IAEA: No Iranian nuclear arms plans

[Adam]

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said its inspectors have not found any evidence to support US accusations that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0A750173-0AD0-4BA5-8FE0-814E8E21081D.htm

But will it matter? The IAEA said the same about Iraq prior to the USA invasion, and the USA attacked anyway. Will Iran be next on the list? And if so, which nation is next after them? And where/when will it stop?

 

[humanino]

Do you think he will come to France one day :uhh: :yuck:

Seriously : what makes you think he would bother about Iran ? I mean : how could Iran have any use to him ?

 

[Adam]

Remember that ridiculous "axis of evil" comedy routine he vomited out? And the warnings to Iran after the Iraq invasion?

 

[russ_watters]

Amazing how different sources can interpret the same report in different ways: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-01-iran_x.htm

But a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), obtained Wednesday by USA TODAY, says that in an initial test this spring, Iran converted as much as 77 pounds of raw uranium "yellowcake" into uranium hexafluoride — a gas that can be further refined into fuel for an electricity-producing nuclear reactor or the key ingredient in a nuclear bomb...

The 35-member IAEA board, which meets in Vienna on Sept. 13, has called on Iran not to produce uranium hexafluoride. Under an agreement reached last October with France, Germany and Britain, Iran agreed to suspend its plans to take the next step of converting the gas into enriched uranium. But it has threatened to resume that enrichment process next month.

 

[Adam]

So what? Australia is a huge producer of uranium products. Does that mean we're building nukes?

 

[Gokul43201]

There's absolutely NO possibility of going to war against Iran - at least as far as the US is concerned. It's ridiculous to make caual predictions about future wars...with little knowledge of what it really takes, and more importantly, if it's really necessary.

 

[Adam]

Yeah, we ex-military types don't know a thing about military stuff...

Bush went to war with no idea of what it really takes. That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield.

As for necessity... Irrelevent. The last one wasn't necessary, and Bush did it anyway.

I'm not the one predicting war between Iran and USA. Bush is. He's already said many things about Iran that he said about Iraq prior to that invasion.

 

[tumor]

There's absolutely NO possibility of going to war against Iran - at least as far as the US is concerned. It's ridiculous to make caual predictions about future wars...with little knowledge of what it really takes, and more importantly, if it's really necessary.

I dissagree, look at latest news and comments by our media and administration, you would the same pattern as the one before gulf war2.
Iran by the way is not a threat to USA absolutelly in any way.Israel fears that Iran with nukes would have much more to say on internnational stage and will be respected more than right now.N.Korea has nukes and USA is powerless.So war with Iran one way or another is coming but only in the interest of Israel.

 

[Adam]

A tad more: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996350

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's my reasons for the US not being able to go to war with Iran (this sounds so ridiculous that it's funny I have to justify it)

1. There's not enough troops to spare. The US military is greatly overextended. They're calling up 60 year-old (retired) reservists to go to Iraq.

2. There's no money left. You know about the current state of the National Deficit, and the word of caution (warning ?) from the World Bank.

3. The Congress would never approve this unless there's UN approval, and a mojority of the military strength provided by others. Politically, this is not viable, even if it is the right thing to do.

4. Iran is no Iraq. Iraq had no Air Force or Navy, and piddles worth of missile and artillery capability. Iran has a regular army, with over a 1000 medium-battle tanks, and over 300 attack helicopters. They have scuds, SAMs (US made Haws), anti-tank missiles (Israeli TOWs) . I'm not sure about their air and naval capabilities but I know that it's not anything to take lightly.

None of the above arguments were true before Iraq.

The only advantages in the case of Iran are the ability to base out of Afghanistan and (to some limited extent ) out of Iraq.

My complaint is that the war with Iraq has negated the possibility of threatening/projecting the use of force against Iran, were that to become necessary - at least not in the near future. And Iran knows this only too well.

 

[Adam]

1. There's not enough troops to spare. The US military is greatly overextended. They're calling up 60 year-old (retired) reservists to go to Iraq.

The US military consists of around 1.3 million people. The reasons for sending reservists to Iraq have nothing to do with limited manpower.

2. There's no money left. You know about the current state of the National Deficit, and the word of caution (warning ?) from the World Bank.

The USA has been the world's greatest debtor ever for quite some time. Lack of funds is not an issue. I have no doubt that if there was further profit in it, the current administration would send more troops to more places to secrure investments for certain companies, and leave the next administration with the bill.

3. The Congress would never approve this unless there's UN approval, and a mojority of the military strength provided by others. Politically, this is not viable, even if it is the right thing to do.

The USA doesn't wait for UN approval, does not abide by international law. They'd go in again, just as with Iraq.

4. Iran is no Iraq. Iraq had no Air Force or Navy, and piddles worth of missile and artillery capability. Iran has a regular army, with over a 1000 medium-battle tanks, and over 300 attack helicopters. They have scuds, SAMs (US made Haws), anti-tank missiles (Israeli TOWs) . I'm not sure about their air and naval capabilities but I know that it's not anything to take lightly.

I agree, Iran's military is in a much healthier condition than Iraq's was. Their tanks aren't so great though, particularly in a battlefield of mostly open terrain, when the USA will have air superiority.

 

[GENIERE]

Amusing thread.

 

[LURCH]

AFAIK, Iran has made no promise to destroy the United States. We generally do not defend ourselves against non-agressors.

 

[Dissident Dan]

And you believe that Iraq had plans to destroy the United States?

 

[studentx]

Invading Iran... I do hope when it becomes necessary that it will be done, but quite frankly, only a complete moron blinded by his hatred would be able to convince himself that America is about to invade Iran.

 

[Hurkyl]

Bush went to war with no idea of what it really takes. That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield.

Would you care to provide a reference for the latter sentence, and the bearing of the latter on the former?

 

[tumor]

And you believe that Iraq had plans to destroy the United States?

Hey Dissident Dan, how is the weather down there? hope you are OK.

 

[pelastration]

1. Syria is called in NPAC's strategy (Feith, Wurmser, etc) the next target. Not Iran. Yes, that Douglas Feith for which presumed Israeli spy Lawrence Franklin works. Also Feith and Wurmser get in the past without authorization national secrets from Pentagon computers when they made up the Iraq case (with Ahmed Chalabi). Feith and Wurmser are interested in first place to rebuild the Biblic Israel (Actual Israel + Iraq, Syria and Libanon), supported by the US New Born Christians.

2. If US (or Israel) attacks Iran the whole of Iraq goes crazy. Al-Sistani (Iranian) just has to move his finger.

 

[Adam]

Would you care to provide a reference for the latter sentence, and the bearing of the latter on the former?

During the invasion, the US reporters interviewed US troops here and there. Soldiers were not receiving food rations. They were all pushing forward too fast, as ordered, leaving their supply train behind. Tanks were out of fuel, troops were out of food. One soldier I saw interviewed said he hadn't eaten in three days. I suggest checking through the old threads here, or perhaps ask for someone you know who recorded the early days of the invasion coverage from NBC news if you want to see the interviews.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842512
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/batteries-lessons-iraq.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/111425p-100658c.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099408/
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2953
http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/01/week_2/16_kit.html <- Brits.

 

[studentx]

Bush went to war with no idea of what it really takes. That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield.

Sometimes, there are things more important than food. The element of surprise for example, far outweighs the temporary hunger of troops which will be fed by their private Mc Donalds the next day.
I thought you were ex military Adam? Did you give up in hellweek because you didnt have enough time to empty your plate?

 

[Adam]

We don't have anything called "hell week".

And platitudes from comic books about what makes a real army are just silly. Everyone needs food.

 

[studentx]

We don't have anything called "hell week".

And platitudes from comic books about what makes a real army are just silly.

Umm, you're the one saying that 3 meals a day make a real army... anything else and "they have no idea what it takes" to fight a war.

 

[Hurkyl]

During the invasion, the US reporters interviewed US troops here and there. Soldiers were not receiving food rations. They were all pushing forward too fast, as ordered, leaving their supply train behind. Tanks were out of fuel, troops were out of food. One soldier I saw interviewed said he hadn't eaten in three days. I suggest checking through the old threads here, or perhaps ask for someone you know who recorded the early days of the invasion coverage from NBC news if you want to see the interviews.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1842512
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/batteries-lessons-iraq.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/111425p-100658c.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099408/
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2953
http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/01/week_2/16_kit.html <- Brits.

Adam, I asked for references for the statement "That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield." Only one of these links seems to say anything about lack of food, and even then just barely. (At least this is better than the last time I asked for references)

Is it so hard to respond to the question asked? Or at least identify what parts of your post are responding to the question and what parts are supplementary material you think I should read?


(Oh, and P.S., I do notice you didn't respond to my second question)

 

[GENIERE]

Hurkyl – If all you can offer is logic, sanity, and intelligence… you don’t belong in this thread!

 

[Hurkyl]

I was hoping to learn something. All I got was annoyed.

 

[Adam]

Umm, you're the one saying that 3 meals a day make a real army... anything else and "they have no idea what it takes" to fight a war.

No, I'm the one saying they were ordered to push forward without sufficient supplies.

 

[Adam]

Hurkyl: The first link was about the lack of food (that's why it was first), and the rest show lack of supplies in other areas. As I said, I saw the interviews with US troops on the US news. That is why I suggested you find recordings of the invasion phase, if you are truly interested to see such. I don't have such recordings, and even if I did, I could not post them on here. Pretty obvious, really.

Since Bush was the man in charge, giving the orders, then the fact that his forces had to push forward without supplies was his fault. That is the bearing of the latter on the former.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Bush was not the man in charge no more than FDR was in charge of the Normandy invasion. We have these officers in the Army called Generals...

As for the food rationing, your statement is the typical hyberbole. The idea of troops "starving" is ludicrous. Rations were cut TEMPORARILY until supplies could be brought up from the rear. Logistical problems are a way of life for armies that advance rapidly. Ask Rommel.

They were all pushing forward too fast, as ordered, leaving their supply train behind.

Ask the troops whether they preferred moving slower so that they could eat a balanced meal, or push faster to catch the enemy offguard. I know what I would say if I was a soldier.

 

[Adam]

We have these officers in the Army called Generals...

... Who act on orders from Bush.

As for the food rationing, your statement is the typical hyberbole. The idea of troops "starving" is ludicrous.

What else do you call going without any food for three days? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=starving

Rations were cut TEMPORARILY until supplies could be brought up from the rear.

And the tanks were temporarily out of fuel, too. This was not a planned episode of bringing gera up later. This was the army being ordered forward without supplies, resulting in soldiers not having any food, and tanks not having any fuel.

Logistical problems are a way of life for armies that advance rapidly. Ask Rommel.

I think Marge Simpson said it best: "Well, duh."

Ask the troops whether they preferred moving slower so that they could eat a balanced meal, or push faster to catch the enemy offguard. I know what I would say if I was a soldier.

And it's clear you're not one. As a former soldier, I can tell you that when the enemy has been expecting your attack for months, but has no viable way of stopping you, moving forward at 20mph or 40mph won't make any difference; going tomorrow instead of today won't make any difference. I'd rather do it properly, on a full belly, and with fuel. Better than running out half way there, leaving us vulnerable to enemy attack.

 

[studentx]

No, I'm the one saying they were ordered to push forward without sufficient supplies.

Can you tell me where you said this?

 

[Adam]

Sure. The posts of:
09-03-2004, 03:00 AM
09-05-2004, 09:20 PM

 

[studentx]

As a former soldier, I can tell you that when the enemy has been expecting your attack for months, but has no viable way of stopping you, moving forward at 20mph or 40mph won't make any difference; going tomorrow instead of today won't make any difference. I'd rather do it properly, on a full belly, and with fuel. Better than running out half way there, leaving us vulnerable to enemy attack.

You just described why the element of surprise is so powerful. You believe the iraqis couldn't be surprised anymore? Thats exactly what hostage takers think before they get stormed by swat teams. They know theyre there, waiting to burst in, still theyre surprised.
The ppl with a memory uncluttered by conspiracy theories and hatred will remember the complete surprise of the world when they saw american tanks driving down central Bagdad. They knew it would happen, just not that fast. You can pretend there was no surprise Adam, but i advise you to keep this to yourself.

 

[studentx]

Sure. The posts of:
09-03-2004, 03:00 AM
09-05-2004, 09:20 PM

You made no such statement in these posts.

 

[russ_watters]

As a former soldier...

You mean a former sailor, right?

 

[Adam]

You just described why the element of surprise is so powerful.

There was no surprise from the huge mechanised push from the south, which all of Iraq knew was there and moving from the first day.