UN gives Tehran 30 days to end uranium enrichment [Archive]

View Full Version : UN gives Tehran 30 days to end uranium enrichment

STEED

03-30-06, 10:27 AM

The U.N. Security Council has taken the first step in confronting Iran about its controversial nuclear program.

The Council gave Tehran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment activity.

A statement approved by the full Council Wednesday is far milder than its sponsors had hoped.

During negotiations, language was dropped that would have characterized Iran's nuclear program as a threat to international peace and security, thereby establishing the Council's jurisdiction over the matter. Russia and China, which favor a more lenient approach to Iran, argued Tehran's nuclear activity should be dealt with by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, not the Security Council.

In the end, sponsors Britain, France and Germany, along with the United States, relented in order to get a statement adopted before their top diplomats meet in Berlin Thursday. That gathering will focus on longer term strategies for preventing Iran from pushing ahead with its nuclear enrichment program.

While some of the strongest language was deleted, the statement calls on International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei to report to the Council on Iran's compliance with its obligations within 30 days.

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said he is confident the statement sends a strong message to Tehran.

"Iran has 30 days, and we hope Iran will comply," said Jean-Marc de La Sabliere. "If Iran complies, it will pave the way for a negotiated solution that guarantees the nuclear program of Iran is for solely for peaceful uses. If Iran doesn't comply, then the Security Council will receive a report from ElBaradei, will have to take its responsibilities."

Washington's U.N. Ambassador John Bolton emerged from the final negotiating session saying the Council was sending an unmistakable message to Iran that, in his words, "its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what they are doing are not going to be sufficient".

"This is simply a statement that says to Iran, you have consistently disobeyed resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, violated your safeguards agreements, you've violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, you must now come into compliance, and if in 30 days that hasn't happened, and we expect a report from the IAEA director general, in 30 days the Security Council will be competent and ready to act," said John Bolton.

The statement adopted Wednesday is the product of three weeks of intense negotiations among the Security Council's five permanent members.

Moscow's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said Russia had demanded removal of stronger language until the IAEA provides stronger proof of Iran's nuclear intentions.

"When you talk of threat to international peace and security, you must have strong, clear and legally- approved evidence, we don't have such evidence," said Andrey Denisov. "That is a purpose why we use International Atomic Energy Agency as a watchdog, specially designed to provide such clarification, such verification, such approval. "

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif ridiculed the Council statement. Speaking to reporters, he reiterated Tehran's position that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes.

"Iran's commitment to the non-proliferation regime is categorical," said Javad Zarif. "We always made it clear that Iran is committed to its obligations because they are based in our historical and religious edicts. We have made it clear that at the highest level, Iran does not want nuclear weapons, nor does it want to pursue development, stockpiling or acquisition of these inhuman weapons."

The Iranian envoy vowed that his country would not bow to international pressure to curb its nuclear activities.

"Pressure and threats do not work on Iran," he said. "Iran is allergic to pressure and threats and intimidation."

A statement issued by Iran's foreign ministry Tuesday had warned that Security Council intervention would escalate tensions and have negative consequences.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Wednesday called the Security Council's action "an important diplomatic step" that shows Tehran to be "more isolated than ever". She said she was looking forward to Thursday's Berlin meeting to explore further action on Iran.

LINK - http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=5eba37f044ccf262

Well we all know the answer to that one, Iran will tell the U.N. to get stuffed the 30 will run it's course then what. More big talk from the U.N. or further sanctions, I have a strange feeling this will go on for years before something will happen, what that may be is anyone’s guess.

The Avon Lady

03-30-06, 12:09 PM

Ping.

Pong (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010818.php).

STEED

03-30-06, 12:23 PM

Ping.

Pong (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010818.php).

:up:

Kapitan

03-30-06, 12:37 PM

30 days will turn into 3 months will turn into 3 years will turn into 13 year will turn into 3 decades, and some where in that line they will already have an A bomb.

STEED

03-30-06, 01:22 PM

I can see that one coming Kapitain, the U.N. should stand for united nitwits. ;) :yep:

Oberon

03-30-06, 02:10 PM

"It's just a lil' bit of Kim (http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2004/paramount/teamamerica/images/kimjongposter-s.jpg) repeating..."

Kapitan

03-30-06, 03:30 PM

We all know the U.N has no ruddy back bone without america, and "No one but russia and china dare defy america"

All in all to sum up all we can do is send a strongly worded letter to the iranian ambassador.

STEED

03-30-06, 04:45 PM

All in all to sum up all we can do is send a strongly worded letter to the iranian ambassador.

Dear Mr Iranian ambassador, please tow the line for the sake of peace and harmony in the world.

Yours Truly
The U.N.

ANSWER

Get stuffed and mind your own business

Iranian ambassador :P

Kapitan

03-30-06, 04:52 PM

Very select words STEED but the iranian embassy is in london so it be more like this:

All rite bruv ha ya doing cousin,

Yea me and me m8s wanna show u that we want yas to stop ur effing about with this s**t and fink of peace man.

Reply:

*Insert random squidley un readable lines here*

STEED

03-30-06, 04:54 PM

I think all of us could have a spot of fun with this one. ;)

Sheppard

03-30-06, 10:25 PM

Actually, it's quite possible they DO nuclear weapons.

See, they've had a "Research" reactor, a 5 MW jobbie online since 1968 in Tehran.

It's capable of producing 600 grams of plutonium a year according to a 1977 DIA report.

It takes about 10 kg of nearly pure Pu-239 to make a device; with a rate of 0.6 kg a year from that research reactor; if they started stockpiling the plutonium in 1980 (hey, we got to give them a year to complete their takeover and find out what the Shah had); they'd have enough plutonium to have a single nuclear device by late-1996.

Now, you might ask, the Iranians haven't tested their device, so how do they know it works?

The answer is, they already know it works.

See, in 2002; the British MoD declassified the COMPLETE plans and specifications for the Blue Danube fission device. Which means that all the Iranians have to do is copy Blue Danube exactly to get a device that works.

So it is very likely the Iranians have had between 1 and 3 devices since 2003-04.

Why 03-04, and not since 02?

See, I'm giving the Iranians the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they had their physicists and engineers look over the Blue Danube plans obtained through FOIA requests to see if they're the real deal, and not "ringers". It takes time for that to be done.

The Assumptions for the 1 to 3 devices are below:

1 Device = If the Iranians have gone with the straight 100% Plutonium Blue Danube design.

2 Devices = If the Iranians have gone with the mixed Plutonium/Uranium-235 Blue Danube design also released by the MoD.

3 Devices = If the Iranians have enriched the 1 metric ton of UF6 they obtained from China in 1991. They admitted that they experimentally enriched 1.9 kg of it to a yield of 1.2% U-235.

There is a remote possibility that the Iranians may have more than just three devices based upon the following things:

1.) The Shah could have been secretly stockpiling fissile material.
2.) They could have been running the reactors beyond their safety limits to procduce 280% of their plutonium output.

Among other evidence backing up the "Iran has the Bomb" theory is the fact that in September 2003, the IAEA discovered that Iran had produced Polonium-210 for experiments in 1989 and 1993. The best known use for Po-210 is as a neutron initator in nuclear devices.

Another problem is that the Iranians are 5 years away from finishing a 40 MW heavy water moderated "Research" reactor that can produce 8-10 kg of plutonium a year; giving them about one device a year when that reactor goes online in five years.

And this is just counting the "white" "research" programs, not the "black" programs which they've been constructing at a fast pace.

What is really at the crux of the entire Iranian IAEA Saga is not whether Iran will get the Bomb or not. They already have it; albeit in a small stockpile of crude devices which take several days to assemble before they can be used.

What is truly at the centrepiece of the saga is over Iran's intention to move from a small "underground" deterrent to an industrial complex capable of producing atom bombs on a large scale.

Which brings to mind an even more terrifying problem if our theory above is largely correct:

Normally, when a Rabid Dictator's underlings split the atom; said Rabid Dictator gets a Rabies vaccination very fast, and becomes very, wery quiet.

Obviously, this has not happened with the Mad Mullahs (TM); which brings to mind the unpleasant conclusion that in order to prevent a systematic Middle-east nuclear exchange between the Nuclear forces of Iran and Israel, (which would devastate the entire region - Israel would no doubt pop the Aswan Dam, killing millions alone); we or the Israelis will be forced to destroy Iran before it can acquire a significant number of devices in order to prevent the worst from happening.

Oberon

03-31-06, 12:23 AM

"Dear Mr Iranian geezer.

Wot the hell dya fink ya doin'? We all knows ya goin' to sell sum nukes off the back of a lorry to Osama and it's not gonna happen? Right?
Coz me and my bruvver are gonna come over and we gonna sort it aht!

Signed

Da Mitchell bruvvers."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40803000/jpg/_40803519_grantphil_300.jpg

The Avon Lady

03-31-06, 03:26 AM

The UN leaps into action again (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19856_ElBaradei_to_Iran-_Arm_Me_with_Information)! :zzz:

For those of you seriously thinking of wasting time sending letters to anyone, head on over to Eye On The UN (http://www.eyeontheun.org/) (bookmark! :yep: ) and look at the UN-IRAN WATCH box in the lower right of the page.

Almost 3 years have passed since the UN began dealing with this issue. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams when IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei won the Noble Peace Prize for................................ sending letters.

STEED

03-31-06, 04:53 AM

STEED

03-31-06, 05:00 AM

AL, the eye on the U.N. :rotfl: the U.N. is just a joke a bad one at that. :-j ;)

The Avon Lady

03-31-06, 05:10 AM

AL, the eye on the U.N. :rotfl: the U.N. is just a joke a bad one at that. :-j ;)
Not bad - dangerous.

STEED

03-31-06, 05:15 AM

AL, the eye on the U.N. :rotfl: the U.N. is just a joke a bad one at that. :-j ;)
Not bad - dangerous.

I agree with that when the day comes and it will. ;)

Abraham

04-02-06, 04:17 AM

Well, almost all of you are criticising the UN in the Iran matter, but what is the alternative for countries worried by Iran's possible future weapons of mass destruction?

Bush Sr. wenty to great lengths (and took much time) to compose a broad coalition - including countries like Syria and Egypth - to fight Iraq in Gulf War I.

Bush Jr. skipped the diplomatic bla bla and declared "You are either with us or against us in this battle against terrorism"; heaped any combination of valid and non-valid, proven and non-proven arguments together; got most of Europe annoyed in this way and was finally forced by Tony Blair to go to the UN, before he fought Iraq in Gulf War II.

Now we have a much clearer situation as far as the threat is concerned. Few doubt that Iran already decided years ago to go nuclear and take the anger of the world for granted.
The IAEA has done some good monitoring work and forced Iran to openly declare that they'll contitue to enrich uranium, and the Iranian regime has isolated itself with some irresponsable remarks over Israel, the United States, the West in general and now negates a call from the UN.
Moreover, this regime is undemocratic, unstable and the majority of Iranians long for freedom and have a positive view about America and the West in general.

So my question is again, what to do?
Should America attack (alone, or with Israel) and go for it?
Or should the diplomatic path been followed till the point of no return and then take action against essential nuclear installations in Iran only? (my choise)

The Avon Lady

04-02-06, 05:17 AM

Skybird

04-02-06, 05:28 AM

Dear Iran,

we have made clear our intention not to accept you having nukes. If you like that opinion or not is of no concern for us. What needed to be said has been said, and repeatedly so. There is no reason for endless debate and endless repetition, and we do not want a foul compromise when it comes to security issues that are essential for our nations. So you are free to move on into the direction you are moving at, but be heraby advised that on the day we see evidence that you are only months away from having active nuclear weapons available, we will bomb the hell out of you, which will include the use of small nuclear warheads on selected targets as well. We expect this condition to be fulfilled somewhere within the next 5-10 years. that's the ammount of time available to you to rethink if it is really worth it for you.

Sincerely yours,
The West

P.S. Could you please mail a copy of this letter to the Saudi government as well and change the headline to "Dear Saudi Arabia".

The Avon Lady

04-02-06, 05:52 AM

Read Skybird's lips! :yep:

Skybird

04-02-06, 06:32 AM

Unfortunately it does not work that easily, due to their damn oil. Iran may depend on the income generated by selling oil, but if we are not buying it, the Chinese happily will, for the same or even higher prices.

So, the only realistic option to prevent Iran getting nukes while we still depend on oil is killing all Iranian people by use of WMD and taking control of the places of interest ourselves.

Oooops - has Skybird said something impertinent again...? :lol:

Abraham

04-02-06, 06:45 AM

Or should the diplomatic path been followed till the point of no return
Can you define this point? Or explain why you think it hasn't been reached? Or explain why you think more huffing and puffing will blow Iran's house down?
I think there is time to spare between (30 days from) now and the point that an attack on Iran is unavoidable if it continues on the road to nuclear arms.
That time should be used to build a solid world-wide coalition, not just including the US and Europe, but also Russia and China. All major nuclear powers (and permanent members of the Security Councel) have a vested interest to stop proliveration of nuclear weapons. That intrest should be used James Baker style.
Under Bush Sr. James Baker travelled the whole world to form a coalition against Iraq. Finally he met Tarig Aziz in Geneva and gave him the message: "move out of Kuwait or else..." That was much more convincing then the one meeting of Bush on the Azores with Blair and the Spanish prime minister.

So my answer to your question is:
Shift diplomacy from an attempt to convince Iran to an attempt to enforce world-wide sanctions and, if eventually necessary, military action.
In the Second Gulf War President Bush has based his invasion - which I still support - too much on the US military might and not upon diplomacy. There were valid reasons to invade Iraq, but some were not proven. The US Allies got the - hardly diplomatic - message: take it, or else. That highly irritated certain West European countries, who mighty have taken part if there would have been proper diplomatic consultation and not one-way traffic from Washington.

I would say to Condy: do it right this time, the cause is worth trying.

Skybird

04-02-06, 07:40 AM

As usal, I can only disagree.

1. Iran is too strong in a position as that it must accept compromises it does not like. If it will play ball later on depends on how successful Ahmadinejadh will be to rally the people behind him. His influence on shaping public opinion is one of the key-variables. If he should get killed, he will be as dangerous, then, having become a martyr who will attract young people that before were not with him.

2. Not just some reasons of Bush's war with Iraq has not been prooven, but all major reasons he gave have not been proven.

3. Not only the style of US diplomacy found the disgust of European people, but also the reasons, and the hypoctritical nature of Bush's gang. Even Fukuyama today announces that he feels ashamed to have lined up with such guys. No matter how much effort they would have put into trying to sell it: those nations that stayed out wouldn't have joined the picnic in Iraq just because the Americans would have said "please!".

4. I find it unlikely that a solid world-wide coaltion will be founded. And parts of that coalition in '91 back then even actively hindered the Americans to finish the job, especially Muslim nations. Too many sympathize with Iran, for whatever a reason.

5. World wide sanctions only hits the world, not Iran. Business will do black deals anyway. When have sanctions ever acchieved the cause they were activated for? Iran is the primary source of all the world's oil. so who has the bigger club when it comes to playing the economical card??? Iran is the player with the big cards here, not the world. We need their oil more than Iran needs the world.

6. And lastly, it is not in China's interest to side up with the West. Whatever goes wrong between Iran and the West - is to the advanatage of China. Ressources-wise, trade-wise, influence-wise, arm-trades-wise, Amercia-wise. The weakness of it's opponents is the strength of china. In fact the Chinese still help Iran to rearm and to modernize, and have spend enormous efforts over the last years (and still today) to strengthen relations between both nations - an invitation that Iran since many years fullheartly welcomes and made maximum use of. Why should they give up a win-win-situation? Assuming that is unreasonable. They will play ping-pong in the SC, at best, but always step away from substantial actions against Iran as long as they do not see their interests in danger. Rule 1 of politics: never depend on assuming your opponent will violate his interests in order to please your own.

My postings above were provocative exaggerations, but there is truth in them in so far that diplomacy is very, very unlikely to acchieve anything here. nd treaties being signed Iran will try to bypass in the hidden, for sure. n the end we will have only two options, I think: accept a nuclear armed Iraq and hoping for the best, or massively strike at them sooner or later. American long-term policy and opinion also has a self-dynamic that already is on autopilot towards war again, this also narrows the options left. The outcome of all this will not be decided in the UN, or by diplomacy, but by the simple answer to the question: who has the stronger stand in this. That simple. I am not sure that it is us.

The Avon Lady

04-02-06, 07:54 AM

6. And lastly, it is not in China's interest to side up with the West.
Bartender, make that a double (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010865.php)!

Abraham

04-02-06, 08:27 AM

"Cancel that order, bring some soft drinks"

@ Skybird:
Without getting into an Iraq War-debate I would say that 'non-compliance with a Security Council resolution' and 'regime change because of crimes against humanity' were clear and valid reasons for toppling Sadman Hussain.

@ Skybird & The Avon Lady:
The five permanent Security Council-members have a common interest, to remain world leaders and keep the rest of us more or less at bay.
A nuclear Iran with it's current leadership doesn't fit into that picture

Russia and China are much less doctrinair anti-West or anti-America than they used to be. They realise that stability in the Middle East and growth of the national income keeps their expending consumer market happy and consequently the leadership in power. Any conflict with the West will hurt their economies badly and may lead to popular unrest.
Furthermore, the West is the biggest market for Chinese products and annoying your market is not a wise move in a capitalist world.
Not to mention the complex financial relation between the Far East and the U.S.

While there are certainly potential problems between China and the West, the common interests are bigger in my view.
Reason enough to take a common stand on the non-proliferation subject and send a message to Iran and the many other would be nuclear bad boys who are whatching this confrontation in the wings and may cause serious harm to China and Russia in the far future.

@ Skybird:
You overestimate the strenght of the current regime. The people in Iran are mad at their leaders and the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bla-bla is the well known lightning conductor that is supposed to unify a divided country through creating a common ennemy.
There is too much youth, too much modernity and too much religious suppression from above.
And the U.S. is popular amougst the Iranians.
If Iran would be forced to lower it's oil production the economy would completely collapse within weeks and a popular uprising would be the result. The pain the West wouild - temporary - feel might be a worthwhile thit for that.

This Security Council warning is the dawn of a major coalition against Iran.

But then, I'm an optimist.
:D

Skybird

04-02-06, 08:56 AM

Without getting into an Iraq War-debate I would say that 'non-compliance with a Security Council resolution' and 'regime change because of crimes against humanity' were clear and valid reasons for toppling Sadman Hussain.D

Humanitarian and security situation now is even worse. but on the reasons for war, do not give the impression, please, that your words reflect the reasons thta had been officially given. What you say did not start to play a greater role in propaganda auntil the war already was underway, and in the aftermath. The following is a short (and I consider it to be incomplete) list of what had been given as official reasons justify the Iraq war before. what came after the war is no reason, but foul excuse.

"Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

It is important to keep these events in mind - in order to prevent falling victim for such propaganda again with regard to Iran. In early January there was reference beeing braodcasted in the medias, to a thinktank saying that Irana again is less than 12 months away fro having operational nukes. If such nonsens should become the basis for decsion finding on wether to wage war on Iran or not, then it can only become worse than Iraq.

And this, from http://www.truthaboutwar.org/

"Before the Iraqi war, the Bush administration cried "Havoc!" and used a number of lies to justify setting the dogs of war loose.

The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the phony uranium purchases from Niger weren't the only falsehoods. There also were lies about Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, aluminum tubes, Hussein kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq, unmanned airplanes that could attack the East Coast of America, mobile bioweapon laboratories, and on and on and on.

Once the war was underway, the folks who brought us death and destruction peddled further lies: the triumphant toppling of the Hussein statue, the Jessica Lynch story (she actually got a medal for bravery despite not doing anything), the bogus stories to explain the killing of civilians, and more."

But you are right. You are an optimist. Politicians depend on you. For realism would get them kicked out. ;)

Skybird

04-02-06, 09:01 AM

Oh, and I would neitehr say "the US is popular amiongst Iranians", nor is it that an embargo would need Iran to lower it's oil production. china will happily buy every drop of oil Iran is producing. china would love to buy ALL oil that Iran is producing. for it could need it itself, and second: oil possessed by China cannot be consumed by rivaling economies ;)

tjhe mood amongts iranians I would not compare to the time when I was there and where there was more orientation to the West indeed, and hopes for reforms. since they had been let down by the West and especially America during that time, and since by that their orthodoxy had been helped by western nations to raise again, their sympathy hardly will have rmained on thnat level. They had hopes and were let down. and you think they still are as sympathetic as before towards those who actively helped to kick them back again...? It's Iran in 2006, not 1996.

Abraham

04-02-06, 09:07 AM

... The following is a short (and I consider it to be incomplete) list of what had been given as official reasons justify the Iraq war before. what came after the war is no reason, but foul excuse.

"Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

It is important to keep these events in mind - in order to prevent falling victim for such propaganda again with regard to Iran. In early January there was reference beeing braodcasted in the medias, to a thinktank saying that Irana again is less than 12 months away fro having operational nukes. If such nonsens should become the basis for decsion finding on wether to wage war on Iran or not, then it can only become worse than Iraq.

And this, from http://www.truthaboutwar.org/

"Before the Iraqi war, the Bush administration cried "Havoc!" and used a number of lies to justify setting the dogs of war loose.

The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the phony uranium purchases from Niger weren't the only falsehoods. There also were lies about Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, aluminum tubes, Hussein kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq, unmanned airplanes that could attack the East Coast of America, mobile bioweapon laboratories, and on and on and on.

Once the war was underway, the folks who brought us death and destruction peddled further lies: the triumphant toppling of the Hussein statue, the Jessica Lynch story (she actually got a medal for bravery despite not doing anything), the bogus stories to explain the killing of civilians, and more."
Your short list makes me wonder about your long list...

But you are right. You are an optimist. Politicians depend on you. For realism would get them kicked out. ;)
Isn't this quote a mile or what out of context?
(for reference, please read my posting again)

Skybird

04-02-06, 09:09 AM

You: "But then, I'm an optimist."
Me: "But you are right. You are an optimist. Politicians depend on you. For realism would get them kicked out. ;)"

Abraham

04-02-06, 09:23 AM