Iran gives IAEA blueprints for nuclear weapon

[ChicosBailBonds]

Strange, they kept saying their nuclear program was for "peaceful purposes"....I wonder why they would have blueprints for a nuclear weapon then.   


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/14/wiran114.xml


Scramble the bombers....

[Pakuni]

Scramble the bombers....

Start a war over unseen weapons of mass destruction?
Sounds like a great idea. What possibly could go wrong?

[mu_hilltopper]

I read that headline and thought, "oh, great, now the IAEA has nuclear bomb plans too?"

[spiral97]

no need to scramble the bombers.. Iran gave their blueprints to the IAEA.. if they had kept them then I'd be worried but now they don't even have those.

[tower912]

Saddam gave the UN an accounting of his non-existent WMD's in January of 03, we called him a liar and invaded anyway.   If the same template is followed, Iran giving the IAEA their blueprints means war is inevitable.  Giddyup.

[mu03eng]

no need to scramble the bombers.. Iran gave their blueprints to the IAEA.. if they had kept them then I'd be worried but now they don't even have those.

Not throwing in with the lets go nuts and bomb them crowd, but it is the 21st century I'm pretty sure even Iran has copy machines.  If they turned over the drawing doesn't mean there aren't copies.  So its a least a little direct evidence that they have the possibility to maybe create nuclear weapons.

[spiral97]

no need to scramble the bombers.. Iran gave their blueprints to the IAEA.. if they had kept them then I'd be worried but now they don't even have those.

Not throwing in with the lets go nuts and bomb them crowd, but it is the 21st century I'm pretty sure even Iran has copy machines.  If they turned over the drawing doesn't mean there aren't copies.  So its a least a little direct evidence that they have the possibility to maybe create nuclear weapons.

*sigh*  try as I might, it doesn't seem like I can get by without using emoticons.. there goes my emote-count for this season too.  sorry, thought it was more obvious that I was being facetious.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni, the world will rue the day in spades if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Absolutely must not be allowed to happen. Period.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Start a war over unseen weapons of mass destruction?
Sounds like a great idea. What possibly could go wrong?

Sit back and appease crazy leaders and do nothing at all.....what possibly could wrong?

[tower912]

True, no one stopped Bush, and look what he has done.     Too easy, too obvious.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Saddam gave the UN an accounting of his non-existent WMD's in January of 03, we called him a liar and invaded anyway.   If the same template is followed, Iran giving the IAEA their blueprints means war is inevitable.  Giddyup.

We, the British, Australians, etc, etc...called him a liar.  Of course we also did find WMD there, just not in the tonnage that some would have liked.  At the end of the day, Saddam is playing with 72 virgins right now, Iraq is stabilizing daily, has a democratically elected government and hopefully 10 to 20 years from now we'll look back and say that it was all worth it.  Today, not so sure, but I like to think a little bigger than what's happening this very second.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, the world will rue the day in spades if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Absolutely must not be allowed to happen. Period.

Oh, the drama. I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities. A non-nuclear Iran is much preferable. But the Iranians are far more pragmatic than you're giving them credit for.

Regardless, I didn't realize the only options were:

A. Scramble bombers for a unilateral pre-emptive attack on suspected nuclear sites that might be impenetrable.

B. Nuclear holocaust!!!

Maybe, just maybe, there might be some other ways to address this. And if it comes down to an attack, why not let a country that might actually be threatened directly by an Iranian nuke (I'm looking at you, Israel) carry the water on it?

[tower912]

The WMD's we found were in shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war that had been misplaced.   Oooooooooooh.

[Murffieus]

Ahmadinejad has told us that he has 3,000 centerfuges going-----the UN has affirmed they are enriching uranium. Can anyone really believe that the mullahs could resist being a nuclear power with this enriched uranium as passionate as they are to spreading  islamo/facist revolution (Hezbullah)------and at the same time striving for intercontinental missle capability-----what are they going to put on those long range missles, Fireworks?

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Iranians are much more pragmatic...oh really.  Please explain.


While you're explaining please be sure to include 1979 hostages, the funding of Hezbollah, the threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, etc, etc.

A pragmatic bunch indeed.  I have to laugh when you say it would be ideal that they don't have it.....how on earth EVER would it be good to have ANOTHER nation with nuclear weapons, especially one that is in the middle east with all of the religious passions, etc.  Ideal is an understatement.  Absolutely MUST NOT EVER be allowed to happen.  PERIOD.


And no Tower, actually that's not all that was found...this would require you to read opposite viewpoints.  I've given you countless books and articles on this, but you don't want to read them...that's fine.

[Marquette84]

Oh, the drama. I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities. A non-nuclear Iran is much preferable. But the Iranians are far more pragmatic than you're giving them credit for.

I wonder if the 100,000 to 300,000 dead Kurds paused to consider their own role in the "drama?"

You pick the number you want--the low estimate of 100,000.  Saddam's own admission of 180,000.  The 300,000 as reported by the BBC.  Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens.  I'm not sure what you mean by "massive", but anything that kills 100,000 people probably qualfies by most measures. 

Those pragmatic Iranis would much rather use their WMD to kill somebody else, say, the Israealis. 

Now THAT's pragmatism.

[Pakuni]

I wonder if the 100,000 to 300,000 dead Kurds paused to consider their own role in the "drama?"

You pick the number you want--the low estimate of 100,000.  Saddam's own admission of 180,000.  The 300,000 as reported by the BBC.  Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens.  I'm not sure what you mean by "massive", but anything that kills 100,000 people probably qualfies by most measures. 

Might want to check your facts on this.
I believe what you speak of is Hussein's al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, which, according to Human Rights Watch killed between 50,000 and 100,000. Terrible stuff, indeed.
However, the vast majority of those people died through conventional weaponry. In terms of chemical weapons deaths, the number has been placed about about 5,300 to 7,300 by Human Rights Watch.

Again, terrible stuff, but certainly not anywhere near the scale you claim.

http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

And of course, the U.S. was so outraged by these attacks our government ... did ... nothing. It's a tad bit galling - and completely laughable - that you would suggest that a 15-year-old incident had some great influence over this administration's motivation for war.

Regardless, what this now nearly 20-year old incident in Iraq has to do with the current situation in Iran, I'm not quite sure. Unless you're suggesting it's in the United States' interests to attack Iran so that it doesn't nuke itself.

Those pragmatic Iranis would much rather use their WMD to kill somebody else, say, the Israealis. 

Now THAT's pragmatism.

Then let the Israelis fight their own battle. If they believe Iran is planning a nuclear attack on them, then by all means they should defend themselves. Thanks to our government and our tax dollars, they're plenty capable.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Facts indeed....seems you forgot a few "incidents" Pakuni.


    * Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15 March–19 March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and a number of civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000) were killed.[1]


    * Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.[1][2]

      * In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[3]

[Pakuni]

The Iranians are much more pragmatic...oh really.  Please explain.

While you're explaining please be sure to include 1979 hostages, the funding of Hezbollah, the threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, etc, etc.

It's simple, really.

The Iranian government, like all governments, is interested first and foremost in its own survival and the retention - if not expansion - of power.  The Iranian government also is very likely aware of the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel or the U.S. would be met with a response so severe that it would forever eliminate it from the face of the earth. That would kind of put a damper on that whole vision of a pan-Arab Islamic state, don't ya think?

So either you believe that this Iranian government is different from all other governments in the history of the world and seeks its own destruction, or you believe that it has enough pragmatism not to engage in acts that would render it extinct.

Now, on to your specific examples:

1979 hostage taking: This was not a pragmatic act, but it also was not the act of an established, reigning Iranian government. Rather, it was the act of a group of revolutionaries in the heat of an ongoing rebellion. The two groups are hardly analogous. You simply can't compare the acts of a group of college kids caught up in revolutionary fervor with that of a standing government.

Support for Hezbollah: Contrary to your implication, this is, in fact, a perfect example of Iranian pragmatism.
Like most governments, the Iranian government thinks their way of doing things is the best and seek to extend it, and their influence, through the world and particularly through their region. And in doing so, of course, they seek to diminish the influence of opposing powers
One way of doing this is through proxies, such as Hezbollah. Doing so allows a nation to extend its power and influence without directly confronting an opponent.

Of course, the U.S. would never do anything like that.
We'd never support Cuban rebels.
Or an insurgency in Nicaragua or Afghanistan.
Or anti-government forces in Angola.
Or propped up an anti-Communist government anywhere in the world.
Perish the thought.

Note: I'm not equating the morality of Hezbollah to any U.S.-backed proxy (though we've backed some pretty awful people in our time), but rather pointing out that such support is a pragmatic act done regularly by major governments around the world.

Threat to wipe out Israel: Such threats are nothing new for the Iranian regime. Khomeni made similar remarks nearly three decades ago. You may note that Iran has done little to act on such political rhetoric.
You may also note that the person making these threats, Ahmadinejad, lacks the ability to follow through on them given that he is not the nation's commander-in-chief. Frankly, such rhetoric may be harmful to Iran in a global sense, but it plays well in the Arab world, where the country most wants to extend its influence. Therefore, there actually is an element of pragmatism to it.

Any more you'd like me to shoot down?

A pragmatic bunch indeed.  I have to laugh when you say it would be ideal that they don't have it

Must have been quite a chortle, given that I never said anything about anything being ideal.

.....how on earth EVER would it be good to have ANOTHER nation with nuclear weapons, especially one that is in the middle east with all of the religious passions, etc.  Ideal is an understatement.  Absolutely MUST NOT EVER be allowed to happen.  PERIOD.

And yet when a far more unstable Middle Eastern nation, aka Pakistan, worked to acquire nukes, what did we do to stop them?

Regardless, you're debating a straw man here. Not one post in this thread suggests Iran should be allowed to go nuclear, much less that it would be "good". Where do you get that?
Rather, the cool-headed among us are suggesting that perhaps it would be best not to start another pre-emptive war with unclear goals, without expending every other option and without having all the facts.

I know, I know ... it sounds silly, but maybe we should try it this time around.

[Pakuni]

Facts indeed....seems you forgot a few "incidents" Pakuni.

Did you read what I wrote before you responded?

The Halabja attack and other chemical weapons attacks during the Al-Anfal Campaign killed an estimated 5,300 to 7,300 people, which is exactly what I wrote and provided a link to back it up (something Marquette84 chose not to do).
Rather, he claimed that Hussein used WMD to kill at least 100,000 of his own people, which appears to be a blatantly false statement.

The other incidents of which you write are not relevant to the discussion because a) they didn't involve WMDs and b) clearly were not all that upsetting to our government, because we stood by and let it happen.

And now, could someone explain what Hussein's acts against the Kurds almost 20 years ago has to do with the current situation with Iran?

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's your fundamental problem....you think that these people want to self preserve and hang around.  If you listen to Ahmadeijian, that is not the case at all.  In fact he talks openly of sacrificing the country, etc for the greater good if it means taking down Israel.

That is the fundamental problem.  You assume we are dealing with rational people, we are not.


As for Iraq and the Kurds, no I don't read it that way at all.  He said 100K to 300K.  I provided text that more than cover that amount.  You provided different information...who's right...who cares, the man was despicable, supported terrorism, killed his own people, admitted to trying to acquire a nuclear weapon(s), etc.  The world is better off without him.  PERIOD.

[Pakuni]

That's your fundamental problem....you think that these people want to self preserve and hang around.  If you listen to Ahmadeijian, that is not the case at all.  In fact he talks openly of sacrificing the country, etc for the greater good if it means taking down Israel.

Could you please cite an example where he, or any other high-ranking Iranian official, has said anything about sacrificing their country for some greater good?
To the contrary, Khameni - the guy who really calls the shots in Iran - has publicly stated the opposite, and that Iran does not seek military conflict with Israel.

"We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable."

http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/Speech/detail.jsp?id=20051104A

Does that sound like some irrational madman eager to see his country returned to the Stone Age?


And while you're seeking these suicidal remarks, also find some examples of purely irrational behavior by the Iranian regime. By irrational, of course, I don't mean policy decisions with which you or I might disagree, but rather acts that would seek its own destruction or neutralization.
Should be easy, given how extremely irrational they are.

As for Iraq and the Kurds, no I don't read it that way at all.  He said 100K to 300K. 

Oh, come on. How could you possibly read it any other way?

Here's the direct quote:

"Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens"

What other way is there to possibly read it? You're defending the indefensible here. He made an incorrect statement to exaggerate what really occurred. End of story, as you like to say.

[Marquette84]

Here's the direct quote:

"Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens"

What other way is there to possibly read it? You're defending the indefensible here. He made an incorrect statement to exaggerate what really occurred. End of story, as you like to say.

Perhaps we could refocus here:  My primary beef was your charactarization of 180,000 to 300,000 deaths as "drama". 

Well, you've caught me in a mistake--it was only 5,000 to 7,000 that actully died due to the WMD attacks.  Its okay to kill 93,000 to 295,000 of your own people as long as its using conventional weapons.  And a chemical weapon attack that kills 5,000 to 7,000 of your own people just isn't all that bad, even if the attacks themselves intended to kill a far greater number.

THAT makes me feel better.  ONLY 3 to 5% of the total deaths were due to chemical weapons. 

Let me rephrase the question for you:

I wonder if those 5,000 to 7,000 dead Kurds paused to consider their own role in the "drama?"

And I wonder if the others are content knowing that they were attacked by conventional weapons rather than WMD?


Perhaps in your next post you can share the Human Rights Watch table showing have to die in a chemical weapons attack to move from purely "drama" to something more serious. 

[Pakuni]

Perhaps we could refocus here:  My primary beef was your charactarization of 180,000 to 300,000 deaths as "drama".

Interesting.
It would be even more interesting had I actually characterized 180,000 to 300,000 deaths as "drama".
Alas, I did not. I never even mentioned the Kurd situation, much less refer to it as drama.
Rather, this was a weak attempt on your behalf to insert something into the argument that simply does not belong or have any relevance.

My use of the word drama, as you can easily see, was in reference to Chico's hyperbolic implication that a second Holocaust is just around the corner. That should have been plainly apparent. If I was somehow not clear enough for you, I apologize.

Its okay to kill 93,000 to 295,000 of your own people as long as its using conventional weapons.  And a chemical weapon attack that kills 5,000 to 7,000 of your own people just isn't all that bad, even if the attacks themselves intended to kill a far greater number.

Sigh.
I was hoping we could get beyond these kinds of straw men.
Please point out where I said anything of the sort.
In fact, the opposite was true. I clearly stated - twice - that Hussein's actions were "terrible."

Now please, for the third time, answer my question: Why is what happened in Iraq 19.5 years ago relevant to today's situation in Iran, unless your position that we must attack Iran to keep that government from detonating a nuclear weapon within its borders?

If you choose not to answer again, I'll feel comfortable assuming you have no adequate response and agree that the two issues are not related.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni-----of course Iran isn't going to obliterate Televiv------it will be done by a third party that Iran gives/sells a "suitcase nuke" to----Hezbullah?

In addition just the fact that they have nukes gives them power to intimidate other countries in the area! Nukes equal POWER!