Massive Arms Build-Up In Israel
Associated Press | 19.12.2005 03:45
A glimpse of bias from the Associated Press, who obviously can write this stuff with a straight face, and ignore the glaring hypocrisy inherent. The point is that Israel is arming itself to the teeth, expanding its military capabilities, while pushing for Aggressive Warfare in the name of "peace".
Israel prepares for feared nuclear attack by Iran
By Steven Gutkin
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, December 17, 2005
JERUSALEM — Israel is expanding its arsenal to deal with what it now views as the greatest potential threat to its existence: a nuclear attack by Iran.
(Or at least, that is its cover story. The fact is that Iran has no nuclear program, nor are they threatening any such thing. Interesting to note how the tightly-controlled Western media interprets recent events. The only ones rattling the sabre are Israel, Britain, and the United States under PNAC.)
It has acquired dozens of warplanes with long-range fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran and signed a deal with Germany for two submarines reportedly capable of firing nuclear missiles.
Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he'd support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(That should read "Illegal, Aggressive Attack". Propoaganda Points again for the AP.)
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.'
(However, if you examine what he said, he did not mean this in any military sense. He meant that such an Apartheid, Racist, Militant country should not exist. But reforms, such as those being demanded by a majority of Israelis, could change this paradigm.)
Though Israeli security officials say a strike against Iran isn't on the horizon, senior Israeli politicians have begun openly discussing the possibility of a military option — either alone or with other countries.
(Remember in 2001 when Bush([search]) claimed that a plan for the invasion of Iraq([search]) hadn't crossed his desk? Leaked documents prove that this was a similar LIE.)
Such a mission would be far more complicated than the 1981 Israeli airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. It would require heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers, aircraft to bombard multiple targets and possibly ground commandos to make sure weapons materials are destroyed, experts say.
(Not to mention, there is no Iranian nuclear site to attack ...)
"It's not a target that you can find on the map, send two F-15s and solve it," said Itamar Yaar, deputy head of Israel's National Security Council.
Both the United States and Israel refuse to say whether a strike plan is in the works.
(But it's pretty clear that this has been going on for quite some time now. In this light, would not an Iranian attack on either country be "pre-emptive" ... ?)
Hard feelings between Israel and Iran date to just before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the Israelis joined the United States in siding with the Shah of Iran before he was deposed.
Partly because of that, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, called Israel the "Little Satan," saving the term "Great Satan" for the United States.
Israel points out often that Iran is the only member of the United Nations that publicly calls for destruction of another member. Israel's animosity toward Iran stems not only from the Iranian leadership's anti-Israel statements, but also its support of armed groups such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
Tensions between the countries have mounted recently amid growing concern about Iran's atomic program.
Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity, not make bombs. But Iran's plans announced this month to build more nuclear power plants and to purchase 30 Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia have raised fears.
(Those, of course, are anti-aircraft missiles, purchased in anticipation of an Israeli/US attack. The AP's choice to omit this information is glaring.)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in October also set off alarms. Since then, the Iranian leader has also said the Jewish state should be moved to Europe and called the Holocaust a myth.
Both Israel and the U.S. say diplomatic options should be exhausted before any military action is contemplated.
(But of course, they also said this about Iraq, and they have taken active steps to hinder diplomatic actions taken by both the UN and EU.)
But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently said the ability to take out Iran's nuclear program by force "of course exists." One of his political rivals, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, went further, saying he would support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(Even if Iran had a million nukes, this would not justify an attack. ONly a known plan to attack Israel would classify their preparations as "pre-emptive". Current plans are aggressive and illegal.)
Israeli Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said last Sunday that he didn't think diplomatic pressure will be enough to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb and a military solution might be necessary.
"Who is the one to implement it? That is another question that I'm not going to answer. 'When?' is another question that I'm not going to answer. But there are options worldwide," he said.
Some experts argue that a military strike wouldn't be feasible because of a lack of good intelligence on targets; the existence of multiple atomic installations scattered throughout Iran, some underground or bored into mountains; and the country's increasingly sophisticated defense systems.
(And the fact that no weapons program exists. It's been suggested that Israel/the US would use nuclear weapons, in order to destroy the proof that there was no such program.)
But others say the capability exists with a combination of precision missiles, bunker-buster bombs, airpower and elite ground forces to penetrate the most difficult sites.
The United States — with cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run — could take on the task, experts said.
(They could also slaughter a lot of innocent men, women, and children, experts say.)
Whether Israel could is an unanswered question. However, the country already has received about half the 102 American-built F-16I warplanes it ordered with extra fuel tanks to enable them reach Iran.
Israel signed a deal with Germany to build two more Dolphin submarines capable of firing atomic missiles at Iran. Israel already has three Dolphins, a key deterrent to any future nuclear confrontation.
(Also a key piece of equipment in any nuclear arsenal. The AP really doesn't see the hypocrisy inherent in this piece?)
Israel is widely considered to already possess nuclear weapons, though it refuses to confirm or deny it.
(The proof has long existed. The AP's inability to research this point is also glaringly obvious.)
Last week, Israel successfully tested its Arrow missile defense system against a missile similar to Iran's Shahab-3, which could possibly carry a nuclear warhead to Israel or several U.S. military installations in the Middle East.
(And vice-versa ...)
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said any strike on Iran would be fraught with pitfalls. But a successful one would have to be a "bolt out of the blue" to prevent Iran from moving its uranium centrifuges, a key component for enriching uranium used to make nuclear bombs.
He also said ground commando raids probably would be necessary to ensure that hidden tools used for atomic purposes are destroyed.
(But he didn't provide any evidence to support the empty allegations, made in order to again feign a justification for an illegal invasion.)
Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said it wouldn't be necessary to get "100 percent of the targets" to set back Iran's nuclear program. A limited operation to disrupt power supplies, block access to sites or remove components could be enough.
(WHAT PROGRAM!!!???)
He said Iran has learned lessons from Israel's 1981 strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dispersing nuclear sites, putting facilities underground and improving defense.
"But 25 years have passed since then, and the offensive capabilities of the armies involved have also advanced," he added.
Albright warned that any strike, especially one that leaves some nuclear capabilities intact, probably would strengthen Iran's resolve to aggressively pursue atomic weapons.
He said Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and by launching attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas.
(Life is already miserable for the US in Iraq, and why shouldn't they retaliate against Israeli/US Aggression?)
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/12/17strikingiran.html
Professor, mathematician, and computer scientist says that the triad of evil is America, Britain, and Israel.
He is part of SPINE, (Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven), a loose association providing scientific evidence that 9-11 was government operation.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsDewdney.html
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark
RELATED NEWS:
The End of The Oil Standard...
Top oil groups fail to recoup exploration costs...
The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...
Staring down the barrel of a crisis...
How to deceive friends and influence people: Oil crisis lies...
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”
– President George W. Bush, February 2005
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Bush Says Iraq War Is Good for Israel
http://www.forward.com/articles/7020
By Steven Gutkin
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, December 17, 2005
JERUSALEM — Israel is expanding its arsenal to deal with what it now views as the greatest potential threat to its existence: a nuclear attack by Iran.
(Or at least, that is its cover story. The fact is that Iran has no nuclear program, nor are they threatening any such thing. Interesting to note how the tightly-controlled Western media interprets recent events. The only ones rattling the sabre are Israel, Britain, and the United States under PNAC.)
It has acquired dozens of warplanes with long-range fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran and signed a deal with Germany for two submarines reportedly capable of firing nuclear missiles.
Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he'd support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(That should read "Illegal, Aggressive Attack". Propoaganda Points again for the AP.)
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.'
(However, if you examine what he said, he did not mean this in any military sense. He meant that such an Apartheid, Racist, Militant country should not exist. But reforms, such as those being demanded by a majority of Israelis, could change this paradigm.)
Though Israeli security officials say a strike against Iran isn't on the horizon, senior Israeli politicians have begun openly discussing the possibility of a military option — either alone or with other countries.
(Remember in 2001 when Bush([search]) claimed that a plan for the invasion of Iraq([search]) hadn't crossed his desk? Leaked documents prove that this was a similar LIE.)
Such a mission would be far more complicated than the 1981 Israeli airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. It would require heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers, aircraft to bombard multiple targets and possibly ground commandos to make sure weapons materials are destroyed, experts say.
(Not to mention, there is no Iranian nuclear site to attack ...)
"It's not a target that you can find on the map, send two F-15s and solve it," said Itamar Yaar, deputy head of Israel's National Security Council.
Both the United States and Israel refuse to say whether a strike plan is in the works.
(But it's pretty clear that this has been going on for quite some time now. In this light, would not an Iranian attack on either country be "pre-emptive" ... ?)
Hard feelings between Israel and Iran date to just before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the Israelis joined the United States in siding with the Shah of Iran before he was deposed.
Partly because of that, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, called Israel the "Little Satan," saving the term "Great Satan" for the United States.
Israel points out often that Iran is the only member of the United Nations that publicly calls for destruction of another member. Israel's animosity toward Iran stems not only from the Iranian leadership's anti-Israel statements, but also its support of armed groups such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
Tensions between the countries have mounted recently amid growing concern about Iran's atomic program.
Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity, not make bombs. But Iran's plans announced this month to build more nuclear power plants and to purchase 30 Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia have raised fears.
(Those, of course, are anti-aircraft missiles, purchased in anticipation of an Israeli/US attack. The AP's choice to omit this information is glaring.)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in October also set off alarms. Since then, the Iranian leader has also said the Jewish state should be moved to Europe and called the Holocaust a myth.
Both Israel and the U.S. say diplomatic options should be exhausted before any military action is contemplated.
(But of course, they also said this about Iraq, and they have taken active steps to hinder diplomatic actions taken by both the UN and EU.)
But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently said the ability to take out Iran's nuclear program by force "of course exists." One of his political rivals, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, went further, saying he would support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(Even if Iran had a million nukes, this would not justify an attack. ONly a known plan to attack Israel would classify their preparations as "pre-emptive". Current plans are aggressive and illegal.)
Israeli Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said last Sunday that he didn't think diplomatic pressure will be enough to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb and a military solution might be necessary.
"Who is the one to implement it? That is another question that I'm not going to answer. 'When?' is another question that I'm not going to answer. But there are options worldwide," he said.
Some experts argue that a military strike wouldn't be feasible because of a lack of good intelligence on targets; the existence of multiple atomic installations scattered throughout Iran, some underground or bored into mountains; and the country's increasingly sophisticated defense systems.
(And the fact that no weapons program exists. It's been suggested that Israel/the US would use nuclear weapons, in order to destroy the proof that there was no such program.)
But others say the capability exists with a combination of precision missiles, bunker-buster bombs, airpower and elite ground forces to penetrate the most difficult sites.
The United States — with cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run — could take on the task, experts said.
(They could also slaughter a lot of innocent men, women, and children, experts say.)
Whether Israel could is an unanswered question. However, the country already has received about half the 102 American-built F-16I warplanes it ordered with extra fuel tanks to enable them reach Iran.
Israel signed a deal with Germany to build two more Dolphin submarines capable of firing atomic missiles at Iran. Israel already has three Dolphins, a key deterrent to any future nuclear confrontation.
(Also a key piece of equipment in any nuclear arsenal. The AP really doesn't see the hypocrisy inherent in this piece?)
Israel is widely considered to already possess nuclear weapons, though it refuses to confirm or deny it.
(The proof has long existed. The AP's inability to research this point is also glaringly obvious.)
Last week, Israel successfully tested its Arrow missile defense system against a missile similar to Iran's Shahab-3, which could possibly carry a nuclear warhead to Israel or several U.S. military installations in the Middle East.
(And vice-versa ...)
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said any strike on Iran would be fraught with pitfalls. But a successful one would have to be a "bolt out of the blue" to prevent Iran from moving its uranium centrifuges, a key component for enriching uranium used to make nuclear bombs.
He also said ground commando raids probably would be necessary to ensure that hidden tools used for atomic purposes are destroyed.
(But he didn't provide any evidence to support the empty allegations, made in order to again feign a justification for an illegal invasion.)
Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said it wouldn't be necessary to get "100 percent of the targets" to set back Iran's nuclear program. A limited operation to disrupt power supplies, block access to sites or remove components could be enough.
(WHAT PROGRAM!!!???)
He said Iran has learned lessons from Israel's 1981 strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dispersing nuclear sites, putting facilities underground and improving defense.
"But 25 years have passed since then, and the offensive capabilities of the armies involved have also advanced," he added.
Albright warned that any strike, especially one that leaves some nuclear capabilities intact, probably would strengthen Iran's resolve to aggressively pursue atomic weapons.
He said Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and by launching attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas.
(Life is already miserable for the US in Iraq, and why shouldn't they retaliate against Israeli/US Aggression?)
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/12/17strikingiran.html Professor, mathematician, and computer scientist says that the triad of evil is America, Britain, and Israel.
He is part of SPINE, (Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven), a loose association providing scientific evidence that 9-11 was government operation.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsDewdney.html Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark
RELATED NEWS:
The End of The Oil Standard...
Top oil groups fail to recoup exploration costs...
The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...
Staring down the barrel of a crisis...
How to deceive friends and influence people: Oil crisis lies...
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”
– President George W. Bush, February 2005
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html Bush Says Iraq War Is Good for Israel
http://www.forward.com/articles/7020
Associated Press
Comments
Hide the following 21 comments
You are an apologist for Iran
19.12.2005 05:33
You're certainly confused, probably biased and definitely off your rocker.
You're also an apologist for a brutal repressive regime - Iran, that is.
ex-Brit
Reality Check
19.12.2005 10:16
How is a nuclear holocaust going to benefit the poor and oppressed of these nations? If you think nuclear war has any place in the 21st Century, you are off your rocker and an apologist for the Zionist PNAC!
Diplomat
Idiot
19.12.2005 11:02
Iran will not allow Jews to live there, many have fled to the US, UK and Israel - is that not racist?
Christians in Iran are treated as second class citizens, is that not Apartheid?
Iran has a huge standing army, conscription, biological and chemical weapons and is seeking to prepare nuclear weapons. In this regard it is no less militant than Israel and possibly more so. Israel of course has made peace with any neighbour who wants to, Iran will never make peace.
Ahmedinejad has called twice for the destruction of Israel. His comments are usually highly anti semitic and he has gone so far as to deny that the holocaust took place.
However as long as he is opposed to the Jews you will champion him as a saint.
Israel has nuclear weapons, we all know this. But are you sleepless at night because of this? Of course not. And yet if Iran has them, then they are in the hands of a fundamentalist leadership with the mind of a suicide bomber; that is reason not to sleep.
So let Israel strike and stop these lunatics from starting a nuclear World War 3.
Jewish & Proud
Iran's nuclear programme is for electricity generation?
19.12.2005 11:29
sceptic
J&P - you blinkered sociopath
19.12.2005 12:14
THIS is the face of right wing Zionism - excusing mass murder in order to prevent, um, mass murder.
Jewish and Sane
Electricity and petrodollars
19.12.2005 13:17
Yes, Iran wants to export more of its petroleum, and use nuclear power for electricity generation instead.
Iran has just signed a huge petroleum export deal with China:
They are also setting up their own oil bourse next year, which will use Euros and not dollars for payment:
Funny how this dubious logic of "they're sitting on all that oil, so they must want to build nuclear bombs" isn't applied to the US, UK and other countries which export oil, yet still build nuclear power stations.
Just another example of the right's usual double-standards at work again.
David
when has anyone
19.12.2005 13:34
sceptic
Stopping Iran will prevent nuclear war
19.12.2005 13:53
Stopping Iran doesn't mean nuclear war, anymore than stopping Saddam's nuclear program meant nuclear war.
Iran's regime is a theocracy and oppressive. There are many young Iranians who don't hate women or gays and who wish to join the modern world. Also, there are many Iranians alive who remember what life was like before the Ayatollahs with their islamic Revolution. Getting rid of the ayatollahs is like getting rid of the Taliban, and it doesn't have to be replaced by an oppressive regime.
You should note, that democracies don't attack or threaten each other with anihilation.
Jewish and Intelligent
Arik
Bring back the Shah
19.12.2005 14:23
Ah yes, the glory days of our dear ally, the Shah. We taught his SAVAK spooks how to torture properly to get results. What a shame all that money went to waste, after we'd removed his elected predecessor in a coup and installed him as dictator-for-life.
"Getting rid of the ayatollahs is like getting rid of the Taliban, and it doesn't have to be replaced by an oppressive regime."
No it doesn't have to be. But it usually is:
"You should note, that democracies don't attack or threaten each other with anihilation."
Hahahahaha! Yes, so long as those democracies don't elect the wrong sort of President, as so many countries just seem to keep on doing.
Like Venezuela:
And Chile:
And Guatemala
And of course Iran:
And Brazil, Dominican Republic, Greece, Haiti, etc., etc.:
Rick
Nuke I
19.12.2005 14:25
Well why not apologize for Iran being an ex brit yourself you should be ready to shoulder a fair amount of the blame if you are an
ex BP employee you can have all of it. If Iran hadn't been subject to eons of british fuckery then it would very unlikely to be run by a fanatic.
But that could be said for half the world in country's where the U.S and UK have had there grubby little fingers in the pie, not of course forgetting
jolly old Israel Mossad et all.
Well if the poster is off his rocker you must be a traveling fruit cake ! or do you think that other folk are just idiots ?
yes I know the BBC and other corporate media outlets refer to it as "Israel's ambiguous nuclear policy" and just because they locked up
one of their top scientists for twenty yerars cos he was talking to the London Times and still refuse him his basic civil rights to this day is
no reason at all to believe that israel is a nuke toting rogue state that couldn't give a toss about international law and they suck big time !!
hope that old bastard sharon is reduced to veg state by his stroke and no wonder the palestinians are celebrating .
Hermes Trismegistus
electricity, petrodollars and electricity
19.12.2005 15:04
The UK? You might have noticed we stopped building nuclear power stations when we became an oil exporter. Now we no longer self sufficient in oil, nuclear is now back on the agenda. The US is now a net importer of oil. Hence its renewed interest in nuclear power.
Which countries rely on nuclear power? Oh - France, Japan, Sweden. Lots of oil in those countries - not.
sceptic
Oil cost and value
19.12.2005 18:03
Ten times? How did you arrive at that figure? Which analyst's estimates are you using to calculate the per-barrel cost of oil? Iran probably won't be building this year, so how far into the future are you willing to predict?
And what figure are you using for the usable lifetime of the new reactors? Newly built nuclear plants have operating lifetimes of 40 - 60 years:
Where in that operating lifetime are you declaring the breakeven point on oil costs? And of course, after your oil costs are equalled, it's money in the bank year on year for the rest of that 40 - 60 years.
In fact, the true costs of a barrel of oil are incredibly difficult to model over more than a year's time. And China's demand will likely continue to grow for the next five years at least. The smart oil producers will be exporting as much as they can, and banking on continued high (and probably rising) costs.
"The US is now a net importer of oil. Hence its renewed interest in nuclear power."
It's a net importer because its per-capita fuel consumption has grown rapidly, and continues to grow. But the US does not rely on oil for power plants: it mainly uses coal, and some hydroelectric. Their oil consumption is mainly for transport and manufacturing.
The economics of nuclear power generation have changed steadily in the last 10 years:
Oil will likely become much more valuable for export and in manufacturing than as a local power source, and the Iranians would be smart to use that to leverage growth, and not go down the same senseless route of massive increases in personal car ownership.
Venezuela is also using oil as a medium-term growth export product. If US and European (and indeed some Asian) govts were half as far-sighted, they'd have discouraged car ownership, and banked as much of the takings as they could during the long period of low prices. Instead, the US govt pissed it away on nearly tax-free giveaways to the consumers.
Now this will come back to bite them. But all these geniuses can think to do about it is to gain control of the largest known oil reserves by force:
And if that doesn't work, then what?
David
Nuclear power
19.12.2005 19:05
sceptic
by the way
19.12.2005 22:14
sceptic
Nuclear and beyond
19.12.2005 22:15
But I'm no recent convert. Besides, it's coming soon, with no pushing needed. Both of the main parliamentary parties support it.
The current fission technology can't be a permanent solution, but it could be a stepping stone to fusion, which seems tantalisingly close if you read the research journals. One more generation of fission reactors might just get us there.
Government also needs to get down to kickstarting micro-generation as if they mean it, with aggressive tax credits, intensive publicity, etc. This would strengthen AND distribute the grid, and help prevent the centralised utility owners wielding private monopoly power the way they have so disastrously in the US. A "we the members of this co-op all own this together" model of shared ownership for centralised utilities would be my preferred way forward, not the failed "the government owns this" Fabian model, nor the failed private model. These central utilities should also use renewable sources like wind, tidal, etc, but current technology will only allow this to contribute in part.
What does need pushing for is a genuine culture change, away from the doomed high-consumption model and toward a sustainable permaculture. Dramatically lowering energy consumption is really the only way we're going to achieve energy independence, no matter which large-scale power technologies get built. The era of the personal motorcar is going to have to end, unless some amazing new dream-technology is found to power them- new solar tech, Zero-Point, whatever. Until that unlikely dream comes true, we're all going to have to learn to cut back, and not just the plebs, but everyone.
That means a rethink on transport, and dumping the failed private system in transport and energy. We had a go at that. It didn't work. Time to try something new.
In short, there are ways for us to prevent the resource wars these evil, lying gangsters want to foist on us. It will be hard, but it can be done.
David
Blah ...
19.12.2005 23:04
The Zionist Trolls talk loud, but all their bluster cannot hide the fact that the Extremists they support are basically saying "War Is Peace", and expect us not to notice the glaring contradiction.
The only countries pursuing the path of aggression right now are the US, UK, and Israel.
Who's Agenda Are These Wars ... ?
A Point
21.12.2005 02:27
Vanunu blew the lid off the Zionist nuclear arsenal years ago.
"But you do also know for sure that Iran does NOT have nukes"
I'm gonna go with the guys who said that Iraq didn't have them either, yes.
You know, el Baradei, the UN ...
It's Documented
RE: electricity, petrodollars and electricity
21.12.2005 11:58
if you listen to the green retoric they rarely challenge the kWh/pence price of nuclear but lambast the dangers in an attempt to hype up the insurance costs and when challenged about the vast energy generation they call upon "distributed" power stations and less centralisation (ugh?).
take away the scarmongering and contra-hype regarding nuclear power and you find the numbers match up. the research conducted by the royal academy of engineers is one of the most comprehenisve to date, i believe it leans on the optimistic side but the technology is sound and even cleaner and cheaper forms of nuclear reactors have been built and tested i.e. the pebble bed modular reactor - inherently safe reactor, proven 50% more efficiency than old reactors, small modular design, low startup cost, cheap to mass produce and the unique design enables it to efficiently produce mass quantities of hydrogen to kick start the hyrodgen economy:
skeptic, iran has large oil wealth and hence can afford to invest in nuclear power, this makes economic sense there need not be a conspiracy. furthermore oil world-wide is a dwindling stock, it would be foolish for any country (incl britian) not to look towards alternative fuels.
regards,
no scarmongers
Interesting to see
21.12.2005 16:40
sceptic
An idiot posts
23.12.2005 21:05
You may not like this but you are an idiot. You refer to Vanunu as a 'top scientist.'
You are wrong. He was a bottom rung tech who did not even have a college education.
As far as Israel's "ambiguous nuclear policy" no one actually knows what Israel posseses. The so called experts have made assumptions on what is possible but there is absolutly no evidence or even testimony from any individual to substantiate the existance of such weapons. All 'assumptions' are based on the claims of Vanunu and a handful of photographs of some dials in nuclear power generating facility.
Contrary to arab propaganda, Israel has complied to International Laws. It has ignored internation condomnations from countries (ant their clients) that continue to teach their citizens that its acceptable to kill Jews because they are Jews.
kelly
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
28.12.2005 00:27
Get that sh*t outta here, LIEJoy ("kelly").
Vanunu Blew The Lid Off, With Detailed Evidence