Exactly Where Is Iran Breaking The Law?

all current rhetoric to the contrary...

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

all current rhetoric to the contrary...

Just out of curiosity, do you ever actually try to make an argument to refute posts that disagree with you? You seem to have an absolute inability to defend your ideas with logical argument.

Twee-ee-ee-ee-eet . . .

Too much fun violation, Bear to the penalty box . . .

Setanta wrote:

Twee-ee-ee-ee-eet . . .

Too much fun violation, Bear to the penalty box . . .

ah c'mon coach.....

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Twee-ee-ee-ee-eet . . .

Too much fun violation, Bear to the penalty box . . .

ah c'mon coach.....

The NFL just banned over-enthusiastic celebrations too. These Bush apologists are as insane as he is. Rational debate with ithe insane, of course, is futile.

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

all current rhetoric to the contrary...

Just out of curiosity, do you ever actually try to make an argument to refute posts that disagree with you? You seem to have an absolute inability to defend your ideas with logical argument.

if by that do you mean am I a condescending snot who will never admit to being wrong on any subject at any time..... then I guess not.

Quote:

EXACTLY WHERE IS IRAN BREAKING THE LAW?

HERE'S WHAT I want to know:

What law has Iran broken concerning nuclear - well, anything? What part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which they signed and Israel did not, was violated? If Iran announces tomorrow that they are going to acquire nuclear weapons, the United States and other countries say "No!" and Iran asks, "Why not?" what would we all say?

The "wipe Israel off the map" remark was just words. Iran's leaders know that if they attacked any country with a nuclear weapon, the United States and others would turn Iran into the world's largest radioactive-glass-paved parking lot, innocent Iranians be damned. And what say could the United States have in this at all as the only country in recorded history to have actually used nuclear weapons on two civilian populations?

Mark F. Walker, Philadelphia

source

I came across this letter, he's asking a very good question, does anybody know ?

All Bush has done is substitute "Iran" for "Iraq" in the hopes you are too stupid to notice it's the same bovine excrement being poured all over your head.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

Bushie, Cheney, Rummy and the rest of the PNAC madmen need to be charged with crimes against humanity. Blair too.

Why should Iran be bombed over something they haven't done?

Iran's "nukes" aren't all they're cracked up to be. It's more propaganda posturing from an insane crackpot.

Most of the world's 440 reactors use uranium enriched to between 2 and 5 percent. In order for them to create a nuclear bomb, they must move tyo 90 percent enrichment.

To be able to do that, they need a large number of centrifuges and a lot of time. They need about 1500 centrifuges diverted to military use that would produce only 28 kilograms in one year. However, centrifuge technology is complex and exacting.

Thousands of spinning rotors have to be connected in precise cascades, capable of maintaining a vacuum and handling uranium hexafluoride, which is very corrosive. IAEA sources states that 30 percent of Iran's centrifuges crashed or broke when its 164-machine cascade was shut down in response to international pressure in October 2003.

Though they have built 1345 more centrifuges since then, half of them are not engineered well enough to operate in cascades.

Iran is not technically capable of producing nuclear bombs, yet.

Any set of centrifuges that can enrich to 5%, can also go all the way to 90%.

They say they've begun to produce enriched uranium.

Even if they are lying, they are eventually going to figure it out.

oralloy wrote:

Any set of centrifuges that can enrich to 5%, can also go all the way to 90%.

I've found out that in natural uranium, the prpoportion of U-235 (the fissile isotope) is about 0.7%. To fuel nuclear power stations they need to enrich that through a cascade of centrifuges to spin hot uranium hexafluoride gas and separate U-235 from its heavier cousin, U-238.

Not any set of centrifuges can do this. You need a large number, as I've stated above and I've also stated that a large number aren't capable of enriching uranium to such a high percentage.

oralloy wrote:

They say they've begun to produce enriched uranium.

So? All nuclear power plants need enriched uranium in order to function.

oralloy wrote:

Even if they are lying, they are eventually going to figure it out.

Maybe, but that doesn't justify taking Natanz out with bombs.

Nice to see you're back onto your kill em all rant, ora orally.
Those rays have gotten through your wooden head.
Don't you read anything, except Bush's bullshit?
Geez.
If you're so sure you're right, you'd read some of the links sent to you.

Israel has more bombs than Iran.

The US has more bombs than anyone.

Give it up. Iran isn't getting nuked. The US can't afford to piss off China and Russia. Being as the US OWES over 900 BILLION to China. Get it yet? Duh.
Hope you're locked up somewhere safe. You're psychotic.

Civilians were not the target of the A-bombs dropped on Japan.

http://www.math.yorku.ca/sfp/sfp.ex.html

It wasn't necesssary to hit them with that awful thing, Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe, and later President of The United States.

When the atomic bomb was dropped, President Truman said that it was to make Japan surrender without losing large numbers of American lives in an invasion. This has long been the accepted truth. The release of documents and diaries now shows this story is false.

In the months before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman and his senior staff did not believe that it was necessary to drop the bomb to end the war with Japan. They believed that Japan could be brought to surrender without an invasion. Japan was militarily isolated and had no allies. They believed that bombing, blockade, and the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan, would together force Japanese leaders to seek surrender on American terms. Most important, from diplomatic contacts and decoded Japanese wireless transmissions, they knew that the Japanese were seeking surrender. They believed that if they allowed the Japanese to retain the Emperor, as they later agreed to, the Japanese would accept American terms of surrender.

Why then was the bomb dropped? Historical research shows that Truman and his advisors believed that a demonstration of their willigness to use the bomb would aid them in negotiating with Stalin over the future of Eastern and Central Europe. Other reasons, such as a racist disregard for Japanese life, are also important.

These facts are shocking. They show that the post-war economic and technological order founded by America and its Allies started with an act of injustice to rival, in nature if not in scale, those of Stalin or Hitler. They call into question the moral basis of our society.

Fifty years of brazen lying, misinformation, distortion, indirection, and partial or delayed release of documents by the Allied governments has suppressed these facts.

In the United States veterans' groups have successfully forced the Smithsonian Institute to remove the text that states them from an exhibition on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that opened this May.