Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Enoch, Feb 16, 2006.
Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)
News Analysis, William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer,
Pacific News Service, Jun 26, 2003
Editor's Note: The Bush administration is turning up the heat on Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, but the authors say the evidence just isn't there. Part 1 of a two-part series.
President Bush declared on June 25 that "we will not tolerate" a nuclear armed Iran. His words are empty. The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist.
Iran is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr with Russian help. The existence of the site is common knowledge. It has been under construction for more than three decades, since before the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Two other nuclear research facilities, now under development, have come to light: a uranium enrichment plant in the city of Natanz and a deuterium ("heavy water") facility in the city of Arak. Neither is in operation. The only question of interest is whether these facilities offer a plausible route to the manufacture of plutonium-based nuclear bombs, and the short answer is: They do not.
The Bushehr plant is only part of the argument that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program, but it is the part that can readily be analyzed. State Department accusations of dangerous Iranian intentions for the Natanz and Arak facilities are based on a patchwork of untestable, murky assertions from dubious sources, including the People's Mujahedeen (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, MEK or MKO), which the United States identifies as a terrorist organization. These sources assert that there are centrifuges for enriching uranium (an alternative to fissile plutonium for bombs) or covert facilities for extracting plutonium. Neither of these claims are especially credible, since the sources are either unidentified or are the same channels which disseminated the stories about Iraq's non-conventional weapons or the so-called chemical and biological weapons plant in Khartoum.
The testable part of the claim -- that the Bushehr reactor is a proliferation threat -- is demonstrably false. There are several reasons, some technical, some institutional.
--The Iranian reactor yields the wrong kind of plutonium for making bombs.
--The spent fuel pins in the Iranian reactor would, in any case, be too dangerous to handle for weapons manufacture.
--Any attempt to divert fuel from the Iranian plant will be detectable.
--The Russian partners in the Bushehr project have stipulated that the fuel pins must be returned to Russia, as has been their practice worldwide for other export reactors.
Just as there are many different kinds of nuclear reactors, there are different forms of plutonium, distinctions that are almost never made in public discussions of nuclear proliferation.
Is Iran Building Nukes? An Economic Analysis (Part 2)<- link
Maybe we should paint up a U2 reconnaissance aircraft in United Nations colors fly it over Iran and hope they shoot it down like President Bush suggested to Tony Blair in order to start a war with Iraq. Only this time to start a war with Iran.
See the video at SOURCE. Click Here.
Chirp chirp chirp.
Vive la France!
I'm really glad they're going to bat on this.
I don't know man. I think the French are just being very inflammatory. I think they should be building some bridges with Iran instead of inciting the Arab street. They are alienating themselves from the Arab world. War mongers! They are nothing but a bunch of imperialist hate mongers. They want to kill Iranians. Shouldn't we send some diplomats...maybe some weapons inspectors...let's give them more time. Let's hold hands and sing Kum Bya and hope the problem will go away.
I guess all that would be better than looking at the real facts and acting accordingly. Let's go nuke all them anti semitic semites...the sooner the better!!!
Go go go kill kill kill blood guts mmmmmmmmm I love the smell of rotting flesh in the morning. So tasty so wonderful, so righteous.
And that would be a really great argument if that were even in the plans...which it is not. As it is, it is merely more sensless ranting from a conspiracy theorist.
Maybe so Joseph but I still prefer to look at the all facts before I allow my consent to be engineered by the neocon press. Woo Hoo.
BTW, how do you know the plans, what with everything being so secret and all? Poor me I have to figure it all out by wading through tons of propaganda and fake news articles while you seem to be privy to the inside information. How do you rate?
It is called common sense...I know that is something conspriacy theorist abandoned a long time ago...but you might try it out sometime. We are not going to nuke them unless we have no choice.
The Russians are saying March 28th is the date of the first air strikes. Guess we'll just have to wait and see eh?
Conspiracy theorist again? I would think that in all this time you could have come up with a better tactic than that by now. How about some facts for instance?
Nevermind, I already know that facts are useless when discussing how the globalists engineer consent.
Ok...so we are going to start nuking Iran on March 29th, then? Is that what the Russians say? Source?
I never said anything about nukes (except when I was trying to be being uh, funny or sarcastic?) I said airstrikes and actually it's the 28th of March Joseph.
Russian Ultranationalist Leader Expects U.S. to Attack Iran in Late March
Created: 07.02.2006 10:54 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:34 MSK
A senior Russian parliamentary official and leader of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky believes that a U.S. attack on Iran is inevitable, he has told Ekho Moskvy radio station.
“The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war,” he said. “Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost,” Zhirinovsky said.
He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is “to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world”. “It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers,” he said. Russia should “choose a position of non-interference and express minimal solidarity with the Islamic world”, Zhirinovsky added.
For his part, the head of the Centre for Strategic Studies of Religions and Modern World Politics, Maxim Shevchenko, also believes that a U.S. attack on Iran is very likely although he sees no preconditions for this war. “Iran does not threaten anyone, is not pointing its missiles at anyone. No Iranian leader has ever threatened to carry out a strike against the U.S. Therefore preparations for a war against Iran appear to be a global act of provocation,” he said.
In Shevchenko’s opinion, the reason behind “this barefaced promotion of a world war lies not in a conflict between the West and the Islamic World but in a fight for power in the world between US and European elites”. “The fate of humanity will be decided between a saber-rattling America and an allegedly democratic Europe,” Shevchenko concluded.
Ah yes. I remember him. He is the perfect spokesperson for the isolationist conspiracy theorist kooks of the world. He speaks the same language as them:
Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky
That is just perfect. Even if we were to lend any credibility to this kook, which is a stretch at best, where in his article did he state that we are going to nuke Iran?
The mistakes by the Bush administration concerning Iraq are forestalling its desire to attack Iran.
The only mistake Bush made in Iraq was wasting time with the UN and trying to get the sissys in Europe on board when they were in Saddam's hip pocket the entire time. He lost the element of surprise and allowed Saddam enough time to ship the WMD's to another terrorist state and to organize an insurgency.
Then why hasn't the Bush administration attacked Iran, Joseph, if delay was its only mistake concerning Iraq?
I do think a military confrontation is going to happen sooner or later. He is probably allowing for every diplomatic option to be exhausted first, which I also think is a mistake.
Attacking Iran without proof that Iran is 1) trying to build a nuclear weapon and 2) intends to use it in a first strike would be an even bigger mistake than invading Iraq was.
Hey Ken. What kind of proof would you like to see?
Is this what you are waiting for? Sorry...but somehow, I think waiting for them to drop one in America is somewhat irresponsible.
So do you want to attack Israel, Great Britain, France, Russia, Pakistan, China, and India right now as well, Joseph? They actually have nuclear weapons and we could be just one change in leadership away in any of those countries and they might be interested in the nuking the United States.
Perpetual war for perpetual peace doesn't work, Joseph. Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of we Americans reject such nonsense.