Russia trains 600 Iranian nuclear experts

[DuctapeFatwa]

Russia has trained 600 Iranian experts to work on the Islamic republic's first nuclear power station, which Washington fears is being used to develop atomic weapons, the ITAR-TASS news agency reported Wednesday.

An Iranian nuclear official told the agency that the experts had undergone training at the Novovoronezh centre, 500 kilometres (300 miles) south of Moscow, which is to prepare some 700 specialists for work in the Bushehr plant.

Russia has faced intense pressure over its construction of the Bushehr reactor from the United States...

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040218165038.2v3peztl.html

[Baclava]

1. Well...

Everyone needs a hobby...

[NNN0LHI]

2. Its a bitch that it has come to countries like Iran needing nukes to...

...protect their oil resources from someone like the US from coming in and stealing it all. They must have learned something from Bush's big move in Iraq? Can you blame them? I can't. Thanks George.

Don

[54anickel]

3. Does anyone remember the details of that scenario where Israel

bombed a nuclear facility in Iraq. I am having a senior moment. Was that a power plant or something else? Or is my memory really outta wack here?

[54anickel]

4. Never mind, found it. Will the same happen to Iran?

http://www.mediamonitors.net/jamesjdavid18.html

In 1981 the State of Israel dispatched its jets to attack and destroy a nuclear reactor power plant in Iraq and in the process of destroying Iraq's nuclear power plant the Israelis killed a French scientist and 2 other innocent civilians. The many knee-jerk supporters of Israel have regarded this attack as a righteous move by the wise and clever Israelis to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear weapon. The fact is, however, that Iraq's nuclear reactor was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iraq was a charter signatory, and which Israel had never signed. Dr. Sigvard Eklund, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated to the U.N. Security Council on 19 June 1981 that the Israelis had acted on the basis of faulty intelligence and really had no justification at all for what they had done. Dr. Eklund goes on and says "In fulfilling its responsibilities the Agency has inspected the Iraqi reactors and has not found evidence of any activity not in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

The President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Porfirio Muñoz Ledo criticized the action and attitude of Israel in no uncertain terms: "The reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention are as unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It is inadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attack has taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many years served as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it left it to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, was definitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations.

more...

But it looks like Iran hit it first
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/mcnair41/41irq.htm

In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence had publicly urged the Iranians to bomb the key Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Co-located at the site is the Iraq Nuclear Research Center where Israeli intelligence believed the first Arab atomic bomb was going to be assembled.

Whether by coincidence or design, nine days into the war, on September 30, 1980, two Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad also bombed the Osirak reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported, although the reactor was up and running again a short time thereafter. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

It is not clear whether this attack was consciously designed as a strategic strike to deny Saddam Hussein an atomic bomb or whether this raid was an afterthought of two Iranian pilots who had weapons and fuel left to bomb a target of opportunity after their group had attacked the electric power plant.

bit more....

This was dated last November
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3615

snip>
Israel has made no secret that the Iranian nuclear program is the leading risk to its national security. Israeli intelligence believes the point of no return in the Iranian nuclear program is within two to three years, and some elements in Israeli intelligence apparently think it could come sooner.

But attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be far more complicated than the 1982 strike outside Baghdad. First, Iran's nuclear program is dispersed at several sites, some of which are protected from conventional weapons; the distance to fly is much greater; and perhaps most importantly, the Iranians could respond in a painful manner.

Therefore, Israel would prefer that the United States handle the problem through either diplomatic means or force. There have been recent reports that the CIA has shown some countries, although not Israel, plans for an air and missile attack on the Iranian facilities.

snip>
Iran has recently armed its elite revolutionary guide with “Shihab” missiles that can easily reach and strike Israel’s heartland. Iran continues to arm and fund Hezbollah in Lebanon and the recent missile fired from there killed Israeli citizens despite Israel’s withdrawal from this country. This escalation and military provacation is enough. Enough to make Iran the very next target in a preemptive strike just like Iraq. So Iran better beware for a preventative attack!!!

[GreyV]

5. No chance...

Unless Israelis want their already devastated economy to collapse. Political climate is very, VERY, different than back in 1980s. For instance, large percentage of food imported into Israel comes from either Europe or Asian countries. All of which have mentioned the word "embargo" at one time or another. For a country that imports almost everything and export very little, embargo of any kind would be devastating. What I am trying to say is ...nobody really depends on Israel anymore. Today in the new global economy, you need to have strong ties with your neighbors and general world community. Aside from US, Israel doesn't have any really "strong" ties with anyone. It's not a matter of who has more tanks anymore.


Pariah states are usually like that.

[54anickel]

6. Hope you are correct. Also hope the US does not carry out the

idea for them as was stated in that article.

Therefore, Israel would prefer that the United States handle the problem through either diplomatic means or force. There have been recent reports that the CIA has shown some countries, although not Israel, plans for an air and missile attack on the Iranian facilities.

[DUmbrella]

7. really?

Does that mean that you hope that Iran gets their bomb? I don't really understand what's going on here. Are we rooting for the Iranians to have unfettered access to do what they want with regards to nuclear "power"?

[Fargin Ice Hole]

8. Why not? if Isreal can do it, why not Iran?

It doesn't matter if another country has another turd or not anymore, they have just become another commodity.

[DUmbrella]

10. Gotta pick our battles

As far as I know, Israel hasn't declared open hostility towards America. Call me selfish, but I'd prefer to have countries that want to destroy us NOT to have a nuclear weapon. I like living.

[NNN0LHI]

11. They hate us for our freedoms. Right? n/t

[Fargin Ice Hole]

12. can you blame Iran for being hostile?

There is only so much shit one can take before one considers the act of revenge....and believe me, There are enough WMD's in many other countries including the US that in the near future will be used over the remaing resources left on this planet. So you still feel safe?

[DUmbrella]

15. Yes I can bame them

At what point do people start becoming responsible for their own actions?

And anyway, revenge for what exactly?

[Fargin Ice Hole]

16. For one eliminating their democratically elected leader..........

<http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/htdtisirancoup.html>

[DUmbrella]

17. LOL

Gimme a break man! You made laugh. You think if you went up to the angry Mullahs after they got done with one of their death-to-America sermons and asked them the reason they want to destroy us, that they'd say "WE WANT TO AVENGE THE DEATH OF MOHAMMED MOSSADEGH!!!!"??

[Fargin Ice Hole]

18. If ignorance is funny........

living under an asshole like Mohammad Reza Shah sound entertaining to you? Mossadegh idoled himself after ghandi!!! And lets not mention that Mossadegh was going to nationalize the oil for his citizens. It might and could have turned out to be an extremely differnt place.

This subject is very relavent to what exactly is going on in the middle east. It's a shinning example of how poor our foreign policy was/is and really just how undemocratic the US is!!!

many countries such as Iran are very aware of it.....
Nobody likes a Lyer nor a hypocrite!!!!!

[DUmbrella]

19. Now I'm really confused

I don't understand. If overthrowing Mossadegh helped the current regime come to power, then why do they want to kill us? Shouldn't they be thanking us? And yeah, it may have turned out to be a different place - a place ruled by the USSR.

And anyway, as saddening as our actions may have been in 1953, that doesn't really matter in the current situation. You're straying from the point. The point is, it is a serious threat to our national security should Iran acquire a nuclear device. This is an undeniable fact and you can exuse their motivation all you want - but it can't be allowed to happen.

[The Stranger]

22. You're right. You are confused.

This notion that all of the people in that nation "want to kill us" is asinine. It is part of a media campaign intended to demonize whole countries on the basis of a much smaller subset of people living there. It is an oversimplified juvenile way of viewing very complex regions, nations and the world. As far as past actions not "mattering in the current situtation," it is this very myopia that has gotten the U.S. and the world into the problems it is currently embroiled in -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in North Korea -- you name a place.

If we could only forget that the U.S. supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to fight Iran (you don't mention that) and provided support for Iraq against Iran in the Persian Gulf Wars they fought, and that U.S. supplied chemical weapons were used against Iranians and killed and maimed them, and that the U.S. misadministration has regarded Iran as "evil" and part of an "Axis of Evil" repeatedly (I mean, I couldn't make this shit up if I tried) -- then maybe we could be confused and talk about "undeniable facts."

Stick around the DU. You will learn a few things.

[DUmbrella]

23. Who said "all the people"

First, I don't think "all the people" in Iran want to kill us and I never said that. In fact, most people there love America and WANT us to intervene and help them get rid of their government. Sadly, "all the people" don't really matter right now. They have no say in their government. The people who DO have a say, want to destroy us, and they're the ones who want a nuclear bomb.

When we refer to Iran as an axis of evil it's not referring to the people of the country. It's the government. This has been repeated many times. You should listen more closely.

[The Stranger]

26. Actually, you did.

At least you certainly didn't indicate that it was any subset of all the people. And maybe that illustrates the problem. Quoting you:

At what point do people start becoming responsible for their own actions?

But if you now want to focus so intently on some smaller group of people (and the media does this very, very well) who want to "destroy us," perhaps you should be a little more specific in the future. And if the president did not mean to include the Iranian people in his "Axis of Evil"/Oil, when he labelled Iran part of an "Axis of Evil," then he should be more specific as well. Here's his quote:

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil . . .

Using the word "states" is using quite a broad brush. Although he later attempts to limit it to "regimes," the moronic "Axis of Evil" referenced is specifically constituted by "States." These, again, are his very words.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

As far as an accurate view of the Iranian government, even Yahoo is reporting today that there were elections in Iran. Now what is interesting is that elections indicate that there is some semblence of a democratic process in place. Granted, it is not a pure democracy and probably has some element of a theocracy to it, but it is amazing how the election part of this story can be ignored. (I'm not aware of whether Iran has an electoral college or whether their Supreme Court could choose a candidate who loses the overall popular vote, but it probably has other problems).

[DUmbrella]

28. I corrected myself

In another post. I meant to say government. The reason we're focusing on a small group of people is because that group is the group controlling the government. You can interpret semantics however you want. For instance, to me, "State" means government. And if later he limits it to "regimes" what's wrong with that? Isn't that what you want? Anyway, its silly to argue over semantics. People will see things the way they want to. They're not going to change their views because of a word.

As far as the elections go..give me a break. These are as ludicrous elections as Saddam receiving 99.9% of the vote in Iraq last year. Take a look at this great site which is a translation of blogs from Iran - currently the only free means press there. Which by the way, will be shut down if the conservatives get "elected".

Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade.

[The Stranger]

21. "People becoming responsible for their own actions"?

WTF is this supposed to mean? You mean responsible for what Faux News and Cable Lies Network ascribes to these entire countries? Do you think the Iranian people are really, on a day-to-day level any different from Americans, Canadians or Europeans? Do you think they march around in terrorist costumes, or do you think they are concerned about having a decent living, job, possible benefits, livable retirement, and a passable government? You don't think that is what these "people becoming responsible for their own actions" are concerned with?

[DUmbrella]

24. I tried to edit

Ok, since you want to take everything I say so literally I'll refine what I said. "At what point are GOVERNMENTS responsible for their own actions?" should've been the question. I don't mean the people of the country (in the case of IRAN specifcally). Meaning, are we going to constantly exuse the actions of hostile and repressive governments today, because of events that took place half a century or more ago? This is unacceptable.

And in the case of Israel which you wrote about in another post. It's obviously not just about the MONEY. Hell, it's not even about support. How come Egypt is the #2 recipient of U.S. aid but the people in that country overwelmingly hate us? How do you explain the puzzle of why ME countries who we are hostile towards have people that love us, and countries who we give a lot of money to and support, have people who hate us? I have my own theories but I'd like to hear yours.

[The Stranger]

25. My first question to you would be

1. Why do you get this notion that everyone in these countries hates us? But I already asked you about what your notion of the common, day-to-day person is in these countries in an effort to dislodge this notion that the images on television you see are, in fact, really what these people are all about. I suppose I would encourage you to think more about the complexity of the issues involving U.S. foreign policy and how it affects these other nations and people. You are seeing their reaction to U.S. foreign policy while being blinded (or blinding yourself) as to what they are reacting to. But perhaps else had a better tact, posing the question --

2. Why do you think they hate us, at least for what reasons do you think they hate us? You admit above that everyday Iranians love what the U.S. stands for and would like to have it in their own country. What they do not like is U.S. foreign policy and what it has done in their part of the world. They also, as I mentioned above and you seem to have missed, do not like being called a state that is part of an "Axis of Evil." Americans don't like being called evil, what would make you think that they would like that? Again, try to see your own country's part in this, open yourself up to the possibility that it may be more complex than what is presented on television, and, better yet, get to know an Iranian or someone living in another country and learn about them first hand.

[DUmbrella]

27. You're right, very complex

First, are we only discussing Iran, or other ME countries as well? In the case of Iran, you're right when you say it's very complex. The society is split between people who support the current regime (revolution) and the people who want to overthrow them and have a democracy. As far as I know, most people in the country do NOT support the current government, although you may not hear their voices. The people who DO support the current government are either insane, or somehow benefitting from their current situation.

So, in answer to your #2, I don't necessarily agree with what you say about being called axis of evil. The people in the freedom group I think, don't care what they're called. They know their government is corrupt and evil. Why hide it?

As for #1 - there are not many images that come out of Iran, so I don't know what to think. I just read stories and feel sorry for those people and how they have to live.

It just upsets me that you put so much of the blame on America for their problems. There are fundamental and idealogical difference between us. It's not just about policy. They hate us for many other reasons. Have you ever read any Iranian Mullah sermons? You can use Google and find some online. It's very disturbing.

[Fargin Ice Hole]

29. Im sorry you have so much hate for people you know so little about.

[DUmbrella]

30. Thank you

I'll take this comment to mean that you've given up your position. Now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about my knowledge. I never said I hate anyone.

If you were the presdient of the United States right now, you would do everything possible to stop the current Iranian government from acquring nuclear weapons. To leave them alone and hope for rely on their "good will" would be a national security risk no president would take.

I just want to ask one final question. Can you at least admit that you don't want the CURRENT Iranian GOVERNMENT to have a nuclear weapon? I don't need a history lesson or discussion on how horrible the U.S. is. A simple yes or no would be fine.

Thanks.

[Fargin Ice Hole]

31. One more weapon like these in the world.........

isn't gonna make me feel anymore frightened. regardless of who has it. all it might do is expedite the time frame before there is the forcoming disaster..

I don't even think the second coming of christ could stop it. We would probably just throw him in the cuban cooler and be on with our merry way of self distruction.

[DUmbrella]

32. Avoiding the question

But can you just admit that you'd rather them not have one? Why is it so difficult? Don't worry, you can admit that you'd rather be safer and still keep your moral high ground.

[DUmbrella]

34. Hmmmm

Silence....

[The Stranger]

20. Open hostility?

Learn some history. Start with the various thugs that the U.S. (and in the past the European powers) have propped up in Iran in order to subjugate the people and exploit their natural resources, including the plentiful oil there. There was this guy called "The Shah" . . . oh forget it. As for Israel declaring open hostility, why would it do that against the country that provides it with billions (with a "B") of aid every single year for the past 30 years?

[54anickel]

13. Why does the first answer have to be "Blow it up"? They are

cooperating with the IAEA. Might it not be possible they are looking to have a nuclear power plant? If they are making bombs, wouldn't it be best to TRY diplomacy first and move on from there?

The usurper mislead this country into a unilateral war in Iraq. Sorry, they would have to make a much better case this next time around. As Shrub said "Fool me once....."

[DUmbrella]

14. I didn't say that

I never said the first answer should be to blow it up. It's just that from the sounds of this thread, it seems like people are actually hoping that we do nothing. Almost even hoping that they actually get their bomb! To try and rationalize that its ok to have it because we do is foolish and naive.

I suggest we continue doing what we're doing now - allowing the IAEA to do their work. But we should not rule out the possiblity of millitary action if we find out they have been lying and are on the brink of assembling a nuclear device.

And by the way, don't think they're cooperating so nicely with the IAEA. There are deep suspcions all around as to their motives. Evidence is coming out that much of the technology they're using for their "power plant" was sold by AQ Khan. AQ Khan didn't build power plants by the way. He's the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb.

Some reading for you:
UN Uncovers New Iranian Atomic Secrets-Diplomats
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040212/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_design_dc

.N. Finds Enrichment Supplies in Iran
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_8

[54anickel]

33. Yes, I've been following those stories. I prefer to wait for the offical

reports from IAEA and those actually involved in the inspections than the assumptions of Bolton, McClellan, and un-named Western Diplomats.

[Zero Gravitas]

9. so long as the are just nuclear scientists

after all Our Great Leader George "War Hero" Bush keeps warning us of the dangers of nooklar weapons, not nuclear ones.

[swinney]

35. Russian NUKES scary our one big scare

Secretary of Defense Willam Perry visited Russia and it's nuclear sites during Clinton wonderful years.

His report was awesome.

He said that he got chills when he was taken to just "one" site which had--

200 Multiple warheads ICBM programed to hit USA cities and it was seven floors underground.

He said that an order could be given and in thirty minutes the missles would hit USA.

SCARY SCARY--THAT IS HUGH TERROR.

Now, Bush is pissing off Putin with his arrogance and ignorance.
clarence swinney burlington nc