Iran's Nuclear Program

Pazaz 21

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Why would we?

I think America, or namely J.F.K, handled that situation pretty well. The naval blockade worked well and an agreement was worked out (America remove missiles in turkey, USSR remove missiles in Cuba). Sure there was the whole bay of pigs thing, but it could have quite easily turned into world war three if certain people had got their way.

Pazaz 21

daveirl wrote:

Secondly if anyone wants to do search check out the Iraq threads circa March '03. Everyone expected them to find some WMDs. The point was that the yanks rushed to war and didn't care about inspections. They and every other intelligence group got it wrong. But read back at the time and nobody expected there to be no WMDs, not even guys like Robert Fisk. Everyone thought there would be something but that a) it should be let found with inspections and b) they wouldn't be worth talking about.

I mean even Saddam's generals thought he had WMD's until just before Baghdad was taken !!

joebhoy1916

I mean even Saddam's generals thought he had WMD's until just before Baghdad was taken !![/QUOTE]


What a load of bull sh*t you seen certain people
saying that because thats what America wanted
you to hear.

Kofi Annan even said before the war there
was no WMD's in Iraq.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

joebhoy1916

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Your talknig out your ar*e if he had them
do ya not think he would of used them.

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

I mean even Saddam's generals thought he had WMD's until just before Baghdad was taken !!

What a load of bull sh*t you seen certain people
saying that because thats what America wanted
you to hear.

Kofi Annan even said before the war there
was no WMD's in Iraq.

Actually, he's right. There are many instances of Iraqi troops captured/killed prepared for and equipped for chemical warfare. As the Coalition forces don't use chemical weapons, the only conclusion is that they were expecting their own side to use them.

Your talknig out your ar*e if he had them
do ya not think he would of used them.

American policy for some time has been that the use of chemical weapons will be retaliated against with the use of nuclear weapons. (All are considered WMDs, the US doesn't make the distinction, especially since the US no longer has chem/bio in service and has no other deterrent). It's enough to make anyone blink, I think.

NTM

AppleBack

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today said Israel was a “rotten, dried tree” which will be annihilated by “one storm”.

“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad told a conference for supporting the Palestinians as it opened in the Iranian capital Tehran.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/04/14/story254215.html

Pazaz 21

joebhoy1916 wrote:

I mean even Saddam's generals thought he had WMD's until just before Baghdad was taken !!

What a load of bull sh*t you seen certain people
saying that because thats what America wanted
you to hear.

Kofi Annan even said before the war there
was no WMD's in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

I think Manic Moran said what had to be said about this!! Thanks:)

P.S. When was Kofi Annan in Iraq checking on WMD ?:rolleyes:

the_syco

They had a fair idea what Iraq had, since the US had given Iraq some nice little toys a while back.

Also, the "evidence" about the WMD's came from one of the people who "got out". The infomation was a bit old by the time they got it, and alot of people within the intel community weren't the happist about it, so it was quickly swept under tha mat.

When the US went into Iraq, they had f*ck all. They still have f*ck all. A year ago, the soldiers were tying scrap metal onto the side of their humvee's, for protection. Their families were sending them helmets, body armour, etc, as the soldiers weren't getting it from the army.
The only people I can see that wanted this war was the Bush administration. The US Army wasn't prepared, and this was shown when the sh|t hit the fan.

Pity the sh|t continues to hit the fan, and soldiers continue to die, due to Bush. I'm pro-American, but Bush should back off.

Oh, and if you wonder why Bush was re-elected, its proberly cos he provides jobs. What people fail to relaise, is that war created these jobs, not Bush.

Pazaz 21

the_syco wrote:

Oh, and if you wonder why Bush was re-elected, its proberly cos he provides jobs. What people fail to relaise, is that war created these jobs, not Bush.

Kinda like Hitler between 1933 -1944 !! He created a lot of jobs, ultimately using war as a way to lower unemployment and create millions of jobs.

Just thought it was an interesting comparison:rolleyes:

Frederico

About Cuba..
Imagine the Bush right wing hawk administration dealing with a situation like Cuba, I have no doubt war would have ensued.

US pres and Russian pres were battling hardline elements in both their governments, events transpired, war was narrowly avoided..

About 2003..
I remember on various bulletin boards, everything that's happened being predicted, no wmds (jesus I hate that phrase), lengthy tough insurgency, increase in terrorism in that area, etc, etc. Thinktanks in the US came up with this and were ignored. Military generals (many now retired) knew this would happen, compiled large reports, ignored by Rumsfeld and the war gang.

About Iraqis being prepared for chemical warfare..
Iran/Iraq war chemicals were used.

We have been so indoctrinated by the news, any chemical weapons the US uses or has used are the "good" chemicals, napalm, agent orange, white phosphorus and any chemicals Europe supplied Saddam with were the "bad" chemicals.

Just thinking of it now, why do these phrases sound funny..
The Pakistani Regime
The Iranian Government

As Chomsky said, if an Italian doesn't support war or is not supportive of his government is he somehow "anti-Italian"? (About "Anti-Americanism", an invented rally-round-the-flag term)

The image of a terrorist in my head has been replaced from a Nordy fella with a balaclava on to an Arab with a rag on his head who needs a shave..

Must stop watching Sky News..

Manic Moran

We have been so indoctrinated by the news, any chemical weapons the US uses or has used are the "good" chemicals, napalm, agent orange, white phosphorus and any chemicals Europe supplied Saddam with were the "bad" chemicals.

[nitpick mode on] Without commenting on any of the European-provided items as I don't know what they are, napalm and WP are both incendiary weapons, and Agent Orange was a defoliant not known at the time to have the side effects we know it now to have. None of the three are categorised as chemical weapons. Well, maybe AO is now, but at the time it wasn't. [/nitpick mode off]

NTM

EireRoadUser

I've just joined on this thread ,and i think america has increased the need for iran to make it's people feel safe.
The world shouldn't ignore the fact that iraq is a neighbour, if you attack a neighbour from a far and get away with it globally , whats to stop people invading every home in your own country.

I really think america has induced the need for people to protect their own.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

[nitpick mode on] Without commenting on any of the European-provided items as I don't know what they are, napalm and WP are both incendiary weapons, and Agent Orange was a defoliant not known at the time to have the side effects we know it now to have. None of the three are categorised as chemical weapons. Well, maybe AO is now, but at the time it wasn't. [/nitpick mode off]

NTM

WP is an incendiary chemical weapon. The burning effect is through a chemical reaction, It's like Magnesium compared with oil. When WP comes into contact with Human flesh, it burns right down to the bone, even if someone jumps into a river. This kind of weapon is not the same as an ordinary firebomb.

In relation to other weapons routinely used by the U.S. and Europe, Tear gas and CS Gas are part of even domestic law enforcement. Both of these chemicals, have long records of causing death and severe disfigurement.

Akrasia

and in relation to Iran's 'Nuclear program' that somehow constitutes proof that an attack is imminent and necessary. For the first time, anywhere, I have come across this information

Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."



The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=10090

If this information is true, and i have verified it through the BBC and elsewhere, it means that there is precisely zero nuclear threat from iran, and precisely zero imminent need for a military engagement.

Iran says the enrichment is to 3.5% which is sufficient for nuclear power fuel and not high enough for a nuclear bomb, which it says it is not making.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm


We need to look at this rationally.war should be the last resort (anyone who disagrees with this, WTF!!!!)
If Iran are ten years away from posing a threat, then we should by no means be even considering a military strike this decade.

Moriarty

Akrasia wrote:

WP is an incendiary chemical weapon. The burning effect is through a chemical reaction

I presume you class a bullet as a chemical weapon aswell then, since it's a projectile weapon propelled via chemical reactions. What about explosives, which cause devestating injuries and are also the result of chemical reactions?

To be defined as a chemical weapon, the agent needs to be specifically designed to inflict injury or death via their toxic properties. That's according to the Chemical Weapons Convention aswell, so it's about the most definitive and widely accepted defintion you'll find.

Akrasia wrote:

When WP comes into contact with Human flesh, it burns right down to the bone, even if someone jumps into a river.

Wrong. White phosphorus stops burning when it's denied oxygen. Placing any exposed flesh under water, or even placing a bandage over the wound and keeping it wet, is enough to stop any further burning.

Akrasia wrote:

In relation to other weapons routinely used by the U.S. and Europe, Tear gas and CS Gas are part of even domestic law enforcement. Both of these chemicals, have long records of causing death and severe disfigurement.

You should also take a look at dihydrogen monoxide which is routinely deployed by many law enforcement agencies around the world. Even brief exposures of small amounts of this substance is enough to kill someone under the wrong circumstances. Dangerous stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ChityWest

Quote:
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Do you mean if Israel attacked them - are you talkling about nuclear attack ?

Manic Moran

Moriarty wrote:

You should also take a look at dihydrogen monoxide which is routinely deployed by many law enforcement agencies around the world. Even brief exposures of small amounts of this substance is enough to kill someone under the wrong circumstances. Dangerous stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.

Wasn't that banned by a city council in the US a few months ago, in a much-publicised case?

For the sake of accuracy, WP is categorised as a Conventional Military Chemical (Comes in the manual after 'irritants' such as CS gas and at the same level as 'vehicle exhaust' for the vapour effect) It is not categorised as a Chemical Agent, which is a WMD, or, if you prefer, a 'bad chemical.'

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Wasn't that banned by a city council in the US a few months ago, in a much-publicised case?

For the sake of accuracy, WP is categorised as a Conventional Military Chemical (Comes in the manual after 'irritants' such as CS gas and at the same level as 'vehicle exhaust' for the vapour effect) It is not categorised as a Chemical Agent, which is a WMD, or, if you prefer, a 'bad chemical.'

NTM

but isn't this the point? That all the chemicals in the arsenal of the 'good guys' are given classifications other than what they are, and all the weapons that Saddam was supposed to have were called Chemical weapons and WMD given the first opportunity. ( barrels of pesticides, for example were described as chemical weapons caches by the Right wing press)
Mustard Gas could probably be described as an 'irritant' if it was still in the U.S. arsenal too.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

halkar

I guess some of you guys weren't around when Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader of Iran and daily attacks to US-Israel was like breakfast-lunch-dinner by him What did US and West do? Use Iraq to keep him occupied. Now they have no one else to do their dirty work in ME they have to try doing it themselves. Khomeini was against nuclear bombs as said above for them being Islamically immoral.

Iran is a proud nation that hasn't been conquered for 1000 years and she is no Iraq or Afghanistan where US cyborgs fought against stick and stones and think they have victories. I beleive it is a no go area for US. As for Israel, I doubt they will have the balls to attack Iranian nuclear sites as they did for Iraq few decades ago. Even if they have the balls they have very little chance of succeeding. Iran has Hamas in Palestine, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Syria as allies and support of extremists in Egypt, Jordan. More than enough to stir $hit in Israel.

As long as Israel keeps her nukes in the bays we will have more nations joining to the race in ME. Big guns in the hands of little boys can be dangerous too. Either no one will have them or everyone will have them.

Akrasia

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

except that they don't actually have a nuclear threat. they have nowhere near the enrichment facilities necessary to produce weapons grade uranium and it would take years before they could ammass that technology.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

except that they don't actually have a nuclear threat. they have nowhere near the enrichment facilities necessary to produce weapons grade uranium and it would take years before they could ammass that technology.

Oh? I doubt that.

It didnt take NK that long and I think its reasonable to suggest that Iran is a vastly more resourcefull state than NK.

Akrasia

Earthman wrote:

Oh? I doubt that.

It didnt take NK that long and I think its reasonable to suggest that Iran is a vastly more resourcefull state than NK.

well, that's basically wild speculation. The simple fact is, In order to enrich uranium using the method iran have chosen, you need cascading centrifuges. Currently Iran have around 200 centrifuges set up, That's the number needed to enrich nuclear fuel for electricity generation. In order to enrich uranium to weapons Grade, they need about 16000 centrifuges hooked up together. this is a facility around 80 times bigger and more complex than what they currently have.
Each centrifuge has to be manufactured to an extremely precise specification and the machinery to operate it also needs to be manufactured somewhere or imported from abroad. It's very difficult to do all of this in a clandestine manner, and if Iran want to do it quickly, they would have to work on a large scale which would be even more difficult to hide.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

well, that's basically wild speculation. The simple fact is, In order to enrich uranium using the method iran have chosen, you need cascading centrifuges. Currently Iran have around 200 centrifuges set up, That's the number needed to enrich nuclear fuel for electricity generation. In order to enrich uranium to weapons Grade, they need about 16000 centrifuges hooked up together. this is a facility around 80 times bigger and more complex than what they currently have.
Each centrifuge has to be manufactured to an extremely precise specification and the machinery to operate it also needs to be manufactured somewhere or imported from abroad. It's very difficult to do all of this in a clandestine manner, and if Iran want to do it quickly, they would have to work on a large scale which would be even more difficult to hide.

Well to be fair,they are practically comparatively almost infinitely more resourcefull than NK when it comes to the ability to go nuclear if unhindered.
Theres an interesting article here on the subject.

I'd certainly welcome all the attention under the sun to IRAN from Al Baredi when the Iranian President is coming out with comments yesterday like "the Zionist regime is decaying and seems now like a dried-up tree which would collapse with the next storm,"

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

but isn't this the point? That all the chemicals in the arsenal of the 'good guys' are given classifications other than what they are
Mustard Gas could probably be described as an 'irritant' if it was still in the U.S. arsenal too.

The manual doesn't distinguish between whose systems they are. It just goes over everything by category, symptoms and treatment.

FWIW, Mustard Gas is listed under Vesicants, (Blister Agents)

NTM

Squaddy

Lets hope they do produce nuclear weapens and blow up the real evil people - america!

New_Departure06

I agree that there is a need to stop Iran acquiring nuclear bombs. This is a truly crazy regime which talks about wiping countries off the map. I agree with those who argue that Israel has nukes and the US is being hypocritical to a degree, but unlike Israel Iran could be a direct threat to the West. I also find it difficult to believe Iran that it (one of the world's top oil producers) is really only after nuclear power rather than weapons.

Squaddy

Im not trying to be biased or anything but we deserve everything that is coming to us.