Iran amassing atomic enrichment machines-diplomats

[NNN0LHI]

And Saddam was getting ready to nuke us at any moment too.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1319535.htm

VIENNA, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Iran has continued to acquire large amounts of machinery used to enrich uranium despite a promise to suspend all activities related to a technology critical to nuclear bomb-making, diplomats said.

Enrichment is a process of purifying uranium for use in weapons or to make nuclear fuel for power plants. Experts say acquiring weapons-grade material is the biggest hurdle countries seeking to make an atomic bomb must overcome.

Tehran, under fire over U.S. allegations it is secretly developing atomic weapons, agreed last November to suspend all "enrichment-related activities" and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify the suspension.

But Western diplomats told Reuters Iran has made it clear that it was only suspending activities that fell under its limited definition of the term "enrichment-related" and has therefore continued acquiring enrichment centrifuge machinery.

more

[mmm]

1. Iran must continue to build a nuclear arsenal

I bid them good speed

[mobuto]

2. Surely you jest

Unless they have a death-wish, I fail to understand why any thinking human being would wish for Islamist extremists to have nuclear weapons. Not only does continued nuclear proliferation threaten the future of human life on this planet, but I cannot think of a state that could be less trusted with nuclear weapons than the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[jayfish]

4. But It's OK For Christian Extremists To Have Them?

And who would grant them their death wish? Us? Don't forget Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact.

Jay

[mobuto]

9. ???

And who would grant them their death wish? Us?

No, you'd be fulfilling our own death wish. There is no parallel between domestic Christian extremist groups and radical Islamism. Ours are annoying, theirs threaten the lives of all who do not subscribe to their particular version of Islam. Do you really want a country where hundreds of thousands routinely go into the streets and shout "Death to America!" to have an atomic bomb? Iran is politically unstable; it has repeatedly shown a willingness to sacrifice the lives of its people for pointless political gestures (human waves, anybody?); and it a state-sponsor of terrorism.

It would be incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to allow even the most responsible and progressive nation to proliferate nuclear weapons. But Iran isn't that country. Rather its one of the most dangerous places in the world. But you support the "right" of Islamist extremists

Don't forget Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact.

I find that awfully hard to believe. You have a source for that claim? Of course Syria and Iraq had a mutual defense pact, and you can see how well that was enforced.

[jayfish]

14. Ever Heard Of Timothy McVeigh?

Or were the Iraqis behind that one as well? It is a forgone conclusion that the only entity that can stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is Iran. Shrubco has no willingness to take on a country that has the ability to fight back. Look at what they did with NK. US policy was that if NK started to reprocess it's spent fuel at Yongbyon thay would be attacked. They reprocessed and what happend? Nada. Once Iran has nukes that is it. No one is going to take them away and for Iran to use them would mean the end of alot more than Iran and whoever their target was. As far as the defense pact, here are some links. (I'll admit that pact may have been too strong of a word)

Link

Link

Google Excerpt To Dead Link Below

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/10/03/03hdline.htm">Dead Link Story Above

[mobuto]

23. Timothy McVeigh? Oh yeah

A domestic terrorist who didn't even have the most rudimentary of nuclear weapons programs.

Imagine an America ruled by Timothy McVeigh. Maybe then you'll get an approximation of just how crazy the clerics who run Iran are. McVeigh was simply the US equivalent of Khamenei or Hashemi-Rafsanjani.

It is a forgone conclusion that the only entity that can stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is Iran.

Nonsense. There are lots of things we, Mohammed el-Baradei, the Security Council, Russia, etc. can do to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons.

US policy was that if NK started to reprocess it's spent fuel at Yongbyon thay would be attacked.

That's simply not true. The US has considered attacking North Korea's nuclear facilities at various times, but it was never US policy to do so.

Once Iran has nukes that is it. No one is going to take them away and for Iran to use them would mean the end of alot more than Iran and whoever their target was.

I agree. If we're going to stop Iran from proliferating nuclear weapons, we must do so now. Because the catastrophic results of a nuclear war would be unthinkable.

As far as the defense pact, here are some links. (I'll admit that pact may have been too strong of a word)

Too strong a word? Its a little more than that, I'm afraid. You didn't exagerate, you simply mischaracterized completely the nature of the relationship as reflected in the articles you cite. Russia transfers technology to Iran. Fine. But it has not and will not promise to come to Iran's aid if attacked. That's what a mutual defense pact means and that's exactly what did not happen.

[jayfish]

29. Where Did I Equate...

McVeigh with ownership of nuclear weapons? You claimed that Christian extremists are just a nuscance. I gave you Tim McVeigh. I guess killing 168 of your fellow countrymen isn't "crazy" enough for you. It is for me.

Nonsense. There are lots of things we, Mohammed el-Baradei, the Security Council, Russia, etc. can do to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons.

Yup, and it worked out real well with North Korea. They agreed, though direct negotiations with the United States, not to build nuclear weapons and did it anyway. What’s to prevent Iran from taking the same road?

That's simply not true. The US has considered attacking North Korea's nuclear facilities at various times, but it was never US policy to do so.

We can get into a semantic debate over whether it was, stated, US policy or not to attack but I will give you a quote instead...

"We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program." Bill Clinton

It's one thing to draw up plans. It's quite another to tell your adversary that you will attack them. That, IMHO, makes it policy.

Too strong a word? Its a little more than that, I'm afraid. You didn't exagerate, you simply mischaracterized completely the nature of the relationship as reflected in the articles you cite. Russia transfers technology to Iran. Fine. But it has not and will not promise to come to Iran's aid if attacked. That's what a mutual defense pact means and that's exactly what did not happen.

Agreed, with the caveat that the mischaracterization was not intentional.


Jay

[mobuto]

30. Then I must not have made myself clear

I'm not trying to minimize the craziness of people like McVeigh or make an argument that our crazies are less crazy than their crazies. But I think the difference is this: our crazies are not in a position of power. That's an enormous difference, and while I may have been unclear, that's the point I was trying to make. We can have the bomb and not have to worry about it falling into the hands of fanatical Christian terrorists, in or outside of the government. They can't.

Yup, and it worked out real well with North Korea. They agreed, though direct negotiations with the United States, not to build nuclear weapons and did it anyway. What’s to prevent Iran from taking the same road?

Well, we present them with a choice. Does Iran really want to become like North Korea? Is that the society Khamanei wants for his people? Pariah-state status is not necessarily desirable.

"We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and to destroy their reactors and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program." Bill Clinton


Interesting. I had not realized that we promised (and failed) to bomb them. Thanks for the quote. That's not quite what you had said (Clinton's fight with the North Koreans was not over Yongbyon and the North Koreans acceded to a diplomatic solution precisely because they didn't want to be bombed, not because the US was weak).

Agreed, with the caveat that the mischaracterization was not intentional.


I believe you.

[The Stranger]

16. This statement shows a very dangerous lack of understanding:

There is no parallel between domestic Christian extremist groups and radical Islamism.

Actually, these two groups espouse virtually the very same ideology, including the infiltration of the government with theological themes (i.e., prayer in school), values (abortion proscription), and laws (including squelching dissent as part of a religious-based war), although the targets for their villification are one another. The very fact that extremist Christian groups have gained acceptance in America and have created a powerful mass media empire are cause for alarm, as the message issued is, at times, semi-diluted White Supremacy, and this mass media empire is being used to facilitate support for Christian extremists in the Bush Administration, including support for John D. Ashcroft, and George W. Bush's reelection campaign. If you don't think this is a threat to free-thinking and progressive people, then you haven't been paying attention.

[mobuto]

24. They're only connected in the most abstract sense

in that they both represent the forces of reaction in the more-or-less universal struggle between progressive secular modernity and fundamentalist conservatism.

But that doesn't mean that the Christian Right -- for all its faults -- is anywhere near as bad or as dangerous as Wahabbi and fanatical Shi'ite Islamism. The latter have as their only goal the destruction of modernity. Now the former oppose many aspects of modernity, but they aren't organized to destroy it. They lack the clarity of vision that one needs to, say, kill millions of innocent people. I don't think you can say that about Osama bin Laden or of some of the clerics in Iran.

The rise of the radical Christian Right in this country is a problem of the most profound seriousness. I've been doing battle with them, on a daily basis, for several months now. But you can't honestly believe that as a threat to the safety and security of the American people, it measures even remotely up to the forces of international terror.

[NNN0LHI]

27. Not sure about this my self, but wouldn't Nazi Germany...

...be considered an example of a radical Christian right wing government?

Don

[mobuto]

28. No.

Because Nazism wasn't based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity. One can argue that the Cult of Hitler was a religion in its own right.

Now some religious leaders were certainly cultivated, but Nazi Germany was not a traditional theocracy by any stretch of the imagination.

[The Stranger]

31. Another statement that shows a dangerous lack of understanding:

But that doesn't mean that the Christian Right -- for all its faults -- is anywhere near as bad or as dangerous as Wahabbi and fanatical Shi'ite Islamism. The latter have as their only goal the destruction of modernity. Now the former oppose many aspects of modernity, but they aren't organized to destroy it. They lack the clarity of vision that one needs to, say, kill millions of innocent people. I don't think you can say that about Osama bin Laden or of some of the clerics in Iran.

Once you have gotten past the superficial specifics of which way they kneel and which man they consider to be God or pseudo-God, there is really very little difference between these two fundamentalist groups. The Christian right has launched campaigns to discredit things such as the theory of Evolution, a scientific theory that is the product of modern scientific thinking. The Christian right has blown up abortion clinics for over a decade. And, historically, the Christian right has massacred far more innocent people than Muslims fundamentalists could ever dream of killing. The fact that the Christian right has co-pted the government and forced the nation into a "decades-long" religious war will actually very possibly kill millions of innocent people. And this is actually far more likely than Muslim fundamentalists obtaining a nuclear weapon and delivery system and using it.

[jpak]

6. Islamic extremists already have the bomb

in Pakistan - and they have undoubtably aided nuclear programs in North Korea and Libya as well.

and Likudnik extremists have the bomb too.

How can any thinking human being ignore those examples of continued nuclear proliferation????

[mobuto]

11. Not yet in Pakistan

although that prospect is very real and present -- and terrifying.

At this point, it would appear that Musharraf controls the nukes. And Musharraf isn't an Islamist. But that's just one additional assasination attempt away from changing.

And then what?

I have no idea what happens.

But Iran is its own threat. And it should not be allowed to proliferate nuclear weapons.

and Likudnik extremists have the bomb too.

1. The Likud Party does not have the bomb. The Israeli government does. And whatever you think of Likud, you have to recognize that the Israeli government is a modern, pluralistic, multi-party state with all of the checks and balances of any Western nation. Shaul Mofaz, the Defense Minister -- who is not a member of Likud -- was actually born in Iran. It seems most unlikely that Israel would use nuclear weapons preeptively.

2. And whatever you think of Israel, you have to be crazy to lump it in with the clerics in Iran or the Islamist opposition in Pakistan. There could not be fewer parallels between different groups with different aims and vastly different methods.

[jpak]

12. So nuclear proliferation is acceptable

it just depends on the proliferator.

And when South Africa got the bomb (in collaboration with a well known nonproliferating country) that was OK too???

[mobuto]

13. ???

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I oppose all nuclear proliferation.

I opposed South Africa and I oppose Iran.

Israel developed nuclear weapons in the mid-to-late 1950s, with French aid, and I don't imagine that's really relevant to discussions of proliferation nearly half a century later.

Yes there is a double standard for existing nuclear powers and their non-nuclear rivals, but we have to have such a double-standard unless you want every single nation on the planet to develop nuclear weapons. I think resorting to a little "unfairness" is preferable to the alternative - a free-for-all nuclear arms race with the future survival of the human race very much in question.

[jpak]

19. South Africa developed its nuclear arsenal in collaboration with Isreal

South Africa's nuclear weapons program began in 1969 and continued through the 1970's.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was open to signature in 1968 and became enforcable in 1970.

So Israel's nuclear proliferation activities in South Africa are relevant to the NPT.

South Africa renounced its nuclear weapon program and unilaterally destroyed its 6 gun-type uranium bombs in 1991.

Others should follow South Africa's example...

but I'm not hlding my breath.

[mobuto]

25. I think we know that

South Africa destroyed its nuclear capability to prevent it from falling into the hands of blacks.

I'm concerned more with proliferation than with the proliferation treaty. The treaty doesn't apply to Israel because Israel was never a signatory.

And of course I think it was wrong for Israel to have cooperated with South Africa, but I think the Israelis made the decision that they really didn't have the luxury of picking their friends. Hell, America, which is infinitely stronger (and until the Bush Administration, infinitely more popular) than Israel, has nevertheless done business with regimes that it openly dislikes, out of what we considered to be pragmatic necessity. Why else did we arm Franco, the Saudis and Mobutu (no relation)?

And if the United States cannot easily turn away would-be partners for moral reasons, then how can a weak and tiny nation like Israel?

[The Stranger]

20. The problem with nuclear weapons in the Middle East is that Israel

is the only nuclear power and has been occupying her neighbors for decades, including Syria and the West Bank, and has previously occupied Egypt and Lebanon.

Iran would actually provide a deterrent to an expansionist Israeli government and the only other nuclear deterrent in the theater. Rather than there being some kind of immediate launch by Iran against Israel -- which is really an absurd and paranoid assertion and does not warrant being addressed further -- what you would have is two nations acting as a deterrent and balance of power in the region (although one would be a primitive nuclear power and the other is currently the world's fifth most powerful nuclear power).

It is called the principle of mutually assured destruction, and it is the principle by which the U.S. and Russia still exist (and have continued to exist and allow the world to exist for half a century).

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

32. I would suggest checking up on current events.

The West Bank is in the process of being settled with Israeli religious fundamentalist settlers. This constiutes a permanent expansion of territory that is happening this very day. Not 1967, but every day since 1967, approximately 37 years of expansion. This is to prevent the land from ever being returned to the Palestinians from whom it was taken. The same thing is happening in Syrian territory known as the Golan Heights. The same thing is happening in the Gaza Strip. The government is supporting this expansion.

[mobuto]

26. I don't understand

Israel has not expanded its territory since 1967. On the contrary, it has given up the Sinai, Southern Lebanon and Gaza, and has tried to give up the West Bank. You cannot honestly believe that Arik Sharon is plotting to conquer Jordan or Syria or Egypt, can you?

Iran would actually provide a deterrent to an expansionist Israeli government and the only other nuclear deterrent in the theater.

No, I think Iran would simply escalate the conflict. From what would Israel be deterred? From nuking Tehran? Well, they've been able to do that for nearly fifty years and they've gone this far without doing it.

Rather than there being some kind of immediate launch by Iran against Israel -- which is really an absurd and paranoid assertion and does not warrant being addressed further

Oh really? Absurdity and paranoia are the two philosophical pillars of the Iranian theocracy. Why don't we address this further? Islamism is a profoundly irrational -- anti-rational even -- philosophy. If you truly believe that the way to heaven is to die for a cause, and you see your people corrupted by Western ideas, then what's to stop you from trying to save them all, from turning 60 million Iranians into Jihadi martyrs? I'm not saying that this will happen - I certainly hope it doesn't - but I don't think you can count on the clerics to act reasonably in an extreme circumstance.

-- what you would have is two nations acting as a deterrent and balance of power in the region (although one would be a primitive nuclear power and the other is currently the world's fifth most powerful nuclear power).

I don't think that works. The solution to regional conflicts isn't to arm both sides with nuclear weapons and hope that neither side is crazy enough to attack first. We were lucky with the Soviet Union, but as you increase proliferation you vastly increase the likliehood of MAD not working. And if MAD should fail to work, if something should wrong in the perfect logic of MAD, if India and Pakistan or Israel and Iran, or North Korea and Japan should for whatever reason or no reason destroy one another, then life everywhere becomes a lot grimmer. You're making rosy assumptions about human nature, and the result is that you're playing dice with millions of human lives. We can't take that risk.

[The Stranger]

33. Okay,

Israel has not expanded its territory since 1967. On the contrary, it has given up the Sinai, Southern Lebanon and Gaza, and has tried to give up the West Bank. You cannot honestly believe that Arik Sharon is plotting to conquer Jordan or Syria or Egypt, can you?

Israel, in particular the Fundamentalist Jewish Settler movement, sometimes supported by Likud, has been in the process of settling the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights for decades. This has happened and continues to happen every day. Settling the territory is an unapologetic attempt to make sure that the territory is never returned to Syria, the Palestinians or Egypt. As far as what Arik Sharon is capable of, wasn't he quoted in the press as saying something about the Arabs having the oil, but the Israelis having the "matches" to light the oil? Tell me you remember this and impress me.

I don't think that works. The solution to regional conflicts isn't to arm both sides with nuclear weapons and hope that neither side is crazy enough to attack first.

Nor is that the question. No one is suggesting "arm both sides with nuclear weapons." The question is whether we are going to be manipulated by right-wing extremist elements in the Bush Administration into launching the U.S. Military into another war based on some fear that there may be nuclear weapons there, or there may possibly be the predecessors to nuclear weapons there, or whether there are aluminum tubes there (remember that one?), or there may possibly be some threat there in the future (maybe).

The question is whether we are going to think extremely critically about what these right-wing extremist elements in the Bush Administration are saying and discern when these right-wing extremist elements launch propaganda campaigns based on fear and paranoia to create wars where hundreds of thousands of innocents will die.

[mobuto]

34. Settlers?

You think Iran is threatened by Israeli settlers in the West Bank? I do not understand.

Are you suggesting that Iran would threaten to start a nuclear war with Israel if Israel does not dismantle its settlements?

The question is whether we are going to be manipulated by right-wing extremist elements in the Bush Administration into launching the U.S. Military into another war

Really? Is that the issue? Because I don't think in all my comments I have ever favored attacking Iran. In fact I think that would be a terrible decision. But what both you and the Bush Administration apparently don't realize is that there are other methods of persuasion than military force. And we need to use every one of those to persuade the Iranians that it is not in their interest to further escalate the situation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Then Israel will nuke them.

Pass the popcorn.

[jayfish]

5. LOL.

Israel (and probably all else) would be destroyed if they nuked anyone.

Jay

[Jim Sagle]

7. If Iran gets nukes, Israel won't have a choice.

It's either die on your feet or die on your knees.

[jayfish]

10. Nope.

Any country that uses nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity ensures it's own destruction. And where is this notion of a preemptive attack coming from? ;)

Jay

[Jim Sagle]

17. Preemptive attack is legit. What WE did, PREVENTIVE war, is not.

[thebigidea]

15. nothing would be more entertaining than nuclear cloud over Tehran, eh?

don't forget your Milk Duds.

Utterly revolting!

[jayfish]

18. Milk Dud's Are What Our Hands Would Look Like...

as we reached for our cabonized Pop Secret and our freshly boiled Cokes.


Jay

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NashVegas]

8. Thank You, PNAC!

Couldn't have done it without ya.