President: Iran Ready to 'pay the Price' for Pursuing Peaceful Nuclear

[papau]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBBUOAQRXD.html

President: Iran Ready to 'pay the Price' for Pursuing Peaceful Nuclear Program
By Ali Akbar Dareini Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran is ready to "pay the price" for pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, even if that means being brought before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, President Mohammad Khatami said Wednesday.
At the same time, Iran successfully test fired a new version of its ballistic Shahab-3 missile, which already was capable of reaching U.S. forces in the Middle East and since has been upgraded in response to Israeli missile development. The Shahab-3 can carry a nuclear warhead.

The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Rahim Safavi, warned that Iran "will crush" Israel if it attacks the Persian state, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Khatami said Tehran was ready to give guarantees that its nuclear program, including enriching uranium, would not be diverted toward making weapons, as Washington suspects. He said atomic weapons go against the teachings of Islam. <snip>

The United States has been lobbying for the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions. <snip>

The new agency findings were revealed Tuesday by diplomats in Vienna, Austria. The diplomats, who are familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier, told The Associated Press the IAEA has established that at least some enriched particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan. <snip>

[mzmolly]

1. Are you ready to RUMMMMBLE!

Vote Nader, Vote Bush ~ Let's go get those brown people! :eyes:

[Blind Tiresias]

31. no joke

Yeah things are about to go down. I hope people realize that Putin's Novaya Russia have too much invested in Iran to sit by this time...

[tom_paine]

2. The Sitzkrieg is almost over. Der Fuhrer is getting restless

The World thinks Der Fuhrer is finished with his Conquests.

The World is wrong.

The Sitzkrieg has less than a year to go.

[Laughing Mirror]

3. So our boys in the Orient are planting weapons-grade-enriched

uranium in black market shipments originating in Pakistan, which will test positive in Iran and provide the basis for U.S. via Israel to launch attack on Iran's nuclear sites. Is this the way I'm supposed to interpret this?

[theHandpuppet]

21. Bingo!

I think you've nailed it.

[2Design]

4. These other countries are trying to protect themselves from

the Bush Terrorist. I can understand doing that. Bush is a vindictive evil man.

[rastignac5]

5. "Peaceful"????

Iran isn't so desperate for electricity that they're risking all this for a nuclear powerplant. They want nuclear arms.

[bobbyboucher]

6. Why are they not allowed to have nukes and Isreal is?

Explain.

[rastignac5]

9. Who said anything about Israel?

My point was that anybody who thinks this a bid for peaceful nuclear energy is fooling themselves. Ths Iranian regime is about the most reactionary, rightwing, sexist, homophobic, racist regime in the world, and I, for one, don't want them to have the carte blanche a nuclear stash will grant them.

[bobbyboucher]

17. I think you're overstating it a bit.

Isreal is relevent and don't say it isn't. Isreal has nuclear weapons and they are pointed at Iran. to me, if I were Iranian, I would like a deterrent, regardless of what extremist Americans think and regardless of what Isreal thinks.

And if it were just for energy, then I would also stand up and complete the task. If the US and Isreal attack, then I would defend myself. If the bombard the factory from the air, I would rebuild it under ground.

The Iranian people are not as crazy as you might think.

[OK_DemX2]

23. Because Isreal 'officially' doesn't have them, wink/wink

Our blind faith in Isreal has led us to look the other way with the myriad of U.N. and other organizations resolutions that they flaunt repeatedly, all to be on the side of the 'chosen people' or whatever.

[Jim Sagle]

29. Because without nukes, Israel would get butchered.

[NickB79]

30. How many wars have they won in the past 50 yrs?

They've fought and obliterated THREE assaults against them since they became a nation. They actually captured a great deal of territory in battle in the 1960's, but gave most of it back when pressured by the UN. Do you honestly think that the enemies of Israel today could destroy it? Even if Israel didn't have one of the best-trained and best-armed militaries in the world, everyone knows that, should Israel start to falter in battle, the US would come to their aid with massive airstrikes against any invading Arab militaries.

If Israel were ever to use nukes, where would the nukes fall? Look on a map and you would see that most of Israel's enemies are VERY close to itself. It would be akin to calling in an airstrike in your own backyard, except that in this case you get the added joy of long-term radiation contaminating the entire area.

Israel's use of nukes would not be in a defensive action. It would be in revenge after they were already on the verge of defeat. The nukes wouldn't save them, but would simply be used to take their enemies with them.

[Jim Sagle]

32. And your point is?

[0007]

7. So what? We armed Israel to the max. And how do you know

or are you just assuming?

[rastignac5]

10. Because nuclear energy is not worth enough to warrant the cost

they're willing to pay.

[shadu]

8. Let us hope Iran already has nuclear weapons

They may need to fight the US/israeli terror threat soon.

[rastignac5]

11. You're sick to wish nuclear destruction on a country.

[sally343434]

13. Nobody's wishing a nuclear attack

But it doesn't surprise me that any country would feel compelled to develop them when they are being threatened with them.

[Surf Cowboy]

15. Umm, can you tell me why we should wish

that a bunch of people who can't be trusted and who have very little to lose (relatively speaking) already have the most destructive weapons in the world?

Methinks you're a bit twisted in your logic. Unless, of course, the spectre of mushroom clouds, melted flesh, and permanent green afros in the Middle East (and probably elsewhere) is your idea of party-time. There are far too many idiots in this world with that kind of destructive ability. Don't believe it? Look at Washington.

Let's hope they don't have them, OK?

[mitchtv]

20. iraq had none, N Korea did

Iraq got invaded. I would be working as fast as I could to get this coward deterrent on line. Isreal must be de nuked before we expect Iran to foreswear them.

[progressivebydesign]

12. WTF? Why can WE have a nuclear program and no one else???

I have NEVER understood that!! Can anyone tell me WHY we killed thousands of Iraqis, and nearly 1,000 of our soldiers, because we thought Saddam had WMD, when WE possess them??????

And WHY are we going after Iran, when we have the same techonology, and much, much worse.. AND we refuse to be part of many treaties protecting other nations.

Honestly, we have ALL the same shit we're complaining about... and we WONDER why other countries and people want to attack US?

It's just so strange.

[hughee99]

14. Exactly...

To make this fair, we should give (or at least sell) nuclear weapons to all countries who want them. That would level the playing field. This way, we can devote all of this money that we spend on intelligence gathering about other countries nuclear programs on other things. If we already know they have nukes, we won't have to worry about anyone developing them and suprising us later on.

[acmavm]

28. Truth be told, someday we'll find out that Halliburton, through an

offshore subsidiary, is arming everybody.

[Surf Cowboy]

16. Because we are the only country with a standing conventional army large

enough to not have to resort to nukes in all but the most gigantic confrontations.

Giving groups who have hated each other for 1000's of years the most powerful, armageddon-inducing weapons possible is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read. I hope you're being sarcastic and that I've just been had.

[bobbyboucher]

18. How about getting rid of them all, ours too.

What do you say to that?

[mac56]

19. As we can see, we don't have a large enough standing conventional army

to do an effective job around the world. Maybe we should confiscate our own nukes.

[OK_DemX2]

22. China's standing army blows us out of the water....

why do you think we rattle the sabre at China, but never do 'anything' else. Also, with the way our research facilities are run, American secrets and technologies have a far better chance of ending up on the black market than most everyone else's. Who do you think kept Russia in the arms race for the last 10-15 years of the Cold War, that's right, US baby.

Furthermore, you have no credibility to 'parent' the rest of the world. 'Do what I say' not 'Do what I do' doesn't work with children, and can't work with the rest of humanity. Until everyone destroys the weapons, no-one with the weapons has a leg to stand on to prevent other SOVEREIGN countries from developing technology.

And as we ourselves proved, the U.N. is powerless to enforce it's own regulations because the largest member nation (that would be US) won't play by the rules when we don't like the outcome.

[daleo]

24. This reasoning implies it is OK to have nukes

Just as long as you don't need them to defend yourself.

I am not thrilled by the numerical expansion of nuclear armed states either. However, using double standards to keep people from possessing something that you yourself possess has never worked in the long run.

When Bush invaded Iraq, thus breaking the promise of the U.S. not to go to war pre-emptively against non-nuclear states, he set the stage for proliferation. It was one of the finer points of his folly.

[Tight_rope]

26. Well I think it's alittle to late for that...We have Bush, Rummy selling

WMD to them anyway. So who is the real fool. The one that thinks the US should not sell WMD to anyone or the person who feels that everyone should have them. Either way "groups who have hated each other for 1000's of years" will get them anyway. History has proven that.

[progressivebydesign]

27. Nope, not sarcastic at all...

.. In reality, WE are the ones who have been developing nuclear weapons at an alarming rate, WE are the ones with extensive bio-terror labs, We are the ones most likely to use them. Not the rogue nations. Who died and made us controller of the world?

[Tight_rope]

25. I don't understand that shit either...Like we don't have our own mad man!

I'm sorry...but I think that we need to worry about Bush using WMD more then Iran, Iraq, North Korea or any other nation.