AFP No evidence Iran is making nuclear weapons: ElBaradei

[jafar00]

For those who still believe the Bush regime's ridiculous claims that Iran has a secret Nuclear Weapons Program despite clear evidence to the contrary. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071028/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaus_071028162940)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Chief UN atomic watchdog 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.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now," the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.

"Even if Iran were to be working on a nuclear weapon ... they are at least a few years from having such a weapon," he said, citing assessments by US officials themselves.

"At this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy ... as I don't see any other solution than diplomacy and inspections," ElBaradei said.

The White House Friday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq invasion, 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.

ElBaradei said if the United States had more information on Iran's nuclear drive than the IAEA, "I would be very happy to receive it and go forward."

He said "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," he said.

Merely "exchanging rhetoric" would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case, ElBaradei said, pointing to ongoing negotiations with North Korea as an example of dealing with the Islamic republic.

Under six-nation talks, North Korea has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs in return for a broad package of economic and diplomatic incentives.

ElBaradei said it is time "to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue," warning that military force could spark a global "conflagration."

"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 added.

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

The six major powers involved in talks about Iran's nuclear program will meet in Europe in early November to discuss strengthened UN sanctions against Tehran, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack announced Friday.

Political directors from the foreign ministries of France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany and the United States will meet "toward the end of next week," McCormack told reporters.

Diplomatic sources said the meeting could take place Friday in London

[Scorpion]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.

[lily]

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.



Well......I'm buying it. If we don't trust the very people that we say are in charge of inspecting.......who do we trust?

Scorpion.......I don't think it would be so bad, if Bush would at least change the script. I like a little variety when I'm getting screwed.

[Wndrtch]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


Besides, who believes the UN after the Oil for Food program.

I wonder if Iran is going to ask for that deal?[hr]Well......I'm buying it. If we don't trust the very people that we say are in charge of inspecting.......who do we trust?

So then, Bush is OK with you regarding WMD's in Iraq, given that he was "trusting" our Intel?

Scorpion.......I don't think it would be so bad, if Bush would at least change the script. I like a little variety when I'm getting screwed.
[/quote]

It's not you getting screwed, it would be the Iranian Imums!

That's not a bad thing, given they sponsor terrorists around the globe.

[Scorpion]

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.



Well......I'm buying it. If we don't trust the very people that we say are in charge of inspecting.......who do we trust?

Scorpion.......I don't think it would be so bad, if Bush would at least change the script. I like a little variety when I'm getting screwed.


Who do you trust? Iran? The UN? Bush? I hope "NO" to all of the above. And, after all of the evidence presented, do you actually believe that Iran has no ambitions about becoming a nuclear power in the region?

[PatrickHenry]

I would think that Iran does want nuclear weapons, for their deterrent effect against nuclear armed aggressors!

But the evidence isn't there. Only a commitment to uranium enrichment, which they need if they are to have nuclear power.

Is there any rationale for denying Iran nuclear energy?

[crimzonsol]

If we don't trust the very people that we say are in charge of inspecting.......who do we trust?

The people that are "inspecting" dont care how it gets done, they just want their paycheck other than that they have no stake in the matter. As we have seen before they will look the other way, they will bow to what ever demands a country makes.


I would think that Iran does want nuclear weapons, for their deterrent effect against nuclear armed aggressors!

Aggressor? You mean that country that they attacked the same day it was created with an army about the same size as the population they attacked?
In every real war Israel has been involved in, it has been the deffendent. Israel did not start the wars it was involved in, the other countries started them. The only time Israel has problems is when enemy combatants use humans as shields to defend themselves. If it wasn't for countries urging the Palestinians to rebel, there would not be a problem. Even if we take your scenario, with Israel commiting the genocide of Palestinian people. The only reason they do it is because the feel threatened by the Palestinians. Israel is not the aggessor and I'm not sure that Iran is either, but if Iran would turn down its retoric the Palestinian people would be more likely to find peace. But like Bush they will not turn down the crap because they do not care about the Palestinians.


Is there any rationale for denying Iran nuclear energy?

People believe that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons and this is politics, so its not what is true, it is what people believe to be true that matters.

I think this whole situation could be resolved by a simple arrangement.
Iran should let Israel run their nuclear program, nobody could claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons if Israel is in control of the nuclear material the entire time. Other benifits would include the Iranian people would have the power they need, Israel and Iran would be closer to achieving peace adn more importantly the people would be closer to achieving peace. It would be a win-win situation, but no because both the Iranian and Israeli governments rely to much on fear for them to even consider this.

[lily]

So then, Bush is OK with you regarding WMD's in Iraq, given that he was "trusting" our Intel?

Intel and inspectors are two different things.[hr]

The people that are "inspecting" dont care how it gets done, they just want their paycheck other than that they have no stake in the matter. As we have seen before they will look the other way, they will bow to what ever demands a country makes.

Well, thats your opinion. The IAEA is who the world put in charge of inspecting. Can you tell me what payoffs they recieved from Iran?

I think this whole situation could be resolved by a simple arrangement.
Iran should let Israel run their nuclear program, nobody could claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons if Israel is in control of the nuclear material the entire time. Other benifits would include the Iranian people would have the power they need, Israel and Iran would be closer to achieving peace adn more importantly the people would be closer to achieving peace. It would be a win-win situation, but no because both the Iranian and Israeli governments rely to much on fear for them to even consider this.

Crim........I love you hon........but that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever read.

[preservanation]

ElBaradei "At this stage we need to continue to work through creative diplomacy ... as I don't see any other solution than diplomacy and inspections," ElBaradei said.What a stooge.
This guy is misinformed or a purposefully lying.
He has a record of it.
Follow the money.

[lily]

What a stooge.
This guy is misinformed or a purposefully lying.
He has a record of it.
Follow the money.


I didn't know he had a record of lying.....got some links?

[preservanation]

If he didn't lie, then Bush didn't lie.
Start backing up your claims instead of demanding that others do so.
If you are as correct as you seem to think, it shouldn't be that hard.
If not ...

[Buck Laser]

So then, Bush is OK with you regarding WMD's in Iraq, given that he was "trusting" our Intel?


Ummm, wasn't it El-Baradei and the UN inspectors who told us there were no WMDs in Iraq? Weren't they right? So why should we doubt him now, unless you've already made up your mind? :madlaugh:

[lily]

If he didn't lie, then Bush didn't lie.
Start backing up your claims instead of demanding that others do so.
If you are as correct as you seem to think, it shouldn't be that hard.
If not ...


Hey.........no problem. Just tell me what you want me to link to. I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

In fact el Baradei asked Bush for him to show his.

[gemosological]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:

[crimzonsol]

Well, thats your opinion. The IAEA is who the world put in charge of inspecting. Can you tell me what payoffs they recieved from Iran?

Not getting shot. :nana:
Iran does not have to be the one paying them off. They could very easily decide not to pursue something that is sort of suspicious because they miss their families or they believe that the benifits of pursuit do not out wiegh tthe possible negative repercuations of pursuit. The fact is humans are fallible even more so when they have no stake in the outcome. That coupled with the fact that they could be effected negatively if they do find something lead me to believe that no matter what they say, people will choose their belief according to their own philosophy. They have no real power, they also do not have the best track record missing all of the countries that have obtained nuclear weapons.


Crim........I love you hon........but that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever read.

I know, but hope springs eternal.

[lily]

Not getting shot. :nana:
Iran does not have to be the one paying them off. They could very easily decide not to pursue something that is sort of suspicious because they miss their families or they believe that the benifits of pursuit do not out wiegh tthe possible negative repercuations of pursuit. The fact is humans are fallible even more so when they have no stake in the outcome. That coupled with the fact that they could be effected negatively if they do find something lead me to believe that no matter what they say, people will choose their belief according to their own philosophy. They have no real power, they also do not have the best track record missing all of the countries that have obtained nuclear weapons.[/quote]

That's a lot of what ifs crim. He asked if Bush would show him what proof he has......so the ball is in Bush's court, if he wants to be believed.

Crim........I love you hon........but that has got to be the silliest thing I've ever read.

I know, but hope springs eternal.
[/quote]

You're a good sport for not jumping all over me on that one!:love:

[crimzonsol]

He asked if Bush would show him what proof he has......so the ball is in Bush's court, if he wants to be believed.

The only problem I have with these kind of things is that Iran is supposed to be developing a secret nuclear program. Asking for proof of a secret is asking a question that can not be anwsered with out revealing the source of your information. Not even Bush is stupid enough to give information that will lead to the identity of the source. Personally I believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology because Israel is also one of hte accuserers and unlike Bush they do not lie, they may exagerate, but they never lie. Plus Israel has Mossad, which is I believe to be a more reliant source than Bush and the fact that Mossad can't really afford to be wrong. Mossad is only able to do most of the things it does based on its reputation for getting things right.


That's a lot of what ifs crim.

When no reliable facts exsist what ifs are all we have, once all options have been tried that which is left is the right anwser(or something like that, but you get the idea). Plus there is the fact that when talking about the future, all we can do is speculate.

[jafar00]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


Of course, you forgot to mention that the centrifuges mentioned in this early 2003 article have since been inspected and nothing untoward has been uncovered.[hr]
I think this whole situation could be resolved by a simple arrangement.
Iran should let Israel run their nuclear program, nobody could claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons if Israel is in control of the nuclear material the entire time.

Thanks for my morning snigger Sol :madlaugh:
Of course, the reason Iran is stubbornly going it alone to do everything itself in the nuclear fuel cycle is that they have been screwed in the past by others reneging on deals. They won't budge now.

[PatrickHenry]

Israel... they do not lie...hey never lie. Plus Israel has Mossad, which is I believe to be a more reliant source than Bush and the fact that Mossad can't really afford to be wrong.
crimzonsol, your trust is misplaced.

Israel lies all the time. Why do you think they are more honest than any other nation?

As I recall, the former motto of Mossad was, "by way of deception, thou shalt do war." http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html

And perhaps you have forgotten Ahmed Bouchiki...

[Scorpion]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:


Hello RRD:

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of making baseless accusations about me. By the way, I'm not a conservative so that's two things that you've managed to get wrong in just one post. Well done.

[gemosological]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:


Hello RRD:

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of making baseless accusations about me. By the way, I'm not a conservative so that's two things that you've managed to get wrong in just one post. Well done.


If you had read my post a little closer you would have seen that I was indeed discussing the topic- the grades of fissionable material Iran is producing as opposed to what Bush&Co are accusing- without having any actual proof- Iran of producing. Of course we can all see what you've chosen to focus on, along with what you've chosen to avoid, which tells me my "baseless accusations" might have been uncomfortably close to the truth. As Shakespear once wrote, "Methinks thou protesteth too much" or something like that.

As to you not being a conservative you sure could fool someone with what you say in your posts. You certainly can't be a liberal- none of the liberals I know take the positions you do. It's a classic case of actions- in this case the positions on issues that you take- speaking louder than words- in this case your assertion that you're not a conservative. That's all I have to say on that matter. Other than that would you care to discuss for a bit the dysfunctional mental and emotional peculiarities of those who live their lives on the basis of fears of future "what if's"? Such focuses and mental processes are considered to be a tad unhealthy among the crowd I run with and are generally regarded as the source of a lot of the world's troubles. Could be an interesting discussion if you'd care to engage in it.

RRD
:)

[crimzonsol]

Israel lies all the time.

Can you prove it? I said that they do exaggerate, but they never out right lie. On some matters, it is a matter of perspective.


Why do you think they are more honest than any other nation?

I don't, I think that they are more trust worthy than the UN, Iran and the USA. I may be wrong about Iran, but I have not seen anything which would lead me to believe that they are more trustworthy in general than Israel.


Of course, the reason Iran is stubbornly going it alone to do everything itself in the nuclear fuel cycle is that they have been screwed in the past by others reneging on deals.

I thought that they were unable to obtain nuclear power because the pro-US dictatorship was removed from power, and they have only recently started to reassert their right to nuclear power that was garunteed to them by the US or someone.


They won't budge now.

Could you imagine what would happen in the Middle East, not to mention the belicose rhetoric of Bush, if Israel and Iran worked to gether on something of this importance?


As I recall, the former motto of Mossad was, "by way of deception, thou shalt do war."

If by former motto you mean: be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh or The Hebrew Version:
בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎. Which is commonly misquoted by people who obviously do not know how to read Hebrew as "By way of deception, thou shalt do war." But really means "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." - Proverbs XXIV 6. Is this to what you are reffering to?

[lawless168]

(Century III, Quatrain 60) A "young dark man" will arise as a leader in a Third World country; his main goal is to unite the other Third World countries to do battle with the superpowers. The area of conflict will be in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, particularly around the Adriatic and the Caspian seas and Israel. :ponder:

[PatrickHenry]

If by former motto you mean: be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh or The Hebrew Version:
בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎. Which is commonly misquoted by people who obviously do not know how to read Hebrew as "By way of deception, thou shalt do war." But really means "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." - Proverbs XXIV 6. Is this to what you are reffering to?
Nah. I was talking about Ostrovsky's book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YYTGE1B8L._AA240_.jpg

Fascinating reading...you should check it out.

[gemosological]

(Century III, Quatrain 60) A "young dark man" will arise as a leader in a Third World country; his main goal is to unite the other Third World countries to do battle with the superpowers. The area of conflict will be in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, particularly around the Adriatic and the Caspian seas and Israel. :ponder:


Some would say Nostradamus was obtuse, even vague. I'd venture to say he was crystal clear. Wouldn't you?

RRD
:D

[crimzonsol]

Fascinating reading...you should check it out.

I am reading it. Sorta... I kinda placed on my floor and from there who knows where it went, its probably somewhere under a pile of other stuff.

[jafar00]

(Century III, Quatrain 60) A "young dark man" will arise as a leader in a Third World country; his main goal is to unite the other Third World countries to do battle with the superpowers. The area of conflict will be in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, particularly around the Adriatic and the Caspian seas and Israel. :ponder:


OMG, now I know why Sol wants Iran and Israel united. :madlaugh:

[Scorpion]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:


Hello RRD:

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of making baseless accusations about me. By the way, I'm not a conservative so that's two things that you've managed to get wrong in just one post. Well done.


If you had read my post a little closer you would have seen that I was indeed discussing the topic- the grades of fissionable material Iran is producing as opposed to what Bush&Co are accusing- without having any actual proof- Iran of producing. Of course we can all see what you've chosen to focus on, along with what you've chosen to avoid, which tells me my "baseless accusations" might have been uncomfortably close to the truth. As Shakespear once wrote, "Methinks thou protesteth too much" or something like that.

As to you not being a conservative you sure could fool someone with what you say in your posts. You certainly can't be a liberal- none of the liberals I know take the positions you do. It's a classic case of actions- in this case the positions on issues that you take- speaking louder than words- in this case your assertion that you're not a conservative. That's all I have to say on that matter. Other than that would you care to discuss for a bit the dysfunctional mental and emotional peculiarities of those who live their lives on the basis of fears of future "what if's"? Such focuses and mental processes are considered to be a tad unhealthy among the crowd I run with and are generally regarded as the source of a lot of the world's troubles. Could be an interesting discussion if you'd care to engage in it.RRD
:)


No thanks. I try to avoid unnecessarily rude people who engage in blatantly ignorant conjecture.

[PatrickHenry]

Fascinating reading...you should check it out.

I am reading it. Sorta... I kinda placed on my floor and from there who knows where it went, its probably somewhere under a pile of other stuff.
Heehee!
I know how that goes...

But there was one other thing in this thread that I need to call you on my little Jewish buddy...


I would think that Iran does want nuclear weapons, for their deterrent effect against nuclear armed aggressors!

Aggressor? You mean that country that they attacked the same day it was created with an army about the same size as the population they attacked?If I am not mistaken, you are accusing Iran of attacking Israel in the 1948 war.

Would that be a fair assessment of your statement?

You might think about revising your ahistorical view...

I said nothing about Israel in this context, but you assume I am speaking of Israeli aggression? There are other nuclear powers threatening the Islamic Republic just now, y'know...

But if a nuclear armed Israel IS threatening, don't you think a nuclear deterrent is a fair standoff?

If you threaten me with a gun while I have only a spear...I am gonna think about where to get a rifle. :evil:

[gemosological]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:


Hello RRD:

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of making baseless accusations about me. By the way, I'm not a conservative so that's two things that you've managed to get wrong in just one post. Well done.


If you had read my post a little closer you would have seen that I was indeed discussing the topic- the grades of fissionable material Iran is producing as opposed to what Bush&Co are accusing- without having any actual proof- Iran of producing. Of course we can all see what you've chosen to focus on, along with what you've chosen to avoid, which tells me my "baseless accusations" might have been uncomfortably close to the truth. As Shakespear once wrote, "Methinks thou protesteth too much" or something like that.

As to you not being a conservative you sure could fool someone with what you say in your posts. You certainly can't be a liberal- none of the liberals I know take the positions you do. It's a classic case of actions- in this case the positions on issues that you take- speaking louder than words- in this case your assertion that you're not a conservative. That's all I have to say on that matter. Other than that would you care to discuss for a bit the dysfunctional mental and emotional peculiarities of those who live their lives on the basis of fears of future "what if's"? Such focuses and mental processes are considered to be a tad unhealthy among the crowd I run with and are generally regarded as the source of a lot of the world's troubles. Could be an interesting discussion if you'd care to engage in it.RRD
:)


No thanks. I try to avoid unnecessarily rude people who engage in blatantly ignorant conjecture.


Who's being rude, Scorpion? Me, who is challenging you to back up your words and positions, or you, who is calling me rude and ignorant? Looks to me like you're just practicing cowardly avoidance rather than being man or woman enough to stand up and defend yourself and your positions. Seems to happen on a regular basis with a lot of conservatives on a lot of forums- confront them with their own misguided views and hypocrisy and they go silent, say they can't fight a mere six people on a forum or say "Bye" and run away rather than back up their own views. That behavior alone says a lot about the validity of their- or your- take on things, don't you think?

RRD
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon....:fight: !!!

[Scorpion]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:


Hello RRD:

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of making baseless accusations about me. By the way, I'm not a conservative so that's two things that you've managed to get wrong in just one post. Well done.


If you had read my post a little closer you would have seen that I was indeed discussing the topic- the grades of fissionable material Iran is producing as opposed to what Bush&Co are accusing- without having any actual proof- Iran of producing. Of course we can all see what you've chosen to focus on, along with what you've chosen to avoid, which tells me my "baseless accusations" might have been uncomfortably close to the truth. As Shakespear once wrote, "Methinks thou protesteth too much" or something like that.

As to you not being a conservative you sure could fool someone with what you say in your posts. You certainly can't be a liberal- none of the liberals I know take the positions you do. It's a classic case of actions- in this case the positions on issues that you take- speaking louder than words- in this case your assertion that you're not a conservative. That's all I have to say on that matter. Other than that would you care to discuss for a bit the dysfunctional mental and emotional peculiarities of those who live their lives on the basis of fears of future "what if's"? Such focuses and mental processes are considered to be a tad unhealthy among the crowd I run with and are generally regarded as the source of a lot of the world's troubles. Could be an interesting discussion if you'd care to engage in it.RRD
:)


No thanks. I try to avoid unnecessarily rude people who engage in blatantly ignorant conjecture.


Who's being rude, Scorpion? Me, who is challenging you to back up your words and positions, or you, who is calling me rude and ignorant? Looks to me like you're just practicing cowardly avoidance rather than being man or woman enough to stand up and defend yourself and your positions. Seems to happen on a regular basis with a lot of conservatives on a lot of forums- confront them with their own misguided views and hypocrisy and they go silent, say they can't fight a mere six people on a forum or say "Bye" and run away rather than back up their own views. That behavior alone says a lot about the validity of their- or your- take on things, don't you think?

RRD
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon....:fight: !!!


Thanks for confirming my last post. As I've said, I've made a choice not to debate you because you are unnecessarily rude and make ignorant characterizations about my political positon or affiliations. You seem politically savy but your incivility, especially about conservatives, casts a shadow on your intelligence.

If that offends you or you disagree with me, well tough. Have a pleasant evening.

[gemosological]

Well, here we go again with Jafar trying to convince anyone who will listen that Iran is a misunderstood peace loving nation.

There may not be any evidence that Iran is in the process of making a nuclear weapon, but there is copious evidence that Iran continues to seek the technology and develop the means to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Nice try Jafar, but I don't think anyone is buying the load that you're trying to sell.


I don't believe that jafar00 said that Iran was a "peace loving nation", Scorpion. Those were your words, not jafar's. Also, the grade of fuel necessary to operate a nuclear power plant is substantially less than the grade of fissionable material necessary to build a nuclear weapon- and el Baradei has not found any evidence that they are creating that grade of fissionable material. And no one in their right mind goes attacking another, or threatening to, for something that they "may think" someone else will do- especially when there is no evidence that another is doing what we may think they're doing. Personally I get tired of listening to all this fear-filled "what if" talk. It's pretty childish, actually. It should be blatantly obvious by now what that kind of "thinking" leads to. But, unfortunately, there are those that simply seem incapable of grasping the consequences of such dysfunctional and paranoid thinking or of learning necessary lessons from the past- and you seem to be one of their number. Sad, it is. What's that old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"? Don't tell me you're going to allow yourself to be duped twice in a row by Bush&Co, Scorpion. That would destroy whatever credibility you and your fellow conservatives have left. But maybe that's what needs to happen- it might be the best thing that could happen to this country.

RRD.
:rolleyes:


Hello RRD:

How about discussing the topic at hand instead of making baseless accusations about me. By the way, I'm not a conservative so that's two things that you've managed to get wrong in just one post. Well done.


If you had read my post a little closer you would have seen that I was indeed discussing the topic- the grades of fissionable material Iran is producing as opposed to what Bush&Co are accusing- without having any actual proof- Iran of producing. Of course we can all see what you've chosen to focus on, along with what you've chosen to avoid, which tells me my "baseless accusations" might have been uncomfortably close to the truth. As Shakespear once wrote, "Methinks thou protesteth too much" or something like that.

As to you not being a conservative you sure could fool someone with what you say in your posts. You certainly can't be a liberal- none of the liberals I know take the positions you do. It's a classic case of actions- in this case the positions on issues that you take- speaking louder than words- in this case your assertion that you're not a conservative. That's all I have to say on that matter. Other than that would you care to discuss for a bit the dysfunctional mental and emotional peculiarities of those who live their lives on the basis of fears of future "what if's"? Such focuses and mental processes are considered to be a tad unhealthy among the crowd I run with and are generally regarded as the source of a lot of the world's troubles. Could be an interesting discussion if you'd care to engage in it.RRD
:)


No thanks. I try to avoid unnecessarily rude people who engage in blatantly ignorant conjecture.


Who's being rude, Scorpion? Me, who is challenging you to back up your words and positions, or you, who is calling me rude and ignorant? Looks to me like you're just practicing cowardly avoidance rather than being man or woman enough to stand up and defend yourself and your positions. Seems to happen on a regular basis with a lot of conservatives on a lot of forums- confront them with their own misguided views and hypocrisy and they go silent, say they can't fight a mere six people on a forum or say "Bye" and run away rather than back up their own views. That behavior alone says a lot about the validity of their- or your- take on things, don't you think?

RRD
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon....:fight: !!!


Thanks for confirming my last post. As I've said, I've made a choice not to debate you because you are unnecessarily rude and make ignorant characterizations about my political positon or affiliations. You seem politically savy but your incivility, especially about conservatives, casts a shadow on your intelligence.

If that offends you or you disagree with me, well tough. Have a pleasant evening.


And by bolding what you did you confirmed my take as well, lol! I figured you would've bolded my "C'mon, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon...:fight: !!!" to make your point, but you didn't. All you bolded was my mentioning of the well known and accepted psychological concept of avoidance- which is, according to most psychological and behavioral schools of thought is a symptom of fear and denial of reality and the truth and the inescapable and all-to-visible reactions to challenges and the truth of how conservatives tend to react when confronted with facts they cannot escape. But you didn't bold my "C'mon, c'mon, c'mon" challenge, which I will admit was a very real- and deliberate- confrontational challenge. I find it interesting that you should have failed to bold that part of my post but chose instead to bold and label as rude my valid challenges and observations of you and conservatives in general. Yet, at the same time, you have failed to address my challenges in any meaningful way.

As to incivility towards conservatives, such demonstrations of avoidance and denial as can be seen on a consistent basis (thanks for confirming my suspicion that you are a conservative, btw!) does tend to cause me to want to be a tad "incivil" to those conservatives who do run away from aspects of reality and truths which do not fit into their preconceived notions of whatever it is they want to believe. Tough guys and gals and machismo mentalities do not impress me. People who can face up to the truth and reality- about themselves or the world at large- do, however.

If that offends you or you disagree with me, well tough. Have a pleasant evening.

RRD
:)

[crimzonsol]

If I am not mistaken, you are accusing Iran of attacking Israel in the 1948 war.

I believe it was that war, it may have been the Six-Day war, and it may have been Iraq. I am not sure, but I believe it was Iran who supplied weapons to the Palestinian militias and they sent troops, but they did not really do anything except sit and evaluate the fighting ability of Israel. So they did not attack Israel, they just created the situation were Israel could be attacked.


I said nothing about Israel in this context, but you assume I am speaking of Israeli aggression? There are other nuclear powers threatening the Islamic Republic just now, y'know...

I assumed your were talking about countries that are threatening to Iran as well as threatening Iran. The USA is pretty screwed when it comes to Iran, unless Iran attacks American soldiers without provocation, the USA could not muster the political will needed to launch an attack.


But if a nuclear armed Israel IS threatening, don't you think a nuclear deterrent is a fair standoff?

If Israel does not precieve a threat, they it will nor act. It would not risk unifying the entire Middle East in a war against Israel, survival is dictating their policy and that would be the opposite of survival.


If you threaten me with a gun while I have only a spear...I am gonna think about where to get a rifle.

And then I am going to have a reason to act on my threats.

Peace is what we are trying to achieve, part of the peace process in the Middle East is accepting that Israel will not relinquash Nuclear monopoly untill it does not have to fear that another war against it can spring up at any momment. If Iran was serious about peace they would try to get Israel to work with them on this project. I may seem to be only talking about Iran and its failure to help with peace, but as you probably know it is alot harder to critize your side when others are all ready doing that for you.

[PatrickHenry]

If I am not mistaken, you are accusing Iran of attacking Israel in the 1948 war.

I believe it was that war, it may have been the Six-Day war, and it may have been Iraq. I am not sure, but I believe it was Iran who supplied weapons to the Palestinian militias and they sent troops, but they did not really do anything except sit and evaluate the fighting ability of Israel. So they did not attack Israel, they just created the situation were Israel could be attacked.It seemed that you were saying that Iran attacked Israel. To my knowledge, that has never happened! The only thing hostile is the rhetoric and the allegations of supplying Hizballah.

What I was talking about is why a nation might want Nukes. It seems Israel wanted them. Is it so that they can defend against other nuclear-armed nations? No? Then why? Maybe to threaten other nations that don't have Nukes?


I said nothing about Israel in this context, but you assume I am speaking of Israeli aggression? There are other nuclear powers threatening the Islamic Republic just now, y'know...

I assumed your were talking about countries that are threatening to Iran as well as threatening Iran...Unsure of your argument here...


But if a nuclear armed Israel IS threatening, don't you think a nuclear deterrent is a fair standoff?

If Israel does not precieve a threat, they it will nor act. It would not risk unifying the entire Middle East in a war against Israel, survival is dictating their policy and that would be the opposite of survival. Again, I don't get your meaning...


If you threaten me with a gun while I have only a spear...I am gonna think about where to get a rifle.

And then I am going to have a reason to act on my threats.
Unh...If you have a gun, and threaten me, but I only have a spear, so I go get a gun...then you need to shoot? Is that what you are saying? I hope not...

Israel shoulda left well enough alone and not gone the nuclear route. If it's good for them, a lot of the world thinks it must be good for a nation ten times their size, like Iran...

[I Like Beer]

That's not a bad thing, given they sponsor terrorists around the globe.


Would you agree that all states that sponsor and give safe haven to convicted terrorists should not have access to nuclear weapons?

[preservanation]

Bahrain's Crown Prince, Sheik Salman bin Isa al-Khalifa, said Friday that Iran is striving to acquire nuclear weaponry, Israel Radio reported.


Technicians work at the reactor building of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, some 750 miles south of Teheran.

Al Khalifa said that at the very least, Iran is attempting to gain the ability to produce nuclear weaponry.

The statement would make Bahrain the first Arab nation in the Persian Gulf to claim that Iran is attempting to deceive world leaders in relation to its nuclear aspirations.

Al Khalifa warned that the crisis could worsen and draw the region into military conflict. For this reason, he said, it must be resolved by diplomatic means.

Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Thursday tried dispelling fears that Germany is reluctant to back new sanctions against Iran because of its strong commercial ties with Teheran. Steinmeier made it clear that Germany is in sync with other Western powers.

Speaking at a news conference in Tel Aviv after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Steinmeier stressed that Germany would not stand in the way of tougher sanctions.

"Germany's position does not differ from that of the United States or some other European countries. If Iran refuses to provide answers, we should think about the possibility of European sanctions," he said.

Asked if Germany would support further sanctions, he said, "Yes, if what we are trying now is not successful, then we must not only think about sanctions, but also decide on them." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380720002&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[crimzonsol]

What I was talking about is why a nation might want Nukes. It seems Israel wanted them. Is it so that they can defend against other nuclear-armed nations?

Originally I believe they were worried about the United Soviet Socialist Republics, who was supplying Syria and Egypt with arms, arming Syria with nuclear weapons. After they had them, they had the same sort of deterent that the US had. They had them just in case they would need them to detter Syria from using them if they got them. Once Warsaw collapsed Israel had nuclear weapons and the countries no longer had away of obtaining nuclear weapons besides developing nuclear weapons by themselves. Ever since Syria & co. could not obtain nuclear weapons they have not made any aggressive moves towards Israel, notice that Syria recently became more aggressive towards a country armed with nuclear weapons, why would Syria do this unless they had away of countering Israels nuclear arsenal?

As a side point, Israels nuclear arsenal created a semblance of peace, until good old America did what it does best, fuck everything up. Iran and Syria are not threatened by Israel, they are threatened by the USA they always have been. They saw Israel as the USAs attack dog, so they reacted by inflameing their people. Unfortunately they lost control and the hatred of Israel has taken on a life of its own. I believe that the majority of people want peace with Israel, but they think that they are alone and that they will be singled out if they speak their mind. Israels nuclear arsenal convinced the people that it was not worth it to attack Israel directly, but if they were to ever gain a counter to Israels arsenal they should switch from indirect attack to direct attack. This is why Israel does not want other countries to gain nuclear weapons, they would have to be in a state of war almost 24/7.


Unsure of your argument here...

It was a joke.


Again, I don't get your meaning...

Why would Israel threaten those who are not taking action on the speaches given byt other countries leaders and ignore those who are acting on that same word?


Unh...If you have a gun, and threaten me, but I only have a spear, so I go get a gun...then you need to shoot?

Depends what you are threatening me with, if you are threatening to kill me then yes I would need to shoot. If you are threatening to point your gun at me I would need to shoot. If you were threatening to get your gun and then we would have a contest to see who was the better shooter, I would not need to shoot you.

[lily]

[quote=preservanation]

Al Khalifa warned that the crisis could worsen and draw the region into military conflict. For this reason, he said, it must be resolved by diplomatic means.