Now this is scary...
 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...927439313.html


Worrying, eh?

Oh, and I wish they wouldn't use the term "triggering mechanism" when referring to the measures the IAEA would take. :)

Mr Mephisto

Bad news, but no surprise.

Pray that the Israelis launch another pre-emptive strike that the world can publically denounce and secretly be thankful for.

Lebell, you're a cynical, cynical person!

:)

Mr Mephisto

Like the North Koreans they seem to be using the guise of the "we're only in it for the energy" excuse. Unlike the Koreans, the Iranian government is a theocracy situated riiiiight beside our do or die project in Iraq.

Why don't we send some of our nuclear power experts over there to offer assistance in developing a bona fide energy infra-structure. Help em...get off the ground, if you will.

Does America even have formal diplomatic relations with Iran at present?

Mr Mephisto

Define formal?

Have you appointed an embassador.

That's formal.

Mr Mephisto

FORMAL
adj.

1.
1. Relating to or involving outward form or structure.
2. Being or relating to essential form or constitution: a formal principle.
2.
1. Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations: had little formal education; went to a formal party.
2. Executed, carried out, or done in proper or regular form: a formal reprimand; a formal document.
3.
1. Characterized by strict or meticulous observation of forms; methodical: very formal in their business transactions.
2. Stiffly ceremonious: a formal manner; a formal greeting; a formal bow to the monarch.
4. Having the outward appearance but lacking in substance: a formal requirement that is usually ignored.


n.

Something, such as a gown or social affair, that is formal in nature.


[Middle English, from Latin frmlis, from frma, shape.]
:)

I tend to think that EVERYTHING that is done concerning this country is done formally.

seriously....is anyone really hoping, secretly or openly, that israel will openly strike iran.....

Good grief. Have we descended into arguing over definitions of words!?!!

Formal diplomatic relations implies the appointment of an embassador and/or the creation of an embassy or consulate.

Without those, it would be difficult for America to send technical assistance to Iran to develop a peaceful nuclear industry.

Why the nitpicking over words? It's got nothing to do with the thread.


Mr Mephisto

I'll trust the Mossad before I trust the Ayatollah and the Guardian council.

Its a foregone conclusion...the Israelis do not mess around when it comes to the security of their country, and rarely concern themselves with world opinion critical of them. The day those reactors are capable of producing nuclear weapons will be the day Israel begins preparations to bomb them into oblivion. I'm sure all the necessary logistics to do so are in place. Between the lines, Iran's unofficial purpose for developing nuclear weapons is to "end the Israeli problem".

This leads to another theory: among many other things, maybe ending Hussein's regime provided Israel with unobstructed access to Iran and their reactors...

Actually one thing to consider in retrospect is that Israel is not so cold that they would bomb these operating reactors. That's the thing with Osiriak, they hit it before it was operational because they didn't want to strike a nuclear core and risk civilian life. These reactors are juiced up and running, wouldn't be wise to hit them.

According the US State Dept., there is no embassy in Iran. Remember they are part of the axis of evil, so I guess we should not have a embassy there. Because why would we want intelligence on the ground there. Why does Iran need a nuclear power plants since they are sitting on the fuel they need to generate electricity. Tehran --> here comes the US Armed Forces.....

"axis of evil" I haven't heard such bullshit in my life.

Why don't we send some of our nuclear power experts over there to offer assistance in developing a bona fide energy infra-structure. Help em...get off the ground, if you will.

Why don't we do it in the road?

how can anyone possibly be surprised out there? north korea has probably 4. three probably built in the last 2 years. these are cases of authentic military buildup dismissed by the administration and relegated to back page importance by the sad excuse for a free and unbiased media. But don´t worry, the Iranians are gonna get theirs. they´re next on georgies dance card. Hmmm... pre election strike or will he wait til right after?

pre-election strike would be political suicide

luckily only congress can declare war so Bush will probably have a very hard time attacking another country if reelected.

Did Congress declare war on Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya?

Just wondering...


Mr Mephisto

Actually yes they did for Iraq and Afganastan. I'm not sure what you are refering to for Lybia though. For Iraq and Afganastan Bush had to get congressional approval. The president has limits on how many troups and resources he can use without congressional approval.

Bush proved that nations now need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. His policies have only raised nuclear tension around the world.

Yea if it weren't for Bush, none of this would have happened.

I mean sure Korea said they were going to stop in 94, and sure they said they lied, and sure Bush didn't get elected until 2000, but WHY let facts get in the way of partisan babbling. Its much more fun to blame Bush for all the bad things in the world now isn't it?

And Iran would NEVER look to get a nuclear program started, its only Bush that caused them to think such things.

I don't think he said Bush caused them but that he didn't help the situation any. He tried to help in the way he thought was best and just gave countries more reason to get nukes. Instead of talking them back down he pushed them over the ledge and everyone watched it. Now we have a situation where North Korea admits to having nukes and we don't do anything with them we use "diplomacy". But then we had Iraq that had a few rocks it could throw around and we went in and took them out. That sends a message to every country. Get nukes before the US gets you.

Exactly. Not everyone is going to go out as easily as Iraq, especially Iran.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the middle of a big desert be the perfect place to setup nuclear energy plants?

Well, it was an honest question. I thought Congress approved action, but didn't formally declare war. Isn't that why the captives were not designated POWs?

With regards to Libya, I used it as a reference as Reagan attacked it.


Mr Mephisto

My understanding is we haven't officially declared war on any nation since before the 1960's. We've done numerous end-arounds, but none like the original intent was supposed to be.

The relevant motions, I believe, were claims of support for the pres to use force if necessary. That's not the declaration of war I was taught necessary, and why claims of kerry flip-flopping on the "authorization of war" seem ignorant to me, at best.

True, the way it happened is the process that has been instituationalized, but your strict reading of how that process is supposed to work is the one demanded by the intention and history of our nation going to its pre-modern wars.

last time i checked, the president had the power to wage war for 60 days without congressional approval... so he could attack whomever he wants, and i have a hard time seeing congress saying no after he's started it.

That is correct.

And anyone who thinks that an Iranian bomb is because of the US and not because of Israel hasn't been paying attention and/or needs to reread their ME history book covering the last 60 years or so.

Which is exactly why the U.S. needs to pressure Israel to get rid of their nukes.

Israel has never tried to wipe out any of her neighbors, driving them "into the sea".

If the govt. of Iran, along with the rest of the middle east recognized Israel's right to exist and signed a peace treaty with her, I might agree with you.

As it stands, I do not.

I would rather that Israel turn the area into a Nuclear wasteland than have to be the one to tell them to give up their arms to the ones trying to drive them "into the sea."

Opie, I'm not targetting you specifically here, because this fact seems to have been lost on many people on this board, but... Iran, a country ran by radical Islamic clerics, a country that openly supports terrorism, has signed a treaty stating that they would not pursue nuclear weapons.

Israel is not bound by this treaty, and are well within their rights to have a deterent when all of her neighbors have been trying for years to acquire nukes so they can pass them onto groups like Hezbollah.

The UN needs to grow a fucking sack, do its fucking job, and do something useful for a change. Show some spine stand up to the Iranians, and here is something the UN really needs to do, GET SOME POSITIVE RESULTS!

Mojo,

It's the IAEA that has responsibility for this, not the UN directly.

The UN has consistently called for all nuclear weapons to be removed from the Middle East and I support that call.

Will Israel ever give up its nukes? Nope.
Should it? In an ideal world.

Will ranting about the UN (again) make any difference? Nope.


Mr Mephisto