Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AA777
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 7:07 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:56 pm



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 2):

What diplomacy? All I saw was some pretty intense saber rattling.

Exactly.... as usual Bush and his megalomaniacal views on America / our foreign policy were trying to drum up Iran as a threat so that we could have justification to attack them in the future.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16):
At least right now we don't have another Democrat with itchy fingers ready to press the button.

Haha, you've got to be joking me. Bush would do it in a heartbeat if he could get any support. That moron was still trying to talk TODAY about how Iran is still a threat and needs to be further sanctioned... Its typical of him, and the rest of the Republican party which still tries to hang on to every ounce of hope that their rather delusional beliefs about the 'threats' in the world are true so that they may maintain some legitimacy. I mean it is BEYOND me how people can give this Administration even the slightest amount of credibility. They plan a war in Iraq, drum up fear in the US so that they get public support for a pre-emptive strike, on the basis of Iraq having WMD and then, to this day, 4 years later- we have yet to find anything. They were not wrong, the intelligence was not wrong, it was falsified and we as the American people were intentionally misled. It seems that people have a one track mind and that fear has been so deeply embedded in some people's minds that we have become akin to animals, biting at and gnashing our teeth to any PERCEIVED threat.... real or imagined.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 41):
I'm interested in knowing what some of you would do to deal with Iran? Another pre-emptive war? I don't really see any viable solutions in this thread, perhaps I haven't been looking hard enough. Thanks.

Haha, APPARENTLY Its still an option! It worked so well in Iraq- clearly we did the right thing there. Its so true that some people are too proud to/ simply never learn from their mistakes.

-AA777
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:49 am



Quoting AA777 (Reply 100):
They were not wrong, the intelligence was not wrong, it was falsified and we as the American people were intentionally misled. It seems that people have a one track mind and that fear has been so deeply embedded in some people's minds that we have become akin to animals, biting at and gnashing our teeth to any PERCEIVED threat.... real or imagined.

It is all to do with a little aphorism to go along with "Sex sells" the relevant one being "Fear elects".

And you have to be sorry for the more realistic pollies, they have to make the "right noises" to get elected, otherwise they are accused of selling out on National security. We have just seen it play out here. Now our spooks are probably going to have to explain to their new masters how it came about that could not manage to conduct questioning in accord with the law of the land. Not to mention Dept Immigration having to explain their "Export a citizen campaign" used to keep up the popularity of the last government until they started exporting crippled women.
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:37 am



Quoting Deskflier (Reply 92):
Just remember, the last time the Bush administration brushed off the CIA like this, it resulted in 9-11.

Oh yeah...brilliant analogy there...

..let's see --

CIA brief: IRAQ to attack NYC/DC with commercial Jetliners...

BUSH Inc: Blows if off...

RESULT: 9/11 occurs.... yep, that's exactly how it occured. And boy is Iraq paying dearly for that right now..

Now where is the 'making shit up' file cabinet?

BN747
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:52 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 95):
1. This guy has a huge axe to grind and his comments should be taken with that in mind. The NIE report is legitimate and basically accurate.

Just like the three central authors of this congressionally inspired NIE? Guys known to be partisans with axes to grind?

And why wasn't this NIE used to formulate policy? Why was it used to attempt to embarrass the president/administration and released in such a way to reduce the political ability of anyone seeking to limit the Iranians capacity to process fuel? It was done that way because the people who orchestrated the affair are more interested in gaining power than forwarding the US public good. They just hurt international efforts and made it easier for the Iranians to do whatever they wanted. No one was going to enter Iran anytime soon, and the cries from the left about that were hysteria. The pressure was needed to ensure Iran complied with international demands to verify their nuclear processes through inspections and restrictions they've been systematically refusing to allow.

Who here wants Iran to have an unrestricted nuclear program with their current administration?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 90):
Hamas is sponsored by Saudi Arabia,

THanks...I realize that. Saddam was paying $30K to each family of a suicide/homicide bomber in Israel/Palestine. That's why I was referring to that organization.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:33 am



Quoting BN747 (Reply 102):
CIA brief: IRAQ to attack NYC/DC with commercial Jetliners...

source?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:42 am



Quoting AA777 (Reply 100):
That moron was still trying to talk TODAY about how Iran is still a threat and needs to be further sanctioned...

What has essentially changed about Iran since last week before this Intelligence report came out? What happened in 2003 to make them stop their nuclear weapons program? What are their intentions now? Given that the leaders have not backed off their statements about wanting to see the destruction of Israel and well as all the other inflammatory statements they have made, what has changed when it comes to their intentions? Do you honestly think the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Iran?
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:14 am



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 104):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 102):
CIA brief: IRAQ to attack NYC/DC with commercial Jetliners...

source?

Even you can't possibly be that clueless...

...I mean ..really--

BN747
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:16 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 105):
Do you honestly think the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Iran?

No. But the world would be better off without a nuclear armed US, Russia, France, UK, China, India, Israel and that bulwark of peace and stability -- Pakistan. Oops, forgot North Korea. Did I miss any? No one wants Iran to make a bomb. The issue is how to persuade them not to, and threatening to blow them to kingdom come isn't likely to produce the hoped-for result.

To my mind, this new intelligence report (assuming its correct, which I concede is dangerous) is a golden opportunity for Bush to lower the temperature and have a go at engagement. But no, he's incapable of that. Perhaps the best news is that he and Cheney will have zero support -- internationally and domestically -- for any kind of military strike, and they've only got a year left. With luck, the next administration will be smarter (I know, another dangerous assumption).
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:17 pm



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 111):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 106):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 104):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 102):
CIA brief: IRAQ to attack NYC/DC with commercial Jetliners...

source?


Even you can't possibly be that clueless...

Instead of trying to sound smart, answer the question.

Pre-9/11 we had vague intel that OBL was planning something, probably a hijacking, sometime in August or September, somewhere in the US, which up to then had always been about holding hostages. Are you blaming Bush for not having shut down the airliner industry for a few months, just in case? How do you think the public would have handled that?

DUDE!!! I know you're so right-winged you can't can even look left...but has it affected you vision entirely???

IRAQ never " attacked NYC/DC with commercial Jetliners..." it was a sarcastic dig at attacking the wrong contry ..in reply to Deskfliers absurd response reply#92

..and you're here asking a source...? Oh brother--

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 111):

Quoting AA777 (Reply 100):
They were not wrong, the intelligence was not wrong, it was falsified and we as the American people were intentionally misled.

It was falsified by Saddam. just like pre 9/11 nobody seriously imagined people using airliners as missiles, nobody seriously considered the possibility that Saddam would want the world (and his own people -

AA777 is right on the money! You Cfalk and dead wrong! 'Nobody seriously imagined people using airliners as missiles"??? Where'd you get that nonsense from? Oh wait...the Bush/Rice ' we would have moved heaven and earth if we knew..blah, blah, blah...."

..well there's a ABC NEWS Peter Jennings clip airing right after 9/11 showing NORAD practicing that exact senario just 2 years EARLIER! Have you any idea what the cost was to stage such an exercise? Yeah...in the millions, a lot of people knew such a scenario was very very real. A lot of 'key people' knew. And for two years later, it to actually happen... I'm hard pressed to believe that all those who participated in the NORAD exercise had retired or forgotten such an exercise when the real deal went down-

I have the clip where Jennings makes the revelation and post it were that capable given my membership status. But I most likely it can be googled or on youtube. But bottomline..a lot of people knew, do when that infamous and ignored PDB came down...some alarm bells (louder than a pair of JT3Ds) should gone off -- somewhere!

And just as AA777 says "They were not wrong, the intelligence was not wrong, it was falsified and we as the American people were intentionally misled."

...he's spot on. We were BS'ed in every way possible into going into Iraq...by this Admin. Have one of those 'facial expression' experts scrutinize Bush's statements in the video posted above by B752fanatic in post #3... an untrained casual observer can tell Bush is lying thru his teeth "when he's speaking", he's comes across like a kid trying to weasel his way put of huge blunder every time he tries to 'justify' something. It's clear he's resisted (every step of the way I might add) 'the offer' to "appear convincing" lessons (for whenever speaking on matters you know to be untrue)... and it's so blatantly obvious to the average viewer..it's even more earth-shattering that the press let's it slide they way they do. It's PRECISELY like someone trying to play the Patty Hearst (bank robbery card) " I was brainwashed into doing it" -- and EVERYONE says " Oh okay... we understand now". And no one question's squat...and with Bush, he gets a Patty Hearst Pass every time he speaks publicly -- and no one dares to challenge him on it....! In the most critical (literally) age of media ever...and people let this guy speak this nonsense and they act as if Tony Soprano is speaking and no one dares to 'say a word'.

BN747
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6988
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:36 pm

You know I really do believe that if President Bush were to declare Santa Claus a terrorist threat, and announce that he believed he intended dropping anthrax-coated cookies down every chimney in the US this Christmas, that some people would actually believe him.

And they would be clamouring for a pre-emtive strike on the North Pole.  Yeah sure
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:45 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 116):
Quoting Arrow (Reply 115):
The smart despots out there all know how to play us like a fiddle.

-
They are not smart, but just fail to see that many Westerners do not understand them and that the result can be dangerous to them.

Not only that, but the issue of whether Saddam had been bluffing was extensively discussed at the time. Not perhaps in the White Ho, but then their actions are commonly not a response to evidence. You have to hope that they get the response to the Sub-prime mortgage crisis correct and better targeted than most of their other responses (looks as if you were right Dougloid some months ago).

I fear you are not wrong Braybuddy. Although the target might be redefined to parts of Finland where opposition was been sensed and there are rumours that Santa sources his anthrax spreading reindeer herds from there.  Wow!  Wow!
 
BN747
Posts: 7934
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:12 pm



Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 118):
You know I really do believe that if President Bush were to declare Santa Claus a terrorist threat, and announce that he believed he intended dropping anthrax-coated cookies down every chimney in the US this Christmas, that some people would actually believe him.

And they would be clamouring for a pre-emtive strike on the North Pole.

AGREED!!! And some of those ardent believers would challenge you for proof if you were to step forward and say Bush was lying... yet Bush word to these people is like solid gold -- simply mind-boggling!


BN747
 
sbworcs
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:55 pm



Quoting Viaggiare (Reply 77):
It is apparently true that in 2003 Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time" Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Army Radio."But in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon."

I think the whole problem here is that the US government will be perceived by others as placing higher weight on the credibility of this comment or investigation than into any number of other reports stating the obsious. Wheher true or not the perception from overseas is that according to the US Israel is the only right minded country in the middle east that can be trusted
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:08 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 114):
> one is the US/UK attack against Iraq

That is the correct reply.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 114):
> another one is the extreme costs involved

When you are sitting on as much oil as the Iranians, and when you really don't have to answer to the people, cost is not a factor.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 114):
> another one is the uncertainty whether the target can be reached

Building a bomb is a much harder technological feat. Ask the Chinese, guidance technology can be bought.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 114):
there were considerations about what to do if HAVING an A-bomb

I think they have made it quite clear as to what they would like to do if they had one.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 114):
> and finally, both, but Iran in particular, had not even really started the nuclear program

Again, how do we really know that they are not paper engineering a bomb in some back room some where?

Quoting AA777 (Reply 100):
They were not wrong, the intelligence was not wrong, it was falsified and we as the American people were intentionally misled.

Source please.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:33 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 122):
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 114):
> another one is the extreme costs involved

When you are sitting on as much oil as the Iranians, and when you really don't have to answer to the people, cost is not a factor.

And how much oil is that? Please provide your data, reserves (1P, 2P and 3P) current production rates and the life of the current reserves at present production rates. Then let us have an indication of the recovery costs for the last 20% of the Iranian reserves as secondary and tertiary recovery methods have to be applied to recover that oil.

Note: the 31.9% increase in overall reserves (category not stated) between 2001 and 2002 should be explained in terms of the 2001 exploration results.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:44 pm

Here is an IPS story on this issue:

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40338

Quote:
Despite the White House spin that the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) supports its policy of increasing pressure on Iran, the estimate not only directly contradicts the George W. Bush administration's line on Iranian intentions regarding nuclear weapons, but points to a link between Tehran's 2003 decision to halt research on weaponisation and its decision to negotiate with European foreign ministers on both nuclear and Iranian security concerns.

 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:04 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 123):
And how much oil is that? Please provide your data, reserves (1P, 2P and 3P) current production rates and the life of the current reserves at present production rates.

Nice one! While he's at it, he might want to dig out an opinion on just how far behind the 8-ball Iran's ongoing petroleum exploration efforts are in the wake of sanctions by the rest of the world that keep the big players out of the loop. You're only as good as your last gusher.

Interesting take on this in today's Vancouver Sun, suggesting that the NIE report probably went too far. Read piece here:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...487a7b-1ef7-48b6-8092-b40bfb03239b

And here's an interesting excerpt:

Numerous reports from Washington say the NIE is the result of the determination of the intelligence agencies to reassert their analytical independence after they were Shanghaied into providing spurious evidence to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But the report is also thought to be part of an effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the top generals in the Pentagon to save Bush from the relentless drive for war with Iran being pushed by Vice-President Dick Cheney and the remaining neo-conservative ideologues.

Rice and company may well have saved Bush from another foolhardy war, but the way it was done has made the president look even more semi-detached than usual.


Not sure I agree with all of it -- but it takes a more balanced look at the mess the US has made of it, and points the finger once again at that Darth Vader character in the Veep's office.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:04 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 123):
And how much oil is that?

Doesn't really matter. What was the price of oil 4 years ago? What is it today? What will it be 4 years from now?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

Quoting Arrow (Reply 125):
While he's at it, he might want to dig out an opinion on just how far behind the 8-ball Iran's ongoing petroleum exploration efforts are in the wake of sanctions by the rest of the world that keep the big players out of the loop. You're only as good as your last gusher.

And if they are being sanctioned, where are they going?

Iran, while smart enough to see that it might be a good idea to diversify their energy sources, since that makes for good press, might also be smart enough to couch ongoing technological research in that diversification attempt. Again, the big questions are why did they suddenly feel the need to stop research in 2003 and further, if left to their own, what would their intentions be regarding nuclear weapons research? Rather than continually criticizing the United States in general and President Bush in particular, how about a fair assessment of what the Iranian leadership has in mind?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:30 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 126):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 123):
And how much oil is that?

Doesn't really matter. What was the price of oil 4 years ago? What is it today? What will it be 4 years from now?

It really matters, but exactly how it matters, depends on what your argument is. Just now, the type of argument you are making is not at all clear.

The Iranians think they do not have sufficient oil to waste on power generation. Basically, you are saying that what Iranians think does not matter. You stated "When you are sitting on as much oil as the Iranians, and when you really don't have to answer to the people, cost is not a factor."

Apart from the logical disconnect between quantity and cost, I asked how much they had. And you have not stated how much they have.

Come to that, since when was cost not a factor in the oil industry, regardless of the price. If you mean the sensitivity of reserves to price considerations, then you should give your cost of extraction vs reserves curves so we can all understand your argument - assuming that it is now that the increase in oil prices has increased the effective reserves.

I just want to see your data. I would not have thought that the reserves for the limestone reservoirs would be much influenced. What sort of assumptions are you making for the offshore platforms producing from the Burgan sands?

WADR, while Americans as a group might be well placed to comment on how to develop an oil industry, they appear to be poorly placed to comment on how to conserve oil reserves and long terms aspects of the use of oil reserves. I would think that the Norwegians might be better able to comment there - or the blue eyed Arabs of the North as they were once disparagingly called, by guess who!!
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:48 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 127):
It really matters, but exactly how it matters, depends on what your argument is. Just now, the type of argument you are making is not at all clear.

It is perfectly clear. No matter what it costs to extract, if it is being sanctioned and not sold now, it will be sold later, and someone will be willing to pay the price of extraction. The same has happened in west Texas twice in the past 25 years. How much do they have? I'll go by the CIA fact book that I linked too.
http://www.cia.gov/library/publicati...ns/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

Oil - proved reserves:
138.4 billion bbl based on Iranian claims (1 January 2006)

If you wish to dispute that, go ahead, no matter what source I use I'm sure you'll find fault with it. The fact is that they sit on an oil field and the price of that commodity is not going down.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 127):
The Iranians think they do not have sufficient oil to waste on power generation.

That is not their official position. Their official position is that they wish to diversify their ability to generate power and one way they wish to do that is through the use of nuclear power.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 127):
Basically, you are saying that what Iranians think does not matter. You stated "When you are sitting on as much oil as the Iranians, and when you really don't have to answer to the people, cost is not a factor."

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter what the average Abdul on the street in Iran thinks. The government will use the profits generated from whatever oil sales it makes to whatever ends it wishes and if that is not enough to get the job done, then they will take it from somewhere else, cost will not be a factor since the public will have no say.

None of this however touches on the two questions I have asked and only one, and it was the easy one, has an answer:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 110):
Again, what are the Iranians intentions? They are the ones that will make the call on what happens with their nuclear weapons program. Why did they stop in 2003? What convinced them to stop then?

 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:51 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 128):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 127):
The Iranians think they do not have sufficient oil to waste on power generation.

That is not their official position. Their official position is that they wish to diversify their ability to generate power and one way they wish to do that is through the use of nuclear power.

You seem to be missing the point that they actually have a reason to want to diversify their sources of power. One that is obscured by asserting that they have "oil to burn" as it were.

Yes, stated reserves for Iran are about as you say, but no qualification of confidence levels is available and there is no explanation of the sudden accretion of about 30 billion barrel about 5 years ago. Almost certainly, that oil does not exist.

If Shell gave these data in their reports, they would be delisted immediately. Why apply one set of standards to commercial organizations but accept data that are clearly flawed when it relates to a declared enemy?

I don't know what caused them to stop, but they did say they had stopped. Just until this month, quite a few refused to believe them. And now, in one of his famous shifts of "reasons" GWB is insisting that even the knowledge at to how to construct nucular weapons has to be eliminated. It is lucky that he is focusing on nucular weapons, because wiki and numerous textbooks dating back to about 1946 only tell you how to make nuclear ones and presumably would have to be eliminated had they had the temerity to explain nucular weapons.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:05 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 129):
You seem to be missing the point that they actually have a reason to want to diversify their sources of power.

No I am not missing the point. What you seem to be missing is the side reason for wanting nuclear power. Even taking away 30 billion barrels leaves them with a tremendous amount of oil. Compare that to insisting that they be allowed to have their uranium enrichment plant at Natanz even though all their enriched uranium needs are met under contract by Russia. Just because a program is called civilian by the government does not mean that the program in question does not have military applications and that is part of the problem with this NIE. It very narrowly discriminates between what is wholly civilian and what could be military. Whats more troubling is that the if you look at the history of the atomic bomb here in the U.S. the theoretical and engineering side was always way out front of the weapons grade material side. We only had three bombs available in 1945 not because we had trouble building the actual weapons, but because weapons grade material was not available in mass quantities. The same is true in Iran today. But as long as they are enriching their own uranium, that will not always be the case. So although they have stopped the research and development of an atomic bomb, as the President and the SecDef have said, "they can restart it at any time". How do you know that once they have enough enriched uranium to make more than one bomb, and have developed their Shahab missiles accuracy that they won't do just that? Left out of the press for some strange reason, that possibility also shares the top key finding in the NIE.

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
We judge with high confidence
that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium
enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously
undeclared nuclear work.

I also find it rather strange that the authors have a high confidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 yet a few judgements down:

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.


So they are telling us they are "highly confident" that Iran stopped its program in 2003 yet they are only "moderately confident" about whether Iran had restarted the program as of mid 2007 and they have no idea of whether or not Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons or not. That worries me more than why they stopped in 2003 simply because the authors are more unsure of the situation now than they were back then.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 129):
I don't know what caused them to stop, but they did say they had stopped.

Yes, and for once Iran whole heartedly agrees with an intelligence estimate by the U.S. while many of our allies don't. Go figure. The fact that they have stopped overtly using military means to achieve an end does not in any way mean that they have not adopted another way to achieve the same end. In essence that is all that this current NIE says, that Iran has stopped their military atomic arms work. There is no way that anyone can legitimately say they have stopped all research and development as long as they are enriching uranium. So the question remains, what are their intentions? I'm not alone in asking that question either, or in questioning the summation of the latest NIE.

http://www.iranwatch.org/government/us-cia-irannie-1107.pdf

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5363057.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5363173.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/932403.html
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:28 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 130):
So the question remains, what are their intentions?

IIRC the NIE contains speculation about their intentions, those being that the Iranians would intend to develop a nuclear fuel cycle in part because it gives them a "virtual" deterrent as countries would know that having the fuel cycle, developing a nuclear weapon wouldn't take very long. Thus invading Iran wouldn't be advisable.

Developing a fuel cycle is entirely peaceful in itself and consistent with Iran's obligations under the NPT. Whether it's consistent with Iran's obligations in the current state of UNSC resolutions is something I'm not current on - at one point the UNSC was demanding Iran stop all enrichment, then they weren't demanding it, I don't know the current status.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:30 pm



Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
IIRC the NIE contains speculation about their intentions, those being that the Iranians would intend to develop a nuclear fuel cycle in part because it gives them a "virtual" deterrent as countries would know that having the fuel cycle, developing a nuclear weapon wouldn't take very long.

It also contains speculation that Iran might start weapons research at any time. So those speculations rule each other out. Part of the problem is the Iranians themselves. When they make statements that are obviously untrue such as:

"In the meantime, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said that the NIE claim about Iran's intention to go ahead with nuclear weapon program before 2003 was unfounded and unrealistic.

Hosseini underlined that Iran has never pursued a plan to develop nuclear weapons.
"

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0712085415171220.htm

they further undermine their already low credibility on the matter.

Quoting Joni (Reply 131):
Developing a fuel cycle is entirely peaceful in itself and consistent with Iran's obligations under the NPT.

But if it is allowed, it then gives credence to the speculation that they are planning on building a nuclear weapon. If given an iron clad contract for deliveries of nuclear fuel, which is pretty much what they have from Russia now, they wouldn't need that but they don't even request it. Again, the engineering and actual building of a weapon can be done in far shorter a period of time than enriching the fuel necessary for enough bombs to make a threat credible. So as far as we know they might have completed the engineering part of the work in 2003 and are now just waiting for weapons grade material production to catch up.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:32 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 130):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 129):
You seem to be missing the point that they actually have a reason to want to diversify their sources of power.

No I am not missing the point. What you seem to be missing is the side reason for wanting nuclear power. Even taking away 30 billion barrels leaves them with a tremendous amount of oil.

Was "as much oil as" and now "tremendous". But you still do not know how much oil the Iranians actually have. And yet, you are willing to decide their energy policy for them. Nice touch. From a country that has laid waste to its own oil and gas reserves, you now want to tell the rest of the world how to do it.

Odd really, because I guarantee that within 10 years the US if it continues on its present course will be imploring countries like Iran to supply more oil, unless of course the US suddenly changes its collective mind. But you will be fresh out of luck with Iran because it will be committed to supplying India and China. Could that be the real angst behind US objections to Iranian policies in relation to energy?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:53 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 133):
Was "as much oil as" and now "tremendous".

Those two terms are synonymous in this case. Any country that is sitting on even an estimated 100 billion bbl has "as much oil as" and a "tremendous" amount. Especially if you compare it to a country like Australia which according to the CIA Fact book has 1.491 billion bbl (1 January 2006).
http://www.cia.gov/library/publicati...he-world-factbook/fields/2178.html

Quoting Baroque (Reply 133):
But you still do not know how much oil the Iranians actually have.

And what's more I really don't care because this argument is not about how much oil they have versus what their intentions are with their nuclear program. As stated previously, all of their enriched uranium needs will be met "under contract" by the Russians. So the need for their enrichment plant at Natanz is not only spurious but suspect as well.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 133):
yet, you are willing to decide their energy policy for them.

You would like to couch it that way since it means you can avoid having to discuss the real implications of their nuclear program. Again, as we saw in our own program to build an atomic weapon in WW2, the theoretical and engineering solutions can be worked out much more quickly than the material can be produced. The line between civilian and military use is very fine, are you prepared to bet your life that they won't cross it?
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:14 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 134):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 133):
But you still do not know how much oil the Iranians actually have.

And what's more I really don't care because this argument is not about how much oil they have versus what their intentions are with their nuclear program.

Well then, do not add the red herring of how much oil they have as reserves if it of no interest. Also do not use the oil reserves to draw inferences about why they wish to enrich uranium. Normally, you are not allowed to have it "both ways".

The line between reactor grade and bomb grade U is not at all fine. It depends a bit on the reactor type, but bombs need a very different degree of enrichment. Bear in mind there is doubt that the hexafluoride quality is good enough for enrichment in the first place.

Very dramatic to ask me would I bet my life. It just invites the answer yes, but proves nothing at all.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:58 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 135):
Well then, do not add the red herring of how much oil they have as reserves if it of no interest. Also do not use the oil reserves to draw inferences about why they wish to enrich uranium. Normally, you are not allowed to have it "both ways".

Since you misinterpreted the original answer to ME AVN FAN and then tried to use the following to obfuscate the original questions, I would point out it is you who are trying to have it both ways. That they have more oil reserves than many other countries and are an exporter means that the government gets oil revenues for which the public in Iran has little say on how they are spent. They claim they want to diversify their power generation methods yet they and you conveniently ignore the fact that their uranium needs in that matter are already being met, under contract, by a third party. You also choose to ignore the fact that the research and development phase can outstrip their ability to produce usable fissile material which means that they can, for the time being, place their military program on hold while forging ahead with their supposedly "civilian" program of enriching uranium.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 135):
The line between reactor grade and bomb grade U is not at all fine. It depends a bit on the reactor type, but bombs need a very different degree of enrichment. Bear in mind there is doubt that the hexafluoride quality is good enough for enrichment in the first place.

Reactors only need 2-5%, bombs need 85%. Gaseous diffusion was what the K-25 plant at Oak Ridge was all about so it works just fine.

Still none of this answers the basic questions. What are the Iranians intentions? That they are enriching uranium is agreed in key points of the NIE. That they refuse to stop is also agreed in the key points of the NIE.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 135):
Very dramatic to ask me would I bet my life.

Not dramatic at all, it's a simple question.
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:58 am



Quoting Arrow (Reply 17):
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

N. Korea already fooled Clinton and the US once. I wish the Israelis could have cared less about the whiny europeans and arab world opinion and just taken out Iranian nuclear sites just like they did to Saddam Hussein's.

Quoting Viaggiare (Reply 46):
Here's a declassified photo of the Costa Rican "Armed" Forces:

lol, good one.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:11 am

Somebody answer this one to me:

If Iran is only working on 'civilian' nuclear technology, why do other Arab countries need to do the same? I mean, what type of competition is that?

I mean, 'if' all Iran wanted was a civilian nuclear reactor, I bet that plenty of companies would go ahead and provide bids to build them one, right?

So why does Iran feel the need to reinvent the wheel, when all this civilian nuclear technology is out there ready to be installed?

I am stumped...
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:10 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 138):
So why does Iran feel the need to reinvent the wheel, when all this civilian nuclear technology is out there ready to be installed?

I am stumped...

Look at the sanctions regimes and try and get your foot back over the line before the third umpire sends you packing. Big grin
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:03 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 139):
Look at the sanctions regimes and try and get your foot back over the line before the third umpire sends you packing.

Really?

Look what the cat dragged in...!

"The EU is Iran's main trading partner, accounting a 27.8% of its trade in 2006. 88% of EU imports from Iran were energy related products.The exports of the European Union to Iran in 2006 grew 8% in average while the imports of Iran did to a rate of 25.9%."

"In 2006 Iran's main suppliers were the EU (33.4% of total imports), China (10.7%), U.A. Emirates (9.5%) and South Korea (6,3%) and the main export markets were EU(23.9%), Japan (14.7%), China (13.4%) and South Africa (7.6%)."

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/iran/index_en.htm

Or how about when Iran already rejected the offer of a reactor from Europe?

"Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday rejected a possible European offer for incentives, including a light-water nuclear reactor"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816148/

Or better yet! Russia is building a reactor for Iran!

"Russia has taken a careful stance on Iran, where it is building a $1 billion nuclear reactor:"

"During his trip to Iran in October, Putin said Russia would complete the Bushehr plant, but refused to say when it could begin operations. He said a decision on shipping fuel for Bushehr would be made once Russian and Iranian experts agree on revisions to the contract."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/12/05/003.html

Guess I answered my own questions, perhaps it will be interesting to find how others  spin  this.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16470
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:22 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 130):
So the question remains, what are their intentions? I'm not alone in asking that question either, or in questioning the summation of the latest NIE.

It's a good question...but not having a definitive answer is all the more reason that we should be prudent, recognize the realpolitik at play here and not put ourselves in a further position where the law of unintended consequences comes fully to bear.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:30 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 140):
"The EU is Iran's main trading partner, accounting a 27.8% of its trade in 2006. 88% of EU imports from Iran were energy related products.The exports of the European Union to Iran in 2006 grew 8% in average while the imports of Iran did to a rate of 25.9%."

And the US is doing its level best to interfere and has been doing so for years.
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enfor...ment/ofac/programs/iran/iran.shtml

http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_uploa...FreedomSupportActSignedIntoLaw.htm
"IFSA does not call on the President to institute investigations into potential violations with respect to weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it would seem that the President will have broader discretion to abstain from initiating these investigations and determining whether the provisions aimed at weapons of mass destruction have been violated.

If the President does determine that a person or entity has made an investment in Iran's petroleum industry or contributed to Iran's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction, the President may still waive the imposition of sanctions when such waiver is deemed important to the national interest of the U.S. and the President has reported as much to the appropriate congressional committees. The new law has not altered this provision which had been in effect under ILSA.

Finally, IFSA extends the effectiveness of these sanctions on Iran until December 31, 2011."

How about that for capricious gobbledegook?

And
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/May/Trade/index.html
Trade mafia
U.S. sanctions helping corrupt businesses in Iran

By Japeh Youssefi
May 25, 2001
The Iranian

"I am here to appeal to the US government to remove sanctions on Iran. Specifically, in the area of software development for Internet-based business applications. I am neither a politician nor a scholar who can lecture this distinguished audience on various aspects of US economic sanctions against Iran.

But, as a businessman, I can tell you that US sanctions so far have had minimal impact on Iran's economy as a whole, in comparison to what Iran has done to itself. In fact, if one looks at Iran's economic policies, one would realize that these policies have effectively created more stringent, self-imposed economic sanctions on Iran than any sanction laws passed by the US Congress."
......
"Various Iranian reformist publications refer to these businesses as the "Trade Mafia". US Trade-Sanctions against Iran have been extremely beneficial to the Trade Mafia. US sanctions have diverted the Iranian people's attention from the political and economic mischief of the Trade Mafia. Because of existing US sanctions, the Trade Mafia has been able to effectively eliminate healthy and vibrant competition, while maintaining their monopolies."

The secondary provisions of the sanctions would result in any other organization that tried it being put in jail.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:44 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 142):
And the US is doing its level best to interfere and has been doing so for years.

Nice way of managing NOT to answer my question.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:49 pm



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 143):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 142):
And the US is doing its level best to interfere and has been doing so for years.

Nice way of managing NOT to answer my question.

I always thought the Socratic approach had value. However,
"The London talks were postponed Wednesday until next week to allow more time for phone discussions of what should be included in the package of incentives and penalties to be offered to Tehran, a diplomat, requesting anonymity for the same reason, told The AP."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816148/
So what was the offer, and what WERE the catches.

"Iran occupies rank number 26th in the EU's total trade. The EU exports to Iran are quite concentrated in three main products, machinery and transport equipment (56.8%), manufactured goods (17.8%) and chemicals and related products (11.3%)."
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/iran/index_en.htm
And what they do not tell you in the stats are what has been banned due to US sanctions.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=27893
"EU under pressure over Iran trade
Although the Bush administration has shown some understanding of the EU's concern, it is coming under pressure from Congress to employ a tougher line.
A recent bill sponsored by Democrat senator Chris Dodd and Republican Tom Lantos would allow sanctions on foreign firms dealing with Iran."

Bit of a laugh that actually, the US has been pressuring many international firms for about 10 years now, esp in relation to oil and gas production.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2130838,00.html
"The state department has been pressing for disengagement for months. But the move is being given added impetus by the Iran counter-proliferation bill going through Congress that would penalise the American interests of companies that continue to have a presence in Iran. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, said: "Our goal must be zero foreign investment.""

You said you were stumped. There are many reasons why you would be stumped. Any stats you produce are trade done IN SPITE of the US. It does rather have a look of, we don't chose to trade with them so we will do our level best to stop you from doing it. Fair enough if that is the way you want to play, but do not be too surprised if neither side shows terribly much gratitude.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:18 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 144):
You said you were stumped

I said I was stumped because Iran is essentially reinventing the wheel for enriching uranium for civilian purposes. It is pretty obvious that both Europe and Russia have offered (Russia is building a reactor for Iran) civilian nuclear technology to Iran. But Iran is deciding to spend their own money to obtain technology that is already available to them.

Trade has nothing to do with it.

If Iran were only dealing with civilian technology, there would be other countries more than willing to offer it to them for a price. Ditto for all other Arab countries now pursuing this technology.

So why are they doing research which is already available?
 
AA777
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 7:07 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:16 pm



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 111):
It was falsified by Saddam. just like pre 9/11 nobody seriously imagined people using airliners as missiles, nobody seriously considered the possibility that Saddam would want the world (and his own people - remember that all his cabinet ministers and generals themselves thought he had WMDs) to think he still had WMDs, but actually not have them. It makes sense after the fact, when you try to think like an Arab ruler in the Middle East, but it was so culturally alien to us at the time we didn't get it. Obviously it's still a rather alien concept, because you still don't get it. We got suckered. Not just the American people, but the Bush Administration as well.

Right, so now its Saddam's fault...apparently he was telling everyone "I have WMD, I have WMD"??? HUH? This is certainly news to me, and probably everyone else in the world. If this is not another odd, feeble attempt to justify an unjustifiable war, I do know know what is. The fact of the matter is that Bush claimed to have all of this evidence that a war against Iraq was justified and needed. You dont remember the speeches? Or Colin Powell's speech at the United Nations, where he showed 'pictures' and satellite images of what was puported to be facilities for making Chemical and Biological weapons. Even if Saddam DID tout a false fact that he had WMD- that is STILL not justification to go into a war! Its a bogus explanation and does not justify anything whatsoever. We supposedly did the research. We (the people) just got duped. Its sad, its disgusting, but that's what happened....

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 105):
Do you honestly think the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Iran?

I never said that it would be good to have a nuclear armed Iran....but really It must be very difficult to live like you do....someone from a seemingly credible source tells you that Iran is not trying to produce Nuclear arms, and yet you insist that they are...with no information of your own to support that idea. Why the hell did they bother making the report then? I find it amazing how many people buy into the fear and misinformation tactics of the Bush admin.... I mean a report comes out which derails Bush's entire arugment for sanctions, and possible strikes/war against Iran, and he STILL wants to push it.... it just shows his incompetence as a leader. He does not change anything for the better... he has a one track mind....and THAT scares me more than Iran ever would, because the US has influence everywhere.

-AA777
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:56 pm



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145):
So why are they doing research which is already available?

Maybe they don't want to be reliant on countries that may in the future punish them for bad behaviour by withholding those supplies of enriched uranium. Maybe, just like the U.S., they want to secure complete energy independence so they can't be held hostage by those countries they disagree with. Everyone takes it as a given that the motivation is purely so they can make a bomb, but maybe it's much more complex than that.

Bottom line; there's now an opportunity to get through this with dialogue rather than threats. There was a time when no one thought North Korea would ever back down from its penchant for bomb-making, but it did happen.

There are rational explanations for why Iran wants to chart its own course, but no one will even consider their validity because the bomb overpowers it all. The bomb-happy folks argue that diplomacy, dialogue, and ultimately compromise won't work -- but of course it's never been tried; unless you describe sanctions, threats and ultimatums as dialogue.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:59 pm



Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
someone from a seemingly credible source tells you that Iran is not trying to produce Nuclear arms, and yet you insist that they are

The same source that said that Iraq had WMDs, was proven to be wrong, but NOW we should believe them? Forgive me for doubting anything that the intelligence community says.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:05 pm



Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
....someone from a seemingly credible source tells you that Iran is not trying to produce Nuclear arms, and yet you insist that they are..

I am? I readily admitted that their military programs are on hold. But that does not mean that the civilian program of enriching uranium cannot support the military objective of creating weapons grade fissile material. Unless you know something different.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
with no information of your own to support that idea.

I have the information contained within the key judgements of the latest NIE.

http://www.iranwatch.org/government/us-cia-irannie-1107.pdf

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.


The first line got all the press, everyone has ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the second part of that statement, and that evidently includes you.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
Why the hell did they bother making the report then?

I don't know, maybe they were bored. Whatever the reason they managed to contradict themselves several times over.

• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.


So the question is, which is it? Have they stopped and not resumed, or have they resumed and we just haven't caught on to it yet? Notice they have a high confidence that Iran stopped its weapons research in 2003, but only a moderate level of confidence that they have not resumed work as of the middle of 2007.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
I find it amazing how many people buy into the fear and misinformation tactics of the Bush admin....

I find it amazing that people take one line trumpeted by the press to be the be all and end all of a subject.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
I mean a report comes out which derails Bush's entire arugment for sanctions, and possible strikes/war against Iran, and he STILL wants to push it.... it just shows his incompetence as a leader.

It did? Which report was that? Certainly not this one. Even some European Countries that almost always question sanctions are shaking their heads over this report.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71d1d3a6-a532-11dc-a93b-0000779fd2ac.html

Quoting AA777 (Reply 146):
He does not change anything for the better... he has a one track mind....and THAT scares me more than Iran ever would, because the US has influence everywhere.

I guess having a set of principles might scare someone not used to living by them.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 147):
Bottom line; there's now an opportunity to get through this with dialogue rather than threats. There was a time when no one thought North Korea would ever back down from its penchant for bomb-making, but it did happen.

Yeah, look at that! Now there's a success story to relate too! banghead  Tell me again what it was back in the 90's they promised they wouldn't do, and have since done?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 147):
The bomb-happy folks argue that diplomacy, dialogue, and ultimately compromise won't work -- but of course it's never been tried; unless you describe sanctions, threats and ultimatums as dialogue.

And of course Iran would never pursue terrorism as national policy would it? Yep, just another bunch of harmless misunderstood religious fanatics. Such a shame. Must be nice to be able to live on  cloudnine .
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:33 am

This world is screwed up.

Putin selling weapons and Europe trading away with some nuts who deny the holocaust and swear they have no gays.

Oh yeah but the USA and Israel are the bad guys, as always..
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:48 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145):
So why are they doing research which is already available?

Because they do not want a nuclear power industry to be in a position where it can be blackmailed by another bunch of US sanctions. Quite simple really. How many Iranian aircraft have been grounded because the US refuses to allow them to get spares?
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:32 am

This NYT piece is worth a read. It's a strong case for a complete overhaul of current US policy towards Iran. I wonder what chance there is that anyone in government might pay attention. Snowball in hell?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/op...rett.html?pagewanted=2&ref=opinion

An excerpt:

The idea of “engaging" Iran diplomatically is becoming less politically radioactive than it was early in the Bush years, when any officials who broached it were putting their careers in jeopardy. Given official American-Iranian cooperation over Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks (one of us, Hillary, was involved in those negotiations) and the current sets of talks between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's claim that she is willing to change “28 years of policy" and negotiate with Iran is disingenuous.

Still, even Democrats who have talked about “engagement" have yet to spell out what it would take to engage Iran successfully. Most hide behind a vague incrementalism, epitomized in a recent statement by Hillary Clinton's top national security adviser extolling the candidate's willingness to consider “carefully calibrated incentives if Iran addresses our concerns."

Why should any Iranian leader take such rhetoric as a legitimate invitation to the table? Iran has tried tactical cooperation with the United States several times over the past two decades -- including helping to secure the release of hostages from Lebanon in the late 1980s and sending shipments of arms to Bosnian Muslims when the United States was forbidden to do so.

Yet each time, Tehran's expectations of reciprocal good will have been dashed by American condemnation of perceived provocations in other arenas, as when Iranian support for objectives in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was rewarded by President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil." Today, incremental engagement cannot overcome deep distrust between Washington and Tehran -- certainly not rapidly enough to address America's security concerns.


[Edited 2007-12-10 22:35:48]
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:27 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145):
ran is essentially reinventing the wheel for enriching uranium for civilian purposes. It is pretty obvious that both Europe and Russia have offered (Russia is building a reactor for Iran) civilian nuclear technology to Iran. B

they do not want to import this technology, the want to produce and possibly EXport this technology and the resulting energy. The countries of the Arabian Gulf might be a market for Iranian nuclear energy.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145):
all other Arab countries now pursuing this technology.

"other" Arab countries ?????  Confused  Yeah sure but I suppose you are talking about Iran ???


Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145):
why are they doing research which is already available?

"available" is the word. They do NOT want to purchase energy, they want to PRODUCE energy
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:58 am



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 153):
they do not want to import this technology

Uh, they already have, otherwise the Russians would not be there.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 153):
"other" Arab countries ?????

You are aware that other Arab countries are also starting to pursue nuclear technology.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 151):
How many Iranian aircraft have been grounded because the US refuses to allow them to get spares?

Well, why don't they spend their money in creating a new aircraft? They seem to like to reinvent the wheel.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 153):
They do NOT want to purchase energy, they want to PRODUCE energy

They already have purchased the equipment to produce that energy. And wouldn't Iran be better off spending their money in creating more refining capacity for their oil? IIRC, they import about 30% of the gasoline into the country.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:12 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 154):
hey do not want to import this technology

Uh, they already have, otherwise the Russians would not be there.

the Russians help them to produce the energy themselves
-

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 154):
other" Arab countries ?????

You are aware that other Arab countries are also starting to pursue nuclear technology.

Iran is NOT an Arab country and has never been. And so, there are NO "other Arab countries " !!!!!!  Sad  Sad  Sad  Angry
-

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 154):
How many Iranian aircraft have been grounded because the US refuses to allow them to get spares?

Well, why don't they spend their money in creating a new aircraft? They seem to like to reinvent the wheel.

-
sorry, they DO. They have re-developed US helicopters and are producing military airplanes. And they are producing the An-140 under licence as Iran-140 . More is to follow .
-

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 154):
And wouldn't Iran be better off spending their money in creating more refining capacity for their oil? IIRC, they import about 30% of the gasoline into the country.

-
The refinery problem is a result of an earlier development. When the clericalists took power in 1979, they stopped the relevant program of the Imperial regime which now has lead to a shortage of refinery capacity. They ARE trying to solve that problem but such things take years. In short, NEVER leave business to the priests !
-
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:24 am



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 155):
Iran is NOT an Arab country and has never been. And so, there are NO "other Arab countries " !!!!!!

I do understand the difference. I would get the same reaction from Iranians.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 155):
In short, NEVER leave business to the priests !

You forgot to add government...
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:37 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 132):
But if it is allowed, it then gives credence to the speculation that they are planning on building a nuclear weapon.

Why? Building civilian nuclear systems (including reactors and the fuel cycle) is expressly permitted to Iran under the NPT as an "inalienable right". According to analysis of the NIE, it appears likely that Iran doesn't plan to build a bomb unless threatened by attack, thus having the fuel cycle installed as a "virtual deterrent". Incidentally, according to the NPT Iran may also build nuclear weapons if it's threatened by attack, so this "virtual deterrent" idea is completely within Iran's NPT obligations (and already practised by, inter alia, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands who have "virtual deterrents" of this kind).

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 140):
Or better yet! Russia is building a reactor for Iran!

Did you only now discover this? Having a reactor isn't in any way proscribed to Iran, in fact it's to be encouraged to help cut down on CO2 emissions.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145):
It is pretty obvious that both Europe and Russia have offered (Russia is building a reactor for Iran) civilian nuclear technology to Iran. But Iran is deciding to spend their own money to obtain technology that is already available to them.

The Russian reactor offer was accepted, and wrt enrichment AFAIK no-one has offered to build enrichment facilities for Iran in Iran, so they're building their own. There's a logic to that since that way they're not dependent on foreign fuel for their reactors.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:43 am



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 156):
Iran is NOT an Arab country and has never been. And so, there are NO "other Arab countries " !!!!!!
-
I do understand the difference. I would get the same reaction from Iranians.

-
I am perfectly sure about this !  yes   yes   yes 

-

Quoting Joni (Reply 157):
AFAIK no-one has offered to build enrichment facilities for Iran in Iran, so they're building their own. There's a logic to that since that way they're not dependent on foreign fuel for their reactors.

-
Many people have offered to SELL enriched stuff, but they do not want to buy but to produce the stuff .

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 27 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos