Netanyahu says US warnings not enough to stop Iran - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37043302]2003, and nothing has happened since[/QUOTE] Oh you mean like [QUOTE]In a letter dated 2 May 2012, the Agency reiterated its request that Iran provide the Agency with early access to a specified location within the Parchin site.42 In the same letter, the Agency informed Iran that, based on satellite imagery, at this location, where virtually no activity had been observed for a number of years, the buildings of interest to the Agency are now subject to extensive activities that could hamper the Agency’s ability to undertake effective verification. Since November 2011, the Agency has obtained more information related to the issues associated with the Parchin site, which further corroborates the analysis contained in the Annex to the Director General’s November 2011 report.[/QUOTE] There's a pretty substantial section on military use in the report I'm not sure how this went from "why shouldn't they have nukes" to "they don't have nukes". In an interview the president said it's obvious they wouldn't allow the agency to inspect military installations, because as everyone knows plants and refineries are "military installations".

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;37043277]That's not what the report released a couple months ago says:[/QUOTE] I addressed this above. [quote]So all of those things the guy from the institute in that npr article said are completely untrue?[/quote] Uh I don't see why speculative should be dignified at all. His claims aren't even substantiated and contradict the leading claims against Iran about them being religiously motivated or that one ridiculous claim that was even brought up by "liberal" outlets: "they're trying to bring the 12th Imam as the Qur'an prophesied his appearance would occur upon a catastrophe/apocalypse. "

[QUOTE=Starpluck;37043499]I addressed this above. Uh I don't see why speculative should be dignified at all. His claims aren't even substantiated and contradict the leading claims against Iran about them being religiously motivated or that one ridiculous claim that was even brought up by "liberal" outlets: "they're trying to bring the 12th Imam as the Qur'an prophesied his appearance would occur upon a catastrophe/apocalypse. "[/QUOTE]What do you mean, that a site that hadn't been in use suddenly started up and they won't let them inspect because of a CAD drawing? I'm also not sure what you mean by speculative if they can declare a different fatwa or change it is this a lie?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;37043423] [URL]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1145[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote]Sources were categorized as having a position on the war if they expressed a policy opinion on the news shows studied, were currently affiliated with governments or institutions that took a position on the war, or otherwise took a prominent stance. [/quote] This is a serious methodology error. If someone works for the US government, they shouldn't be immediately considered a "pro-war" source, especially if they aren't talking about the moral implications of the war. I mean, news organizations were trying to report on the war, which requires co-operation and information from official sources. [quote]Looking at U.S. sources, which made up 76 percent of total sources, more than two out of three (68 percent) were either current or former officials. The percentage of U.S. sources who were officials varied from network to network, ranging from 75 percent at CBS to 60 percent at NBC.[/quote] All current officials are automatically pro-war, can you see how that can skew results? [quote]But few people with the expertise to address such questions were sought out on the nightly news. FAIR found that academics, think tank staffers and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accounted for just 4 percent of all sources.[/quote] So this is a critique of the news programs reporting on the actual war too much, not actually reporting everything else that goes along with the war. This doesn't mean there is necessarily a huge amount of bias, but that they had improper priorities regarding war coverage. Also, please note that FOX was included in the study, which will invariably skew results towards pro-war. And then also please note that NPR was NOT included in this study. I cannot load your other source. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;37043499] Uh I don't see why speculative should be dignified at all. His claims aren't even substantiated and contradict the leading claims against Iran about them being religiously motivated or that one ridiculous claim that was even brought up by "liberal" outlets: "they're trying to bring the 12th Imam as the Qur'an prophesied his appearance would occur upon a catastrophe/apocalypse. "[/QUOTE] Um everything is pretty speculative regarding Iran since they are fairly uncooperative with inspection and negotiations. That's why I said it is [B]unclear[/B] whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons or not. I didn't say they were. It's arguable either way and evidence on the matter is unfortunately lacking.

[url]http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm[/url] I'm going to post this in every thread like this because chomsky is a bro.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37043847][url]http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm[/url] I'm going to post this in every thread like this because chomsky is a bro.[/QUOTE] That's all well but unless I missed something the first time I read it it doesn't dispute potential military use and instead goes on more about the Israeli's nukes. Israel already has nukes. The global community failed to act and now they have nukes. His own words are no sane person wants Iran to obtain nukes. Another nuclear power shouldn't be allowed to come into existence.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;37044133]That's all well but unless I missed something the first time I read it it doesn't dispute potential military use and instead goes on more about the Israeli's nukes. Israel already has nukes. The global community failed to act and now they have nukes. His own words are no sane person wants Iran to obtain nukes. Another nuclear power shouldn't be allowed to come into existence.[/QUOTE] But the argument is not whether we [i]want[/i] them to have nuclear weapons, but whether we have the moral authority to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37040785]Obama is significantly less anti-iran then all the other candidates.[/QUOTE] No. [video=youtube;MwdpH3WIeUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdpH3WIeUY[/video]

Just to remind you guys, all military and intelligence agency leaders in Israel are currently against a strike in Iran. It's just lil ol' benjy with his wild fantasies again

Theocratic nations are dangerous already,but as soon as they get access to nuclear weapons they become a direct threat to the entire world. Sorry but sending them naughty letters won't solve this.

[QUOTE=znk666;37046645]Theocratic nations are dangerous already,but as soon as they get access to nuclear weapons they become a direct threat to the entire world. Sorry but sending them naughty letters won't solve this.[/QUOTE] Any nation with direct access to nuclear weapons is a threat to the world. Religion has nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE=znk666;37046645]Theocratic nations are dangerous already,but as soon as they get access to nuclear weapons they become a direct threat to the entire world. Sorry but sending them naughty letters won't solve this.[/QUOTE] Would you consider Pakistan a theocracy? Because they have nuclear weapons as well.

Quick Facts Time: According to the IAEA, all allegations of Iran developing a nuclear bomb are false and Netanyahu is a massive warmongering fascist.

[QUOTE=Spooter;37046808]Any nation with direct access to nuclear weapons is a threat to the world. Religion has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE] Except religion does have a lot to do with it,half of Iran would like to see leaders of all western nations stoned to death to instill a theocracy worldwide.

[QUOTE=znk666;37047030]Except religion does have a lot to do with it,half of Iran would like to see leaders of all western nations stoned to death to instill a theocracy worldwide.[/QUOTE] facepunch posts, now with 98% more made up statistics! [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] and bs

[QUOTE=znk666;37047030]Except religion does have a lot to do with it,half of Iran would like to see leaders of all western nations stoned to death to instill a theocracy worldwide.[/QUOTE] A lot of Americans would like to see the same thing. The problem isn't necessarily religion, but religion unchecked. Iran isn't in a position to use its hypothetical nuclear capabilities for anything other than deterrence. The main problem with Iran having a nuclear weapons program is that it threatens US imperialism in the middle east. If Iran becomes more powerful or influential, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan could both decide to simply ally with Iran instead of or against the USA. Lebanon and Palestine might actually have a fighting chance against Israeli aggression. It's obviously not good for the US's interests, but it isn't necessarily dangerous to the average American.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;37044133]That's all well but unless I missed something the first time I read it it doesn't dispute potential military use and instead goes on more about the Israeli's nukes. Israel already has nukes. The global community failed to act and now they have nukes. His own words are no sane person wants Iran to obtain nukes. Another nuclear power shouldn't be allowed to come into existence.[/QUOTE] He's saying we're hypocrites that don't actually want stability and have no real argument for war other than our own energy security. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] He also states that the actual real threat from Iran is completely exaggerated. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=znk666;37047030]Except religion does have a lot to do with it,half of Iran would like to see leaders of all western nations stoned to death to instill a theocracy worldwide.[/QUOTE] That is a rather unsubstantiated comment.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;37046454]Just to remind you guys, all military and intelligence agency leaders in Israel are currently against a strike in Iran. It's just lil ol' benjy with his wild fantasies again[/QUOTE] The American public also does not want another war, that doesn't mean Iran shouldn't be sanctioned. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;37047919]He's saying we're hypocrites that don't actually want stability and have no real argument for war other than our own energy security. [editline]2nd August 2012[/editline] He also states that the actual real threat from Iran is completely exaggerated.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter how much of a threat they are with a nuke they shouldn't have any, no more nations should have nukes. It doesn't matter what the US or Israel thinks it's the responsibility of every nation to prevent others from becoming nuclear states.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;37049514]It doesn't matter how much of a threat they are with a nuke they shouldn't have any, no more nations should have nukes. It doesn't matter what the US or Israel thinks it's the responsibility of every nation to prevent others from becoming nuclear states.[/QUOTE] Does this responsibility extend to murdering scientists? Sorry but there are 32 'nuclear states' in the world already and whether we like it or not, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. We should be looking to manage a nuclear world safely, and fairly with regards to the Security Council resolution 1887, rather than consistently flouting it and antagonising the situation.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37049834]Does this responsibility extend to murdering scientists? Sorry but there are 32 'nuclear states' in the world already and whether we like it or not, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. We should be looking to manage a nuclear world safely, and fairly with regards to the Security Council resolution 1887, rather than consistently flouting it and antagonising the situation.[/QUOTE] That's Israel's problem, they made their own bed with that. The UN however should continue sanctions and where did you even come up with that figure, there are 9 nations with nuclear weapons, some as the result of the cold war and some because nothing was done to stop them. Both east and west have been trying to reduce and sercure for decades and now more countries are trying to weaponize are you kidding me of course they shouldn't be allowed to I'd like to know where does it state that aquiring nuclear weapons is a sovereign right.

I said nuclear states, not nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that Iran even has a existing nuclear programme.

Israel needs to stop instigating shit.