Iran bought metal useable in atomic bombs-diplomats

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03422868.htm

VIENNA, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Intelligence reports accuse Iran of buying large amounts of a metal that has many civilian uses but which some U.S. and other countries' officials believe Tehran wanted exclusively for an atomic bomb, diplomats say.

Washington says that oil-rich Iran is developing nuclear weapons under cover of a nuclear energy programme. Tehran denies this, insisting its atomic ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.

One non-U.S. diplomat, citing intelligence gathered by his country, said Iran bought "huge amounts of beryllium from a number of countries" but gave no details on the amount or states involved.

Beryllium has a long list of innocent uses, such as in spark plugs and X-ray equipment. However, the metal can also be combined with polonium-210 (Po-210), a substance Iran is known to have worked with, to initiate the chain reaction in a bomb.

more

Wonder if the non-U.S. diplomat who chose to remain anonymous and is quoted in this story could be an Israeli diplomat? Nah. My imagination is probably getting the best of me.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

1. deja vu all over again

[LynnTheDem]

4. It's them nasty "aluminum tubes" metal masquerading as spark plugs!

Gawd...do they really believe they're fooling ANYONE other than the already-conned/duped incredibly stupid 60% bush supporter rubes???

[BareskinMatt]

6. Does this mean Iran is NOT trying to build a nuke bomb?

Are you 100% sure Iran is not after the bomb?

[LynnTheDem]

7. It means we're hearing the same shit, different pile

from the same shits.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemoTex]

10. Are you 100% sure there are no dinosaurs in New York?

It would be hard to prove, with absolute certainty, the negative assertion (Iran is not after the bomb) that you form as a question. But, for the sake of argument, what is the threshold of certitude required to invade a country? It was very, very low for Iraq, and even then it was wrong, wrong, wrong.

[wicket]

13. It means the Bushies have no credibility on this issue

They were completely wrong with Iraq and now are recycling the same claims for Iran, something stinks.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BareskinMatt]

26. Sweet surrender

I like the color purple too except in my Koolaide unless of course it's purple Jesus with everclear and no ice.

[okieinpain]

27. I would bet a paycheck that they do.

I wonder if the poodle will go along with this invasion.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Cool! They're recycling their Iraq LIES!

Talk about MONEY-SAVING! WAY TO GO, RIGHTWINGNUT MEDIA! Just change that "q" to an "n" and no need to do new news stories!

A democratic & open media would actually research and verify all such news from scratch, which of course would be far more expensive and time-consuming; no wonder the rethuglicans are the party of SMALL SPENDING! No wonder ouir economy is booming, our dollar is soaring, and we have such huge trade surpluses!

[Ilsa]

3. Gee, is it possible they actually

needed spark plugs and x-ray equipment in Iraq?

[LynnTheDem]

5. IraN...

You forgot to change your Q to an N. :D

[Ilsa]

16. Oops. Thanks. Fingers get into strange habits. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

24. We'll all have to practise awhile

Wonder how many times we'll hear the "liberal" media & the bushlerCartel slip up... :D

[maddezmom]

8. don't think it's just your imagination...and what other countries???

just another day in *'s march to Freedom for the Middle East...:eyes:

[slor]

11. Who could blame an...

Arab nation, or any nation, for that matter, for wanting to ramp up a weapons program of any kind. With a obvious psychopath in charge of the U.S. military, I know I would.

[LynnTheDem]

12. Simple LOGIC...exactly what bushCartel & RWWs don't possess

WHO financed the 911 terrorists?

Saudi Arabia

WHERE did the 19 terrorists come from?

Saudi Arabia (14) Pakistan (2) Egypt (3)

WHO is the #1 threat to the USA and has, as we & they all acknowledge, WMD?

North Korea.

And WHO DID BUSH INVADE?

None of the above.

bush invaded a 3rd world weak defenseless nation that was doing nothing to anyone, was a threat to no one, and hadn't had any WMD since 1991.

If YOU are the leader of a nation, which of the above nations would YOU emulate? North Korea, with WMD? Or Iraq, with no WMD?

Uh huh...the race for WMD is on.

[3days]

14. I see some Yellow Cake in their future

[Gyre]

15. They're not going to attack Iran

Iranians can shoot back, and we don't like going to war against an enemy that can hurt us. All of our wars since Vietnam have been against enemies who couldn't fight back, AND, we THOUGHT Vietnam was going to be like that too.

Gyre

[The Stranger]

17. I think you underestimate them. PNAC doesn't care what happens to

U.S. forces -- never did and never will. They knew Iraq could not be occupied, that it would end up being a years-long quagmire and military disaster -- but they moved mountains to bring about the invasion anyway.

This is key: once the invasion was on, they knew there could be no going back. They knew even a new Administration would have to commit itself to the ongoing occupation and the massive religious and ethnic infighting. In fact, it made telling lies to bring about the invasion that much more important.

The very same dynamic exists with Iran.

[jpak]

18. Invasion? No. Air strikes? Yes...

ChimpCo has all its imperialist eggs in the I-raq basket - there are no troops available for an I-raq-style invasion of I-ran.

Iran's air defenses are nonexistent - we would have free reign to bomb anywhere and anytime we chose.

The Chimp won't invade I-ran, but he will have himself a splendid little air war to entertain the Sheeple...

[Rapcw]

19. Oh boy time to launch Operation Rolling Thunder 2: "Rolling Raghead"

:eyes:
You are right, if not a full invasion, there will be airstrikes of some kind on Iran. Of course they will be using "smart bombs" so the repugs can sleep easy at night.



*edit for spelling*

BTW, when people put a n/t by their post, what does that mean? Also, what does EOM mean?

[Itchinjim]

23. THEY aren't going to be the ones getting shot at.

THEIR children are not going to be shot at. However OUR children are just cannon fodder to them. We will be in a war with Iran and/or Syria by 2008.

[daleo]

20. "a metal that has many civilian uses"

Filthy Bush liars are going to try exactly the same thing as last time.

[wabeewoman]

21. We need a thread with all these stories

I'm sure there are more...
Rumsfeld warns Iran making 'a lot of mistakes'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1041774

U.S. Suspects Iran Is Making New Missiles
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1041470


Iran bought metal useable in atomic bombs-diplomats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1041637


Iran bought metal useable in atomic bombs-diplomats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1038915

[RuleofLaw]

25. One thing everyone forgets is

That it is perfectly legal for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

I all this debate I have not heard anyone actually say that it is illegal under international law for Iran to have the bomb. Other countries might try to dissuade them, but no Security council resolution can be made to stop them.


That of course is if we still abide by the rule of law......oh.... we're not. Sorry, my bad......


How come its OK for the US to defend itself, but not for other nations?