http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDR_ihLnnBYMREe8ymldMGO9E27QD9AUASDO0
President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain will demand Friday that Iran open to international inspectors a secret nuclear facility it has tried to hide from the world for years, a senior White House official told The Associated Press.
The three leaders — Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy — will open the G-20 economic summit with their demand that Tehran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the facility for producing nuclear fuel, officials said.
Iran has kept the facility, 100 miles southwest of Tehran, hidden from weapons inspectors, but the U.S. has long known of its existence, the official said. Obama decided to go public with the revelation after Iran learned that Western intelligence agencies were aware of the project.
MORE DISCUSSION AT POLITICAL SOUL:
http://politicalsouls.multiply.com/links/item/280/BREAKING_Obama_accuses_Iran_of_having_secret_nuclear_facility
Israel has also secret nuclear facilities , and, Even after an UN resolution, does not let any nuclear inspection on its soil. lol where are the sanctions for Israel?
AntwortenLöschenI have the same question.
AntwortenLöschenAre you watching the speech now where Obama is warning Iran to be ready by the Oct meeting with Germany
AntwortenLöschenand others *Merkle was absent ,,,) ready to accept inspectors and so on?
Almost 2 yrs ago foreign news agencies had been reporting that Iran had more than one underground facility. The Russians had been supporting the construction. At one point Iran ran out of money. Fars and Persian Journals are the ones we talked about both on YAnswers and here.
AntwortenLöschenWHY EXPOSE THIS NOW ? Will sanctions be leveled against Putin and his puppet regime ?? At what cost to the highly escalated Israel tensions ??? Doubtful this is any surprise to Israel. Their information is better than ours (ie: Syria's nuc site develpoed by No Korea they destroyed ) .
In my opinion Obama has now closed his fists in a reversal of policy and to what end... I am seriously concerned the US is sending so many mixed messages that other nations will just go out on their own.
The complete opposite of what the MSM and WH is trying to tell us they are promoting. Just like
here in the US. We hear one thing and see another. "What day is it" has taken on a new meaning with
this administration.
BTW we just launched a rocket with satellites to add to our missile defenses from space... just before the speech with Brown , Sarkosy and BO.
It is no more a puppet regime than the US, only a few in congress hold the cords...
AntwortenLöschenAs long as Israel does not accept nuclear control on its soil I hope Iran can resits the unneeded pressure.
Don't forget Iran tries to be an Islamic religious state. just as Italy / Rome once was a catholic structured state, Just as Israel tries to be a jew state...
Last time I looked Italy was not a nuclear power. So what is your point there?
AntwortenLöschenOn Israel I agree, if they want Iran inspected they should undergo inspection too. Except they pretty clearly possess nuclear weapons, so you might as well go to the next step and figure out how you are going to tell them to disarm. Or go to hell in demanding nobody else has them.
Three immediate observations:
AntwortenLöschen1. As one other commenter pointed out, foreign news sources (another reason why it's a damn good idea to get your news somewhere other than CNN and FOX, people!) broke the news that Iran had another nuclear-enrichment facility. This is not news; not to those of us who stay informed.
2. Why play the card now? Did Obama and Brown get together, write Mahmoud a letter, making specific demands, and threaten to 'play the news card' if he didn't? If so, is this just another Iraq - creating a strawman, as Bush did with WMD, only to knock him down by way of an invasion or bombing-campaign?
3. What of Israel? It's the Middle East's - if not the world's - biggest double-standard: Right in the middle of the geography is a country, led by racist extremists and with perpetual blood-in-their-eyes - and they have nukes. Remember 1981; anybody? The U.N. dithered about Iraq's nuke-facility - and Israel mounted an aerial attack to take it out.
Connecting the dots:
-- If Israel tries anything, they'll be surprised. Saddam had no air force to speak of; no delivery systems; no navy; his army was neck-deep in a war with Iran when they took out the Iraqi facility in '81. Iran has all of these things, and has spent deeply to modernize them.
-- The U.S. is in no position to put 'boots on the ground' to take out Iran. No position. We're broke - and our ground forces are pushed to the limit as it is. Our only ability to deal with Iran would be to play the 'technology card' - bunker-busters and tactical nukes - remembering that if they have weapons in turn, and even one goes unscathed, we'd have to turn America into a police-state (more than it is already) to prevent its delivery by unconventional means.
We agree.
AntwortenLöschenThat's why the headline of this is Obama accuses Iran of having secret nuclear facility. That is the NEWS part of this; not that Iran has the facility.
The question remains about the public accusation. Why now indeed?
Because the U.S. have just cut a deal with Russia, haven't they? Obama has given up the Star Wars program in return for Russia's support on the Iran issue.
AntwortenLöschenHmmm, another good observation.
AntwortenLöschenIts getting funny,here we go again ,weapons of mass desstruction.
AntwortenLöschenI think the USA has nuclear weapons we should look in their cupboards as well,and India ,China,Israel,North Korea,a few Arabs lords ,France annd every one should wage war on those who have or not have to find them with out using them .
That would be sporting.
All this spy vs spy business boils down to 'plausible deniability' on Iran's part. Up until a few weeks ago Ahmadinejad felt secure when he stated that their programs were for peaceful purposes. That changed;"...American officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to disclose the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the complex. On Monday, Iran wrote a brief, cryptic letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that it now had a “pilot plant” under construction, whose existence it had never before revealed...more..."Nearly every report I've read on this matter is based on statements by Iranian dissidents, some new, some old.
AntwortenLöschenAhmadinejad is going down, he's lost to much face since his reelection. He's been punked, and the Iranian public knows it.
I wonder..
AntwortenLöschen1) Are the leaders of Iran and the U.S. affiliated with the Bilderberg group?
2) Would this be another attempt on the part of the U.S. at fear-mongering in order to steal more civil liberties from their citizens?
Cry wolf, Mr. President.
I thought everyone big and rich enough was connected with the Bilderberg group,The US Presidents sure are connected to the banks which are connected to Bilderberg which is connected to the knee bone etcand did they not buy Irans banks recently,The president is the wolf but no one can accept that.
AntwortenLöschenI thought everyone big and rich enough was connected with the Bilderberg group,The US Presidents sure are connected to the banks which are connected to Bilderberg which is connected to the knee bone etcand did they not buy Irans banks recently,The president is the wolf but no one can accept that.
AntwortenLöschenPot Kettle Black
AntwortenLöschenDANG! Shoulda thought of that myself.
AntwortenLöschenTHX .
I think the UN should give ALL countries free nuclear weapons. That would for sure guarantee the integrity of any country's borders.
AntwortenLöschenHave Iran have them as well as have Israel "unhide" them.
As USSR and the USA had not dared to attack each other because of the M.A.D.
Had Saddam have his nukes, US would not dared to occupy it. same with Afghanistan. Look at Pakistan and India. Other than skirmishes about Kashmir, they would not go to war, would they.
Had Tibet had its nukes, China would not have occupied it.
Had Sheverdnadze have his nukes, Russians would not have been roaming his country.
And so on.
Key to eternal peace.
Er, I didn't think the UN was a nuclear power. Aside from that your idea has merit.
AntwortenLöschenUnfortunately rogue states and terrorist organisations that could have access to nuclear weapons don't necessarily have respect for borders or people, even their own. Many innocent people died today in the two suicide bomb blasts in Pakistan. They went to their deaths believing that even the taking of innocents lives promoted their cause. Had the bombs been nuclear devices would the greatly increased number of innocent lives lost have made them think twice?
AntwortenLöschenWhere nuclear weapons are concerned the genie is out the bottle and can't be put back. The only thing that can be done is to discourage countries from seeing them as a necessary part of any future arsenal while encouraging those countries that possess them to gradually disarm in the interests of humanity.
Pakistan are a nuclear power.
AntwortenLöschen(1) Pakistan is a nuclear power. The terrorists are not the government. The same thing could be said about Timothy McVeigh.
AntwortenLöschen(2) Giving a country a nuclear bomb is NOT the same thing as giving them the technology to make one.
Granted that gurcanaral's proposal is just a "what if" one, the questions you raised are not a reason for not doing it that I can see. The only rouge state that the description would fit (N. Korea) already has them. And even they know damned well what would happen if the used or sold one to a terrorist group.
What defines terrorism or a group,do they have to be smaller than a country?and not officially in charge?
AntwortenLöschenIf it depends on the number of dead caused ,some counties are in question.
Could white settlers be called terrorists,or Monks with pestulant blankets?
Perspective is a great white wash or tarbrush,
Killing civilians should be a No No.
diiogenese19348 wrote today at 5:54 PM
AntwortenLöschen"The only rouge state that the description would fit (N. Korea) already has them. And even they know damned well what would happen if the used or sold one to a terrorist group"
North Korea is a perfect example. Do you really think that Kim Jung il would be terribly worried about the consequences for his people if he decided to use one shortly before his death?
I am not sure there is a hard definition for it byderule. A rebel is a person who wants to take down a government by attacking the army or adminstrative buildings. A terrorist is a person who will attack civilians in order to try and bring change to the government.
AntwortenLöschenSo I part with the American view on this somewhat. A roadside bomb used against American Troops is the work of a rebel or insurgent. A bomb placed in a crowded marketplace simply to cause destruction is the work of a terrorist.
As I said, N Korea is a perfect example. Only time will tell if they would use a bomb or not. Hopefully the military, if not Kim himself, is not that stupid. Of course since they already have the bomb, they hardly count in the question.
AntwortenLöschenAs I said, it was only a "What if" proposition, and I am treating it as such. I wouldn't be behind doing that.
Ruling classes of countries are often closer related to ruling classes of other countries(tops of the pyramids),than to the people they govern.
AntwortenLöschenThese,can thus be more easily dispatched as cannon fodder for their War games (divide and rule).
This is the hardest to comprehend -that the king or President does not love you ,although they will say so on every possible occasion
A rogue state, say Israel, would not resort to using its nuclear weapons if it knows that the 'enemy" also has it: Mutual Assured Destruction.
AntwortenLöschenIt is possible that in such a "balanced" case, no country would allow a terrorist organization to have access to the nukes either.
Example:
Afghani Taliban sponsoring al Qaida.
al Qaida trying to get nuclears from the Taliban. The Taliban knows that it would be total obliteration of Afghanistan (and other countries at the same time)
This is only a speculative "thought process". Sort of "what if".
Imagine a rogue neighborhood where every household has enough bombs to blow up almost the WHOLE neighborhood if ANY other bomb goes off first.
Not even that, even if any household is broken into.
For the sake of discussion, let us set aside the "accidental" going off thing.
do you think that his generals would LET him use it then?
AntwortenLöschenNo. But, the UN is a "broker". It gives away foodstuff, vaccines, etc.
AntwortenLöschen"terrorism" is a tactical weapon. It is aimed at demoralizing the enemy by creating the perception that their defenses have been compromised.
AntwortenLöschenTerrorism is used by ANY faction, domestic "insurgents" as well as by countries.
The ultimate example of terrorism is the use of the tho nuclear bombs on the civilians of Japan.
It has demonstrated that their defenses are completely breached and that there is no point in resiting surrender.
However, another such massive terror act, the bombing of Dresden, failed completely.
Indeed.
AntwortenLöschenIt was meant to be a means to think in broader terms.
OMG!
AntwortenLöschenThis is a gem. I have to post these words of wisdom on my personal page.
Please allow me to slightly modify it to:
"Your leader..."
That is the way I feel ,using terror as a weapon .Now we change the zoom for a wide angle,and there are a lot more terrorist around than before.
AntwortenLöschenBy all means ,¨your leader ¨ is more general.
AntwortenLöschen...reminded me of...Comments made privately to Gustave Gilbert by Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief: ...
AntwortenLöschenWe got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
Having had a couple of relatives on the scene, I sincerely doubt the claim that "their defenses were completely breached". A final invasion would have cost both us and the Japanese plenty of lives. That aside, yes, I can see defining at least the second bombing as a terrorist attack. The first one I am really not sure they knew what the damned thing was going to do.
AntwortenLöschenOne thing it did is let the world know why nuclear war was not winnable in any defined sense. And I would be quick to point out we didn't really try to use them on anybody else - including the USSR who was moving into half of Europe at the time. The USSR built the bomb later.
The distinction between military targets and civilian ones was blurred a bit in WW II. After all, the means of production of war weapons where built in the middle of cities of civilians. If you wanted to end the war you either needed to take all these out, which meant attacking civilian populations, or demoralizing the enemy into surrender - which again meant killing lots of civilians.
Then again, really, what war in history did not involve killing a bunch of civilians? I don't think it was until after WW II that the concept of not killing them was even thought about seriously, and even then consisted of gentlemen's agreements about how war should be fought. Since then each side in a war claims they respect civilians, while their enemy doesn't, when in truth, calling it "collateral damage" doesn't mean you aren't killing civilians.
Let's face it, war is about killing humans, and we are getting to the point it is a good idea on all sides to stop doing that.
longfun, you miss the point about nuclear war. There is no second strike. Iran would throw everything it has against Israel, Israel would do the same thing to Iran. There won't be a second strike, because neither opponent will have anything left to strike with.
AntwortenLöschenIf that is Iran's plans they have no idea what it would be like. Both Israel and Iran would cease to exist, and it might take the rest of the world with it.
THE RETALIATION CAN TURN A CONTENT INTO A SEA OF GREEN GLASS.
It is a fool's way to fight a war. Why do you think the US and USSR never went that route?
I've thought about it, and I agree it is a fools way....as millions will die.
AntwortenLöschenBut the way Iran is playing it, it has the possibility to survive a first strike without a scratch.....that is what worries Israel the most...a ruthless wipe out, probably without warning, the time frame to react is very small. long-distance rockets are no scut missiles, and patriots will not work,
Nothing in this situation is comparable to the Russia / US response time either
Do you have any idea what the rest of the Middle East is going to look like if they do that? Nuclear weapons are not exactly precision instruments you know. And what on Earth would make Iran think that all the Israel nukes (and they DO have them) are land based? Or that the world is going to sit idly by on that one?
AntwortenLöschenIf Iran does attack Israel, and that is a big if, it will be with conventional forces. The nukes are there to keep everybody honest. You destroy us, we destroy you. Detente comrade.
They can't attack Israel outright until they have nukes because Israel has them and will use them as a last resort.
It are no neighbours so a ground war is also out of the question. Then it will be politics, surrender of one party or first resort... that will be a hard one.
AntwortenLöschenIt also begs the question of what Iran gets out of a war with Israel. Leadership of the Arab world? They aren't Arab. Regional Power? They already are that whether they attack Israel or not. So aside from President what's-his-face getting his jollies rhetorically, what does Iran have to gain by such a move?
AntwortenLöschen