Iran unveils 'uranium enrichment advances'
Please read these articles - Should the U.S. intervene? What if Israel attacks Iran? How do you think the U.S. should react?
What are the political and economic ramifications of a conflict in Iran? Look at the physical location of this country - what vital resource could be affected?
"Iran has never discharged nuclear inspectors from its borders. You would imagine a country “illegally” producing nuclear weapons might do so. Iran has reportedly complied with IAEA protocol every year and has not diverted any uranium into a weapons program. It produces low-enriched uranium (LEU) under the supervision of IAEA, not suitably enriched for the production of weapons." (http://www.policymic.com/articles/2609/leave-a-non-nuclear-iran-alone)
ReplyDeleteI believe that the now is the time for calm, rational discussion on facts rather than false information and speculation from the media. Israel is currently the only Middle Eastern nation with a nuclear arsenal not to mention Israel's invasions and occupations in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine - that alone suggests that Israel would be more willing to launch an attack on Iran than vise-versa. Israel is only digging a deeper hole for themselves when the commit acts of terrorism including the much-lauded computer virus, Stuxnet - this will only invite future blowback. The funny part is, is that the United States endorsed Iran's nuclear program under President Eisenhower in 1957 (Atoms for Peace Campaign).
I believe that it is the United States' best interest to stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations (non-interventionism) because it will only invite future blowback. Not to mention Iran is not a threat to national security. If they posed a threat to national security, then we should go to Congress, get a formal declaration of war, fight the war, win it, and come home - NOT nation build. We need to be more diplomatic and realize that actions have consequences.
We'd be okay if we read that old piece of paper called the United States Constitution.
No, we should not interfere with Iran's Nuclear Weapon programs. Plenty of countries already have nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon systems. So, I see no present problem with Iran and their development of nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe US should intervene due to Iran's aggression towards Israel and her people. I am not saying a full out war (like Afghanistan), but certain measures should be take to stop Iran from getting a nuke. It's crazy to think Israel is wanting a war or even trying to start a war, After its previous wars. I believe not intervening would cause greater blow back (WW2 anyone). I mean call me crazy but a theocracy that has given money AND weapons to sworn enemies of America with nuclear weapons (NOT GOOD). Every one saw what happened after the Entente left german and not "nation build", GUESS WHAT it didn't help did it (AKA HITLER).
ReplyDeleteSo all this anti-war stuff , and not intervening makes me worried for both America and Israel. -Alan- Just listening to the Constitution didn't stop Hitler, Mussolini , or Japan. We are going to have to put up are selves and just take care of it , even if we don't like it. Now, I would advise both of our countries to get evidence of a bomb, but on the other hand just the Idea is scary.
Also the difference between Iran and most other nations have a nuke is simple. They are theocracy and they are a state sponsor of terrorism. We are not talking about Albania here, they are hard core religious fanatics.
Delete"The term 'blowback' first appeared in a classified government document in the CIA’s post-action report on the secret overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953. In 2000, James Risen of the New York Times explained: When the Central Intelligence Agency helped overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh as Iran’s prime minister in 1953, ensuring another 25 years of rule for Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the CIA was already figuring that its first effort to topple a foreign government would not be its last. The CIA, then just six years old and deeply committed to winning the cold war, viewed its covert action in Iran as a blueprint for coup plots elsewhere around the world, and so commissioned a secret history to detail for future generations of CIA operatives how it had been done. . . . Amid the sometimes curious argot of the spy world—‘safebases’ and ‘assets’ and the like—the CIA warns of the possibilities of ‘blowback.’ The word 'blowback' has since come into use as shorthand for the unintended consequences of covert operations.”
Delete(http://www.americanempireproject.com/bookexcerpt.asp?ISBN=0805075593)
I think you need to learn a thing or two about "blowback" before you aimlessly make posts. What you're telling me is that you have to break the constitution in order for national security... wow. Join the democratic party.
I never said don't listen to it, I was saying you should ACT, instead of not doing anything at all. So dont put words in people's mouths. I have perfect Aim, but it's just easy to attack the messager then the message.:)
ReplyDeleteAnd not doing anything also has blow back (HITLER)
Actually the Treaty of Versailles was one of the main reasons for the rise of Hitler.
ReplyDeleteAshton, the evidence is that Iran has never discharged IAEA inspectors from it's borders and has complied with the IAEA protocal each year. Under the supervision of the IAEA, Iran has been producing LEU (low-enriched-uranium) not suitable for nuclear weapon capability.
It's, funny seeing that the Treaty of Versailles had almost nothing America wanted in it(except for the League of Nations being created, and small anti-warfare measures). I mean its not like the worst man in history took over Germany after they did the same things you want us to do, they just left Germany, and didn't nation build. Ohh wait he did take over, and guess what, leaving Germany didn't do France or England any good. They just had to go back , and that costed more money and lives , then if they just stayed.
Delete"In 2002 an Iranian dissident group told the world that Iran's government was building secret nuclear facilities in Arak and Natanz, located south of Tehran. Iran confirmed to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was, indeed, building two uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and a heavy-water production facility at Arak. Highly enriched uranium, like the plutonium that could be produced in a heavy-water reactor, can be used to fuel a nuclear weapon.
Iran insists that international suspicion is unfounded, that its nuclear program is benign and will not be used to make bombs.
In December 2003, Iran signed a historic accord that gave the United Nations full access to its nuclear facilities. A month prior to Iran's signing, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear cooperation arm, passed a resolution deploring the country's 18-year-long cover-up of its nuclear energy program.
Iran temporarily suspended its uranium enrichment efforts in November 2004, after negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.
By May 2005, Iran was becoming impatient with the pace of negotiations and announced it would soon resume its uranium enrichment activities"
Sources: CIA World Factbook; Reporters Without Borders; Encarta Encyclopedia; BBC News; The Economist; The Wall Street Journal; The Iran Daily; The Galt Global Review; Nuclear Threat Initiative; U.S. Department of Energy; International Atomic Energy Agency; and The New York Times.
Main Source: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran403/facts.html
What points did you actually make?
ReplyDeleteIran has never discharged IAEA inspectors from it's borders. Iran has complied with the IAEA's protocal each year. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to the IAEA, Iran produces low-enriched-uranium (LEU).
About the whole Treaty of Versailles jibber-jabber, the Treaty of Versailles was destructive and one of the main causes to the rise of Hitler.
Now, are you willing to get back on topic?
Your right, but they just banned then from coming in the country
ReplyDelete:“Iran has decided not to give entry permission to 38 inspectors from the IAEA and has announced this limitation to the IAEA officially,” the head of parliament’s Foreign Affairs and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said.
And giving example of history is not "off topic", it's a example.
No, points Hugh , that's funny
Just tell me why did we get in WW1 or 2 when we didn't "intervene with foreign powers". It's simple, policy's like those don't work.:)
Yes, but they still have nuclear inspectors there. They were never discharged. Seriously, no points - just emotions.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you just stay on topic? We're talking about Iran, not Nazi Germany.
No, some people just see what they want to see.
ReplyDeleteAnd about germany ... IT WAS A EXAMPLE OF HISTORY... we have either ignore it or learn from it. Also it's called comparing history.
Also.. Don't make things seem personal, you made that mistake mire than once before...
DeletePs...ITS NOT EMOTIONAL ... I used facts, and "SOURCES"
You still make no point.
DeleteLet make my point easy for u to understand... IRAN IS HOSITLE, AND ITS A MISTAKE IF WE JUST IGNORE IT... That's my point
ReplyDelete