www.ditl.org

This is Iran's version on events. Its only a link to a news page but it tells a slightly different story to what we hear in the west. For your approval.
http://www.presstv.com/

Actually that's about the take I've seen on it in the west as well.

While they aren't doing a good job of following the nuclear non proliferation treaty, they do have they do have the right under it to a peaceful nuclear program.

It's just that most of the world views what they're doing as if they were a bunch of teenagers excercising their right to buy groceries like everyone else to buy two shopping carts full of eggs and toilet paper on Halloween.

For the record they actually did sign that they wouldn't develop or purchase nuclear weapons when they joined the treaty, and joining the treaty is a large part of how they got to the point they're at with their nuclear program. So backing out now would rather be like signing a contract to pay money for some goods, taking the goods, and then deciding you aren't going to pay.

Their government has made it a huge deal over there with the populace. They literally have a nuclear holiday there.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to demonise the Iranianns. I just thought that a view from the other side might help people see whats happening.
My father always says read one paper get one story, read another and get another version of the truth and then make your own mind up.

Iran is hyped up to b a much bigger threat than they are.

Teaos wrote:Iran is hyped up to b a much bigger threat than they are.

And that's how the drumbeat to war begins.

sunnyside wrote:It's just that most of the world views what they're doing as if they were a bunch of teenagers excercising their right to buy groceries like everyone else to buy two shopping carts full of eggs and toilet paper on Halloween.

Perfect analogy. It's just funny that their "peaceful" uranium enrichment program coincides with missile tests. And I'm forced to wonder - if they're so hard up for energy programs, why did they say "f*** you" to all of the EU's offers to help?

Mikey wrote: Perfect analogy. It's just funny that their "peaceful" uranium enrichment program coincides with missile tests. And I'm forced to wonder - if they're so hard up for energy programs, why did they say "f*** you" to all of the EU's offers to help?

Until I see something concrete I'm going with the UN and IAEA reprots saying their not doing anything illegal, they were right about Iraq after all.

I never for once thought that they were doing anything illegal - but the legal enrichment of uranium can very easily be turned to nasty purposes. However, my main suspicions are based on their attitude, and are admittedly not based on any evidence of wrongdoing. For that reason, I am fully willing to admit that my suspicions are nothing more than circumstantial opinions. I wouldn't call for any particular action - aside from the offers that they've received - until something untoward is proven.

Mikey wrote:I never for once thought that they were doing anything illegal - but the legal enrichment of uranium can very easily be turned to nasty purposes. However, my main suspicions are based on their attitude, and are admittedly not based on any evidence of wrongdoing. For that reason, I am fully willing to admit that my suspicions are nothing more than circumstantial opinions. I wouldn't call for any particular action - aside from the offers that they've received - until something untoward is proven.

You might not, the current US administration seems to think differently. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending how you look at it) Bush managed to snarl the military up in two wars at once, so not much is likely to happen.

As for their attitude alot of the public rhetoric comes from the Iranian President, who is more a figure head than anything else. The religious wackjobs (I forget the title) control Iran and they have already reigned him in once.

Cpl Kendall wrote: Until I see something concrete I'm going with the UN and IAEA reprots saying their not doing anything illegal, they were right about Iraq after all.

Well they've done and are sort of doing stuff that goes against the treaty, specifically hiding their nuclear program early on until it was discovered and now they still keep the IAEA from being able to do the kind of inspections needed to actually confirm they aren't processing weapons grade Uranium. Also it's suspicious that they'll put up with all the sanctions and wave off deals to keep going after atomic power.

It's a nasty situation really. If they want to get weapons grade nuclear fuel out of their power plant all they have to do is turn it off and collect it. The stuff gets generated in the course of operations of the thing.

If they ever do decide to go non peaceful we have to choose between.

-letting them
-bombing an active nuclear power plant. Say hello to Chernobyls big brother.
-tryng to assault it with infantry to take the facility. Which probably means heavy casualties on our part.

sunnyside wrote:
Well they've done and are sort of doing stuff that goes against the treaty, specifically hiding their nuclear program early on until it was discovered and now they still keep the IAEA from being able to do the kind of inspections needed to actually confirm they aren't processing weapons grade Uranium. Also it's suspicious that they'll put up with all the sanctions and wave off deals to keep going after atomic power.

It's a nasty situation really. If they want to get weapons grade nuclear fuel out of their power plant all they have to do is turn it off and collect it. The stuff gets generated in the course of operations of the thing.

If they ever do decide to go non peaceful we have to choose between.

-letting them
-bombing an active nuclear power plant. Say hello to Chernobyls big brother.
-tryng to assault it with infantry to take the facility. Which probably means heavy casualties on our part.

I have yet to hear a reason why any of this is bad, save for "their not us". Did the US pitch a fit when India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa got the bomb, no. And frankly, the intelligence that points to them developing weapons comes from the US, which if they said that crap was brown I'd go check the toliet.

Is their behaviour suspicious? Of course it is but given the current climate in the Middle East and the US, I would hide my nuclear program too.

Look at what is going on, they have an incomplete reactor (the russians bugged off cause Iran couldn't pay the bills) and a handful of centrifuges, which isn't enough to actually enrich the uranium they have to use in the reactor that isn't built. And their missile tech is insufficent to hit anything outside the ME, which if they load a bomb on and use their country will be glass in short order.

All true. Much of the public sentiment (in the US, at least) stems from the "oh, no - they're brown and they have nukes!" mindset. Very few people realize that the majority of the issue is Iran saying, "Hey! Look at us! We're important too!"

Mikey wrote:All true. Much of the public sentiment (in the US, at least) stems from the "oh, no - they're brown and they have nukes!" mindset. Very few people realize that the majority of the issue is Iran saying, "Hey! Look at us! We're important too!"

Iran probably looked at North Korea's constant extortion and figured "lets try it too".

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Mikey wrote: Iran probably looked at North Korea's constant extortion and figured "lets try it too".

That's actually the best case scenario. (where they dismantle for goodies).

The trick with a nuclear Iran is.

1. It makes it so that they can get away with a lot more crap. For example supporting Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli terrorists. And could let them do something more covert (nab a little Iraqi land or some such).

Also for some reason much of the rest of the ME fears them. I think in part due to the Ayatollahs influence on people in their countries. Word is there could be an arms race if Iran goes nuclear.

2. They occasionally drop some pretty crazy rehtoric, and the idea that Obama would glass their country if they nuked a US carrier group is laughable.

3. Have you ever noticed that their missile launchers are typically vehicle based? You could just, you know, drive one of them into a cargo ship and sail wherever you like.

sunnyside wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Mikey wrote: Iran probably looked at North Korea's constant extortion and figured "lets try it too".

That's actually the best case scenario. (where they dismantle for goodies).

The trick with a nuclear Iran is.

1. It makes it so that they can get away with a lot more crap. For example supporting Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli terrorists. And could let them do something more covert (nab a little Iraqi land or some such).

Oh you mean the stuff they do now with out nukes.

Also for some reason much of the rest of the ME fears them. I think in part due to the Ayatollahs influence on people in their countries. Word is there could be an arms race if Iran goes nuclear.

It's more basic than that: Iran is Persian, the others are Arabs. A great many things happen in the middle east because of tribe.

2. They occasionally drop some pretty crazy rehtoric, and the idea that Obama would glass their country if they nuked a US carrier group is laughable.

Do we get to hear how Obama is soft on security now? Don't be obtuse, US policy since the Soviets got nukes is to retalite over whelmingly in kind if nuked. if Obama doesn't do it he'll be taking a ride on the impeachment express.

3. Have you ever noticed that their missile launchers are typically vehicle based? You could just, you know, drive one of them into a cargo ship and sail wherever you like.

Oh boy, we get the old scare tactic of mobile nukes!