Do YOU think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-09-2006, 10:30 PM

Also what is so "radical" about Israel, the largest representative democracy in the MIddle East? How do they support terrorism? By acting within their sovereign rights, for their sovereign interest? THe whole purpose of a state is the provision of common defense, it is their duty to act in a manner in which they do. I like how you paint the Israelis has some zealous Arab baby killers, for the love of god your tone lets me think you really know little of the history of Israel and the Arab states.

Willravel · 05-09-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Also what is so "radical" about Israel, the largest representative democracy in the MIddle East? How do they support terrorism? By acting within their sovereign rights, for their sovereign interest? THe whole purpose of a state is the provision of common defense, it is their duty to act in a manner in which they do. I like how you paint the Israelis has some zealous Arab baby killers, for the love of god your tone lets me think you really know little of the history of Israel and the Arab states.

Again, it's all moot. There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You can talk down to me all you want...the fact remains that no evidence has been presented.

You might consider reading this book, and then get back to me about how little I know.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-10-2006, 05:46 AM

Will, there is tons of evidence, I have provided tons in this thread.

stevo · 05-10-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You might consider reading this book, and then get back to me about how little I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publisher's Weekly

This book is also intriguing for what it omits: in his historical roundup, for instance, Chomsky fails to mention violent Arab riots against Jews before Israel's founding in 1948. For some leftist critics of the U.S. and Israel, this book will ring true. But for many readers-perhaps even some who read Chomsky's bestselling 9-11-it will seem one-sided.

Ahh, yes...so you don't consider this anti-semetic propaganda?

Hey HOST!!! What do you think of the article I posted a little ways back? I see you confront people all the time for overlooking or not responding to your posts. Here I go and respond to your request to post something from an isreali that shows what isreal thinks about the iranian threat and you conveniently ignore it. hmmm, suprising? hardly.

aceventura3 · 05-10-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The question we need to face, ace, is whether Israel runs our foreign policy, and whether we have been manipulated (some of us...) into a perverse, reversed role where the giant acts as the military proxy for the client state, instead of in the traditional role, which is the other way around.

You have provided reading material that did not respond to my question and you did not respond to my question.

Does Isreal have the right to exist? If yes are they worthy of US support?

Answering your question - Isreal does not run our foreign policy in my opinion. I think our economic and military concerns run our foreign policy in the Middle East.

roachboy · 05-10-2006, 07:24 AM

an edito from the washington post on this which i think sums up a fundamental problem pretty well--that the americans do not have reliable intel about what is happening in iran.

Quote:

Serious Business for the CIA

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, May 9, 2006; A23

One of my favorite George W. Bushisms was the time the leader of the free world mangled a simple aphorism: "There's an old saying . . . 'Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. [Pause.] Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.' "

What he meant to say, of course, was "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me ." But yesterday, as the Decider nominated Gen. Michael V. Hayden to take over what's left of the CIA, I thought of Bush's "can't get fooled again" line, which some misfiring brain cells must have borrowed (approximately) from the old song by the Who. Whether Hayden sails through confirmation or Bush is forced to come up with a Plan B, the primary mission of the CIA's new leader should be to make sure that Americans don't get fooled on Iran the way we got fooled on Iraq. I know that's a lot to ask of the CIA in its present state of disarray. I also know that in the final analysis, the White House will probably fix the intelligence to suit whatever action it decides to take. But the stakes are so high that we have to at least hope for miracles of competence and integrity.

Iran is serious business. An Iran with nuclear weapons wouldn't inevitably trigger Armageddon, but it would shorten the odds. Maybe President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has watched Bush deal with the other two members of the Axis of Evil and concluded the way to deter a U.S. invasion is to be like North Korea, which says it has the bomb, rather than like Iraq, which never did. But as best-case scenarios go, that's not very good.

The one point on which there is near-universal agreement in Washington is that there are no "good" options on Iran, and this includes doing nothing. Spy satellites can pinpoint most of Iran's nuclear facilities but probably not all, which means that a "surgical" airstrike would probably just delay the Iranian nuclear program -- and, in the process, solidify popular support for Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who rule the country. An all-out invasion would make the Iraq quagmire look like the quick, tidy "liberation" it was supposed to be.

To make the right choice among these scary alternatives requires the kind of solid, on-the-ground intelligence that only the CIA is designed to provide. How far along, really, is the Iranian nuclear program? (And please, something more specific than "slam-dunk.") How long until they can make an actual bomb? What are the differences of opinion, if any, within the leadership? What are the Iranian people thinking?

And what effect is the Bush administration rhetoric -- so reminiscent of the months leading up to the Iraq invasion -- having inside Iran? The Iranian human rights advocate and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi told Post reporters and editors last week that all this saber rattling was not helpful. Does the CIA concur or disagree?

In the end, Bush will decide. But the CIA should at least tell him the truth, not what he wants to hear. This means that Hayden, if he is confirmed, will have to do two things. First, he will have to rebuild an agency that saw too many of its most experienced managers and spies driven out by Porter Goss, who, as director, seemed to value political loyalty over dispassionate analysis. Then he will have to be courageous enough to make the amateurs in the White House acknowledge the views of the professionals in Langley.

One obvious problem is that Hayden, who ran the super-secret National Security Agency for many years, is an expert in electronic intelligence, when satellites and other high-tech gear have already told us what they can about Iran. What's really needed now is human intelligence -- spooks -- reporting from inside Tehran. Another big negative is that Hayden ran Bush's domestic spying program, which I am convinced will be seen as one of this administration's most shameful excesses. And given Donald Rumsfeld's ongoing power grab, we should really have a civilian, not an Air Force general, in charge of the CIA.

But, hey, you were expecting a good choice from George W. Bush? If so, I've got a "Wonders of Ancient Mesopotamia" tour bus parked in Baghdad that I'd like to sell you. Very low mileage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050801334.html

i find it more than passing strange how much more convinced of the accuracy claims about the iranian nuclear program are than are folk who actually generate the intel upon which all this is based.
good thing you folk do not have a trigger to pull.

there is something vaguely stalinist about the bushresponse to dissent within the cia.

personally, i see the situation with iran as little more than an extension of the only mechanism the bush people have worked out that sells their bankrupt politics to the public --threat of war. there is also another characteristic of bushworld at play here--the use of shabby information. there is a kind of bizarre codependent relationship, then, that links the administrations in the states and in iran in the same dance, directed at the parallel domestic audiences, to the same basic political ends.

if the iranians are developing a nuclear program, the bush administration is not in a position to do anything about it. such are the wages of an idiotic and unncecessary war in iraq, the squandering of credibility, etc....the appointment of john bolton indicates that this administration holds to its idiotic assumptions concerning the un and so would not take un-led actions against iran IF it turns out that there is a weapons program as adequate---so you are left with the nuclear option--which is truly terrifying. the first strike use of nukes as a dimension of american policy--for the first time: with the present crew of far right nitwits at the helm this possibility should terrify everyone. particularly given the desperate political straights in which they find themselves.

paranoid aside: if there is an action against iran, it would likely come somtimes between now and the mid-term elections and will be more about those elections than about iran. and so what is lots and lots of iranians have to die to maintain the present american administrations pollratings at an acceptable level?

back to scheduled programming: i am not getting into the debate about the role israel--particularly in its appalling policies toward palestine, toward the palestinians--has played and will play in all this. the likud-like hallucination about the palestinians that you see rehearsed above from folk on the right is nothing more than that. but even if you understand israel as many things--amongst them a representative democracy and an arpatheid-style state at once--the main fact here is that israel is a major nuclear power and that iran is not going to attack israel. the only scneario in which i can imagine iran--assuming that they have a nuclear weapons program--which is not obvious, despite the arguments to the contrary above--would perhaps attack israel is once the americans have lobbed some nukes at major iranian targets based on half-assed intelligence knit into shabby arguments for an action the prime motive of which would be an attmept to rescue a collapsed administration from a richly-deserved oblivion that will begin with investigations of its actions and--hopefully--would end with impeachment/disgrace.

pan6467 · 05-10-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Does Isreal have a right to exist?

Iranian leaders want to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If they act on thier desire we will come to the aid of Isreal therefore Iran will want to wipe us off the face of the earth.

I think its all about Isreal. As a nation we need to face the question of Isreal's right to exist. If the answer is yes - it means war. If the answer is no - we need to leave the middle east alone.

Does Isreal have the right to exist?

My opinion, not until they learn to get along with others and not rely on the US and UK to bail them out when their leaders decide that they need to flex muscle.

I liken Isreal to that punk kid in grade school that tries to butt into everyone else's game and tells everyone else how to play. Eventually the other kids get tired of being told how to do things by this one kid so they start to think about beating him...... problem is it's not just him, he has 2 older brothers who are truly tough and have the strength. The older brothers back the kid no matter what he does, no matter how wrong it is.

Eventually, the other kids find ways to beat the big brothers also.

Isreal wants to exist...... Isreal needs to find a way to work a peace with their neighbors plain and simple.

I no longer buy into the "poor us surrounded by people who hate us, so we're armed to the teeth and they refuse to talk peace". It's bullshit.

NO ONE on this planet in any type of power truly wants Armeggedon (unless they are truly certifiably insane). I don't think Iran's leaders want war anymore than the Chinese leaders or the French or the British or the Canadians or whomever.

Perhaps if we just sat down with the Iranians and truly asked their leaders what they wanted maybe we could find middle ground.

But instead we have the punk kid Isreal, dictating to us, taking BILLIONS of our dollars in "aid" telling us how we are going to handle this situation.

It's time to let the punk kid fend for himself and tell him to either get along with his neighbors or not, but shut the Hell up and keep us out of it.

It's time we look at our own country and see how things are falling apart and work to rebuild our own infrastructure and lives.

It deeply saddens me that people are so eager or have given up for whatever reason, and just decided war is the only solution.

The true solution is to just stop aiding the neighborhood bully that starts all the shit. I have a feeling you pull their aid, they'll find a way to make peace REAL FAST with their neighbors or they go to war end all of it.

But we also need to be firm with Isreal and say if they start the war, WE'LL finish it and them.

Plain and simple.

pan6467 · 05-10-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You have provided reading material that did not respond to my question and you did not respond to my question.

Does Isreal have the right to exist? If yes are they worthy of US support?

Answering your question - Isreal does not run our foreign policy in my opinion. I think our economic and military concerns run our foreign policy in the Middle East.

Just answering the bottom half as I answered the top.....

If our economic and military concerns ran our Middle East policy, we'd be tons more friendly with those countries with oil, such as Iran and definately not in bed with Isreal. I think oil would be cheaper and we wouldn't have all these radical Muslims ready to meet Allah and destroy the great devil the US.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-10-2006, 08:33 AM

Its baffling how Israel is "at fault" and seen as the aggresor. It history serves as a point of perspective it wan't Israel invading 9 other sovereign nations in 48', it was countries like Egpyt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Likewise in 56' and in 67', and 73'. Maybe if it weren't for the PLO and destabilization that they caused all of that unsightly action in Lebanon would've been lessened. Your comparison to Israel as a kid who butts in and instigates is just plain wrong in a legitimate historical context, granted their hands aren't clean. I think a comparison of the power dynamic is Israel as the kid who gets picked on by a bunch of Arab bullies who picked the fight with the wrong Jewish kid on the block. After every war that has been fought Israel has offered peace, they offered concessions. They would always say recognize our state, make peace with us, leave us alone, and we will pull out of Gaza/West Bank/Golan Heights/insert territory captured in offenses started by Arabs. The problem is not Israel, it is the Arabs and Islamic Fundamentalism.

As for Israel and aid, they are the number one of America aid which comes primarily in loan form. Israel has never defaulted, the only country to never have defaulted; plus they use all the money to buy American products. The second biggest recipient is Egypt which they got for making peace with Israel. Furthermoer maybe US relations wouldn't be so cold towards Arab nations if they haven't historically been in bed with the soviets, or maybe their support of various shoddy things such as human rights, terrorism, or conflict.

red0blivia · 05-10-2006, 09:28 AM

i have not read through this whole thread, so apologies if i am merely an echo of the thoughts that have been repeated throughout its entirety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now a new question:

For those who don't care if Iran has nuclear weapons, why don't you care?

two reasons:
1. i know i have more to fear from my own government, who has a direct effect on my daily life, and who's actions and attitude towards foreign policy would be to blame for any attacks (which would most likely be retaliation for a nuclear attack of our own).
in the entire history of warfare, nuclear bombs have only been used 2 times,... both at our hands.
2. no one can be absolutely certain whether iran is developing nuclear weapons or not, but i think it would be reasonable if they were, given the current global state.
what is the best way to weaken the threat of nuclear attack from 'enemy' nations? have your own to represent the threat of retaliation. that is just the reality of war (or national defense, as it stands now).

while 8 countries possess nuclear weapons (britain, france, china, israel, india, & pakistan), the u.s. and russia have built 98% of all nuclear weapons that have been created.
the bush admin. has, infact, been pushing to make more nuclear weapons the entire time it has held power. a while back, the los angeles times revealed the bush plan as:
-calling for the potential use of nuclear weapons against, at least, seven nations, including China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria
-saying nuclear weapons could be used in a number of situations, including in the event of surprising military developments
-suggesting that the US may use nuclear weapons in a Middle East conflict or in a conflict between China and Taiwan
-articulating plans to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations.
"The administration has also made it clear that it will prepare to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't possess them."

the hypocrisy is just too much for me to stomach.
hell, the cia are the ones who gave iran the blueprints for a nuclear bomb in 2000!

i am staunchly anti-militarism, and i would be very happy to see all nuclear weapons destroyed, the blueprints burned, and the 'pandora's box' nailed shut, so to speak. however, i know that will not happen (at least not for some time - it will probably, in fact, take mass devastation via nuclear warfare to move the global community in that direction).
and,as i said...the truth is, if america were to come under nuclear attack, it is most probable that it would be in response to a nuclear attack of our own.

ahmadinejad's letter was the first letter an iranian president has sent to an american president in 27 yrs!
the administration shoved it aside, blatantly dismissing it. i don't believe, for one second, that the admin. has any intention of working anything out with iran. they are probably very pleased with ahmadinejad's refusal to abandon his nuclear program (and they HAD to expect it - if anyone came along and demanded that our admin. destroy all it's nuclear weapons, much less, shut down all nuclear power, imagine how g-dub would react! heh...) and delighted by many americans' responses to this fear-mongering. this is just another veiled excuse (read: scare tactic) for appealing to americans to get behind another invasion.
the downing street memo proved, contrary to prior refutes from the skeptics, that the admin. intended to invade iraq, at all costs, even if that meant falsifying u.s. 'intelligence' and lying to the american public. i believe they, now, have their target on iran, regardless.
hell, as bush entertains with the ruse of advocating diplomacy out of one side of his face and eliciting fear (#1 motivating factor) out of the other, we have already got troops carrying out clandestine activities inside iran.

smooth · 05-10-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Ahh, yes...so you don't consider this anti-semetic propaganda?

lol at the thought of Chomsky as an anti-semite

EDIT: I had to come back and post Chomsky's own response to charges like this:

Quote:

AMY GOODMAN: What do you say to those who call you anti-Semitic?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Depend who they are. If they're people like the -- with a nice Jewish education like I had, I tell them to read the Bible, where the concept is invented. It was used by King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible that calls the prophet Elijah -- Elijah was what we would nowadays call a dissident intellectual, like most of the prophets were, giving geo-political analysis, calling for moral behavior. He calls for Elijah, he said why you are a hater of Israel? What does that mean? You are criticizing me. I'm the king. I'm Israel. And therefore you're a hater of Israel. And that's what the concept means. If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this. If an Italian criticized Berlusconi and he was called anti-Italian, the people would crack up with laughter, because there’s some kind of democratic culture. The fact we don't crack up with ridicule, that notion is anti-American or anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, it tells us something about ourselves.

-- http://www.democracynow.org/article..../10/21/1441204

mo42 · 05-10-2006, 06:54 PM

The whole Iraq thing has made me kind of wary of believing anybody automatically has plans for WMDs. I think that Iran is probably working on it, but I'm not sure. I think it's more likely they'll just pick some up from Pakistan than get some by themselves. And then get missile technology from North Korea.

Of course, as someone in the midwest (and moving to the west coast), missles don't really worry me so much- but somebody loading a nuke into a boat and delivering it to a port city does.

cybersharp · 05-22-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I have to rule out any statements from Bush. I think that I've made a thorough effort on this forum of backing up my conclusion that nothing the man says can be trusted. He told us that he barely knew Ken Lay, that he had never met Kack Abramoff, and that Saddam posed an imminent threat, not only to his neighbors, but to the U.S. as well.

The president of Iran gives me less reason to distrust his statements, than Bush does. Bush has forged his own "chain", just as Marley forged his.

Why do you succumb to the fear that Bush folks want you to embrace? Post what you "know", that the rest of us have missed, or aren't privy to. Opinions that are faith or feelings based, don't transmit too well, in this medium.
"Bush sez" just isn't enough to take any of this seriously. Neither are the remarks from Iran's leader. They are intended to make Bush seem even more foolish and impotent than he already is. Bush has made up his mind as to what his plan for Iran is. I think that the Iranians know that.

Thank you! People posting their opinions wholly based on fear of what Bush says might happening has been for a long time a bit of a sore spot of mine... anyway I agree I think Iran knows very well that Bush is not leaning in anyway towards peace with them. I have not seen any evidence that suggests this and so far everything I have read from both your posts in the pasts and others news links usually reports a pressured stressing of Bush on Iran's potential capabilities with nuclear weapons. I view making decisions out of fear and then whining about them with the answer "how could I have known" as a result to be single-minded and increasingly annoying. Facts are much more useful for a debate than consistently reading "Well Bush said this" when it has been repeatedly shown that Bush 1. Either has a severe lack of understanding of many matters, 2. Thinks that people will do what he says because of his the "almighty" power of his administration, or 3.
Both and more.

I also agree with the prospect the Israel needs to be on its own, I don’t buy the "everyone hates us and wants to kill us" speech anymore either, as long as the US stands with them no one every stood a chance in really beating them.

There are extremists in Israel too, and Israel has nuclear devices as well. But then again our Israeli allies would never hurt use us for gain now would then.... Not compared with how badly Iran has used us in the past...

I will end on that note, I feel I am having the effect of ranting.. My apologies.

This post has been edited... ( I will usualy read back through my post's the next day, when my eyes are better. If you see many spelling mistake's you dont need to point them out, in due time I will attempt to fix.)

On with the topic now

Thank you all for your patience with me.

stevo · 05-23-2006, 06:55 AM

where's isrial? whats an isriaily?

Who's singleminded? Who can't spell?

Willravel · 05-23-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

where's isrial? whats an isriaily?

Who's singleminded? Who can't spell?

I hope you're kidding. This isn't an english class, so correcting grammar as a part of an argument is rather moot. As someone with pretty crappy spelling skills, I can appreciate that an argument is best judged on it's merrits, not it's spelling.

stevo · 05-23-2006, 07:16 AM

I'm kidding about 30%, I know this isn't fark, and we're not the grammar police, but when you can't spell israel and don't bother even trying to correctly, just about all credibility is lost in whatever point you may be trying to make. But then to go on and call people "singleminded" in the same paragraph containing the word isriaily is insulting. I can forgive typos, even bad grammar, hell, even regular misspellings, but "isriaily" come on. Give me a break.

Willravel · 05-23-2006, 07:45 AM

What I mean is that you make youself look bad, stevo, when you correct grammar. You're of course right, and the spelling is pretty bad, but you'd be better of simply saying, "you're wrong because..." The way I took your post is 'this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster." I'm pretty sure that you DO have a good argument against the post, though. Moving on...

Iran does have it's fanatics just like any other country, but I don't see tham as any more or less dangerous than fanatics from the US, Israel, the Soviet Federation, Paskistan, India, etc. We've managed to keep our nukes from being siezed by madmen pretty well. In addition to that, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They could very well be developing nuclear power. Check post #51. That's where the problem lies.

stevo · 05-23-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What I mean is that you make youself look bad, stevo, when you correct grammar. You're of course right, and the spelling is pretty bad, but you'd be better of simply saying, "you're wrong because..." The way I took your post is 'this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster." I'm pretty sure that you DO have a good argument against the post, though. Moving on...

You've got to be kidding me. You say it makes me look bad. ok, if those were the only 2 posts in the thread you've read. There are plenty of arguements as to why it is thought by a wide range of people across the globe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You would have to ignore most of 3 pages of this thread and base your view on two posts to come up with the way you took my post: "this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster."

Maybe I see the previous post as assanine and not worthy of an actual rebuttle so instead of reiterating points already made I decided to point out how horribly "Israeli" was spelled.

nezmot · 05-23-2006, 09:57 AM

I'm just going to chime in here and say I wish we were all a LOT more ready to point out when others are using incorrect spelling and grammar. It would raise the level of discourse, and we'd finally be able to get some serious debate going on. I agree whole-heartedly with stevo that someone who fails to spell Israel correctly is not helping their argument. I know it's not friendly. I know it doesn't sit with the "Respect Everyone, no matter how stupid they sound" mentality of the TFP. But it's the way I feel. Call me a grumpy old man, but what did some people spend their time at school doing?

If it's too hard to remember how to spell things - download and use an in-line spell-checker (it's what I do), there are lots of them about - and treat the people you expect to read your posts with some respect by correcting your most glaring typos and spelling mistakes. It's all about having, and showing a little respect.

So, respect to stevo - I'm glad you're unafraid to stand up and point out when someone is slipping up. Having said that, willravel is right too - it doesn't mean a badly spelled opinion has no merit - it just really gets on my nerves.

/rant over/

host · 05-23-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

....So, respect to stevo - I'm glad you're unafraid to stand up and point out when someone is slipping up. Having said that, willravel is right too - it doesn't mean a badly spelled opinion has no merit - it just really gets on my nerves.

/rant over/

As Bill Maher sez....."NEW RULE"....if you're gonna throw stones at someone else's spelling, make sure that you don't live in a glass house....

"NEW RULE"....if you're gonna rant about someone else's spelling, make a well researched and referenced post, along with your rant.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

You've got to be kidding me. You say it makes me look bad. ok, if those were the only 2 posts in the thread you've read. There are plenty of arguements as to why it is thought by a wide range of people across the globe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. You would have to ignore most of 3 pages of this thread and base your view on two posts to come up with the way you took my post: "this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster."

Maybe I see the previous post as assanine and not worthy of an actual rebuttle so instead of reiterating points already made I decided to point out how horribly "Israeli" was spelled.

stevo....two words that you included above are actually spelled:
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=asinine&spell=1">asinine</a>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=arguments+&spell=1">arguments</a>

stevo, I want to remind you, again...that you "know" what you read. If you read what the neocons, like Stephen Bryen, co-founder with his wife, Shoshona Bryen.....of the U.S. "mossad franchise" called JINSA, clog the media and PR's with.....you will probably support "pro neocon" policy and goals.....

I wrote about Stephen Bryen's "cooperation" with mossad here, and about JINSA and it's "directors" and past affiliates, including more than 100 former U.S. flag officers, Cheney, and Bolton. Bryen's "background" is detailed in the counterpunch.org link, and in the tfproject.org link, above it:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=1
http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html
If you believed this Stephen Bryen "cheerleader" piece on the eve of invasion with Iraq....check again. Nothing that he wrote, turned out to be true.....he had the huevos to trot out the fear "hype" of associating the technology of the bio-chemical "mobile waepons labs", with anthrax "attacks in the U.S. The "mobile" trailers did not exist....but they were Powell and Bryen's "smoking guns".

Quote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ryen020503.asp
February 5, 2003, 12:55 p.m.
The Detailed Threat
U.S. takes a chance.

By Stephen Bryen

...... Some dramatic new details about Iraq's mobile germ-warfare laboratories were provided to the world, both revealing how they are internally configured (based on defector reports) and how they can produce biological agents in "dusty" form. A "dusty" agent (Powell referred to the agents as in a "dry" form) is much more dangerous than a liquid agent, as we discovered here in the U.S. with the anthrax attacks. .......

....... General Powell challenged the U.N. Security Council, pointing out that if the Council did not act it was in "danger or irrelevance." There is no doubt the U.S. took a considerable risk in revealing much sensitive intelligence, and making it easier for Saddam to better hide his communications and the "profiles" of his WMD weapons sites in the future. For this reason alone it is urgent to make sure that he is not given any time to do so. The time to act and smash Saddam is now.

— Stephen Bryen served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration and as a staff director of Near East Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is currently a managing director at Aurora Defense.

Now....Stephen Bryen is "cashing in"....he's president of a defense contractor....no doubt because of his connections to other neocons in the DOD. His wife, Shoshona is still <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=iran+Shoshana+Bryen&btnG=Search">the voice</a>, and the force behind JINSA:

Quote:

http://www.connpost.com/portlet/arti...rticle=2643960
PETER URBAN purban@ctpost.com
Connecticut Post Online Article Created: 4/07/2005 04:23 AM

WASHINGTON — In what a fellow Democrat referred to as a "sneak attack," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., won Senate approval for a measure that essentially took a slap at AgustaWestland — Sikorsky Aircraft's Marine One nemesis.

The Dodd amendment would prohibit companies involved in the manufacture of the Marine One presidential helicopter from doing business with Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Cuba or North Korea, countries that the State Department says sponsor terrorism.

"We cannot afford for critical American technology to fall into the hands of terrorist states," Dodd said.

Dodd offered the amendment in response to recent news reports that representatives of Finmeccanica, the Italian conglomerate behind the AgustaWestland EH-101, attended an air show in Kish, Iran, hoping to do business with that nation.

Dodd pointed out that President Bush has named Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil" and the State Department claims it is a sponsor of international terrorism.....

...... A spokesman for Finmeccanica told the Connecticut Post last month that the company has a clear policy forbidding any sale of military systems to Iran by Finmeccanica or its subsidiaries.

"Finmeccanica won't sell any helicopter or helicopter system to Iran. We are good partners of the United States. Absolutely," said Gino Colangelo, executive vice president of the DePlano Group in New York City, which represents the Italian aerospace company.

Six weeks earlier, Finmeccanica executive, Stephen Bryen, told an NBC reported the exact opposite.....he justified his company's doing business with Iran:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7018071/
European firms display wares in Iran
Visit to air show documents companies with Pentagon contracts hoping to do business with America's adversary
By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
Updated: 7:38 p.m. ET Feb 23, 2005

KISH, Iran - As President Bush pressures European allies to get tougher with Iran, NBC News got a rare glimpse inside the country — at an Iranian air show attended by some of the world's leading military contractors eager to do business with America's adversary.

On the island of Kish, mullahs mixed with Ukrainian generals amid photos of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran's contempt for the United States was clear — emblazoned underneath a helicopter, in Farsi: "Death to America."

It's generally illegal for American companies to do business with Iran. But NBC News found more than a dozen European defense and aviation firms eager to fill the void. Some do business with the Pentagon, yet they were actively selling their wares to Iran.

"We sell to Iran [sic] Air Force," said Francois Leloup from Aerazur, a French company that markets fighter pilot vests, anti-gravity suits and other protective gear for military pilots.

"We sell mainly to security people like police," said Arnaud Chevalier with Auxiliaire Technique, which was representing a group of companies at its exhibition booth. Some of the brochures on dispay showed tank helmets, communication systems for light armored vehicles and an "infantry headset." Chevalier said such equipment was "not for sale."

NBC News showed our video from the air show to arms expert John Pike, director of the nonprofit organization GlobalSecurity.org.

"I think that the Europeans would sell their grandmothers to the Iranians if they thought they could make a buck," says Pike.

Also exhibiting at the show — European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and its subsidiary Eurocopter — which has launched a campaign in the United States to get a bigger share of Pentagon contracts, featuring ads that wrap the company in the American flag.

But if the company is so pro-American, why is it ignoring U.S. policy to isolate Iran?

"As a European company, we're not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.," says Michel Tripier, with EADS.

"The emphasis here is on our civil helicopters. We are not offering military helicopters here," he adds.

Yet, prominent on the company's video in Iran — a military helicopter.

"It says 'Navy' in their own promotional videotape," says John Pike. "I guess they're hoping Iran's navy is going to want to buy it."

EADS says the helicopter just happened to be on the video, and that it abides by U.S. and European rules against selling military goods to Iran.

Another company, Finmeccanica, recently won a contract to build a new version of the presidential helicopter, Marine One, as part of a group led by U.S. contractor Lockheed Martin.

It was also in Kish showing off its helicopters to Iran.

"This company is building the American president's new helicopter, and they're trying to trade with the enemy!" exclaims Pike.

Steven Bryen used to be the Pentagon official responsible for preventing technology from going to countries like Iran. Now he's the president of Finmeccanica in the United States. Does he think Iran is an enemy of the United States?

"I think they're our enemy at this point," says Bryen. "I mean, they're behaving like our enemy."

So why would Bryen's company trade with an enemy?

"In Europe, they don't call it the enemy," he says. "If it's a civilian item that doesn't threaten anyone, then I don't have a problem with that."

European subsidiaries of NBC's parent company, General Electric, have sold energy and power equipment to Iran, but GE recently announced it will make no new sales. (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)

Still, even with the president now pushing hard to isolate Tehran, European allies are likely to continue their role as what one company called, "a reliable partner for Iran."

Quote:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...6d7b5a217b3a40
Was Presidential Helicopter Deal a Pay Off for Italy's Pre-War Yellow-Cake Intel Role?

New America Media, Special Investigative Report, Jeffrey Klein and Paolo Pontoniere, May 11, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO-Italian journalists and parliamentary investigators are hot on the trail of how pre-Iraq War Italian forged documents were delivered to the White House alleging that Saddam Hussein had obtained yellowcake uranium ore from Niger.

New links implicating Italian companies and individuals with then-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now raise the question of whether Berlusconi received a payback as part of the deal -- namely, a Pentagon contract to build the U.S. president's special fleet of helicopters....

...........In February of 2005, just a month after it was awarded the Marine One contract, Finmeccanica was pitching its helicopters in Iran, at Kish's annual international air show. (See http://www.iran-airshow.com/exhibitors.htm) When questioned about this by the Connecticut Post, a spokeswoman for AgustaWestland, Finmecannica's wholly owned subsidiary charged with building the new Marine One, said the company was not involved in the air show and had not sold anything to Iran in the last 20 years. But Steven Bryen, the president of Finmeccanica in the United States, conceded to NBC's Lisa Meyers that Finmeccanica does business with Iran. Why? "In Europe, they don't call it the enemy," Bryen said.....

stevo, did Stephen Bryen, the neocon, former executive director of JINSA, former undersecretary at DOD under Reagan, a man accused, before he "served" in the Reagan administration, of passing along classified material to a mossad agent, a man who hyped false justification for invading Iraq in 2003,
seem worried about the "threat" that Iran poses to the U.S....just one year ago?

He seems preoccupied with "selling" his connections in exchange for an executive spot in a European defense contractor that has already parlayed it's strategy into a lucrative and high profile "contract" to build the new fleet of helicpoters for the POTUS. If Bryen is as "afraid" of Iran as he was in his "shilling" of Saddam and "anthrax attacks", WTF was he doing defending his company's participation, a year ago, in an exhibition of advanced helicopter technology.....in....Iran?

A year ago, Stephen Bryen said that Iran is behaving like an enemy...
...but if it means making money, he'll work as an executive for a company that trades with Iran. stevo....the policy is all about making money for the connected "few", and hyping enough "fear" into the sheeple to keep them voting for the regime that will keep them from "getting hit". It's the same regime that was "on watch" when we did "get hit".....by what they described as hijacked jetliners in a plot masterminded by a cave dwelling "kidney patient", and by a mysterious, and 4-1/2 years later...."unsolved" series of anthrax attacks that conveniently "terrorized" only politicians who were democrats.

These are the same folks that were totally wrong about the Iraqi WMD threat,
unless you believe that the world's most sophisticated satellite spy network "missed" the uprooting and transfer to Syria of the stockpiles and manufacturing infrastructure or the entire WMD "stash". The spy satellite network also seems to have conviently failed to snap even one shot of flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon....and the Pentagon proved unable to even defend itself from an attack ordered by the cave dwelling kidney patient.

Don't you ever have any doubts about what they want you to think, stevo?

stevo · 05-23-2006, 11:57 AM

Host, try responding to this first http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=55 or just keep ignoring it.

Like I said previously,

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

I can forgive typos, even bad grammar, hell, even regular misspellings,...

I said this because I know I don't have perfect spelling, punctuation, etc. and I don't think anyone expects these message boards to be ripe with king james english. But there is no way the poster thought "isriaily" is even a real word, and as nezmot pointed out, he should at least have the decency to look it up. Why don't you go back though post #93 and point out all the misspellings? I didn't bother. I didn't think they were that big of a deal. I obviously wasn't nitpicking his spelling or I would have had to re-write half his post. So don't give me your bs.

The_Jazz · 05-23-2006, 12:05 PM

I'm sorry to see that the once-proud political forum of TFP has devolved into a spelling bee. Wake me up when you guys want to discuss anything that's actually fun, like the topic at hand.

host · 05-23-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Host, try responding to this first http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=55 or just keep ignoring it.....

This just in....stevo....today's news:

Quote:

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=104122
Chalutz To Deliver First Report Before Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee
11:55 May 23, '06 / 25 Iyar 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Today in the Knesset, Chief of Staff Lieut. Gen. Dan Chalutz will be giving his first report over to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, headed by Tzachi Hanegbi. The committee will also debate “the present dangers created by changes in the route of the fence surrounding Jerusalem,” a topic raised by MK Meir Porush......

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=104131
Chalutz: Iran Will Continue To Work On Atomic Bomb Through End of Decade
15:44 May 23, '06 / 25 Iyar 5766

(IsraelNN.com) During his appearance before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Chief of Staff Dan Chalutz presented a different opinion from that of Prime Minister Olmert, who recently stated that the Iranians could develop the technology to produce an atomic bomb within months. Chalutz stated that the issue was not as urgent as Olmert stated, and that attempts to develop the bomb might well continue until the end of the decade.

Regarding the separation fence, the Chief of Staff stated there are efforts to prevent illegal entry into Israel by setting up checkpoints along the fence.....

stevo, it is not as urgent as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated. Any decision about using U.S. force in Iran can safely take place after the November, mid-term U.S. election. Our president has a 67 percent disapproval rating, and polls reveal that his "credibility rating" is in the shitter. The assessment of the actual threat that Iran poses...and what to do about it...here in the U.S., should never rise to a louder crescendo than it rises to in Israel. It still seems louder on this board, and in this country, than it should be....why is that?

stevo · 05-23-2006, 12:29 PM

You don't know how loud the talk is in Israel, and neither do I. So I really can't comment. You should also ammend your bolded statement to add, "according to Chalutz." If you want to be accurate.

But you seem to admit that Yes, iran is working towards nuclear weapons. So we agree.

host · 05-23-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

You don't know how loud the talk is in Israel, and neither do I. So I really can't comment. You should also ammend your bolded statement to add, "according to Chalutz." If you want to be accurate.

But you seem to admit that Yes, iran is working towards nuclear weapons. So we agree.

Chalutz is also spelled Halutz in an equal number of web search results. Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz is an IDF air force general who was appointed to the IDF equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

stevo, I'm not going to alter the text of a news account that I emphasized with bold html code. That would expose me to another avenue of criticism that is heavy on distracting from the actual debate here.

I think that we are only in agreement that your views are extremely close to the foreign and military policy talking points espoused by the Bush administration. I guess that you believe these views to be "mainstream" and thus require very little in the way of references from a variety of sources to dispel the notions that they are rife with contradictions, except when it comes to the connected making large profits and the consistency in which the interests of conservatives and businessses in Israel triumph over those of the average U.S. taxpayer.

stevo · 05-23-2006, 01:44 PM

the bold part I was talking about was

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

stevo, it is not as urgent as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated.

That would be more accurate if you appended "according to Chalutz" to the end. His word does not dictate what is or is not ultimate urgency. In his opinion it is not as urgent.

But the premise of this thread is to gauge TFPers thoughts on whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Apparently you did not participate in the poll, but from what you have posted, and the arguements you have made I would think it is safe to assume that, even though you may not think it is an urgent matter, you believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Your opinion is that they are, but at the rate they are advancing, they won't pose a threat until the next decade sometime (which I might add is a mere 4 years away). Correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I've gleamed from your posting in this thread.

host · 05-23-2006, 03:16 PM

I'm sorry, stevo, I misunderstood where you suggested that I should qualify my statement.....and not the sentence in the news report.
I'll amend my statement to:
stevo, according to the May 23, report that Israeli military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Chalutz gave to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.. ....and from what I have gleaned and posted on this thread, it is not as urgent as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated.

I am inclined to agree with willravel's opinion that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, for the reasons that he gave. I have checked Newsbank's archives of news reports over more than the past 20 years and reports of Iran nuclear weapons acquisition ambitions have been reported throughout the period. I do not believe that Iran possesses nuclear weapons today. I do not believe that Iran will manufacture their own nuclear weapons five years from now.

Beyond five years....I have no way of knowing. It strikes me as odd that the Israeli in the highest position in the IDF is less concerned about an immiment nuclear threat from Iran, than our own leaders and the Israeli PM, Olmert. I believe that this is a political issue that is being hyped to shore up Bush's sagging poll numbers. If the government of Israel, in a united voice, announces that Iran poses an imminent threat to Israel's survival, and because of that threat, requests the help of the U.S. military to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability, I'll reconsider my stance. I do not see that scenario happening now....and I doubt that Israel will make such a request in at least the next five years. I'll continue to search for any news that seems signifigant.

Today's report by Dan Chalutz seems more signifigant than anything that I've heard on the subject, from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Joseph, Bolton, from either Bryen, or from anyone who has argued here that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities.....

cybersharp · 05-23-2006, 04:10 PM

Thanks for the defense you guys, although it was more of a correction to stay on topic. Actually it was really late at night when I posted, I was tired, in the dark, and have a very bad habit of leaving my contacts in for about a week with out resting my eye's. This leads usually leads to bad eye sight and a rather bad temperament at night I will run it through a spell check later and correct what needs to be corrected. Anyway I seriously don’t think that correcting my spelling was needed, it only gave this thread another off topic post.

Anyway back on topic, I think you make good points about Stephen Bryen, Host. It certainly seems that someone is a hypocrite here doesn’t it...

Elphaba · 05-23-2006, 04:30 PM

stevo

Quote:

Host, try responding to this first http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpo...75&postcount=55 or just keep ignoring it.

I am catching up with this thread again and went to look at the link you provided. I see a blog entry in the Christian edition of The Jerusalem's website. How can this be an impeccable source? That would be like saying Jason Leopold is an impeccable source at TruthOut.com. Stevo, is the link you provided the one you intended?

stevo · 05-24-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

stevo

I am catching up with this thread again and went to look at the link you provided. I see a blog entry in the Christian edition of The Jerusalem's website. How can this be an impeccable source? That would be like saying Jason Leopold is an impeccable source at TruthOut.com. Stevo, is the link you provided the one you intended?

who said impeccable? I said credible. Host asked for opinions out of israel on the Iranian threat. So thats what I posted.

mr_alleycat · 05-24-2006, 01:34 PM

host,

Quote:

The assessment of the actual threat that Iran poses...and what to do about it...here in the U.S., should never rise to a louder crescendo than it rises to in Israel. It still seems louder on this board, and in this country, than it should be....why is that?

There was only one country that sold it's oil using the Euro.
We know what happened to it

Gatorade Frost · 05-24-2006, 02:09 PM

I believe whole heartedly that they're building nuclear weapons. I don't care, though, because I don't honestly believe that they would use them. If they did, then what? I think the world would have to be daft to let Iran drop a nuclear bomb on Israel and get away with it. I find it incredibly hard to believe that if Iran makes the first move that the world wouldn't stand behind Israel. If Israel makes the first move, I think they should fend for themselves.

Same with if America were attacked. In this case, I think Iran should be allowed to do its thing, we should ignore them, and if they make a move, we can kick their ass for it, but I think they're smart enough to not try anything stupid.

mr_alleycat · 05-24-2006, 05:53 PM

I'd be a thinkin that if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, everyone down wind will be pissed indeed. Israel is too small a country to be dropping a nuke, it's friends live North South and East.

cybersharp · 05-26-2006, 01:44 AM

Here is anouther link I just ran across.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...kes/index.html

It pretty much say's that Iran wants to negotiate with the U.S and will directly, without conference with other Nation's if the U.S will stop using intimidation tactics.

There are a few more facts about how negotiations are going between Iran and European Nations that are attempting a peacefull solution. They are offering inncentives to Iran like giving Iran various nuclear resources if Iran agree's to stop their enrichment program's. - quick reply -.

Necrosis · 05-27-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

Because only a complete fool would condemn his own country to obliteration by sanctioning the use of a nuclear weapon against another country. We've been through the whole M.A.D. escalation phase, people are aware than there is no such thing as a 'limited' nuclear strike without the other side retaliating with everything they have.

If people are crazy enough to be suicide bombers, what would prevent them from wiping out massive numbers of infidels? Wouldn't that just assure them of a better situation on the right hand of Allah?

Your scenario also doesn't include the obvious tactic of making a nuclear attack appear to have originated from a country other than one's own. This thread alone includes comments from many people who require a great deal of evidence in order to be convinced of which countries possess nukes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

Terrorist (secret) usage of these weapons would not be something to hide behind either, any state even looking as though it might be responsible for an aggressive nuclear act would be toast - and they know it.

U.S. possession of nuclear weapons hasn't deterred terrorist attacks so far.

Necrosis · 05-27-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Hmmmmm....... North Korea has had nukes and cash given to them by a HUGE GOP supporter in the Rev. Moon and they seem to have dropped of the "we hate them and they are in the Axis of terror and need to be dealt with" list. Hell, they aren't even in the news anymore. Of course N. Korea has no resources the US can use.... now do they?

I don't remember North Korea getting nukes from Rev. Moon, although I won't swear it didn't happen. Something to do with the subs?

I DO remember them getting plenty from Clinton and Carter. Link and my favorite excerpts:

Link

Quote:

He [Clinton] famously misled the public that "there's not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight" before asking China to re-orient its missiles away from U.S. population centers. When al Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center, two U.S. embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole, he bombed nothing, an empty tent, and nothing, respectively. This refusal to confront reality precipitated the present crisis in Korea, as well.

Quote:

Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" (DPRK) with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.

Quote:

In August 1998, North Korea lobbed a Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan. Four months later, officials refused U.S. inspectors access to a suspected underground nuclear reactor at Kumchang-ni. President Clinton then sweetened the deal by rewarding Kim Jong Il's half-year-long stall tactics with 1.1 million tons of food worth nearly $200 million. Not surprisingly, American inspectors found no signs of wrongdoing at the long-sanitized facility.
Even this seemingly humanitarian food aid turned into a weapon in North Korea's hands. Reports abound that rations have been re-directed to the DPRK's military, the fifth largest in the world.

Quote:

It seems little wonder North Korea has made threats of nuclear conflagration its only functional export industry, besides the weapons themselves. Even as floods and famine emaciated its nearly 22 million citizens, regime leaders in this "worker's paradise" earmarked every available dollar for guns, not butter, in the hope that Uncle Sam would pay their price without demanding accountable disarmament. Their gamble paid off. Clinton's appeasement programs made North Korea the leading recipient of foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region.

And a particularly interesting statement, considering it was written in January of 2003:

Quote:

The attempt to blame the current state of affairs on Bush's "axis of evil" speech is cowardly blame-shifting of the worst sort. It is holding the solution responsible for the problem. Clinton's coddling of dictators with a yearning for Weapons of Mass Destruction got us here. But North Korea is only one bloom from the seeds planted during his tenure as Commander-in-Chief, when he forged what one critic called an "astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations" and their refusal to negotiate with terrorists. It is a dangerous world, and one cannot imagine what future dictators will expect to negotiate for during future incidences of nuclear blackmail. Provided they are interested in negotiating at all.

Willravel · 06-26-2006, 05:05 PM

This is an article that I read a while back (before this thread was created) that rung true for this particular topic:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.

Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html

The conclusion of people that know more about uranium than I'll ever know is that it's not Iranian, and it clearly belongs to Pakistan.

I'm still not sure what the point is here. Is the US government still going to try and gain control of Iran like we have, rather unsuccessfuly, in Iraq? Is that really something we're willing to go through again?

Bush Administration: "They're bad and they can hurt us!! We have proof!!!!"
Intelligence and scientific community: "Um, no and no."
Bush Administration: "No seriously, they're bad and can hurt us...see the proof?"
Intelligence and scientific community: "Seriously, that's not proof. That's called innuendo and suspician. It's rather different than proof."
Bush Administration: "Here we go!!!" *cue Ride of the Valkyries as gun ships and bombers strike inncent civilians*
3 months later
Bush Administration: "We have liberated the people!!!!"
Everyone: "You didn't say we were going to free peope, you said they were going to kill us."

Here we are again in a situation where the currrent administration is saying that an oil rich, middle eastern country poses a serious threat to the US an our allies, despite proof to the contrary. Plans are being formulated and propoganda is being spun wildily.

Can we please just leave them alone? If the UN wants to investigate Iran, let them. The US has absolutely nothing to do with the situation, and is still transparent in it's rue purpouses. There are no nuclear weapons. Iran poses no threat to the US.

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-27-2006, 10:27 AM

Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?

Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?

Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.

What does it all mean?

host · 06-27-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?

Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?

Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.

What does it all mean?

They've fucked this up, badly, Mojo, and now they want to bomb their way out of it. When you vote for folks who have a propaganda driven policy of aggressive war, reports like the ones in the following quote boxes are proabably an accurate measure of what is happening. If you can live with these clowns in a vacuum empty of ethics, candor, or a moral sense that it is wrong to kill masses of people unless all avenues....short of going to war....have been seriously and exhaustively pursues, it must be easier to support the Bush/Cheney administration.....than it is for me to.

It means that the U.S. has a clear record of avoiding a diplomatic solution to improving it's relationship with Iran. Our pre-emptive war president has one policy....pre-emption. Is that fact not yet clear to you?

Here's how it works, Mojo..... because of the past record of the Bush administration, (a record that has left Iran in a much stronger position than it was in three years ago, with a much less "agreeable" Iranian president in office now....)a "pretense" of diplomacy must be trotted out....before the bombing can begin:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/wo...f33ea2&ei=5070
For Bush, Talks With Iran Were a Last Resort

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 31 —

.....The idea of engagement is hardly new. When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, several members of his senior staff argued vociferously that the United States needed to test Iran's willingness to deal with the United States — especially in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

There was strong opposition from the White House, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, according to several former officials.

"Cheney was dead set against it," said one former official who sat in many of those meetings. "At its heart, this was an argument about whether you could isolate the Iranians enough to force some kind of regime change." But three officials who were involved in the most recent iteration of that debate said Mr. Cheney and others stepped aside — perhaps because they read Mr. Bush's body language, or perhaps because they believed Iran would scuttle the effort by insisting that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives it the right to develop nuclear fuel. The United States insists that Iran gave up that right by deceiving inspectors for 18 years.

In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks......

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606060013
Tue, Jun 6, 2006 7:44pm EST

In interviews with Rice, Sunday talk show hosts never mentioned Iran's 2003 proposal for direct nuclear talks.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060201646.html
After Vienna, Both Sides Can Tally Their Gains

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 3, 2006; Page A08

VIENNA, June 2 -- Both Iran and the United States this week could claim significant gains, but the prospects for a solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse remain uncertain.

Iranian officials secretly approached White House officials in 2003, seeking a dialogue, but the offer was swiftly dismissed. Three years later, Iran finds itself in a much stronger position -- oil prices are at record highs, its nuclear program has made technological strides and the United States suddenly wants a seat at the negotiating table.....

Quote:

http://www.prospect.org/web/printfri...ew.ww?id=11539
Burnt Offering
How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity -- if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it.

By Gareth Porter
Issue Date: 06.06.06

Print Friendly | Email Article

Iran’s “mad mullahs” want nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and can only be stopped by the threat or use of military force. That’s what the Bush administration would have the public believe, as it pushes toward a confrontation with Iran over that country’s nuclear program. A key link in the argument is that Tehran has shown no interest in negotiating over the nuclear issue. As State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters last January, the administration didn’t then see “anything that indicates the Iranians are willing to engage in a serious diplomatic process” on the nuclear issue.

In the woeful history of falsehoods about the targets of potential U.S. force, however, this one is particularly egregious. In the spring of 2003, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only proposed to negotiate with the Bush administration on its nuclear program and its support for terrorists but also offered concrete concessions that went very far toward meeting U.S. concerns......

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/op...erland&emc=rss
January 24, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The Gulf Between Us
By FLYNT LEVERETT

Washington

AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.

Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. They can refer the issue to the Security Council, but, at a time of tight energy markets, no one is interested in restricting Iranian oil sales. Other measures under discussion - travel restrictions on Iranian officials, for example - are likely to be imposed only ad hoc, with Russia and China as probable holdouts. They are in any case unlikely to sway Iranian decision-making, because unlike his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disdains being feted in European capitals......

Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is writing a book about the future of Saudi Arabia.

Willravel · 06-27-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?

As stated above: this is called suspician.While it is possible that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there is still no proof. Just like it's possible that Iraqw had weapons of mass destruction, but there was never any proof. We have to put our gun away and sit and talk with these people instead of making threats via the media from across the globe while prepping a military response. The UN has some of the best weapons inspectors in the world, and since the treaty that Iran has sign is with the UN, and not the US, it is their responsibility to deal with the situation. The US has no direct jurisdiction over Iran unless there is absolutel proof that the US is in immediate danger, and no such proof exists. What we should do is simply send over the inspectors. If Iran makes a stupid decision and doesn't allow inspectors in, then we have several options. Trade embargos (don't let the oil out) would do nicely to coax them into cooperating. Bombing campaigns just kill innocent civilians.

I don't know for sure if Iran is clean or not, but the bottom line (in my kmind at least) is that no one knows for sure right now except Iran. We have to act in a manner befitting a great peaceful democracy, expically after Iraq. We cannot continue to be a nation of war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.

What does it all mean?

Well look at it this way: Iraq was said to have a developing nuclear weapons program in the dawn of the second Gulf War, and they were oblitterated. The US bombed, invaded, and now controls Iraq (from an economic standpoint). Iran does not want to be the next target, so they try to hide this crap and get caught. It's a big blunder, but it's hardly proof of guilt. Again, this is suspicion. We need to investigate, not threaten and prep for war.

If we ever manage to get our troops out of Iraq and the Middle East, do you really want to send them right back to go after Iran? History dictates that we, the US, cannot win against insurgencies or rebelions after we invade a country that has shown no hostility towards us. Iran has shown no hostility towards us. Iraq never showed any hostility towards us. Vietnam. Korea. Several Central and South American countries. The list goes on and on.

Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.

View Poll Results: Is Iran actively developing nuclear weapons?
Yes (and it worries me)	43	51.19%
Yes (and I don't care)	13	15.48%
No (and I'd be worried if they did)	5	5.95%
No (and I don't care)	6	7.14%
Not sure (and I am worried they would)	9	10.71%
Not sure (and I don't care)	8	9.52%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

05-09-2006, 10:30 PM	#81 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Also what is so "radical" about Israel, the largest representative democracy in the MIddle East? How do they support terrorism? By acting within their sovereign rights, for their sovereign interest? THe whole purpose of a state is the provision of common defense, it is their duty to act in a manner in which they do. I like how you paint the Israelis has some zealous Arab baby killers, for the love of god your tone lets me think you really know little of the history of Israel and the Arab states. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-10-2006, 05:46 AM	#83 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Will, there is tons of evidence, I have provided tons in this thread. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-10-2006, 08:33 AM	#89 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Its baffling how Israel is "at fault" and seen as the aggresor. It history serves as a point of perspective it wan't Israel invading 9 other sovereign nations in 48', it was countries like Egpyt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Likewise in 56' and in 67', and 73'. Maybe if it weren't for the PLO and destabilization that they caused all of that unsightly action in Lebanon would've been lessened. Your comparison to Israel as a kid who butts in and instigates is just plain wrong in a legitimate historical context, granted their hands aren't clean. I think a comparison of the power dynamic is Israel as the kid who gets picked on by a bunch of Arab bullies who picked the fight with the wrong Jewish kid on the block. After every war that has been fought Israel has offered peace, they offered concessions. They would always say recognize our state, make peace with us, leave us alone, and we will pull out of Gaza/West Bank/Golan Heights/insert territory captured in offenses started by Arabs. The problem is not Israel, it is the Arabs and Islamic Fundamentalism. As for Israel and aid, they are the number one of America aid which comes primarily in loan form. Israel has never defaulted, the only country to never have defaulted; plus they use all the money to buy American products. The second biggest recipient is Egypt which they got for making peace with Israel. Furthermoer maybe US relations wouldn't be so cold towards Arab nations if they haven't historically been in bed with the soviets, or maybe their support of various shoddy things such as human rights, terrorism, or conflict. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-10-2006, 06:54 PM	#92 (permalink)
mo42 Insane Location: California	The whole Iraq thing has made me kind of wary of believing anybody automatically has plans for WMDs. I think that Iran is probably working on it, but I'm not sure. I think it's more likely they'll just pick some up from Pakistan than get some by themselves. And then get missile technology from North Korea. Of course, as someone in the midwest (and moving to the west coast), missles don't really worry me so much- but somebody loading a nuke into a boat and delivering it to a port city does. __________________ It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

05-23-2006, 06:55 AM	#94 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	where's isrial? whats an isriaily? Who's singleminded? Who can't spell? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-23-2006, 07:16 AM	#96 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I'm kidding about 30%, I know this isn't fark, and we're not the grammar police, but when you can't spell israel and don't bother even trying to correctly, just about all credibility is lost in whatever point you may be trying to make. But then to go on and call people "singleminded" in the same paragraph containing the word isriaily is insulting. I can forgive typos, even bad grammar, hell, even regular misspellings, but "isriaily" come on. Give me a break. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-23-2006, 07:45 AM	#97 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What I mean is that you make youself look bad, stevo, when you correct grammar. You're of course right, and the spelling is pretty bad, but you'd be better of simply saying, "you're wrong because..." The way I took your post is 'this guy doesn't have any good argument against the points made, so he's attacking the poster." I'm pretty sure that you DO have a good argument against the post, though. Moving on... Iran does have it's fanatics just like any other country, but I don't see tham as any more or less dangerous than fanatics from the US, Israel, the Soviet Federation, Paskistan, India, etc. We've managed to keep our nukes from being siezed by madmen pretty well. In addition to that, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They could very well be developing nuclear power. Check post #51. That's where the problem lies.

05-23-2006, 09:57 AM	#99 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	I'm just going to chime in here and say I wish we were all a LOT more ready to point out when others are using incorrect spelling and grammar. It would raise the level of discourse, and we'd finally be able to get some serious debate going on. I agree whole-heartedly with stevo that someone who fails to spell Israel correctly is not helping their argument. I know it's not friendly. I know it doesn't sit with the "Respect Everyone, no matter how stupid they sound" mentality of the TFP. But it's the way I feel. Call me a grumpy old man, but what did some people spend their time at school doing? If it's too hard to remember how to spell things - download and use an in-line spell-checker (it's what I do), there are lots of them about - and treat the people you expect to read your posts with some respect by correcting your most glaring typos and spelling mistakes. It's all about having, and showing a little respect. So, respect to stevo - I'm glad you're unafraid to stand up and point out when someone is slipping up. Having said that, willravel is right too - it doesn't mean a badly spelled opinion has no merit - it just really gets on my nerves. /rant over/

05-23-2006, 12:05 PM	#102 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm sorry to see that the once-proud political forum of TFP has devolved into a spelling bee. Wake me up when you guys want to discuss anything that's actually fun, like the topic at hand. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-23-2006, 12:29 PM	#104 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	You don't know how loud the talk is in Israel, and neither do I. So I really can't comment. You should also ammend your bolded statement to add, "according to Chalutz." If you want to be accurate. But you seem to admit that Yes, iran is working towards nuclear weapons. So we agree. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-23-2006, 03:16 PM	#107 (permalink)
host Banned	I'm sorry, stevo, I misunderstood where you suggested that I should qualify my statement.....and not the sentence in the news report. I'll amend my statement to: stevo, <b>according to the May 23, report that Israeli military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Chalutz gave to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.. ....and from what I have gleaned and posted on this thread,</b> it is not as urgent as Bush or PM Olmert, or Cheney, or Robert Joseph stated. I am inclined to agree with willravel's opinion that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, for the reasons that he gave. I have checked Newsbank's archives of news reports over more than the past 20 years and reports of Iran nuclear weapons acquisition ambitions have been reported throughout the period. I do not believe that Iran possesses nuclear weapons today. I do not believe that Iran will manufacture their own nuclear weapons five years from now. Beyond five years....I have no way of knowing. It strikes me as odd that the Israeli in the highest position in the IDF is less concerned about an immiment nuclear threat from Iran, than our own leaders and the Israeli PM, Olmert. I believe that this is a political issue that is being hyped to shore up Bush's sagging poll numbers. If the government of Israel, in a united voice, announces that Iran poses an imminent threat to Israel's survival, and because of that threat, requests the help of the U.S. military to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability, I'll reconsider my stance. I do not see that scenario happening now....and I doubt that Israel will make such a request in at least the next five years. I'll continue to search for any news that seems signifigant. Today's report by Dan Chalutz seems more signifigant than anything that I've heard on the subject, from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Joseph, Bolton, from either Bryen, or from anyone who has argued here that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities.....

05-23-2006, 04:10 PM	#108 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	Thanks for the defense you guys, although it was more of a correction to stay on topic. Actually it was really late at night when I posted, I was tired, in the dark, and have a very bad habit of leaving my contacts in for about a week with out resting my eye's. This leads usually leads to bad eye sight and a rather bad temperament at night I will run it through a spell check later and correct what needs to be corrected. Anyway I seriously don’t think that correcting my spelling was needed, it only gave this thread another off topic post. Anyway back on topic, I think you make good points about Stephen Bryen, Host. It certainly seems that someone is a hypocrite here doesn’t it... __________________ 0PtIcAl Last edited by cybersharp; 05-23-2006 at 04:35 PM..

05-24-2006, 02:09 PM	#112 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I believe whole heartedly that they're building nuclear weapons. I don't care, though, because I don't honestly believe that they would use them. If they did, then what? I think the world would have to be daft to let Iran drop a nuclear bomb on Israel and get away with it. I find it incredibly hard to believe that if Iran makes the first move that the world wouldn't stand behind Israel. If Israel makes the first move, I think they should fend for themselves. Same with if America were attacked. In this case, I think Iran should be allowed to do its thing, we should ignore them, and if they make a move, we can kick their ass for it, but I think they're smart enough to not try anything stupid. __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

05-24-2006, 05:53 PM	#113 (permalink)
mr_alleycat Upright	I'd be a thinkin that if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, everyone down wind will be pissed indeed. Israel is too small a country to be dropping a nuke, it's friends live North South and East.

05-26-2006, 01:44 AM	#114 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	Here is anouther link I just ran across. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...kes/index.html It pretty much say's that Iran wants to negotiate with the U.S and will directly, without conference with other Nation's if the U.S will stop using intimidation tactics. There are a few more facts about how negotiations are going between Iran and European Nations that are attempting a peacefull solution. They are offering inncentives to Iran like giving Iran various nuclear resources if Iran agree's to stop their enrichment program's. - quick reply -. __________________ 0PtIcAl

06-27-2006, 10:27 AM	#118 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire? Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean? Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher. What does it all mean? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 06-27-2006 at 10:34 AM..