Iran begins installing 6,000 new centrifuges

I only have to know that he and his friends at New American Century caused this war, to know that he controls more than you would think.

I remember Colin Powell and his porta potty pictures. You may think the voting populus is stupid, that's your choice, but some of us remember and ask questions. If UN is so important why has the US NOT paid their bill to them. I don't think you can use the UN or the threat of WMD again, unless you show us the proof this time. Threats and fear mongering aren't going to cut it. And I doubt Colin Powell will step up to the podium again. Condi Rice sure, she's bought and paid for. But she's about as popular as Hillary Clinton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/19/usa.sudan

 

So , ALL of th IAEA reports , and UN Sanctions are all Cheneys doings, And Iran doesnt have a nuclear program, Natanz is a myth, gotcha ya.

 

Iran has a nuclear program they've said as much, so what? So do we. So does Pakistan, India and several other countries.

England for one:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Britain_Decides_To_Stay_A_Nuclear_Weapons_Power_In_The_21st_Century.html

I would ask deterent to whom?

 

So ,every country should have them?

 

Looks that way. Can't have a level playing field if some of the competitors are jumped up on steriods, but your not allowed to use them.

 

I've heard this joke before. April of 2003, as I recall.

It wasn't funny then, either.

 

What do you plan to do to stop them? The USA can't even hold down a pack of pussy Iraqis, who put up with Saddam for 30 years. Now you want to fuck with Iran, who booted the (far more brutal) Shah?

Let us know how that works out, Sparky.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

So, You wouldnt be against the USA selling nukes to Taiwan or Israel ?

You have to admit those 2 countries are up against competitors on "steroids"

And with all the trouble in South America, maybe sell a few to Columbia too.?

 

Oddly enough, the IAEA doesn't say that they are doing anything having to do with building weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701326.html


In fact, the IAEA is happy with Iran's compliance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html

Most recently:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

So I guess the IAEA doesn't actually say what you say it says. So yeah, unless you can show differently, it really IS just you and Dick Cheney.

 

Who said i wanted to stop them?

Iraq had the #4 military in the world after the Iraq-Iran war, now what, #34. Iran still #16

 

If you would click the links provided, you would see

 

Who said anything about their military? I think it's a foregone conclusion that America can take down any conventional military in the world...and that it's pretty much useless to do so when that just leads to 5-10 years or so of getting its ass kicked by 15 year olds with 40 year old weapons.

American foreign policy since 2001 has been one embarrassing failure after another, and now you want to pick ANOTHER fight?

 

They aren't required to suspend enrichment. Enrichment is also used for making high-grade reactor fuel.

And the other comment does not demonstrate any concern that weapons were actually being made or even contemplated. Iran has complied with existing international law...why on Earth would you expect them to voluntarily do more? For example, would you expect America to allow Russia to look at more of our stuff than our treaties demand?

In short, the IAEA doesn't say any of the things you have led people to believe it says.

 

ODDLY ENOUGH all of YOUR links contrdict what your saying.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701326.html

YOU call this Happy?

Your IAEA link proved nothing.

 

Get real, i have only quoted the IAEA so how can i be twisting it?

If so, why has the IAEA imposed more sanctions on Iran?

again from your link.

Been living under a rock? Do YOU even take the time to read YOUR own links?

UN Sanctions prohibit them from enrichment.

 

Actually, they did show something. You seem to be complaining because the IAEA has not found any evidence that Iran IS conducting a weapons project (your first listed quote), and that the security council (which has no jurisdiction over a nation's internal affairs) isn't happy with the fact that Iran doesn't seem to be able to produce much enriched uranium (as there is absolutely no evidence that any has been spirited away).

5 years ago or so, you wartards decided to launch a war because Saddam couldn't prove that our "government's" allegations were false...and they turned out to be complete bullshit.

So you'll forgive me if this time I'd like to see some proof that the allegations are actually true. We tried "guilty until proven innocent"; you had your chance, and you failed.

 

UN sanctions don't prohibit anyone from doing anything. Only treaties can do that. Sanctions are a means of economically punishing someone for doing something the UN doesn't like, whether or not that is a result of a violated treaty.

That's why sanctions almost always fail. They aren't enforcable.

 

Like they are here?
Like NK?

 

You seem to think anyone who isnt pro-Mahmuod is pro-Bush, just like the rest here.

Even tho all i have done is present the facts that are available to anyone, so they can form their own opinion.

 

If sanctions against North Korea were effective, then why are they still able to sell weapons in Africa and the ME? Oh, yeah, because in those nations care about what the UN thinks.

FACT: We paid NK off to get them to stop working on nukes. It wasn't intimidation, it was bribery.