Iran is nukeless, program ended 2003

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I'm surprised this isn't up on the pages yet.

For an administration who were wrong on nuclear WMD in Iraq, now comes a blow that Iran's program ended in 2003, according to an intelligence report released in Washington. This only adds support to the IAEA stance that evidence is lacking for a Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Forgetting of course the official stance of Israel, one of nuclear ambiguity. Even with the 1986 photos released by Mordechai Vanunu, and his subsequent interception by Mossad, showing the Israeli facility which produces the bombs, and more recently former PM Ehud Olmert let slip that Isreal like the US, France and the UK has nuclear weapons. Yet still US sends aid to Israel, who have "unauthorized WMD's".

The hypocrisies of atomic foreign relations, nothing new really.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It's also a direct public rebuff of the American Intelligence community. Wasn't there some question about intelligence being ignored prior to the death of the buildings 9/11. By the way a new commemerative set of miniature gold plated buildings is now being offered to suckers on installment. beat me blind if that ain't wierd
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I'm not a big fan of MSNBC but, boy-oh-boy, they are crucifying Bush and his fellow reich wingers tonight because his lies have been completely debunked.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
This report could be based on misinformation or real intelligence. It appears to be based on conversations.

Past estimates about Iraq's WMD programs turned out to be completely wrong and this report about Iran could also be wrong.

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Nor is it proof of existance either. Iran could still have a nuclear weapon program or they might not.

However this report shows the US has no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapon program and therefore no grounds for imposing sanctions against Iran.

But I doubt the US going to apologize to Iran or vote to lift economic sanctions.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Bush will claim he must assume the intelligence is wrong and unreliable, based on reliance of for Iraq. Therefore the nuke program must be on and the march to war must go on.
 

iARTthere4iam

Electoral Member
Jul 23, 2006
533
3
18
Pointy Rocks
Bush will claim he must assume the intelligence is wrong and unreliable, based on reliance of for Iraq. Therefore the nuke program must be on and the march to war must go on.


No No No. Why do you still insist there is a march to war. The posturing is understandable but there has never been real danger that the US will escalate the rhetoric to the point of war. Politics will not be ignored. There would need to be real support for that from the citizens or the US for that. There isn't. Even before this newest revelation.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
No No No. Why do you still insist there is a march to war. The posturing is understandable but there has never been real danger that the US will escalate the rhetoric to the point of war. Politics will not be ignored. There would need to be real support for that from the citizens or the US for that. There isn't. Even before this newest revelation.

Anything is possible with Bush. Lets not for a moment think he wouldn't be in Iran in a heartbeat if he could muster the political support. However it would be harder to pull it off this time. As Bush once said, "fool me once, shame on me..fool me..er..er..you can't fool me again."
 

iARTthere4iam

Electoral Member
Jul 23, 2006
533
3
18
Pointy Rocks
Anything is possible with Bush. Lets not for a moment think he wouldn't be in Iran in a heartbeat if he could muster the political support. However it would be harder to pull it off this time. As Bush once said, "fool me once, shame on me..fool me..er..er..you can't fool me again."

I don't know what Bush would do if political realities did not exist. Afghanistan and Iraq are more than enough for one president.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
``I doubt the US going to apologize to Iran or vote to lift economic sanctions.``


Actually, it is Bush, not the people of the USA, who owes Iran an apology. But he won't do it because of his hate filled and sinister pride.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Iran does have a Nuclear Program and Saddam Did have weapons of mass destruction. You wasn't proof that Saddam had weapons ask the kurds. As for weather Iran is developing nuclear weapons I can't say for certain but they certianly don't cooperate with inspectors and they did say they wanted to drive Isreal into the sea.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
``I doubt the US going to apologize to Iran or vote to lift economic sanctions.``


Actually, it is Bush, not the people of the USA, who owes Iran an apology. But he won't do it because of his hate filled and sinister pride.

The people of the usa put bushy in power....twice......they are as complicit as he is.
 

warrior_won

Time Out
Nov 21, 2007
415
2
18
Bush will claim he must assume the intelligence is wrong and unreliable, based on reliance of for Iraq. Therefore the nuke program must be on and the march to war must go on.

The problem with that, is that you can't march to war on a hunch. Bush would have to have some form of intelligence showing Iran to be a threat. Without it, even erroneous and falsified intelligence, you cannot expect to have anyone support your agenda. Besides, who said Bush was going to invade Iran anyway?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
``I've never heard of a country apologizing to another. Does it even happen anywhere? Besides, countries are supposed to be big boys that can take a little chiding. Don't ya think?``


Bush claims to be a Christian whose actions are divinely inspired. The Bible requires good conduct by everyone under all circumstances. Therefore, if he is the good Christian he claims to be, he should apologize to Iran and wash Ahmadinejad's feet.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Iran does have a Nuclear Program and Saddam Did have weapons of mass destruction. You wasn't proof that Saddam had weapons ask the kurds. As for weather Iran is developing nuclear weapons I can't say for certain but they certianly don't cooperate with inspectors and they did say they wanted to drive Isreal into the sea.

All nations which signed the NPT including Iran have a right to peaceful nuclear technology. The NPT should only be used to justify sanctions against nations which violate the NPT or nations that have not signed the NPT and possess nukes (Israel, Pakistan and India). But in the case of Iran, the NPT has been used to punish Iran for activities which are within Iran's legal rights according to the NPT.

Iran's nuclear program appears peaceful. Iran lets the IAEA inspect their facilities and interview their scientists in compliance with voluntary NPT protocols. The IAEA has never found any evidence that Iran ever violated the NPT. Iran did keep their nuclear research secret until recently, in violation of the voluntary protocols. Peaceful nuclear research and research on nuclear weapons have common elements. The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has ever actively researched or attempted to create nuclear weapons. Iran claims to have refined fissionable material to the point where it could be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has refined this material to the point where it could be used in a nuclear bomb or attempted to do so.

Disclosure to the IAEA and allowing the IAEA to inspect nuclear facilities and conduct interviews is voluntary, as in not required by the NPT. Anti-Iranian propaganda (our news) has tried to twist Iran's past secrecy into a perception that Iran violated the NPT. For several years now, Iran appears to complies with all NPT protocols including voluntary ones.

An example of an NPT treaty requirement is for nuclear bomb producing nations to stop making nukes, halt research on new types of nukes and a reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. Hypocritically, many of the nations condemning Iran for not complying voluntary NPT protocols from the start and accusing Iran of secretly violating the NPT are the biggest violators of the NPT.

I am bolding certain words, because if you understand the concept of voluntary and the contents of the NPT, its obvious Iran has been the focus of a demonization campaign.

If Iran has plans which would allow it to build a nuclear weapon, the US might be to blame:
January 5 2006
George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?

In an extract from his explosive new book, New York Times reporter James Risen reveals the bungles and miscalculations that led to a spectacular intelligence fiasco

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/05/energy.g2

If true, then the US violated the NPT by transferring information about nuclear weapon designs to Iran.

Ahmadinejad never said "drive Isreal into the sea". You are mixing up your pro-Israeli/anti-Islam propaganda. What Ahmadinejad said was: " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود ". That can be translated several ways:

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

or it can loosely translated as:

Israel must be wiped off the map.

Coincidentally Ahmadinejad used a similar phrase (different verb tense) in another speech in reference to the USSR having been "wiped off the map" or "vanishing from the page of time." No one interpreted that same phrase in that speech as a threat to Russia or a call for genocide.

reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...#.22Wiped_off_the_page_of_time.22_translation

The above misquote out of context is yet another example of misinformation regarding Iran. When Iran's leader makes inflammatory remarks about Israel (or remarks which could be interpretted as inflammatory), its seized upon by those who wish to demonize Iran, rather than understand Iran.

The trouble with our news is that it often tells us what powerful people want us to think, rather than presenting information objectively and allowing us to think for ourselves.

Why not take the time to read what Ahmadinejad says in his own words and make up your mind for yourself???

Here is a link to a transcript of his speech at Columbia University on September 24, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6889

Here is his response to a direct question about Israel:
...The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security. You must understand that in our constitution, in our laws, in the parliamentary elections, for every 150,000 people we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, one-fifth of this number they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal.

What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.

We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would be -- would like to hear a clearer answer to that question, that is -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).

The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (Cheers, applause.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you where I -- what my position is. (Applause.)

I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no. (Laughter, applause.)

There's a plight of a people.

MR. COATSWORTH: The answer to your question is yes. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation.

It is -- we recognize there is a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution, and our solution is a free referendum. Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are. Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen, it will happen and will be realized. (Applause.)...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6889

I've come to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad is in favor of ending the Zionist state of Israel in the same way people wanted to end South Africa's Apartheid. I see no call for genocide here. If Iran was genocidally anti-Jewish as portrayed by Zionist propaganda, there wouldn't be any Jews in Iran. What Ahmadinejad wants is an end to Zionism, not genocide.

If you want to understand more about Zionism and its effect on Palestinians, I suggest reading "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe"

Here is a review if you have no intention of buying the book:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

by Stephen Lendman

A Review of Ilan Pappe

Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian and senior lecturer at Haifa University. He's also Academic Director of the Research Institute for Peace at Givat Haviva and Chair of the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian Studies. Pappe is an expert on Israel and Zionism and the Palestinians' Right of Return to their homeland, is considered "an honourable academic with integrity and conscience," and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation (CPRR), an organization declaring that "every Palestinian has a legitimate, individual right to return to his or her original home and to absolute restitution of his or her property."

Pappe is also one of Israel's "new historians" whose scholarship and writings are based on access to material now available from British Mandate period and Israeli archives that provide the most accurate and authentic documented history of Israel before and after it became a state and which now serve to debunk the myths about the years leading up to the Jewish State's founding and those following it to this day.

Pappe has also authored, contributed to or edited nine books. His latest is the one this review covers in detail so readers will know about its powerful and shocking content, unknown to most in the West and in Israel, that hopefully will arouse them enough to get the book and learn in full detail what Pappe documented. He proves from official records how the Israeli state came into being with blood on its hands from lands forcibly seized from its Palestinian inhabitants who'd lived on it for hundreds of years previously. Since the 1940s, they were ethnically cleansed and slaughtered without mercy so their homeland would become one for Jews alone....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20070207&articleId=4715

Zionism is a movement to ethnically cleanse Palestine of non-Jewish Palestinians and populate the area with Jewish immigrants. Ahmadinejad is clearly against Zionism and ethnic cleansing. Therefore Ahmadinejad is threat to the Zionist state of Israel, not Jews. Unlike American and Israeli leaders, I see no evidence that Ahmadinejad prefers war over peace.
 
Last edited:

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Iran does have a Nuclear Program and Saddam Did have weapons of mass destruction. You wasn't proof that Saddam had weapons ask the kurds. As for whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons I can't say for certain but they certianly don't cooperate with inspectors and they did say they wanted to drive Isreal into the sea.

Canada has a nuclear program and Canada did have chemical and biological weapons. Which goes to show how irrelevant the existence of a nuclear program and the previous existence of a chemical or biological weapons program can be.

One can read the UN reports on Iraq for extensive documentation on their weapon's programs and the deweaponization, the status of their usage against the Kurds is harder to ascertain.

The inspectors in Iran have very few complaints about the level of cooperation they receive, as can be read over at the IAEA public website. The burden of proof should be on the accusers since nuclear technology is not prima facie evidence of a nuclear weapons program; that the security council mixed that up is more evidence of their illegitimacy and inaccountability. Their demand of uranium suspension is baseless and not in any way rationally connected to a desire for nonproliferation. Unless prejudice has suddenly become rational.

This new report is most likely a face saving public relations campaign. As the IAEA has documented at least since their report dated August 31st 2007, there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The question the IAEA is asking is, "Was there a nuclear weapons program in Iran, or were nuclear weapons the ambition for beginning the nuclear program?" This new intelligence report acts as if the United States knew all along that Iran currently has no weapons program, minimizing the impact of the IAEA reports by stating they have shown nothing new. Simultaneously, the report asserts that there was a weapons program and so they can conflate a possible past mens rea with a current mens rea.

Of course as I have stated, a past guilt never proves a current guilt. One wonders what difference initial motives make, so long as the nuclear program proceeds in a way that is ensured to be peaceful.