UK warns Iran over nuclear plans

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The international dispute over Iran's nuclear programme appears to be escalating, with Tehran threatening to resume uranium conversion.

The UK Foreign Office (FCO) urged Iran not to take unilateral steps that could jeopardise talks with three European Union nations - known as the E3.

The remarks came after a top Iranian official set a Sunday deadline for the EU to propose economic incentives.

The UK - the current EU president - said these would be given in a week.

This was in accordance with the decisions of the Geneva meeting in May between Iran and the three European countries - Britain, France and Germany - as well as the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the FCO spokesman.

This is threatening to become a dangerous escalation, says the BBC's Jon Leyne.

The US believes Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, but Iran insists its programme is for civilian use only.

Iran suspended all uranium conversion and enrichment activities in November 2004 as a result of international pressure.

However, it has always insisted that the suspension was temporary and that it would resume some of its nuclear activities regardless of EU proposals.

The European states have threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if Iran resumes its nuclear activities.

full news story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4732587.stm

[Rasta Sapian]

Northern Iran is a nuclear mecca, just look to the Caspian Sea, It has been a nuclear wasteland for half a century with Russia bodering the northern coast of the Sea it is no wonder that Iran has a new program.

Depending on what they are planning to do with the energy is the question?

[bolshevik butcher]

yeh, tehy say they want to use it for nuclear enegy, but i wonder if they will.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Perhaps the Iranian nuclear programme would be better if they modeled it after the U.K/U.S. style programmes.

Then you wouldn't have to wonder if they used the uranium for nuclear energy or not.

Then you'd know it was for the weapons.

[bolshevik butcher]

hehe, no seriously, i think that the iranians shouldn't be aloud nuclear weapons, i dont think anyone should have them.

[Intifada]

I have no problem in Iran developing nuclear capabilities.

It would help protect themselves, and the region in general, from Yankee imperialism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Its funny how the British Government is trying to stop nuclear proliferation abroad while planning to renew Trident.

HYPOCRISY, LIES AND IMPERIALISM. :angry:

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:20 AM
I have no problem in Iran developing nuclear capabilities.

It would help protect themselves, and the region in general, from Yankee imperialism.
would it? My fear is that the ranaian governmnet seems crakpot enough to actually use them!

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:20 AM
I have no problem in Iran developing nuclear capabilities.

It would help protect themselves, and the region in general, from Yankee imperialism.
so your up with weapons that can destroy whole small countries? because they can kill those yankees right? what if those so called yankees are like me and are dissident, twards the us goverment, and all us imperialist governments. if nuclear war is aloud to stand a revolution can never happen. the same you praise with having nuclear capibilities can turn those against you in a revolution.

[Intifada]

Clenched Fist

would it? My fear is that the ranaian governmnet seems crakpot enough to actually use them!

That is your subjective opinion.

I do not think that if the Iranian regime possessed nuclear weapons, they would be stupid enough to act in a way which would probably end their rule over the Iranian people.

rise up

so your up with weapons that can destroy whole small countries?

No I am totally against that.

I, like others, would love to see a world free of all nuclear weapons. However, when some nations possess such weapons, it is only to be expected that other states will seek their protection too. There is no doubt that the possession of nuclear weapons acts as a very strong barrier against aggression from other nations. Iran has the same right to that deterrent as the US and other countries that already have nuclear weapons.


because they can kill those yankees right?

:rolleyes:

I really do hate it when people either refuse to actually read my post, or when they make false allegations up.

If you see and actually read my post again, without getting carried away, you will see that I believe that nuclear weapons would act as "protection"
against "Yankee imperialism."

That is not advocating the use of nuclear weapons against the Americans themselves.


the same you praise with having nuclear capibilities can turn those against you in a revolution.

Indeed they can.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+Aug 1 2005, 04:42 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ Aug 1 2005, 04:42 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 11:20 AM
I have no problem in Iran developing nuclear capabilities.

It would help protect themselves, and the region in general, from Yankee imperialism.
would it? My fear is that the ranaian governmnet seems crakpot enough to actually use them! [/b]
Not just crackpot, but unstable.

The only thing worse then a nation with nukes is a nation without a government and with nukes.

The nukes would suddenly be up for grabs.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by krazyrabidsheep+Aug 2 2005, 05:51 PM--> (krazyrabidsheep @ Aug 2 2005, 05:51 PM)
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 1 2005, 04:42 PM

[email protected] 1 2005, 11:20 AM
I have no problem in Iran developing nuclear capabilities.

It would help protect themselves, and the region in general, from Yankee imperialism.
would it? My fear is that the ranaian governmnet seems crakpot enough to actually use them!
Not just crackpot, but unstable.

The only thing worse then a nation with nukes is a nation without a government and with nukes.

The nukes would suddenly be up for grabs. [/b]
:D reminds me of when the soviet union collapsed the americans did not give a damn about those nukes.
i was just a kid back then but if i recall correctly the former soviet states offered the americans to destroy the nukes thats including russia but the americans refused.

so they just send the nukes back to russia and then russia was stuck with thousands of nukes and no way to maintain them or protect them in a way that would be required for such weapons.

i say that iran should build nukes so they can finally grow a backbone against the zionist facists.
if they go to war they better damn make sure its their last one.
and if it means radiation blasting my homeland well too bad life's a bi** i would not be bothered as death comes for all of us we can only decide how we die.

[bolshevik butcher]

I heard the deal was they'd destroy there nukes if america would destroy there nukes, that woulda been great.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

I don't think Iran will use their nukes (when they actually will produce them). You don't build nukes to attacl other countries, but to defend yourself.

If there are any nukes we should worry about, then that is Russia's nukes, all lying naked for everyone to take.

I guess that if Iran chooses to get nuclear weapons, then that would be through buying Russian nukes.

Anyways, the US will probably set up another coup or something againts Iran before they let them have nukes, or some new attack from Iraq (which I heard they are actually planning).

Maybe Iran will expand and create "satelite states" just like the Soviet Union, LoL...

[viva le revolution]

Evey nation has the right to progress and technology. impeding any nation from acquiring technology is imposed backwardness. Nuclear technology has many uses. it can generate power, lead to a reduction in greenhouse emissions etc.
Nuclear weapons will act as a deterrant. it is hypocritical for a nation that possesses vast quantities of nuclear weapons and has actually used them to expect other nations to accept their moral high ground.
Israel posseses nukes, it would be more feasable if israel gave up it's nukes because that is the real threat to Iran. An Iranian nuclear capability would just act as a counter-balance.

[Wurkwurk]

viva le revolution - smart words.

With the US enroaching on the middle east these days, a nuclear Iran would serve as a NECESSARY country balance against the US and its wacko president. The moment Iran has nukes, everyone will start talking and stop fighting.

Plus, Iran wouldn't dare use the nukes if it has any, it will just be used as a deterrent. Seriously, if a single nuke goes off anywhere with even the slightest trace of Iran on it, the US will invade and depose the mullahs. They would not risk that, for the world.

I really think Iran deserves nukes over Israel. Israel, a tiny country is constant peril from its larger foes and with its people motivated by their religion, is far more likely to drop the bomb over Iran, a secure, large country with no immediate threat.

Its complete hypocrisy to posses nukes for yourself but deny others from having it. I would prefer there to be no nukes at all, but if the US under a wanker has 10,000 of them, then I say Iran deserves to, too.

BTW I'm half Iranian and I traveled all across it last month, and I can say that it is in no way a 'terrorist state!'

[Commie Rat]

Nuclear weaponry should have never been allowed, proliferation is one of the world major problems.

say NO to DU

[bolshevik butcher]

Sorry but i cant see israel ever actually using a nuclear weapon. I think its terriblethey have them, btw did you know israel and iran allied against saddam dring the iran/iraq war?

[Scars]

Iran and Israel did NOT 'ally' during the Iran-Iraq war. Israel opposed Iraq. Iran obviously opposed Iraq. Nothing more.

People seem to forget thet nuclear weapons are not weapons. No one is going to use them because doing so dooms not only you, but everyone. They're a diplomatic bargining tool and an insurance policy. Do you actually think anyone is going to invade North Korea now that they have nukes? They can invade North Korea, but Seoul will be turned into a crater. Is that a price anyone is willing to pay? No. The US doesn't want Iran to have nukes because it gives them a lot of extra diplomatical clout.

[Intifada]

Sorry but i cant see israel ever actually using a nuclear weapon.

Israel has already threatened Iran with the use of their nuclear weapons.

[bolshevik butcher]

Eh so? The U$ and russia threatened each other several times with nukes, a U$ politians just threatened al quieda that it would nuke sacred islamic sites, dont tell me you bleieve these empty threats?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 PM
People seem to forget thet nuclear weapons are not weapons. No one is going to use them because doing so dooms not only you, but everyone. They're a diplomatic bargining tool and an insurance policy. Do you actually think anyone is going to invade North Korea now that they have nukes? They can invade North Korea, but Seoul will be turned into a crater. Is that a price anyone is willing to pay? No. The US doesn't want Iran to have nukes because it gives them a lot of extra diplomatical clout.
I don't remember any Hiroshima or Nagasaki diplomatic peace talks.

If it is used in action or threat to do injure, to destroy, to kill, or to incapacitate a living being, then it is a weapon.

The only reason nukes are different then steak knives is that one nuke can kill more people then a whole kitchen full of steak knives.

[Severian]

Originally posted by krazyrabidsheep+Aug 3 2005, 11:01 PM--> (krazyrabidsheep @ Aug 3 2005, 11:01 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 12:13 PM
People seem to forget thet nuclear weapons are not weapons. No one is going to use them because doing so dooms not only you, but everyone. They're a diplomatic bargining tool and an insurance policy. Do you actually think anyone is going to invade North Korea now that they have nukes? They can invade North Korea, but Seoul will be turned into a crater. Is that a price anyone is willing to pay? No. The US doesn't want Iran to have nukes because it gives them a lot of extra diplomatical clout.
I don't remember any Hiroshima or Nagasaki diplomatic peace talks.

If it is used in action or threat to do injure, to destroy, to kill, or to incapacitate a living being, then it is a weapon.

The only reason nukes are different then steak knives is that one nuke can kill more people then a whole kitchen full of steak knives. [/b]
But Scars is right; they're more often used to threaten than kill. And that's why countries want 'em.

And why the U.S. doesn't want countries like Iran and north Korea to get 'em; it effectively deters any further U.S. agression.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I thought I heard on the news the other day that the new president of iran says he denounces countries with nuclear weapons, can someone verify that or correct me?

[Intifada]

Eh so? The U$ and russia threatened each other several times with nukes, a U$ politians just threatened al quieda that it would nuke sacred islamic sites, dont tell me you bleieve these empty threats?



You believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons (or is prone to do so), yet do not believe that Israel will?

How so?

[bolshevik butcher]

Because israel has what it wnats at the current time, it is not being threatened by other reigiemes and also, its not as unstable as iran, if something was to seriosuly threaten the iranian reigiemes position of pwoer i can see them using nukes. I dont like the isralkei governmnet but i can evnvisage them using a nuclear weapon.

[Intifada]

I disagree.

My reasons have been outlined.

[bolshevik butcher]

Im not saying they would use them im saying its possible, and i dont approve of nuclear weapons anyway. I dont understand why you want to see them in the hands of anyone, especially such a reactionary reigieme.

[Severian]

What are you talking about? Israel's frequently at war with its neighbors, far more so than Iran or, well, anyone. And the only "regime" threatening Iran....is Washington.

Really, you've made a statement about yourself and your preconceptions ("i can see...."), not a statement about the material world.

****

The European powers' latest proposal has been rejected by Iran...apparently, it didn't allow Iran to even continue developing nuclear power. Which they need for their industrial development; the oil won't last forever (and isn't found throughout the country.)

Enrichment of nuclear fuel is on a very different level from the enrichment of bomb material; it wouldn't be that hard to verifiably determine which was going on. But the European powers have insisted that Iran stop enriching fuel and rely on them for a fuel supply....which would mean they could cut it off anytime, and probably would anytime things got hot if history is any guide.

[bolshevik butcher]

Israels more often at war, but that doesnt mean it would sue its nuclear weaons in these wars.

[Intifada]

Im not saying they would use them im saying its possible, and i dont approve of nuclear weapons anyway.

Nor do I.

I, like others, would love to see a world free of all nuclear weapons. However, when some nations possess such weapons, it is only to be expected that other states will seek that protection too. There is no doubt that the possession of nuclear weapons acts as a very strong barrier against aggression from other nations. Iran has the same right to that deterrent as the US and other countries that already have nuclear weapons.


I dont understand why you want to see them in the hands of anyone, especially such a reactionary reigieme.

If Iran has nuclear weapons, it would help keep the threat of Yankee imperialism at bay.

I do not think that if the Iranian regime possessed nuclear weapons, they would be stupid enough to act in a way which would probably end their rule over the Iranian people.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think iran has a big enough army to act as a dterent already to act as a dterent to be honest, if iran launched a weapon at the U$ it would be turned into dust within minutes.

[Phalanx]

Don't be such fools. Even petty revolutionaries like yourselves must know that Iran is not a stable government. Israel won't use its weapons, because they know what repercussions it will face. Iran, however, could develop these weapons and sell them to terrorists, who could use them in New York or Tel-Aviv. I know many of you might like to see yankee 'imperialists' die, but I'm strongly against the Iranian nuclear project. As much as you'd hate to admit it, the US and Israel are more responsible countries than Iran.

[Bannockburn]

I really doubt nuclear arms would be used. If they were, it would have world consequences.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 5 2005, 07:00 PM
Don't be such fools. Even petty revolutionaries like yourselves must know that Iran is not a stable government. Israel won't use its weapons, because they know what repercussions it will face. Iran, however, could develop these weapons and sell them to terrorists, who could use them in New York or Tel-Aviv. I know many of you might like to see yankee 'imperialists' die, but I'm strongly against the Iranian nuclear project. As much as you'd hate to admit it, the US and Israel are more responsible countries than Iran.
Excellent point.
Interesting arguments, some I have not previously considered.

Iran should not have nuclear weapons.
I agree.



That said, is it any better that Israel and the U.S. have nukes?

Perhaps the immediate danger of a rogue nuclear attack is relatively nonexistent, but that does not mean the danger is not there. . .



If history has taught us anything, it is that over a period of time decadence is inevitable for any sovereign state (whether to be followed by revolution, assimilation, or destruction).

That means that Israel and the U.S. will at some point deteriorate socially and politically.

It would be fair to compare the U.S. with ancient Rome.
Imagine if you will ancient Rome with nukes.
Imagine Rome at 400AD with nukes.

As it was, the civil wars and the fall of the Roman Empire threw Europe into a Dark Age.
What's going to happen with when the U.S. is near collapse?

At very best it will be like the U.S.S.R. (with weapons, including nukes, changing hands)
At worst. . .
ever seen "Mad Max"?

Perhaps we are safe from the effects of the U.S. and Israel possessing nuclear weapons, but are our grandchildren?

We have an obligation to the future as well as the present.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 5 2005, 07:00 PM
Don't be such fools. Even petty revolutionaries like yourselves must know that Iran is not a stable government. Israel won't use its weapons, because they know what repercussions it will face. Iran, however, could develop these weapons and sell them to terrorists, who could use them in New York or Tel-Aviv. I know many of you might like to see yankee 'imperialists' die, but I'm strongly against the Iranian nuclear project. As much as you'd hate to admit it, the US and Israel are more responsible countries than Iran.
Thats exactley what ive been arguing for the past few posts.

[Commandante_Ant]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 5 2005, 07:00 PM
Don't be such fools. Even petty revolutionaries like yourselves must know that Iran is not a stable government. Israel won't use its weapons, because they know what repercussions it will face. Iran, however, could develop these weapons and sell them to terrorists, who could use them in New York or Tel-Aviv. I know many of you might like to see yankee 'imperialists' die, but I'm strongly against the Iranian nuclear project. As much as you'd hate to admit it, the US and Israel are more responsible countries than Iran.
I wouldnt necessarily like to see Americans die, yes they have elected Bush again and its a mistake they could learn to rue...todays news was that Bush's approval ratings has slipped to 30-40% from 50s and 60%. So all is not well in America. I'd like to see America lose its overwhelming need for money.

Irans nuclear operation worries me also. Although i do not agree with my governments policies, if they were able to bomb Britain themselves or give them to terrorists and they choose to do so, i'd still die even though my opinions differ completely from that of Mr Blair. Unfortunately, i think terrorism will always survive the wars waged against it.

[h&s]

Would Iran actually sell the technology/material to terrorists though? That would probably be the most stupid thing they could possibly do.
Does Iran have the means to deliver the weapons?


I wouldnt necessarily like to see Americans die
The 'necessarily' isn't required. Unless you are an idiot.

[Commandante_Ant]

I retract the necessarily.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 5 2005, 01:00 PM
Don't be such fools. Even petty revolutionaries like yourselves must know that Iran is not a stable government.
Who said it was? But if it's overthrown, any new government is not likely to be further right or more aggressive. On the contrary, there's a lot of pent-up anger against the current rightist mullocracy....


Israel won't use its weapons, because they know what repercussions it will face.

Where Iran wouldn't face any? If anything, Israel, with Washington's protection, would face fewer.


Iran, however, could develop these weapons and sell them to terrorists, who could use them in New York or Tel-Aviv.

Yes, they could. So could anyone with nuclear weapons. But you've given no reason to think they would. It would be a pretty stupid move for any state; there would be no deniability; it would be obviously the terrorists got the nuke from somebody and probably not hard to determine...from whom.

Nobody claims that Pakistan is likely to give nuclear weapons to the Kashmiri guerillas it supports, for example, or that Washington is likely to give nuclear weapons to any of its pet terrorists. You've given no more reason to think Iran would....


As much as you'd hate to admit it, the US and Israel are more responsible countries than Iran.

An unsupported statement. the US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, and both the US and Israel have had more wars, and more aggressive wars. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been involved in only one war...when it was attacked by Iraq.

Everything in your post is an assumption, preconception, or prejudice; those do not become facts just because you state them strongly or with a great air of certainty.