kronic said:
Because a few political exiles who have their own agendas told them so. The same type of people who told US that Iraq had all kinds of WMD including nukes and were taken seriously to help the US with their own political agenda.
Iran refuses EU's nuclear offer
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
Because a few political exiles who have their own agendas told them so. The same type of people who told US that Iraq had all kinds of WMD including nukes and were taken seriously to help the US with their own political agenda.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Azadre said:
That is very easy to say for an American
Europe will be soon within reach of their missiles. Israel already is. If there is a nuclear war in Middle East (Iran-Israeli nuclear exchange), I guess the Indians won't need a flashlight to go out in the night anymore
The best thing would be if no country had a nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Unfortunately, US invasion to Iraq (and US negotiations with North Korea) has convinced Iran the nukes are only thing that would save them from US attack.
Now, they refused an offer from the only part of the world, which can possibly put some real pressure on the Americans. So they screwed it up. There is no doubt the Security Council will impose a sanctions if the matter goes to it.
Even if we did not enter Iraq, the Middle East would still have Israel as a nuclear power. Has Iran ever, and I mean ever, attacked Europe from colonialism to present?Winner said:That is very easy to say for an American
Europe will be soon within reach of their missiles. Israel already is. If there is a nuclear war in Middle East (Iran-Israeli nuclear exchange), I guess the Indians won't need a flashlight to go out in the night anymore
The best thing would be if no country had a nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Unfortunately, US invasion to Iraq (and US negotiations with North Korea) has convinced Iran the nukes are only thing that would save them from US attack.
Now, they refused an offer from the only part of the world, which can possibly put some real pressure on the Americans. So they screwed it up. There is no doubt the Security Council will impose a sanctions if the matter goes to it.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Well, it's true that Israel being a nuclear power is the main reason why all other states in the regions are seeking to build their own nuclear weapon. That's the first reason which has motivated Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia to elaborate a nuclear program. So we can decently blame the French for this because it's clear Israel wouldn't have been able to become a nuclear power so soon without France.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Before Iraq War #2 happened, Iran and Iraq were at pretty much the same point in their nuclear programs. While Iraq appeared to have a more organized effort, thanks to all the press coverage, both nations were somewhere between the late research and early prototype phases. Iraq may have had a few functioning bombs, but this isn't known for certain.
The only reason Iran is a bigger nuclear threat right now is because Iraq's nuclear threat has been eliminated. If we'd invaded Iran instead, everybody in here would be asking why the hell we didn't invade Iraq, and pointing out that since we were now bogged down in Iran we had no muscle with which to apply pressure to Iraq.
Iran's first nuclear missile isn't going to protect the nation. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons--lots more of them, with a lot more rumble for the ruble--and we still beat them. Soviet nukes didn't protect the USSR from our military, either. The US and the USSR simply fought via third party proxy armies instead.
And the old line about how the U.S. should set an example and disarm its own nukes first?? Bollocks. The U.S. built its first nuclear missiles to protect itself from nuclear attack by.....who???? Nobody. There WERE no other nuclear powers at the time. We didn't need the damn things, but we built them anyway. Don't delude yourselves--if the U.S. destroys its nuclear arsenal, the rest of the world will go right on building the things.
The only reason Iran is a bigger nuclear threat right now is because Iraq's nuclear threat has been eliminated. If we'd invaded Iran instead, everybody in here would be asking why the hell we didn't invade Iraq, and pointing out that since we were now bogged down in Iran we had no muscle with which to apply pressure to Iraq.
Iran's first nuclear missile isn't going to protect the nation. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons--lots more of them, with a lot more rumble for the ruble--and we still beat them. Soviet nukes didn't protect the USSR from our military, either. The US and the USSR simply fought via third party proxy armies instead.
And the old line about how the U.S. should set an example and disarm its own nukes first?? Bollocks. The U.S. built its first nuclear missiles to protect itself from nuclear attack by.....who???? Nobody. There WERE no other nuclear powers at the time. We didn't need the damn things, but we built them anyway. Don't delude yourselves--if the U.S. destroys its nuclear arsenal, the rest of the world will go right on building the things.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
You should update your informations. It's been proven that Iraq had no nuclear program anymore since the Iraq War #1. And this had been proven even before Iraq War #2 by the IAEA in February 2003.BasketCase said:
Basketcase, what have you done during the last 3 years ? Iraq nuclear program has never been a reason to invade the country for the simple reason that there were no nuclear program anymore in Iraq in 2003.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
No, it has not.Marla_Singer said:
Yes it has. See http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/BasketCase said:
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Is this the end of your argumentation ?BasketCase said:
US Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question, January 2003.
Statement by Mohamed Elbaradei to the UN Security Council, February 2003.
CIAs Final Report: No WMD Found in Iraq, April 2005.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
I made my point about Iraq 47 threads ago, with a lot more links than either of you two have got. Everybody from David Kay to the CNN to the CIA to several government nuclear agencies to the UN's nuclear committees. Very little has been proven about Iraq's nuclear programs. Very little ever will, since the evidence that was found didn't convince the doubters. Saddam destroyed a lot of evidence (the U.S. military found a lot of disassembled computers, shredded documents, and smashed hard drives), and the fighting probably blew up the rest.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
So if the CIA doesn't know, if the UN doesn't know, if the IAEA doesn't know, if the Pentagon doesn't know, how can you know ?BasketCase said:
BasketCase
Username sez it all
EXACTLY! I don't.
I don't know whether Iraq had WMD when we invaded it. That's been my position ever since the troops landed.
I don't know whether Iraq had WMD when we invaded it. That's been my position ever since the troops landed.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
You should read my links before posting. All the hints on which Washington has based its presumption on an Iraqi nuclear program has been proven as invalid. The aluminium tubes supposed to enrich uranium didn't have that purpose at all, Iraq has never bought uranium from Niger, there has never been mobile laboratory outside CIA agents imagination. The US administration itself has recognized through Donald Rumsfeld that it has been misleaded.BasketCase said:
But you know that they are all wrong, and that there was a nuclear program, despite the fact it's been proven that the presumption was based on nothing. I'm sorry BasketCase but you seem pretty arrogant in here.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
And I've read lots of testimony saying all your links are the ones that are lying.
I think you're the one being arrogant in assuming that "non-existence of evidence = evidence of non-existence". Non-existence of evidence means we don't know what happened. That's all it means.
I think you're the one being arrogant in assuming that "non-existence of evidence = evidence of non-existence". Non-existence of evidence means we don't know what happened. That's all it means.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
??BasketCase said:
The two first links come from the UN, I've posted them because they were published before the invasion. The third link comes from the CIA and confirm the reports of the UN. All are official reports. You accuse all of them to lie ?
There are reports from the Pentagon and from US administration which are confirming what's been said in here. Even the Pentagon and the US administration are lying ?
When we base presumptions on clues which are proven afterwards as invalid, then our presumptions become a lot less credible. BasketCase, it's hard to imagine that your conviction surpasses the one of the US administration.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Some facts seem to be constantly ignored here.
1. Iran's government is a terrorist organization that has, in the past, lent its resources to support other terrorist organizations and also commited terrorist acts on its own.
2. It would certainly not be in Iran's best interest to use a nuclear weapon either on its own or via delivery by another terrorist organization. It was also not in Stalin's best interests to execute all of his top military commanders prior to World War II. Nor was it in Hitler's best interest to invade Russia, thereafter. Irrational people, however, do irrational things that are often not in their best interests.
3. As far as its neighbors being a threat; Pakistan and Iran have been growing closer in relations very much so, recently. Israel has likely had nukes for likely more than thirty years and has not used them. Israel is in no position to attack Iran otherwise. The United States, without the nuclear issue, has no grounds for attacking Iran.
4. It is not likely, that without some pressing issue such as the nuclear issue, that any nation such as the United States or Europe would ever attack Iran. If and when that does happen, oil prices would be dramatically affected in an already stressed market. Nobody wants to suffer those kinds of consequences.
5. If Iran obtains nuclear arms, three bad situations will then exist. First, Iran will be more aggressive diplomatically, less willing to compromise in a myriad of situations and events. Two, Iran will then be in a situation where if they were invade or make any form of aggressive move against a neighbor, it is known that other nations of the world would be more reluctant to intervene due to Iran's nuclear arsenal. Third, if and when the Iranian Islamic Fundamentalist government does collapse, these nuclear weapons will be exposed to the possibility of being misplaced. Even if that never happens, who knows how secure the Iranian Gov't will keep these weapons.
1. Iran's government is a terrorist organization that has, in the past, lent its resources to support other terrorist organizations and also commited terrorist acts on its own.
2. It would certainly not be in Iran's best interest to use a nuclear weapon either on its own or via delivery by another terrorist organization. It was also not in Stalin's best interests to execute all of his top military commanders prior to World War II. Nor was it in Hitler's best interest to invade Russia, thereafter. Irrational people, however, do irrational things that are often not in their best interests.
3. As far as its neighbors being a threat; Pakistan and Iran have been growing closer in relations very much so, recently. Israel has likely had nukes for likely more than thirty years and has not used them. Israel is in no position to attack Iran otherwise. The United States, without the nuclear issue, has no grounds for attacking Iran.
4. It is not likely, that without some pressing issue such as the nuclear issue, that any nation such as the United States or Europe would ever attack Iran. If and when that does happen, oil prices would be dramatically affected in an already stressed market. Nobody wants to suffer those kinds of consequences.
5. If Iran obtains nuclear arms, three bad situations will then exist. First, Iran will be more aggressive diplomatically, less willing to compromise in a myriad of situations and events. Two, Iran will then be in a situation where if they were invade or make any form of aggressive move against a neighbor, it is known that other nations of the world would be more reluctant to intervene due to Iran's nuclear arsenal. Third, if and when the Iranian Islamic Fundamentalist government does collapse, these nuclear weapons will be exposed to the possibility of being misplaced. Even if that never happens, who knows how secure the Iranian Gov't will keep these weapons.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
You yourself said they were lying when, just before the troops went in, every U.S. government agency we have was saying "we know Saddam has WMD, and we know where they are". Why do you believe these very same agencies now? You can't base truth or falsity solely on whether somebody is saying what you want them to say; you have to have some other method of verification. That's what you're missing.Marla_Singer said:
The rest of the world believes Saddam had no WMD. Bush could just be telling you what you want to hear. He could be lying to you right now, in order to salvage some approval ratings points.
Of course, all of the above completely ignores the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies might have simply screwed up again. A report surfaces that says Saddam is trying to buy uranium in Africa. Then another report surfaces saying the first one is wrong. How do we know it's the second report that's not the mistake?
Fermat's Last Theorem was (allegedly) proven fairly recently. How do we know there isn't a mistake in that proof? That's already happened--several times.
How do we know that these reports you're citing don't contain similar goofs?
I have no convictions at all here. My opinion on Saddam's WMD, ever since the troops went in, was that we don't know if he had them, and will probably never know.Marla_Singer said:
I made no presumptions at all.
There were no clues at all. The evidence we found doesn't prove that Saddam had WMD--and it also doesn't prove that he didn't have them.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
King Alexander said:
I agree, Bush and his fellow Americans (myself included) are very dangerous men to toy with.
EU I mean come on, stop being such a bunch of cowards and show a little military muscle. To England and those helping the U.S. in Iraq: I don't think this of you, in fact I think quite the contrary.
