Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Greg in NZ on NASA Sea Level
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Gordon Vigurs on “fair & equitable”
What else would one expect from European beurocrats.
Funny how almost all of mans historical ills have come out of Europe. the place is a cesspool of corruption, backstabbing and subversive actions.
Yeah, Baradei TOTALLY got it wrong about Iraq’s stockpile of WMD’s weapons and Bush’s invasion saved the west from nuclear annihilation.
And how many decades has Iran been 5 years away from a nuclear weapon?
ZZZzzzz……..
Amazing how the precautionary principle is arbitrarily applied.
WMD means only nuclear weapons? Now, I’m curious as to why it wasn’t simply termed nuclear weapons as opposed to WMD?
Does anyone else find it odd that someone used WMD’s that they didn’t have?
Killed people with them, and didn’t have them?
there was that looming mushroom cloud we were all warned about. And Saddam had those balsa wood rubber band powered gliders that could take out Paris, remember?
But maybe you mean those mobile biological weapons labs that Cheney went on about months after the military determined they were nothing.
I was sure Iraq had no WMD program leading up to the Iraq war. Then i heard Powell speech at the Un and I thought I might be wrong.
Not surprisingly there are still people that believe they were all ship to Syria, or that the old moldy mustard gas remnants found proved Bush was right.
Of course it is quite possible Iran DOES have a weapons program. There is just no evidence so far. Maybe the new CIA assessment will tell us about it. Wonder why it has been delayed?
Tony, Saddam was caught in a catch 22.
If he really did not have WMD, he couldn’t admit it because of Iran.
However, he did use WMD. He did invade Kuwait and he did kill thousands of people. He did finance suicide bombers. With the help of the UN, he did corrupt the food program. He did kill American pilots, and on and on…
…WMD’s or not, there were hundreds of other reasons to take him out.
Latitude,
You are mostly right about that. But you are forgetting that he WAS a US ally, and The Reagan Admin was forced to finally admit that Saddam had used chemical weapons and killed his own people. The US possible put him into power and encouraged his war against Iran which killed millions. He was one of the most ruthless dictators. But after the US reconquered Kuwait, Bush SR. encouraged a rebellion which killed probably over 100,000.
Bush admin members were planning invading Iraq from Day 1, and immediately after 9/11 sought ways to use that as an excuse. When NO intelligence supported Iraqi involvement, they started a well orchestrated misinformation campaign, that culminated in Powell’s speech at the UN. Almost all of it was lies or manufactured evidence.
As far as I know Baradei did not make any statements during that time that were lies or use manufactured evidence. If there were any facts that linked to sources in the Telegraph link Steve cited I would be more concerned.
As I understand it, Iran has the right to have nuclear reactors, and it has signed the NPT. As far as i know there has been no diversion of nuclear material, and i know of no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
Iran has violated minor provisions, but IAEA has not uncovered any secret weapons programs.
There was an agreement to send uranium or processing and fuel rod production to Russia and France, but the US nixed the deal because Iran wanted to keep some uranium in reserve while the US insisted it had to send ALL of its uranium, which Iran rightly considered ludicrous.
While I am no fan of the Iranian government and have no desire to see them develop nuclear weapons, they do have the legal right to do what they are doing, and without actual evidence of a weapons program.
here is the first relevant google hit I found, and it completely fits with my understand from other sources.
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/2009aglaser_iran.pdf
You have got to be kidding.
That is all we need. A fundamentalist Islamic state with the bomb. Time to start building our fallout shelters again!
it’s called PAKISTAN
Nothing to worry about in Iran, ElBaradei is an Egyptian, Egypt going through a massive upheaval-just a coincidence?
what would iran do with a bomb even if they had one??
their nuclear program is closely monitored. if we followed the NNPT, we would helping them with their program, and then would really know what’s going on.
iran has no weapons program. even if they did, why should we give a shit?
i am baffled you guys believe the government and media only lie about global warming.
Tony Duncan says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Well, time to do a Tony Duncan on you.
Try staying on topic.
I have no knowledge of this issue. I have never heard it mentioned, so without some kind of source to see what was actually said, I don’t put much credence in that piece of information. I will be happy to rethink my position given new information
What office are you running for?
It comes from a report by UN inspectors in 2006 that found traces enriched beyond what is needed for fuel rods.
See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-13-iran-nuclear_x.htm
Glacierman,
I was surprised I didn’t know about what Steve wrote, since I have followed this issue somewhat since the Iraq war.
I vaguely remember this. I have heard nothing recently about this issue, and the article does not mention what the percentage of enrichment was. if it was 95% then that is a serious deal. if it is 20% then it might have to do with their medical isotope plan. I am just throwing out ideas here, but I would need much more info to think that this truly indicated a current weapons program.
He was never a US ally. At best there was a commonality of interests vis-a-vis Iran and exporting the revolution.
It is quite possible the US helped put him into power. But calling him an ally is too strong a word, so I accede to your “commonality of interest” designation.
Certainly the Reagan admin ignored and downplayed the gassing of Kurds, until Galbraith forced it down the Administration and Congress’ throats.
I can agree with your rephrasing. With the exception of the gassing. That did not come to light until after the Reagan presidency. I will say it is possible the Reagan Administration knew of it, but the gassing occurred at the end of the administration and Iraq was still a closed border to the US at the time.
Phil,
I don;t think there is any question the Reagan admin was well aware of this. They just didn;t care. Just as Carter didn’t care about East timor, and nobody has ever cared about the Congo.
This is a short explanation from Galbraith of what happened and the White houses role.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html
and more
“Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the Human Rights Watch between 1992–1994, conducted a two-year study of the massacre, including a field investigation in northern Iraq. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and that the United States, fully aware of this, accused Iran, Iraq’s enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack.”
the u.s. supplied the weapons. the u.s. supplied the intel. i would have to do a little digging, but i would bet we even supplied the delivery systems.
and everyone makes a hoopla about halabja….but several iranian cities were routinely attacked with chemical weapons.
this is one reason why the iranian establishment is so against any kind of WMD…they have been on the receiving end.
and the understanding of geopolitics and general historical ignorance around here is truly astounding. or is it simply bias? do you guys suffer from believing in “warmcold” and “wetdry” when it comes to the CIA and Anglo-American Imperialism?
i still fail to understand how people who say they favor small unobtrusive government have no problem with that government murdering and stealing from someone else.
Paul,
While I agree with much of what you wrote, I don’t think their being on the receiving end of chemical warfare makes them immune to wanting their own. While Ayatollah khomeini has said they are against the Koran, the antagonism with the west is so strong I can see the leadership pursuing nukes as both a defensive strategy, and as showing resistance to the spiritually bereft, materialist US.