Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Iran now bigger nuke problem then N. KoreaFollow

#1 Sep 02 2007 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
just as North Korea declares it will stop production and dismantle its nuclear program Iran claims to now have 3,000 centrifuges producing enriched uranium... just what we need an other total wack job in charge of a country of wack jobs with more nukes in a region of the world already on the brink of a massive full scale war and destruction.

hmm will Isreal go poof in a big mushroom cloud in the next year or 2 now that this guy who has openly declared there was no holocaust, and that all zionist (jews) should be wiped off of the face of the earth.



Quote:

Iran 'reaches key nuclear goal'

Natanz facility

The UN says Iran is using the Natanz facility for enrichment
Iran has met a key target for its nuclear programme and now has 3,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said.

Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran would continue its drive in spite of UN sanctions.

Enriched uranium can be used for power stations but also for nuclear bombs. The West has accused Iran of trying to develop weapons - a charge Iran denies.

A BBC correspondent says there is some scepticism about Iran's claim, with the UN believing it is short of the 3,000.

IAEA plan

"We have more than 3,000 centrifuges working and every week a new set is installed," Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by Iranian news agencies.

"[The world powers] were thinking that with each resolution the Iranian nation would retreat. But after each resolution the Iranian nation presented another nuclear achievement."


TIMELINE: IRAN ENRICHMENT
Map of Iran nuclear sites
2003: Enrichment programme that had been hidden for 18 years is uncovered by IAEA
Feb 2006: Iran reported to Security Council
5 Feb 2007: Diplomats confirm Iranian claims to have set up more than 300 centrifuges in two cascades
9 April: Iran claims to be enriching uranium on an "industrial scale". IAEA and Russian officials are sceptical
19 April: IAEA document confirms that Iran running more than 1,300 centrifuges in eight cascades
2 September: Iran claims to have 3,000 centrifuges running

Q&A: Iran nuclear issue

The installation of 3,000 centrifuges is seen by Iran as a key medium-term goal - which it had hoped to reach by March this year - for its nuclear programme.

There has been no independent verification of Iran's claim.

The UN has already imposed two sets of sanctions and the US is leading the call for a third set if Iran's uranium enrichment does not halt.

Only last week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it had agreed a plan with Iran to clear up key questions about its past nuclear activities, calling it a "significant step forward".

The IAEA has said 3,000 centrifuges would represent a point of no-return for an industrial-scale production of enriched uranium.

But it also suggested last week that Iran had 1,968 operational centrifuges - significantly short of the breakthrough President Ahmadinejad has now announced.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says on the one hand Iran seems to be trying to defuse the situation in talks but, on the other, the president is saying Tehran has now mastered uranium enrichment and the issue should be set aside.

The US and UN are not going to accept that, our correspondent says.

A number of Western diplomats have criticised the IAEA's plan, accusing Iran of trying to delay the imposition of further UN sanctions while increasing its nuclear capabilities.

US President George W Bush also recently stepped up the pressure with a new warning that Iran's nuclear programme put the region under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

Key meetings of the UN and IAEA on the Iranian issue are scheduled over the coming weeks.

A recent International Institute for Strategic Studies report said if Iran could operate 3,000 centrifuges smoothly, one bomb could be produced within nine to 11 months.
#2 Sep 02 2007 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
You know Israel has its own nucklear weapons and has absolutly no problem destroying nuclear facilities of countries that threten it right?

Edited, Sep 2nd 2007 11:20am by Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#3 Sep 02 2007 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
yes Isreal has had nukes since the late 60' right? and as to the destruction of other nuclear plants that is, or should be, very well known.

the difference here is that Isreal has not threatened to blow an entire nation off of the face of the earth unlike President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, or do i need to go back and find his quotes about destroying Isreal and all Zionists?
#4 Sep 02 2007 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Every political leader of iran has threatened to destroy Israel. It's kind of their thing. Iran doesn't have the capability to mount a nuke on a missile. You can bet that israel does have that capability.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#5 Sep 02 2007 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
Singdall wrote:
yes Isreal has had nukes since the late 60' right? and as to the destruction of other nuclear plants that is, or should be, very well known.

the difference here is that Isreal has not threatened to blow an entire nation off of the face of the earth unlike President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, or do i need to go back and find his quotes about destroying Isreal and all Zionists?


If Israel goes poof, so does Iran. Why is MAD okay for US/USSR, Pakistan/India, China/USSR, but not Israel/Iran? Because you don't like their leader or seriously think he'd murder-suicide Israel?
#6 Sep 02 2007 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
I fully expect pakistan and india to go at it with nukes eventually. India because they think they are big enough that they can finish obliterating pakistan before pakistan can give them much trouble. Pakistan because they are just collectivly ******* insane.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#7 Sep 02 2007 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Sanctions obviously don't work; Iraq's burgeoning WMD program is proof of that. It's time we took the initiative and rolled in.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#8 Sep 02 2007 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Palpitus wrote:
Singdall wrote:
yes Isreal has had nukes since the late 60' right? and as to the destruction of other nuclear plants that is, or should be, very well known.

the difference here is that Isreal has not threatened to blow an entire nation off of the face of the earth unlike President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, or do i need to go back and find his quotes about destroying Isreal and all Zionists?


If Israel goes poof, so does Iran. Why is MAD okay for US/USSR, Pakistan/India, China/USSR, but not Israel/Iran? Because you don't like their leader or seriously think he'd murder-suicide Israel?


i dont think it is ok for any of them to take the actions that iran is taking. the difference between the US/USSR is that both countries were lead by groups of people who were smart enough to understand mutually assured destruction. i doubt Iran understands that in the least.

and yes i think Iran is that crazy.
#9 Sep 02 2007 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Singdall wrote:
i doubt Iran understands that in the least.

and yes i think Iran is that crazy.
You base this off of what?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Sep 03 2007 at 12:31 AM Rating: Default
**
632 posts
I don't think that iran will even NEED to have any sort of launching device. the fact that they will have nukes that they "supposedly" will use will have the majority of Israelites fleeing for cover, giving israel *back* to iran & the palestinians.

on top of that, they have openly commented that IF a nation [esp. the US] tries to stop them, President Ahmadinejad has openly declared that he has sleeper cells [and a ******* of them] that will openly destroy [or attempt to] every major city around the earth.

the guy is just 100% nuts, the sad thing is, noone has the balls to take him out, the good ol' days of, "wtf is he doing? oh well, just kill him" have long gone, with liberals always lobbying for peace and non-violence [and open borders] around the world.

WILL iran get anywhere? i doubt it, but it's a much bigger possibility than anyone doing anything to stop him.

remember WW2 and how everyone tried to appease hitler at the start? yep, history repeats itself.
#11 Sep 03 2007 at 1:30 AM Rating: Excellent
russki wrote:
the fact that they will have nukes that they "supposedly" will use will have the majority of Israelites fleeing for cover, giving israel *back* to iran & the palestinians.


You are a freaking idiot.

Why would Israelites run away? Don't they have nukes? Isn't their army 10 times more advanced than the Iranian one? Don't they have 100% unconditional backing from the US?

Seriously, you're an idiot.

Quote:
on top of that, they have openly commented that IF a nation [esp. the US] tries to stop them, President Ahmadinejad has openly declared that he has sleeper cells [and a sh*tton of them] that will openly destroy [or attempt to] every major city around the earth.


Please, don't confuse video games with reality. It makes you look stupid.

Quote:
the guy is just 100% nuts, the sad thing is, noone has the balls to take him out, the good ol' days of, "wtf is he doing? oh well, just kill him" have long gone, with liberals always lobbying for peace and non-violence [and open borders] around the world.


You're right, let's invade Iran.

It's right next door anyway.

Quote:
remember WW2 and how everyone tried to appease hitler at the start? yep, history repeats itself.


Don't you guys have ANY other historical reference than WWII? Seriously, don't they teach you anything else in school?

Every major event is NOT like WWII. Every foreign leader is NOT Hitler.

Please, take your stupid head out of your stinky *** and try to understand the problem before coming here and spouting such crap.

That goes for you too, Singdall.

A nuclear Iran is not ideal, for sure. But Iran is far from crazy, and Mahmoud is a just puppet. The real power in Iran is with the Supreme Council. And their actions in wanting a nuke are perfectly rational. They were threatened by the US and putin the Axis of Evil. They saw what happened to non-nuclear-armed Iraq, and what happened to nuclear-armed North Korea. Easy choice to make, really.

And this issue is bigger than Iran anyway. As times goes by, nukes get easier and easier to produce. The fall of the USSR means that there are loads of nuclear material and know-how going around black markets, for cheap. The NPT is falling apart, and we share the blame for it.

The international comunity is gonna have to find a new way to deal with nukes. Even if we prevented Iran from getting them, it would only be a temporal set-back. They have the know-how, as do most civilised ountries around the world.

Iran with nukes might be "scary" to some, but it's not worse than Pakistan with nukes. It's even arguably safer.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#12 Sep 03 2007 at 2:57 AM Rating: Default
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:


Quote:
remember WW2 and how everyone tried to appease hitler at the start? yep, history repeats itself.


Don't you guys have ANY other historical reference than WWII? Seriously, don't they teach you anything else in school?

Every major event is NOT like WWII. Every foreign leader is NOT Hitler.

Please, take your stupid head out of your stinky *** and try to understand the problem before coming here and spouting such crap.

That goes for you too, Singdall.



This coming from the dirty frenchy. Smiley: lol
#13 Sep 03 2007 at 3:03 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Yeah, I agree.

Those Iranians are completely hat-stand fuckin' crazy!!

I mean, look how many wars they started and how many countries they invaded over the last 120 years.....

Oh yeah...I remember now,it was exactly .. NONE. Zero. Nada.

/sarc off

As for the rest...What Red said.

Singdall + Russki = brain fart. Havnt you guys learn't anything at all over the last few years? Like for example the US being unable to subdue even a small part of one city in Iraq....

And now you bright sparks reckon a bit more humiliation for the US military in Iran would be a good plan.

And you reckon 'liberals' hate America......Smiley: oyvey

Singdall re-gurgitated this little urban myth
Quote:
and that all zionist (jews) should be wiped off of the face of the earth.


Nope. He never said that. Thats what you may have read in the papers, but I'm afraid thats not what he said.

Like Red said, Ahmadinejad is not in charge of anything in Iran other than mouthing off. The clerics are the boss mobs over there....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#14 Sep 03 2007 at 3:30 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,293 posts
90% of the iranian people think theyre president is a douchebag too.
Quoted from HEnry Rollins who did a tour there and a interview after, biased ofc.

But i think its the sme old story of 10% of big mouthed religious fanatics that made the president. ;-)

Debalic wrote:
Sanctions obviously don't work; Iraq's burgeoning WMD program is proof of that


You missed something?
They worked perfectly for Irak didnt have WMD's or a program for that matter ???

Anyway sanctions would be impossible to "lay on" Iran since theyre pretending to be a democracy and theyre not killing or heavily repressing theyre own population.
eg: In the citys some women dont wear head scarfs by choice.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2007 4:55pm by Sjans
#15 Sep 03 2007 at 4:37 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Um...

a) that was *my* line

b) that was obviously sarcasm, as I spent most of last week insisting that sanctions *did* work on Iraq.

Stop stealing my material, Sing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#16 Sep 03 2007 at 5:09 AM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Sheesh, Debalic, you're going to try and explain the finer nuances of forum posting to a guy who wants to debate about Irak.

Smiley: lol
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#17 Sep 03 2007 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Good point. Where the hell is that guy from anyways? OoT? MoggleFuCkers?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#18 Sep 03 2007 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Debalic wrote:
Good point. Where the hell is that guy from anyways? OoT? MoggleFuCkers?


From copypasta city.

Who needs to read their own news when you can get Singdall's bias as well?
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#19 Sep 03 2007 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Mmmmm, pasta...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#20 Sep 03 2007 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
now i am not comparing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler. I am not saying the US should invade Iran. both would be even more nuts then he is.

the reason i state i do not trust him, and YES he has commented that Isreal should be wiped off of the face of the earth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/790877.stm

Quote:
Promising an administration of "peace and moderation", he said his government would press on with Iran's controversial nuclear programme.

Months into his presidency, a furore erupted over Mr Ahmadinejad's comment that Israel should be "wiped off the map". His claims that the Holocaust was a "myth" drew further international condemnation.


also he denies that the Holocaust ever happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6396873.stm

Quote:
He also questioned the historical truth of the Holocaust and his officials organised a controversial international conference on the subject.


and more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6181029.stm

Quote:
Mr Ahmadinejad has made a string of fiery statements about Israel, calling for an end to the Israeli state.

Barbed wire at the Birkenau extermination camp, Poland
Some six million Jews were murdered by the ***** during World War II

"The trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said at the Tehran conference.

Mr Ahmadinejad has also played down the extent of the Holocaust, describing it as a myth used to justify the existence of Israel and oppression of the Palestinians.


that is enough now to prove my point that he is a nut case and is not to be trusted with the power of a nuclear weapon at his finger tips. or did you forget his capture of the UK sailors and his attempt to capture the Australian saliors? well maybe you did...

yeah those are acts of a leader who is not bent on trying to bring down the west by any means while pushing his limits with the rest of the world.

he is a child with big boy toys and should be treated as such. not to be trusted.

that is all i am saying.
#21 Sep 03 2007 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
So is it like the Asylum gets copypasta about Iran and North Korea and the OOT gets copypasta about the RIAA and Microsoft? How was that decided? Shouldn't the OOT just get copypasta about the Hello Kitty and the Asylum about ...stuff?

I feel like a child of divorce. Your love is divided!
Go live with the asylum. They need you more.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2007 8:41pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#22 Sep 03 2007 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Anna, you ignorant ****.
#23 Sep 03 2007 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Grandmother Annabella wrote:
So is it like the Asylum gets copypasta about Iran and North Korea and the OOT gets copypasta about the RIAA and Microsoft? How was that decided? Shouldn't the OOT just get copypasta about the Hello Kitty and the Asylum about ...stuff?

I feel like a child of divorce. Your love is divided!
Go live with the asylum. They need you more.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2007 8:41pm by Annabella


You forget, OOT is basically just rehashing everything Asylum has already gone through. You are about 3 years behind there for the most part on threads in general. Look ye into your future doom and know fear!

Besides, i'm a bigger nuclear threat than Iran or Korea.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#24 Sep 03 2007 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Singdall said

Quote:
that is enough now to prove my point


No. It just proves my point that you are a know-nothing dimwit.

Try reading about what he actually said, rather than what the BBC and numerous other shoddy journalistic organisations said he said.

You could start here, but I expect that you wouldn't have the attention span or grey matter to read something that isn't spoon fed to you in little itty bits, so that it doesnt hurt your brain.

Thats why people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote (or breed probably). Because you know nothing whatsoever about what it is you have such strong opinions on, and those self same opinions lead you to support other know-nothing fuckwits like your present government.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#25 Sep 03 2007 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
that only disputes one of the many points i mentioned as to why i do not trust him. you still have done nothing about his attacks against the UK and Ausy sailors or his complete denial of the holocaust, or the fact he does not think Isreal has a right to be.

in fact that link quotes that Isreal should not be were it is, and were it belongs i might add, but should be someplace like Germany.

so again all i have stated is i do not trust him, he is a nut case, his government is not to be trusted, and i do not like the idea of him having nukes.

wow, WTF is your problem with that?
#26 Sep 03 2007 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts

You are the one who said you don't trust him. Why dont you let us know why you don't trust him. Or is it just because of something you heard on the BBC?

Thats not a very grown up big boy way of coming to a conclusion about a whole country full of people whom you've never met, now is it?

I personnaly dont think he should have nukes either. (tho the Iranians have stated many times now that they are pursuing 'peaceful' nuclear power, as is their right, the same as anyone else, and according to the IAEA have fulfilled all their obligations under the NPT, unlike some, the US and Israel for example).I dont think anyone should have nukes. Hell, the US sure shouldnt have nukes, 'cos they've shown that they will use them, and are not averse to using them again (on the Iranians which is rather ironic).

I never said that Israel shouldn't be where it is. Im probably one of a handful of people on the board who has actually been to Israel and the ME as a long term visitor rather than in military uniform. Its fine where it is. They just need to choose a government that would make an effort to not spend its whole time alienating its neighbours, who, it should be noted have been there for a very long time and are not going anywhere either.

What I do have a problem with tho, is people like yourself who base their opinions on skimming thru a news report that they heard or read and then deciding that they know all they need to know about a serious subject such as this, to the point that when Dubya says 'we need to nuke Iran 'cos they have a WMD program' they (you) jump up and down and go "yeah lets invade those good for nothin' towelheads! I never trusted them anyway".

Get my drift?

Wise up. Research a bit and then offer an informed opinion. I may still disagree with it, but at least you'd be arguing from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 253 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (253)