Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Bit of a difference, no?

Cole translates what was said as "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

So yeah a bit of a difference.


quotes taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Man Who Fights Like Woman: Here's something interesting you may have missed. quote: Experts agree that the WMD discussed in the report are older weapons, not new ones generated in the late 1990s

Sure sounds like the ones the US sold the Iraqis and not like ones they made themselves to me. So, not only was there no production as suspected, but they were probably no good. Not only that, but while we're making all these wild assumptions here, it's possible to assume that it was a lost stockpile. [/QUOTE]Nope, didn't miss it. In fact, if you check every other media source out there, their reaction is the same as yours, outright dismissal. Why? For basically the same reason; admitting that these weapons had been found, along with the seemingly regional, with the exception of Iran, approval of removing Saddam gives justification for the US to be in Iraq.

Note that in the definition of Mustard Gas that I posted, the delivery items that were found wouldn't have to function. Any conventional weapon would suffice to deliver it. Sounds like a terrible way to die too. But, that doesn't matter, since they don't exist, right? After all, they can't exist, or the US bashing becomes just that, US bashing. The very existance of these weapons would mean that maybe, just maybe, somebody grabbed some bad press, and ran with it, and instead of being willing to back pedal, they just forge on, kinda like Dan Rather, wasn't it? Who took a known forged document, but ran with the story behind it for political reasons. Seemed to be a successful tactic for him, didn't it.

Edit:

Cole translates what was said as "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)." The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly: "[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." So yeah a bit of a difference. quotes taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

It just goes to show you, you can prove anything in the world you want to if you search long enough. I'd imagine you could find some other radical Imam to quote the line as, "We will send you flowers on the ocassion of your wedding", if you look hard enough. However, I'm betting that the second translation is closer to the truth.

Later Edit:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm


This is an older report, but says that by 2006, last year, Iran could have had nuclear weapons, based on known technologies they possessed at that time.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/index.html

Yet another report, with an admission by Iran that they have plutonium. These came from a simple Yahoo search. Evidence is out there, in the public sphere, I wonder what's out there that the public has no knowledge of?

[ 02-13-2007, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Boy Robert, you sure are willing to believe the worst about anyone. First the Iranians couldn't possibly be seeking nuclear technology for civilian programs because of, well... why? Is there some reason it's utterly inconceivable that Iran wants to modernize their energy infrastructure rather than blow someone up? Then anyone who doesn't take 500 expired shells of mustard gas as reason enough to topple a regime and blast an already weakened country into rubble from which they're still not recovered four years later must be an idiot. Finally, when offered two alternate translations, you automatically choose the more violent one. I guess I can't fault you on that last one, Iran has been such a violent country as of late. They've been going around invading countries left and right, extorting favors from other countries, and coming up with plans to invade even more sovereign nations.

Oh, wait. I'm getting something. My word, it seems Iran hasn't done anything of the sort! In fact it seems their last war was in the mid-80's, fought defensively against Iraq. So, which country was I thinking of before? Guess it'll be a mystery.

Edit: You really might want to read your article more closely. I'll help you with a bit of it.

In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Operative word is bolded. The important question is, by who?

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producing fissile material for atomic bombs

Again, operative words and phrases bolded. They would appear to be, but it's also unconfirmed. They could do it, but they haven't. Now let's add something else in.

Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT.

This thing is dated, so the last inspection probably would have been in 2003. And look, no violations! These experts couldn't find one thing at any of their sites!

[ 02-13-2007, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]

[PurpleXVI]

What radical imams are you talking about, man? The first quote is from a professor in Michigan and the other is from MEMRI, an institute located in Washington DC.

Information on MEMRI that may interest you:

MEMRI was founded in 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser.

Sounds like a guy who'll just LOVE the Arabs, doesn't he?

And now here's just a bit of criticism...

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper wrote that "the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel," that MEMRI's "tweaks, cuts and mistranslations always seem to point in the same political direction". Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated in the Washington Times that "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee comments that "There is of course some horrific stuff in the Arab press, but one tends to forget that the American press can also be very nasty. MEMRI performs a useful function but unfortunately they have a pro-Israel, right-wing agenda." William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, describes MEMRI as a service which "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. ...Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue." Ken Livingstone, former British MP and the current Mayor of London, has accused MEMRI of "outright distortion". In the foreword to a report he commissioned to explain his reasons for meeting with controversial Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he states his opinion that MEMRI "tend to portray Islam in a very negative light."

One of your own former ambassadors? And something tells me he'd know the area and situation better than most of us.

It might also be worth noting that he's still talking about eliminating the REGIME. Not the people. It's one thing to say that he hopes for another government, it's another thing to say he wants to bathe in the blood of Jewish babies.

As for the WMD's, the fact is that the government report doesn't make sense. Why didn't the US government not use them to counter their bashers? Why was it classified for so long? Why didn't the Iraqis use the shells against the US invaders?

It's hard to find any serious information on the lifetime of mustard gas, but I have found a few quotes stating that it decays "days or weeks" after release, which suggests that these could easily have been a bunch of ancient, damaged and useless shells only containing remnants of mustard gas. Would you please reply to my actual criticism, though, rather than dismissing my arguments as "outright dismissal"? Why must everything we say against the US GOVERNMENT be US-bashing? I'm not bashing the country, I'm not bashing the people, I'm bashing the government and it's policies. Please stop dismissing our arguments and try to counter them instead.

Oh, yeah, and "regional approval." If there was "regional approval," then why are regimes in the area apparently feeding weapons to the insurgents? Why, in fact, do all of the local regimes appear to not be helping the US at all? Look at Palestine, the Saudis are stepping in to try and help make peace, etc. why is no one stepping in from the outside to talk to the Shi'ite and Sunni sectarian militias in Iraq?

And if the "regional approval" gave justification, why did the Bush government feel it necessary to lie about their reasons? To lie about their justification? Why, in fact, did their justifaction change about once a week? WMD's, "for the sake of the Iraqi people" and too many other pieces of useless rhetoric for me to remember. Why did Bush refuse to engage in a live TV debate with Saddam if he knew his arguments were superior? Was he afraid of an assassination attempt? Everyone knew that Saddam's ass would be paste if he tried something like that, not to mention the poor bastard was too clever and self-interested to commit suicide like that.

Speaking of that, Saddam could not possibly have hoped to keep out the US in case of an invasion, they'd already gotten in once before and it wasn't as though his defenses had improved much. If he DID have WMD's that weren't just in some forgotten bunker somewhere, why didn't he just destroy them and remove the US justification for invading? There are all sorts of logical holes in this scenario. The WMD's weren't used, either, and you even point out how...

Any conventional weapon would suffice to deliver it.

It wasn't as though using WMD's against the US troops could have made them treat him worse once they caught him. He knew that the US was going to see him hanging, shot, zapped or injected with something very bad for his health.

[ 02-13-2007, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

[robertthebard]

See the edits to my previous post. You may feel the need to learn to speak Persian, I don't. I currently have a search page open on another tab, with at least 10 pages of information on Iran's "non-existent", or "not possible" nuclear weapons programs. Things that make me go "Hmm", but seem to make others stick their heads in the sand in denial that maybe, just maybe somebody else may be right. Believe what you will, but I'm looking at evidence to the contrary, from the people that were actually there inspecting, see the second edited link.

[PurpleXVI]

This is an older report, but says that by 2006, last year, Iran could have had nuclear weapons, based on known technologies they possessed at that time.

And yet now, in 2007, when threatened by imminent invasion, they're not saying: "Hay d00dz, we have nukes, so piss off before we give your soldiers two heads."

Why would they ever NOT do that? It would be the perfect deterrent. I think the answer is that they don't have nukes and aren't headed for them at breakneck speed.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: What radical imams are you talking about, man? The first quote is from a professor in Michigan and the other is from MEMRI, an institute located in Washington DC. Information on MEMRI that may interest you: quote: MEMRI was founded in 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser.

Sounds like a guy who'll just LOVE the Arabs, doesn't he?

And now here's just a bit of criticism...

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper wrote that "the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel," that MEMRI's "tweaks, cuts and mistranslations always seem to point in the same political direction". Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated in the Washington Times that "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee comments that "There is of course some horrific stuff in the Arab press, but one tends to forget that the American press can also be very nasty. MEMRI performs a useful function but unfortunately they have a pro-Israel, right-wing agenda."

...and just what is this guy's agenda? Is it Pro Arab, Anti Israel, Anti US, or simply trying to put the truth out there? No, wait, that last line explains it all. "pro-Israel, right-wing agenda". In all the political debates that I have either read, or been involved in, the only time that phrases like that start getting thrown around is when the thrower is on the other side. So, from that last little bit I would say he's either Pro-Arab, or Anti Israel, which do you suppose?

William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, describes MEMRI as a service which "does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. ...Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

So I take it there are a lot of things out there in the Arab press supporting Israel for them to quote, or discuss? If not, what is the point of what this guy is saying, and in what context did he say it? Perspective is everything, and if there are a lot of Pro-Israel things in the Iran paper, I'd like some links to that. Otherwise, this is equal to propoganda.

Ken Livingstone, former British MP and the current Mayor of London, has accused MEMRI of "outright distortion". In the foreword to a report he commissioned to explain his reasons for meeting with controversial Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he states his opinion that MEMRI "tend to portray Islam in a very negative light."

One of your own former ambassadors? And something tells me he'd know the area and situation better than most of us.

It might also be worth noting that he's still talking about eliminating the REGIME. Not the people. It's one thing to say that he hopes for another government, it's another thing to say he wants to bathe in the blood of Jewish babies.[/QUOTE]Wait, I thought he wasn't talking about eliminating anything, only that it would disappear, and he would be happy, to roughly paraphrase what you posted. There's a big difference. Eliminating would involve some kind of active participation, wouldn't it? It's pretty easy to talk me in circles while my migraines are kicked in, but even I can see through that smoke screen. I guess it's a matter of perspective here too. It's ok to talk about eliminating Israel, so long as it's not you. The problem is, where does he stop? So Israel's REGIME gets eliminated, is going to be any more favorable to some other non-Muslim government?

As for the WMD's, the fact is that the government report doesn't make sense. Why didn't the US government not use them to counter their bashers? Why was it classified for so long? Why didn't the Iraqis use the shells against the US invaders? It's hard to find any serious information on the lifetime of mustard gas, but I have found a few quotes stating that it decays "days or weeks" after release, which suggests that these could easily have been a bunch of ancient, damaged and useless shells only containing remnants of mustard gas. Would you please reply to my actual criticism, though, rather than dismissing my arguments as "outright dismissal"? Why must everything we say against the US GOVERNMENT be US-bashing? I'm not bashing the country, I'm not bashing the people, I'm bashing the government and it's policies. Please stop dismissing our arguments and try to counter them instead. Oh, yeah, and "regional approval." If there was "regional approval," then why are regimes in the area apparently feeding weapons to the insurgents? Why, in fact, do all of the local regimes appear to not be helping the US at all? Look at Palestine, the Saudis are stepping in to try and help make peace, etc. why is no one stepping in from the outside to talk to the Shi'ite and Sunni sectarian militias in Iraq? And if the "regional approval" gave justification, why did the Bush government feel it necessary to lie about their reasons? To lie about their justification? Why, in fact, did their justifaction change about once a week? WMD's, "for the sake of the Iraqi people" and too many other pieces of useless rhetoric for me to remember. Why did Bush refuse to engage in a live TV debate with Saddam if he knew his arguments were superior? Was he afraid of an assassination attempt? Everyone knew that Saddam's ass would be paste if he tried something like that, not to mention the poor bastard was too clever and self-interested to commit suicide like that. Speaking of that, Saddam could not possibly have hoped to keep out the US in case of an invasion, they'd already gotten in once before and it wasn't as though his defenses had improved much. If he DID have WMD's that weren't just in some forgotten bunker somewhere, why didn't he just destroy them and remove the US justification for invading? There are all sorts of logical holes in this scenario. The WMD's weren't used, either, and you even point out how... quote: Any conventional weapon would suffice to deliver it.

It wasn't as though using WMD's against the US troops could have made them treat him worse once they caught him. He knew that the US was going to see him hanging, shot, zapped or injected with something very bad for his health. [/QUOTE]As for the rest of my assertions, I stand by them. I don't know what makes a government do what they do. However, if you read the report put together by the Senate after the fact, it lays no blame on the Administration, just on the Intelligence community. Bush bashers, however, will tend to ignore that part, so they can continue on their path. It's important to remember that Congress, not just the White House, put us in Iraq. If the intelligence is a bit faulty, it's not their fault. The checks and balances are supposed to be in place. We could sit here and point fingers all day, and draw what ever conclusions we wish to, but that doesn't change the facts. I sincerely believe we could have found much bigger caches of weapons in Iraq, and it wouldn't have mattered. "ooo, the US is being a bully, picking on defenseless countries." It's the response we're getting now, that, and being told how Iran would simply kick our ass if we tried to invade them. Ok...
Edit to fix quote tags.

[ 02-13-2007, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: quote: This is an older report, but says that by 2006, last year, Iran could have had nuclear weapons, based on known technologies they possessed at that time.

And yet now, in 2007, when threatened by imminent invasion, they're not saying: "Hay d00dz, we have nukes, so piss off before we give your soldiers two heads."

Why would they ever NOT do that? It would be the perfect deterrent. I think the answer is that they don't have nukes and aren't headed for them at breakneck speed. [/QUOTE]I think the key word here is "threatened". Nobody is invading them, yet. Not sure that anybody will. It would be the height of stupidity to admit to violating the treaty, and the addendum they subsequently signed later. This would give the whole world reason to attack the nuclear facilities, now wouldn't it? You can spin his speeches, and the letter he sent to the US any way you wish to, just get ready to learn Persian, and convert to Islam, because once he "ELIMINATES" the Israeli REGIME, he's a lot closer to you than he is to me.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Man Who Fights Like Woman: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Iraq was invaded only after people died in the US, already forgot about that ?

Yes, those damned Iraqis who flew into the tower, damn them all.

Guys, if you're going to discuss the TREATY, then maybe you should READ IT. It allows signatories to develop peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Under that treaty, Iran is allowed to develop civilian uses for nuke tech. In order to deny them that right you must assume that they are not developing civilian nuke tech, but rather military. Now, normally I'm not happy with presuming guilt, but with Iran I'm pretty cool with it. [/QUOTE]Why would we want to make a false assumption? In 2006 Iran announced they had constructed a complex of 164 centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Now, centrifuges are pretty old-school as far as nuclear technology goes, but that's the most advanced method they have available. Considering that weapons-grade material requires at least an 80% enrichment to U-238, it would take that many centrifuges years to enrich it to that degree. Enrichment for civilian purposes, however, is only 2-3%, and would subsequently take much less time. If they were going for weapons, it would make sense that they would be going for quicker methods rather than what they have. As it is, their infrastructure will limit them to civilian usage.

Also, you're joking about the Iraqis flying into the tower, right? [/QUOTE]Sorry, but those numbers about the centrifuges are inaccurate. Consider this:

"Even under IAEA intrusive inspections, Iran has assembled more than 920 gas centrifuges, 120 of which were assembled in just two and a half months, between November 2003 and mid-January 2004.[33] To enrich enough HEU to make one nuclear bomb requires running 750 gas centrifuges for one year."

"In June 2006 Iran reported a new stage in its uranium enrichment program. On 08 June 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment. At the same time, Teheran was said to have been installing 164-machine cascades. A day later an Iranian official said Teheran has been advancing in plans to establish a 3,000-centrifuge cascade over the next nine months. The official said Iran has been producing enriched uranium through indigenous technology. "Iran has started another stage of injecting hexafluoride gas into centrifuge machines," the unidentified official was quoted by the official Iranian Student News Agency on 09 June 2006. "Iran is also pursuing a plan to have a 3,000-centrifuge cascade by the end of the current year [March 2007]."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...n/nuke2006.htm

Iran has also been actively persuing updated technologies such as Laser enrichment as far back as 2003.

And consider just this brief snippet:

The IAEA Report of 10 November 2003 found that Iran had:

Failed to report the production of UO2 targets at ENTC and their irradiation in TRR, the subsequent processing of those targets, including the separation of plutonium, the production and transfer of resulting waste, and the storage of unprocessed irradiated targets at TNRC.
Failed to provide design information for the laser laboratories at TNRC and Lashkar Ab'ad, and locations where resulting wastes were processed and stored, including the waste storage facility at Karaj.
Failed to provide design information for the facilities at ENTC and TNRC involved in the production of UO2, UO3, UF4, UF6 and AUC.
Failed to provide design information for TRR, with respect to the irradiation of uranium targets, and the hot cell facility where the plutonium separation took place, as well as the waste handling facility at TNRC.

Ask yourself these two questions: (1) If IRAN is ONLY producing HEU for "peaceful" purposes, WHY are they going to such extreme lengths to hide their facilities and lie to inspectors about what they are up to? and (2) Why are the facilities at Arak, Esfahan, Karaj, Lavizan, Parchin, Tabriz and Tehran ALSO doing guided missile research and in the case of the Esfahan, Karaj, and Parchin facilities there are doing chemical weapon research as well.

You guys can continue to ignore whatever facts you wish, and you probably will. But it looks to me, and to a lot of the other folks here, that IRAN is on a dangerous path and has every intention of building their own nuclear arsenal. Is that sufficient provocation for the US to attack them. Maybe, but i also believe that doing so would be extremely dangerous. Not purpleXVI because IRAN would kick our butts. Your knowledge of Iran's air force and defense capabilities is also extremely inaccurate.

As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.

At least 115 combat aircraft flew to Iran (from Iraq during the first gulf war), out of the total of 137-149 aircraft flown to Iran or crashed enroute [including 15 Il-76s and some number of civilian airliners]. According to an official Iraqi statement, the aircraft included 115 combat aircraft, among them 24 Mirage F1s, 4 Su-20 Fitters, 40 Su-22 Fitters, 24 Su-24 Fencers, seven Su-25 Frogfoots, nine MiG-23 Floggers, and four MiG-29 Fulcrums. If Iran had kept the Iraqi planes grounded for the entire time, they are probably nonfunctional -- the Iranians may not be able to start the engines or operate the hydraulics.

The *Truth* according to all published reports is that the Iranian Air Force is in shambles, and would represent a minimal threat to USN and USAF fighters.

It is true that the Iranians have spent considerable money on their Air Defense systems, however without fighter cover, the facilities and radars are sitting ducks. Ask Saddam how well his ADF worked. [img]smile.gif[/img] It didn't! It was wiped in the first three days.

You also believe that the US would actually have to invade. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once the US has Air Superiority, it would be simple enough to stage multiple sorties with bunker buster bombs to destroy the complexes. F-15E's with over 2000 miles of tactical range can easily stage from anywhere in the middle east and still reach targets anywhere in Iran. The US carrier groups would never even have to pass through the Straits of Hormuz to provide air cover and by stayong more than 50 to 60 off the coast would be unreachable by land based anti-shipped missiles.

Now, despite allof that. DO I really believe we should attack? Certainly not NOW while we are trying to stabilize Iraq because an attack on Iran at THIS point in time COULD be a major calamity. Read this:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by Man Who Fights Like Woman: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Iraq was invaded only after people died in the US, already forgot about that ?

Yes, those damned Iraqis who flew into the tower, damn them all.

Guys, if you're going to discuss the TREATY, then maybe you should READ IT. It allows signatories to develop peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Under that treaty, Iran is allowed to develop civilian uses for nuke tech. In order to deny them that right you must assume that they are not developing civilian nuke tech, but rather military. Now, normally I'm not happy with presuming guilt, but with Iran I'm pretty cool with it. [/QUOTE]Why would we want to make a false assumption? In 2006 Iran announced they had constructed a complex of 164 centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Now, centrifuges are pretty old-school as far as nuclear technology goes, but that's the most advanced method they have available. Considering that weapons-grade material requires at least an 80% enrichment to U-238, it would take that many centrifuges years to enrich it to that degree. Enrichment for civilian purposes, however, is only 2-3%, and would subsequently take much less time. If they were going for weapons, it would make sense that they would be going for quicker methods rather than what they have. As it is, their infrastructure will limit them to civilian usage.

Also, you're joking about the Iraqis flying into the tower, right? [/QUOTE]Sorry, but those numbers about the centrifuges are inaccurate. Consider this:

"Even under IAEA intrusive inspections, Iran has assembled more than 920 gas centrifuges, 120 of which were assembled in just two and a half months, between November 2003 and mid-January 2004.[33] To enrich enough HEU to make one nuclear bomb requires running 750 gas centrifuges for one year."

"In June 2006 Iran reported a new stage in its uranium enrichment program. On 08 June 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment. At the same time, Teheran was said to have been installing 164-machine cascades. A day later an Iranian official said Teheran has been advancing in plans to establish a 3,000-centrifuge cascade over the next nine months. The official said Iran has been producing enriched uranium through indigenous technology. "Iran has started another stage of injecting hexafluoride gas into centrifuge machines," the unidentified official was quoted by the official Iranian Student News Agency on 09 June 2006. "Iran is also pursuing a plan to have a 3,000-centrifuge cascade by the end of the current year [March 2007]."[/QUOTE]Admittedly, my numbers for that may have been misread. However, that doesn't make a lick of difference. More centrifuges != nuclear bombs. It simply means more fuel for reactors, of which there will be apparently 15 and two research sites. From what I understand, to keep those running will require a good deal of fuel.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...n/nuke2006.htm Iran has also been actively persuing updated technologies such as Laser enrichment as far back as 2003.

Probably because centrifuges take forever.

And consider just this brief snippet: The IAEA Report of 10 November 2003 found that Iran had: Failed to report the production of UO2 targets at ENTC and their irradiation in TRR, the subsequent processing of those targets, including the separation of plutonium, the production and transfer of resulting waste, and the storage of unprocessed irradiated targets at TNRC. Failed to provide design information for the laser laboratories at TNRC and Lashkar Ab'ad, and locations where resulting wastes were processed and stored, including the waste storage facility at Karaj. Failed to provide design information for the facilities at ENTC and TNRC involved in the production of UO2, UO3, UF4, UF6 and AUC. Failed to provide design information for TRR, with respect to the irradiation of uranium targets, and the hot cell facility where the plutonium separation took place, as well as the waste handling facility at TNRC.

You say that like it's damning evidence. If you had bothered to read the link Robert dropped in the thread earlier (also acting as if it was damning evidence), you would have noticed that the IAEA inspectors didn't find any violations of the treaty. Apparently they don't find those infractions to be too bad, or they probably would have made note of it and found them in violation.

Ask yourself these two questions: (1) If IRAN is ONLY producing HEU for "peaceful" purposes, WHY are they going to such extreme lengths to hide their facilities and lie to inspectors about what they are up to?

Probably because the last time they did this the Israelis bombed the sites before they could be brought online.

and (2) Why are the facilities at Arak, Esfahan, Karaj, Lavizan, Parchin, Tabriz and Tehran ALSO doing guided missile research and in the case of the Esfahan, Karaj, and Parchin facilities there are doing chemical weapon research as well.

I would guess they're large facilities and have multiple departments. It's kind of like asking "Why is NASA designing a rocket AND studying objects in space? Are they trying to find targets for their new weapon?"

You guys can continue to ignore whatever facts you wish, and you probably will.

I'm glad you have so much faith.

But it looks to me, and to a lot of the other folks here, that IRAN is on a dangerous path and has every intention of building their own nuclear arsenal.

It must not seem that way to the experts.

Is that sufficient provocation for the US to attack them. Maybe, but i also believe that doing so would be extremely dangerous. Not purpleXVI because IRAN would kick our butts. Your knowledge of Iran's air force and defense capabilities is also extremely inaccurate. As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.

And they have been sitting idle since 2000, especially with all this saber-rattling going on.

At least 115 combat aircraft flew to Iran (from Iraq during the first gulf war), out of the total of 137-149 aircraft flown to Iran or crashed enroute [including 15 Il-76s and some number of civilian airliners]. According to an official Iraqi statement, the aircraft included 115 combat aircraft, among them 24 Mirage F1s, 4 Su-20 Fitters, 40 Su-22 Fitters, 24 Su-24 Fencers, seven Su-25 Frogfoots, nine MiG-23 Floggers, and four MiG-29 Fulcrums. If Iran had kept the Iraqi planes grounded for the entire time, they are probably nonfunctional -- the Iranians may not be able to start the engines or operate the hydraulics. The *Truth* according to all published reports is that the Iranian Air Force is in shambles, and would represent a minimal threat to USN and USAF fighters.

Six to seven year old data isn't the best source for current events.

It is true that the Iranians have spent considerable money on their Air Defense systems, however without fighter cover, the facilities and radars are sitting ducks. Ask Saddam how well his ADF worked. [img]smile.gif[/img] It didn't! It was wiped in the first three days.

The Iranians have had access to much more advanced systems from the Russians, and have the benefit of not having been under sanctions for over a decade.

You also believe that the US would actually have to invade. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once the US has Air Superiority, it would be simple enough to stage multiple sorties with bunker buster bombs to destroy the complexes. F-15E's with over 2000 miles of tactical range can easily stage from anywhere in the middle east and still reach targets anywhere in Iran. The US carrier groups would never even have to pass through the Straits of Hormuz to provide air cover and by stayong more than 50 to 60 off the coast would be unreachable by land based anti-shipped missiles. Now, despite allof that. DO I really believe we should attack? Certainly not NOW while we are trying to stabilize Iraq because an attack on Iran at THIS point in time COULD be a major calamity. Read this: http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

Glad to see you think an attack would also be a calamity. It seems we do, in fact, agree to some degree.