Aceshardware

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6998602.stm

Great. Looks like this time France doesnt want to miss the war bounty and will shoulder with the US in a war against Iran. That of all people Kouchner, who is one of the founders of "Doctors Without Borders " would beat the war drum is even more depressing.

FWIW, regarding the Iranian nuclear "threat", its worth repeating that under the NPT, which Iran signed, unlike Israel, Pakistan or India, not only is Iran given the explicit right to develop a full nuclear cycle (including enrichment) for civilian use, the other nuclear powers are even supposed to facilitate this.

In other words, the US, Russia, France, China etc under the treaty, should HELP Tehran develop their program if they intend to stick to their obligations under the treaty!

In exchange Iran should not pursue nuclear weapons (they have stated over and over they do not want to, and doing so would be against their religion, a statement pretty hard to reverse later), and they should allow inspections to ensure this. They allow these inspections and so far there has not been a shred of evidence the program is anything but a peaceful energy program.

Put yourself into the position of Iran; you are a surrounded by nuclear powers (Israel, Pakistan, India and Russia. You could also add Iraq and Afghanistan to that, as they are occupied by US/Brittish military)

Yet you signed a treaty promising not to develop a bomb, you comply with all the stipulations of the treaty while the other parties ignore their part of the bargain, then they even threaten you with war for developing something they should actually give to you. How would you react?

Now put yourself into the position of any other state with potential nuclear ambitions.. would you stick with the NPT ? I sure as hell wouldn't! If I where president of Libya, Brazil, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, not only would I get out ASAP, I'd even seriously consider developing nukes as a deterrent against a US invasion for my oil/gas.

If I was leader of Iran I would try to develop my country to be the best economic power in the region. Having oil and developed nuclear power is a mighty good start to achieving this. If it also means not being bombed by USA, even better. In the long run, only economical power will secure the nations future. Look at USA/Soviet Union. Also, if my country became a big economic power, I would likely receive support from the West in case of a military conflict, as the West would depend more on my countrys trade. I would also not be hasseled so much by the West for breaking Human Rights, see China.

Now, how do we know this is not the plan in Iran right now? What if we decide to bomb/invade Iran and it's all wrong, like in Iraq? How much crap can the worlds muslims accept?

Well.. it seems, just like with Iraq, the west wants Iran to somehow proof a negative. I read somewhere that "Iran didnt offer sufficient proof that its program was non military". That makes no sense. That is also exactly like Saddam "failed to proof it no longer had nuclear or WMD programs".

Its pretty damn hard to proof that something does not exist. Even if you allow the FBI to search your house and car and bank account and tap your phone, and they find absolutely nothing, can you prove you do not own a bomb ?



You could bet it would be "all wrong" all over again. Even *if* Iran had a secret nuclear bomb program that they managed to hide from spy satellites and non stop IAEA inspections, they are still a decade away from producing one.

Further more, I find it extremely hard to justify bombing or invading of a sovereign country, almost certainly killing 100k's of innocent civilians for something most countries in that region have just as well. Why would we punish Iranian people for voluntarily signing the Non Proliferation Treaty and following all of its stipulations (and then some), while rewarding Israel or Pakistan that did not sign the NPT, that did develop nukes, and that does harbor Al Qaeda terrorists (Pakistan at least) ? It makes zero sense. We should be rewarding Iran.

If any nuclear bomb is going to be detonated by terrorists over the next decade, it will be a Pakistani or Russian bomb, perhaps even a North Korean one (though they seem to work less effectively than a car full off TNT) but certainly not an Iranian one.

don't forget about 'dirty bombs'. depending on the conditions, location, etc. the radioactive dust could have long term health effects for those unlucky enough to breath in the radioactive dust.

i think a lot of the reasons behind how Pakistan and Israel are treated with regards to nuclear weapons has a lot to do on how the relations are with America and what the country (more or less the government specifically) thinks of America. would you really want your enemy to have a weapon that could hurt you or your friends and would you do nothing about it? there is also an element of trust. can other countries trust Iran that they will use it only for nuclear power and ensure the waste is properly disposed of? knowing how iran feels about the 'west' and looking at the past, it seems reasonable not to trust the present governmnet of Iran.

i agree that it will probably not be a Iranian bomb. from what i here from the media, it seems like the russian bombs may be on the black market.

So stop chasing down Iran, it's not as full of terrorists as Pakistan or even Germany! They don't have their own nukes by far either. Still, USA have their own agenda, producing "evidence" to the world like the charade at the UN before the Iraq invasion, in class with the Polish "attack" on a German radio station in 1939 that triggered WWII.

Dirty bombs are overstated. They would have a significant psychological effect, but the effect on health would be quite limited AFAIK. Anyway, Iran could build a "dirty bomb" even without enriching uranium themselves, they could just use the enriched uranium they are supposed to get from Russia or anyone else. So that is not what this is about.



And just how idiotic is that as a policy ? First off, the US shouldnt only worry about nukes being used against itself. Its not like its going to help anyone of us if Pakistan and India start exchanging nukes.

Secondly, what sort of ally is Pakistan ? and what on earth makes you think it would stay like that once Pakistan rids itself of Musharraf ? You might as well hand out nukes to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Iraq because they are "friendly" towards the US..
for now.



First, why do you consider Iran an enemy ? I don't see it as an enemy. Certainly not more than, say China, Pakistan, Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Secondly, I really dont want *anyone* to have nukes. That includes Iran, but Iran doesnt have nukes, and is not developing them. So why is this such an urgent matter warranting war, when are we doing nothing against the REAL nuclear threat from countries like the ones mentioned above ?



When it comes to nukes, you can not trust ANY nation. That is why the US and Russia inspect each other. That is why we have NTP and IAEA. You can distrust Iran (or NK, Lybia, or whomever) as much as you want, as long as they comply with their part of the treaties, and IAEA is not reporting anything troubling, there should be nothing to worry about. Iran (and Lybia, and perhaps now NK) subjects itself to such inspection. That gives me far more confidence than what Israel, Pakistan India or China do. Not because I have so much faith in Iran's government, but in the IAEA.



As I already said, this is not about trusting any government. That said, how much trust to you think the middle east is supposed to have in the west ? How reasonable is it for them to trust us, give up their nuclear ambitions in return for what the NTP promises ? Not very reasonable I would say.

Again, if I where president of Lybia, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, I would now have every possible incentive of developing a nuclear bomb, because the US has proven to ignore just about any international treaty on the subject, and is clearly not shy to invade other countries that have oil or gas reserves if it doesnt like the regime. Wouldnt you want to protect your nation against such aggression ?

This is the sort of foreign policy that absolutely stimulates nuclear proliferation, as it is crystal clear that having nukes is pretty much your only defense if the US doesn't like you.

I don't think it's wise to compare between the Iraqi issue and the Iranian Issue.
The evidence is there.
It is not some US lead ghost hunt.
look at the IAEA reports on Iran's nuclear program, look at foreign intelligence reports - you can't systematically disregard them as "ghost hunt" given the IAEA statments and reports.
Sure you may say Iran can't prove something doesn't exist - but it's very clear they are trying to hide something. they have gone through much effort to hide and prevent access (once they even bulldozed an entire facility before allowing access to it) for the IAEA to certain facilitys suspected in participation of the Iranian nuclear program and when they did allow access (usually after these facility's have been uncovered by foreign intelligence - not declared by Iran) on 2 occasions the IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a34pwgCMN5k

The slideshow is so full of untruths, distortions and flatout lies, I would be ashamed linking to it and supplying it as evidence.

First slide, claim: "Iran doesnt need nuclear energy because of its oil and gas reserves". Fact is, Iran will soon become a net importer of oil. You read that right. And it simply can not afford that. Furthermore, Russia has far bigger oil and gas reserves, that doesnt seem to stop them from producing cheap nuclear energy. Finally, as oil and gas prices go up, it simply makes sense to invest in alternative or nuclear energy, it doesnt matter whether you import or export, who on earth would at this time of spiking prices and diminishing supplies want to increase its dependency on oil or gas ? Why should Iran burn its natural reserves when it can sell them?

Second slide: Iran being the biggest sponsor of terrorism. We heard that before haven't we ? Anyway maybe, but only if you ignore Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and the US themselves.

Third slide: "Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel". Wrong. They have called for the dismantling of the political state of Israel, just like many orthodox Jews, just like most of the Arab world. This demand is no more shocking than our demand for the dismantling of the state of Northern Cyprus by pretty much the entire world except Turkey. Iran has not prosecuted, exterminated or destructed its own Jewish minority, it is not some Nazi like antisemite state, it is anti zionist. So am I. Nuke me.

Third slide con'd: "Iran supports organizations such as Hezollah Hamas, Palestine Jihad which are responsible for attacks against Israel". Well, considering Israel is a foreign occupying force in Lebanon and Palestine, supporting organizations that resist this occupation is completely understandable. It is also no different as the US supporting, arming and funding countless "terrorists" / "freedom fighters" throughout the world and throughout history. Its not even different from the US funding and arming IDF and Mossad, resonsible for countless terrorist attacks against Palestinians and Lebanese (and British and US).

Forth slide: "Iran planning on 3 nuclear installations". So?

Fifh slide: "Iran is building up military capability". LOL. What would you expect ? They have an army of ~200.000 soldiers right at there border, from a country that is openly planning a war against them.

I guess I stopped watching there. Do you have a better source to prove Iran is violating the NPT treaty ? Something slightly more convincing than Powell's address to the UN on Iraq's nuclear and WMD program ? Do you have better arguments why a war against Iran is somehow warranted while we treat Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or even Israel as our best friends?

Nice. you touched upon what 4 convenient slides...

Fact is you nor the IAEA can't conclude there is no Weapon aimed Iranian nuclear program, and that they have gone great length to hide parts of there nuclear program.
On the contrary evidence is mounting.

I think you'd be better off investing your time rationalizing an iranian nuclear bomb rather denying the possibility of one, and, unfortunately, Im sure with time and further revelations you will...

ElBaradei reiterated expectations that Iran's atomic program, subject to IAEA inspectors' scrutiny since 2003, may be cleared by the end of this year of suspicion that the project was used as cover for nuclear weapons development.

``We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponization of their program,'' ElBaradei said. ``Nor have we gotten intelligence to that effect.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... er=germany

Sounds familiar doesnt it ? Sounds just like Hans Blix not so long ago. And just like with Hans Blix, the US will simply ignore it and provide their own "evidence" to warrant yet another illegal and immoral war.

The Iraq war costed over 1 millioniraqi lives now. More than 1 MILLION. That is one additional 9/11 for each and every victim of 9/11! (not that Iraq had anything to do with that). It is also more than in the extremely bloody 8 year Iran-Iraq war in which plenty of real, existing rather than imagined WDMs where actually used. It is about 5x more than the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Remind me, all those deaths served to prevent what exactly ? To prevent Saddam from launching a Scud armed with curry powder ?

Anyone warranting yet another such 'preemptive' war over an irrational, unproven fear of a possible future "WMD threat" that is at least 10 years out should it even exist, should get their heads checked.

So what do you call the hundreds of tonnes of DU vaporised in the middle east by the US military? Can it be called anything other than a swarm of dirty bombs? DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years, i guess you could call that long term...

Long halflife == low radioactivity. I've read that the main health concern of DU is its toxicity, not its radioactivity.

All the evil banker videos tout this theory, first they drive us into recession than they will profit from the war that follows. Might it be some truth to this? Someone will clearly benefit from war, bankers lend money to the allies and Hitler during WW2..WW1 as well iirc...

The Iraq war was against Saddam, but a war with Iran will be against a religion more than a tyrant or person, thats why it will be much more serious, the clash of civilizations. It will escalate out of controll, not be contained like Iraq was.

So will we first see a recession followed by an all out war this time? If those theories are right?

Yeah, DU is toxic and cancerous, when vaporized it is easily absorbed by breathing it. I believe radiocativity is a secondary concern in this respect.

Instead of DU, they should switch to biodegradable rubber bullets. It would be better for the environment and fewer people would be killed. Or better yet, trade all the guns for pillows and then have a big pillow fight. :)