# Iran's nuke program does anybody care?



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If Iran gets Nukes, terroists will have access to them, we all need to demand that our representatives in congress start dealing with this before its too late.
This article is out of the Wall street Journal I would of liked to it but some have said they coun;t follow the link, READ THIS ITS IMPORTANT

Coddling the Mullahs 
The world shrugs as Iran builds its nuclear bomb.

Monday, June 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

If Iran goes nuclear within the next year or two, don't blame the inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Earlier this month Mohammed ElBaradei's U.N. team issued yet another damning report on the mullahs, describing a pattern of deception and non-cooperation that all but screams "bomb program." But the international community, with the apparent acquiescence of the Bush Administration, is treating it all as a matter of indifference.

OK, that's a mild overstatement. IAEA member states have been going through the motions required by their inspection process. But when they meet today in Vienna the consuming issue will be whether to "deplore" Iran's deceptions or note them with "serious concern." The Iranians are protesting that they consider even those words as all but a casus belli, but they are reported to be privately pleased as punch that the IAEA will yet again fail to refer them to the U.N. Security Council for sanction.

For the record, here's a sample of what the latest IAEA report says:

• "The information provided to date by Iran has not been adequate" to explain the origin of traces of near-weapons-grade uranium found by inspectors.

• "Important information about the P-2 centrifuge [uranium enrichment] program has frequently required repeated requests, and in some cases continues to involve changing or contradictory information"; and

• "Iran's postponement until mid-April of the visits originally scheduled for mid-March . . . resulted in a delay in the taking of environmental sample and their analysis."

Or to put that all in context, inspectors had found multiple traces of 36% enriched uranium, which has no civilian use. Iran has not offered a satisfactory explanation. Iran had also lied about having a sophisticated P-2 uranium enrichment program of the kind peddled by Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan. It turns out the Iranians have sought magnets for thousands of such centrifuges. Iran has not been able to explain experiments with polonium-210, a radioactive element primarily useful as a bomb trigger. Most incriminating of all, the Iranians barred access to sites for a month while they almost certainly sanitized them.

Remember that Iran is a petroleum-rich country that doesn't need nuclear power and whose former president has declared that "the world of Islam" should acquire the bomb so it can threaten the existence of Israel and thwart American "colonialism" in the Middle East. On Saturday, AP quoted Iran's foreign minister as declaring that Iran "has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."


> All of this has finally provoked even the U.S. State Department to declare that Iran's nuclear activities "are in no way peaceful" and "specifically designed to create weapons."


We've heard a disturbing number of quiet remarks in Washington and other Western capitals recently to the effect that the world will just have to "get used to" the idea of the Iranians having nukes. Have these people thought through the consequences of such resignation :******: ? *With the presumed American security umbrella suddenly jeopardized by the mullahs' bomb, the political calculations of every Mideast government would change. Many countries may conclude they themselves have no choice but to go nuclear, and the world could be off to another nuclear arms race.*
Last year the U.S. deferred to the Europeans as they brokered an inspection agreement with Iran that the mullahs have since violated with impunity. *In other words, the "multilateral" diplomatic path is failing. * :eyeroll: The question is whether anyone important is going to admit this reality. If not, we at least hope Washington is preparing covert and military options to sabotage the Iranian program, and to step up aid to those Iranians wishing a fundamental change in their terror-sponsoring regime. History will not look kindly on the leaders who let Iran get the bomb on their watch.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

and what will the first target be????????

israel.

pointer


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Maybe, but they are afraid of direct confrontation so....slip one to a terrorist group and it ends up in a US city, and no "paper trail" back to Iran.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Washinton Post Article Atomis Ayatollas
June 28, 2004 -- IRAN ratcheted up international nuclear tensions late last week by announcing it would resume (as soon as tomorrow) building nuclear centrifuges - an essential element in nuclear-weapons development. 
The rest of the world keeps protesting - and Tehran keeps thumbing its nose right back.

*Iran insists its "civilian" nuclear power program is for "peaceful" purposes only. That's laughable - but the consequences aren't. *

If other countries don't take decisive action soon, the world will have the 9th nuclear weapons state - *and its first nuclear-armed state that also sponsors terrorism* - faster than you can say "atomic ayatollah."

Efforts to stop Tehran's atomic quest have been lackluster so far. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) latest rebuke, for example, didn't even stop the mullahs from making last week's in-your-face announcement. The European Union's "peace in our time" agreement with Iran last October on nuclear transparency and inspections has become a tragic joke.

*Even Iran's old pals, Russia and China, don't buy Tehran's line anymore*. Iran's nuclear mendacity and obfuscation has become so obvious - and embarrassing - that Beijing and Moscow deserted the Islamic republic and supported the critical IAEA resolution. (Although China has been accused recently of secretly aiding the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for oil . . .)

The confrontation between the IAEA and Iran has dragged on for two years now. And time is on Iran's side: Each day, it moves one step closer to achieving its nuclear ambition.

As the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA said, "The passage of time is not a neutral factor in proliferation cases." Iran may become a nuclear power in the next 18 months.

Supporting Iranian nuclear efforts are:

* A heavy-water reactor at Arak, which will produce large amounts of plutonium suitable for use in nuclear weapons.

* A nuclear-conversion facility at Isfahan to produce uranium hexafluoride, a basic ingredient for developing nukes.

Iran insists that these facilities are for producing nuclear fuel for its civilian energy sector, which will free oil and gas reserves for export.

But as John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security, testified on Capitol Hill last week, "The costly infrastructure to perform all of these activities goes well beyond any conceivable peaceful nuclear program."

*Plus, Iran, with the world's second-largest natural-gas reserves, wastes enough gas each year to generate four 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors' worth of electricity.

Bottom line: Iran doesn't need nuclear power. *

Will the international community abandon its so-far-impotent ways? It's time for the U.N. Security Council to insist on broad, multilateral economic sanctions.

Tough sanctions made Libya knuckle under on weapons of mass destruction (WMD), may have crippled Saddam Hussein's WMD programs and, last week, led even North Korea back to the nuclear negotiating table.

But getting sanctions in place won't be easy. Countries such as France, Germany and Japan have invested heavily in Iran's centralized economy.

For instance, the French energy giant, Total Group, recently signed a $2 billion joint venture with the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company for natural-gas exploration. Germany's business presence in Iran exceeds France's, and the European Union is looking at a bilateral trade agreement with Iran as well. Japan? It recently signed a $2 billion deal for oil exploration in Iran. (Iran has the world's third largest deposits of oil.)

And China's insatiable energy appetite likely will prevent it from supporting Security Council sanctions.

If the international community lets Iran go nuclear, the U.N.'s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) would become a laughingstock, and no longer serve as a deterrent to nuclear proliferation. (Over the weekend, Tehran hinted, via a regime-friendly newspaper, at withdrawing from the NPT.)

A nuclear Iran would undermine stability in region, threatening the new Iraqi and Afghan governments and giving Syria and the Saudis strong incentive to go nuclear, too.

And Iran has long-range missiles on the drawing table - so NATO, Israel and the United States will become at risk.

*It seems obvious: The Iranians aren't interested in negotiations - they're interested in having the bomb. *
We've tried to counter Iran's nuclear intentions through mommy-coddling diplomatic means for long enough: That approach has failed miserably.

It's time we all recognize this fact and agree to take the matter to the Security Council for more drastic action


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This is going to be the next big step in the war on terror.
The Iranian defense minister has warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. He also threatened Israel with a strike if they try and destroy Iran's nuclear reactor. Oh really? :******: :******:

*How much of this are we going to take from these Islamic terrorists in Tehran? * If they do indeed launch any sort of strike against our forces (or Israel, for that matter,) then we should not waste any time bombing them straight back to the camel corral. Why on Earth we are standing idly by while these Islamo-fascists are building a nuclear weapons program, I will never know. Oh..they say their nuclear facilities are for peaceful purposes...riiight.

*Unfortunately, what is going to happen is more screwing around at the U.N., more appeasing and more inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency.* Sound familiar? :eyeroll: It's like Iraq, except* these terrorists are more insane and aren't attempting to hide their weapons of mass destruction.* :******: :******: 
Why are we allowing ourselves to be threatened? Time to send a strong message. You don't think that Iran thinks that John Kerry has already been inaugurated, do you?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

bobm study krypton a little and your worries will lessen considerably 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm from Krypton :wink:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:toofunny: actually krypton is a noble gas that is created in the fission process, it is so light it travels straight up into the highest layer of our atmosphere. The black hawk's have a sensor that finds it and of course directly below is a reactor running. That is how we discover and watch the reactors around the world.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No its really where I'm from and your communicating with me on alien/human technowledgy. Unfortunately we find your women attractive :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:lol: ....Oh good bob we'll send some of our most outstanding women your way, don't sell your truck you'll need it!! 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Send the little ones my current truck is a toyota another good example of aliens and humans crossbreeding :lol:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

The Iranians must be getting close, they are threatening pre-emptive strikes to protect their technology.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Bob, being that we were wrongfully told that there were nukes in iraq, how can we trust that there are nukes in iran?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

It's amazing to see Iran going forward with there nuke agenda. ESPECIALLY after they were so sympathetic for the U.S. and americans after 9/11. What's changed? Maybe Iraq has something to do with their lost love for the U.S.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Maybe it's because the technology and equipment moved from Iraq to Iran (and Syria) when things got hot. The common people of Iran were saddened by the events of 9/11 but they are not running the country. In the first Gulf war Iraq flew all of their top aircraft to Iran so they wouldn't be destroyed by the U.S., they are still finding aircraft that were buried during the latest war. What else might be buried?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt do a little research and you will find that the Gov leaders of Iran have not been friendly or supportive of the US. During the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Iran protested the placing of missile defense system in Israel, by the US.

They have also held and harbored terrorist from the US, and other countries such as France,Greece,Spain just to name a few. The majority of the populace in Iran do not support the current governing body and would like to return to a democratic government. One needs to be able to ascertain what is lip service and what is not.

The Shaw while being a corrupt leader that the US supported still allowed more freedom and growth of the people of Iran than the Ayatola religious leaders that have ruled that country since. They like most Arab nations view compassion and diplomacy more as a weakness. So the relationship with Iran has little to do with Iraq other than a fear of a democracy coming of age and spilling into their country and threatening the leaders in that country.

History between our natons did not just start in March of 03.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

i think somebody better start to care. this is getting serious.
:sniper: 
pointer


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2004)

More reason to move outta this crappy US and head north to CANADA!!!!! :lol: At least we'll be able to have unbelieveable waterfowl hunting there without fear of Nuc's landing on our cities!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Mr. Creosote (Sep 29, 2004)

There is more than meets the eye regarding the Iranian nuke program and taking it out could be extremely risky. The Iranians have and will use their capacity to block the Straits of Hormuz via soviet subs purchased specifically for this purpose. Most mid-east oil flows through these straits which are relatively narrow, the navigable areas even more so. Any military action by the U.S. or Israel against Iran would result in the blockage of these straits and it would take months to clear them. In the mean time the cost per barrel of oil would double overnight. This would result in the doubling or tripling of our cost of living and perhaps a 50% reduction of our standard of living. Remember, our entire lifestyle is based on oil. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, everything. Oil is not worth $50.00 a barrel, $50.00 is worth a barrel of oil. A sack full of gold double eagles won't get you a bus ride without oil. We are in a tight spot with the potential of nukes smuggled into this country that were made in Iran or severe economic downturn if we take the nukes out. Our utter dependence on oil is our Achilles heel and it's gonna bring us down. We've had 30+ years to do something about it since the arab oil embargo, and the severe shortages that resulted, during the '73 Yom Kippur war. It's been wasted time.

Sorry for being such a downer on my first post. I just happened to find this forum while on a Sak. search. I like your political forum. You appear to be a good bunch.


----------



## pjb1816 (Sep 8, 2003)

I read an article last week that says that Iran is within 9 months (next summer) of testing their first bomb... VERY SCARY!!!

Now I'm not saying we should go into Iran right now, because we've got enough problems on our hands. But, we should heighten the negotiations with Iran and make sure they know what the repercussions will be if they don't stop trying to get the bomb.

This is a VERY pivotal situation and must be dealt with properly or else we could have some MORE very serious problems on our hands!

Phil


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MR. Cresote Welcome and great post please continue to contribute, we always need some more well informed opinions
Thanks


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I was in an organization that delt with nuclear power, bombs included. I was told by a very reputable man the Iranians and many other oil producing nations already have small nuclear bombs that were bought from the CIA. It is so much cheaper to buy a bomb than build one. There are some extremely expensive steps thet need to be taken to purify uranium or plutonium to 99.9% pure, anything else cannot explode. By the way the person who told me this started the CIA and was Kennedy's personal friend you may have heard of him...Fletcher Prouty.

Our organization wanted to use the bombs to make electricity to get rid of them, along with all so called nuclear waste, if it has enuff energy to irradiate then we can produce energy from it. No such thing as nuclear waste, its like saying a half barrel of oil has no energy in it. It's really very simple the big oil companys are in charge and will stop at nothing to stay in charge. That's probaly more than I shoud have wrote but what the heck the FBI has checked me out before concerning these matters and I am done trying to accomplish these goals.

Heres a thought for ya, gas is 50 cents a gallon or less in the sandbox and $2.00 here. Where do you think the oil companys want to sell their product??? The less they sell for 50 cents the more they can sell for 2 bucks, pretty simple man.


----------



## Mr. Creosote (Sep 29, 2004)

Whoops. I failed to mention in my previous post that the primary threat from the soviet subs is their mine laying capacity. That's what would be used to block the Straits, not just the subs themselves.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Let me get in on this...its been so long since I have had a chance to talk with the sky is falling club. We have ethenol, wind energy, hydroelectric and hydrogen fuel(that no one will back..cause it is renewable and the most plentiful fuel source on the planet, Lord knows you can't make money when the supply runs away from the demand). So, for those of you who live by the rule of; this is the way we have always done it, why should we change just cause a few lunatics want to kill us for being in their country's against their will. Here is the "true" story of behavioral research.

A group of Chimpanzee's were placed in a setting and left alone to create a hierarchy. After awhile, a banana was placed on a string suspended from the ceiling. The Chimps were allowed to get the banana and eat it until it became a regular thing. After this habit was developed, the researchers added a new eliment. When the next banana was lowered and the Chimp went to retrieve his reward, a blast of ice cold water from several hoses doused the whole group of chimps. After this was done enough that the chimps understood that the banana now represented an unwanted response, they quit going for the reward. 
The next step in the research was to add a new chimp to the process, this chimp had no idea of the punishment for going to the banana. As the banana was lowered and the new chimp went to retrieve it, the rest of the clan attacked him and beat him. They knew the result of his attempt. This was repeated...adding a new chimp and taking out old chimps, until all the chimps that had actually experienced the cold water were not in the cage anymore. Yet, every time a new chimp would go for the banana, the others would attack and beat the crap out of him, even thought they had no idea what the original cause of the response was, or why they acted that way. It all comes down to this, we need to make changes. Just becuase this is the way we have always done something, does not make it right, it makes it stupid. If those chimps could talk and you asked them, "why are you beating the crap out of the guy who is trying to get that banana?", they would tell you, "because, that is the way it has always been."

Our dependence and a few peoples greed for fossil fuel on this planet is the main cause for all this crap we are putting up with now. If we were not dependant on the middle east for oil, they wouldn't be mad at us for being over there, "influencing" there backwards ways. We need to seperate ourselves from them and worry about what goes on in our own backyard, instead of everyone elses. The terrorist attacks that will be the worst will come from inside this country, without any help from nuclear sources in Iran...Syria...wherever you choose to let you boogeyman live. Our country is dying from the inside as we keep looking for the grim reaper in third world country's.

Bob, I always thought the dem's spent all the money. Funny how we let the repub's control the house, and the cabinet and we are in the biggest pile of [email protected]#t we have ever been in financially. I guess that must be one of those, if you say it enough, people will beleive it, things.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball, I agree with your take on our dependence on fossil fuel but it is what it is and it won't change overnight however it really must change as soon as possible for our own good. In the meantime we need to keep the spigots open but if we don't simutaneously come up with alternative fuel sources and get serious about using it this will be a continual thorn in our side. 
As for the terroisms issues we cannot live in a vacumn and the Genies out of the bottle so we must deal with it, they aren't going away unless we defeat them. Even if we didn't need oil tomorrow they would still be after us for various religious and societal reasons. Your take on the financial situation is not accurate but this situation is expensive and only a sound economy will allow us to work our way out of it, a nuke or dirty bomb in this country from some crackpot Jihadist will destroy our economy so it is a realistic threat, and Iran sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world is not developing Nuclear capabilites for energy needs.
Our country is not dying from within it is getting better, we have troubles but we are the greatest society on the face of the earth and we will solve those troubles over time. The glass is half full :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

In the latest world census we have 61% Asian, 13% African and all the rest of us make up the difference. I would say the Asian have the greatest society in the world these days, we used to and will again someday but for now we are sucking hind tit.

Don't be confused and think those oil companys and leases are owned by the people that live on the land, it's the same as here you can live on a great reserve and not own one drop of it.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Iserial, Europe, Asia and South America have been dealing with terrorists for centuries, we have finally become members to the club late in the 20th century. We couldn't find the gooks in the jungle in Vietnam, how are we going to find all the terrorists around the globe. Terrorists are like hillbilly's(my pet name for southern folk), you can educate one of them, but for every one you educate, they breed 10 more uneducated ones. We can no more win a war on terrorism than we can win the war against the common cold, to think so is just ignorant. We can fuel the fire through violance, giving more third world kids reasons to hate us. You see Bob, when there mother, brother, sister, father...etc.. gets killed by a terrorist bomb blast, they don't see that as the terrorists fault. That is our fault to them, becuase we are there. If we weren't there, they wouldn't be subject to terrorist attacks on their own people. Funny thing about life in Iraq with Saddam, his people LIVED in poverty, they LIVED in fear and he was a bad man, but they LIVED. Now they are afraid of dying. That is a strong motivator, no matter whose fault it is. Bob, if your wife was being held hostage and the men holding her hostage said that if the cops tried anything she would be killed, what would you do? If the cops tried to send a squad in immediately, without thinking the situation over and they held true to their word, would you blame the cops for being hasty, or the men for being true to their word. Both I would assume. But the cops by being hasty didn't discover all the possible solutions to the problem. Kinda like Bush sending memo's out in his third month in office on his plans to invade Iraq, this was even before 9/11. Haste makes waste Bob, and we are wasting away lives right now.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think Bobm is just teasing.... :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Funny thing about life in Iraq with Saddam, his people LIVED in poverty, they LIVED in fear and he was a bad man, but they LIVED


No they didn't they died by the hundreds of thousand under Saddam and there is strong support from Iraqis for our efforts. Unfortunately your allowing our wonderful media to shape your opinion and they are lying to you. This will work out.

Buckseye Kidding ???

I have to go talk to you guys later,
Thanks


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

HI Bob, 
We have been through this Saddam killed hundreds of thousands thing before and you keep saying it, hoping people will believe it. Saddam killed 10,000s of thousands of Kurds, after the first war, in which he INVADED Kuwait and they asked for our help. He killed the Kurds because they have always been the "enemy" of his political party in Iraq. He didn't kill his loyal people, the millions that lived under his tyranny in fear. Not that killing anyone is justified, but hey they were his enemies. Isn't that the rational you are using for this war in Iraq. Hey, they are our enemies, cause big daddy cheney and Jr. said. Just do what they say Bob, then no one will call you unpatriotic, a commie or a liberal. I like when people call me a liberal, it means that I think for myself and don't fall in line with the "christians" who justify killing because the president said so and he is a "christians". Bob, Christians don't kill, but bad people blaspheme Gods name to justify war. Maybe I missed the chapter in the Bible where the son of God told his apostles to take to arms and kill all those who threatened them.

Keep reaching for the Banana Bob, and the rest of the chimps will keep coming after us.


----------



## Mr. Creosote (Sep 29, 2004)

The semitic and phoenician peoples of the mid east had been attacking the west long before before there were Christians and Moslems. Islam simply provided unificaton, of a sorts, as the moslems frequently fought each other as well, (Sunni vs Shia). One can go back to the Assyrian attacks on Greece at the Plains of Marathon, the Islamic invasions into Europe during the middle ages which was the real reason for the Crusades as they were an attempt to prevent these invasions, the Islamic raiders who during the middle ages attacked and carted off whole towns of English people and sold them on the arab slave market, to the Barbary coast,( Libyia, Algiers, Morrocco,) pirate attacks on U.S. commerce during 18th and early 19th centuries. So Islamic attacks on U.S./western interests are nothing new. Sirhan Sirhan, the assasin of JFK was a militant Palestinian and Moslem. However, he was merely a toadie for the communists. The east has been warring against the west for over 2,000 years. The terr attacks on U.S. soil were/are inevitable. They hate us not just because we are a primarily a Christian nation and ally with Israel, they hate us because they envy our power, our advanced civilisation, and our freedom just as they did before they were moslems and before the west was Christian when they were attacking the Greek city states. 
They hate Israel for the same reason, envy. Israelites turned an abandoned desert wasteland into a highly advanced country in one generation and without the oil rescources their neighbors have. If it was'nt for oil the Islamic nations would be living in goatskin tents and pushing goats and camels around the desert, just like they were before the oil discoveries.
Even if we did't need the oil I believe we have the right to defend ourselves with this "forward base" in Iraq.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Fireball I don't have to claim anything there is all kinds of info all over the net even from liberal outfits like human rights watch that estimate between 300,000 to over one million people are in Saddams mass graves. Your correct about one thing its pointless to argue with you because you chose to only see that facts that support you point of view like trying to say the Kurds are the only people he oppressed and murdered.



> More than 250,000 people were detained or murdered by the government of Saddam Hussein, and almost all of them have relatives who now want justice, or physical remains, or at the very least information about what happened to their loved ones.


http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm



> "We've already *discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves*," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. *"Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," *said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."


http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html



> *The number of missing persons in Iraq comes up to 1.3 million. Most them will be found in mass graves:* the deported men of the Barzani tribe (1983), victims of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), the victims of the „Anfal" campaign (1987-89), tens of thousands of Shias after 1991,


http://www.afhr.org/en/graves.html



> The mass grave at Mahaweel (search), with more than 3,100 sets of remains, is the largest of some 270 such sites across Iraq. *They hold upward of 300,000 bodies; some Iraqi political parties estimate there are more than 1 million.*


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C105070%2C00.html


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

even if they don't get it?/


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

#1 waterfowler, just proves what kind of person you are, go to Canada, my brother-in-law will kick your arse, he's Canadian of course. We have captured more than 3,000 terrorists in over 100 countries. By the way, my brother in law is approx. 6'4" and a little over 300#'s as a goaly. I've tried to arm wrestle him but no luck yet. My 235#'s just can't get er done, although I'll keep trying.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Number 797 October 22, 2003

IRANIAN-EUROPEAN NUCLEAR DEAL: 
AN ACHIEVEMENT WITH A POTENTIAL POISON PILL

By Patrick Clawson

The October 21 deal between Iran and the European trio of Britain, France, and Germany has the potential to significantly reduce the risk of Iran producing a nuclear weapon from highly enriched uranium (HEU)assuming the accord is implemented strictly and on a tight timetable. Yet, HEU is only one of two routes to a nuclear weapon; the other is plutonium. The Iranian-European deal makes more likely completion of Irans Bushehr nuclear power plant, which will produce spent fuel that could be easily reprocessed in order to extract plutonium. Given that risk, this sort of dealpermitting completion of Bushehr in return for Tehrans pledge to abandon uranium enrichmenthas been rejected by the United States for the past eight years. Indeed, the Clinton administration consistently pressured Russia, largely unsuccessfully, to reject such an arrangement as too dangerous. The Bush administration now faces the choice of affirming its predecessors opposition to a Bushehr deal or supporting it in the name of transatlantic solidarity.

The Plutonium Risk Unaddressed or Increased

Nuclear weapons can be made from either plutonium or HEU (e.g., the former was used for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, and the latter for the Hiroshima bomb). Yesterdays agreement does little to address the plutonium risk; indeed, it could increase that risk.

Until February 2003, the greatest U.S. concern about Irans nuclear program was that Tehran could readily obtain plutonium if the Bushehr nuclear power plant were completed. Once activated, Bushehr would use low-enriched uranium for fuel; after 12 to 18 months, the reactor would begin to produce spent fuel containing plutonium. Processing spent fuel to extract plutonium is a chemical process that would not necessarily require any imported equipment.

Since at least 1995, the United States and Russia have engaged in testy discussions about how to approach this problem. Washington has long promised that it will provide incentives to Russia if Moscow agrees not complete construction of Bushehr. Moscow has insisted that it could complete the plant at minimal proliferation risk because it would monitor the spent fuel carefully and return it to Russia. Yet, spent fuel is so radioactive that it often has to sit in cooling ponds for years before it can be transportedhence, the material would be vulnerable to Iranian diversion. As Russian president Vladimir Putin pointed out on October 21, regardless of the new European deal, Russia will not ship fuel to Iran until Tehran agrees to tighten restrictions on it. To date, Tehran has insisted on ridiculous terms for such an agreement (e.g., demanding compensation for giving up spent fuel even as other countries spend billions to isolate the material as waste).

The Iranian-European agreement has disturbing implications regarding Tehrans future access to plutonium. Under the terms of the deal, Iran agrees to suspend processing (presumably of spent fuel), but this concession has no practical value because Iran has not yet built a processing facility. On the issue of Bushehr, the language of the communique announcing the agreement is vague and could be seen as legitimizing completion of the plant: The three governments believe that this [agreement] will open the way to a dialogue on a basis for longer term cooperation which will provide all parties with satisfactory assurances relating to Irans nuclear power generation programme. Once international concerns, including those of the three governments, are fully resolved Iran could expect easier access to modern technology and supplies in a range of areas.

These statements imply that Bushehr can be completed. At best, then, the agreement undercuts the U.S. position and puts Britain, France, and Germany on Moscows side of the ongoing U.S.-Russian dispute. The situation may be even worse, however. Various Iranian and international media reports have suggested that the Europeans discussed the possibility of helping with Bushehr by providing nuclear fuel. If that is indeed the price paid for yesterdays agreement, it would be too high by far.

The Enriched Uranium Risk Reduced

The great accomplishment of the Iranian-European agreement is that Tehran has pledged to suspend all uranium enrichment activities. International concern about Iranian enrichment rose sharply after discoveries during February 2003 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. To the surprise of U.S. and other intelligence agencies, the inspectors found that Iran had built 160 sophisticated centrifuges designed for uranium enrichment; an additional thousand centrifuges were in assembly, and facilities were under construction to house tens of thousands more. Iran claimed that it would only use the centrifuges to produce low-enriched uranium, which is the fuel used by Bushehr. Since then, Iran has announced that it has in fact begun enriching uranium with the centrifuges. Subsequent IAEA inspections found traces of weapons-grade HEU including some in a facility that Iran had insisted was never used for enrichment.

Since February, a crisis has emerged due to Irans inconsistent and unconvincing explanations regarding its enrichment program. Hence, most analysts thought it highly unlikely that Iran would agree to stop enrichment. If implemented strictly, the Iranian-European agreement is a big step in this direction, and the European negotiators have reason to be proud. Yet, the agreement only addresses the enrichment problem uncovered in February. At best, then, the deal sets the clock back to January 2003, leaving unresolved all of the international communitys concerns about Irans nuclear program up to that point.

The Iranian-European communique is a statement of principles, not a plan for action. It contains many phrases that Iran could interpret in ways that would gut the substance of the agreement. For instance, does Irans pledge to suspend uranium enrichment mean that it has agreed to stop building the centrifuge facilities in which enrichment would be performed, or has it merely agreed not to activate the centrifuges once they are built? And does Irans agreement to engage in full cooperation with the IAEA really entail a change in behavior, given Tehrans insistence that it has been offering such cooperation for years? On these and other points, further clarification is necessary to transform the communiques fine language into concrete, verifiable steps. The grave danger is that Iran may be, in the words of an editorial in Londons Financial Times, just throwing sand in the IAEAs eyes to blind the world to its bomb-making ambitions.

Next Steps for the United States

On November 20, the IAEA board will discuss whether Iran has provided the full accounting of its nuclear program that the board demanded of it by October 31. Tehran will not be on track toward a full accounting unless the Iranian-European agreement is made more specific in three areas:

• a tight timeline for implementation of Irans important but imprecise promises, including its pledge to resolve all outstanding issues regarding its past activities;

• precise definition of the obligations that Iran has accepted via the communiques lofty language; and

• adoption of an inspection and monitoring program to verify Iranian compliance.

If Iran stalls on these items, Washington may wish to press the IAEA into seeking assistance from the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, the United States can urge Europe to use yesterdays agreement as a springboard to dismantle all Iranian enrichment facilities.

Reaching consensus on the plutonium risk will require Washington to more actively explain its concerns that a nuclear power plant could provide a ready source of fissile material. Through Irans commitment to suspend processing activities, yesterdays agreement provides an opening for enhanced monitoring of Bushehrs fuel. At best, however, improved monitoring and inspection would give a warning time of only a few weeks or months if Iran diverted spent fuel to extract plutonium. Given Irans track record of mass casualty attacks via terrorist groupswitness the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing or the 1996 Khobar Towers bombingit would only be prudent to consider other options. As Bushehr nears completion, the United States will need to enhance its deterrence against Iran.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

N O T E B O O K
Bordering On Nukes?
New accounts from al-Qaeda to attack the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction
By ADAM ZAGORIN

From the ultra conservative Time magazine :eyeroll: 
Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004
*A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group's potential plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, senior U.S. security officials tell TIME.* Sharif al-Masri, an Egyptian who was captured in late August near Pakistan's border with Iran and Afghanistan, has told his interrogators of "al-Qaeda's interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico," according to a report circulating among U.S. government officials.

*Masri also said al-Qaeda has considered plans to "smuggle nuclear materials to Mexico, then operatives would carry material into the U.S.," according to the report, parts of which were read to TIME. Masri says his family, seeking refuge from al-Qaeda hunters, is now in Iran. *
Masri's account, though unproved, has added to already heightened U.S. concerns about Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge met publicly with top Mexican officials last week to discuss border security and smuggling rings that could be used to slip al-Qaeda terrorists into the country. Weeks prior to Ridge's lightning visit, U.S. and Mexican intelligence conferred about reports from several al-Qaeda detainees indicating the potential use of Mexico as a staging area "to acquire end-stage chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material." U.S. officials have begun to keep a closer eye on heavy-truck traffic across the border. The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and aviation facilities on their side of the frontier. And another episode has some senior U.S. officials worried: the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southern Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction. Though the theft's connection to terrorism remains unclear, a senior U.S. law-enforcement official notes that crop dusters can be used to disperse toxic substances. The plane, stolen at night two weeks ago, has not been recovered.

- With reporting by Syed Talat Hussain

From the Nov. 22, 2004 issue of TIME magazine


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Time magazine is reporting this week that captured al Qaeda operatives are talking about plans to sneak weapons of mass destruction, with an emphasis on nuclear weapons, into the United States through Mexico. There's further intelligence information showing that Islamic terrorists consider Mexico to be the ideal place to marshal supplies needed for an attack on the U.S. using a weapon of mass destruction.

*Did you catch "60 Minutes" last night? CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer said of Al-Qaeda:" Their intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region. ... If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon." He also said that Osama Bin Laden had sought the religions approval to use a nuke.[/b]

Does anyone really doubt that Islamic terrorists would be successful in sneaking weapons across our border with Mexico? Does anyone think that Mexican authorities are concerned enough to actually help in securing those borders?

Time to think about a wall?*


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

i care abut Irans Nuke Program! Its hard to decide whether these Guys should be in our Cross-hairs next, or weter that spot should go to N.Korea. Lets flip for it. :2cents:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> i care abut Irans Nuke Program! Its hard to decide whether these Guys should be in our Cross-hairs next, or weter that spot should go to N.Korea. Lets flip for it. :2cents:


You should have looked into that before the invasion. It would have done us all good if the intelligence agency spent some time fact checking whether Iraq had nukes or not, now we are left with a big pile of hate in that general area, and a Iran with real nukes.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> You should have looked into that before the invasion. It would have done us all good if the intelligence agency spent some time fact checking whether Iraq had nukes or not, now we are left with a big pile of hate in that general area, and a Iran with real nukes


MT hopefully as we slowly weed out the haters in Iraq and establish Democratic elections the hate will go away, it is fomented by the fundamental Mullahs. As for the Iran nuke issue that was coming anyway and the Democatization of Iraq may well de-stabalize the Mullahs in Iran, the Mullahs realizing this are a big part of the support for the Insurgents in Iraq that we are making desert temperature.

Read the following article from the Wall Street Journal

PRINT WINDOW CLOSE WINDOW

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Appeasing Iran
Europe seeks a deal even worse than Clinton's with North Korea.

Friday, November 12, 2004 12:01 a.m.

So can anyone explain the difference between the nuclear deal the Europeans are now waiting for--indeed, practically begging--Iran to accept and the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea?
The latter, readers will remember, was the Clinton Administration's failed attempt to buy off Pyongyang by providing it with fuel oil and a couple of light-water reactors in exchange for the North's promise to give up its nuclear weapons program. But as usual, appeasement didn't work. In 2002 the North booted out U.N. inspectors, turned off the TV cameras monitoring its nuclear facilities, and began demanding even larger payoffs to stay out of the nuclear business. North Korea had been running a secret program in violation of the Agreed Framework and is now estimated to possess as many as nine warheads.

Fast-forward to the current Franco-British-German proposal for Iran, and you find . . . well, offers of light-water reactors and various economic payoffs in exchange for Iran's promise to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment activities. That's right, only temporarily, since Iran is demanding to be recognized soon as a perfectly normal nuclear nation. That's pretty audacious for the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, but it's not surprising given the way the world has responded thus far to its 20 years of nuclear deception.

Let's start with the Europeans, who are actually credulous enough to believe that there is some doubt over whether "hardliners" in Tehran will accept their generous offer. An exquisitely timed Monday story in Iran's Jomhuri-e-Islami newspaper appeared to denounce the country's delegation for dealing with the "three traitor European countries." 
But the appearance of any dissension in the Iranian ranks is a fiction of the highest order. Last February Iran's ruling mullahs abandoned any pretense of running a democracy by disqualifying thousands of candidates for parliament (including scores of sitting deputies) and fully consolidating their control over the press. Now that press is playing Brer Rabbit, begging not to be thrown into the same briar patch where Pyongyang developed the bomb.

But we never expected much from Europe in the first place. Far more disappointing is that the White House has done little or nothing to support the work of Undersecretary John Bolton's non-proliferation team at the State Department. It can't have escaped the mullahs' notice that President Bush failed to mention them during his September speech at the United Nations. That was a shocking omission given the extent to which the Iranian nuclear program ought to occupy the Security Council over the coming year, and an unfortunate indicator of where White House priorities don't lie.

There isn't any doubt among serious observers that Iran is running a bomb program. In 2002 an Iranian resistance group exposed two decades of Iranian nuclear double-dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency by revealing a secret enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak. In October 2003 a European-brokered inspections deal offered the mullahs a chance to come clean but they continued to deceive.

Among other pieces of information Iran has since failed to volunteer is the fact that they possess advanced P-2 centrifuges of the type peddled by Pakistani A-bomb merchant A.Q. Khan. They've been found to be working with polonium-210, an element whose primary use is as a bomb trigger. And IAEA inspectors have found traces of uranium enriched far beyond the grade needed for use in a civilian power reactor. Consider also Iran's rapid advance in the field of medium- to long-range ballistic missile technology, which surely isn't meant for carrying conventional warheads.

The only question is whether the world is going to do anything about all this. The Europeans are essentially arguing that any deal with the mullahs is better than nothing, given Tehran's repeated threats to withdraw altogether from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But what's really more dangerous: immediate clarity regarding Iran's real intentions, or the country going nuclear with the quiet blessing of the IAEA and the permanent discrediting of the multilateral arms control system?
President Bush needs to pay some overdue attention to Iran now that the election is over, and put the above case to his friend and ally Tony Blair. The model for disarming Iran ought to be the process the two countries have just gone through with Libya's Moammar Gadhafi: unambiguous cooperation, including the handover of all nuclear and WMD-related facilities. Anything less--like the Agreed Framework Part II now on offer--deserves only one response in Washington and London: No deal.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PRINT WINDOW CLOSE WINDOW


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"You should have looked into that before the invasion"

:toofunny: Like i had anything to do with it!!! Granted Iraq wouldnt be my first choice. But i think it needed to be done eventualy, so if the Powers at be say do point number 3 first, then thats the way it goes. no skin of my nose.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This didn't get much coverage yesterday, but is certainly should have. Maybe people just don't want to be reminded .. or they're tired of coping with the threat.

Harvard security expert Graham Allison has written a new book titled "Nuclear Terrorism." Allison says that the chance of terrorists detonating a 10 kiloton nuclear devise in the United States in the next 10 years is 50/50. 

Now ... if you want a sobering reality just go to this website.

http://www.nuclearterror.org.

On this site you will have a chance to enter your zip code and see a blast map showing the effects of a 10K nuclear explosion. The site is very well done ... so head on over for a dose of reality.

While you're at it, you can thank the Red States for saving you from an appeasement administration that would have made the terrorist's job all that much easier.


----------



## esox (Nov 8, 2004)

Fact: Army recruiting is running at or nearly 100% and there is no rotation. Why?
Fact: Iraqi elections will happen Jan. 30. They must or we will indeed look like permanent occupiers/ invaders.
Fact: After the elections, one of two things will happen within 90 days. Either Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuke facilities or we will unless in the unlikely event that Iran stands down their nuke ops. Rumsfield recently said to the Iranians, (in so many words), "remember Libya", (in reference to Reagan's strike).
Fact: Iranian nuke program has made giant strides since U.S. Iraqi invason, compliments of Hussein and the Russians. Russia provided special ops personel and transport which enabled this. And btw, that's how the remainder of Husseins wmd's made their way into Syria just prior to the invasion. Of course this is not reported in the commie media as it would vindicate Bush.

If the Israelis make the strike, everything the U.S has done in the region will become unraveled. The govs of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been in a very precarious position for many years trying to straddle the fence between the wests need for oil and Islamic influence on the pops in their countries. This will push the Saudis and Kuwaitis off the fence which will greatly and permanently jeopardize the oil we are DEPENDENT on. This is why we will have to make the strike ourselves. The repercussions won't be good but it's still better than the consequences of an Israeli strike.
The 6th fleet is currently parked in the Gulf, a sittin' duck for Iranian cruise missles. 
Iranian submarine mine laying capacity will close the Sraits to tanker traffic which will take time to clear.
Lets hope this scenario doesn't play out and the Iranian Ayatollahs come to their senses in time. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Son21 (Jul 19, 2010)

Sound so delicious.....


----------

