Article: Russia and China warn US that an Israeli attack on Iran means world war...

[Kirkland Laing]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

[CGM]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

So you must have a more reliable source then?

[VictorCharlie]

both at the same time might be tricky but individually the air and sea war would be over inside six months. After that it is just a matter of how much we were willing to sacrifice in regards to a ground fight. But as Kirk said..all bark no bite.

[Kirkland Laing]

both at the same time might be tricky but individually the air and sea war would be over inside six months. After that it is just a matter of how much we were willing to sacrifice in regards to a ground fight. But as Kirk said..all bark no bite.

Iran is five times bigger than Iraq geographically with three times as many people. Unlike Iraq where sixteen million Kurds and Shiites were basically on our side against an insurgency derived from five million Iraqi Sunnis, Iran would have an insurgency derived from a population ten times as big, a population still pissed off that we were there a generation ago. In Iraq we fought the insurgency for a while, gave up, put them on the payroll and declared victory. But it took every spare soldier the west could scrape to gether just to hang on there for a few years. We wouldn't get that luxury in Iran. Going in on the ground is not an option unless we had a twenty times bigger army and trillions to fund it, so it's ruled out on both those counts. And what would you get if you did invade? A pissed-off population who'd eventually kick us out then be even more radical than they are now, and zero chance of us gaining anything. We've already got a war like that going on in Afghanistan. All we could do is bomb them and bombing them would 100% guarantee they'd get round to building a nuke, so using the military is pointless.

[El Kabong]

Russia and China don't want any part of us....sure we're stretched thin and all, but we still have superior fire power and it's just a FACT that people like Freedom and Liberty more than what Russia and China offer people.

[Kirkland Laing]

Russia and China don't want any part of us....sure we're stretched thin and all, but we still have superior fire power and it's just a FACT that people like Freedom and Liberty more than what Russia and China offer people.

People in the Middle East tend to get the other end of the superior firepower rather than the freedom and liberty thing though.

[El Kabong]

People in the Middle East tend to get the other end of the superior firepower rather than the freedom and liberty thing though.

...perhaps they should change their tune, you know, kill us with kindness instead of just trying to kill us.

[Kev]

Damn this is quite scary and also in a way exciting news.

According to the Bible, this age will end after the formation of the One World Order and then the inevitable turning on Israel by every nation of the world.

In Revelation it talks of the Euphrates river being damned up and an army of 200 Million marching on Israel.

for almost one hundred years biblical scholars have been saying this will be the Chinese.

Also it then says when the armies surround Israel a massive explosion occurs, that those surrounding the city have their eyeballs melt in their sockets, that one third of mankind is killed and that the leaders of men hide in caves.

This nucluear war has been predicted even for the past 2000 years.

If you think I'm being far fetched as usual, consider also that the exact date of the refounding of Israel, in 1948 was predicted by scholars as early as the 1800's.

EVERYTHING in the Bible is coming true exactly as it says it would.

It's some scary shit to be sure, but also exciting that those of us alive now could be alive to witness the end of the ages.

We're hurtling towards the last days now.

[Kev]

Here's a few prophecies for anyone who cares probably just me and Bruce but still

10 Prophecies Fulfilled in 1948

[Gandalf]

Damn this is quite scary and also in a way exciting news.

According to the Bible, this age will end after the formation of the One World Order and then the inevitable turning on Israel by every nation of the world.

In Revelation it talks of the Euphrates river being damned up and an army of 200 Million marching on Israel.

for almost one hundred years biblical scholars have been saying this will be the Chinese.

Also it then says when the armies surround Israel a massive explosion occurs, that those surrounding the city have their eyeballs melt in their sockets, that one third of mankind is killed and that the leaders of men hide in caves.

This nucluear war has been predicted even for the past 2000 years.

If you think I'm being far fetched as usual, consider also that the exact date of the refounding of Israel, in 1948 was predicted by scholars as early as the 1800's.

EVERYTHING in the Bible is coming true exactly as it says it would.

It's some scary shit to be sure, but also exciting that those of us alive now could be alive to witness the end of the ages.

We're hurtling towards the last days now.

I've always wanted to see Israel finally reap its come-uppance. If it takes the end of the world to do it then thats fair enough. But I'm not too sure about all that Bible jazz.

[brucelee]

Damn this is quite scary and also in a way exciting news.

According to the Bible, this age will end after the formation of the One World Order and then the inevitable turning on Israel by every nation of the world.

In Revelation it talks of the Euphrates river being damned up and an army of 200 Million marching on Israel.

for almost one hundred years biblical scholars have been saying this will be the Chinese.

Also it then says when the armies surround Israel a massive explosion occurs, that those surrounding the city have their eyeballs melt in their sockets, that one third of mankind is killed and that the leaders of men hide in caves.

This nucluear war has been predicted even for the past 2000 years.

If you think I'm being far fetched as usual, consider also that the exact date of the refounding of Israel, in 1948 was predicted by scholars as early as the 1800's.

EVERYTHING in the Bible is coming true exactly as it says it would.

It's some scary shit to be sure, but also exciting that those of us alive now could be alive to witness the end of the ages.

We're hurtling towards the last days now.

I am also thinking the same thing Bilbo. If the Bible had prophesied it, then it's bound to happen.

[Kirkland Laing]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

So you must have a more reliable source then?

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." But the qualifiers from people who actually know what they're talking about never make it in the versions you get from hysterical journalists and cable news nuts, because it takes the scary away and doesn't get them ratings or headlines.

Here's the IAEA head :

SZ: In your report it says that Iran is gaining an ever greater mastery of uranium enrichment. Can the USA and Israel accept the fact that Iran is on the threshold of becoming a virtual nuclear power?
ELBARADEI: The question is, what can they do? What are the alternatives to direct negotiations? As long as we are monitoring their facilities, they cannot develop nuclear weapons. And they still do not have the ingredients to make a bomb overnight.


Transcript of Interview with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei




Here's an article from the Guardian, this is one of the less hysterical ones you get about Iran :


The UN's nuclear watchdog reported today that Iran had managed to enrich a metric tonne of low enriched uranium (LEU), which UN officials say is technically enough to build a nuclear weapon.


So you can turn that into a scary "Iran have enough uranium for a nuke! story easy and I'm sure if you check Fox News website on that date you'll find one. But this is 2% enriched uranium, good for fuel for a nuclear plant (like the Iranians are going to use it for) but nowhere near good enough for a bomb (99+%).


Later in the article :


"Do they have enough LEU to produce a 'significant quantity' of HEU [enough for a bomb]? Yes, if you count the U235 atoms then they do have a significant quantity of HEU," a senior official close to the IAEA said. "But it is theoretical and they would need to use their full capacity to do so. They are not there yet. If they were to build another clandestine facility, then that would be different."
The official added that: "The nuclear material has been under containment and surveillance at all times."


So the truth is they have enough low enriched stuff to power their nuclear power plant which comes online soon. They put an agreement on the table a while ago that would allow them to run nuclear power plants and have their entire nuke programme to be constantly monitored (as it is now) if America dropped sanctions on Iran, normalised relations etc. But it wasn't even acknowledged by the Americans.

[CGM]

It's all nonesense. Israel won't attack Iran with nukes and if they do conventionally attack them it'll only guarantee the Iranians build a bomb.

The whole thing is just sensationalised by an Israel-supporting western media. Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media. If they did decide tobuild one it'd be big news and we'd have at least a year's notice*, and neither Russia or China would give a monkeys if we did bomb them.

*and even then they'd have an untested weapon with no missile to stick it on and fire it more than a couple of hundred miles. Building a decent long range missile is something they won't be able to do as long as they're under sanctions, so chill.

So you must have a more reliable source then?

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

[Kirkland Laing]

So you must have a more reliable source then?

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

The IAEA head has said they're not building a bomb and he doesn't think they're even planning to.

The UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei has once again highlighted the lack of evidence to prove Iran is after a nuclear bomb.

Speaking at a session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, ElBaradei reiterated the International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," ElBaradei asserted.

He said that the issue of Iran's nuclear standoff with the West is a problem of trust.

The IAEA boss referred to a December 3 joint assessment by 16 US spy agencies, which conceded that Tehran is not running a nuclear weapons program, and said that the US intelligence report agreed with his agency's assessment on Iran's nuclear program.

ElBaradei: Iran not after bomb

Now that's the first thing google found but I'm sure if you go to the IAEA website it's there somewhere or if you google the quote eventually some known media outlet somewhere will have reported it.

Iran have the ability to build a bomb but aren't. If they did they'd have an untested weapon with no delivery capability and no way of getting one while under sanctions. They have enough material for one bomb and it's under constant watch. The IAEA have a bunch of inspectors and cameras in Iran monitoring their entire operation constantly.

[CGM]

If you read the final few paragraphs on page A48 of the New York Times they eventually get round to saying "but yesterday the IAEA head urged caution over the claims made yesterday by [US neocon loonies in America or some Israeli nutjob politician who the main article is all about] and pointed out that the IAEA have all Iran's nuclear activities under constant monitoring and don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb."
...

ok my original remark was in reference to

...
Iran aren't currently building a nuke and all the material they have to build one is under 24/7 inspector/camera surveillance by the IAEA, something that is never mentioned in the western media.
...

and i was intending to question whether you actually had access to verifiable facts that weren't being reported in the west.

The bolded remark in your last reply to me seems to support your original claim to a certain extent. The IAEA head doesn't actually come out and conclusively state that Iran isn't building a bomb as you seemed to do, but he comes reasonably close, so ok fine.

Let's put aside for the moment what Iran is actually telling people about what their intentions are. I am just a little skeptical that the IAEA can be so confident that there is nothing underhanded that is escaping their attention. Personally I believe

1. that if Iran had the ability to build a nuke, they would.
2. that if Iran had a way to do an end run around the IAEA monitoring they would do that too.
3. Israel has every reason to be nervous about this, regardless of whether or not I think they have a "right to exist".
3. there is no way way the IAEA can be absolutely certain they have everything under control. Ergo the remark: we "don't think Iran are even trying to build a bomb." This is not quite consistent with their claim that they have everything under surveillance.

The IAEA head has said they're not building a bomb and he doesn't think they're even planning to.

The UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei has once again highlighted the lack of evidence to prove Iran is after a nuclear bomb.

Speaking at a session of the World Economic Forum on the Middle East, ElBaradei reiterated the International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb.

"We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," ElBaradei asserted.

He said that the issue of Iran's nuclear standoff with the West is a problem of trust.

The IAEA boss referred to a December 3 joint assessment by 16 US spy agencies, which conceded that Tehran is not running a nuclear weapons program, and said that the US intelligence report agreed with his agency's assessment on Iran's nuclear program.

ElBaradei: Iran not after bomb

Now that's the first thing google found but I'm sure if you go to the IAEA website it's there somewhere or if you google the quote eventually some known media outlet somewhere will have reported it.

Iran have the ability to build a bomb but aren't. If they did they'd have an untested weapon with no delivery capability and no way of getting one while under sanctions. They have enough material for one bomb and it's under constant watch. The IAEA have a bunch of inspectors and cameras in Iran monitoring their entire operation constantly.

You say that IAEA says they aren't doing it, but then you quote the IAEA as saying not that they aren't doing it, just that they haven't seen indications or concrete evidence. There's a bit of a difference. As for the Mossad, well who knows what they've found out, I'n sure they wouldn't tell "us".'

Anyways "no evidence" means either they aren't doing it or they are doing a good job at covering their tracks. Sure there are issues of trust involved. I wouldn't trust a guy like Ahmadinejad any further than I could throw him. You are free to trust him if you want.

I do believe the IAEA though. So if they say they haven't found any concrete evidence, than so be it. We agree on that much. It means they haven't found any concrete evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.