Iran won't disarm... here we go.

[Karmashock]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050202/D880K5VG1.html

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran will never scrap its nuclear program, and talks with Europeans are intended to protect the country's nuclear achievements, not negotiate an end to them, an Iranian official said Wednesday.

The remarks by Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, are the latest in a hardening of his country's stance amid ongoing talks with European negotiators. They also reflect Tehran's possible frustration at the lack of progress.

Europe is pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program, which the United States claims is aimed at producing atomic weapons. In exchange for nuclear guarantees, the Europeans are offering Iran technological and financial support and talks on a trade deal.

"We have the power to negotiate because we keep our (nuclear) achievements in our hands and we are negotiating to protect them," Mohammadi said Wednesday. "It's definite that we will protect our scientific achievements as a basic pillar, whether talks make progress or not."

Mohammadi's comments came a day after Iran's vice president, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, called on the Europeans to speed up the talks, amid reports that negotiations are deadlocked.

Aghazadeh, who also serves as head of Iran's atomic energy organization, suggested Iran was not happy with the progress of the talks, telling reporters: "We have to take the negotiations seriously and accelerate them."

European officials acknowledged the complexity of the negotiations, but said talks were going at a good pace and a diplomatic solution remained on track.

The talks have been carried out against a backdrop of U.S. warnings. In January, President Bush reaffirmed his support for a diplomatic settlement, but said he would not take any option off the table, including a possible military strike.

A summary of the negotiations that was leaked last week showed Europe had made little progress in convincing Iran to make permanent its temporary suspension of uranium enrichment activities, although negotiators said the atmosphere at the talks has improved recently.

Uranium enriched to low grades is used for fuel in nuclear reactors, but further enrichment makes it suitable for atomic bombs. The United States and other countries fear Iran seeks to enrich uranium not to the low level needed to generate power, as it claims, but to a weapons-grade that could become the core for a nuclear warhead.

While not prohibited from enrichment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran suspended uranium enrichment and all related activities in November to build trust, reduce international suspicions and avoid U.N. Security Council sanctions. Tehran has said it will decide within three months whether to continue its suspension, which is monitored by U.N. nuclear inspectors.

I'll trust we all don't want Iran with nukes... but we'll see.

Oh and they have missiles too...
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/37c2003c-7565-11d9-9608-00000e2511c8.html

An investigation by the Ukrainian secret police has found that Iran and China bought long-range missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads from Ukraine, one of the country's politicians said on Wednesday.

Grigory Omelchenko, an ally of the country's new leadership and a former head of the anti-mafia committee in the Ukrainian parliament, claimed on Wednesday that Ukraine's SBU secret police had found that 12 Kh-55s were illegally exported in 1999-2001. He said six of the air-to-ground cruise missiles were sold to Iran, and six to China.

The Kh-55 - which the US calls the AS-15 - has a highly accurate guidance system and a range of up to 3,000km, which would put Israel in striking distance of Iran. The missile was part of the Soviet bomber fleet weaponry left behind in Ukraine.

The allegations, made in Ukraine's parliament yesterday, bolster claims by the US and other governments that Iran is seeking to develop the ability to produce nuclear weapons. They also raise concerns about Iran and China's efforts to improve long-range missile technology.

Mr Omelchenko, a one-time SBU officer, said that last year the SBU prevented an attempt to export 14 Kh-55s and arrested a former SBU officer, who is being tried in Kiev's Regional Appeals Court.

He accused high-ranking officials linked to Leonid Kuchma, the former president, of covering up the SBU's findings about the sale to protect a "highly placed person from the circle of President Kuchma, who was involved in the illegal arms sales".

Last November, Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, said he ha d seen intelligence that Iran was working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon.

In September the US slapped sanctions on a private Ukrainian company for violating a US ban on proliferation to Iran, without specifying what it was suspected of selling.


Fucking lovely... Iran is a nation that should be changed from within, but nukes is the last thing we want in the middle east. And yes, Israel has them, but that makes war LESS likely instead of more likely.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

I thought all the tyrants felt so scared they were disarming now?

Now, lets get something clear here. I dont want Iran with Nukes however I believe it is inevitable. By trying to forcefully stop them from having nukes you are going to make them more determined to get, and use them.

[Karmashock]

If you stood with us, then perhaps this wouldn't be a problem. I'm sure by 'european' this article means france and/or germany.
talks with Europeans are intended to protect the country's nuclear achievements, not negotiate an end to them, an Iranian official said Wednesday.
As you can see this has been going on for awhile.
Grigory Omelchenko, an ally of the country's new leadership and a former head of the anti-mafia committee in the Ukrainian parliament, claimed on Wednesday that Ukraine's SBU secret police had found that 12 Kh-55s were illegally exported in 1999-2001.

[shutupandshave]

There are 200 nukes supposedly missing from the Ukraine, and another 100 from Russia. You dont need a weapons program to own a nuclear warhead anymore.

[Karmashock]

I have hope that they won't sell them... the russian mafia has made it clear a few times that they're not that suicidal. They don't fear getting in trouble for it as much as these nut bars having it.

Last I heard, they sold Osama fake nuke a few years ago... smeared some old piece of junk with radio active material so that it would set a rad counter off.

funny shit.


What's sad is that the governments are actually mroe corrupt then the criminals. Out of f'ing control.

[Wicksy]

I thought all the tyrants felt so scared they were disarming now?
Gaddafi has already disarmed, and given up some vital information in the process (re: the A.Q.Khan nuclear black market). And as I've discussed with you before, Libya's program was much further along than we believed. His disarmament can only be a good thing. Also, our action in Iraq has shown that if people try and screw us around, we WILL take action. Unlike the pathetically jelly-like UN with its French-led appeasement bloc.

Now, lets get something clear here. I dont want Iran with Nukes however I believe it is inevitable. By trying to forcefully stop them from having nukes you are going to make them more determined to get, and use them.
It's not inevitable at all. What you're alluding to here is the same thing you suggest for pretty much everything: do nothing. Appease. Let them get on with it.

The reason the Iranian mullahs in particular want these weapons and refuse to surrender their program is simple: they're crazy. Their stated OFFICIAL policy is the complete destruction of Israel. That's right - it wasn't some over-zealous Imam who said this. It is GOVERNMENT POLICY. They're lunatics.

They must be stopped. In the same way Hitler had to be stopped: at all costs. "Inevitable" is not an option.

[shutupandshave]

It's not inevitable at all.
And the world market for computers is what - 3?

. What you're alluding to here is the same thing you suggest for pretty much everything: do nothing. Appease. Let them get on with it.
Wix, if you're gunna be a child, fuck off. I dont allude to that for pretty much everything, I have never said that. I dont always believe in appeasement... you rarely ask me what I think as you're to busy telling me.

You know enough about maths to know that while we have nukes, one is going to fall into the wrong hands eventually.
There's inevitable for you.

[stats]

i have no idea on iranian policy - but if it is the destruction of israel then it is for there own good that they have anything that would threaten isreal removed. Of all the countries that have nukes - i think the isrealis are the most likely to use them because there government is psycotic!

[Wicksy]

Wix, if you're gunna be a child, fuck off.
Right, I've had it with you and your pathetic insults, SUAS.

So far you've said that I'm "worse than Saddam", and tried to tell me I'm "stupid" several times. I'm clearly neither. Up till now I've just ignored it coz a) I wasn't too bothered what you think and b) I think it makes YOU look childish, thus saving me the hassle of doing it for you.

I know you're a very bad loser and you like to be "the best at everything" at all costs, but this is pathetic.

YOU fuck off, and YOU shut up, you imbecilic adolescent.

[Wicksy]

i have no idea on iranian policy - but if it is the destruction of israel then it is for there own good that they have anything that would threaten isreal removed. Of all the countries that have nukes - i think the isrealis are the most likely to use them because there government is psycotic!

What a load of utter crap.
Israel has had nukes for decades and not used them or threatened to use them once. Despite endless provocation and terrorism from their neighbours.

It is the countries around Israel that are psychotic and want to throw the Jews into the sea. Nukes are Israel's last line of defence. What you said there Stats is utter bullshit, and I'm sorry to tell you you have no idea what you're talking about here.

[shutupandshave]

Fine Wix, so back up your statement, and prove it wasn't just a worthless insult. I'll be pleased to apologise to you if I'm wrong.

[Karmashock]

i think the isrealis are the most likely to use them because there government is psycotic!
nonsense.

You live in their part of the world and then make that judgement. :nono:

[stats]

Wicksy - i know as much as anyone about isreal/palistine - to about A-level history standard anyway, but im not expert.

my opinion is that a government that will send in tanks and f16s' to take out palastinian millitants encamped in a civilian population, as a response to a suicide bomb... this sort of policy, i think, would be the kind that would to a pre-emptive nuclear strinke on a country that has a publicly claimed policy of isreali destruction and is arming with nuclear wepons....

It's no utter bullshit, it seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

[Karmashock]

what would you do, if you were Isreal? They didn't always do that... they're desperate.

[Wicksy]

my opinion is that a government that will send in tanks and f16s' to take out palastinian millitants encamped in a civilian population, as a response to a suicide bomb...
So, how dare they defend themselves? How dare they strike back when gangs of murderous thugs - brought up on a diet of Nazi propaganda - commit massacres. How dare they use their weapons to target and attack murderers, who deliberate hole up and take cover in civilian populations?

They should just lie down and accept that suicide bombers can walk among their public with impunity and murder them at will, right?

Until Abbas became Chairman, NOTHING was being done about the suicide bombers. NOTHING. Arafat was ENCOURAGING and FUNDING it. And since noone was going to do a damn thing about it, least of all you, Israel had to do something.

this sort of policy, i think, would be the kind that would to a pre-emptive nuclear strinke on a country that has a publicly claimed policy of isreali destruction and is arming with nuclear wepons....
Like the pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor, you mean?

In which history lesson did you learn that Israel has EVER used or threatened to use a nuclear weapon? If a country threatened YOUR ENTIRE STATE and the existence of 6 million of your people, what would you do?

What other country on this planet has to live in those circumstances? Israel is the ONLY country on the face of the Earth that is faced with annihilation. Annihiliation from a country whose stated policy is the destruction of another country.

[Dibujante]

Good thing the U.S. is demanding the Iran scrap a nuclear program that could bring power to its people because the U.S. wants to be the only nuclear power...
If the U.S. disarmed first, they might have some rationale. However, even then, this is just a "suspicion" that Iran is building nukes. Anyone enriching uranium/plutonium as a reactor/breeder fuel source could produce bomb-grade material. There is no way to keep them from having nukes unless you also keep them from having nuclear power.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Wicksy]

Good thing the U.S. is demanding the Iran scrap a nuclear program that could bring power to its people because the U.S. wants to be the only nuclear power...
Rubbish. First, it's not just the US who wants Iran to disarm. Pretty much every sane person does, they just have different ways of going about it.

Second, the US doesnt want to be the ONLY nuclear power. There are 7 nuclear nations on this planet, I have never heard the US demand that any of them disarm. What the US wants, and I agree with them, is that the technology does not spread any further.

ESPECIALLY to brutal, genocidal, religious freaks whose stated policy is the annihilation of another country. Hardly unreasonable, is it?

[Karmashock]

or maybe because the Iranians are bat shit insane. I'm fairly certain we'd have it arranged that they get all the free power that they want forever.

However, they clearly want nukes.
"We have the power to negotiate because we keep our (nuclear) achievements in our hands and we are negotiating to protect them," Mohammadi said Wednesday. "It's definite that we will protect our scientific achievements as a basic pillar, whether talks make progress or not."

This can only mean one thing. It isn't about generating power, its about projecting military power and fear.

[Dibujante]

Last time we promised energy in exchange for disarmament was with North Korea. Guess what happened simultaneously?
The U.S. broke its word and provided much less power than it promised.
N.K. broke its word and produced nuclear material in secrecy.
It seems that the impasse reached here is insurmountable. Ergo, providing power in exchange for disarmament is an unsafe proposition. Either Iran be disarmed forcibly or it be allowed to continue to produce nuclear power.
If it gets nuclear weapons, then the U.S. might think twice about supporting middle eastern despots. Iran doesn't hate the U.S. for no reason.
Also, that quote can be as much about self-sufficient power production for an extremely poor nation as it can be about power projection. You're just projecting your own prejudices on their statements.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

It's safe if it is sincere.

The US can get them the power they need at below the cost of a nuke program, which would be very expensive.


They're not doing it for power. Iran is not oil or power poor.
CIA World Fact book.
Industrial production growth rate: 3% excluding oil (2003 est.)
Electricity - production: 124.6 billion kWh (2001)
Electricity - consumption: 115.9 billion kWh (2001)
Electricity - exports: 0 kWh (2001)
Electricity - imports: 0 kWh (2001)
Oil - production: 3.804 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - consumption: 1.277 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Oil - exports: 2.2 million bbl/day (2003)
Oil - imports: NA (2001)
Oil - proved reserves: 94.39 billion bbl (1 January 2002)
Natural gas - production: 61.5 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - consumption: 65.59 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - exports: 110 million cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - imports: 4.2 billion cu m (2001 est.)
Natural gas - proved reserves: 24.8 trillion cu m (1 January 2002)


They want nukes... and the Russians and Ukrainians have already given them a delivery system.

[Dibujante]

Or to wean themselves off of oil, given that they have to compete with the U.S. and WE for oil reserves outside of their own (which will run out much more quickly than Uranium reserves). You can spin that data however you want. Why did the U.S. experiment with nuclear power when it had oil available and was meeting power needs? Nuclear bombs were not the first thing envisioned. Further, oil is great for running M1 tanks, which have less than a gallon per mile efficiency. Nuclear power could be declared to be a good investment for the Iranian economy and military, even if we exclude the nuclear military potential.
Regards,
Dibujante

[DemonTalons]

Here's the deal. No one wants Iran to have nukes. But it looks like they do. And if they do the only real thing any country can do is use economic sanctions. Because the US is too stretched to invade for at least the next 4 years. The Europeans don't have the military to do it without going bankrupt and Israel doesn't want a nuclear war.

Now if they don't have the bomb yet then at least Israel can send in its air force and bomb a reactor like tehy did to Iraq in the 80's. But If Iran already has it then the only thing you can do is economic sanctions. You don't see us going into North Korea.

[Dibujante]

Or....the U.S. could cease dictator-supporting posturing in the middle east. A nuclear attack on the U.S. would be absolute suicide. You have to push people very far to convince them to kill themselves. Unlike the stereotype, predominantly Muslim countries aren't full of fanatics who want to "die to kill the infidel". Treat Iran with respect and it will treat you with respect.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Wicksy]

Nuclear bombs were not the first thing envisioned
Uhh, yes they were. It was called the Manhattan project, its goal was a nuclear weapon. Nuclear energy production came much later.

Further, oil is great for running M1 tanks, which have less than a gallon per mile efficiency. Nuclear power could be declared to be a good investment for the Iranian economy and military, even if we exclude the nuclear military potential.
You're not making sense. You're saying a tank can run on nuclear power? Or that its better to run it on oil?

Iran is sitting on a sea of oil. It does not NEED nuclear power.

You have to push people very far to convince them to kill themselves.
No you don't. The Japanese were more than happy to do it for their emperor.

Unlike the stereotype, predominantly Muslim countries aren't full of fanatics who want to "die to kill the infidel".
Perhaps, but that's not to say there aren't a lot of them. A lot of them are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives if it'll take out a few Infidels. Especially Jews, who are BANNED in most Muslim countries. Very tolerant.

Some of those religious nuts do it for the 72 virgins they think they'll get in paradise. They're just as happy to do it as the Japanese were.

Treat Iran with respect and it will treat you with respect.
In the same way that Israel has treated Iran with respect and Iran has treated them with.... uhh, hatred and threats of total annihilation?
Square that one up if you can.

[laserflip]

lets just kill em all.

[Karmashock]

Or to wean themselves off of oil, given that they have to compete with the U.S. and WE for oil reserves outside of their own (which will run out much more quickly than Uranium reserves). You can spin that data however you want. Why did the U.S. experiment with nuclear power when it had oil available and was meeting power needs? Nuclear bombs were not the first thing envisioned. Further, oil is great for running M1 tanks, which have less than a gallon per mile efficiency. Nuclear power could be declared to be a good investment for the Iranian economy and military, even if we exclude the nuclear military potential.
It's obvious at this point, so I'm not going to waste my time with you.

[Dibujante]

Israel hasn't treated Iran with respect. Israel has volunteered to bomb Iranian power plants. There is also the lingering Palestinian issue, which does not please anyone in the area. Also, the U.S. has been experimenting with nuclear power sine 1942. Part of this was conducive to nuclear weapons, but part of this was conducive to the sustained critical mass reactions necessary to power a plant.
What I mean by the tank datum, to those to whom it is unclear, is that oil is extremely useful for running things that are inefficiently run on nuclear power. It is inadvisable to use it for power and then use nothing to run the tanks, or to split it between power and motor vehicles when the use of nuclear power would allow the Iranians to reconcentrate their oil resources.
You cannot accurately measure fanaticism in these countries, so I will ignore your point about them. It is unprovable and your Japanese analogy doesn't entirely apply. The Japanese were defending their home, so they made sacrifices. The Americans were defending their home, so they made sacrifices. Suicide attacks are made by people who feel that they have nothing to lose. If it were made by people believing that they would gain the afterlife, why isn't the Christian population of the U.S. dying in droves to gain entrance into Heaven?
Regards,
Dibujante
P.S. Thanks for giving up, Karma.

[Karmashock]

All you're doing is justifying Iran getting nukes... which means you admit that that's what they're doing.

I don't really care why they're doing it. It's obvious that they're trying to get nukes, you realize it, I realize it. You suggest we do nothing or maybe help them and nuke Israel to save them the trouble. I would prefer the whole region be free and at peace. That can't happen with the Islamic radicals in power. This is just a fact. Iran with nukes is an iran that can't be pressured or negotiated with. if anyone starts to talk tough, they'll just point to the nukes. The whole region will be a mess for generations longer.

Iran can't get nukes. I would personally support Israel going in repeatedly to destroy such facilities until Iran figured it out. There is just no f'ing way they're getting nukes.

[Wicksy]

Israel hasn't treated Iran with respect. Israel has volunteered to bomb Iranian power plants.
No it has not at all. Where did you get that? Link please. It has said that an Iranian nuclear plant would be unacceptable to Israel, as it is to most other sane countries.

There is also the lingering Palestinian issue, which does not please anyone in the area.
Which has got.... what? ... to do with Iran? And do you mean the "lingering" issue of the Palestinians refusing a state and resorting to terrorism and corruption? Or the "lingering" problem of their desire to wipe out Israel and toss the Jews into the sea? Well the 2 issues are connected anyway. But I assume that's what you're talking about here.

It is inadvisable to use it for power and then use nothing to run the tanks, or to split it between power and motor vehicles when the use of nuclear power would allow the Iranians to reconcentrate their oil resources.
What is inadvisable about it? They're sitting on a sea of oil, which is easy to extract in large quantities, and certainly safer than nuclear power. There is also no need to enrich uranium or dispose of the waste. Again, they have no NEED for nuclear power, only a WANT for it so they can enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. What they would do with those nukes, they've already told us. Well those that were listening and who understand what that would mean.

You cannot accurately measure fanaticism in these countries, so I will ignore your point about them. It is unprovable and your Japanese analogy doesn't entirely apply. The Japanese were defending their home, so they made sacrifices.
You can measure it. Read the Arab press, listen to the hatred that pours out of the mouths of the Imams. Hear the words of the terrorists.
As for the Japs, you're so wrong. Committing suicide for their emperor was a supreme honour for them. Hari Kari was also one of the highest acts of honour. And they were "defending themselves"? First I've heard of it. Silly me, I thought they struck first at Pearl Harbor?

Suicide attacks are made by people who feel that they have nothing to lose. If it were made by people believing that they would gain the afterlife, why isn't the Christian population of the U.S. dying in droves to gain entrance into Heaven?
This is the most over-used "argument" used by lots of people to justify murder by suicide bombing. Most of them are not desperate, poor or uneducated. The 19 9/11 hijackers certainly weren't. Many of them are 'doctors'. Doctors of death so it seems.

In the case of the Palestinians, most of the bombers are teenagers, raised on a diet of Nazi propaganda and educated to hate, hate and hate again.

As for why aren't US Christians not doing it, you've answered your own question. Because they're not brought up to hate and do not consider it a religious duty to murder infidels and Jews. Perhaps if they believed that 72 virgins would shag them for eternity in the afterlife, more of them might do it.

[Dibujante]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/22/wnuke22.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/22/ixportaltop.html

So, Israel is announcing, quite publicly, that it will pursue military action if it feels threatened, and that this is not a precedent...they did it in Iraq, too.
Not that they weren't provoked.
The Palestinian issue is the issue of the Palestinians refusing the scraps that are thrown at them. They have been forcibly dispossessed of much of their post 1948 and post 1967 land and would rather have a state in which they had a chance at survival.
How would you react to dispossession-at-gunpoint? The Palestinian issue is an issue of abuse on both sides of the fence, meaning that supporters of either side have a legitimate claim against their opponent.
Also, I never said that the Japanese were struck first. However, even though the Japanese struck first, the Americans retaliated with war, as is expected. At that point, the Americans were defending their nation (from Pearl Harbor and the Japanese foe) and the Japanese were defending their nation (from someone they had agressed against, but propaganda rarely cares about such details). Also, if you want to find hate, you'll find it everywhere. The U.S. isn't free of hate speech either, you know. Listen to Ann Coulter say "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity." If she's a marginal psycho here, do you have proof that the "death to all infidels!" Imams aren't "marginal psychos" there?
Also, as to the region being at peace, it was more at peace before the U.S. entered than afterwards. The U.S. upset Afghanistan (which was a democratic representative government) in 1978 and supported the Shah of Iran. It supported Hussein, although, to it's credit, it didn't create him. It has been a constant ally of Saudi Arabia (A country which abolished slavery in 1963). Some friends the U.S. has.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

so long as you admit that Iran is going to WMDs, we understand each other.

Think what you will, you'll be over ruled, bipassed, and ignored. We're not going to let them build up and we'll let israel go in unfettered at the very least if we have to.

[Dibujante]

Oh, I know what you will do. However, there is still no evidence that Iran is producing nukes or gearing up to produce nukes. Iran has signed agreements to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. Oh, wait, if the inspections don't agree with your worldview that everyone whose skin is darker than you is evil, you'll invade anyways? Remember, brown people feel half the pain of white people. It's an age-old American dictum.
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

no point denying the obvious, the moment you started defending the thing you said they weren't doing is the minute you admited that it was obvious to you as well.


So I'm done with this infantile nonsense. You're not even being honest with me.

[Wicksy]

Thanks for the link, Dibujante:

Teheran said it may renege on a promise to Europe to "suspend" enrichment.
Why?

Iran has placed some of its facilities, such as the large Natanz enrichment plant, in protected underground sites. Teheran has vowed to retaliate against any attack, and at one point said it might launch pre-emptive strikes if it felt threatened.
Protected underground sites? Why oh why?

Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. A banner proclaiming "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a 450-mile Shahab-2 missile. Another saying "We will crush America under our feet" graced a trailer carrying a 930-mile Shahab-3 missile.

"The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enable us to destroy the most distant targets," said the commentary.
Nice peaceful message there. "Israel must be wiped off the map". Charming.

Just answer me this 1 question, Dibujante: do you think Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons? Don't argue, don't try to shift the goalposts. Yes or no?

[Dibujante]

Answer to the question: Yes. They're a representative democracy, brutal or not, and as such are not prone to Kim Jong Il-level insanity (what level of insanity they are prone to is unknown).
However, enriching underground is sensible. Enrichment relies on strict controls to ensure that the reactor doesn't go supercritical. If someone were to, say, bomb the hell out of the site there's a small chance of a thermonuclear explosion and a high chance of a radioactive disaster that would plague the nation for centuries.
Regards,
Dibujante

[stats]

ffs...

right wicksy - where did i say that isreal ever threatened any county with nuclear wepons? i didnt, so why ask me what history lesson did i learn that in? tosser.

A bunch of thugs etc... ? brought up on a diet of nazi propeganda? right first off, plaistinians are not arian, secondly they had there entire country taken away from them more or less, so they are bitter. but before you suggest that im trying to say isreal should be given back to palistine - i'm not. i think much much more effort should be put into finding a peacefull settlement? wanker.

So your which is it btw? should iran be aloud to have nuclear wepons or not? you sound confused... cock.

In your last statement it sounds like you agree with me? do you? do you agree that for the good of the planet - iran should not be allowed to arm with nuclear wepons? do you agree that isreal would attack with nuclear wepons if it though iran had the ability or was close to gaining the ability to strike isreal with nuclear wepons? are you argueing with me for the pure fuck of it?

MY VIEWS on the situation.

iran should not have nuclear wepons. we should use all means to stop this.

what i think would happen if iran armed:

isreal would strike iran first or invade iran (i think probably strike) iran would be destroyed. other muslim states would either:

1. See there muslim brother attacked and all rise up and join in.
2. see iran nuked and all begin there hardest to arm themselves with nuclear wepons - i dont think they'd see iran nuked and say 'well boys, best not to arm lest that happen to us' i think they'd say 'see what they fucking did???? we need to be able to strike back lest they do it to us!!!'

Until isreal and palastine is resolved peacefully. isreal will never ever be safe in the middle east. and until the middle east is safe then all and any advanced weponry should be kept out of the region.

[Karmashock]

right first off, plaistinians are not arian, secondly they had there entire country taken away from them more or less, so they are bitter. but before you suggest that im trying to say isreal should be given back to palistine - i'm not. i think much much more effort should be put into finding a peacefull settlement?
The Palestinian state never existed. It is a province that has been passed from one empire to another for millennia. All we’ve done is give it back to the people that it belonged to in antiquity. The Arabs have the rest of the region in which to live and pursue their ends. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. It is the home of the most holy sites for Jewish and Christianity, though NOT Islam. The Koran makes this much clear. Jerusalem is for the Jews. Why then do such a religious people go against the Koran? Look at the population statistics of that area since Israel was founded. The Arab states around Israel never accepted its founding. They have kept the people unhappy… stirred up… and they push at the boarders all the time. If they wanted peace, they could have absorbed the displaced population rather easily. However, they chose not to. That population has grown in exile… denied any place in either territory. Israel, for whatever you might think of it, is a proper democratic society. It is furthermore tolerant to the extent that it allows other religions to be practiced freely within its boarders and allows portions of the minority to participate in the full functioning of government.

This is something that none of it’s rivals can claim. It is this primarily that makes the US Israel’s ally. We will fuel and protect them so long as they remain as such… and no nation is their equal that does not adhere to this.


We want the turmoil to end. If Palestine were the US’s personal problem and not that of Israel, this would have been settled before it got started. An ok solution now is always better then a perfect solution in the future. The longer this goes on the more people will die a consequence of the turmoil alone.

The Palestinians will be given what land Israel can spare and accept it. If they continue to cause problems then they should be relocated such they are no longer a problem. That may sound harsh, but again, a solution must be found. Israel can’t cede all the lands the Palestinians demand… it would kill them. And if we are to choose between which of the two states should survive, it becomes obvious which of the two is the more valuable.



So your which is it btw? should iran be aloud to have nuclear wepons or not? you sound confused...
he might not have been clear, but I doubt any rational person wants such power in the hands of such people.


MY VIEWS on the situation.

iran should not have nuclear wepons. we should use all means to stop this.

what i think would happen if iran armed:

isreal would strike iran first or invade iran (i think probably strike) iran would be destroyed. other muslim states would either:

1. See there muslim brother attacked and all rise up and join in.
2. see iran nuked and all begin there hardest to arm themselves with nuclear wepons - i dont think they'd see iran nuked and say 'well boys, best not to arm lest that happen to us' i think they'd say 'see what they fucking did???? we need to be able to strike back lest they do it to us!!!'
Israel will not nuke Iran first. If they did, they’d lose all support from the US. We’ve made this clear. We wouldn’t intervene, but we’d just leave. However, we wouldn’t be against targeted strikes against Iranian nuke programs.

We’ve recently given/sold (not sure which) the Israelis 500 (or was it 5000?) precision bombs and cruise missiles. If Israel needs to fire a barrage of weapons at the Iranians, they have the equipment in spades.

Until isreal and palastine is resolved peacefully. isreal will never ever be safe in the middle east. and until the middle east is safe then all and any advanced weponry should be kept out of the region.
That isn’t going to happen. The Chinese and Russians are arming Iran, Syria, etc and the US (don’t know about the rest) is arming Israel. We’re not going to let the most successful democracy in the region fall to tyranny.

[shutupandshave]

Israel will not nuke Iran first. If they did, they’d lose all support from the US. We’ve made this clear. We wouldn’t intervene, but we’d just leave. However, we wouldn’t be against targeted strikes against Iranian nuke programs.
The US also made it clear that it wouldn't attack Iraq for invading Kuwait.
The US also made it clear there were WMD in Iraq.

[Karmashock]

the first was the consequence of uncertainty. The US was of a mind that the middle east didn't matter. This is quiet literally what Bush Sr was thinking. As this is obviously stupid, that thinking was quickly replaced.

As to wmds, you're just being cheap. Are you a cheap person Suas? Is that how you want people to regard you? Because you know damn well that the US DID think that he had them. So there is no deception in that regard.


In the case of Israel, we have thought this through and there are no aspect that we can be wrong on. Every variable is theoretical and so does not need proof. The US will go neutral if Israel does a first strike of that nature. The only cavot to that is if it is unprovoked. If it is unprovoked, then we'll try and get israel under control. But we don't see that as likely and therefore it is suffiecent to say "we will go neutral". If Israel fires teh second nuke but not the first, then we will support them.

Is this clear? Good.

[shutupandshave]

I am stating that what the US intelligence *thinks* is now taken with a grain of salt by me, and I think many others.

[Karmashock]

This isn't US intelligence that I'm commenting on... so that isn't even relevant.


As I said, all the variables are theoretical, so you don’t even need to know what’s going on out there.

Besides, what do you think we’ll do that is any different from what I’ve laid out there? Or are you just generally maligning my country?

[Wicksy]

tosser.... cock... wanker....
Charming and very mature. Stats, would you like me to pick your toys up off the floor for you? They appear to have fallen out of your pram.

where did i say that isreal ever threatened any county with nuclear wepons? i didnt, so why ask me what history lesson did i learn that in? tosser
I was pointing out that Israel has NEVER threatened another country with nukes, let alone made it their stated policy to DESTROY an entire country. You've personally stated that you think the Israelis are "psychopaths" for defending themselves against a brutal and cowardly enemy who deliberately murder and maim innocent civilians. Effectively what you're saying is that Israel is not allowed to defend themselves. Then you imply that Israel would have no scruples about launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran and attempt to destroy the country. You have NO historical basis on which to base that worthless assumption. Hence my reference to your history class. Your comtempt for Israel is palpable, Stats.
I'll ignore your pathetic childish insult.

A bunch of thugs etc... ? brought up on a diet of nazi propeganda? right first off, plaistinians are not arian, secondly they had there entire country taken away from them more or less, so they are bitter.
Hey Stats, guess what. You dont actually have to be an Aryan to be brought up on Nazi propaganda. I've taken the liberty of finding some non-Aryan Nazi propaganda for you. Dibujante this lot is for you too.
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
http://www.zombietime.com/bus_19_berkeley/

Mein Kampf best seller in Arabic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F03%2F19%2Fnmein19. xml)
Palestinians target children (http://humphrys.humanists.net/israel.conflict.html#children)
Modern anti-semitism (Islamic, left-wing) (http://humphrys.humanists.net/judaism.html#modern.anti.semitism)
See the hatred for yourself: Palestinian TV (http://www.pmw.org.il/new/)
Al Manar's beacon of hatred (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/exec/beacon.htm)

Further, the Pal's have been offered a state more than once. They turned it down each time, because their goal (as encouraged by their Muslim "brothers" in the surrounding states) is to have a state - but only if it involves wiping Israel off the map first.

should iran be aloud to have nuclear wepons or not? you sound confused... cock.
Absolutely not. There's no confusion here. I'll ignore your pathetic childish insult.

do you agree that isreal would attack with nuclear wepons if it though iran had the ability or was close to gaining the ability to strike isreal with nuclear wepons? are you argueing with me for the pure fuck of it?
No I completely disagree with you.
Israel's words and policy: "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East".
Iran's words and policy: "Israel must be wiped off the map! We will never surrender our nuclear program!".

isreal would strike iran first or invade iran (i think probably strike) iran would be destroyed.
Jeez, do I really have to pick this crap apart? How the mutha feck is Israel gonna INVADE Iran?!? IF Israel pre-empted Iran, it would be a conventional strike, not a nuclear one. Israel has no intention of and would not "destroy" Iran. Up until the mad mullahs (religious freaks) came to power in '79, Israel and Iran had excellent relations. I'm sure Israel would be more than happy to continue those relations should the mullahs fall. Because you see, Israel is a free democratic country with forgiving people who aren't raised on hate. Unlike their enemies.

i dont think they'd see iran nuked and say 'well boys, best not to arm lest that happen to us' i think they'd say 'see what they fucking did???? we need to be able to strike back lest they do it to us!!!'
You talk as if Israel makes a habit of or has a thirst for attacking their neighbours. You talk as if Israel always makes the first move. Israel would just leave the Arabs the fuck alone if the Arabs would just leave them the fuck alone.

until the middle east is safe then all and any advanced weponry should be kept out of the region.
If the Arabs gave up their weapons tomorrow, there would be peace. If Israel gave up her weapons tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.

Want some more non-Aryan propaganda, mofo?
Scroll down till you see the pictures (not the hateful crap at the top) (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/283720.html)
Why do people support the Palestinians (http://humphrys.humanists.net/israel.conflict.html#summary)
Honest Reporting (http://www.honestreporting.com/)
Palestinian racism exposed (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1081748014243)


Oh and this one is a real PEACH! Taken from US Irvine, California. Check it out.
INCITEMENT on CAMPUS: UC Irvine, February 2, 2005 (http://standwithus.com/UCI_incitement2005.asp)

[Karmashock]

the one in UC is pretty sad... but not uncommon... no on listens to them... there are always like 5 tools that cheerlead for it... but most people just walk by... and shake their heads... we're constantly getting shit pushed on us... my friend kyle cold cocked a guy about 2 months ago for not going away. this guy followed us for like a block in a half and we kept telling him we weren't interested. POW... and on we fucking walked.


It's hard to explain how annoying this shit is... but a thing you have to understand about cali is that we're not a pure blue state... and cali used to be a red state. The only bits that are blue are the big cities and more in the north then in the south. The people in these areas are quiet insular and just sort of assume that everyone agrees with them. When in fact, they rarely have more then half the crowd and have less then ten percent if they say something radical.


At any rate, these people annoy me, and the right response is to treat them like lepers.

[stats]

Charming and very mature. Stats, would you like me to pick your toys up off the floor for you? They appear to have fallen out of your pram.

i insulted you because i didnt like - no, i was pissed off by your style of taking what i said and twisting it into something far more hardline and anti isreal to make your own anti arab/muslim bullshit sound more credible. (when you read that and think i am twisting your words - i know and im doing it on purpose)


I was pointing out that Israel has NEVER threatened another country with nukes, let alone made it their stated policy to DESTROY an entire country. You've personally stated that you think the Israelis are "psychopaths" for defending themselves against a brutal and cowardly enemy who deliberately murder and maim innocent civilians. Effectively what you're saying is that Israel is not allowed to defend themselves. Then you imply that Israel would have no scruples about launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran and attempt to destroy the country. You have NO historical basis on which to base that worthless assumption. Hence my reference to your history class. Your comtempt for Israel is palpable, Stats.
I'll ignore your pathetic childish insult.

So was there any reason to lie? was there any reason to say that i had said something i hadnt? i wasnt even trying to imply that they had ever... so the reason for saying that i had... was what? oh yes (Read the underline statement again)


The thing i high-lighted in red next. No i did not say the isreali people are not allowed to defend themselves. Ever. i said that the way they are doing it at the moment is more about an eye for an eye and they have no care wether they hit palistinian civilians or not. ie they are no better than the suicide bombers (i welcome your efforts to twist that into 'suicide bombing is good')

ok, now the blue... No i dont think the iseali government would have any hesetation in nuking iran before it nuked them, if it thought they would and could. and if they did have hesitation in doing this then they are fucking stupid and deserve to be wiped off the map...

ok dark slate blue is next... America was with in minutes of carpet bombing the ussr just before they found out that the ussr had nukes too. and the ussr wasnt as big a threat to american saftey at the time as iran is to isreals....

Dark orange... i have no contempt for the isreali people, i have no desire to see isreal removed. i have alot of respect for the people of isreal and i understand they're fear. The government of isreal on the other hand, i think are extremist wankers.


Hey Stats,
hey wicksy

guess what.
what?

You dont actually have to be an Aryan to be brought up on Nazi propaganda.
really, you dont?

I've taken the liberty of finding some non-Aryan Nazi propaganda for you. Dibujante this lot is for you too.

Facsinating!

I'm not going to go to the effort of digging up anti arab/anti muslim/all muslims are evil and there religion is evil link for you - it would be to obvious.


Further, the Pal's have been offered a state more than once. They turned it down each time, because their goal (as encouraged by their Muslim "brothers" in the surrounding states) is to have a state - but only if it involves wiping Israel off the map first.

here is an extremely bias one sided link for you to contradict you. i would discuss it or give you more impartail links etc. but you dont show anyone atall the same amount of respect, therefore you dont deserve it yourself...

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/030102/030102u.htm


Absolutely not. There's no confusion here. I'll ignore your pathetic childish insult.

well, you tried to... but you failed. unlucky, better luck next time.


No I completely disagree with you.
Israel's words and policy: "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East".
Iran's words and policy: "Israel must be wiped off the map! We will never surrender our nuclear program!".

i would give you links or quotes where the iranians have had talks or are entering talks with eu etc about nuclear disarmerment. i dont think they will disarm, but there we go. you watch the news too, so you know iran didnt say that, or if they did - they have also said the opposite and neither of the satements will be officail....

isreal may have said they will not be the first to introduce nukes into the middle east - but if they are faced with going back on that word or there own survival i have no doubt what they would pick...

You talk as if Israel makes a habit of or has a thirst for attacking their neighbours. You talk as if Israel always makes the first move. Israel would just leave the Arabs the fuck alone if the Arabs would just leave them the fuck alone.

i dont talk as if isreal makes a habbit of attacking first - and i dont disagree with what you say here - but it reaks of 'arabs are bad' to me anyway - probably coz you said 'the arabs' always sounds slightly racist to me.


If the Arabs gave up their weapons tomorrow, there would be peace. If Israel gave up her weapons tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.

And if every country gave up there wepons tomorow there would be no more war ever!!! wow really clever and poinient statement there wicksy

Want some more non-Aryan propaganda, mofo?

No thankyou wicksy - i know that you know that there is an equal number of anti arabic propaganda out there to be had also...

Oh, and id' ignore your childish mofo insult - but in telling you that i was ignoring it i failed to.... why did you feel the need for it? did it make you sound cool when you heard what you had written in your head?

Thanks for taking the time to quote and reply to my entire post wicksy - i hope my efforts have repaid your kindness.

p.s who the fuck could be bothered to read all this?

[Wicksy]

i was pissed off by your style of taking what i said and twisting it into something far more hardline and anti isreal to make your own anti arab/muslim bullshit sound more credible. (when you read that and think i am twisting your words - i know and im doing it on purpose)

This is what you said:
i think the isrealis are the most likely to use them because there government is psycotic!
Note the use of "the israelis" there, because I did. Also note the use of the words "there[sic] government is psycotic[sic]!"
Now, when you analyse what you said there, it DOES spell out that you believe that by responding to terrorist attacks by targetting TERRORISTS, that makes "Israelis" "psychotic".

Terrorists hide amongst and behind civilians. They do this for a reason: so that when Israel strikes back (note: strikes BACK), they can then run off to the Western media and cry "LOOK WHAT THE ISRAELIS DID!". Gullible Western audiences then think Israel is the devil incarnate. This is one of the reasons that anti-Semitism is now rampant in Europe, why Europeans believe Israel is the biggest threat to global peace (yes, worse than Iran/N.Korea and countless other despotic governments), and why anti-Semitism on US (and European) campuses is becoming as vile and vitriolic as the raving lunatic bastard in the last link I provided (http://standwithus.com/UCI_incitement2005.asp). Go and watch it, you'll see what I'm talking about.

my opinion is that a government that will send in tanks and f16s' to take out palastinian millitants encamped in a civilian population, as a response to a suicide bomb...
Here at least you acknowledge that the "millitants" (read: terrorists) take cover behind civilians. That's good.
Now, if Israel is not allowed to use tanks/F16's etc to hit these bastards, what is your alternative suggestion? If you're going to say "they should send in the soldiers on foot...", well they do that too. Jenin for instance. Then what happens? "LOOK WHAT THE ISRAELIS DID.... MASSACRE" etc., again absorbed enthusiastically by gullible Western audiences. Except there was no massacre, just more Palestinian propaganda.

You're also trying to imply that a suicide bombing is a trivial matter which should not be responded to. They should just lie down and accept it. That's bad. Since noone else is going to do anything about it (including you, as you sit there criticising Israel for defending themselves...) Israel is left with no choice but to take action. And as a matter of fact, using an F16 or an Apache to target a terrorist is often less lethal than sending in soldiers on foot. Its a clean, precise strike from the air, a la Yassin and Rantissi (I'm not religious, but if anyone is up there... DON'T have mercy on their 'souls').

You also said this:
this sort of policy, i think, would be the kind that would to a pre-emptive nuclear strinke on a country that has a publicly claimed policy of isreali destruction and is arming with nuclear wepons....
Quite how you've drawn a direct line between targetted assassinations using low-yield conventional weapons to a full-on pre-emptive nuclear strike I'm not sure.

So was there any reason to lie? was there any reason to say that i had said something i hadnt? i wasnt even trying to imply that they had ever... so the reason for saying that i had... was what?
As above. If you analyse what you said, you'll find that you seem to have a problem with Israel using force to defend herself against terrorism.

i said that the way they are doing it at the moment is more about an eye for an eye and they have no care wether they hit palistinian civilians or not. ie they are no better than the suicide bombers (i welcome your efforts to twist that into 'suicide bombing is good')
That's not what you said. If that's what you MEANT, then I apologise for taking it the wrong way, but suggest you try to rephrase it because that's the way it comes across.

Now, an eye for an eye. Israel gets hit by suicide bombers. If hitting back is "an eye for an eye", and "an eye for an eye" is wrong, then defending themselves is apparently wrong. NOT hitting back sends signals to Palestinians (and others) that if they continue to bomb the shit out of Israeli civilians, nothing will happen to them. That is an unacceptable message, and will encourage further violence. Israel is a sovereign state and MUST be allowed to defend herself. I would ask no less of my government, and neither would you I expect.

"no care wether they hit palistinian civilians or not". Utter rubbish. They do care. They select weapons that will do the least harm to the civilians around the terrorist target. Unfortunately, due to the proximity of civilians to the terrorists (BECAUSE the terrorists DELIBERATELY hide amongst them) means some civilians get killed. If the terrorists a) stopped hiding amongst them and/or b) stopped bombing/firing rockets/mortars at Israel ... Israel would not be forced to retaliate and ACCIDENTALLY kill innocent people.

"they are no better than the suicide bombers". Again, suicide bombing is bad, but Israel should not be allowed to retaliate. Think about it, this is what you are saying. You're drawing a moral equivalence between the DELIBERATE murder of civilians and the retaliatory strikes on the very murderers who murder the said innocent civilians. That's like saying that the Police are wrong to lock up murderers and rapists. It's wrong.

No i dont think the iseali government would have any hesetation in nuking iran before it nuked them, if it thought they would and could. and if they did have hesitation in doing this then they are fucking stupid and deserve to be wiped off the map...
That's your opinion, and that's fine; I happen to disagree - I think they would have a hesitation. I do agree that they would be stupid not to use them if they had evidence Iran was about to launch nukes on Israel, however I personally would prefer they used conventional weapons. I suspect they would too, hence their recent purchase of 500 daisycutters.

But earlier you said Israel would take this action because "there government is psycotic!" and that "any government that uses f16's etc as a response to a [mere - by implication] suicide bomb would also use nukes against Iran". Now you're saying Israel would be stupid NOT to use nukes. Perhaps you're also psychotic?

i have no contempt for the isreali people, i have no desire to see isreal removed. i have alot of respect for the people of isreal and i understand they're fear. The government of isreal on the other hand, i think are extremist wankers.
Glad to hear it. But if you really understood their fear, you'd understand why they retaliate against suicide bombers. Why do you think the government are extremists? Have you read the news lately? The relatively peaceful overtures coming from the PA since Abbas became chairman are to be strongly commended. As are the Israeli responses to those overtures, which have been equally positive. It was Arafat who was the extremist war-mongering wanker who started this useless, destructive intifada. Here you're saying that the Israeli government responses makes them extremist wankers. It's your opinion of course and you're entitled to it. I think you're completely wrong.

You dont actually have to be an Aryan to be brought up on Nazi propaganda.... really, you dont?
Nope. The Palestinians are at it every day. Read any of the Egyptian media lately?

Facsinating! I'm not going to go to the effort of digging up anti arab/anti muslim/all muslims are evil and there religion is evil link for you - it would be to obvious.
Did you actually look at the links I provided?
Please, go ahead and find those links, I'll be happy to look at them.

here is an extremely bias one sided link for you to contradict you. i would discuss it or give you more impartail links etc. but you dont show anyone atall the same amount of respect, therefore you dont deserve it yourself...
That's not true. Some of the links I provided (and will continue to provide) are from:
1) The Telegraph
2) Indymedia (an extreme Left, virulently ANTI-ISRAEL site)
3) Associated Press
4) BBC (they are not impartial, in fact they are biased (http://www.bbcwatch.com) AGAINST Israel)
5) Palestinian Media Watch (PMW)
PMW is an excellent site. Go take a look around. All it does is collect and publish Palestinian propaganda. If you have a problem with that then its the Palestinian propaganda you have a problem with.

As I've said before on the FC boards, there is very little impartial information on the Internet about this subject. Most of it is written by extremist types both on the extreme Right and the Left. I therefore understand people's reluctance to accept such written information. So, other links will show pictures and videos - a lot more difficult to dispute.


....
TO BE CONTINUED! (post was too long, can you believe that!??!)

[Wicksy]

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/a...102/030102u.htm
Yes, that was a biased article. And easy to dispute.
If Arafat had a problem with the 2000 Camp David offer, he should've stayed at the negotiating table, instead of abandonding the negotiations with no counter-offer(s), fomenting anti-Semitic violence, starting the intifada, and FUNDING and ENCOURAGING terrorism.
Also, the PA under Arafat has not accepted Israel's right to exist. Have you seen Palestinian schoolbooks? Israel is not on the map, only a fictional state called "Palestine". Take a look at the various logos (http://www.hasbara.us/palestin_objectifs.html) of the Palestinian government institutions - Israel is nowhere to be seen, despite their supposed "acceptance" of Israel's right to exist in 1993, some 12 years ago.
All of this goes to explain why many Palestinians will not accept a state unless Israel is wiped out. If all they REALLY wanted was a state, they could've had one YEARS ago. Instead they are in the position they find themselves now.

i would give you links or quotes where the iranians have had talks or are entering talks with eu etc about nuclear disarmerment. i dont think they will disarm, but there we go. you watch the news too, so you know iran didnt say that, or if they did - they have also said the opposite and neither of the satements will be officail....
Go ahead, find the links. While you're at it, find the corresponding links a few days later where they renege on their previous agreements. "Yes we said we would stop enrichment, but what we really meant was....", and "yes we said we'd cease that, but we didn't include this site over here....". "Teheran said it may renege on a promise to Europe to "suspend" enrichment". All they're doing is buying time. I therefore agree with you: the EU negotiations will fail, and unless some other action is taken pronto, we will see a nuclear Iran. I shudder at the thought, and I'm pleased that we're at least in agreement on this.

Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. A banner proclaiming "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a 450-mile Shahab-2 missile. Another saying "We will crush America under our feet" graced a trailer carrying a 930-mile Shahab-3 missile.
"The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enable us to destroy the most distant targets," said the commentary.
There's plenty more where the above came from.

i dont talk as if isreal makes a habbit of attacking first - and i dont disagree with what you say here - but it reaks of 'arabs are bad' to me anyway - probably coz you said 'the arabs' always sounds slightly racist to me.
See above: "i think the isrealis are the most likely to use them because there government is psycotic!"

If the Arabs gave up their weapons tomorrow, there would be peace. If Israel gave up her weapons tomorrow, there would be no more Israel. ...
And if every country gave up there wepons tomorow there would be no more war ever!!! wow really clever and poinient statement there wicksy
Thank you. If both Israel and the Arabs gave up their weapons, that would still leave a tiny country the size of Wales containing 4 million Jews completely surrounded by a vast area containing about 300 million Arabs. Many of which hate Jews. Weapons or no weapons, I have a sneaky suspicion that the Jews would still be destroyed.

No thankyou wicksy - i know that you know that there is an equal number of anti arabic propaganda out there to be had also...
I'm not going to disagree, I've never counted it. What I do know is that anti-Arab propaganda is not the product of Western (including Israeli) governments and official agencies. In contrast, much of the Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda is funded and pumped out by Arab governments and official agencies, as well as by Imams in Middle-Eastern mosques. Go to Palestinian Media Watch (www.pmw.org.il) to see the weekly PA-funded anti-Semitic Mosque sermons, broadcasted by satellite around the Arab world.

Thanks for taking the time to quote and reply to my entire post wicksy - i hope my efforts have repaid your kindness.
Thank you.

p.s who the fuck could be bothered to read all this?
Me. :P

(Phew... that was hard work!)

[Karmashock]

stats,
wtf, I posted a long thing to you and you didn't even comment. :cop:

[stats]

Karma,

you and i have already had the same arguement on this subject twice and im pretty sure we both know where eachother stand. also your post was not twisting what i said - although im sure wicksy just over interpreted and didnt mean to, it was still irratating.

So dont feel upset :(

[Karmashock]

Answer me, bitch! :banana:
http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=33029&postcount=37

[Wicksy]

I was so busy writing to Stats, I completely missed this gem from Dibujante:

Just answer me this 1 question, Dibujante: do you think Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons? Don't argue, don't try to shift the goalposts. Yes or no?
Answer to the question: Yes.
Pah!

They're a representative democracy, brutal or not, and as such are not prone to Kim Jong Il-level insanity (what level of insanity they are prone to is unknown).
Except we do know, don't we?

Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. A banner proclaiming "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a 450-mile Shahab-2 missile. Another saying "We will crush America under our feet" graced a trailer carrying a 930-mile Shahab-3 missile.
"The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enable us to destroy the most distant targets," said the commentary.

So again, you've answered your own question without even realising it.

However, enriching underground is sensible. Enrichment relies on strict controls to ensure that the reactor doesn't go supercritical. If someone were to, say, bomb the hell out of the site there's a small chance of a thermonuclear explosion and a high chance of a radioactive disaster that would plague the nation for centuries.
Do you actually know anything at all about uranium enrichment? You have some researching to do.