Klar for litt "fredspropaganda"? (Iran)

[ChaosPredicted]

Vil du med dette påstå at atomenergibyrået IKKE har noen form for kontroll med kraftverk i USA, Frankrike, Storbritannia, Sverige.. osv?

7825793[/snapback]

 

Selvfølgelig ikke. Jeg kjenner ikke til i detalj hvorfor Iran ikke fullt ut ville samarbeide med dem, det vet kanskje noen av dere andre bedre enn meg? Men faktum er hvertfall at den "vanlige" iraneren" ikke føler at landet gjør noe som helst galt, og at kravene om å legge ned kraftverkene er helt urimelige. Hva som er den hele og fulle sannheten kjenner hverken jeg eller særlig mange andre til, men inntil man kan legge fram bevis på at Iran faktisk produserer atomvåpen vil et angrep være svært vanskelig å forsvare.

 

Min personlige mening er at det er svært uheldig at Iran i det hele tatt har muligheten til å anrike uran, men da på grunn av at det potensielt kan brukes i atomvåpenproduksjon. Men hvis Iran faktisk snakker sant, og at kraftverkene kun brukes til produksjon av strøm, vil et eventuelt angrep være svært vanskelig å forsvare i ettertid.

[ChaosPredicted]

Her sakser jeg fra wiki angående IAEA og atomprogrammet til Iran:

 

IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous body, established by the United Nations, that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes.

 

According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ... however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme".

 

On December 18, 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol that allows IAEA inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development locations.

 

On May 12, 2006, claims that highly enriched uranium (well over the 3.5% enriched level) was reported to have been found "at a site where Iran has denied such sensitive atomic work", appeared. "They have found particles of highly enriched uranium [HEU], but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found [from imported material] or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These reports have not yet been officially confirmed by the IAEA (as of June 1, 2006).

 

On 31 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

 

In late 2006, "New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium — potential material for atomic warheads — have been found [by the IAEA] in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." However, "A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the findings of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly, said that while the uranium traces were enriched to a higher level than needed to generate power, they were below weapons-grade."

 

Her er Irans standpunkt:

 

The Iranian stance

 

"Iran states the purpose of its nuclear program is the generation of power and that any other use would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory (but has threatened to withdraw from), as well as being against Iranian religious principles. Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly industrializing nation. It points to the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's environment drastically. Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn't be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products and export, not simple electricity generation. Furthermore, Iran argues that nuclear power makes fairly good economic sense. Building reactors is expensive, but subsequent operating costs are low and stable, and increasingly competitive as fossil-fuel prices rise. Iran also raises funding questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore.

 

Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT. Iran, and many other developing nations who are signatories to the NPT, believe the Western position to be hypocritical, claiming that the NPT's original purpose was universal nuclear disarmament. Iran also compares its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nations that have not ratified the NPT. Each of these nations developed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968, India by 1974, and Pakistan by 1998."

 

Til sist USA's standpunkt:

 

The United States' stance

 

"A potential reason behind US resistance lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Some nuclear technology is dual-use; i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, and to develop nuclear weapons, a situation that resulted in India's nuclear weapons program in the 1960s. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the middle east, weakening US influence. It could also encourage other middle eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own further reducing US influence in a critical region.

The U.S.'s primary concern with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is that it believes Iran sponsors international terrorism.

Iran's support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad leads to US fears that Iranian nuclear weapons could find their way into the hands of Islamic militants

The U.S. maintains that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil reserves since nuclear power is more expensive for the Iranians to generate than oil-fired power. However, it should be noted that this argument has taken a back seat as developing nations have re-invested in their civilian nuclear industries and as magazines such as The Economist have taken an economic stance similar to that of Iran's.

The US government is concerned that Iran does not formally recognize Israel's right to exist, and some Iranian politicians have openly called for the destruction of Israel.

In 2003 the US insisted that Tehran be "held accountable" for seeking to build nuclear arms in violation of its agreements.

In June 2005, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice required IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to either toughen his stance on Iran or fail to be chosen for a third term as IAEA head.

 

The IAEA has on some occasions criticised the stance of the U.S. on Iran's program.

 

The USA denounced Iran's successful enrichment of uranium to fuel grade in April 2006, with spokesman Scott McClellan saying, they "continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction".

 

In November 2006, Seymour Hersh described a classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. He continued, "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," adding that a current senior intelligence official confirmed the assessment."

 

Annen internasjonal respons etterlyser større åpenhet og krever fakta på bordet, og det er vel der vi står i dag:

 

Other international responses

 

"The claims and counter claims have put an immense amount of pressure on Iran to reveal all aspects of its nuclear program to date. A great deal of this pressure has come from Iran's trade partners: Europe, Japan, and Russia. Iran has been slow to respond, claiming the pressure is solely an attempt by the US government to prevent it from obtaining nuclear technology."

Endret 29. januar 2007 av ChaosPredicted

[Kubin]

Hva ville du sagt om man aksjonerte mot et nazimiljø i et fylke (...)

7823346[/snapback]

 

Longines,

 

Når du ser på resultatet av Irak-krigen, slår det deg at resultatet kanskje kan ha noe å gjøre med et lederskap i USA som ikke helt klarer å se forskjellen på en aksjon mot et nazimiljø i et fylke og en storkrig i Midt-Østen?

 

Det er ikke til å unngå når en leser det du skriver at tankene går til tegne-stripen under, og kommentaren :

 

"So far as I´m conserned the only lesson to be drawn here is that nobody can predict the future."

 

[Kubin]

Anbefales. Fra MSNBC :

 

"WORLD WARNS BUSH 'BACK OFF IRAN!' "

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEjOk_w3TX4&NR ( 7 min )

[ChaosPredicted]

Her er en fin link for dere som er interessert i detaljer angående et eventuelt angrep på Irans atomanlegg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plans_for_str...nuclear_program

 

Utdrag fra artikkelen:

 

Targets

 

The Iranian nuclear program is spread over an array of sites across Iran, and located both above and below ground. Most reported US plans would target hundreds of such sites, but Israel would likely only strike a key few, especially the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz.

 

Plans

 

Most reports on US plans detail a sustained bombing campaign that would strike hundreds of targets: not only nuclear installations, but a variety of military facilities and infastructure. According to one US military official, there are 1500 separate "aim points" for airstrikes against nuclear related facilities. [The plans are said to include] taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability. This ...would likely require most major US military aircraft...

 

Targets would be attacked with bunker busting bombs... Some targets may be marked by laser beams positioned by US troops... The US might also use bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, like the B61-11. These would be used against undergroud sites, such as the centrifuge plant at Natanz. Additional cruise missiles may be launched from US surface or submarine forces.

 

After the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, another Hersh article stated that the Israeli air-war against Hezbollah in Lebanon was "the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran."

Endret 29. januar 2007 av ChaosPredicted

[Longinus]

Hva ville du sagt om man aksjonerte mot et nazimiljø i et fylke (...)

7823346[/snapback]

 

Longines,

 

Når du ser på resultatet av Irak-krigen, slår det deg at resultatet kanskje kan ha noe å gjøre med et lederskap i USA som ikke helt klarer å se forskjellen på en aksjon mot et nazimiljø i et fylke og en storkrig i Midt-Østen?

 

Det er ikke til å unngå når en leser det du skriver at tankene går til tegne-stripen under, og kommentaren :

 

"So far as I´m conserned the only lesson to be drawn here is that nobody can predict the future."

 

7826826[/snapback]

Jeg setter ikke likhetstrekk mellom noe så simpelt som en lokal aksjon og aksjon på nasjonal skala, jeg prøvde å få en til å forstå hvor dumt det er når man drar opp tilstedeværelse av fredfulle mennesker som motargument på en aksjon. Jeg kan med letthet vise lignende bilder av mennesker og steder i alle verdens land og i alle miljøer.

 

Ingen kan forutsi fremtiden, det var ingen som med sikkerhet kunne forutsi resultatet av arbeidet til ekteparet Curie, men deres arbeid har påvirket oss på måter man den gang ikke kunne forutse. Krig og militære aksjoner er kostbart, både personlig, politisk og økonomisk. Dessverre kan det være mer kostbart å ikke aksjonere. Iran har flere ganger truet med å utslette Israel, hva vil de gjøre den dagen de effektivt får muligheten til dette?

 

Tegneserier og enkeltbilder er gode til å illustrere poenger.

 

[Kubin]

Krig og militære aksjoner er kostbart, både personlig, politisk og økonomisk. Dessverre kan det være mer kostbart å ikke aksjonere.

7827806[/snapback]

 

Det plager deg ikke at de folkene som er de sterkeste pådriverne for å bombe Irak er de samme folkene som drev sterkest på for å få i gang krigen i Irak?

 

Og at disse folkene har omtrent samme forhold til løgn som det fisk har til vann?

 

Har du sett klippet fra MSNBC? Og hva tror du om at alle som har litt peiling på sakene kommer med sterke advarsler til Bush-psykopatene nok en gang? Og sier at i Iran er det folk man kan snakke med. At Ahmadinedjad er mindre viktig enn mange vil ha det til.

 

"Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace, (...) a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2000353,00.html

[ulrikft]

"Og at disse folkene har omtrent samme forhold til løgn som det fisk har til vann?"

 

Du har jo det samme forholdet til USA som en gjennomsnittelig KKK-er har til sorte..

[Longinus]

Krig og militære aksjoner er kostbart, både personlig, politisk og økonomisk. Dessverre kan det være mer kostbart å ikke aksjonere.

7827806[/snapback]

 

Det plager deg ikke at de folkene som er de sterkeste pådriverne for å bombe Irak er de samme folkene som drev sterkest på for å få i gang krigen i Irak?

 

Og at disse folkene har omtrent samme forhold til løgn som det fisk har til vann?

 

Har du sett klippet fra MSNBC? Og hva tror du om at alle som har litt peiling på sakene kommer med sterke advarsler til Bush-psykopatene nok en gang? Og sier at i Iran er det folk man kan snakke med. At Ahmadinedjad er mindre viktig enn mange vil ha det til.

 

"Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace, (...) a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2000353,00.html

7828028[/snapback]

Krig og militære aksjoner er siste utvei. Hvorvidt man har grunnlag for å gå til militær aksjon mot Iran i dag og om det er aktuelt, vet jeg ikke. Om det blir det kommer ann på hvordan ting utvikler seg.

[Kubin]

Du har jo det samme forholdet til USA som en gjennomsnittelig KKK-er har til sorte..

7828505[/snapback]

 

Bare hvis du befinner deg på samme mentale nivå som Sean Hannity.

Som på TV-programmet sitt utpeker folk som har sagt noe negativt om ham til ukas "enemy of the state".

 

Første ukes "enemy" ble Sean Penn.

 

En del av begrunnelsen var at han har kalt Hannity "a whore".

 

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/el...the_state_award

Endret 29. januar 2007 av Kubin

[ChaosPredicted]

Du har jo det samme forholdet til USA som en gjennomsnittelig KKK-er har til sorte..

7828505[/snapback]

 

Bare hvis du befinner deg på samme mentale nivå som Sean Hannity.

7828962[/snapback]

 

Skal vi heretter forsøke å holde oss litt saklige? Tråden omhandler tross alt et ganske viktig emne, og det er synd om den blir stengt pga tull som dette.

[Kubin]

Skal vi heretter forsøke å holde oss litt saklige? Tråden omhandler tross alt et ganske viktig emne, og det er synd om den blir stengt pga tull som dette. 

7828979[/snapback]

 

Greit nok. Men det er litt viktig å forstå at Bush-administrasjonen ikke er USA.

 

President Roosevelt sa:

 

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

 

Dette er en "treason" som Bush / Cheney gjør seg skyldig i.

 

( Hvis noen har tid til en kort "flash", så kan denne hjelpe til med forståelsen også : http://www.thebattleforamerica.com/ )

[ulrikft]

Det du skriver er på siden av poenget, selvsagt kan man kritisere Bush og administrasjonen, men du bruker en vurderingsskala når du omtaler alle muslimske land, der du legger den gode siden og tolker alt i god retning.. og gjør det absolutt motsatte når det gjelder USA blir det bare trist.

[Kubin]

...og gjør det absolutt motsatte når det gjelder USA blir det bare trist.

7829025[/snapback]

 

Jeg trenger ikke fortelle dere om grufulle ting som skjer i Iran. Det er ingen(?) som forsvarer disse tingene.

 

Men når det kommer til den katastrofale Bush-administrasjonen, så er det faktisk folk som fortsatt forsvarer dem med nebb og klør.

 

"Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

 

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

 

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

[Evleos]

Regjeringen skal reprensentere folket!

Det er ingen unskyldning.

 

Og forresten, man må huske på at Iran er samme landet som steiner folk hvis de f.eks konverterer fra Islam...

Bilder forteller lite.

[Kubin]

Regjeringen skal reprensentere folket!

7829136[/snapback]

 

Du har skjønt det.

 

"The real controversy should be the troop surge, which, according to a USA Today poll, 70 percent of Americans oppose."

 

http://www.cw.ua.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2...7/45ae2967d40f9

 

 

"World opinion is against it. The American people are against it. (...) The Iraqi government is against it. The top brass are against it.

 

But George W. Bush is going to do it: Send 21,500 more troops into Iraq. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand - possibly to other countries? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense?"

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/19/...le2374996.shtml

[Kubin]

Å la de være nå, fordi en er redd for dagens konsekvenser er dumt, det vil bli bare verre jo lengere en venter.

7822841[/snapback]

 

Kanskje er det allerede for sent?

 

"LONDON (Reuters) - Three former senior U.S. military officials warn that any military

action against Iran would have "disastrous consequences" and urged Washington to hold

immediate and unconditional talks with Tehran."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020301263.html

 

 

Brzezinski var en drivkraft bak beslutningen om å støtte mujahedeen i Aghanistan for å bryte ned Sovjetunionen. Nå uttaler han :

 

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6041101078.html

 

"“The Bush administration assured me that the U.S. is not planning a war against Iran,” the Russian Foreign Minister said, reports the BBC Russian branch."

 

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=20960