PDA

View Full Version : Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons, and Peace


Politicz
07-20-2007, 03:22 AM
Iran has the world's third largest oil reserves, and has the world's largest natural gas reserves. So, why is it necessary that Iran have a nuclear program? The United Nation's (U.N.) Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows Iran to legally build any nuclear facility, including one for uranium enrichment, so long as it is intended for "peaceful purposes". The NPT also allows its member states to withdraw from the agreement, but must give a 90 day notice to the U.N. prior to withdrawing from the NPT.

Iran's venture into the development of a nuclear program actually began in the mid 1960s under the guidance of the United States within the framework of bilateral agreements with the U.S. The first nuclear facility built by Iran in 1967 was the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) at Tehran University, which was run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). It's always been one of Iran's primary open nuclear research facilities, and has a safeguarded 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor THAT WAS SUPPLIED BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1967. The reactor can produce up to 600 grams of plutonium per year in its spent fuel. The United States was the driving force behind Iran's 1960-70s development of a nuclear program. In the 1970s, the Shah of Iran's government obtained uranium from South Africa. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) carried out experiments in which plutonium was extracted from spent fuel using chemical agents-and plutonium is only use in a nuclear bomb. This only gives light to the fact that Iran already has the blueprint technology for making a nuclear weapon, and only has to obtain the materials to do so-if it presently hasn't already done so.

Iran signed the Non Proliferation Treaty on July 1, 1968. Article Four of the treaty recognizes Iran's inalienable right to develop research, produce, and use nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes" without discrimination, and acquire equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information. See:

1.) http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html
2.) http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

However, Iran has violated United Nations resolutions against it (one being resolution 1737, See: http://terrorism.about.com/od/iran/a/NuclearIran.htm?iam=momma_100_SKD&terms=+U.N.+resolutions+on+Iran), and the NPT does outline responsibilties for nations pocessing nuclear capabitites, etc.

One reason why Iran should not be aloud to possess nuclear weapons is Iran's violation of U.N. resolutions 1559/1701, which state that no militias are to be armed within Lebanon, and Iran and Syria are forbidden from rearming Hezbollah. However, Iran and Syria did arm Hezbollah within Lebanon, which was in violation of U.N. resolution 1559. U.N. resolution 1701 basically states the same thing as U.N. resolution 1559, but also calls for hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah to cease, and calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon, and the deployment of Lebanese troops to the south of Lebanon, along with an expanded U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon. Presently, Iran is still in violation of both of these resolutions, because Iran is still supplying Hezbollah's militia with insurgents, and weapontry.

Another reason why Iran should not be aloud to have a progressive nuclear program is because Iran's president Ahmadinejad has blatantly stated before international news medias that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth on the one hand, while parroting the U.N.'s NPT that his present nuclear program is just for "peaceful purposes" on the other hand. Although Iran has not physically threatened Israel itself, it has physically threatened Israel indirectly, by supplying terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various other Arab insurgent groups with bombs, weapons, vehicles, economic funds, and suicide bombers for its proxy front wars in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Iran is also closely allied with Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and various elements of the Al-quada factions in Iraq and Afghanistan-not to mention Iraq Shi'ite cleric, Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army, and the present Iraq Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. Because, Iran is not attempting to show restraint, and not engage in violence or verbal threats, and has not tried to seriously negotiate with the U.S. and her allies on finding peaceful solutions to the Iraq conflict, and strive to work for peace in the Middle East, it would not be wise for the world to just stand by and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, because if Iran can't restrain itself now, and has preferred to choose violence as a first alternative to resolve conflict-Iran would probably use a nuclear weapon if it had one, to enforce its will on its enemies.

India, Pakistan, and Israel all possess nuclear weapons, however, none of these nations have used nuclear weapons as a first alternative to resolve conflicts-yet. Personally, because the Middle East is virtually a political and military boiling pot, I don't think any nation in the Middle East should possess nuclear weapons-to include Israel. Israel has not been a shining beacon of light for the rest of the Middle Eastern nations to follow, but has illegally occupied Palestian and Syrian sovereign territories, and has not been held accountable by the United Nations Security Council, the United States, or any nation in the world for its own unwarranted violence in the Middle East. Yet, other Arab nations in the Middle East are placed under debilitating sanctions when they violate U.N. resolutions, or show blatant aggressions towards Israel-even when it is Israel who has shown aggression first.

If the Middle East is ever going to have any semblance of peace, then the United Nations Security Council, and The United States are going to have to implement balanced and fair justice towards all nations embroiled in the various conflicts in the Middle East, and hold Israel equally accountable for its own hegemonic aggressions, actions, and illegal occupations of Palestinian, Syrian, and Arab lands in the Middle East. All Middle Eastern nations' political, economic, cultural, and religious viewpoints/beliefs, etc. must be respected, and seriously listened to by the United Nations Security Council, the United States, and all nations who are neutral to these conflicts/wars in the Middle East. Then, solutions must be found and implemented that are fair and just to all nations embroiled in these conflicts, and that equally benefit all nations embroiled in these conflicts-not just Israel. All nations political and national sovereignties should be respected, and foreign nations' political, and religious ideologies-such as democracy, and religious beliefs-should not be forced upon these nations by force with violence and bloodshed. Nations embroiled in conflicts over petty ideologies such as these need not possess nuclear weapons, but must seriously strive to learn to live beside each other with all their various ideologies, political viewpoints, and religious beliefs, without deeming their neighboring nation/s as their enemy, and then harboring the caveman mentality of wanting to enforce their personal ideologies, political viewpoints, and religious beliefs on their neighboring nation/s by way of the clubs of war. Mankind must grow-up, and come to its international maturity, and recognize that we are all human by the grace of God, accept the reality that we are all culturally, physically, and intellectually different, etc.-and realize that this is o.k. and good, and then seriously strive to work together as one human family regardless of all these petty ideologies, political viewpoints, and religious beliefs. Because, as nations mature politically, economically, culturally, and along religious lines, they will progress naturally. Militarism, wars, conflicts, and violence only create destruction and regression, and should always be used as an absolute last ditch alternative-if used at all.

Mankind brags about all its industrial, technological, and genetic achievements and advancements, but is presently not mature enough to even embrace and harness the positive aspects of these entities. Instead, mankind is arrogantly strolling down that dark, wide, easy road of destruction with breath taking blindness, while rambling on, and on that "there is no devil". Yeah, right-when is mankind going to realize that it is us who represent the Second Coming of Christ-we are the various aspects and images of God, the Madi, Buddah's Nirvana, Bahaullah's Government of God, The Catholics Virgin Mary, etc. God and all the prophets laid the various foundations for us here on earth, but it is up to us to come to our mental and spiritual maturity, learn not to study war anymore, and then just build God's heaven here on earth. Hell, it ain't hard if the entire world learns to work together. Or, we can continue to be immature, spiritually dead devils, and continue to arrogantly stroll down that dark, wide, easy road of destruction that leads to a hell of damnation of our own making. Then everyone won't have a choice but to say, "peace".:)

Linkster
07-20-2007, 06:39 AM
So basically youre saying that Iran shouldnt have peaceful nuclear power - which weve already supplied to them via GE and a few other companies, but because the US doesnt like them (Bush at least), and gets the UN to pass a BS resolution which has nothing to do with them using peaceful nuclear power - then we are the "watchdog" that needs to stop them??? What a crock of shit

Lets see - since youre using "history - or at least your link that supports your theory of history" - who is the only country that "has used nuclear weapons as a first alternative to resolve conflicts" - the US of course - so I guess its ok if the US does it and kills a hundred thousand civilians - but its not ok if someone else threatens it? Oooops - wait - no other country has ever taken out someones nuclear facilities either have they? Or did we forget that Israel bombed the first nuclear facility in a terrorist attack on Iraqi soil?

SirMoby
07-20-2007, 05:34 PM
While I don't want to see Ahmadenejad with a nuclear weapon he needs one to protect his borders. The most aggressive army in the world right now has him surrounded. The PNAC has wanted regime change in Iran for a long time and those running for President make jokes about bombing Iran.

Why do you think the USA is against democracy in the country harboring Bin Laden? It's because Pakistan has nukes. We can't invade a country with nukes. We can't make jokes about bombing them and killing civilians if they actually have nukes.

While I think it's a terrible idea for some like Ahmadenejad to have nukes I think it's equally terrifying to let PNAC control the army.

Politicz
07-21-2007, 05:58 AM
So basically youre saying that Iran shouldnt have peaceful nuclear power - which weve already supplied to them via GE and a few other companies, but because the US doesnt like them (Bush at least), and gets the UN to pass a BS resolution which has nothing to do with them using peaceful nuclear power - then we are the "watchdog" that needs to stop them??? What a crock of shit

Lets see - since youre using "history - or at least your link that supports your theory of history" - who is the only country that "has used nuclear weapons as a first alternative to resolve conflicts" - the US of course - so I guess its ok if the US does it and kills a hundred thousand civilians - but its not ok if someone else threatens it? Oooops - wait - no other country has ever taken out someones nuclear facilities either have they? Or did we forget that Israel bombed the first nuclear facility in a terrorist attack on Iraqi soil?

I never said it was o.k. for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons. Why don't you read my entire article, then maybe you can argue with reason, instead of trying to tell me what I haven't said. I guess you wouldn't mind if Iran possessed a nuclear weapon and used it on the U.S. either? Several political books suggest that Iran already has the suitecase size nuclear weapon. (Read, "Osama's Revenge, The Next 911-What the Media and Government Haven't Told You", by Paul L. Williams). I don't think you would be so adamant in defending Iran, if you knew that sleeper terrorist cells with these nuclear suitecase bombs could already be in the U.S. Oh, and I know about the U.S. dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Japan,-and Israel's bombing weapons facilities in Iraq, so :talktothehand:

Politicz
07-21-2007, 06:10 AM
While I don't want to see Ahmadenejad with a nuclear weapon he needs one to protect his borders. The most aggressive army in the world right now has him surrounded. The PNAC has wanted regime change in Iran for a long time and those running for President make jokes about bombing Iran.

Why do you think the USA is against democracy in the country harboring Bin Laden? It's because Pakistan has nukes. We can't invade a country with nukes. We can't make jokes about bombing them and killing civilians if they actually have nukes.

While I think it's a terrible idea for some like Ahmadenejad to have nukes I think it's equally terrifying to let PNAC control the army.

Again, I know Pakistan has nuclear weapons-so does India. And, this is one reason why Bush hasn't been so quick to bomb Iran. Bush doesn't even know how far along Iran is on its nuclear program, or if Iran already has the bomb or not. And, even if Bush decided to try and bomb Iran into submission, it's not going to work, because presently America has very little allies, and is not in a good political position right now to attack Iran. However, Bush has stated that he doesn't want to leave the Iran problem unresolved after he leaves office. Hell, America can't invade any country that doesn't have nukes, but has a larger population than America. Iraq was week, and her revolutionary guard has been severly weakened by U.S. and British bombing campaigns on Iraq prior to Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. Bush underestimated Iraq's ability to withstand an invasion, and failed to see guerilla warfare in the equation, or the insurgency factor. Now America is up crap creep without a paddle. And, America cannot so called win (there really isn't any winners in all this mess) in Iraq, because democracy isn't predominate in the middle east, and Iran is the influencing power in the middle east, and Russia has her foot all up in the Arab countries that are foes to the U.S.-to include Iran. As a matter of fact, Russia is presently helping Iran build one of its nuclear plants. However, the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east is not the answer to resolving the messes over there.:)

Linkster
07-21-2007, 03:20 PM
In the first place - I did read the entire article and your stance seems to be (maybe Im mistaken?) that the US has some sort of hold over all the countries of the middle east or at least should be the broker in charge of their fortunes - which is total BS. Each of those nations is a sovereign nation unto themselves just as Iraq was at one time.
The US has no police treaty over any other country although you seem to think that they do
Your "facts" are very cherry picked as most of the people I talk to in the IAEA seem to think Iran is at least 10 years and probably 15 years out from a nuclear weapon, although the peaceful use of the raw uranium they posess could be implemented rather quickly - keep in mind that these two uses require an entirely different type of fuel - one of which we know Iran has because we gave it to them as well as selling them the technology and parts for their plants, and the other being the highly enriched type which they dont have and as of 4 years ago were actively preventing them from obtaining - until the CIA agent that was following that was outed by the White House.
The third misconception you have is of the power of the mouthpiece who plays on the US fears all of the time - Ahmadenejad has no real power in Iran - very similar to the power that the queen of England has - and the people (ordinary citizens) are not very pleased with him right now and would not allow him to do anything rash - given that he really doesnt have the power to do anything anyway.
I would be a little more concerned about Pakistan having nuclear capability as they are the real support for most of the terrorist groups - the BS you heard on Fox about sleeper cells and terrorists hiding around every corner obviously had the intended effect on you - Im sure you actually believe that Al Qaeda actually exists too, but then that would put you in the group of a large percentage of Americans that know nothing about history.

As far as your statement about democracy in Iraq - could you tell me why it wouldnt work? Im very interested as I seem to remember as a boy growing up that Iraq was a democracy until the US helped install a military coup government featuring Saddam to fight against Iran who was being supported by Russia - and their democracy had worked quite well ever since the end of British rule decades before that - as does the democracy in Turkey.

Finally I disagree - I think all of the middle east countries should build their own nuclear weapons - then maybe the US would keep its fingers out of their business and we can maybe get some of this paranoid, fear mongering society in the US back to some sense of reality and become a great self serving nation again.

Southern Man
07-23-2007, 07:31 PM
The solution to the iran problem is to give them the technology for a nuclear bomb and the technology for a ballistic missile that goes straight up 100 miles then straight back down.

Linkster
07-24-2007, 07:35 AM
Actually the solution to the Iran problem is to take people that dont understand the issue out and just shoot them as they contribute nothing other than noise

Southern Man
07-24-2007, 08:02 AM
Unfortunately that is illeagal unless we declare war on Iran. Is that what you are advocating?

Linkster
07-24-2007, 01:20 PM
Dont you think that we should have had that same discussion prior to invading Iraq? (since congress never declared war in that case)

Southern Man
07-24-2007, 01:55 PM
Congress did have that discussion. You are right that war was not declared (it has not been declared since WW2) but there is some legal reason for this that I'm not really up on. I am using the phase "declare war" merely as a convenience. Regardless Congress did authorize action against Iraq and they would have to do the same with respect to Iran.

Linkster
07-24-2007, 04:24 PM
A little history since it seems the media is distorting what really happened quite a bit - Basically - the drive to force out Saddam and instill a democracy started with public law 105-338 - in 1998 under Clinton. It authorized money to be spent un destabalizing Saddam and training a new military in Iraq and then to establish a democracy (of course they never mention that we were the ones that took away the democracy Iraq had until the 70s)

The resolution congress passed in 2002 just took that public law a little further - again it did not give wide open military powers - it had two specific purposes:
in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

both of these items have been completed - ages ago - so right now there is no congressional authority given through anything to be in Iraq - at war or otherwise

Once congress takes the time to go back and read what they authorized maybe they will figure out that they dont need to give any spending bills any more debate time - as they are not needed

Politicz
07-25-2007, 11:20 PM
In the first place - I did read the entire article and your stance seems to be (maybe Im mistaken?) that the US has some sort of hold over all the countries of the middle east or at least should be the broker in charge of their fortunes - which is total BS. Each of those nations is a sovereign nation unto themselves just as Iraq was at one time.
The US has no police treaty over any other country although you seem to think that they do
Your "facts" are very cherry picked as most of the people I talk to in the IAEA seem to think Iran is at least 10 years and probably 15 years out from a nuclear weapon, although the peaceful use of the raw uranium they posess could be implemented rather quickly - keep in mind that these two uses require an entirely different type of fuel - one of which we know Iran has because we gave it to them as well as selling them the technology and parts for their plants, and the other being the highly enriched type which they dont have and as of 4 years ago were actively preventing them from obtaining - until the CIA agent that was following that was outed by the White House.
The third misconception you have is of the power of the mouthpiece who plays on the US fears all of the time - Ahmadenejad has no real power in Iran - very similar to the power that the queen of England has - and the people (ordinary citizens) are not very pleased with him right now and would not allow him to do anything rash - given that he really doesnt have the power to do anything anyway.
I would be a little more concerned about Pakistan having nuclear capability as they are the real support for most of the terrorist groups - the BS you heard on Fox about sleeper cells and terrorists hiding around every corner obviously had the intended effect on you - Im sure you actually believe that Al Qaeda actually exists too, but then that would put you in the group of a large percentage of Americans that know nothing about history.

As far as your statement about democracy in Iraq - could you tell me why it wouldnt work? Im very interested as I seem to remember as a boy growing up that Iraq was a democracy until the US helped install a military coup government featuring Saddam to fight against Iran who was being supported by Russia - and their democracy had worked quite well ever since the end of British rule decades before that - as does the democracy in Turkey.

Finally I disagree - I think all of the middle east countries should build their own nuclear weapons - then maybe the US would keep its fingers out of their business and we can maybe get some of this paranoid, fear mongering society in the US back to some sense of reality and become a great self serving nation again.

There you go trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say again, and you didn't read my article or you would see that I never said or even suggested that the U.S. should be the broker in the middle east in charge of all their fortunes. It's the U.N.-Not the U.S. that I mentioned in my article having resolutions-not policies that Iran failed to adhere to. And, the plant you are referring to that the U.S. started to build in Iran was destroyed in Iraq/Iran wars during the 1980s. And, Iran does have natural uranium reserves in the form of uranium ore in the eastern part of Yazd province-which is one of the largest deposits of uranium ore in the Middle East. Iran has already built a nuclear facility Ardakan in Iran to convert this uranium ore into a powder called yellowcake. Yellowcake is then further processed into hexafluoride (UF-6) which produces a gaseous state. Iran is doing this at another facility called Esfahan. Uranium has two types of isotopes-2 different versions with different atomic masses, uranium-235, and uranium-238. Uranium 238 is the one used to make nuclear weapons, and used in nuclear reactors. Iran is using uranium 238, and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has already stated that the Esfahan facility will also produce uranium oxide and metal, which will be used for both military and civilian purposes. And, don't forget about Russia presently helping Iran obtain nuclear status. I don't listen to FOX news, but you sound like you do, parroting the B.S. that you've heard on there. Evidently, you don't know much about history either. So, again, go somewhere and read.:talktothehand:

Politicz
07-25-2007, 11:22 PM
Actually the solution to the Iran problem is to take people that dont understand the issue out and just shoot them as they contribute nothing other than noise
So, what time do you want to stand before the firing squad?:lmao2: , :talktothehand:

Politicz
07-25-2007, 11:27 PM
Congress did have that discussion. You are right that war was not declared (it has not been declared since WW2) but there is some legal reason for this that I'm not really up on. I am using the phase "declare war" merely as a convenience. Regardless Congress did authorize action against Iraq and they would have to do the same with respect to Iran.
Tell that to Bush, because he says that he doesn't have to get authorization from congress to attack Iran, because a war with Iran would be an extension of the Iraq war. :D

Southern Man
07-26-2007, 09:52 AM
Tell that to Bush, because he says that he doesn't have to get authorization from congress to attack Iran, because a war with Iran would be an extension of the Iraq war. :D Since Iran has entered into the conflict by supporting the insurgency in Iraq, it appears that Bush is correct.

Politicz
07-27-2007, 05:15 AM
Since Iran has entered into the conflict by supporting the insurgency in Iraq, it appears that Bush is correct.

Even if Bush might not be correct, logically, Iran is in the Iraq conflict on the opposing side, regardless of how much they are trying to deny this. So, they are fair game.:D

Southern Man
07-27-2007, 06:49 PM
Even if Bush might not be correct, logically, Iran is in the Iraq conflict on the opposing side, regardless of how much they are trying to deny this. So, they are fair game.:D Wait- some guy in California agreeing with me? Are the planets all lined up or something?