Because Ahmadenijad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's a nutcase agressor, whereas Sharon and Bush carry out agressive military action instead of just preaching hatred.Originally Posted by pete
Why are Iran not allowed have nukes & other non-super powers have added them in the last decade?
What advantage is there for Iran to stay within the International Atomic Energy Agency?
BBC News
Because Ahmadenijad doesn't try to hide the fact that he's a nutcase agressor, whereas Sharon and Bush carry out agressive military action instead of just preaching hatred.
Last edited by Risteard; 17/01/2006 at 2:20 PM.
City definetly have the best bands playing at half-time.
O'Bama - "Eerah yeah, I'd say we can alright!"
G.O'Mahoney Trapattoni'll sort ém out!!
If Iran agrees to Russia's proposal of having the uranium enriched outside the country then they should be allowed to use Nuclear energy as many other countries are.
Israel should never have been permitted to create the bomb but France stupidly gave them the recipe.
Why doesn't Iran just leave the International Atomic Energy Agency so no inspections? Israel is not a member & has nukes for years (US gave them the recipe). Are India & Pakistan members?
I don't see the Iranian Presidents any different than Bushes "Axis of Evil" speeches when it comes to threats - each is surely courting the vote of their own people.
Iran surely has also seen that the US threats North Korea but won't act on any of it as kows they have "the bomb" & probably wouldn't mind such an insurance policy itself.
In fairness, everyone knows the answer to this themselves.
It is double-standards, but the bottom line is that Iran is a borderline nut-job state and would be a real liability with such a powerful weapon. They certainly didn't help their case by saying they wanted to see a neighbouring country wiped off the face of the earth either - nukes would give them the ability to do exactly that. Ahmadinejad played right into the 'no' camp's hands by saying that - not smart.
Personally speaking, I'd rather not see Iran having Nuclear weapons. I'd rarther no-one did in fact - but I'd particularly ratehr Iran didn't have them, as I just wouldn't trust them with it. At least Israel is an elected parliamentary democracy (if you want to disagree, do so on the Sharon thread or start a new one), and is highly unlikely to use nuclear bombs except as a last resort in self-defence.
I thought Iran was a democracy if not exactely like Western versions?
btw if i was leader of Iran i'd ensure i developed nukes as would ensure never attacked by Western power - its working well for North Korea.
i think at least part of the u.s. reasoning for all the saber-rattling on iranian nukes (leaving aside elephant-in-the-room israel for a moment) is that iran are launching their own oil bourse which will be pegged to the euro. washington not likee
There is a double standard here. India and Pakistan were on the brink of war not long ago and managed to both develope nukes without too much hassle (suspiciously at the same time too). The Indian foreign minister's comment, "We can afford to loose 25 million people, can Pakistan?" was not that different from Iran's current presedent. The case is further not helped by the law in the area being a complete ass. Iranians are not stupid and can see hypocracy for what it is.
The bottom line though is that Mad Mullahs with nukes is not a good thing.
Yeah, Ken, saw an article (Guardian I think) about Saddam wishing to link his oil with the Euro - much to the consternation of the US.
The US may not be getting any oil from Iran but if this situation intensifies, then oil prices may soar and effect the US economy anyway.
Sadly, the Mullahs have stymied attempts in Iran to have a more representative democracy. It gives that President free reign to blather all that disgusting nonsense about the holocaust and Israel.
I notice too, that there has been a crackdown lately in Tehran on couples holding hands, on what women wear etc etc etc etc.
Sad fact is, most young Iranians are well disposed towards the West and the President's promise to use oil revenue to improve his people's lot has not materialised.
Putting the screws on Iran right now will only drive every Iranian into the hands of Mullah organ-grinders and their monkeys - it'll develop a kind of bunker mentality.
Needless to say, the present US regime, as we all know, is reknowned for it's tact and diplomacyand will do everything in its power to make things worse.
A few months ago, Jack Straw emphasised that a miltary option was not on the table regarding Iran. Let's hope that he keeps his hands on his balls and maintains his nerve and, with the other Western nations, tell the US and Israel that if they attack Iran (bunker busters at nuclear sites etc) they're on their own.
Iran is a democracy in-so-far as the Model T Ford came in a range of colours...
So who exactly would North Korea launch a nuclear strike against, in all reality ? Don't say South Korea, as that would be like Donegal attacking Tyrone. They may as well just fire the things at themselves.....
Nuclear bombs are not designed to be fired - the fact that they've been around for 50 odd years proves this. They are designed for political brinkmanship - they are a sabre to rattle in negotiations to push tour point and/or balance against someone elses power. Any sensible admninistration knows that as soon as they fire a nuclear weapon they would get the same/more back, so it's a zero sum game. I can think of no other weapon that has been been created, proven and distributed, yet remained unused after over half a century. If Japan had the Atomic bomb in 1945, there's no way the Americans would have used it on them.
The probelm would therefore be if nukes ended-up in the hands of admninistrations who WEREN'T driven by brinkmanship and common sense - who didn't believe or care if they were fired back in response. Iran is just such an administration - or is in danger of becoming one...
[QUOTE=dcfcsteve]
The probelm would therefore be if nukes ended-up in the hands of admninistrations who WEREN'T driven by brinkmanship and common sense - who didn't believe or care if they were fired back in response. Iran is just such an administration - or is in danger of becoming one...[/QUOTE]
Yeah Steve, THAT is the part that worries me.
I feel also that the London/Madrid type terror attacks would multiply if Iran really got attacked, so to speak, and all hopes of dialogue between the Arab and/or Islamic world ended.
Very worrying situation developing.
Listening to the BS from the neo-cons (Bill Kristol and co - who often print/say what the Bushies are thinking) are putting forth at the moment - they seem to feel that some sort of attacks using bunker busters at the Iranian nuclear sites might be attempted. without too much "feedback" from the Islamic world. Insane idea.
They'll never learn, will they??
I think North Korea's main beef is with Japan who occupied them and AFAIR did nasty things to their civilian population during the second world war.
The case of North Korea proves your point, Steve, about Nukes not being designed for use. It's hard to imagine a government being much more disfunctional than North Korea's and even they have no intention of using their nukes as anything other than a deterrand and bargaining chip.
Yup. Japan no.1 target for NK. I think they tested a missile some years ago that could make the Japnese coast too. I'm sure there are also suggestions that NK missiles could possibly reach the US but that could be just US propaganda.
Incorrect Pete - it was France.
But surely they only build reactors for them for electricity generation? I thought the CIA helped them with their bomb making program?
If used the same logic then Russia are giving Iran the recipie this time as building reactors for them.
Anyway I don't see why Iran doesn't just pull out of the inspections as Israel has never allowed inspections & not done them any harm.
It came in four, according to QI.
Reading about this a week ago in The Guardian. Britain also was involved - unknown to the US and when the latter found out out, much to their annoyance then, believe it or not.
Full version
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515586.stm
Slightly Edited version
UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes
We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that has been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons
Jeremy Corbyn
Britain is being accused of trying to cover up its role in helping Israel develop its nuclear weapons programme.
In August, Newsnight revealed that more than 40 years ago, Britain sold heavy water, a key substance, to Israel.
MPs now allege that minister Kim Howells tried to mislead the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over Britain's role.
The shipments involved heavy water - a key element in producing plutonium - which the UK had originally bought from Norway.
Officially it was sold back to a Norwegian state firm called Noratom. But Britain knew Noratom would immediately sell 20 tons of the heavy water to Israel, and it was even collected directly from a British port by Israeli ships.
It's thought that today Israel possesses more than hundred nuclear weapons.
No cover-up
After Newsnight's original broadcast, the Arab League wrote to the IAEA seeking a full investigation.
But Foreign Office minister Kim Howells told Mohamed ElBaradei that Britain did not sell the material to Israel.
"The UK was not in fact a party to the sale of heavy water to Israel," he wrote, "but did negotiate the sale back to Norway of surplus heavy water."
Britain then circulated that response to every IAEA member government
"It's simply untrue - right back to the late 1950s we were a party to the transfer of nuclear technology to Israel," he said.
"We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that could, and has, been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons; Norway was always a smokescreen."
Newsnight's initial report last August was based on documents unearthed in the British National Archive, and shocked people around the world.
In Washington President Kennedy's former Defence Secretary Robert MacNamara, who tried to stop Israel going nuclear, told Newsnight: "The fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as a surprise, but that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me."
Newsnight has tracked down Donald Cape, one of the Foreign Office officials involved in deciding that British heavy water should be shipped to Israel.
In September 1958 Cape received a letter in which the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) admitted: "It could be argued that the Israelis will receive the heavy water by reason of our reselling it to Noratom; that therefore we are parties to the supply to Israel."
Mr Cape agrees with Kim Howells' interpretation, however, and insists the heavy water was sold to Norway.
It is "absolute nonsense", he says, to suggest Norway's involvement was a "sham" and that the real sale was from Britain to Israel.
But Newsnight has also obtained Israel's contract with the Norwegian firm Noratom. It says Noratom would provide heavy water from the UKAEA for Israel - delivered in Britain to Israel.
Noratom would take a commission of two per cent on the four million dollar deal; its responsibility would be "limited" to that of "consultant".
Donald Cape says he and his colleagues did not tell ministers about the transaction because there was no reason for either Britain or America to suspect what Israel was up to.
But confidential letters obtained by Newsnight through a Freedom of Information request, written two months before the first delivery was collected by Israel, suggest there were already suspicions about Israel's intentions.
The documents show the Foreign Office knew Israel had secretly tried to buy uranium from South Africa - without safeguards.
One letter quotes secret CIA reports from 1957 and 1958, which took the view: "The Israelis must be expected to try and establish a nuclear weapons programme as soon as the means were available to them."
The man who wrote these Foreign Office letters was Donald Cape himself.
When the existence of the Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona was revealed to the world in December 1960, Britain's spymasters made an assessment of Israeli capabilities.
In the last few days, Newsnight has obtained the top secret 'UK eyes only' report - previously only seen by the bosses of intelligence bodies such as MI6, MI5 and GCHQ.
These minutes are really the only occasion on which the British Government has ever released a detailed assessment of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and they show just how important Britain's 20 tons of heavy water were to that programme.
According to the Joint Intelligence Assessment, it meant that the Dimona reactor would be able to make enough plutonium to build up to six atom bombs a year.
The document concludes: "It has been, and remains our opinion, that Israel wanted an independent supply of plutonium so as to be in a position to make nuclear weapons if she wished."
Yet we also know that the Foreign Office imposed no restrictions on what the heavy water would be used for.
Donald Cape wrote that it would be "over zealous" to impose safeguards on Norway or Israel. And he agreed to keep the deal secret even from the US, writing that: "I would prefer not to tell the Americans."
"The material went from [the UKAEA at] Harwell direct to a British port, to Israeli ships, and was then taken to Israel.
"This assertion that somehow we weren't party to the action simply does not stand up when you analyse the facts
Which ones - black, black, black and err..... black......?
Brown.
http://www.stigonline.com/Ford.jpg
"The early Model Ts actually did come in a variety of colors, but beginning in 1914 and for the next eleven years, the Model T would be sold in only one color: black. The main reason for this was the black enamel used dried more quickly than other paints and therefore sped up production. Consumers were not offered a choice of colors again until 1926, due in part to slumping sales".
Source : http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1908/specs.html
That's good enough for me....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks