Originally posted by no1marauderyeah, they both discuss "nuclear" stuff.
Try to follow the conversation. Go back and read sonhouse's second post. Now read my response. You'll notice that they are related in some way, but how? Can a right-winger figure out what the purpose of a Debate forum is?
I doubt it, but everybody else stay tuned.
posting a history of encouragement of civilian nuclear technology (from 30 years ago!) hardly counts as an intelligent contribution to the debate.
they were stupid then. we don't have to be stupid now. if iran is on the up-and-up, all they have to do is throw open the doors for the inspectors. it turns out khadafi was the smart one after all, but apparently iran doesn't see that.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSpeaking of stupid ..........
yeah, they both discuss "nuclear" stuff.
posting a history of encouragement of civilian nuclear technology (from 30 years ago!) hardly counts as an intelligent contribution to the debate.
they were stupid then. we don't have to be stupid now. if iran is on the up-and-up, all they have to do is throw open the doors for the inspectors. it turns out khadafi was the smart one after all, but apparently iran doesn't see that.
Sonhouse used the old "they have plenty of oil, what do they need nuclear power for?" The two links answered that question.
No one ever made demands on Libya's civilian nuclear program, as they are doing to Iran's. Something like 30 countries enrich uranium and discrimination against Iran's civilian program is barred by the NPT. Iran's been inspected over and over again and not a single shred of physical evidence has been discovered which shows they are trying to build a nuclear weapon. This has absolutely nothing to do with any real concern that Iran will get a nuclear device and everything to do with the bid for world economic domination by Western elites (they don't like nationalist regimes i.e. ones that don't want rich foreigners running their economy, like the one in Iran).
Originally posted by no1marauderwhy won't they let inspectors in now?
Speaking of stupid ..........
Sonhouse used the old "they have plenty of oil, what do they need nuclear power for?" The two links answered that question.
No one ever made demands on Libya's civilian nuclear program, as they are doing to Iran's. Something like 30 countries enrich uranium and discrimination against Iran's civilia ...[text shortened]... i.e. ones that don't want rich foreigners running their economy, like the one in Iran).
Originally posted by no1marauderi guess it depends on what your definition of "cooperation" is.
They do. The IAEA has a few minor gripes, but these are being blown out of proportion for propaganda purposes.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/IAEAreport.asp
"The IAEA's Report on Iran: An Analysis
Paul Kerr
On Nov. 10, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report charging Iran with violating its obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In particular, the IAEA said that Tehran had been conducting experiments with imported nuclear material without informing the agency. The report also revealed that Iran had carried out a variety of clandestine nuclear activities for more than two decades. In doing so, it had deceived the agency on numerous occasions by concealing facilities and providing the IAEA with incomplete and false information. A discussion of the IAEA’s revelations follows.
"
oh, look! more cooperation!
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=12184
"Iran denies IAEA access to nuclear site
8/21/2006 4:00:00 PM GMT
(AFP Photo) Iranian soldiers inside the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz
Iran has denied access to UN investigators wanting to inspect its underground nuclear site, diplomats and UN officials said on Monday, according to The Associated Press news agency.
The decision to ban IAEA investigators from entering the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, 300 kms south of Tehran, was apparently related to an Iranian complaint over the behavior of an IAEA inspector.
..."
Originally posted by zeeblebotA) You didn't say "cooperation"; you said "why won't they let inspectors in"? And they do. And this article is over three years old.
i guess it depends on what your definition of "cooperation" is.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/IAEAreport.asp
"The IAEA's Report on Iran: An Analysis
Paul Kerr
On Nov. 10, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report charging Iran with violating its obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In particular, the ...[text shortened]... A with incomplete and false information. A discussion of the IAEA’s revelations follows.
"
Everybody knows where this is leading; Iraq didn't "cooperate enough" so it was OK to invade them even though they didn't have any WMD's (and inspectors never claimed they did). Now the same BS is being used as regards Iran. Can't you right wingers come up with something more original?
Originally posted by zeeblebotAnd they were allowed in a few days later. As I said, minor. This site has been inspected many times, no evidence of any Iranian nuclear device yet.
oh, look! more cooperation!
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_id=12184
"Iran denies IAEA access to nuclear site
8/21/2006 4:00:00 PM GMT
(AFP Photo) Iranian soldiers inside the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz
Iran has denied access to UN investigators wanting to inspect its underground nuclear site, diplomats and UN offici ...[text shortened]... s apparently related to an Iranian complaint over the behavior of an IAEA inspector.
..."
EDIT: I can see why you cut off where you did; the rest of the article makes clear it isn't a big deal.
Originally posted by no1marauderhere's today's:
A) You didn't say "cooperation"; you said "why won't they let inspectors in"? And they do. And this article is over three years old.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5303086.stm
"Last Updated: Thursday, 31 August 2006, 22:15 GMT 23:15 UK
Iran 'ignores nuclear deadline'
"Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities," the IAEA report was quoted as saying.
...
US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, described the report as a red flag and said it provided ample evidence of Iranian defiance.
He questioned Iran's refusal to say why it wanted uranium metal when "the only real use for uranium metal is a nuclear weapon".
...
"Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities," the report added.
The report said Iran started one new round of enrichment on 24 August, diplomatic sources say.
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotAnd this has what to do with "allowing inspectors in"??? Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium and demands that it do so violate the NPT.
here's today's:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5303086.stm
"Last Updated: Thursday, 31 August 2006, 22:15 GMT 23:15 UK
Iran 'ignores nuclear deadline'
"Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities," the IAEA report was quoted as saying.
...
US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, described the report as a re ...[text shortened]... Iran started one new round of enrichment on 24 August, diplomatic sources say.
"
well, i'm sure they'll start cooperating NEXT month ... anyways, why should you care, if they do come up with rogue nukes they'll probably be used in europe, first.
when you said they let the inspectors in a few days later, did you mean a few days later after they covered up whatever they were hiding?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060901/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
"The rest of the IAEA's report essentially documented a protracted stalemate between agency inspectors trying to determine if Tehran is seeking to make weapons and Iranian officials who have repeatedly refused to provide information.
While the findings on enrichment were expected, they were important because they provided the formal trigger needed for the Security Council to take up sanctions.
IAEA officials said the six-page report was hand-carried to the council chambers at the same time it was posted on the agency's intranet site for the 35 nations on the IAEA's board of governors.
Other key findings in the report from IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei:
* New findings of minute particles of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian technical university implicated in possible military work, although the report did not specify whether the level was weapons-grade.
* A decision by the Iranians to cut off IAEA access to suspicious diagrams apparently showing how to mold fissile material into the shape of a warhead and to destroy notes taken on the document by agency inspectors.
* The temporary barring of U.N. inspectors from an underground facility being built to house tens of thousands of centrifuges, the backbone of Iran's future enrichment program.
* Protracted delays in granting multiple entry visas to IAEA inspectors.
U.N. officials told AP that even Olli Heinonen, deputy IAEA director-general in charge of the Iran investigation, was left dangling. In an unprecedented move, Iranian officials initially issued him only a one-month visa before relenting and giving him the usual one-year entry pass Wednesday, a day before the report was released. "
Originally posted by techsouthWe should realise that in dealing with religious fanatics,especially Islamic ones, rational considerations do not prevail.
With the UN deadline for compliance in forcing Iran to stop enriching uranium, I imagine things are pretty tense for president Mahmoud right now.
Knowing that the UN is in the brink of talking about sanctions that will cause suffering for some Iranians, I don't see how Mahmoud will be able to stand up under the pressure and anxiety.
Anyone think he'll have a nervous break down in the next 48 hours?
These deluded specimens of humanity seriously believe the fairy tales woven by their clerics of an eternity of bliss in 'heaven' if they sacrifice themselves in the cause of their religion.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYep, like Saddam sent all those WMDs to Syria.
well, i'm sure they'll start cooperating NEXT month ... anyways, why should you care, if they do come up with rogue nukes they'll probably be used in europe, first.
when you said they let the inspectors in a few days later, did you mean a few days later after they covered up whatever they were hiding?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060901/ap_on_re_mi_e ...[text shortened]... ng him the usual one-year entry pass Wednesday, a day before the report was released. "
As I said, the actual complaints by the IAEA are minor and such issues come up routinely. They are being blown out of proportion for propaganda purposes in an attempt to justify a war.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt was certainly a mistake to attack Iraq when it should have been realised that Iran was a far greater threat to the West in the longer term.
Yep, like Saddam sent all those WMDs to Syria.
As I said, the actual complaints by the IAEA are minor and such issues come up routinely. They are being blown out of proportion for propaganda purposes in an attempt to justify a war.
At least Saddam was not an Islamic fanatic and was able to contain the Shi'ites.
Originally posted by PhilodorWhy a self-professed atheist wants a holy war is beyond me.
It was certainly a mistake to attack Iraq when it should have been realised that Iran was a far greater threat to the West in the longer term.
At least Saddam was not an Islamic fanatic and was able to contain the Shi'ites.