"Iran is teetering on the brink of collapse as biting sanctions strangle the
country's economy, while talk of an imminent attack on its nuclear
facilities is causing people to fear Iran will become another Iraq.
Iran's currency, the rial, has plunged nearly 60% in the past few months,
six percent of that in the last two days as Iranians and foreign investors
cash out in a classic flight to safety situation. Inflation is escalating
with the market rate of the rial considerably more than double that set by
the Iranian Central Bank of 12,260 rials to the dollar. Despite being less
than 100 rials to the dollar prior to the 1979 revolution, it now takes
nearly 30,000 rials to buy a dollar. Manufacturing exports, particularly in
the auto industry, have dived by around 50% resulting in tens of thousands
of workers being laid off. Elsewhere, oil workers recently lodged a letter
with the oil ministry claiming they haven't been paid in months. Until last
year Iran was the world's fourth largest oil exporter.
Iran has been cut off from accessing the global banking system SWIFT,
stranding huge numbers of banks, companies and private individuals from
doing business and managing their assets.
Israel, the driving force behind international sanctions, and a potential
invader, concedes the sanctions are working but wants to tighten the screws
even further.
An internal Israeli foreign ministry report which was leaked last week and
published in Haaretz newspaper says Iran's oil exports have been cut in
half by the sanctions. The report says the sanctions have had a far greater
effect than previously understood.
The puncturing of oil exports has already cost Iran $45 billion to $50
billion, according to Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz, who said on
the weekend Iran's economy "is not collapsing, but it is on the verge of
collapse,"
"The Iranians are in great economic difficulties as a result of the
sanctions," he told Israel radio.
Despite the internal foreign ministry report disclosing the effect the
sanctions are having, Haaretz newspaper has quoted an Israeli official as
saying his country has stepped up its efforts for more sanctions, including
an appeal to the European Union to impose a fresh round of sanctions.
"The situation in Iran and the feelings of the man on the street is one of
economic catastrophe. There's a shortage of basic goods, a rise in crime,
and people are trying to flee the country, sending money abroad," Avigdor
Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister told Haaretz.
The events unfolding in Iran are a stark reminder of what happened to
Germany after the first World War when its economy was driven to ruin by
demands for reparations which caused hyper inflation, and many say brought
Adolph Hitler to power.
Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world wars,
particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone
has nuclear weapons. The United States, Israel, and the European Union
insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear bomb, or
to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are equally
insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Iran has a population of around 75 million people, most of whom have
nothing to do with the current state of play. What is occurring right now
is what the United Nations often criticizes as "collective punishment," and
as such is a breach of "international law." The only difference with Iran
is the UN is one of the bodies through which the sanctions have been
imposed.
Canada, Japan, India, Australia, Switzerland, and South Korea, along with
the United States, the European Union, and Israel have imposed sanctions
directly."
Not getting much press but Iran's gov't could fall from within, there was a strong push for that a couple years ago after the seriously contested election.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Israel, the driving force behind international sanctions, and a potential
>invader
That'd be a good trick.
How do they get there?
Through that US Army in Iraq or through the Lebanon and Turkey?
>The puncturing of oil exports has already cost Iran $45 billion to $50
>billion, according to Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz, who said on
>the weekend Iran's economy "is not collapsing, but it is on the verge of
>collapse,"
>"The Iranians are in great economic difficulties as a result of the
>sanctions," he told Israel radio.
>Despite the internal foreign ministry report disclosing the effect the
>sanctions are having, Haaretz newspaper has quoted an Israeli official as
>saying his country has stepped up its efforts for more sanctions, including
>an appeal to the European Union to impose a fresh round of sanctions.
>"The situation in Iran and the feelings of the man on the street is one of
>economic catastrophe. There's a shortage of basic goods, a rise in crime,
>and people are trying to flee the country, sending money abroad," Avigdor
>Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister told Haaretz.
>The events unfolding in Iran are a stark reminder of what happened to
>Germany after the first World War when its economy was driven to ruin by
>demands for reparations which caused hyper inflation, and many say brought
>Adolph Hitler to power.
Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world wars,
>particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone
>has nuclear weapons.
Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
all establishments to inspection.
This they refuse to do.
That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
The United States, Israel, and the European Union
>insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear bomb, or
>to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are equally
>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world
>> wars, particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is
>> seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
> all establishments to inspection.
> This they refuse to do.
> That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
Minor nit pick , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is
the one they signed that requires them to submit to
inspections
> The United States, Israel, and the European Union
>> insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear
>> bomb, or to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are
>> equally insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:58:46 AM UTC-4, Keith W wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to world
> >> wars, particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is
> >> seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
> > Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
> > all establishments to inspection.
> > This they refuse to do.
> > That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
> Minor nit pick , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is
> the one they signed that requires them to submit to
> inspections
> > The United States, Israel, and the European Union
> >> insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear
> >> bomb, or to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are
> >> equally insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
> > Let them prove it.
> As they agreed to do !
> Keith
When did Iran sign the NPT? Is it possible the pre-1979 gov't signed and the current religious zealots do not recognize that signing? Do such treaties have clauses that bind nations to them regardless of changes in governments?
On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:58:46 AM UTC-4, Keith W wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" > > <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that > >> leads to world
> >> wars, particularly as there is no clear cut evidence > >> Iran is
> >> seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
> > Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and > > so should open
> > all establishments to inspection.
> > This they refuse to do.
> > That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
> Minor nit pick , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is
> the one they signed that requires them to submit to
> inspections
> > The United States, Israel, and the European Union
> >> insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing > >> a nuclear
> >> bomb, or to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian > >> leaders are
> >> equally insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful > >> purposes.
> > Let them prove it.
> As they agreed to do !
> Keith
>When did Iran sign the NPT? Is it possible the pre-1979 >gov't signed and the current religious zealots do not >recognize that signing? Do such treaties have clauses that >bind nations to them regardless of changes in governments?
Signed 1 July '68, ratified early 1970. A clause in the treaty could not bind a successor government past the generally accepted commitment to use the treaty's provisions for withdrawal. Iran has not acted on them and is still bound by the treaty.
Here are the clauses (from the UN website):
Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.1
Dean Markley wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:58:46 AM UTC-4, Keith W wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:13:00 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Certainly what is happening is the sort of stuff that leads to
>>>> world
>>>> wars, particularly as there is no clear cut evidence Iran is
>>>> seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
>>> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should
>>> open
>>> all establishments to inspection.
>>> This they refuse to do.
>>> That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
>> Minor nit pick , the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is
>> the one they signed that requires them to submit to
>> inspections
>>> The United States, Israel, and the European Union
>>>> insist the Islamic Republic is on the way to developing a nuclear
>>>> bomb, or to having the capacity to do so, while Iranian leaders are
>>>> equally insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>>> Let them prove it.
>> As they agreed to do !
>> Keith
> When did Iran sign the NPT? Is it possible the pre-1979 gov't signed
> and the current religious zealots do not recognize that signing? Do
> such treaties have clauses that bind nations to them regardless of
> changes in governments?
Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
90 days notice
They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
to non signatories.
> >Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
> >90 days notice
> >They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
> >several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
> >There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
> >not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
> >to non signatories.
> But they do not permit inspections...
> Much as Saddam did not.
> They want to have their cake and to eat it.
I suspect it is unlikely they will realize that wish. While I think they are aware of what happened with Saddam, I also wonder if they think they are smarter than Saddam. They will realize their mistake when the first bombs go off at their nuclear facilities.
> > >Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
> > >90 days notice
> > >They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
> > >several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
> > >There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
> > >not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
> > >to non signatories.
> > But they do not permit inspections...
> > Much as Saddam did not.
> > They want to have their cake and to eat it.
> I suspect it is unlikely they will realize that wish. While I think they are aware of what happened with Saddam, I also wonder if they think they are smarter than Saddam. They will realize their mistake when the first bombs go off at their nuclear facilities.
I worry sometimes that the Iranian government feels that Saddam's mistake was in not completing his program. They have made their program a lot more survivable than Iraq's was by burying a lot of it under rock.
A big danger of that is it makes it harder for conventional munitions to do the trick of knocking their program out. That can actually be a danger to them as well.
There is the other angle, too, doing this sort of thing gins up a lot of tension, after which they can point to the rest of the world and tell their people (Many of whom really, really don't like their government) "See, see, it is us against all of them!" They haven't embraced the idea of using their nuclear program for negotiations *cough, bribery* like North Korea, so it is probably some combination of their Ayatollahs really wanting a bomb and wanting to keep tensions up with everyone else in the region.
The best case scenario for everyone would be Iran's people reforming or removing their government from within but the last time they tried they took a lot of casualties and there wasn't much support given to them from the rest of the world. It may yet happen, if so the US needs to be ready to help, at least with moral support.
> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
> all establishments to inspection.
Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
bullying war rhetoric escalated.
The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.
>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
> Let them prove it.
Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".
> This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
;-)
> Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
> 90 days notice
> They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
> several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
> There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
> not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
> to non signatories.
Iran does not need the other signers...they are all free to simply
consider Iran as no longer a signer (and stop using the treaty itself
as a phony excuse for war).
;-)
>> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
That's not reasonable.
>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid,
Wrong, but never mind.
> and Jewish Israel
>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
Nope, but unlike you I try to apply the same level of moral judgment
for both sides.
>> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>> all establishments to inspection.
>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I know, I was corrected earlier.
>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this
case. The US and USA even allow the inspection of very sensitive
intelligence facilities
>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
>> Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
>> 90 days notice
>> They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
>> several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
>> There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
>> not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
>> to non signatories.
>Iran does not need the other signers...they are all free to simply
>consider Iran as no longer a signer (and stop using the treaty itself
>as a phony excuse for war).
>;-)
And the other nations are then allowed to draw some reasonable
conclusions and so take the appropriate action.
>> Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>> more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
>> Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>> all establishments to inspection.
>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.
>>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>> Let them prove it.
>Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
>nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
>can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".
>> This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
>No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
>;-)
Very effective point by point on this issue Doc. What I find a mystery
is where you find the energy...redvet
> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons,
No, America has decided that only mass weapons are a threat to us.
There's no reason we should have to wait for them to attack, they've
made their intentions clear with their words and actions. Between
the long running Iranian Hate campaigns, and their massive support of
international terrorism, we have every right to assume they'll use
a nuke the minute they get one, or give it to someone that will.
And it's their fault the west believes that, they've gone out of
their way to make us believe that.
> IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
That's an unbelievable statement.
>>> there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear >>> weapons.
> Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must > consider self defense.
So I guess the Iranians are building deep underground facilities for what?
Baby-milk?
The Iranians are making the same mistakes Saddam made.
A closed society will always cause the west to assume the worst case.
It would be irresponsible not to. And they think mass weapons will keep
us at bay, when i n f a c t it does exactly the opposite.
They think the N Korean example will work for them too.
But that example only makes sure the west acts ...before
another N Korea is created.
Let me just remind you that ...in the end, America will always win.
It's simple math, the nation that's closest to freedom and democracy
will rise to the top. And the ones farthest away, like Iran, are destined
to go out in a horrific blaze of glory. And soon!
For the next generation or two, America will remain
more dominant militarily than ever before, and its going
to be America's ...Golden Age!
Bill wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>Bill wrote:
>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
> 'Reasonably' as in saying they wish Israel be wiped from the map.
No, son, their response is *always* to a loaded question...Amadenijad (sp?)
has *never* indicated that he desires war with Israel but he does
respond that he would like to see, as do I, Jewish Israel off the maps (as
in no longer exist as either a nation that was foisted on their region by
Europeans or as a religion government nation)...but the war mongers *always*
report it as "Iran calls for wiping Israel off the map!"...and you pick
your language interpreters to ensure you get your desired result.
> That's not reasonable.
Correct, son, what you describe is not reasonable and it is in fact you lying.
>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
;-)
red...@lava.net wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>Bill wrote:
>>>Now you get to tell us how the government in Iran could possibly be
>>>more rabid where Israel is concerned?
>>Son, Iran is not rabid wrt to Israel, but they are, reasonably, anti-Jewish-Israel.
>>Your opinion is that anti-Israel is anti-semitic and rabid, and Jewish Israel
>>can do no wrong...i.e. you are a rabid and blind supporter of Jewish Israel war.
>>>Iran is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty and so should open
>>>all establishments to inspection.
>>Son, it is not the test ban treaty, but Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>>until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>>to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>>>>there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear weapons.
>>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must consider self defense.
>>>>insistent their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
>>>Let them prove it.
>>Better yet, let the U.S. stop building nuclear weapons and stop all
>>nuclear weapons research...and throw open it's doors so that the Iranians
>>can *fully* see U.S. compliance...mutually "trust but verify".
>>>This they refuse to do. That means guilt can be reasonably assumed.
>>No, son, it means you are dim-witted, thick brained, and certainly not reasonable.
>>;-)
> Very effective point by point on this issue Doc. What I find a mystery
> is where you find the energy...redvet
>>The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons,
> No, America has decided that only mass weapons are a threat to us.
> There's no reason we should have to wait for them to attack, they've
> made their intentions clear with their words and actions. Between
> the long running Iranian Hate campaigns, and their massive support of
> international terrorism, we have every right to assume they'll use
> a nuke the minute they get one, or give it to someone that will.
> And it's their fault the west believes that, they've gone out of
> their way to make us believe that.
>>IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
> That's an unbelievable statement.
>>>>there is no clear cut evidence Iran is seeking, let alone has nuclear >>>>weapons.
>>Correct...other than that *we* are clamoring for war and they must >>consider self defense.
> So I guess the Iranians are building deep underground facilities for what?
> Baby-milk?
> The Iranians are making the same mistakes Saddam made.
> A closed society will always cause the west to assume the worst case.
> It would be irresponsible not to. And they think mass weapons will keep
> us at bay, when i n f a c t it does exactly the opposite.
> They think the N Korean example will work for them too.
> But that example only makes sure the west acts ...before
> another N Korea is created.
> Let me just remind you that ...in the end, America will always win.
> It's simple math, the nation that's closest to freedom and democracy
> will rise to the top. And the ones farthest away, like Iran, are destined
> to go out in a horrific blaze of glory. And soon!
> For the next generation or two, America will remain
> more dominant militarily than ever before, and its going
> to be America's ...Golden Age!
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:19:58 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >Keith W wrote:
> >> Iran like any other signatory can withdraw from the NPT by giving
> >> 90 days notice
> >> They have reaffirmed their membership and intent to comply
> >> several times and have NOT repudiated the terms of the treaty.
> >> There are very good reasons for this as nuclear powers are
> >> not permitted to transfer nuclear technologies or materials
> >> to non signatories.
> >Iran does not need the other signers...they are all free to simply
> >consider Iran as no longer a signer (and stop using the treaty itself
> >as a phony excuse for war).
> >;-)
> And the other nations are then allowed to draw some reasonable
> conclusions and so take the appropriate action.
>> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>> until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>> to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
> And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
> people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
.. or the United states suddenly finds some key element of their non-nuclear power seriously obsoleted (for example, at least two major Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
>>>When the U.S. puppet dictator Shah of Iran was overthrown the new government
>>>agreed to continue honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
>>>they did at least up until the war threating rhetoric sharply increased
>>>after 9/11, and the war rhetoric has been non-stop ever since (a clamor
>>>for revenge for daring to overthrow our dictator (they have oil), and
>>>because Iran is anti-Jewish-Israel). Under that treaty, *every* country is
>>>allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (e.g. medicine or
>>>nuclear ship power) which Iran should, and has every right to, pursue. Iranian
>>>resistance arose when *unreasonable* inspection demands were made, amounting
>>>to spying (on military and internal political fronts), and when the U.S.
>>>bullying war rhetoric escalated.
>> There is no such thing as 'unreasonable inspection demands' in this case.
>Oh bullshit...you yourself just posted Iran "should open all establishments
>to inspection"...and you warmongers would *never* be satisfied until Iran
>was completely subdued in *every* respect, including such things as having
>the ability to snoop into any university program, even those not remotely
>related to nuclear, or to snoop into any government entity...look son, I've
>posted elsewhere that Iran can be "kicked out" of this treaty and you are
>merely using it as a phony excuse for war.
>;-)
There is no proof that nuclear inspections are ever over intrusive.
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:10:37 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>Il 06/10/2012 02:31, Bill ha scritto:
>>> The U.S. has *proven* that the only defense against it is nuclear weapons, and
>>> until the U.S. gives up its bullying war rhetoric or its own presumed right
>>> to preemptive war, IMHO, *every* nation *should* pursue nuclear war technology.
>> And those nations that do so will therefore have to suffer the fate of
>> people who defy the only superpower on the planet.
>.. or the United states suddenly finds some key element of their >non-nuclear power seriously obsoleted (for example, at least two major >Navies are working on & developing potential anti-CVN tools and TTPs)
If people start sinking the big US carriers they'd better be ready to
be attacked with nuclear weapons.
