More Indices of an Iranian Problem

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Hand over nuclear weapons and know-how, Iran tells Britain
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 11/08/2004)

Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.

Teheran’s request, said by British officials to have “gone down very badly”, sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.

Iran’s move came during crisis talks in Paris this month with senior diplomats from Britain, France and Germany.

The “EU-3” were trying to convince Iranian officials to honour an earlier deal to suspend its controversial uranium enrichment programme, which is ostensibly designed to make fuel for nuclear power stations but could also be used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs.

Iranian officials refused point-blank to comply, saying they had every right under international law to pursue “peaceful” nuclear technology.

They then stunned the Europeans by presenting a letter setting out their own demands.

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran’s quest for “advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use” - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

The Europeans should “remove impediments” preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with “legal (or) political . . . limitations”, an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran.

More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran’s requirements for conventional weapons and even “provide security assurances” against a nuclear attack on Iran.

This is a reference to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, believed to include some 200 warheads and long-range missiles to deliver them.

The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was “extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process”. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.

America is demanding that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which meets next month, refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. US officials are also openly discussing “covert” means of disrupting the Iranian nuclear programme, while Israel has openly threatened military action.

However, there were signs yesterday that the next report of Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, may give Iran a boost.

A key mystery for the past year has been the source of traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) found by IAEA inspectors at several sites in Iran. Teheran claimed this was “contamination” of equipment imported from other countries, rather than proof that it had secretly made HEU.

According to diplomats, inspectors have confirmed that in at least one case the contamination did come from Pakistan, as Iran claimed.

Other contamination issues remain unresolved, and may never be settled. Moreover there are several other open questions.

2

What Iranian problem?

Israel threatens to attack (nuke) Iran.

Iran develops the only defence (MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction).

UK and US threaten to attack Iran if Iran develops counter measures.

I assume other Allies of Iran (either government or non-government) would attack UK and US.

Without the initial threat of a pre-emptive attack would there even be a problem.

3

[quote]bluey wrote:
What Iranian problem? Kabluey

4

Yea what is the problem??

5

The main problem is one of those countries, despite being attacked repeatedly throughout it’s history, wants to live peacfully with it’s neighbors. It has had these weapons for a long time and always showed restraint.

The other country denies the first countries right to exist and practices a religion that condones the killing of infidels as a type of subhuman. They also have a long history of funding and supporting international terrorism.

Now let’s be objective and non-political. Which country, without naming names, would be more dangerous if it had nuclear weapons and a means to deliver them.

6

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
Yea what is the problem?? [/quote]

Are you serious?

7

Thanks Hedo, I remember using the same response when discussing North Korea. Most people today are just like the Euro idiots of the 1930’s; Hitler agreed to “get along” and history proves otherwise. Why does Iran need nukes when they have substantial oil resources for their energy needs?

8

The problem, in a nutshell, is that Iran is an active supporter of terrorism and attempted exporter of violent revolution – these are advocated, sometimes more strenuously than others, by the theocratic regime that came into power in 1979. This is not a regime with which the rest of the world, and particularly the two countries oft referred to as “the Great Satan” (that would be us) and that little Jewish state with no right to exist (that would be Israel) should be comfortable. However, no country that is not a Muslim theocracy should be at ease in this case.

9

BostonBarrister,

What was the point of posting this article?? So you could wait for a couple of replies and then end it without learning anything by writing “…The problem in a nutshell is…”

Instead of starting and ending a thread with a couple of posts which make you happy because they agree with you why don’t you try and learn something.

I mean seriously have you been enlightened in any way by posting this?? Is your life any better in any way??

If those stupid people in power in these so called ‘Axis of evil’ countries keep using Israel as an excuse to arm themselves with nuclear power why don’t you STOP using Israel as an excuse to disarm them.

Be a bit more creative and look beyond what you read in your papers.

Why don’t you go and find a few North Koreans or Iranians here and there and ask them what they think about these issues, try to get a better grasping of whats beneath the dirty surface.

Now before you get all worked up and come back with witty comments to further implement your point, stop… take a few deep breathes, think… go away ask around then don’t even bother to reply just see if you feel any different, or if you still percieve these countries in the same way you do.

If you are not willing to change your opinion or to hear anything remotely different to your way of thinking you have no point in posting on a forum.

10

what are you blathering on about

Just answer these questions quite simply, yes or no…and then we can start a discussion from there

  1. do you think its a good Idea for Iran to get nuclear weapons?

  2. does Iran support terrorism?

Say what you will about israel palestine, but supporting little kids blowing up other little kids is not solving anything and to allow them to get nuclear capabilities is just silly. I am all for rearranging our Isreal palestine policy…but thats very much a trivial issue in relation to this.

11

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
BostonBarrister,

What was the point of posting this article?? So you could wait for a couple of replies and then end it without learning anything by writing “…The problem in a nutshell is…”

Instead of starting and ending a thread with a couple of posts which make you happy because they agree with you why don’t you try and learn something.

I mean seriously have you been enlightened in any way by posting this?? Is your life any better in any way??[/quote]

Aside from the amusement I got from your reply, my life is improved by the knowledge – imparting, discussing, learning, arguing, etc. However, it would help if you posted an intelligent critique rather than “what is the problem.” It seems particularly amusing for you to pose the question and then whine because you didn’t like the answer.

No one is using them as “an excuse.” We are looking out for our own interests. Of course, there’s always that thing about a mutual defense treaty with Israel, which I believe we have in place. Then there’s the general worldwide importance of the middle east. I know, I know: interesting little “excuses.” Yet there are those of us who actually consider them important.

[quote] Be a bit more creative and look beyond what you read in your papers.

Why don’t you go and find a few North Koreans or Iranians here and there and ask them what they think about these issues, try to get a better grasping of whats beneath the dirty surface. [/quote]

Next time I find a few here in DC I’ll try that. Oh, wait – North Koreans aren’t allowed to leave, generally. Not sure about Iranians, but I kind of doubt they have a lot of travel freedom either. However, I did spend last weekend with a doctor friend of mine whose family fled Iran back in 1979 when he was five. Does that count?

[quote] Now before you get all worked up and come back with witty comments to further implement your point, stop… take a few deep breaths, think… go away ask around then don’t even bother to reply just see if you feel any different, or if you still percieve these countries in the same way you do.

If you are not willing to change your opinion or to hear anything remotely different to your way of thinking you have no point in posting on a forum.

[/quote]

Interesting. But I think I’ll pass on your advice, even given all your excellent justifications… Of course, now you could paraphrase Jacques Chirac to the Poles: “They missed an excellent opportunity to shut up,” but I guess I will have to chance it.

Sorry, but I was just sitting here, hyperventililating in outrage over how your unique criticisms and insights have rocked my world – or, perhaps, I was laughing and sipping my diet Dr. Pepper – hard to remember. Anyway, the point of forums is to discuss. You throw out ideas, consider, argue, etc. Or, I guess, if you’re shorty_blitz, you ask a question, and instead of discussing the answer, go off on a diatribe about how not accepting your unstated, unargued viewpoint is tantamount to having a closed mind.

Feel free to argue your points. Otherwise, “Have a Coke and a smile…”

12

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
what are you blathering on about

Just answer these questions quite simply, yes or no…and then we can start a discussion from there
[/quote]

NO YOU GO AND DO WHAT I SAID FIRST THEN WE’LL HAVE A DISCUSSION!!

For them it probably makes perfect sense, but for Israel no as for you I don’t think you have much to worry about.

Probably to some extent

[quote]
Say what you will about israel palestine, but supporting little kids blowing up other little kids is not solving anything and to allow them to get nuclear capabilities is just silly. I am all for rearranging our Isreal palestine policy…but thats very much a trivial issue in relation to this. [/quote]

Stop using Israel-Palestine as an excuse to do whatever you want, that’s what the terrorists are doing!!

13

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
Stop using Israel-Palestine as an excuse to do whatever you want, that’s what the terrorists are doing!![/quote]

However, there’s a big difference in what we want.

The terrorists want to slaughter millions of people in a mass religiously-founded genocide.

We, on the other hand, want the terrorists to leave Israel alone.

So pick a side.

14

Based on this, wouldn’t it have been more prudent to invade Iran or North Korea? Now we don’t have the manpower to do either without reinstating a draft.

15

Honestly, can you please tell me what the hell you are talking about.

Just answer this simple question if its a yes then there is no discussion needed because you are an idiot…if its a no then please explain to me what the hell you are talking about

IS IT A GOOD IDEA FOR IRAN TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

16

[quote]DrS wrote:
Based on this, wouldn’t it have been more prudent to invade Iran or North Korea? Now we don’t have the manpower to do either without reinstating a draft. [/quote]

You may be correct, at least on Iran – I think N. Korea already has nukes, unfortunately…

But consider: now we have troops on Iran’s eastern (Afghanistan) and western (Iraq) fronts, just in case…

17

But consider: now we have troops on Iran’s eastern (Afghanistan) and western (Iraq) fronts, just in case…[/quote]

Thanks BB, this is lost on most of the short-sighted individuals in this world. If we didn’t bring the fight to them we would have expeienced more than a few terrorist attacks on our soil. I’m more than amazed that so many don’t understand history and mankind. I guess the dumb only learn the hard way, which is coming again to our continent.

18
  1. do you think its a good idea for Iran to get nuclear weapons?

No of course not. But then again is it a good idea for any country bar your own to have nuclear weapons? But what can you do about it? Invade ever country that has nuclear weapons?

Or every country that is or may be developing nuclear weapons? Would this not lead to massive nuclear proliferations as countries race to develop the only defence against invasion (i.e. a fully functioning nuclear bomb)? Is Iran not developing a nuclear program as a hedge against a pre-empetive attack?

  1. does Iran support terrorism?

At last count the number of Persian or Shiite (sp?) terrorists comes to how many? Zero! Iran hated (i.e. did not support) the Taliban (Turkish and Sunni) and Al-Queda (Arab (a little Malay) and Sunni).

If you want to invade Iran for strategic or ideological interests just come out and say it. Don’t try and manipulate people into believing that you want to do this for their own interests (i.e. a safer world).

Oh and you know some one has a weak position when they need to invoke the ghost of Hitler to add some emotion to their position.

19

Iran has funded terrorism from the get go…from the revolution on up. Now I am not at this time in favor of invading Iran because I think the government will fall within the next few years on their own accord…the base of students and middle class rising up against the shiite lawmakers is already there…its only a matter of time before it happpens, but if it was between them getting a nuke before that then let Israel at them. Thats a regime that we cannot allow to get nuclear weapons.

20

We should have kicked the shit out of Iran in 1979, when they took our guys hostage.

But thanks to Jimmy Carter’s imbecilic handling of our nation’s defense, he allowed the anti-american fervor to simmer and boil into the current state of affairs.