Iran threatens to attack its neighbors

[Black Dog]

Israel has never threatened to use weapons that Israel does not acknowledge she possesses.

And of course, they would do nothing if their nuclear facilities were hit, right?

[M.Dancer]

Israel has never threatened to use weapons that Israel does not acknowledge she possesses.

And of course, they would do nothing if their nuclear facilities were hit, right?

They would do exactly what they do now when their restaurants, buses, shopping malls or any other israeli targets are hit.

Which has nothing to do with the lie that Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons.

[GostHacked]

Methinks it had been about 12 hours since an anti-Iran thread and you were getting antsy.

PS - you did miss it. Maybe not in your mind - but for the reader of this thread.

Take a pill and call the doctor in the morning if you're still like this. The entire point is, Iran threatening its neighbors, I don't care what the reason is.

And if you ignore the reasons for Bush threatening other countries around the world... you have two loudmouth idiots.

http://english.people.com.cn/200312/20/eng...20_130847.shtml December 20, 2003

Resisting the mounting US pressure to sign the additional protocol to NPT, Iran had long argued that inspectors could violate national sovereignty and probe sites that are crucial to the defence of the country.

Does the IAEA have access to every nuclear facility in the United States? Or any NATO country for that matter? Or any 'western' country?

The Islamic republic still refuses to indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment activities, saying it reserves the right to restart enrichment "at any moment."

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2564 Jun 9, 2004

The United States is mounting pressure on Iran to persuade the country to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to have the pretext for pushing Iran before the United Nations for sanctions, a university professor says.

----

Two Iranian deputies warned that the new parliament would consider pulling the Islamic republic out of a key nuclear arms control treaty if the IAEA is deemed to be too pro-American.

Maybe we should review what the NPT is all about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...feration_Treaty ,,, yeah yeah I know WIkipedia..

If you read the second part of the NPT agreement, can you tell me of what countries have rid themselves of nuclear weapons because of the NPT?? Even with new nuclear states like India and Pakistan, no one really said shit about them blowing up the world or their neighbours (they really just wanted to go after each other)

If anyone is going to enforce the NPT, they should at least be forwarding the goal of nuclear weapon disarmament. And with the likes of the United States developing new types of tactical nuclear weapons, this kind of rhetorical bullshit is completely hypocritical.

Be the example in order to show others how it's done.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We need to strinke Iran hard and fast - like a teenage boy's sex life.

[M.Dancer]

1) The IAEA isn't required to visit military nuclear facilities. Only civilian ones. Iran says all of it's facilities are civilian.

2)India and Pakistan are not signatories to the treaty so their incusion in your argument is irrelevant

[GostHacked]

1) The IAEA isn't required to visit military nuclear facilities. Only civilian ones. Iran says all of it's facilities are civilian.

2)India and Pakistan are not signatories to the treaty so their incusion in your argument is irrelevant

Ok Explain North Korea's recent departure from the NPT?? And then explain why there has really been no threats of the like towards Iran on North Korea in the past couple years?

[M.Dancer]

1) The IAEA isn't required to visit military nuclear facilities. Only civilian ones. Iran says all of it's facilities are civilian.

2)India and Pakistan are not signatories to the treaty so their incusion in your argument is irrelevant

Ok Explain North Korea's recent departure from the NPT?? And then explain why there has really been no threats of the like towards Iran on North Korea in the past couple years?

North Korea is in violation of the NPT. Clear and simple. And they are holding a knife to the throat of the hundreds of millions of people who live in japan, south korea and its environs.

And I don't understand your second question.

[Black Dog]

They would do exactly what they do now when their restaurants, buses, shopping malls or any other israeli targets are hit.

Nonsense. Nukes are a different ball game.

Which has nothing to do with the lie that Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Neither has Iran, unless attacked first. The only difference, then, is that Iran's posture is unambiguous.

North Korea is in violation of the NPT. Clear and simple.

Like Israel, NK is not a signatory of the NPT. They withdrew in 2003.

[M.Dancer]

They would do exactly what they do now when their restaurants, buses, shopping malls or any other israeli targets are hit.

Which has nothing to do with the lie that Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Neither has Iran, unless attacked first. The only difference, then, is that Iran's posture is unambiguous.

What has Iran? Not threatened to use N weapons?

No....I suppose their threats to destroy israel are *cough* conventional.....their comments about a nuclear attack on israel, mere wishful thinking on their part.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles...eats_141201.htm

[AndrewL]

Iran is not in violation of the NPT.

They are in violation of a recent UNSC resoultion that demands they give up their right to enrich uranium.

But of course, under the NPT of which Iran is a signatory, they have every right to enrich uranium to whatever level they want.

They just cannot build a weapon with it.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Iran is not in violation of the NPT.

They are in violation of a recent UNSC resoultion that demands they give up their right to enrich uranium.

But of course, under the NPT of which Iran is a signatory, they have every right to enrich uranium to whatever level they want.

They just cannot build a weapon with it.

Andrew

They are in violation for not allowing ionspections as required by the treaty.

[M.Dancer]

and they have previously violated the treaty.

An IAEA report two weeks ago provided the potential trigger for new U.N. sanctions, saying Iran continued to defy the Security Council and was instead expanding its enrichment activities.

The report was also critical of Iran's refusal to answer questions about nearly two decades of clandestine nuclear activities that first came to light four years ago.

The concerns include: traces of enriched uranium at a facility linked to the military, which could be a sign of a weapons program; lack of documentation on Iran's past enrichment activities, and possession of documents showing how to form uranium metal into the form of missile warheads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6700218,00.html

[myata]

It's certainly wrong to want to attack one's neghbours in retaliation to their attack on you. What about attacking non-neighbours without any obvious cause though?

[Black Dog]

What has Iran? Not threatened to use N weapons?

Not unless attacked first. care to provide any statements by iranian leadership that they would employ nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity?

No....I suppose their threats to destroy israel are *cough* conventional.....their comments about a nuclear attack on israel, mere wishful thinking on their part.

Again: cite? The usual bombast about "wiping Israel off the map" doesn't count: they've been saying that for 30 years.

The quote you provided is not a threat either. More like a "what would happen if..." scenario.

[AndrewL]

Iran is not in violation of the NPT.

They are in violation of a recent UNSC resoultion that demands they give up their right to enrich uranium.

But of course, under the NPT of which Iran is a signatory, they have every right to enrich uranium to whatever level they want.

They just cannot build a weapon with it.

Andrew

They are in violation for not allowing ionspections as required by the treaty.

They are allowing inspection to this very moment. Besides, inspections are voluntary and it was an agreement they made outside the NPT with the IAEA. They have not violated the NPT in any way. It is their right to research and employ nuclear power. There is no evidence of any weapons program.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2005-77.pdf

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

There is no evidence of any weapons program.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents.../gov2005-77.pdf

Andrew

Sure about that?

Why then, in violation of the treaty did Iran have a secret enrichment programme?

They are allowing inspection to this very moment

You sure about that?

GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press

June 11, 2007 at 6:31 AM EDT

VIENNA — A meeting between a senior Iranian envoy and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency was abruptly cancelled Monday and diplomats faulted Iran's refusal to make good on a promise to provide answers about past atomic activities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...1.wirannuke0611

[Figleaf]

Is M.Dancer propagating his usual brand of utterly wrong interpretations of international law again?

Any contention that Iran is violating the NPT for failure to accept inspections is totally without foundation. I challenge anyone to provide a quote from the NPT that specifies such a thing.

Now, if we're talking about North Korea, a contention that they are violating the NPT would be patently ridiculous, since they have withdrawn from it.

[AndrewL]

Sure about that?

Why then, in violation of the treaty did Iran have a secret enrichment programme?

To deter Saddam. That is obvious. What would you do if you were neighbors with your arch-enemy and you suspected them of building a nuclear program? The important thing is that the ativity is now known. The issue becomes whether Iran has lost its rights under the NPT because of it.

GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press

June 11, 2007 at 6:31 AM EDT

VIENNA — A meeting between a senior Iranian envoy and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency was abruptly cancelled Monday and diplomats faulted Iran's refusal to make good on a promise to provide answers about past atomic activities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...1.wirannuke0611

That really does not prove anything. But to answer your question more directly, No, im not sure about what Iran is up to. Nor am i sure what the USA is up to. This is why we must demand real evidence for both parties.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Is M.Dancer propagating his usual brand of utterly wrong interpretations of international law again?

Any contention that Iran is violating the NPT for failure to accept inspections is totally without foundation. I challenge anyone to provide a quote from the NPT that specifies such a thing.

Now, if we're talking about North Korea, a contention that they are violating the NPT would be patently ridiculous, since they have withdrawn from it.

Is Fibleaf still pretending she ignores me? Is figleaf still using her dishonest bait and switch tactics? Does anyone take her seriously?

[M.Dancer]

Sure about that?

Why then, in violation of the treaty did Iran have a secret enrichment programme?

To deter Saddam. That is obvious. What would you do if you were neighbors with your arch-enemy and you suspected them of building a nuclear program? The important thing is that the ativity is now known. The issue becomes whether Iran has lost its rights under the NPT because of it.

Then we agree they have already been in violation of the treaty.....NEXT!

[Figleaf]

And what do you find to admire about Iran's leadership?

I think they are showing a lot of cunning in playing a weak hand to maximum advantage.

[buffycat]

Well, at least Iran did sign the NPT.

Unlike one particular little state who actually HAS nukes and the ability to use them - and of course has threatened to.

That is false.

Israel has never threatened to use weapons that Israel does not acknowledge she possesses.

Wrong again Dancer!!

Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran

"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout."

****

There are more, but you can dig for yourself - as I am not your nanny.

Even if Israel doesn't use tactical nukes, blowing up enrichment plants that are in production will certainly result in fallout - and keep in mind much of this fallout will spread. Particulates in the atmosphere travel a long way.

Iran will not be the first to strike. *if* if happens - it will be a US/Israeli pre-emptive strike.

Oh and by the way Dancer - it matters not that Israel just simply lies about her own nukes - we all KNOW she has them, lots of em too. Hence your point is moot. (Not to mention plain wrong).

[myata]

I'm not sure that this old tired card: "what's good for me shouldn't be allowed to you" will play out any longer. It's too obvious, too old and too tired.

[ScottSA]

And what do you find to admire about Iran's leadership?

I think they are showing a lot of cunning in playing a weak hand to maximum advantage.

Yeah, Hitler did that for 8 years. You would have admired him too. Then he stepped in a big pile of doodoo.

[GostHacked]

ScottSA

Yeah, Hitler did that for 8 years. You would have admired him too. Then he stepped in a big pile of doodoo.

I admire Hitler in a few ways. Great strategist. He was good at getting support for his cause, he was a brilliant and passionate speaker (eventhough he was a little insane just like any great leader). He called the bluff of all the others for quite some time and got what he wanted out of it. Did it make it right? No, but you can admire the qualities of a man that can gain that kind of frantic support in such a short time.

Iran threatens Israel/US with Nukes if Iran is attacked first. Nuclear weapons is a great deterrent from getting attacked. We can use North Korea now as an example. They have claimed to possess nukes, and now the US has backed off from the rhetorical 'axis of evil' in regards to North Korea. When is the last time you have heard a big deal about North Korea?