Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rob W

Iran has backup nuke facillity

Recommended Posts

What a coincidence that this has come out while the UN convene to discuss important stuff like trillions of dollars being taken from the poor and given to the rich by their governments and the end of human life on the earth.

 

Fucking piss-take that the media get led by the nose to report on the UN from this angle and comply without thought.

Edited by Happy Face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
What a coincidence that this has come out while the UN convene to discuss important stuff like trillions of dollars being taken from the poor and given to the rich by their governments and the end of human life on the earth.

 

Fucking piss-take that the media get led by the nose to report on the UN from this angle and comply without thought.

I thought the timing was suspicious to say the least like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a coincidence that this has come out while the UN convene to discuss important stuff like trillions of dollars being taken from the poor and given to the rich by their governments and the end of human life on the earth.

 

Fucking piss-take that the media get led by the nose to report on the UN from this angle and comply without thought.

I thought the timing was suspicious to say the least like.

 

 

To be fair, the BBC have still looked at the economic slant...away from the headlines...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8274046.stm

 

None of which impresses me much.

 

Reducing the huge bonuses isn't the kind of regulation that'll fix anything, it disincentivises the individual, but not the corporation. Forcing them to have more capital won't do owt either, if they can still roll up individual weak investments and sell them on as A rated packages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should any Iraq lessons be applied to Iran?

 

Anonymous Obama officials yesterday dictated to Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times their version of the dramatic and exciting behind-the-scenes events that led to the administration's announcement this week about Iran's nuclear facility -- a late-night strategy session; secret consultation with allies; high-level diplomatic wrangling; the White House's decision to "outflank the Iranians." Cooper and Mazzetti faithfully wrote down everything they were told and produced this breathless front-page article (though, to their credit, they noted the motive of their anonymous sources: "all of whom want the story known to help support their case against Iran"). Perhaps the most meaningful paragraphs came at the very end:

 

The Chinese, one administration official said, were more skeptical, and said they wanted to look at the intelligence, and to see what international inspectors said when they investigated.

 

The lessons of the Iraq war still lingered.

 

"They don’t want to buy a pig in a poke," the senior administration official said.

 

That's rational, isn't it? Shouldn't the American media infuse its coverage with some of that same skepticism, along with a similar desire to see actual evidence to support the claims being made? Isn't that exactly the lesson every rational person should have learned from the Iraq War? Identically, don't the two decades worth of false warnings about how Iran would have a nuclear bomb in "a couple of years" if we did not act by itself warrant a demand for evidence before mindlessly embracing these claims?

 

Obviously, the Chinese have their own self-interested motives when it comes to Iran. And although the official position of the American intelligence community remains that Iran is not attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, it would hardly be a shock (or even irrational) if they did harbor that ambition. As the long list of nuclear states demonstrate -- which ironically includes all of the ones expressing such anger over Iran -- many governments believe, rationally, that their security will be enhanced if they obtain one. After all, the U.S. has more or less explicitly stated that it wants to prevent other nations from obtaining a nuclear weapon to ensure we can still attack them if we choose. Under those circumstances, it's not hard to believe that countries like Iran want to obtain nuclear weapons. It would be more surprising if they didn't.

 

Still, the accusations issuing about Iran are unaccompanied by evidence and raise at least as many question as they answer. Yet here we have, yet again, inflammatory (and, in many eyes, war-justifying) accusations made against an American Enemy, and the American establishment media seems capable of nothing other than mindlessly repeating it, asking no real questions, and doing little other than fueling the fire.

 

By contrast, The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman spent all day yesterday diligently and critically grappling with the question of whether Iran even breached any of its obligations under the NPT (he quotes an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists’ Strategic Security Program who points out out that the NPT requires notification to the IAEA no less than 6 months before a facility is operational -- which Iran plainly did -- but also notes there may be non-public Iran/IAEA agreements requiring earlier notification). Either way, everyone agrees that -- despite all the rhetoric about Iran getting caught red-handed -- it was Iran itself which notified the IAEA of this facility; the facility is far from operational; and there's no evidence that it contains or even can produce weapons-grade material. Until there's an IAEA inspection -- which Iran said it would permit -- it's impossible to know the true purpose and capabilities of this facility, which is the cause for the Chinese's skepticism and should cause skepticism among every thinking person, beginning with the American media. Can anyone point to any such skepticism anywhere? Listening to the media coverage, one would think that Iran just got caught sitting on a secret atomic bomb.

 

The reason such accusations deserve so much scrutiny is obvious: there is a substantial faction in our political culture which craves a military attack on Iran -- the same faction, more or less, that caused us to attack Iraq -- and will seize on anything to justify that. Anyone who doubts that should look at this creepily excited and chest-beating statement yesterday from Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, GOP Sen. John Kyl, and Sen. Joe Lieberman: Iraq War supporters all. Contradicting the 2007 NIE, they declare as an "inescapable conclusion" that "Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Their joint statement threatens "catastrophic consequences" against Iran and vows that "we are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout." Just in case anyone is still confused by what they are threatening, they favorably cite a "bipartisan" report from former Senators Chuck Robb (D) and Dan Coats ® which urges the President to begin preparing for military action against Iran, and lays out a detailed plan for what it would entail, beginning with a naval blockade and extending to "devastating strikes" against "assets" inside Iran that "would probably last up to several weeks and would require vigilance for years to come." That's what three key U.S. Senators are explicitly threatening.

 

In the absence of what they call "immediate" compliance, the Senators call for "crippling new sanctions against Iran." In The Washington Post today, AIPAC's most trusted House member -- Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D) -- similarly recommends sanctions that would "cause the Iranian banking system to collapse" and impose other severe economic hardships. So much for all of that oh-so-moving, profound, green-wearing concern for the welfare of The Iranian People. Time to bomb them or, at best, starve them until their government complies with our dictates. The Post Editorial Page repeats the same claim made for two decades about Iran ("officials say that when it is operational, it could deliver the material for a bomb in a year") and warns: "If it had not been discovered, the Qom plant could have given Iran the means for a bomb by 2011 without the world knowing about it. And if there is one clandestine facility, most likely there are others."

 

So we can all see where this is headed. Obama, to his credit, is one of the least inflammatory and fear-mongering establishment voices in all of this. And whatever else one might think of the whole Iran question, Obama officials -- just on a strategic level, in terms of negotiating tactics -- are infinitely smarter and more calculating than the ones who preceded them. They seem intent on formulating a negotiation strategy that will be most likely to resolve the matter through mutual agreement. But the drooling, belligerent sentiments being unleashed by the reporting of this story -- eagerly fueled by the always-war-hungry Bayh/Kyl/Lieberman faction -- could easily produce its own momentum.

 

Just look at how these people think -- the ones who exert great influence over our actions. Here's the deeply Serious Evan Bayh in 2008:

 

You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they've threatened us, too.

 

In other words: Whoops. We bombed, invaded and destroyed the wrong country. We should have attacked that one over there rather than this one here. Silly us. It sure would be awful if our little mistake in Iraq prevented us from attacking Iran or caused people not to trust what we say. And here's what Joe Lieberman is, as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg, then of The New Yorker:

 

In another conversation, [Lieberman] told me that he was reading "America Alone," a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its confrontation with Islamic extremism

 

[that book also flirts with explicit advocacy of anti-Muslim genocide]. . . .

 

Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was "Behind Enemy Lines," in which Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and said, "Yeah!" and "All right!"

 

With people like that at the center of American power -- and with recent history demonstrating how literally crazed and bloodthirsty our political establishment is -- nothing is more vital than aggressive media scrutiny and skepticism towards war-fueling accusations against our Enemy Du Jour, the latest Hitlers. But we have the opposite. Nothing excites them like the smell of aggressive American confrontation with the bad people. As a result, all of the genuine questions raised by this latest Iran episode are completely obscured, and the most inflammatory and hysteria-generating assumptions are assumed to be true and disseminated as such by our "journalists."

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iran/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".

 

Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

its an easy thing for any do gooder knucklehead to say, until they themselves become a target

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

its an easy thing for any do gooder knucklehead to say, until they themselves become a target

 

 

quality old skool :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

its an easy thing for any do gooder knucklehead to say, until they themselves become a target

 

:)

 

I love that you can accuse someone doing good in a pejorative sense.

 

Much better to be a twat. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners :) Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons.

 

Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........

 

Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew.

 

As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army.

 

You do know its all about oil, dont you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners :D Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons.

 

Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........

 

Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew.

 

As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army.

 

You do know its all about oil, dont you?

 

:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners :D Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons.

 

Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........

 

Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew.

 

As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army.

 

You do know its all about oil, dont you?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners :D Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons.

 

Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........

 

Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew.

 

As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army.

 

You do know its all about oil, dont you?

 

:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

 

 

Agree to some degree with that but he slapped me first Miss. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners :D Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons.

 

Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........

 

Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew.

 

As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army.

 

You do know its all about oil, dont you?

 

:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

 

 

Agree to some degree with that but he slapped me first Miss. :D

 

Aye, he did. From what I've read, I wouldn't be saying "good for Iran" just yet, but it's even more reactionary to give Iran the old "boo, hiss. Stop the evil muslims" line we were hoying at Iraq to justify that war.

 

James Acton of Carnegie Endowment for Peace argues that the rule Iran violated is a 2003 amendment between the Iranians and the IAEA that purports to require notification to the IAEA immediately upon Iran's deciding to build such a facility -- not merely 180 days prior to its receipt of nuclear material. Iran denies the validity of this agreement, as it was never ratified by its legislature, and -- as early as 2007 -- advised the IAEA that it did not consider itself bound by this provision. Thus, it seems clear that Iran complied with all of its obligations under international law with the possible exception of an amendment to an agreement between it and the IAEA which Iran has long claimed is invalid and was never ratified.

 

Everyone can decide for themselves if they find Acton's argument convincing; it's certainly plausible at the very least, and it seems clear Iran wanted to hide its construction of this facility (either because they intended it for nefarious purposes and/or because they wanted to prevent the Israelis from destroying it). But, given that Iran did notify the IAEA long before the facility became operational and has agreed to inspections, this "violation" -- even if one is persuaded by Acton's argument -- is obviously a very thin reed on which to hang orgies of international outrage and particularly war threats, to put that mildly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

 

I agree to an extent but if you sign up for the armed forces then you should know you're at the whim of politicians, it hardly comes as a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

 

I agree to an extent but if you sign up for the armed forces then you should know you're at the whim of politicians, it hardly comes as a surprise.

 

I'm sure it comes as no surprise to 2Bias. He's still got every right to say "Fuck!" though.

 

I moan when I have to be on call for the weekend, but everyone needs a job somewhere...or you end up riding the metro 16 hours a day with a black bag containing your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do i get the feeling i'm going to be out there within two years..there or north korea. Oh btw christmas tree your a fucking idiot to make statements like that, its easy for a civi to sit back and say things like it's good for them to have a nuclear facilty. ( and to be honest with half the shit you come out with on here i'm not too suprised you did say it )

 

 

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners :D Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons.

 

Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........

 

Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew.

 

As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army.

 

You do know its all about oil, dont you?

 

:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

 

 

Agree to some degree with that but he slapped me first Miss. :D

 

Aye, he did. From what I've read, I wouldn't be saying "good for Iran" just yet, but it's even more reactionary to give Iran the old "boo, hiss. Stop the evil muslims" line we were hoying at Iraq to justify that war.

 

James Acton of Carnegie Endowment for Peace argues that the rule Iran violated is a 2003 amendment between the Iranians and the IAEA that purports to require notification to the IAEA immediately upon Iran's deciding to build such a facility -- not merely 180 days prior to its receipt of nuclear material. Iran denies the validity of this agreement, as it was never ratified by its legislature, and -- as early as 2007 -- advised the IAEA that it did not consider itself bound by this provision. Thus, it seems clear that Iran complied with all of its obligations under international law with the possible exception of an amendment to an agreement between it and the IAEA which Iran has long claimed is invalid and was never ratified.

 

Everyone can decide for themselves if they find Acton's argument convincing; it's certainly plausible at the very least, and it seems clear Iran wanted to hide its construction of this facility (either because they intended it for nefarious purposes and/or because they wanted to prevent the Israelis from destroying it). But, given that Iran did notify the IAEA long before the facility became operational and has agreed to inspections, this "violation" -- even if one is persuaded by Acton's argument -- is obviously a very thin reed on which to hang orgies of international outrage and particularly war threats, to put that mildly.

 

You could be right but dont you just feel here we go again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)

 

You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

 

I agree to an extent but if you sign up for the armed forces then you should know you're at the whim of politicians, it hardly comes as a surprise.

 

I'm sure it comes as no surprise to 2Bias. He's still got every right to say "Fuck!" though.

 

I moan when I have to be on call for the weekend, but everyone needs a job somewhere...or you end up riding the metro 16 hours a day with a black bag containing your life.

 

I wouldnt let them sign anyone up til they were 21 followed by however long the training is, followed by the option to say no thanks at the end of it.

 

They shouldnt be allowed to recruit kids and send them out to these places.

 

I know a lot of young lads join up very gung ho not quite understanding the shit they're heading too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I moan when I have to be on call for the weekend, but everyone needs a job somewhere...or you end up riding the metro 16 hours a day with a black bag containing your life.

 

I know there are significant differences in our jobs but while I moan whenever I'm sent away with work I know it's what I signed up for.

 

I'm going to make broad assumptions here but I'm guessing that the majority of the people in the armed forces signed up primarily because it was a job, rather than a 'calling' to fight for Queen and country.

 

Whilst no one wants to see our soldiers involved in unnecessary wars, if it happens then that's life. It may sound harsh but that's the reality, you're placing your life in someone else's hands, no one forced you to enlist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×