Hi raydarkhorse,


This is incorrect, a misinterpretation from a poor translation that was then expanded on and served up as propaganda, which suited certain groups and individuals at the time. It now has become 'a fact' simply because it is repeated constantly.


Again this assumption is incorrect, there is a difference between having a civil nuclear power sector and a weapons program.
Indeed there has even been complete and total denials by the Iranian President stating that possessing a Nuclear Weapon is un-Islamic.

But most have been programmed to respond 'Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a madman who can't be trusted'.

The propaganda that is served up is very subtle but it is a continous drip drip effect. Sometimes the drips are large enough to become noticeable. e.g. A ticker tape of PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. Bin Laden for example may scroll across the botton of the TV screen in the corner of the room.
If Iran has a defensive posture, perhaps we should understand why. Now just imagine if Canada and Mexico had been invaded by Iranian forces.
And as China has recently expanded it's military forces, perhaps we need to understand why,

www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

This is perhaps a good place to start.

Your scource is from 2002 three years before the current regime in Iran so has little or no value. I am reading and listening to Arab and pro Arab publications who not only report what I am saying but are proud of it. If you choose to ignore interpetaions by Arab news agencies it's your your choice I won't try to change your views. I try not to let my feelings dictate who and what I believe I try to find the truth if I can and suggest you do the same.

What, like carrots, potatoes, or yams?

Nothing wrong with roots.

Well, if i recall correctly, when the stuff hit the fan in 1939, a World War DID happen. We really had no business getting involved in Korea, kinda like where we are now, but i digress. And if the situation in 62 had gone where many feared it would, it could(and likely WOULD) have affected most of the world whether they got involved militarily or not.

And you're right, the rest of my rant was hypocritical. I've edited the post in question.

But the point is that in each of those years there were major world powers involved (1939: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, France, and later on the USA, the USSR, and Japan. In '48, '62, and '79 it was the USA vs. USSR (or NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact if you prefer.) And I guess you can throw 1950's Korea into the mix as well, even though that was a United Nations gig. I just don't see anything like that happening now. North Korea? I'm not all that sure they can even beat the ROK. Last I checked the South Koreans have a pretty big military of their own. Iran? They couldn't even beat Saddam Hussein in a war that lasted 8 years. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that these clowns are somehow going to ignite World War III.

ever play nuclear risk?? A few pieces are marked on the bottom as nuclear forces.

that reminds me of an incident last week. The local Books-a-Million hosts a chess club every tuesday. Me and three friends were playing a four-way game. After we'd been playing for about ten minutes, this ***hole in a blue ball cap comes up to our table, yells "NUCLEAR BOMB!!" and dumps his coke over the board, washing most of the pieces off, and soaking us in cold soda. It was lucky for him that the store manager was watching, because we're fairly big guys, and there were four of us, and we were truly prepared to go nuclear on his face, and i don't think the rest of the gathering would have disagreed with our reaction, or remembered the incident if questioned.

I think it depends on how you define World War. If it is bullets flying and people dieing somewhere in the world, then yes, there will be (already is) a WWIII, and it will never end. If you mean us against them, fighting 'til one gives up, then I would say no, not like WWI & II. If you mean the "terrorists from the desert" against the USofA, that one is gonna be going on for a long long long (I feel like Harrison Ford in Six Days Seven Nights here) long long long time. But I don't know if you could call that a World War. Confused yet? I am...

"Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported last night."
This was reported Friday November 16, 2007 by Julian Borger, diplomatic editor of The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2212071,00.html


It could be argued that this is just to refine fuel for their reactors but with the setup it now allows them to refine uranium to 90%. Fuel grade uranium needs only be between .9 and 2% pure but is usually refined to 3 to 5% pure. However weapons require at least an 85% now they are really going to produce a massive amount of fuel rods for their reactors (how many do they have?) or they are going to produce weapons grade material grade. These are facts they can be checked through the source I have given, one of several or you can check them independently which I encourage. If you can find fact to refute what I have found please send me your source.

It's pretty obvious that they want to build nuclear weapons. This countrie is full of natural gas resources, why would they need nuclear energy...

Frankie