Jump to content

Iran has backup nuke facillity


Rob W
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Your sources get better and better. :icon_lol:

 

 

FFS you are KNOB....why not look into who wrote the article instead of where it was written.......author Juan Cole

 

Cole was awarded Fulbright-Hays fellowships to India (1982) and to Egypt (1985-1986). From 1999 until 2004, Juan Cole was the editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies. He has served in professional offices for the American Institute of Iranian Studies.[6] He was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in November 2004.[7] In 2006, he received the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism administered by Hunter College.[8]

 

1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University

1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo

1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles

1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan

1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan

1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan

1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

 

(from Wiki......hope thats acceptable)

 

hmmmm sounds like a fairly itk guy, what exactly are your qualifications again Fop?

PhD in smiley face usage?.........M.Sc. in third person self reference?

 

 

History, literature and Islamic studies?

 

 

Aye perfectly qualified for talking about nuclear programs and nuclear proliferation. :icon_lol:

 

 

But if number of general "qualifications = right" then Fop could post "bombshells" that would (going by the 2 x 60kg dumbbell thread) make Toontastic meltdown. :D

 

 

further proof you never even read the article by Mr. Cole......as it had nothing to do with nuclear proliferation, it was an article about the misconception in the western media about Iran's foreign policy

 

it's ok there weren't even any smiley faces in it so I understand why you didn't read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

Your sources get better and better. :rolleyes:

 

 

FFS you are KNOB....why not look into who wrote the article instead of where it was written.......author Juan Cole

 

Cole was awarded Fulbright-Hays fellowships to India (1982) and to Egypt (1985-1986). From 1999 until 2004, Juan Cole was the editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies. He has served in professional offices for the American Institute of Iranian Studies.[6] He was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in November 2004.[7] In 2006, he received the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism administered by Hunter College.[8]

 

1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University

1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo

1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles

1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan

1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan

1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan

1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

 

(from Wiki......hope thats acceptable)

 

hmmmm sounds like a fairly itk guy, what exactly are your qualifications again Fop?

PhD in smiley face usage?.........M.Sc. in third person self reference?

 

 

History, literature and Islamic studies?

 

 

Aye perfectly qualified for talking about nuclear programs and nuclear proliferation. :lol:

 

 

But if number of general "qualifications = right" then Fop could post "bombshells" that would (going by the 2 x 60kg dumbbell thread) make Toontastic meltdown. :D

 

 

further proof you never even read the article by Mr. Cole......as it had nothing to do with nuclear proliferation, it was an article about the misconception in the western media about Iran's foreign policy

 

it's ok there weren't even any smiley faces in it so I understand why you didn't read it.

 

 

It has everything to do with Iran's nuclear program and development (and indeed it talks about nuclear proliferation quite a bit too) - have you read it? :icon_lol:

 

It is a apologist propaganda piece from a propaganda site trying to "calm" fears about Iran's nuclear intentions (and ironically it actually disagrees with Chris in several respects).

 

It's nothing that anyone with any basic knowledge of Iran or what they are doing should already know...... so it's just some facts with the most pro-Iranian spin possible and a lot of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And like Fop said qualifications or chairs in History, literature (although his English and grammar should be better, eh alex?) nor Islamic studies makes him qualified judge Iran's nuclear capabilities (present or future).

 

As Fop said if it's just down to random (or even relevant) qualifications, then by your own logic you're wrong already. :icon_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200 or 80 nukes in Israel, seriously, who gives a shit?

 

 

Or none. :icon_lol:

 

 

Now that Chris has stopped using eco-pressure groups for baseless estimates, he's stepped up a gear and is using the same people that got Saddam's WMD stockpile so bang on right as "sources". :ninja:

 

I'd love to see those reports if you have them.

 

Colin Powell got up in the UN took his dick out and said here's your evidence.

 

..and the media ate it up.

 

 

And again where is the substantiated evidence for Israel having nukes? :)

 

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

 

or try the CIA sites, or several published books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200 or 80 nukes in Israel, seriously, who gives a shit?

 

 

Or none. :icon_lol:

 

 

Now that Chris has stopped using eco-pressure groups for baseless estimates, he's stepped up a gear and is using the same people that got Saddam's WMD stockpile so bang on right as "sources". :ninja:

 

I'd love to see those reports if you have them.

 

Colin Powell got up in the UN took his dick out and said here's your evidence.

 

..and the media ate it up.

 

 

And again where is the substantiated evidence for Israel having nukes? :)

 

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

 

or try the CIA sites, or several published books

 

That's the link I posted earlier.

 

Not good enough for Fop though.

 

Perhaps a link to youtube of another country's stockpile would convince him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

 

Is he right or are you right? :ninja:

 

 

You'll have to be more clear about why we can't both be right.

 

Where have I said anything about German, Israeli or UK Intelligence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

 

Is he right or are you right? :ninja:

 

 

You'll have to be more clear about why we can't both be right.

 

Where have I said anything about German, Israeli or UK Intelligence?

 

What I find hard to fathom is, why you would be so very serious with a dweeb likeflop????

 

The guy's a fucking gonad. Do you feel disheartened when he responds back to you saying you don't have a clue with :) and attached to his comments???

 

For fucks sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to U.S. signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the U.K. intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

 

Is he right or are you right? :ninja:

 

 

You'll have to be more clear about why we can't both be right.

 

Where have I said anything about German, Israeli or UK Intelligence?

 

What I find hard to fathom is, why you would be so very serious with a dweeb likeflop????

 

The guy's a fucking gonad. Do you feel disheartened when he responds back to you saying you don't have a clue with :) and attached to his comments???

 

For fucks sake.

 

It's like I'm holding a big magnifying glass in the sun and he's an ant. I know I shouldn't, but I entertain myself burning him. It's a morbid fascination to see him run around in increasingly desparate circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

:ninja:

 

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.

 

tate_dads_army.jpg

 

I don't need anybody to tell me the reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The israelis have enough nukes to take out most of the Middle East - using them is pretty much a last option of course

 

tho I have a terrible feeling that if they dropped one on Tehran the Yanks and a load of apologists in this country would carry on as if nothing had happened..............

 

oh dear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel has more nukes than UK and France combined.

 

 

I think Israel also has more strike aircraft than the UK & Jormany combined

 

Yup.

 

They regularly do drills and roleplay with 300 odd planes in the sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good little read...

 

Every powerful state relies on specialists whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just and, if the weak suffer, it is their fault.

In the West, these specialists are called "intellectuals" and, with marginal exceptions, they fulfill their task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, in this practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history.

 

With just that much background, let us turn to the so-called unipolar moment. Symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, the collapse of the Soviet Union putatively left a unipolar world, with the United States as the sole global superpower and not merely the primary superpower, as it was before.

 

Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration outlined Washington's new course: Everything will stay much the same, but with new pretexts.

 

We still need a huge military system, but for a new reason: the "technological sophistication" of Third World powers. We have to maintain the "defense industrial base" -- a euphemism for state-supported high-tech industry.

 

We must maintain intervention forces directed at the energy-rich Middle East -- where the significant threats to our interests "could not be laid at the Kremlin's door," contrary to decades of deceit.

 

All this was passed over quietly, barely reported. But for those who hope to understand the world, it is quite instructive.

 

The George W. Bush administration went far to the extreme of aggressive militarism and arrogant contempt. It was harshly condemned for these practices, even within the mainstream.

 

Bush's second term was more moderate. Some of the most extreme figures were expelled: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others. Vice President Richard Cheney could not be removed because he WAS the administration. Policy began to return toward the norm.

 

As Barack Obama came into office, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style that seems to have charmed much of the world.

 

One basic difference between Bush and Obama was expressed very well in another era, by a senior adviser of the Kennedy administration at the height of the Cuban missile crisis.

 

Kennedy planners were making decisions that threatened Britain with obliteration, but they were not informing the British about it.

 

At that point the advisor defined the "special relationship" with Britain: "our lieutenant -- the fashionable word is `partner."'

 

Bush and his cohorts addressed the world as "our lieutenants." Thus, in announcing the invasion of Iraq, they informed the United Nations that it could follow U.S. orders or be "irrelevant." Such brazen arrogance naturally aroused hostility.

 

Obama adopts a different course. He politely greets the leaders and people of the world as "partners," and only in private does he continue to treat them as "lieutenants."

 

Foreign leaders much prefer this stance, and the public is also sometimes mesmerized by it. But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric and pleasant demeanor.

 

The current world system remains unipolar in one dimension: the arena of force. The United States spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on its military and it is far more advanced in the technology of destruction.

 

The United States is also alone in having hundreds of global military bases and in occupying two countries in the crucial energy-producing regions.

 

NATO is part of the Cold War apparatus that Obama can deploy.

 

As the unipolar moment dawned, the fate of NATO came to the fore. The traditional justification for NATO was defense against Soviet aggression. With the USSR gone, the pretext evaporated. But NATO has been reshaped into a U.S.-run global intervention force, with special concern for control over energy.

 

Post-Cold War NATO has inexorably pushed to the east and south. Obama apparently intends to carry forward this expansion.

 

In July, on the eve of Obama's first trip to Russia, Michael McFaul, his special assistant for national security and Russian and Eurasian affairs, informed the press, "We're not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense."

 

McFaul was referring to U.S. missile defense programs in Eastern Europe and to NATO membership for Russia's neighbors, Ukraine and Georgia, both steps understood by Western analysts to be serious threats to Russian security that would likely inflame international tensions.

 

A few weeks ago the Obama administration announced a readjustment of U.S. anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. That led to a great deal of commentary and debate, which, as in the past, skillfully evaded the central issue.

 

Those systems are advertised as defense against an Iranian attack. But that cannot be the motive. The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the Earth -- unless, of course, the ruling clerics have a fanatic death wish and want to see Iran instantly incinerated.

 

The purpose of the U.S. interception systems, if they ever work, is to prevent any retaliation to a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran -- that is, to eliminate any Iranian deterrent. In this regard, antimissile systems are a first-strike weapon, and that is understood on all sides. But that seems to be a fact best left in the shadows.

 

The Obama plan may represent less provocation to Russia but, rhetoric aside, it is irrelevant to defending Europe -- except as a reaction to a U.S. or Israeli first strike against Iran.

 

The present nuclear standoff with Iran summons the Cold War's horrors -- and hypocrisies.

 

The outcry over Iran overlooks the Obama administration's assurance that the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement is exempt from the just-passed U.N. resolution on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India greeted by announcing that it can now build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world's major nuclear powers, with yields up to 200 kilotons.

 

And, over the objections of the United States and Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities for inspection. Israel announced it would not cooperate.

 

Though the world is unipolar militarily, since the 1970s it has become economically "tripolar," with comparable centers in North America, Europe and northeast Asia. The global economy is becoming more diverse, particularly with the growth of Asian economies.

 

A world becoming truly multipolar, politically as well as economically, despite the resistance of the sole superpower, marks a progressive change in history.

 

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20091006.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200 or 80 nukes in Israel, seriously, who gives a shit?

 

 

Or none. :icon_lol:

 

 

Now that Chris has stopped using eco-pressure groups for baseless estimates, he's stepped up a gear and is using the same people that got Saddam's WMD stockpile so bang on right as "sources". :lol:

 

I'd love to see those reports if you have them.

 

Colin Powell got up in the UN took his dick out and said here's your evidence.

 

..and the media ate it up.

 

 

And again where is the substantiated evidence for Israel having nukes? :D

 

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

 

or try the CIA sites, or several published books

 

 

now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.

 

Just like it was "convinced" Saddam has WMDs. :D

 

In early 1968, the CIA issued a report concluding that Israel had successfully started production of nuclear weapons. This estimate, however, was based on an informal conversation between Carl Duckett, head of the CIA's Office of Science and Technology, and Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb. Teller said that, based on conversations with friends in the Israeli scientific and defense establishment, he had concluded that Israel was capable of building the bomb, and that the CIA should not wait for an Israeli test to make a final assessment because that test would never be carried out.

 

Strong parallels to the Saddam/WMD evidence there!

 

 

 

 

 

In fact there's almost nothing on that webpage that isn't just conjecture. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a few questions for Chris and Co:

 

 

Is the USA a democracy?

 

Is Israel a democracy?

 

Is Iran a democracy?

 

I can't be arsed with your shit today. Might indulge you next week though, if not over the weekend :D

 

 

Coward. :lol:

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.