Posted on 12/05/2005 6:54:54 AM PST by conservativecorner
Muhammad El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA...the UN's nuclear watchdog division, says he agrees with Israel....Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. However, he warns against anybody actually doing anything about it....fearing Iran would retaliate. Now that's a great plan, isn't it? A sworn enemy is well on the way to developing nukes, and you just sit back and do nothing because you're afraid they may retaliate. Just let them proceed until they actually have the nuclear weapons in hand. A typically useless position from the Nobel prize-winning bureaucrat.
Now think for just a minute....Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon. Iran has gone on record calling for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Soon they will have an atomic warhead to do just that. So what should we do about it? The answer is simple.... you destroy their capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons! Besides, newly democratic Iraq could use a little parking space. That nuclear facility would make a nice slab of asphalt.
But it won't happen, unless the Israelis do it. There is simply no will in this country to take Iran on...and you can bet the Anti-Semitic UN will soon be warning Israel not to take any action. Maybe Iran won't launch the nuke.....they'll just sell it to Al-Zarqawi. Comforting thought, isn't it?
For nearly 50 years of the Cold War, we would not have put up with language such as this, from the Soviet Union. Why, then, do we put up with it from Rinky-Dinky Stinky Iran?.....
el Bara-die is afraid of Iranian "retaliation" now...while they don't yet have a nuke? What,they might walk away from "talks"...and put the "talkers" out of a lucrative assignment?
pre-emptive strike?
I was waiting for this one to come on the list!
Isn't it a bit disingenuous for el Baradai to make
THIS announcement re Iran after he and Hans Blik
did their utmost for over two years to aid Saddam
Hussein in his defiance of the UN mandates? Every
time they went to Iraq, Saddam's "escorts" led them
both down the garden path in another direction.
They even had the audacity to ADMIT that they
found storage facilities that had been very
recently cleared out! But, "let's take Saddam
at his word!" Now we know all of them were
being paid off. And I don't exclude the two
lead IAEA inspectors from that accusation, either!
Could it be that Iran's Honchos aren't about to
cough up a little by way of private donations to
el Baradai? And don't tell me the man is highly
thought of by the Nobel Peace Committee!
Iran nuking its Islamic neighbors is a bit far fetched, I believe. The rest of the civilized world would retaliate against Iran so severely that it could not withstand. But if they nuke Israel, Half the world would celebrate, and half of the other half would wring their hands and cry ALAS! and do nothing..........
http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/120405_iranmusic.asp
From IRNA
Iran has taken its nuclear energy campaign to the realm of music this time in an effort to strike a chord with the public about the peaceful nature of this "national" achievement.
The Music and Songs Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) has produced two musical pieces "in parallel with supporting the peaceful nuclear technology", the center said in a statement Saturday.
The works named "Indebted to Fire" and "The Burning Lantern" are being produced with a symphonic orchestra trait, it added.
Meanwhile, the press reported Saturday that a plan was being broached for a public offering of Iran's nuclear energy stock.
"According to a plan which has just been forwarded to the Supreme National Security Council and will soon be put on the agenda, the nuclear stock will be offered to the public," the daily Kayhan wrote.
The paper said feasibility studies on the plan would probably commence soon.
"The plan is based on the peacefulness of the nuclear energy according to which, the government can even issue bonds in order to provide finance for building nuclear plants," it added.
Kayhan went on to say that "based on what experts believe, the ceding of nuclear shares to the public beside reasserting the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear technology can strengthen its place as a modern source of energy among the people".
The plan would require the government to find out mechanisms according to which revenues from the sale and exports of nuclear products would be distributed among the shareholders, the paper said.
The government is fresh from its approval of a bill on how to participate foreign companies in Iran's nuclear energy program.
The program is a thorn in Washington's side since the US law bans the country's firms from any engagement in Iran's development projects.
Iran's first nuclear plant is being built by Russia under a one-billion-dollar contract which is scheduled to become operational in mid-2006.
Last week, a key parliament speaker announced that Iran would tender by March 2006 the construction of two more nuclear power plants.
"In the 1384 budget, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization has been given license to set up 20 nuclear plants with a capacity to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said.
US authorities claim that the program might be a front to build an atom bomb, a charge Tehran vigorously denies.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) announced last week that the so-called EU3 had accepted Iran's offer to take up nuclear negotiations from where they were left off in August.
In a letter dated November 6, SNSC Secretary Ali Larijani had invited the Europeans to resume the negotiations.
Negotiations broke down in August after Iran rejected an EU proposal of concessions, which the country described as 'a package of lollipops' and resumed uranium conversion work.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has stressed that the focal point of any future negotiations would have to provide 'concrete guarantees for realizing production of nuclear fuel in Iran'.
ping
Hitler's PR Machine did much the same while it prepared for War. The Islamo-fascists are no different.
Iran is close enough to success that there is no longer any reason for them to turn back. From the standpoint of Iranian leadership, possession of nuclear capability is so powerful a step for them, what could "diplomacy" possibly offer in exchange for giving up their nuclear ambitions?
There can be two - and ONLY two - possible outcomes for Iran:
1. The "West" (read: the United States, Britain, and/or Israel) will take military and strategic action against Iran and destroy their nuclear capabilities
-or-
2. Iran will succeed and finalize its nuclear capability.
My predictions:
1. The United States will take no action against Iran. The current administration _knows_ what the outcome from their lack of action will be. But the United States is currently too weak militarily to launch an all-out invasion of Iran to overthrow their leadership and search out and destroy their nuclear facilities. And George W. Bush - at this point in time - is too weak presidentially to persuade the American people that such an undertaking is the next logical step in the war with Islam and necessary to ensure our future security.
2. Israel (which also knows the outcome and perhaps knows even more than the U.S. at this point through their own intelligence) will probably refrain from attacking Iran unilaterally. They have the capabilities and the expertise, yet I sense (unlike the attack on the Iraqi reactor) that they are afraid to take such a bold step in the current world situation.
3. As a result of 1 and 2, Iran _will_ aquire nuclear capability, and perhaps prove it before the world with an above-ground test detonation.
I hope my predictions prove wrong. But I'm not optimistic about how events are unfolding.
The West _knows_ what Iran's intentions are.
The West _knows_ that each day brings Iran closer to its goals.
The West _knows_ that Iran will not respond to any sort of diplomacy, other than to evade and obfuscate while they near those goals.
The West _knows_ that Iranian nuclear ambitions could be brought to a crushing halt by military action.
But - The West _also_ knows it will take nothing less than another war to do this.
And The West - at least right now - is unwilling to fight that war.
So it's probably too late.
- John
help free Iran now
Would love for you to comment on this growing topic of interest. Thanks in advance.
Have you seen this video? I understand the US and Israel's symbols, but who does the Swastika represent? Japan? India? China? What countries are predominently Budhist?
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=52900
.
US invasion of Iran is not an option since we don't have a map to the actual "bomb". If we can't produce it then another "Bush lied" extravaganza will ensue. Forget the fact that everybody and his brother believes Iran will have a bomb. Remember the fact that they said the same thing about WMD in Iraq.
Israel can have the honor this time.
to the Iranian regime the US, Israel (Zionists) and Nazists are the same!
So you are saying the swastika is symbolizing the Nazis and not Budhists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.