Iran has backup nuke facillity

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

change it to say "seriously naive" or "completely fucking deluded" then

[Happy Face 29]

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

I'd be glad to...if they'd allow inspections. Their policy of non-cooperation is what suggests otherwise. Iran are cooperating.

 

But there is no evidence, so they should surely be give the benefit of the doubt (instead of scaremongering by eco-pressure groups) in fact the Scout Association just finished a report which said Israel had no nuclear weapons at all.

 

You think we shouldn't have any oversight until there's evidence...but you don't think evidence should be gathered?

 

I think you're a tad confused and best stop digging.

[Happy Face 29]

There's nothing concrete on what they have at all, therefore they surely should also be given the benefit of the doubt and the clearly baseless scaremongering of eco-pressure groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council should just be ignored?

 

And who is cornering Iran?

 

And why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons?

 

No country should be given the benefit of the doubt. At the moment Israel are the only nation that has a policy of non-cooperation.

 

The international community are cornering Iran. Just about every major nation at the General assembly gave them a warning. The war drum is banging against them.

 

It's generally agreed that nuclear weapons are bad. That's what the non-proliferation treaty is all about. No countries should be allowed to start or to expand nuclear programs.

 

So if Iran shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt what should be done if they don't cooperate?

 

And how should they be stopped from starting their nuclear program?

 

 

 

 

 

Also why build it underground? It is expensive to do and has no real benefit other than secrecy?

Iran is bound by an IAEA agreement to disclose new nuclear sites when construction begins. But Iran declared in March 2007 that it rejected that IAEA requirement.

 

Fop returns to his dreamworld of what if? The fact is they ARE cooperating. If they don't, fine, impose sanctions, make inspections by force.

 

Yes, I made that point earlier myself about Iran rejecting a single amendment that applies to no other nation. Nowhere close to Israels level of defiance.

[LeazesMag 0]

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

 

 

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand.

 

Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist?

 

Again, you keep going into unknowns and what if's. Israel are the major force and with every action they take in the Gaza Strip they are wiping out it's inhabitants....but your fear is that Iran might possibly take retribution if we allow them to get strong enough to make Israel think twice about it's apartheid regime.

 

Back in reality Iran has been heavily chastised for following the rules and virtually nothing has been said about the Israeli refusal to abide by exactly the same rules. We continue to support the occupying army that flaunts international law and kills thousands of innocent people.

 

 

Israel acquired it's nuclear technology in the 60s didn't it? Sorry like, the same rules don't apply to Israel now as they do for Iran. Also I might add that so far Israel has remained a responsible nuclear power, I simply don't have that level of trust regarding the Iranian fundamentalists. I'm not saying Israel is without blame in this and it's very complicated, but I don't have any fears they're about to nuke Tehran. I'm not so sure I'd have confidence if it was the other way round though.

 

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

Erm......

 

I think it's safe to say there's some suggestion HF. If not, then there's no issue any way. Hurray!

 

 

The issue is the propaganda spread by the western media that Iran are about ready to let off a nuclear strike and will continue to plague the region unless action is taken. It's the total opposite of reality and similar to the lies used to justify war in Iraq.

 

 

In a nutshell. debate won!

 

I'm sure you are right, in your ignorant blissful world, that they are no threat whatsoever to anybody and will behave like good little boys if they develop this technology further

[Fop 1]

Its funny but over the last year i have never really followed these forums battle threads with fop in them.....But bugger me your a tricky little bugger

 

slippery as an armful of eels

 

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors recently named Fop one of the top 5 most dangerous individuals on the planet.

[Fop 1]

But given that no one really knows surely we should assume they have none until it is proven otherwise?

 

I'd be glad to...if they'd allow inspections. Their policy of non-cooperation is what suggests otherwise. Iran are cooperating.

 

But there is no evidence, so they should surely be give the benefit of the doubt (instead of scaremongering by eco-pressure groups) in fact the Scout Association just finished a report which said Israel had no nuclear weapons at all.

 

You think we shouldn't have any oversight until there's evidence...but you don't think evidence should be gathered?

 

I think you're a tad confused and best stop digging.

 

The Scout Association can't be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability can it Chris?

 

 

Soon you'll be saying eco-pressure groups can be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability.

[Fop 1]

There's nothing concrete on what they have at all, therefore they surely should also be given the benefit of the doubt and the clearly baseless scaremongering of eco-pressure groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council should just be ignored?

 

And who is cornering Iran?

 

And why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons?

 

No country should be given the benefit of the doubt. At the moment Israel are the only nation that has a policy of non-cooperation.

 

The international community are cornering Iran. Just about every major nation at the General assembly gave them a warning. The war drum is banging against them.

 

It's generally agreed that nuclear weapons are bad. That's what the non-proliferation treaty is all about. No countries should be allowed to start or to expand nuclear programs.

 

So if Iran shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt what should be done if they don't cooperate?

 

And how should they be stopped from starting their nuclear program?

 

 

 

 

 

Also why build it underground? It is expensive to do and has no real benefit other than secrecy?

Iran is bound by an IAEA agreement to disclose new nuclear sites when construction begins. But Iran declared in March 2007 that it rejected that IAEA requirement.

 

Fop returns to his dreamworld of what if? The fact is they ARE cooperating. If they don't, fine, impose sanctions, make inspections by force.

 

That's pretty much what is being suggested so what's the problem? (although isn't that "backing them into a corner"? )

 

What are you suggesting that is different from what is being suggested? (apart from scrapping the IAEA and replacing them with some people you met down the pub )

 

Yes, I made that point earlier myself about Iran rejecting a single amendment that applies to no other nation. Nowhere close to Israels level of defiance.

Israel that there is no proven issue to defy?

 

 

Plus the IAEA says Iran agreed to that condition in 2003. (so someone is lying )

Edited September 28, 2009 by Fop

[Fop 1]

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

 

 

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand.

 

Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist?

 

Again, you keep going into unknowns and what if's. Israel are the major force and with every action they take in the Gaza Strip they are wiping out it's inhabitants....but your fear is that Iran might possibly take retribution if we allow them to get strong enough to make Israel think twice about it's apartheid regime.

 

Back in reality Iran has been heavily chastised for following the rules and virtually nothing has been said about the Israeli refusal to abide by exactly the same rules. We continue to support the occupying army that flaunts international law and kills thousands of innocent people.

 

 

Israel acquired it's nuclear technology in the 60s didn't it? Sorry like, the same rules don't apply to Israel now as they do for Iran. Also I might add that so far Israel has remained a responsible nuclear power, I simply don't have that level of trust regarding the Iranian fundamentalists. I'm not saying Israel is without blame in this and it's very complicated, but I don't have any fears they're about to nuke Tehran. I'm not so sure I'd have confidence if it was the other way round though.

 

1979 is the reported date Israel began testing.

 

The same rules don't apply for Israel only because of the US backing they get in the UN as one of their biggest customers.

 

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession.

 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.

 

I'm sure Iran would love to be able to bring some parity, but there's no suggestion they've attempted to yet.

 

Erm......

 

I think it's safe to say there's some suggestion HF. If not, then there's no issue any way. Hurray!

 

 

The issue is the propaganda spread by the western media that Iran are about ready to let off a nuclear strike and will continue to plague the region unless action is taken. It's the total opposite of reality and similar to the lies used to justify war in Iraq.

 

 

In a nutshell. debate won!

 

I'm sure you are right, in your ignorant blissful world, that they are no threat whatsoever to anybody and will behave like good little boys if they develop this technology further

 

And in your bunker are they more of a threat to english men and women than America?

 

You should take your tin hat off , pop into the real world, read some of the debate in this thread and try and the see things how they are, not how the politicians tell you they are.

 

[http://newcastleblog.metro.co.uk/images/2008/05/28/tate_dads_army.jpg

 

 

Seriously watch that video Fop linked, look into the poor girls eyes as she dies, then tell us that Iran is "harmless".

[ChezGiven 0]

Israel have more nukes than France and the UK combined.

 

Mayonnaise?

 

I like to look at history from the perspective of the estate agent. Best bit of real estate in the region, thats the problem.

 

[Happy Face 29]

You think we shouldn't have any oversight until there's evidence...but you don't think evidence should be gathered?

 

I think you're a tad confused and best stop digging.

 

The Scout Association can't be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability can it Chris?

 

 

Soon you'll be saying eco-pressure groups can be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability.

 

If you're going to try and joke your way out of a hole it helps if the jokes are funny.

 

Why is Iran's transparency over it's nuclear program of greater concern to you than Israels secrecy around it's own and it's refusal to comply with any UN resolutions on the matter? Given that Israel, by it's actions as opposed to rhetoric, have shown themselves to be a far more dangerous player in the middle east.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 70]

You think we shouldn't have any oversight until there's evidence...but you don't think evidence should be gathered?

 

I think you're a tad confused and best stop digging.

 

The Scout Association can't be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability can it Chris?

 

 

Soon you'll be saying eco-pressure groups can be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability.

 

If you're going to try and joke your way out of a hole it helps if the jokes are funny.

 

Why is Iran's transparency over it's nuclear program of greater concern to you than Israels secrecy around it's own and it's refusal to comply with any UN resolutions on the matter? Given that Israel, by it's actions as opposed to rhetoric, have shown themselves to be a far more dangerous player in the middle east.

 

Also given the fact that Israel has no real economy bar arms manufacturing - is woefully short of fresh water and completely reliant on U.S. foreign aid, it is for me a country heading steadily toward disaster.

[Renton 17525]

Also given the fact that Israel has no real economy bar arms manufacturing - is woefully short of fresh water and completely reliant on U.S. foreign aid, it is for me a country heading steadily toward disaster.

 

It's the only green bit on that map Chez posted?

 

Can you back your quote before about Israel having more nukes than the UK and France combined btw? Just that I can't find any evidence to support it, even the less conservative estimates I have read have Israel as having less warheads than us.

[Fop 1]

You think we shouldn't have any oversight until there's evidence...but you don't think evidence should be gathered?

 

I think you're a tad confused and best stop digging.

 

The Scout Association can't be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability can it Chris?

 

 

Soon you'll be saying eco-pressure groups can be wrong about Israel's nuclear capability.

 

If you're going to try and joke your way out of a hole it helps if the jokes are funny.

 

 

Don't quote from eco-pressure groups as "fact" then, easy enough.

 

 

Besides which clearly The Brownies are primary source of evidence on nuclear proliferation?

 

 

 

Why is Iran's transparency over it's nuclear program of greater concern to you than Israels secrecy around it's own and it's refusal to comply with any UN resolutions on the matter? Given that Israel, by it's actions as opposed to rhetoric, have shown themselves to be a far more dangerous player in the middle east.

 

Only using your own logic, Chris. As it can't be proven that Israel have any weapons (apart from by scaremongering eco-pressure groups ) surely they should be left alone, not backed into a corner until such time as there is undeniable evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now again:

 

What are you suggesting that is different from what is being suggested? (apart from scrapping the IAEA and replacing them with some people you met down the pub )

 

Why would the IAEA says Iran agreed to that condition in 2003 if they didn't? (someone is lying :panic)

 

Why would they build there second installation deep underground where the only real benefit is attempted secrecy at a massively increased cost?

[Guest alex]

Do I think Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing? No.

Do I think Israel virtually being given carte blanche to do what they want by the USA (in particular) is a good thing either? No.

You can see why the first can lead to the second though.

[Holden McGroin 4795]

Do I think Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing? No.

Do I think Israel virtually being given carte blanche to do what they want by the USA (in particular) is a good thing either? No.

You can see why the first can lead to the second though.

 

Case closed.

[Happy Face 29]

Only using your own logic, Chris. As it can't be proven that Israel have any weapons (apart from by scaremongering eco-pressure groups ) surely they should be left alone, not backed into a corner until such time as there is undeniable evidence?

 

How many times are we going to go around this circle? How are you going to gather this "undeniable evidence?"

 

The UN nuclear assembly voted for Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections.

 

Israel promised to "not cooperate in any matter with this resolution".

 

Are you saying we should impose sanctions on Israel and forcefully expose their atomic sites?

 

 

Now again:

 

What are you suggesting that is different from what is being suggested?

 

Did you read the Bayh, Kyl, Lieberman statement? You can do so here.

 

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.

 

source

 

That's VERY different.

 

Why would the IAEA says Iran agreed to that condition in 2003 if they didn't? (someone is lying :panic)

 

I've not seen that. Be interested to if you have the link. Either way, as I said before, if they have contravened the amendment, it's a tiny infraction compared with Israel.

 

Why would they build there second installation deep underground where the only real benefit is attempted secrecy at a massively increased cost?

 

The only explanation I've seen is the fear of US, Israeli attacks, which as I quoted before have been deemed very plausible.

[Renton 17525]

Quite fancy a holiday in Tel Aviv though, not so sure about Tehran.

[Guest alex]

Quite fancy a holiday in Tel Aviv though, not so sure about Tehran.

I'd rather go to the USA for a holiday than Iran but I'd rather have the latter for an enemy

[Fop 1]

Only using your own logic, Chris. As it can't be proven that Israel have any weapons (apart from by scaremongering eco-pressure groups ) surely they should be left alone, not backed into a corner until such time as there is undeniable evidence?

 

How many times are we going to go around this circle? How are you going to gather this "undeniable evidence?"

 

The UN nuclear assembly voted for Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections.

 

Israel promised to "not cooperate in any matter with this resolution".

 

Are you saying we should impose sanctions on Israel and forcefully expose their atomic sites?

 

 

Sanctions for what? As you say there is no evidence.

 

 

Are you suggesting military strikes on Israel? Invasion? To determine if they do or do not have them (worked quite well in Iraq ).

 

 

 

Now again:

 

What are you suggesting that is different from what is being suggested?

 

Did you read the Bayh, Kyl, Lieberman statement? You can do so here.

 

So what would you suggest be done instead if they don't comply?

 

 

 

Why would the IAEA says Iran agreed to that condition in 2003 if they didn't? (someone is lying :panic)

 

I've not seen that. Be interested to if you have the link. Either way, as I said before, if they have contravened the amendment, it's a tiny infraction compared with Israel.

 

Why would the IAEA lie?

 

Indeed why would Iran break the agreement if they always intended to reveal it?

 

 

Why would they build there second installation deep underground where the only real benefit is attempted secrecy at a massively increased cost?

 

The only explanation I've seen is the fear of US, Israeli attacks, which as I quoted before have been deemed very plausible.

 

Which isn't a particularly good one, they have weapons capable of sealing of huge areas, if not bring much of the internal structure down.

 

Although it makes sense in the context of building it pretty much on a "holy" site, for sure.

 

 

But then Iran has almost as much to gain by having strikes against it as it does developing a nuclear weapon, politically.

[The Fish 8935]

Quite fancy a holiday in Tel Aviv though, not so sure about Tehran.

I'd rather go to the USA for a holiday than Iran but I'd rather have the latter for an enemy

 

Not sure I'd go that far. America might be ignorant bullies with incredible military might, but the moderates hold more sway; their citizens are less likely to take it upon themselves to drive a truck-bomb into a Wetherspoons. I know Iran is not as howl-at-the-moon as some of that neck of the woods, but the radicals are more influential than the nutters in America.

 

The Christian Right may be a potent force, but their followers don't blow themselves up.

 

I'm saying that I know Iran aren't the sociopaths some would have us believe, but neither are they simpy our misunderstood brethren.

[Guest alex]

Quite fancy a holiday in Tel Aviv though, not so sure about Tehran.

I'd rather go to the USA for a holiday than Iran but I'd rather have the latter for an enemy

 

Not sure I'd go that far. America might be ignorant bullies with incredible military might, but the moderates hold more sway; their citizens are less likely to take it upon themselves to drive a truck-bomb into a Wetherspoons. I know Iran is not as howl-at-the-moon as some of that neck of the woods, but the radicals are more influential than the nutters in America.

 

The Christian Right may be a potent force, but their followers don't blow themselves up.

 

I'm saying that I know Iran aren't the sociopaths some would have us believe, but neither are they simpy our misunderstood brethren.

I meant the states themselves rather than your average Joe Public.

[The Fish 8935]

I meant the states themselves rather than your average Joe Public.

 

 

See, that's my worry. You have Iran as your enemy, it's not just State Vs State, Soldier vs Soldier; their Javeed Public will also get involved. I'd be expecting suicide attacks from radicals sneaking into this country and also from ex-pats already here. It's a fear I'm quite happy to admit is fuelled by images of moderate Iranians being beaten by their police, tales of their "Moral Police", images of young Iranians burning anything they can get their hands on, in hateful protest against the west and it's while all being run through a western media filter I don't believe it's all fabricated or exaggerated

[Guest alex]

It was just a flippant comment in response to an equally flippant one by Renton.

[Happy Face 29]

I meant the states themselves rather than your average Joe Public.

 

 

See, that's my worry. You have Iran as your enemy, it's not just State Vs State, Soldier vs Soldier; their Javeed Public will also get involved. I'd be expecting suicide attacks from radicals sneaking into this country and also from ex-pats already here. It's a fear I'm quite happy to admit is fuelled by images of moderate Iranians being beaten by their police, tales of their "Moral Police", images of young Iranians burning anything they can get their hands on, in hateful protest against the west and it's while all being run through a western media filter I don't believe it's all fabricated or exaggerated

 

I don't think it's fabricated, I can understand it though. When you have the level of hypocrisy whereby Obama, flanked by Brown can say Iran "is breaking rules that all nations must follow" while continuing to torture detainees to death.

[The Fish 8935]

I meant the states themselves rather than your average Joe Public.

 

 

See, that's my worry. You have Iran as your enemy, it's not just State Vs State, Soldier vs Soldier; their Javeed Public will also get involved. I'd be expecting suicide attacks from radicals sneaking into this country and also from ex-pats already here. It's a fear I'm quite happy to admit is fuelled by images of moderate Iranians being beaten by their police, tales of their "Moral Police", images of young Iranians burning anything they can get their hands on, in hateful protest against the west and it's while all being run through a western media filter I don't believe it's all fabricated or exaggerated

 

I don't think it's fabricated, I can understand it though. When you have the level of hypocrisy whereby Obama, flanked by Brown can say Iran "is breaking rules that all nations must follow" while continuing to torture detainees to death.

 

Yeah, but there is proportionate response mate.

 

Crying for Iran to be wiped off the face of the planet, while conducting nuclear progress is bound to provoke this kind of reaction from the west. Flip the tables; if Germany (for example) had called for Iran to be wiped off the face of the planet, it wouldn't be met with stern phrase and concerned faces. There'd be rioting on the streets, calls for Angie to be beheaded.

 

Fucking hell, you can't call a teddy bear Mohammed, you can't draw his likeness! I expect them to be distrustful of the west, to be disdainful of Israel, but unfortunately I also expect them to ignore laws they don't agree with and fail to admonish or properly punish the zealots. You say Obama and Brown are hypocrites, but the radicals in Iran are reactionary hypocrites themselves. They demand equality on the global stage, but don't even give equality to their own people. They've (rightly) remarked on the despicable torturing, but summarliy beat women in public for not wearing the right kind of scarf.

 

I'm all for pluracy, I'm all for inclusion, but sometimes you have to wonder how many exceptions we have to make to account for their sensibilities?

 

As much as we need to take steps towards atoning for past mistakes and building a better relationship with them, they need to do the same for us. There is progress being made, but I don't think it's happening in the right places. Roy Keane is a puppet of the entrenched regime and while they're in power there isn't enough that's going to change.

 

(sorry for rambling)