Looks like the Iran invasions not far off =/

P

Psycho-Cannon

Home grown and Psycho
Registered Senior Member
Deja Vu, I'm sure another similar sounding country has ridden this ride already.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....D=3418659&src=eDialog/GetContent&section=news

Iran May Face Deadline to Show Not Making N-Bomb

VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States and more than a dozen allies pushed the U.N. nuclear watchdog to approve a resolution Wednesday that would give Tehran until October 31 to prove it has no clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Of course we all know proving to the US that something doesn't exist when they want it to is as easy as proving that the tooth fairy has a $400 a day crack cocaine habbit.

Japan, Turkey, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with Washington and nine other nations by co-sponsoring a draft that demanded Iran demonstrate full compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which the United States says Tehran has violated.

The toughly-worded draft resolution, circulated at a closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation Board of Governors, also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities."

The toughly-worded draft resolution, circulated at a closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation Board of Governors, also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities."

Iran's foreign minister warned that the Islamic republic would "review" cooperation with the U.N. watchdog body if its governing board came down too hard on Tehran

Iran has said the traces of enriched uranium detected at Natanz were found on machinery that was already contaminated before Iran purchased it abroad in the 1980s. This explanation has met with skepticism inside and outside the IAEA.

Malaysia's ambassador to the U.N. in Vienna, Dato Hussein Haniff, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), said most of the 15 NAM countries on the board opposed the idea of imposing a deadline on Iran, because that would also mean imposing a deadline on ElBaradei.

"We want to give (ElBaradei) a free hand to decide," he said. "If you have a specific deadline, then there is also a sense that you're telling (ElBaradei) that you must complete your job by that time."


Meet the new Hans Blix

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi went a step further and told the IRNA news agency in Tehran that Iran would be forced to reconsider cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it was denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program.

"If the hawks gain the ground and ignore our legitimate rights for peaceful nuclear activities, we will be forced to review the state of play and the current level of cooperation with the agency," Kharrazi said.

A Western diplomat told Reuters that this kind of comment from Tehran was "blackmail."


This sort of comment coming from "A Western diplomat" is hypocracy.
 
just like in the 80's :D

i really hope it doesn't come to this but if it does, Israel will have to protect the world's ass yet again.

imagine what would've happened if Israel wouldn't have bombed Iraqi nuclear reactors back in the day?
 
I see no reason for Iran not to get the bomb, she is under the nuke threat from Israel all the time with her Neutrons, and Jericho II missiles. I also see Israel doing the bidding on this one, the US can't pull that off she is not a pariah state like Israel is. I think Iran will get the bomb soon enough, I think Iran already has a missile able to strike Israel. The Shalab 3, developed from NK's TP1. What should be scaring Israel is not Iran alone it's the alliance btwn Iran and NK, that has gotten very strong since the "Axis of Evil" B.S. Do I think Israel can pull it off? I don't know because I know that Iran's nuke facilities are VERY well protected.
 
Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
Of course we all know proving to the US that something doesn't exist when they want it to is as easy as proving that the tooth fairy has a $400 a day crack cocaine habbit.
Click to expand...
Nice try, did you even read the article? It's not the US demanding it, it's the IAEA. Kinda sucks that you can't blame it on OMG SO EVIL AMERIKKKA, doesn't it?
Originally posted by nico
I know that Iran's nuke facilities are VERY well protected.
Click to expand...
I would like to see your source(s) corroborating this.
 
In an effort to ward off future airstrikes against Bushehr and other strategic sites, Iran has sought to purchase Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia. According to reports, Russia agreed in December 2001 to sell S-300 PMU-01 missiles and to train Iranian personnel in how to operate the system. While it is unclear whether or not such units will be stationed in the immediate vicinity of the reactor facility, current IKONOS imagery does not indicate an air defense presence.
Click to expand...

Now I know that The SA-10 system is protable, and I am confident that Iran will place the SA-10 near the Bushehr. Also Iran's revamped F-14's (supposedly) by the Russians, and Su-27's, and MiG-29's. And there are Anti-Aircraft batteries around Bushehr and Anyways it's of no concern Israel nor the US would dare attack Iran's nuke facility with Russians on the ground.
 
According to Iran!

Iran warns Israel against attacking nuclear plant

UAE: February 6, 2002

DUBAI - Iran warned Israel this week not to consider attacking its nuclear power plant, saying the Islamic republic would retaliate in ways "unimaginable" to the Jewish state.


"If Israel carries out any military action against Iran, it will face a response that will be unimaginable to any Israeli politician," Defence Minister Admiral Ali Shamkhani told Arabic-language al-Jazeera television. He said he was not referring to a nuclear response.
The admiral was responding to a question about what Iran's reaction would be to a possible Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear power plant under construction by Russian experts near the Gulf port of Bushehr.

Iranian media often warn of a possible Israeli strike against the Bushehr plant similar to Israel's air attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

"Iran is not a small country like Iraq. Iran has a powerful artillery, a disciplined army and skilled air defences," Jazeera quoted Shamkhani as saying.

The warning came amid growing U.S. pressure on Iran to halt its alleged efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. President George W. Bush has in the past week issued a series of warnings to Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, accusing them of being an "axis of evil".

Iran strongly denies seeking nuclear weapons and says its atomic programme is for non-military use.

Both Israel and the United States have tried but failed to convince Russia to stop its military and nuclear energy cooperation with the Islamic republic.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Click to expand...

Granted it's old but it is indictive to the fact that Iran is indeed aware and scared of such actions. Iran knows the best defence against a attack from Israel or the US is to have the Russians on the ground as long as possible. I have to see any evidence though of re-processing in Iran, or anything to really suport there nuke program. I am not saying that they do, or don't.
 
I don't really see that Israel has a choice here. I think the danger is greater to them from a nuclear armed Iran than Iraq. Outwardly, I can see European countries publicly decrying such a move, but inwardly breathing a sigh of relief. In reality and despite all the blustering of France and Co., does anyone truly want a nuclear armed Iraq, let alone a fundamentalist Islamic state like Iran with such weapons. Particularly, when you look at how many of the 9/11 related terrorists were in Germany or all the Muslims in France, I would be worried.

What perplexes me somewhat is Russia's involvement in Iran's nuclear program, though I suspect I know the answer, hard currency. When you look at the war in Chechnya and how it has been characterized as a war against Islam, and Russia's past oppression of Islamic states in the former USSR, do you really want this? Or did they make a pact with the devil in order to stave off economic problems?

Any thoughts?
 
Well, going a bit off topic here, I don't think the U.S. PEOPLE would approve of the invasion of Iran after all the lies that are being published about the invasion of Iraq. But then again, I don't know anymore who runs this damn country.

Anyway, back no topic.
 
Hmmm.
Iraq. No Nuclear Weapons. Invaded.
North Korea. Nuclear Weapons. Not Invaded.

Anyone still wondering why Iran won't let in the inspectors, nor comply with demands from the UN or the US regarding it's nuclear program?
 
I think the danger is greater to them from a nuclear armed Iran than Iraq.

Yet the US invaded Iraq on her Nuke program? :confused:

IMO You cannot expect Iran to give up nukes if Israel still has gers targeted at Tehran, it's reciprocity that;s needed. I think that Iran with Nukes could have a positive side effect oddly enough. It will decrease tensions in the region. Israel's nuke monopoly is too be broken (which will eventually happen) the risks would be too great for Israel to play the game too hard. Also since it seems obvious that Iran has for the most part the ability to attack Israel. As long as China, has a vested interest in Iran, and Russia is helping out I don't see Israel doing much.
 
Well, let's not rehash the reasons for the war, I think we all know each other's opinions on that already.:D

While I agree that Israel's monopoly will eventually be broken, I don't think I am comforted by a MAD policy in the region. I trust the Israeli's with nukes far more than I would the Iranians, Israel does not view the West as the great satan and does not have the avowed purpose of completely wiping Iran off the map.

China's and Russia's vested interest in Iran, I believe is purely economic, neither one wants an increase in Islamic fundamentalism within their borders, something China has kept a pretty tight lid on. I think it is safe to say that all of Europe would be more at ease without Iran with the bomb too. This way gives Israel more parity, and I believe is actually more stabilizing. Though, I agree, the times are changing.
 
While I agree that Israel's monopoly will eventually be broken, I don't think I am comforted by a MAD policy in the region.

MAD policy is the best policy for the region,MAD= no war. Israel would be tammed and Iran would be the same. Can u really expect any state to be under threat from Israel and not expect to create there own nukes? Also plus a much more effective use of nukes would be dirties in Israel that would do more damage (psycologically) then a lumbering nuke from Tehran.

I trust the Israeli's with nukes far more than I would the Iranians,

I don't trust either:

http://www.rense.com/general35/isrnuk.htm

http://www.rense.com/general41/iran.htm

And please spare the source refutation, the things written in those two things are relevant.

This way gives Israel more parity, and I believe is actually more stabilizing.

If Iran dosen't get nukes? If that's what u mean your sadly mistaken. It will only encourage other nations to develop these weapons, and I believe personally that Pakistan is also developing with NK a missile able to attack Israel. Pakistan is already a nuke power so what then?
 
Well it seems to me that the only way you can stay safe from the US-Isreali axis is to have your own nuke deterrent.
This is the world as we have created it.
BTW does the US have enough spare capacity to hold Iran as well as Iraq and Afganistan?
Dee Cee
 
The US is not going to invade Iran. Whether or not that was a possibility I think the plans changed since the 30,000 troops that were supposed to be in Iraq at this date are instead still around 140,000. There is no invasion force for an Iranian invasion, unless the US wants to leave its rear end and logistics lines exposed to fedayeen and Ba'athist loyalists. And I don't think Israel will give a shit if Russian technicals are on the ground. They will take out that reactor and let Putin bitch at Bush. Russia will not have UN support on this since most everybody, particularly France and Germany, don't want a nuclear Iran any more than the US. Russia will bitch, the UN will publicly condemn Israel, and everybody will be secretly happy that the theocracy didn't become nuclear.
 
yea nico. how about every single nation gets a nuke. that way there'll be no wars. :confused:
is that your logic?

how can you possibly want a nuclear Iran???
a state that stones women to death over something as adultery, possessing nukes? you must be out of your mind.

re: defending their stupid nuclear facilities, israel will not send its pilots on a suicide mission. be sure of that. up to now israel has pulled off some pretty crazy shit. i think if they decide to try this one, they'll succeed...even with russians protecting the iranians.

now, as far as invading Iran, i don't think it'll happen. at least not in the near future. the US army is stretched too thin. even if they wanted to try something (i doubt they do) they wouldn't be able to pull anything off
 
Re: Re: Looks like the Iran invasions not far off =/

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Nice try, did you even read the article? It's not the US demanding it, it's the IAEA. Kinda sucks that you can't blame it on OMG SO EVIL AMERIKKKA, doesn't it?
I would like to see your source(s) corroborating this.
Click to expand...

I wasnt trying to pin it on just America sorry if it seemd like that i was posting on in a rush so i didnt proof read it for little bits like that which come back and bite you in the arse =(

I was just saying from the recent examples we've been through this charade already and whilst we have a few states trying to suck back up to the USA by going along with this we know that from example when the "coallition of the willing" want something to exist nothings going to proove it doesn't.
 
....Maybe surgecially bombing of nuclear sites could be expected at some point, but invasion ? Can the public be persuaded to pay for another invasion ?

Like the current invasion and aftermath in iraq is not costing handsfull of money and lifes....


Indeed it's the IAEA that is the watchdog, but they can only bark loudly, they cannot really enforce a nuclear shutdown ....


It's clear to all that iran is busy building nukes, but are they going to use them or is it like deterrent/leverage, just like israel????

If we for whatever reason want to stop other countries from joining the nuclear club hard action should be taken on very short term (not that me, a leftwinger would promote that haha) cause it's too late to bully the annoying north-korean government, iran is allmost there and god knows what happens in all those undergound bunkers in Libia....
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by nico
Now I know that The SA-10 system is protable, and I am confident that Iran will place the SA-10 near the Bushehr. Also Iran's revamped F-14's (supposedly) by the Russians, and Su-27's, and MiG-29's. And there are Anti-Aircraft batteries around Bushehr and Anyways it's of no concern Israel nor the US would dare attack Iran's nuke facility with Russians on the ground.
Click to expand...
They can "prepare" to be attacked all day long. Doesn't mean they'll be any more secure. The IAF uses USAF SEAD tactics, which have proven to be frighteningly effective at neutralizing air defenses in past wars, and their training and technology is first-rate, thanks to US support and their own gargantuan military budget. The biggest obstacle the Israelis face is the distance. Bombing Osirak in 1981 was easy, since it was a relatively paltry 400 mile jaunt from Israeli air space. Bushehr is over 1,000 miles away, which means IAF fighter bombers would need to tank probably twice on the way there and at least once on the way back, making such a mission pretty complicated theoretically. That said, I doubt they'd do it without clandestine assistance. Nobody wants a nuclear Iran, just like nobody wants a nuclear North Korea (except maybe nico). Israel is a nuclear rogue state, but one that hasn't been bellicose with their purported and suspected nuclear arsenal. Not to absolve them, but they're not too nefarious WRT a nuclear arsenal.
Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
I wasnt trying to pin it on just America sorry if it seemd like that i was posting on in a rush so i didnt proof read it for little bits like that which come back and bite you in the arse =(
Click to expand...
In that case, I apologize for being harsh. No worries dude. :)
 
Originally posted by Spyke
The US is not going to invade Iran. Whether or not that was a possibility I think the plans changed since the 30,000 troops that were supposed to be in Iraq at this date are instead still around 140,000. There is no invasion force for an Iranian invasion,
Click to expand...

True but then again it was 12 years between them telling us Iraq had WMD and the invasion, i guess patience is a virtue, not that i'm attributing the current administration with any virtues what so ever =/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top