Iran moves closer to nuclear warhead capacity
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Obama's budget goes to Congress
( 1 )
-
Police: Houston under water when found in bathtub
( 1 )
-
Bombers target Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia
( 1 )
-
Aviation industry warns of trade war over EU carbon tax
( 0 )
-
Greece surveys riot damage after austerity vote
( 0 )
-
1
Australian man found dead at Niseko ski resort
-
2
Former gang member shot dead in Denny's restaurant in Chiba
-
3
Water temperature rising in No. 2 reactor at Fukushima nuclear plant
-
4
TEPCO blames high reactor temperature reading on broken thermometer
-
5
Why do Japanese change their attitude when they communicate with foreigners?
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
-
- Part Time Assistant Language Teacher - Kanagawa Prefecture - late-March start
- Interac, Kanagawa
- Salary: ¥9,000 / Day per 4 class shift
Order by Time Order by Popularity
25 Comments
Login to comment
0
sabiwabi
I long thought Iran was the target of a media smear campaign. Seeing that six AP writers contributed to this article somewhat confirms that they are really going after Iran.
I haven't seen any evidence that Iran's nuclear activities are not peaceful.
0
Odogma
The 3 AM phone call Hillary Clinton spoke of?
0
medievaltimes
Whether the US likes it or not...if it's ok for the US to have nuclear warhead capability, it is ok for other countries to as well.
0
Odogma
Would it likewise be 'ok' for the US to withhold from Iran medicine, medical technology and technical expertise in the event of a Chernobyl-type meltdown?
0
bushlover
Medieval I think you missed the acronym UN not US followed by the word sanctions. Anyway any country that had an "Islamic Revolution" starting by violating the sovereignty of another country's Embassy with violence and holding captives for 444 days well just isn't responsibly stable enough to trust with this technology. I can see it. The UN can see it. But liberals just can't see it. Don't worry Sabi, one day your type will be able to start something that will end the world. You'll end up getting all us infidels.
0
lovejapan21
Bushlover, is this coming from a country (US) that has started so many wars and in return killed millions of people espcially in IRAQ, for what, to topple Saddam hussain and get his oil..hahah...it is what it is..US is a super power and it gets to do whatevs..sucks for other countries..but soon enough as we are seeing..they are losing that status..IF iran wants nukes..let them have them..India and Pakistan has them ..and so does N. Korea..Liek we can trust any country other than CANADA..GO CANADA!!
0
TumbleDry
sabiwabi: with a clear retoric about anihiling Israel by any means possible, we can seriously doubt about Iran intention.
bushlover: yeah! show who is the boss!
0
goddog
Israeli war planes are gearing up.
0
Odogma
The poster bushlover is right. The 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran was an act of war. Iran has never acknowledged it, but they haven't exactly backed down either.
Iran is a totalitarian regime run by an extremist religious sect. They murder their own citizens. Did you not see the state-sponsored violence and cold-blooded murder that accompanied demonstrations against the recent 'elections' there?
Sentiments such as that are even more bizarre, and ironic. The regime in Iran, in violation of all international laws, arrested, tortured and assassinated a female Canadian citizen, a journalist of Iranian descent.
To someone like lovejapan21 I can only ask - - why stop with Iran? Why not get on your soapbox and demand Somalia or Zimbabwe be given nukes.
0
Sarge
Iran also moves closer to the end of Iran as we know it.
0
RomeoRamenII
Obama should jump on AF-1, fly to Tehran and bow deeply to the Iranian leaders.
That'll show 'em who's boss.
0
adaydream
Wow RomeoRamenII, maybe george bush should have flown straight to Iran instead of the USS Lincoln. We wouldn't have had to see him strut past his Mission Accomplished banner.
he was such a war commander that he could just fly around Iran for years. Just refuel him up there. You know kinda "Stay the course". That would have been safer for America. < :-)
0
RomeoRamenII
Israel, with Netanyahu in charge, is not going to let the Mullahs get a nuke; they already have a delivery system.
Then we are all going to find out if America's current administration is up to the task.
0
adaydream
I'll do just that. < :-)
0
SuperLib
Hmmm....seems like they aren't even giving China and Russia any wiggle room. So what's the deal? Maybe they see that they're losing the support of their own people and need to create an "Iran vs. the world" type of conflict to consolidate power.
Either that or they figure they can lie and stall the UN and perhaps with even a hint of ambiguity some people will continue to sit on their hands and hope for the best. It's happened before...
0
medievaltimes
That is up to the individual government to decide.
0
medievaltimes
The UN is a joke.
As for your views on Iran, I actually agree. But, it is not grounds to tell who and who should not have these weapons. As time goes on it will be a moot point anyway.
0
SuperLib
Obviously the world can decide who should and should not have these weapons. We aren't 5th grade teachers handing out toys and making sure everyone or no one gets one.
0
Madverts
"Maybe they see that they're losing the support of their own people and need to create an "Iran vs. the world" type of conflict to consolidate power."
That seems to be an accurate analysis of the situation. Not speaking diplomat and all, this is what we call in the trade, "sh!t or bust".
It's bound to backfire. The people of Iran clearly have had enough of their regime. Let's hope Friday won't be too bloody.
0
SuperLib
Before the recent election events in Iran I was pretty much on the fence about military action....but in all reality the best option would be to let Iran implode from within at this point.
0
Madverts
"but in all reality the best option would be to let Iran implode from within at this point."
Like Iraq? ;) :p
Heh, I agree in principle, but the fist is clenched too tightly and the timescale is too short, methinks. How come you aren't advocating regime change here then? Is it because they are actually dangerous?
The civillian casualties would be horrific, but here I support a surgical strike - strange as it may seem.
0
medievaltimes
The country that should have the most say is Iran itself, not America. Its quite arrogant of America to tell governments they can not have nuclear weapons while....well, you know the rest.
0
lostrune2
Even Iran never claimed an ability to make fuel rods. There are only 2 places in the entire world where fuel rods are made: one in France, the other in Argentina. How are they really gonna do with further enriched uranium....
Iran has a say about nuclear weapons, but the rest of the world also has a say about not trading with Iran anymore (kinda like the old Usenet Death Penalty to spamming servers) - total economic isolation. So one can't just play by oneself - one has to play the game with the other players. Unless one wants to be reduced to North Korea-like levels of tragedy.
0
michaelqtodd
@SuperLib I believe you are right and if support diminishes for the Iranian regime they will use whatever means they can to regain popularity/power. Ahmadinejad is a very scary dude who believes that he has some destiny to do something "momentous" on behalf of Iran.We have all been watching this escalate for the last few years
@Madverts I am a lover of peace but in this case a surgical strike is the only answer. Has anyone got the guts to do it?
Back to top