell out of the way
of any nuclear enrichment centers.

reply to post by popcornmafia

the negotiations failed from it's start because there is a big barrier ! ISRAEL ! I am sure they do magics day and night to keep situation hot for their benefits !

Originally posted by nostromo85
I was going to post a comment in this thread about my views, but I honestly, you're either one of those people who think Iran are great guys who haven't invaded anyone since forever and "if America/Israel has nukes/nuke subs why can't Iran"

or

you're one of the people who realise that Iran constantly attack Israel via Hezbollah and threaten to wipe them off the face of the map on a weekly basis, and at the end of the day think an Armageddon wouldn't be too bad as they get their Mahdi and 70 odd virgins in their little place in the sky.

America used nukes to end a war, Israel uses nukes to prevent a war, and Iran wants nukes to start a war. That's why these naughty Muslims can't and will not have nukes.

Pakistan is a Muslim country, they have nukes. These ''naughty Muslims'' already have them if you want to generalise...

Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by boncho

 

While this whole Nuclear Days of Our Lives is developing, Iran, the antagonist in the whole story, has captured a US drone, modelled it as a children's toy and sent a pink version to the President of the United States citing it is "his favourite colour".

I don't know, maybe it's not related at all if you don't think about it....

Maybe it is...

The only thing it could be related is the attempt to spy on Iran's reactors. Other than that, no, there is no connection. Especially considering the region.

Iran is threatening to ramp up nuclear capabilities while simultaneously sending a pink drone, insinuating the president's favorite color is pink, in an attempt to belittle the president and highlight the fact that they captured US Military hardware, at the same time, mass producing replicas for the children of the country as toys.

If you need it spelt out more than this it's completely lost on you...

(BTW it's speculated that Obama's fav color is same as his wife Michelle, Blue)

Yep people will deny this, but there are some who have known all along Iran wanted the bomb.

There is no other reason for that percentage of enrichment.