Iran Backing away from nuclear deal

[Oleg Bach]

I believe Vancouver King is the fellow to ask that question to.

Vancouver may have been wiser if they had a pre-emptive strike against themselves and stopped the Asian invasion...especially the gangs - legal and illegal.

[KeyStone]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-says-it-will-further-enrich-uranium/article1385575/

Is anyone actually surprised?

Surprised that the West failed to offer a deal that satisfied the Iranian requirements? Not really.

The entire negotiation has been incredibly one-sided, and is framed with the premise of 'We can't let crazy people get nuclear technology', in addition to the ludicrous double standard applied to Israel and other countries in the Middle East.

Can you really blame Ahmadinejad for wanting the technology for their own nuclear fuel, instead of being dependent on Western powers. I mean, hundreds of people have died in plane crashes in Iran, because the US refuses to sell them the parts they need to repair their civilian planes. Is this really a nation that Iran wants to be dependent on, for building a major part of their infrastructure?

Iran has every right to build nuclear technology and the West has no right to forbid them.

[DogOnPorch]

Iran has every right to build nuclear technology and the West has no right to forbid them.

Circa 1937, Keystone sounded like this: Germany has every right to rebuild its military and the Allies have no right to forbid them.

Edited December 4, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[KeyStone]

Circa 1937,

DogonPorch sounded like this:

Conditions are fine for Jews in Germany. There is no need for us to interfere.

[DogOnPorch]

Circa 1937,

DogonPorch sounded like this:

Conditions are fine for Jews in Germany. There is no need for us to interfere.

Actually, my family suffered horribly at the hands of the Nazis. Those taken from Hamburg/Rostock/Stralsund were either liquidated in the Minsk ghetto or murdered in Syrets/Babi Yar concentration camp.

No...I'm not even Jewish.

[Wild Bill]

Can you really blame Ahmadinejad for wanting the technology for their own nuclear fuel, instead of being dependent on Western powers. I mean, hundreds of people have died in plane crashes in Iran, because the US refuses to sell them the parts they need to repair their civilian planes. Is this really a nation that Iran wants to be dependent on, for building a major part of their infrastructure?

Iran has every right to build nuclear technology and the West has no right to forbid them.

Logical argument, however like all logical arguments you can prove anything if you only deal in the facts which support your argument.

In this case, you might consider that the deal was NOT for the US to supply them with the enriched uranium for their proposed nuclear reactors! It was for Russia to do the supplying.

You ARE right when you say that the West has no right to forbid Iran from developing nuclear technology. However, if Israel and other countries believe that Iran intends to develop the bomb and use it as a threat against them then they also have the right of self-defense. Israel is so small that if Iran lobbed even a handful of nukes at it there would be nothing left of the country. That means a preventive first strike may be the only logical option.

After Israel exercised its right of self defense, other countries would no doubt exercise their rights to choose their allies and the amount of their support, including military.

[madmax]

WB

Logical, makes sense to me. Even if I don't support first strike, fact is, when wars are started, someone has to strike first.

[Wild Bill]

WB

Logical, makes sense to me. Even if I don't support first strike, fact is, when wars are started, someone has to strike first.

Exactly! And someone has to have a reason to strike first! In this case, to be the first country since the US nuked Japan to end WWII to use nuclear weapons in an attack is NOT a cavalier decision! Israel would have to feel it was cornered and under threat of its very existence.

Since the Premier of Iran has many times promised publicly to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth one would think that Israel would be taking the threat as very real.

This same Premier keeps repeating the claim that Iran just wants nuclear reactors, even though they are sitting on oceans of cheap oil. During all his speeches, has anyone heard any words at all intended to re-assure Israel that Iran will not nuke them? Has any one heard Iran make any offers to guarantee Israel's security?

Myself, I've heard diddleysquat! What I have heard sounds like Iran can't wait to get a bomb and start throwing its weight around. It's not just Israel that's afraid. Countries like Kuwait have already learned the hard way about aggression from fellow Islamic countries.

This situation is getting to be downright terrifying, like the proverbial train coming at you when you're stuck on the tracks...

[KeyStone]

Logical argument, however like all logical arguments you can prove anything if you only deal in the facts which support your argument.

In this case, you might consider that the deal was NOT for the US to supply them with the enriched uranium for their proposed nuclear reactors! It was for Russia to do the supplying.

You ARE right when you say that the West has no right to forbid Iran from developing nuclear technology. However, if Israel and other countries believe that Iran intends to develop the bomb and use it as a threat against them then they also have the right of self-defense. Israel is so small that if Iran lobbed even a handful of nukes at it there would be nothing left of the country. That means a preventive first strike may be the only logical option.

After Israel exercised its right of self defense, other countries would no doubt exercise their rights to choose their allies and the amount of their support, including military.

[M.Dancer]

Wild Bill is correct.

[KeyStone]

"In this case, you might consider that the deal was NOT for the US to supply them with the enriched uranium for their proposed nuclear reactors! It was for Russia to do the supplying."

It was just an example, although I wasn't very clear. My point is that we don't know the details of why things fell apart. We can't assume that because the negotiation fell apart, Iran is at fault, and secretly wants to build nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. As for Russia, I am sure you can understand why a country would not want to be dependent on Russia for its fuel? Just ask the Ukraine what it's like.

"You ARE right when you say that the West has no right to forbid Iran from developing nuclear technology. However, if Israel and other countries believe that Iran intends to develop the bomb and use it as a threat against them then they also have the right of self-defense."

So, by that same logic, if Iran believes that Israel and the US is going to use their bombs as a threat against Iran, then they must surely have the right to self-defense as well.

"Israel is so small that if Iran lobbed even a handful of nukes at it there would be nothing left of the country. That means a preventive first strike may be the only logical option."

I see. Israel thinks Iran might attack, so they are justified in attacking. Following that logic through then, there is a real threat that Israel could attack Iran, which means of course, that Iran would be fully justified in making a preventitive first-strike against Israel. Do you really think that the fear of attack justifies an actual attack?

Imagine if that was how our courts worked.

"I killed him, your honour, because I saw him looking at a gun in a window, and I thought he might be thinking of buying a gun to kill me, so obviously I had to kill him out of self-defense". Do you think that would hold up in court?

Don't you think your premise that killing someone because you suspect that they might try to kill you, is a bit absurd?

[KeyStone]

"Since the Premier of Iran has many times promised publicly to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth one would think that Israel would be taking the threat as very real."

That is one translation, which Ahmadinejad has denied. 'Vanish from the pages of time' does not equal nuclear holocaust. Some Arabs/Persians do not want Israel to exist as a country. Some Jews/Israelis do not want Palestine to exist as a country. There really isn't that much of a difference. To conclude that his ramblings can be seen as evidence of a nuclear threat is a huge stretch.

"This same Premier keeps repeating the claim that Iran just wants nuclear reactors, even though they are sitting on oceans of cheap oil." Perhaps you can also explain why the US helped Saudi Arabia obtain nuclear technology. Are they planning to build nuclear weapons to finish the job they started on 9/11?

"During all his speeches, has anyone heard any words at all intended to re-assure Israel that Iran will not nuke them? Has any one heard Iran make any offers to guarantee Israel's security?"

Hahaha! That's funny.

Iran who has said many times that they only want nuclear energy should be reassuring the country with a 'secret' stockpile of nuclear weapons that they don't mean them any harm?

Perhaps, it is Israel and the US who should be reassuring Iran that they don't mean any harm. How about doing it with actions instead of BS?

Let's look at why Iran might feel threatened, shall we?

1) UN resolution to forbid nuclear nations from using nukes against non-nuclear nations - vetoed by the US.

2) Iran listed as part of the axis of evil.

3) UN resolution to forbid development of new nuclear weapons - vetoed by the US.

4) Iraq complies with demands for inspection and disarmament result: invaded, occupied - Saddam and sons killed.

5) Iraq nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel - consequences: none. Israel gets away unscathed.

"Myself, I've heard diddleysquat! What I have heard sounds like Iran can't wait to get a bomb and start throwing its weight around. It's not just Israel that's afraid. Countries like Kuwait have already learned the hard way about aggression from fellow Islamic countries."

I'm not sure what assurance you expect from Ahmadinejad, other than him saying he is only building reactors for energy.

Do you want him to add: "But if I were using this all as a ruse, and was actually building a nuclear weapon, I would not use it against Israel. Would that make the nation with the pile of nukes feel safer. God forbid, that Iran and those Islamic savages be on a level playing field with the Israelis. We have to assure the Israelis, that the Persians will stay in their proper place.

[Wild Bill]

Don't you think your premise that killing someone because you suspect that they might try to kill you, is a bit absurd?

Your model is not a true parallel. You are ignoring the fact that the rulers of Iran have repeated shouted that they will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Iran has also been caught a number of times shipping large quantities of armaments to groups like Hamas in the Gaza, so that they can keep firing missiles into the residential areas of Israel.

So Iran repeatedly says they are going to destroy Israel, they supply and arm enemies of Israel and are working on getting nuclear weapons so that they could carry out their threats.

Don't you think it would be a bit absurd for Israel to ignore what Iran has been doing?

Someone says he's going to kill you. Right in front of you, he buys a gun. Apparently, you believe that since he has a right to have a gun you should just ignore him.

You haven't convinced me with that argument and you certainly wouldn't convince the government of Israel. Given the reality of the situation they are being boxed into a position where they may feel they have no choice but to launch a first strike. The only other option is to sit there and get "wiped from the face of the earth", as Iran has promised.

[DogOnPorch]

...don't forget the rather obvious ICBM program Iran has going.

[Wild Bill]

God forbid, that Iran and those Islamic savages be on a level playing field with the Israelis. We have to assure the Israelis, that the Persians will stay in their proper place.

Not all "Persians" are savages. Who said they were? Why do you put words in my mouth?

I would agree that the rulers of Iran are savages. If nothing else, the way they handled the protests over their last election shows us that!

Anyhow, you don't have to convince me or anyone else on this board. Israel will do what makes sense for the safety of Israel.

Meanwhile, if you want to champion the government of Iran, why not tell it to the family of Neda Soltan?

[KeyStone]

"Your model is not a true parallel. You are ignoring the fact that the rulers of Iran have repeated shouted that they will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

You have pretty selective information sources, as well as interpretive abilities, if you're clinging to a statement given four years ago, that was misinterpreted, (and which Ahmadinejad has clarified on many occasions), as evidence that Iran wants to attack Israel with a nuke.

Even if you accept the premise that he said Israel should be wiped off the map, he in no way said that Iran was going to do it.

As an example, Peter Munk said recently that Hugo Chavez should be removed. That does not mean that Peter Munk needs to go to jail for threatening the life of Chavez because he neither said who should remove him, nor did he say how.

"Iran has also been caught a number of times shipping large quantities of armaments to groups like Hamas in the Gaza, so that they can keep firing missiles into the residential areas of Israel."

Why can they not ship armaments to Hamas? They are only terrorists in the hands of a few countries.

Furthermore, Palestine has a right to defend themselves from frequent IDF incursions, do they not? And do they not need weapons do to so? It seems to me that the US and Canada have been 'caught' supplying weapons to Israel to assist them in the murder of women and children in Palestine. Does this mean that the US should not have any nuclear weapons or fuel?

"So Iran repeatedly says they are going to destroy Israel, they supply and arm enemies of Israel and are working on getting nuclear weapons so that they could carry out their threats."

Your flawed assertions look just as transparent when lumped together.

"Someone says he's going to kill you. Right in front of you, he buys a gun. Apparently, you believe that since he has a right to have a gun you should just ignore him."

No one said they were going to kill anyone. That would be a very different scenario.

"You haven't convinced me with that argument and you certainly wouldn't convince the government of Israel. Given the reality of the situation they are being boxed into a position where they may feel they have no choice but to launch a first strike. The only other option is to sit there and get "wiped from the face of the earth", as Iran has promised."

Quite right. Israel will do as it pleases. In our current political climate, it is very unlikely that anyone will rise to the defense of Iran, regardless of what Israel does.

[bush_cheney2004]

...don't forget the rather obvious ICBM program Iran has going.

Indeed....but Iran is more bark than bite. You mentioned Iran's newest submarine procurements, but these are a mix of imported mini-hulls and old technology, neither of which have demonstrated operational capability. They can't buy such experience.

[Alex Moore]

Iran used to be one of the West's greatest allies in the area. Since 1941, in fact. Miniskirts used to be a common sight. It could be that way again.

sorry saw this and have to laugh

read history 1941 was the year Britain invaded Iran to prevent them from siding with nazi Germany. If there has been been any alliance between Iran and the west it was forced. Remember the shah? Great allies. yeah that was the dictatorship left behind following the 1941 invasion. which (forgive me if i'm wrong) wasn't terribly popular in Iran. and oh was the driving cause behind the 1978-1980 islamic revolution in Iran who are: the douches in power right now developing nuclear weapons.

miniskirts in Iran between 1941-1978? ummm... I don't even think they were invented yet.. I'm going to need photographic evidence of this.

[M.Dancer]

sorry saw this and have to laugh

read history 1941 was the year Britain invaded Iran to prevent them from siding with nazi Germany. If there has been been any alliance between Iran and the west it was forced. Remember the shah? Great allies. yeah that was the dictatorship left behind following the 1941 invasion. which (forgive me if i'm wrong) wasn't terribly popular in Iran. and oh was the driving cause behind the 1978-1980 islamic revolution in Iran who are: the douches in power right now developing nuclear weapons.

miniskirts in Iran between 1941-1978? ummm... I don't even think they were invented yet.. I'm going to need photographic evidence of this.

miniskirts were invented in the mid 60s

[DogOnPorch]

sorry saw this and have to laugh

read history 1941 was the year Britain invaded Iran to prevent them from siding with nazi Germany. If there has been been any alliance between Iran and the west it was forced. Remember the shah? Great allies. yeah that was the dictatorship left behind following the 1941 invasion. which (forgive me if i'm wrong) wasn't terribly popular in Iran. and oh was the driving cause behind the 1978-1980 islamic revolution in Iran who are: the douches in power right now developing nuclear weapons.

miniskirts in Iran between 1941-1978? ummm... I don't even think they were invented yet.. I'm going to need photographic evidence of this.

I'm well aware of the history of the area as well as who The Shah was and what the Islamic Revolution was. As for mini skirts, they were common throughout the Middle East in the 60s-70s, not just Iran.

[Sir Bandelot]

miniskirts were invented in the mid 60s

Excellent, M.Dancer, always with such valuable and positive contributions! But you have been reticent lately. Is this what it takes for you to come out

[ZenOps]

The US has 1 uranium enrichment facility.

Iran wants 10

Go figure.

The US doesn't need enrichment facilities, they already have reactors capable of creating more high energy nuclear material in one year than it would take a million years (no exaggeration) to create with an enrichment facility. An "Enrichment facility" especially based on centrifuges is completely utterly obsolete with your first nuclear reactor.

Canada is just as much to blame as anyone else. Northern Saskatchewan sells almost 30% of the worlds raw uranium. We also sold the US Candu reactors which can be modified to create nuclear weapons (its actually a misnomer to say that only Candu reactors can be used to create nuclear weapons, as any nuclear energy facility can be used - its just easier with some designs)

The US has *only* set off 1,021 nuclear weapons at the test site in Nevada (and 67 nukes in the Bikini islands back in the 1940's) Each at power levels up to 1000x the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (probably right near 1 million Hiroshima bomb equivalent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo The first nuke to be created by the US that was 1000x stronger than the ones dropped in WWII.

Edited December 9, 2009 by ZenOps

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The genie isn't going back into the bottle folks. Its out there and we need to understand what that means. It means that anyone with enough money can make one. The only way that I can see the damned things being eliminated is to have a nuclear engagement that has some survivors. Those survivors may and I do mean may be able to do the right thing and leave this technology behind.

[BrassTax]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-says-it-will-further-enrich-uranium/article1385575/

Is anyone actually surprised?

When I read the thread title I came here to say the same thing. What a sorry state of affairs. While I'm not in agreement with "nuke 'em til they glow" Which I'm sure was purely sarcasm, I think measures more severe than a trade embargo are necessary but what? "A dilly of a pickle..."

[DogOnPorch]

The US doesn't need enrichment facilities, they already have reactors capable of creating more high energy nuclear material in one year than it would take a million years (no exaggeration) to create with an enrichment facility. An "Enrichment facility" especially based on centrifuges is completely utterly obsolete with your first nuclear reactor.

Canada is just as much to blame as anyone else. Northern Saskatchewan sells almost 30% of the worlds raw uranium. We also sold the US Candu reactors which can be modified to create nuclear weapons (its actually a misnomer to say that only Candu reactors can be used to create nuclear weapons, as any nuclear energy facility can be used - its just easier with some designs)

The US has *only* set off 1,021 nuclear weapons at the test site in Nevada (and 67 nukes in the Bikini islands back in the 1940's) Each at power levels up to 1000x the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (probably right near 1 million Hiroshima bomb equivalent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo The first nuke to be created by the US that was 1000x stronger than the ones dropped in WWII.

Plutonium based weapons requiring high explosive lenses to compress the pit are too high tech for countries such as Iran at their current state of nuclear engineering.