US claims on Iran Nukes same neocon bogus as last time

Powells information on Iran�s nukes �unvetted�- Report

11/19/2004 3:25:00 PM GMT

A U.S. newspaper has accused Powell of making unsubstantiated allegations about Iran.

A U.S. newspaper has accused the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell of making unsubstantiated allegations about Iran's nuclear program.

The Washington Post reported that the intelligence used by Powell about Iran's nuclear capabilities is unverified and based on an "unvetted, single source".

The information, which two U.S. officials said had not been verified, could be significant if true but an embarrassment if not.

In February 2003, Powell made similar allegations about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which relied on dubious intelligence and which so far has proved untrue.

www.aljazeera.com...

I wonder how many americans still believe this guy.

Why the hell SHOULDN'T Iran be allowed to have a few nukes? Just to protect themselves from being invaded by the United States.


It's a ludicrous double standard. Israel can have hundreds, so can Pakistan (ruled by a military dictatorship and always clashing with India, who also has nukes).



j

A good point there. Iran has shown in the past it is a particularly peaceful country. Nuclear armament would make sure the region is safer from US/Israeli violence.

as mentioned by Jakomo
Why the hell SHOULDN'T Iran be allowed to have a few nukes?

Because in the International community, Iran has been rightly labeled as sponsoring International terrorism. Personally, I don't care if they do or don't, makes no difference to me. Whom they 'target', on the other hand, does matter. People think the Arabic world is a mess now, let them launch on whom they will 'target' and the Middle East will implode, as well as disintergrate. "Looking like glass" will have a lasting memory. To me, the real question for today's world is: Is Iran's theology based and controlled government (Theocracy) capable of rational responsibility upon acquiring such a weapon?



seekerof


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
A good point there. Iran has shown in the past it is a particularly peaceful country. Nuclear armament would make sure the region is safer from US/Israeli violence.

*cough terrorism* Terrorism is war and Iran all propaganda aside has been one of its biggest sponsors.

Ridiculous. Tell me what terrorist group is being supported by Iran ? Your old mushroom cloud/alqaeda fabrications are getting used.

Ridiculous?
Huh? What?!
Hezbollah ring a bell? HELLO!?

Wow....
Try here first, k?
Iran sponsors terrorism

or from Google Scholar:
Iran sponsors terrorism

For the life of me, use your senses man.
Good grief.
Technology at your command and you fail to use it?



seekerof

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Seekerof]

Com,on meraka heres a nother one for you all to swallow

merakins will beleive anything

Originally posted by Seekerof
Ridiculous?
Huh? What?!
Hezbollah ring a bell? HELLO!?
seekerof
[edit on 19-11-2004 by Seekerof]

Please stop posting nonsense neocon BS. You are a smart person, you should be entitled to use your own brain. Hizbullah is a political party ('the party of god'), the one that is ruling Lebanon. Are you labelling them 'terrorists' just because israel refuses to live inside it's legal borders and therefore has border disputes with Lebanon ? If you really want to blame someone over that issue, blame Israel for not respecting it's borders...

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Uhhhh, let me guess, you didn't read the information contained within the links with an unbiased, objective only approach?

More power to you Moku.
May the farce continue to be with you and your anti-"neocon" crusade.




seekerof

Originally posted by Jakomo

Why the hell SHOULDN'T Iran be allowed to have a few nukes? Just to protect themselves from being invaded by the United States.

maybe the US/israel doesnt want Iran to have the nukes
because neigbouring countries may change their stance with
israel by going under Irans nuclear umbrella

bodrul....
I like how you specifically mentioned just the US and Israel.
You think France, Germany, Russia, China, the UK, India, etc. entirely want Iran with capable nukes. If the threat is to Israel, those very same missile threaten most of Europe, Russia, China, India, etc.

Strike a match, then pray it doesn't burn down close enough to burn the fingers...this is not a strictly US, Israel matter. Simple as that.



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Uhhhh, let me guess, you didn't read the information contained within the links with an unbiased, objective only approach?
seekerof

Do you expect me to read articles like THIS :

Iranian President Mohammad

Media Credit: Reuters
Iranian President Khatami just met with Kofi Annan at the U.N., but will he hand over terrorists wanted by the United States?

Khatami came to New York City
on Nov. 8 to attend a U.N. summit as U.S. intelligence and law- enforcement agencies explored new information tying his regime's intelligence services to Sept. 11 and to previous anti-American terrorist attacks, Insight has learned.

The information is coming from a variety of sources and shows a clear pattern of operational contacts between the Iranian government and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization

This is weirdest neocon nonsense suggestion, even weirder than what the administration is inventing. Are you a new breed of super-neocon, Seeker ?

An invasion of Iran would be difficult, the US is having problems in Iraq. Iran is larger and more mountainous, it would be very difficult to invade with the US military stuck in Iraq.

Originally posted by Seekerof
bodrul....
I like how you specifically mentioned just the US and Israel.
You think France, Germany, Russia, China, the UK, India, etc. entirely want Iran with capable nukes. If the threat is to Israel, those very same missile threaten most of Europe, Russia, China, India, etc.

Strike a match, then pray it doesn't burn down close enough to burn the fingers...this is not a strictly US, Israel matter. Simple as that.



seekerof

i will try and find the link to the bbc article

because it just said the USA and Israel
because Syria and so on could go under Irans nuclear umbrella
and change their actions towards israel.


also what would we have to worry about
i havent seen one news alert/article with Iran threatening US in europe

just israel and the USA
that they would retaliate if attacked

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Powells information on Iran�s nukes �unvetted�- Report

11/19/2004 3:25:00 PM GMT

A U.S. newspaper has accused Powell of making unsubstantiated allegations about Iran.

A U.S. newspaper has accused the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell of making unsubstantiated allegations about Iran's nuclear program.

The Washington Post reported that the intelligence used by Powell about Iran's nuclear capabilities is unverified and based on an "unvetted, single source".

The information, which two U.S. officials said had not been verified, could be significant if true but an embarrassment if not.

In February 2003, Powell made similar allegations about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which relied on dubious intelligence and which so far has proved untrue.

www.aljazeera.com...

I wonder how many americans still believe this guy.

no, no one believes the guy who wrote that article.

the deputy embassador of iran to (damnit, somwhere!) was on Charlie Rose a couple months back and he says they have a program. so, here you go. recently michael crichton made a speech at the commonwealth club, don't know where that is or what it is and i don't care. the fact is, michael crichton is a science fiction writer. but he believes in the facts. he made one of the most prfound statements i have heard made in recent years as to what our duty as the people of the world really is. that duty is to decipher what is fact and what is fiction. he also said it would be the most difficult thing we have to look forward to in this life. here's his speech for those that may want to read it.

www.perc.org...

also, since we are on the subject, this is an essay about fanatical ideologies. it has some good points, but is not horribly great. it has some truths, but is mostly conjecture and opinion. it is an opinion essay, not a news report, but, like i said, it's got some good points to consider.

www.policyreview.org...

Here's a start:
Countering Iranian Nukes: A European Strategy

Or here:
www.gcsp.ch...



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
[ To me, the real question for today's world is: Is Iran's theology based and controlled government (Theocracy) capable of rational responsibility upon acquiring such a weapon?

seekerof

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Seekerof]

I can only hope the world is asking the same question about america under Bush & Co. Though unforunately, we already have nuclear weapons. The theocracy part is in the works, judging by the bills being introduced and public statements of "elected" officials.

--Saerlaith

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's a start:
Countering Iranian Nukes: A European Strategy

Or here:
www.gcsp.ch...



seekerof

first i cant read the first link ( and so i wont bother trying to read it )

secound cant you give me a link to a news site that proves your point

then i might say ok Iran are a threat to us in the uk and rest of europe
( we have to stop them ASAP )

before that happens
in my view its in the best intrest of iran to have them

You people are funny, Iran can not have nuclear toys because US say so.

Then some of you claim that they are financing terrorist.

Ha, ha, ha, and Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan warlords with their opium traffic, Palestine, Syria and hummm did I got all of them? no, is more I am sure, but we want Iran.

Mr. Bush had his greedy eyes in Iran when he took Iraq, the problem is that Iraq proved to be a tough cookie after all and that had hindered his taking over Iran.

But he can not wait anymore he has to have it.