Results 1 to 40 of 80

Thread: " UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186

    " UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran"

    http://rawstory.com/news/afp/UN_nucl..._10282007.html

    UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.

    "We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.

    "Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons ... they are at least (a) few years away from having such weapon," he said, citing Washington's own intelligence assessments.

    "My fear (is) that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire."

    The White House Friday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq war, after fresh sanctions on Tehran and escalating US warnings fueled comparisons to the months before the 2003 invasion.

    "We are absolutely committed to a diplomatic process," spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters.

    "We would never take options off the table, but the diplomatic process is what we want to move forward with," he said, calling it "unwise" to rule out the use of force.

    His comments came as US President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been sharply ramping up their rhetoric about Iran, leading some critics to draw parallels with the late 2002 verbal escalation against Iraq.

    In recent months, Bush has predicted "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" if Tehran gets atomic weapons, while Cheney has warned of "serious consequences" for Iran if it defies global demands to freeze uranium enrichment -- echoing the UN resolution that Washington says authorized war in Iraq.

    Iran insists that it is enriching uranium only for nuclear energy and denies US charges that it is seeking the bomb.

    ElBaradei has been vindicated in his pre-war belief that Iraq was not resuming its own nuclear arms program, contrary to claims by Bush and Cheney.

    However, he said that in the current dispute, "we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

    "But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."

    Merely "exchanging rhetoric" would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case, the IAEA chief said, adding that "the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody."

    North Korea has already detonated a nuclear device. But under six-nation talks, the Stalinist state has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return for a broad package of economic and diplomatic incentives.

    ElBaradei said it is time "to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue because that's an issue that could have a major conflagration, and not only regionally but globally."

    "It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon," the IAEA chief said.

    "So we can talk about use of force as and when we (have) exhausted diplomacy ... but we are far, far away from that stage."

    Foreign ministry officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States are preparing to hold new discussions about stronger UN sanctions against Iran, possibly as early as Friday in London.

    Meanwhile one of ElBaradei's deputies, Olli Heinonen, is due to hold fresh talks in Tehran on Monday.

    Heinonen clinched a deal in August for Iran to answer outstanding questions over its atomic program so that the IAEA can conclude a four-year investigation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    I trust zero from the UN

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,952
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I trust zero from the UN

    Even with zero trust you trust them more than I do

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I trust zero from the UN
    Well IAEA seems to be right most of the time? Blix sure was right about Iraq.

    Has anyone yet produced any hardcore evidence that Iran does indeed have a weapons program? Everyone can talk all day about what intentions they have, but without proof it is just talk.

    Irans nuclear program makes no sense to me from a weapons point of view. If they wanted weapons they could get them without all the time consuming enrichment hazzle. But the moronic insistance to keep on with the enrichment program is damn suspicious.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    johan you know as well as I do no one really knows who was right about Iraq. They could have shipped those things out six months before or right as we were attacking.

    I dont think Iran could get its hands on a nuke...I think they have to build one and they are taking the steps to do so. We will just have to see what pans out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
    Well IAEA seems to be right most of the time? Blix sure was right about Iraq.

    Has anyone yet produced any hardcore evidence that Iran does indeed have a weapons program? Everyone can talk all day about what intentions they have, but without proof it is just talk.

    Irans nuclear program makes no sense to me from a weapons point of view. If they wanted weapons they could get them without all the time consuming enrichment hazzle. But the moronic insistance to keep on with the enrichment program is damn suspicious.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    johan you know as well as I do no one really knows who was right about Iraq. They could have shipped those things out six months before or right as we were attacking.

    I dont think Iran could get its hands on a nuke...I think they have to build one and they are taking the steps to do so. We will just have to see what pans out.
    But unless evidence is found the assumption that nothing was there is the most logical one. I mean we dont sentance people by suspicion alone, starting a war should take alot more than suspicion.

    I dont think Iran can buy a nuke either. What I meant was that enrichment isnt the easiest and best way in order to get weapons grade materials. Centrifuge enrichment is time consuming, complex and horribly expensive.

    The best, easiest and cheapest way to produce weapons grade material is to build a small crude graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural uranium and produced plutonium. It can be cooled as simply as blowing air through it, like the Windscale reactor that UK used to produce plutonium. Untill it catched fire. If safety isnt a big concern then it can be built increadibly simple. Let the fuel be in the reactor for a while and then dump it in some acid and extract the plutonium chemicaly. Much much simpler than enrichment.

    Offcourse building a bomb out of the plutonium is much more complex than building a bomb out of enrichened uranium. But if they want to build a bomb in secret the plutonium road is a much more logical road to take.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    I dont think its the most logical one because they had a history of using wmd's..(not nukes)

    To say they had them and now all of a sudden they are gone...umm dont know



    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
    But unless evidence is found the assumption that nothing was there is the most logical one. I mean we dont sentance people by suspicion alone, starting a war should take alot more than suspicion.

    I dont think Iran can buy a nuke either. What I meant was that enrichment isnt the easiest and best way in order to get weapons grade materials. Centrifuge enrichment is time consuming, complex and horribly expensive.

    The best, easiest and cheapest way to produce weapons grade material is to build a small crude graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural uranium and produced plutonium. It can be cooled as simply as blowing air through it, like the Windscale reactor that UK used to produce plutonium. Untill it catched fire. If safety isnt a big concern then it can be built increadibly simple. Let the fuel be in the reactor for a while and then dump it in some acid and extract the plutonium chemicaly. Much much simpler than enrichment.

    Offcourse building a bomb out of the plutonium is much more complex than building a bomb out of enrichened uranium. But if they want to build a bomb in secret the plutonium road is a much more logical road to take.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
    But unless evidence is found the assumption that nothing was there is the most logical one.
    So do you think that the light in your refrigerator stays on all the time since you don't see it shut off? Or are you smart enough to know that it does indeed shut off when you close the door.........

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I trust zero from the UN
    El Baradei has a much better track record than the people who are accusing Iran. Bush and co are the people who were talking about Iraq nuking us, that they had a fleet of UAV that could cross the Atlantic, etc and we no how well their predictions went. Why would you blindly believe those same people who are making the same accusations they made about Iraq?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    This isn't the same guy that Stole all the Food for the starving people is it??
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186
    ^^Kofi Annan's son?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Prada
    ^^Kofi Annan's son?
    yea that's him..
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  13. #13
    The AMerican media often makes this statement, "Iran is a state sponsor or terrorism." But in fact Iran supports only 2 militant groups: Hamas-which is supported mostly ideologically as they do not need Iran to provide the crude weapons they usually use like homemade rockets..and Hezbollah..these are not militants that commit "terrorism" in the sense like BinLadens/alqueda group-which sometimes launches attacks against civilian targets in other countries(not Israel).. they also are probably helping arm anti-occupation militants in Iraq..none of these policies really reflect an "extreme" policy, or a policy so extreme that you would suspect that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to a crazy group that would use it against for example the US..so this whole 'terrorism' argument to prevent Iran from obtaining more nuclear facilities is just an excuse, when the real agenda is that the US wants to maintain a superior strategic position vis-nuclear weapons.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    ....the argument to prevent Iran from obtaining more nuclear facilities is just an excuse, when the real agenda is that the US wants to maintain a superior strategic position vis-nuclear weapons.
    Well put.

    From an ordinary US citizen perspective this is difficult to see objectively because of the deep sense of fear that 9/11 has created.......but if you look at it from an east perspective, the US attacked Iraq without a good reason (and you can argue that the US has a track record of unnecessary aggression on foreign soil) killing thousands of innocent citizens, so why wouldn't they want to try and strengthen themselves.

    If I put myself in the shoes of an average proud, patriotic Iranian, I would want my government to have some "muscle" to protect my sovereignty. Nuclear capablity has proven to a very effective deterrent in the past.....balance of power is a good thing.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Why is balance of power a good thing if one of the sides is a dictatorship? The cold war wasnt a good thing by any stretch of imagination.

    Nuclear weapons are definitely not good thing, especialy not in the hands of dictators.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Why is balance of power a good thing if one of the sides is a dictatorship? The cold war wasnt a good thing by any stretch of imagination.

    Nuclear weapons are definitely not good thing, especialy not in the hands of dictators.
    Becuase unbalanced and unaccountable power corrupts, and unfortunatly that is the way I feel about the US right now. Currently the US can do pretty much as they see fit, unchecked, as the Iraqi invasion debacle has shown us. UN tried put couldn't stop it. US has too much practical power. The result is a tragic and uneccessry disaster (for both sides).

    Agree, wmd in the wrong hands is very worrying. The tremdous power of the US militiary in the hands of Goege Bush is worrying.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Why is balance of power a good thing if one of the sides is a dictatorship? The cold war wasnt a good thing by any stretch of imagination.

    Nuclear weapons are definitely not good thing, especialy not in the hands of dictators.
    "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public" on whose border Osama Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda leaders are "believed to be hiding out......

    The US has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid --mostly to the military, since 2001."


    Johan, read this and tell me you still think the current US leadership is genuinely interested in preventing dictators from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    Logan, I understand that you have the job of being 'AR's Patriotic Member', I respect that, but don't let your patriotism blind you to the reality of the very poor leadership your country has had over the last 7 years.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/wo...nt&oref=slogin

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by xero View Post
    "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public" on whose border Osama Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda leaders are "believed to be hiding out......

    The US has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid --mostly to the military, since 2001."


    Johan, read this and tell me you still think the current US leadership is genuinely interested in preventing dictators from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    Logan, I understand that you have the job of being 'AR's Patriotic Member', I respect that, but don't let your patriotism blind you to the reality of the very poor leadership your country has had over the last 7 years.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/wo...nt&oref=slogin
    Seriously,
    why do you keep trying to change the subject of the post. I make direct points in regards to Irans' leadership trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and you keep bringing up your opinions on the US.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Seriously,
    why do you keep trying to change the subject of the post. I make direct points in regards to Irans' leadership trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and you keep bringing up your opinions on the US.
    The post is titled " UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran".

    My points are trying to show why I agree with the view of the "UN nuclear chief".

    How do my posts not appear to be relevant to the topic?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by xero View Post
    "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public" on whose border Osama Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda leaders are "believed to be hiding out......

    The US has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid --mostly to the military, since 2001."


    Johan, read this and tell me you still think the current US leadership is genuinely interested in preventing dictators from obtaining nuclear weapons.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/wo...nt&oref=slogin
    Well when it comes to the states I only belive they will do what is benificial for the states. If it means supporting one nuclear dictator and supressing another dictator that wants nukes that is what they will do. Just like any other country in the same position would do. I do belive however that if the clock could be turned back and pakistan and india could have been prevented from building weapons than america would have prefered that.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    The oppinion of a dude doesnt count as evidence. Not even if he is a crown prince.

    Proof is to discover trace ammounts of weapons grade plutonium, to find that the enrichment facility is configured for high enrichment, to find a secluded plutonium breeding reactor ect.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/294914.html

    "No evidence of Iranian nuclear-weapons program, experts say"

    WASHINGTON --
    Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger ''World War III,'' experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

    Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric.

    ''Iran is seeking a nuclear capability . . . that some people fear might lead to a nuclear-weapons capability,'' Burns said in an interview Oct. 25 on PBS.

    ''I don't think that anyone right today thinks they're working on a bomb,'' said another U.S. official, who requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

    Outside experts say the operative words are ''right today.'' They say Iran may have been actively seeking to create a nuclear-weapons capacity in the past and still could break out of its current uranium-enrichment program and start a weapons program. They, too, lack definitive proof but cite a great deal of circumstantial evidence.

    Bush's rhetoric seems hyperbolic compared with the measured statements by his senior aides and outside experts.

    ''I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,'' he said Oct. 17 at a news conference.

    ''Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions,'' Cheney warned on Oct 23. ``We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.''

    Bush and Cheney's allegations are under especially close scrutiny because their similar allegations about an Iraqi nuclear program proved to be wrong.

    Nevertheless, there are many reasons to be skeptical of Iran's claims that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, including the country's vast petroleum reserves, its dealings with a Pakistani dealer in black-market nuclear technology and the fact that it concealed its uranium-enrichment program from a U.N. watchdog agency for 18 years.

    ''Many aspects of Iran's past nuclear program and behavior make more sense if this program was set up for military rather than civilian purposes,'' Pierre Goldschmidt, a former U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director general, said in a speech Oct. 30 at Harvard University.

    If conclusive proof exists, however, Bush hasn't revealed it. Nor have four years of IAEA inspections.

    ''I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear-weapons program going on right now,'' IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei asserted in an interview Oct. 31 with CNN.

    ''There is no smoking-gun proof of work on a nuclear weapon, but there is enough evidence that points in that direction,'' said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation controls.

    New light may be shed when the IAEA reports this month on whether Iran is fulfilling an August accord to answer all outstanding questions about the nuclear-enrichment program it long concealed from the U.N. watchdog agency.

    Its report is expected to focus on Iran's work with devices that spin uranium hexafluoride gas to produce low-enriched uranium for power plants or highly enriched uranium for weapons, depending on the duration of the process.

    Iran asserts that it's working only with the P1, an older centrifuge that it admitted buying in 1987 from an international black-market network headed by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

    But IAEA inspectors determined that Iran failed to reveal that it had obtained blueprints for the P2, a centrifuge twice as efficient as the P1, from the Khan network in 1995.

    Iranian officials say they did nothing with the blueprints until 2002, when they were given to a private firm that produced and tested seven modified P2 parts, then abandoned the effort.

    IAEA inspectors, however, discovered that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last year that research on the centrifuges continued.

    The IAEA has been stymied in trying to discover the project's scope, fueling suspicions that the Iranian military may be secretly running a P2 development program parallel to the civilian-run P1 program at Natanz.

    Other issues driving concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons:

    PROJECT 111: The CIA turned over to the IAEA last year thousands of pages of computer simulations and documents -- purportedly from a defector's laptop -- that indicated that Iranian experts studied mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.

    The laptop also contained drawings and notes on sophisticated detonators and conventional high explosives arrayed in a ring -- the shape used to trigger nuclear weapons -- and implicated a firm linked to Iran's military in uranium-enrichment studies.

    The documents included drawings of a 1,200-foot-deep underground shaft apparently designed to confine a nuclear test explosion.

    Iran denounced the materials as ''politically motivated and baseless,'' but promised to cooperate with an IAEA investigation into so-called Project 111 once other questions are settled. U.S., French, German and British intelligence officials think the materials are genuine.

    ''I wouldn't go to war over this, but it's reason for suspicion,'' Fitzpatrick said. ``It hasn't been explained.''

    Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California who emigrated from Iran in 1978 and has analyzed Iran's nuclear program closely, dismissed the materials as ``totally not believable.''

    Noting how carefully Iranian intelligence agencies monitor the program and the borders, he said, ``If the laptop did exist, I find it hard to believe that its absence wasn't noticed for so long that somebody could take it out of Iran.''

    THE 15-PAGE DOCUMENT: ElBaradei revealed in November 2005 that Iran had a document supplied by the Khan network on casting and milling uranium metal into hemispheres.

    Uranium hemispheres have no application in power plants, but form the explosive cores of nuclear weapons. Iran denied asking for the document or doing anything with it. It barred the IAEA from making copies but agreed to have it placed under seal.

    IAEA investigators have been interviewing Khan network members to verify Iran's version of how it got the document. They also have been looking into whether Iran received a Chinese warhead design from the Khan network. Libya, which bought the same materials Iran did, had the design.

    POLONIUM-210: Iran has failed since 2003 to satisfy IAEA inquiries about experiments it conducted from 1989 to 1993 that produced Polonium-210.

    Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance that has limited civilian applications but is used in warheads to initiate the fission chain reaction that results in a nuclear blast.

    URANIUM MINE: IAEA inspectors want to know why and how the same military-linked company that's been implicated in the laptop materials was able to develop a uranium mine and a milling facility in a year when Iran has said the firm has limited experience in such work.

    NUCLEAR POWER VS. OIL AND GAS: Many U.S. and European officials dispute Iran's claim that it needs to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants.

    They point out that the only Iranian nuclear power plant under construction is being built by Russia, which has an agreement to supply it with low-enriched uranium fuel for 10 years.

    Moreover, they contend that Iran doesn't have enough uranium to provide fuel for the lifetimes of the seven to 10 civilian reactors it says it needs to meet the demands of its growing population.

    It would be far cheaper for Iran to expand domestic consumption of natural gas, of which it has the world's second-largest reserves, and oil, of which it has the world's third-largest reserves, according to a study by the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    But Sahimi argued that given the skyrocketing price of oil and natural gas, it makes more sense for Iran to export as much petroleum and natural gas as possible and fill its power needs with nuclear-generated electricity.

    ''The price of uranium since 2001 has increased by 800 percent. Iran's presently known resources can supply enriched uranium for seven reactors for 15 years,'' he said. ``It would be foolish not to go after a domestic uranium facility . . . given that, the price of enriched uranium, and the political obstacles and hindrance (Iran faces) if it decides to rely on outside suppliers.''

    NOTE: For several months, the Bush administration has been ratcheting up its rhetoric toward Iran, accusing its government of trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The administration has imposed new economic sanctions on Iranian businesses and suggested that military action may be needed if the Iranians don't shut down their nuclear program. But global opinion differs on what threat -- if any -- Iran's nuclear program poses. Over the next several weeks, McClatchy Newspapers will examine key questions surrounding the Bush administration's confrontation with Iran.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Prada View Post
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/294914.html

    "No evidence of Iranian nuclear-weapons program, experts say"
    I have never seen a more misleading title than that..........

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    I have never seen a more misleading title than that..........
    What is it that you find misleading?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Prada View Post
    What is it that you find misleading?
    If you read the same article that I did and did not find the topic misleading, there really is nothing further to discuss.........

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    If you read the same article that I did and did not find the topic misleading, there really is nothing further to discuss.........
    The title states: No evidence of nuclear weapons program. How did this innocuous title mislead you? Is that not the content of the article? Perhaps your interpretation has misled you?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Prada View Post
    [url]

    Merely "exchanging rhetoric" would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case, the IAEA chief said, adding that "the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody."

    North Korea has already detonated a nuclear device. But under six-nation talks, the Stalinist state has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return for a broad package of economic and diplomatic incentives.

    .
    Seems the N. Korean model is an easy way to add motivation to Iran to build a nuclear weapon. It now becomes a win-win to build a nuke. On one hand, they wish to possess the power, etc that comes with having a nuke. And on the other hand, if the world decides that Iran may not possess one they can simply "buy" them with economic aids, commerce abilities, etc in order to dispossess the Iran of their technology.

  28. #28
    thats crap; The 'terrorists' don't give a fk about what americans are doing as far as women and gays are concerned, why would they? ..the issue is America's military presence in the persian gulf and it's imperialism in Iraq and it's support for Israeli imperialism and oppresion and it's denial of rights to the Palestinians which it expelled and now contains in segregated areas..and it's existence in general-which they deem to be unjust..the 'terrorists' always make demands and greivences concerning these issues; they never make demands about American gays or women-thats BS..why would they possibly care about someone elses society?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    thats crap; The 'terrorists' don't give a fk about what americans are doing as far as women and gays are concerned, why would they? ..the issue is America's military presence in the persian gulf and it's imperialism in Iraq and it's support for Israeli imperialism and oppresion and it's denial of rights to the Palestinians which it expelled and now contains in segregated areas..and it's existence in general-which they deem to be unjust..the 'terrorists' always make demands and greivences concerning these issues; they never make demands about American gays or women-thats BS..why would they possibly care about someone elses society?
    Because their religion precludes them to. (i.e. infidels)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •