Iran has backup nuke facillity

[Fop 1]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

[Guest alex]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

I never said that.

[The Fish 10857]

I'd be curious to see how the body counts stack up against each other?

 

Does Israel's military dominance reveal itself in terms of the death toll?

 

I realise how ghoulish this is by the way.

[Guest alex]

I'd be curious to see how the body counts stack up against each other?

 

Does Israel's military dominance reveal itself in terms of the death toll?

 

I realise how ghoulish this is by the way.

I think there's a lot more Palestinians that have been killed, yes.

[Fop 1]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

I never said that.

 

 

Other than somehow taking away all arms in the area, what did you mean?

[Guest alex]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

I never said that.

 

 

Other than somehow taking away all arms in the area, what did you mean?

I was saying that one side having vastly superior firepower creates a problem.

[Fop 1]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

I never said that.

 

 

Other than somehow taking away all arms in the area, what did you mean?

I was saying that one side having vastly superior firepower creates a problem.

 

So you are saying that having even firepower would solve it? Didn't really work out that way historically there.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Fop

[Guest alex]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

I never said that.

 

 

Other than somehow taking away all arms in the area, what did you mean?

I was saying that one side having vastly superior firepower creates a problem.

 

So you are saying that having even firepower would solve it? Didn't really work out that way historically there.

No, I'm not saying that.

[Fop 1]

:angry:And as with anything to do with Israel and Palestinians it's always 6 and 2x3:

Not when it comes to firepower though. Which is part of the problem.

 

So arming both sides equally will help matters? Or like Kosovo will it just change the underdog?

 

Fop supposes it may solve the issue permanently though, if they turn the area into a radioactive wasteland.

I never said that.

 

 

Other than somehow taking away all arms in the area, what did you mean?

I was saying that one side having vastly superior firepower creates a problem.

 

So you are saying that having even firepower would solve it? Didn't really work out that way historically there.

No, I'm not saying that.

 

Then what are you saying? Nothing?

[Guest alex]

I appreciate you can't turn back the clock and can't take away Israel's nuclear weapons, F15s etc. and I don't think arming the Palestians to the teeth and giving them equal firepower would sort it out but I think the US by basically creating a military superpower in the region by handing Israel an overwhelming superiority over it neighbours in terms of defence capability has been problematic in itself.

Edited September 28, 2009 by alex

[Fop 1]

I appreciate you can't turn back the clock and can't take away Israel's nuclear weapons, F15s etc. and I don't think arming the Palestians to the teeth and giving them equal firepower would sort it out but I think the US by basically creating a military superpower in the region by handing Israel an overwhelming superiority over it neighbours in terms of defence capability has been problematic in itself.

 

And what very nearly happened to Israel? (and indeed is still the stated aim of Iran and many other groups in the area?)

[Guest alex]

I appreciate you can't turn back the clock and can't take away Israel's nuclear weapons, F15s etc. and I don't think arming the Palestians to the teeth and giving them equal firepower would sort it out but I think the US by basically creating a military superpower in the region by handing Israel an overwhelming superiority over it neighbours in terms of defence capability has been problematic in itself.

 

And what very nearly happened to Israel? (and indeed is still the stated aim of Iran and many other groups in the area?)

I know that you have the problem whereby Israel needs to protect itself because of its neighbours but the losers are the Palestinians in all this, don't you think?

[Fop 1]

I appreciate you can't turn back the clock and can't take away Israel's nuclear weapons, F15s etc. and I don't think arming the Palestians to the teeth and giving them equal firepower would sort it out but I think the US by basically creating a military superpower in the region by handing Israel an overwhelming superiority over it neighbours in terms of defence capability has been problematic in itself.

 

And what very nearly happened to Israel? (and indeed is still the stated aim of Iran and many other groups in the area?)

I know that you have the problem whereby Israel needs to protect itself because of its neighbours but the losers are the Palestinians in all this, don't you think?

 

Always have been, long before the word "Palestinian" had ever been dreamt up, and long before jews re-dominated the area or built Israel.

 

Equally though there are actually an awful lot of "Palestinians" that live quite happily within Israel.

 

 

 

 

 

But like in that recent report both "sides" are quite guilty of war crimes, and both "sides" will at it for a long, long time (especially given that it is a political crowbar for so many factions). Six of one, half a dozen of the other until someone does something really stupid/amazing.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

Why would they keep it secret if they were going to announce it? Why would they have kept their initial project secret in the first place for that matter?

 

 

 

The size? it was mentioned on the news (could well have been from a Guardian source IFRC), Fop's sure it will be mentioned on-line somewhere.

 

Well post it if you see it anywhere would you. I've not seen anything that can categorically show what the facility is or is intended to be. Until there's an IAEA inspection (which Iran have welcomed) no-one can know, can they?

 

Steve Hynd thinks that Iran's argument for secrecy around the second plant is plausible....

 

Iran has another explanation that makes logical sense. The site was intended to disperse part of Iran's civilian enrichment program to safeguard against attacks by the U.S. or Israel.

 

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

 

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

 

Dismissing allegations that the plant has a military purpose, Salehi said the facility is being constructed as a "precautionary measure in case of an unwanted incident against our nuclear programme."

 

He said Iran's nuclear installations are facing "threats every day" and so Tehran "had to take measures to disperse" the locations of its installations.

 

If I'd spent billions on a civilian nuclear power program and listened to the saber-rattling of the "Real Men Go To Tehran" set for all these years, I'd be inclined to do the same thing. That doesn't mean I think the site was non-military (or military) - Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. I'll wait for more information.

 

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/ir...ck-threats.html

 

Seem to say it there about the size.

 

But the reasoning again seems bogus, why would they need a facility like this if their main facilities were gone? And if they weren't then why would they need it in the first place?

 

Aren't you opposed to the proliferation of CCTV?

 

Strange to hear you make the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument.

[Guest alex]

I appreciate you can't turn back the clock and can't take away Israel's nuclear weapons, F15s etc. and I don't think arming the Palestians to the teeth and giving them equal firepower would sort it out but I think the US by basically creating a military superpower in the region by handing Israel an overwhelming superiority over it neighbours in terms of defence capability has been problematic in itself.

 

And what very nearly happened to Israel? (and indeed is still the stated aim of Iran and many other groups in the area?)

I know that you have the problem whereby Israel needs to protect itself because of its neighbours but the losers are the Palestinians in all this, don't you think?

 

Always have been, long before the word "Palestinian" had ever been dreamt up, and long before jews re-dominated the area or built Israel.

 

Equally though there are actually an awful lot of "Palestinians" that live quite happily within Israel.

 

 

 

 

 

But like in that recent report both "sides" are quite guilty of war crimes, and both "sides" will at it for a long, long time (especially given that it is a political crowbar for so many factions). Six of one, half a dozen of the other until someone does something really stupid/amazing.

I'm not suggesting one side is right while the other is the comic book baddie. I was just highlighting something that is problematic in solving the conflict, particularly when the side that has all the military might also has billions of dollars of backing from the USA and little more than a few tuts when they stamp all over the Palestinians. I don't condone the terrorist activities of the Palestinians either but I'm pretty sure they're more wronged against than Israel at present.

[Happy Face 29]

Last week...

 

IAEA demands to inspect Israeli nukes

Fri, 09/18/2009 - 5:05pm

This is a major shift:

 

The UN nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections, in a surprise victory for Arab states.

 

The resolution, passed narrowly for the first time in nearly two decades, expresses concern about "Israeli nuclear capabilities" and calls on International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to work on the issue.

 

The Middle East resolution, sponsored by Arab states, was backed by 49 votes to 45 against in a floor vote at the IAEA's annual member states conference. The vote split along Western and developing nation lines. There were 16 abstentions

 

This is a major victory as the Israel's representative on the council has already promised to "not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region."

 

It also probably won't do a whole lot for the credibility of the IAEA to have one more country over which it is powerless to enforce its rulings.

 

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/0...t_israeli_nukes

 

 

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

Why would they keep it secret if they were going to announce it? Why would they have kept their initial project secret in the first place for that matter?

 

 

 

The size? it was mentioned on the news (could well have been from a Guardian source IFRC), Fop's sure it will be mentioned on-line somewhere.

 

Well post it if you see it anywhere would you. I've not seen anything that can categorically show what the facility is or is intended to be. Until there's an IAEA inspection (which Iran have welcomed) no-one can know, can they?

 

Steve Hynd thinks that Iran's argument for secrecy around the second plant is plausible....

 

Iran has another explanation that makes logical sense. The site was intended to disperse part of Iran's civilian enrichment program to safeguard against attacks by the U.S. or Israel.

 

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

 

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

 

Dismissing allegations that the plant has a military purpose, Salehi said the facility is being constructed as a "precautionary measure in case of an unwanted incident against our nuclear programme."

 

He said Iran's nuclear installations are facing "threats every day" and so Tehran "had to take measures to disperse" the locations of its installations.

 

If I'd spent billions on a civilian nuclear power program and listened to the saber-rattling of the "Real Men Go To Tehran" set for all these years, I'd be inclined to do the same thing. That doesn't mean I think the site was non-military (or military) - Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. I'll wait for more information.

 

http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/ir...ck-threats.html

 

Seem to say it there about the size.

 

But the reasoning again seems bogus, why would they need a facility like this if their main facilities were gone? And if they weren't then why would they need it in the first place?

 

Aren't you opposed to the proliferation of CCTV?

 

Strange to hear you make the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument.

 

 

CCTV in itself isn't a huge issue, networked CCTV is a completely different kettle of fish however - pay attention.

 

 

 

But when it comes to nuclear weapon Fop think that yes it's probably quite a good idea to see who is trying to develop them, or are you now saying you're against the non-proliferation treaty and think everyone should have equal access to nukes?

[Fop 1]

I'm not suggesting one side is right while the other is the comic book baddie. I was just highlighting something that is problematic in solving the conflict, particularly when the side that has all the military might also has billions of dollars of backing from the USA and little more than a few tuts when they stamp all over the Palestinians. I don't condone the terrorist activities of the Palestinians either but I'm pretty sure they're more wronged against than Israel at present.

 

And 40 years ago?

 

And in 40 years time?

 

 

 

Peace and ledger books never go hand in hand.

[Fop 1]

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

 

 

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand.

 

Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist?

[Fop 1]

Iran peacefully testing peace missiles for peaceful uses.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8278026.stm

[Happy Face 29]

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

 

 

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand.

 

Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist?

 

Again, you keep going into unknowns and what if's. Israel are the major force and with every action they take in the Gaza Strip they are wiping out it's inhabitants....but your fear is that Iran might possibly take retribution if we allow them to get strong enough to make Israel think twice about it's apartheid regime.

 

Back in reality Iran has been heavily chastised for following the rules and virtually nothing has been said about the Israeli refusal to abide by exactly the same rules. We continue to support the occupying army that flaunts international law and kills thousands of innocent people.

[Happy Face 29]

Iran peacefully testing peace missiles for peaceful uses.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8278026.stm

 

 

IranIsrael peacefully testing peace missiles for peaceful uses.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...le-missile.html

 

http://www.fas.org/news/israel/e20000502pentagon.htm

[Fop 1]

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

 

 

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand.

 

Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist?

 

Again, you keep going into unknowns and what if's. Israel are the major force and with every action they take in the Gaza Strip they are wiping out it's inhabitants....but your fear is that Iran might possibly take retribution if we allow them to get strong enough to make Israel think twice about it's apartheid regime.

 

How would you describe Iran's regime?

 

 

Back in reality Iran has been heavily chastised for following the rules and virtually nothing has been said about the Israeli refusal to abide by exactly the same rules. We continue to support the occupying army that flaunts international law and kills thousands of innocent people.

 

Are you saying you'd rather Iran have nuclear weapons than Israel?

[Fop 1]

Iran peacefully testing peace missiles for peaceful uses.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8278026.stm

 

 

IranIsrael peacefully testing peace missiles for peaceful uses.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...le-missile.html

 

http://www.fas.org/news/israel/e20000502pentagon.htm

 

But Iran only want nuclear energy, if all they want is peace why do they need missiles?

[Renton 21624]

So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret.

 

Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

 

 

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand.

 

Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist?

 

Again, you keep going into unknowns and what if's. Israel are the major force and with every action they take in the Gaza Strip they are wiping out it's inhabitants....but your fear is that Iran might possibly take retribution if we allow them to get strong enough to make Israel think twice about it's apartheid regime.

 

Back in reality Iran has been heavily chastised for following the rules and virtually nothing has been said about the Israeli refusal to abide by exactly the same rules. We continue to support the occupying army that flaunts international law and kills thousands of innocent people.

 

 

Israel acquired it's nuclear technology in the 60s didn't it? Sorry like, the same rules don't apply to Israel now as they do for Iran. Also I might add that so far Israel has remained a responsible nuclear power, I simply don't have that level of trust regarding the Iranian fundamentalists. I'm not saying Israel is without blame in this and it's very complicated, but I don't have any fears they're about to nuke Tehran. I'm not so sure I'd have confidence if it was the other way round though.