Aceshardware

lux_interior · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 252

P4man wrote:

Great. Looks like this time France doesnt want to miss the war bounty and will shoulder with the US in a war against Iran. That of all people Kouchner, who is one of the founders of "Doctors Without Borders " would beat the war drum is even more depressing.

Kouchner is a self-obsessed and media-obsessed twit, but he doesn't have any strong influence, it's Sarkozy who decides.
(not that I trust Sarkozy more than Kouchner, mind you)

Paranoid · Joined: 02 Aug 2007 Posts: 224

Looks like Sarkozy is on the same page as Kouchner.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070925/tpl-uk-un-assembly-france-19346ad.html

Britain is on board as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/07/wiran207.xml

Bombs away
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22303955-26397,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/09/a607380b-d8a9-445e-930d-a147b57b0415.html

Russia knows?
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20071002085817614

Syria to follow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WELWY0N0JUVX3QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/10/05/wiran105.xml

lux_interior · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 252

Paranoid wrote:

Looks like Sarkozy is on the same page as Kouchner.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070925/tpl-uk-un-assembly-france-19346ad.html

Seems like you can't read properly.
Well, not that's it's really surprising from you.

Paranoid · Joined: 02 Aug 2007 Posts: 224

Seems like you can't read properly.
Well, not that's it's really surprising from you.

"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner caused an outcry last week by saying if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, the world should prepare for the worst -- war.

But Sarkozy appeared to deliver the same message in a coded form, without mentioning the possibility of military action to prevent Iran achieving a nuclear capability."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070925/tpl-uk-un-assembly-france-19346ad.html

Don't feel bad, I make minced meat of the other kooks as well. LOL!

iiB · Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 66

IAEA:

June 2003:

Quote:

Iran has failed to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting
of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities
where the material was stored and processed.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf

after this report Iran allowed IAEA inspections on previously undeclared facility's. in the December 2003 Iran promised to suspended all uranium enrichment. up until September 2004 Iran had been negotiating with the IAEA because although it's promise - it had continued it's uranium enrichment.
from IAEA report on Septmeber 2004:

Quote:

On 18 September 2004, the Board of Governors adopted resolution GOV/2004/79, in which it requested Iran, inter alia, to “immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges and the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the UCF, under Agency verification.” The Board also called again on Iran “as a further confidence building measure, voluntarily to reconsider its decision to start construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water.”

September 2005 after in August 2005 Iran breaks its understandings with the IAEA to put uranium enrichment on hold:

Quote:

Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards
Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of
the Agency’s Statute;

Quote:

the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities referred to in the Director
General’s report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency’s
verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of
confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to
questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

UN security council after the Iran lifted IAEA seals on one of it's nuclear sites in January 2006:

Quote:

Recalling Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT
Safeguards Agreement and the absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is
exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear
activities, the nature of those activities and other issues arising from the Agency’s verification
of declarations made by Iran since September 2002,

Quote:

Requests the Director General to report to the Security Council of the United Nations that these
steps are required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and
resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue;

Quote:

Deeply regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Board for the maintaining of the suspension
of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities which the Board has declared essential to
addressing outstanding issues, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan facility on
8 August 2005 and took steps to resume enrichment activities on 10 January 2006;

March 2006 IAEA concludes again that it cannot tell the true intentions of Iran due to its lack of cooperation and continued and continued policy of concealment...
again it pass the case to the handling of the security council, which states:

Quote:

Noting with serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of
27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns
on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear
dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

Noting with serious concern the IAEA Director General’s report of 28 April
2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three years of
Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, the
existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and that the IAEA is
unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of
undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,

Quote:

2. Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by
the IAEA;

You know, your right... you can't prove something doesn't exist... but even so Iran seem to be doing a really terrible job at it.
Nor is it making the world feel secure about it's 'peaceful' intents is it...? Even regardless of other things said by the Iranian president... you know the wiping Israel away thing (and thats from the Iranian foreign ministry and president's office releases ), holocaust is a Jewish myth thing and so on...

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

It is quite simple really, and Irans aim is quite obvious: it wants to enrich uranium. Again, they are explicitly allowed to do that under the NPT they signed, other nuclear powers are explicitly required to facilitate this! So its quite understandable Iran does not want to forgo this right and make itselve dependent on the US or any other nations for their nuclear fuel supply.

It is also true that once you have the capability to enrich uranium for energy production, you basically have the capability to make bomb grade uranium. That is why they created the NPT and IAEA watchdog in the first place, to ensure countries with the capability did not abuse it for bomb grade production.

While Iran would in theory be able to produce bomb grade material once its installations are finished, they would not be able to do so undetected while under IAEA controls. So this is a big ado about nothing, start worrying and blaming, if necessary even bombing Iran once it kicks out the IAEA inspectors or once they state Iran is enriching uranium beyond the purity needed for fuel. You will still have ample time to bomb them.

Peak oil is nearing, you you can't expect countries to just not produce the technology needed for viable alternatives anymore than we can demand countries not to drill for oil because the oil could be used to fuel missiles.

BTW, its pretty hypocritical that an Isreali or a french minister would deem it necessary to bomb Iran while Iran complies with all the treaties it signed, which where designed to ensure it does not obtain a bomb, and while there is no shred of evidence of a bomb program... when both Israel and France never submitted themselves to any IAEA inspections or NPT treaties and themselves secretly developed nukes. Are you pressing your government to allow IAEA inspections, to ratify the NPT, and to destroy your nuclear arsenal like South Africa did ? I didn't think so either.

As for the "wipe Isreal off the map" farce, how often do we need to correct you on that? He never said that, he quoted Khomeini who wanted a regime change in Israel. He used the same words to describe the removal of the Shah btw, I don't think that "wiped Iran off the map".

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/02/iranian-president-ahmadinejad-did-not.html

Read and please stop spouting your warmongering lies that have been corrected time after time.

iiB · Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 66

P4man wrote:

As for the "wipe Isreal off the map" farce, how often do we need to correct you on that? He never said that, he quoted Khomeini who wanted a regime change in Israel. He used the same words to describe the removal of the Shah btw, I don't think that "wiped Iran off the map".

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/02/iranian-president-ahmadinejad-did-not.html

Read and please stop spouting your warmongering lies that have been corrected time after time.

First, I am offended by your language. I don't think I ever called you a liar. I don't recall where I ever suggested war ahead of diplomacy and on top of that you don't know me personally so I don't know how you can make such claims.

Second of all I used the term "wiping Israel away" as that is the way it appears in the press releases of the Iranian foreign ministry and president's office , I am fully aware that the translation of his statement has been disputed... but you would think that it's own foreign ministry and office translations would convey the meaning of the speech.
You may believe for he had another meaning in mind. but claiming he never said it - would be in fact - a lie.

P4man wrote:

It is quite simple really, and Irans aim is quite obvious: it wants to enrich uranium. Again, they are explicitly allowed to do that under the NPT they signed, other nuclear powers are explicitly required to facilitate this! So its quite understandable Iran does not want to forgo this right and make itselve dependent on the US or any other nations for their nuclear fuel supply.

It is also true that once you have the capability to enrich uranium for energy production, you basically have the capability to make bomb grade uranium.

Its quite simple...? no one (IAEA inc') doesn't think so.

look, your right about absolute certainty not being possible.
but absolute trust is just Idiotic - even with IAEA inspections you don't have to hide a 4 football court sized bunker (Natanz) to make a nuclear bomb (although hiding it from the IAEA has been tried by Iran, wasn't it?) - so absolute proof that a weapons program does exist is also very difficult to provide isn't it?

You have to make assertions...
and what assertions would you make given Iranians behavior so far?
It's breaking on the of NPT safeguard agreements, constant backing down on it promises and understandings with the IAEA, making NPT proscribed material Polonium 210 the IAEA had discovered in the Tehran Research Reactor, the findings of documents diagrams on how to shape uranium for a nuclear bomb...

P4man wrote:

That is why they created the NPT

yeah well Iran's relationship with the NPT is far from flawless isn't it?

P4man wrote:

and IAEA watchdog in the first place, to ensure countries with the capability did not abuse it for bomb grade production.

They can only watchdog facilities that had been declared by Iran. and If such agreements would finally be in place, it's been 4 years of constant dispute so far.

maybe the next time Iran slips one of these facilities past the IAEA it will be too late...?

P4man wrote:

Peak oil is nearing, you you can't expect countries to just not produce the technology needed for viable alternatives anymore than we can demand countries not to drill for oil because the oil could be used to fuel missiles.

Iran had been offered many alternatives that would allow it to make nuclear energy with its own reactors. including co-production of uranium in Russia. If the Iranian government is so concerned about the energy crisis for it's people - they would take those initiatives instead of facing sanctions by not complying with the IAEA.

P4man wrote:

Are you pressing your government to allow IAEA inspections, to ratify the NPT, and to destroy your nuclear arsenal like South Africa did ? I didn't think so either.

Israel had been facing termination from day 1 (and actually before). it was attacked by all surrounding (and some more distant) arab nations with the means to destroy it a day after it's declaration by the UN.

Israel was founded with the memory of almost 7 million Jews who we're killed in the holocaust.

It is widely believed that the words "Never Again" were welded, in English and Hebrew, onto the first Israeli nuclear warhead.

Iran is not facing such intentions nor history. If anything it's it's lack of will to abandon the nuclear program or otherwise comply with the international community that might bring war upon it...

Wierdo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 184

iiB wrote:

Israel had been facing termination from day 1 (and actually before). it was attacked by all surrounding (and some more distant) arab nations with the means to destroy it a day after it's declaration by the UN.

Israel was founded with the memory of almost 7 million Jews who we're killed in the holocaust.

It is widely believed that the words "Never Again" were welded, in English and Hebrew, onto the first Israeli nuclear warhead.

Iran is not facing such intentions nor history. If anything it's it's lack of will to abandon the nuclear program or otherwise comply with the international community that might bring war upon it...

The fact is that Israel developed nuclear capability outside of the NPT scope, and is not willing to work under that umbrella, Iran, on the other hand is, and your argument about national threats are not only beside the point, if that line of thinking was acceptable then Iran would be more entitled to it, which is silly.

Now about the holocaust, please stop using that as an excuse for why a nation should be above the law and beyond accountability. It's getting really overused and imho disgraces the memory of victims by using them as an argument for rationalizing questionable actions.

Iran is indeed facing such intentions, look at the map and tell me what areas there are a threat to its borders. Israel has a capable military presence, is protected from international law by US vetos, and from economic sanctions by massive US funding, this is clearly not the way to look at rationalizing this issue.

This whole thing is clearly political arm wrestling, is has nothing to do with who's right or wrong, the US/European world powers simply don't want Iran to become an even more complex variable in their geopolitics agenda. Understandable once moral mumbo jumbo - manufactured for public consumption - is out of the way.

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

iiB wrote:

First, I am offended by your language. I don't think I ever called you a liar. I don't recall where I ever suggested war ahead of diplomacy and on top of that you don't know me personally so I don't know how you can make such claims.

Second of all I used the term "wipe out israel" as that is the way it appears in the press releases of the Iranian foreign ministry and president's office , I am fully aware that the translation of his statement has been disputed... but you would think that it's own foreign ministry and office translations would convey the meaning of the speech.
You may believe for he had another meaning in mind. but claiming he never said it - would be in fact - a lie.

No, it would be truth. He said: " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " .
" The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[14]

The faulty translation btw, originated from the Iranian News Agency.

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy

Its not because an Iranian source (deliberately or not) created this false translation, that it suddenly becomes truth and should be repeated over and over, when everyone tells you over and over it is NOT an accurate translation, regardless of the source of it.

So yes, repeating it when you know its a false translation makes it a lie, and the one saying it a liar. If you had only read the Iranian news agency press report, or BBC or whatever and didn't know better, it would make you misguided rather than a liar. But the above has been linked to you more than once I believe, yet you keep repeating it at every occasion.

Quote:

look, your right about absolute certainty not being possible.
but absolute trust is just Idiotic - even with IAEA inspections you don't have to hide a 4 football court sized bunker (Natanz) to make a nuclear bomb (although hiding it from the IAEA has been tried by Iran, wasn't it?) - so absolute proof that a weapons program does exist is also very difficult to provide isn't it?

From what I understand, and IAEA claims, it would be extremely simple to discover a bomb grade uranium or plutonium program, and it simply couldn't happen undetected in locations under IAEA inspections. Doing it in other secret locations wouldn't exactly be easy either, its not like either Israel or France managed to hide their nuclear bomb programs despite not being spied upon nearly as much as Iran. Imagine doing so while subject to IAEA inspections.

Quote:

yeah well Iran's relationship with the NPT is far from flawless isn't it?

How that sounds like Saddam not cooperating with the UN weapon inspectors to hide its "WMDs".

To the best of my knowledge, Iran has complied with every single letter, dot and comma of the NPT treaty (very much unlike other signatories). In 2003, Iran agreed to be subjected to additional inspections ("Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards) which goes beyond what the NPT calls for, and there is some discussion wether or not they where completely in compliance with those or not, prior to 2003. The dispute is to be settled by november I believe according to the IAEA, but there is so far, not a shred of evidence of Iran breaking the NPT treaty or having a nuclear bomb program. Don't take my word for it, ask the IAEA.

Quote:

maybe the next time Iran slips one of these facilities past the IAEA it will be too late...?

Although there is no shred of evidence for this either, maybe Turkey is secretly working on a nuke, maybe we should subject them to additional protocols, then revoke their rights to nuclear technology, and if they don't like that, bomb them because their "non compliance" could be a sign of something secret. Why take the risk, right? After all, the Turks already slaughtered over a million civilians once, who says they wouldn't do it again ? Lets bomb Turkey before its too late!

Quote:

Iran had been offered many alternatives that would allow it to make nuclear energy with its own reactors. including co-production of uranium in Russia.

Thats like saying you can have power centrals, but you can not refine or drill for oil, you must purchase your oil from the US or Russia or France or China.

Look, I don't like Ahmadinejad any more than anyone else (including most Iranians), but he has a pretty good point that he would not want to depend on foreign powers to supply them with nuclear fuel, when those same foreign powers are not even delivering them spare parts they need for their civilian aircraft. No major country wants to be taken hostage by outsourcing its energy production, its utterly logical and reasonable that Iran wants to be energy independent.

Among other things, what is at stake here, is a nuclear monopoly by the same countries that have seats in the UN security council that dictated that Iran could not process its own fuel and had to buy it from one of them. I wouldn't agree with that either if I where president of Iran. Or Belgium for that matter.

Quote:

If the Iranian government is so concerned about the energy crisis for it's people - they would take those initiatives instead of facing sanctions by not complying with the IAEA.

Being less reliant on fossile fuel and becoming energy independent is a perfectly reasonable long term strategic goal. In fact, its one most countries now are striving for. Iran is no different, their strategy of proceeding with their program while cooperating the IAEA makes perfect sense, much more so than giving up their right to be energy independent .

Quote:

Israel had been facing termination from day 1 (and actually before). it was attacked by all surrounding (and some more distant) arab nations with the means to destroy it a day after it's declaration by the UN.

The political state of Israel, yes indeed. Guess what, the political state of Iran is in much more peril right now, wouldn't you think? Arguably Turkey is in bigger danger. So if that is a good reason to produce a bomb, Iran or even Turkey has every reason to develop one. But they are not, for now.

Quote:

Israel was founded with the memory of almost 7 million Jews who we're killed in the holocaust.

Which means its a good idea to develop bombs that, when used will kill million others ? BTW, nearly a million Iranians died after the Iraqi invasion, much more recently than the holocaust, and that actually happened as a result of an invasion of their own land. Using your logic, that would make it quite reasonable for Iran to develop nukes to defend itself or deter another such attack?

Quote:

Iran is not facing such intentions nor history. .

How can you say that with a straight face ? Of course Iran is facing intentions of regime change, just like Israel, only much more credible ones. And Iran has suffered far more casualties as a result from foreign invasion than Israel.

Quote:

If anything it's it's lack of will to abandon the nuclear program or otherwise comply with the international community that might bring war upon it..

Can you really not see the irony of your statement?

lux_interior · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 252

Paranoid wrote:

"French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner caused an outcry last week by saying if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, the world should prepare for the worst -- war.

Poor Paranoid, you have reading comprehension problems.
"the world should prepare for the worst -- war" does not imply Sarkozy will wage war against Iran. It would be obvious if you had a brain.

Quote:

Don't feel bad, I make minced meat of the other kooks as well.

Sounds like a 10 year-old child thinking he can make himself look big and bad. Not very impressive :)

Oh, by the way, Russia announced they are going to finish building the nuclear plant in Bushehr. This from a Russian press agency so a bit more reliable than the usual fluffy propaganda from the bunch of loonies you admire so much.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20071016/84197492.html

iiB · Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 66

P4man wrote:

Doing it in other secret locations wouldn't exactly be easy either, its not like either Israel or France managed to hide their nuclear bomb programs despite not being spied upon nearly as much as Iran. Imagine doing so while subject to IAEA inspections.

Pakistan managed to do develop a nuclear bomb relatively unnoticed by western intelligence.

I think you are giving to much credit to those intelligence agencies this 'little' facility wasn't spotted by western intelligence until being tipped off by an Iranian exile group, not to long before it was to be completed and covered in earth.

Quote:

According to the NCRI, as of August 2002, the project had cost 95 billion toumans. Funding had been provided by the Supreme Security Council and was outside of the supervisory purview of the Budget and Planning Organization. A front company had specifically been created for project. Named Kala-Electric, whose headquarters are located in Tehran

Doesn't look one bit suspicious...

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge, Iran has complied with every single letter, dot and comma of the NPT treaty (very much unlike other signatories). In 2003, Iran agreed to be subjected to additional inspections ("Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards) which goes beyond what the NPT calls for, and there is some discussion wether or not they where completely in compliance with those or not, prior to 2003.

No its not in 'discussion'... it has already been ruled that Iran violated the NPT safegaurds agreements.

Quote:

Don't take my word for it, ask the IAEA.

Well the IAEA has not given it's final word.
It's very clear they are strongly against any military interference -. but they have been very critical of Iran and sent it's case to the security council before.

That's ElBaradei a week ago:

Quote:

"I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed,"
...
"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb,"

So while he strongly rejects any forceful measures right now. He is really not as calm as you... 'it will not be the threat from tomorrow'... but it also imply that iran could become a threat. and we don't have to face the issue whether Iran should be bombed 'right now' - it also implies that we may have to face it latter on.

Quote:

maybe Turkey is secretly working on a nuke, maybe we should subject them to additional protocols, then revoke their rights to nuclear technology, and if they don't like that, bomb them because their "non compliance" could be a sign of something secret. Why take the risk, right? After all, the Turks already slaughtered over a million civilians once, who says they wouldn't do it again ? Lets bomb Turkey before its too late!

This is irrational thinking.

If turkey overtly buy nuclear reactors under the NPT then covertly enriches uranium breaking the NPT safeguard agreements. then maybe.
if on top of that turkey is unwilling to comply (or comply and break) with IAEA demands to stop enrichment acts until it's (up to not to long ago covert) nuclear program is cleared. then maybe.
if on top of that turkey is found to make an NPT proscribed nuclear material. then maybe..
if on top of that turkey would deny my country's rights to exist and my nations rights to self declaration. then maybe.

I can go on somewhat further but I think you get the point. it's not exactly the same situation is it...

Quote:

Among other things, what is at stake here, is a nuclear monopoly by the same countries that have seats in the UN security council that dictated that Iran could not process its own fuel and had to buy it from one of them.

The costs of the feed material small in the overall costs structure of nuclear energy production when compared with energy production from fossil fuels.
On top of that I'm sure a supply agreement could be achieved that would hold the price structure of enriched uranium and guarantee it's production and supply...
but this is really a none-issue compared with organizations such as OPEC.

I really don't think that any future finical insecurity about the supply of enriched uranium is the reason.

Quote:

Iran is no different, their strategy of proceeding with their program while cooperating the IAEA makes perfect sense

Iran is different - it's not like say... turkey :)
cooperating with the IAEA has not been Iran's strong side - is it?

Quote:

The political state of Israel, yes indeed. Guess what, the political state of Iran is in much more peril right now, wouldn't you think? Arguably Turkey is in bigger danger. So if that is a good reason to produce a bomb, Iran or even Turkey has every reason to develop one. But they are not, for now.

I think no one doubts Iran or Turkeys right to exist as a country for starters... or very very remotely facing such danger

Quote:

Israel was founded with the memory of almost 7 million Jews who we're killed in the holocaust.

Quote:

IWhich means its a good idea to develop bombs that, when used will kill million others ?

Do you know any 'better' or good ideas at all, really? there are none....

Hey im not justifying... I am just saying you cannot ignore the impact of the holocaust on the Jewish people or the state of Israel.

Quote:

BTW, nearly a million Iranians died after the Iraqi invasion, much more recently than the holocaust

That was an 8 year war over border dispute - how can you even compare?
was Iran facing annihilation ? no.
was this about destroying Iran ? no.
was this about the illegitimacy of Iran as a state? no.
was it even remotely possible that Iraq would overtake Iran? No.

And just for accuracy - I've read 500-750 thousand dead on the irainan side and 500 on the iraqi side.

Quote:

Of course Iran is facing intentions of regime change,

I had not really brought regime change up at all... I guess when they told you to pick your fights you really took it hard.
but in any way I think the regime change Iran should fear (or perhaps hope for, I dunnu) is by the people in Teheran's university putting up signs saying "death to Ahmadinejad" rather then any forgien affairs.

Quote:

And Iran has suffered far more casualties as a result from foreign invasion than Israel.

Open a up a map and tell me who can be overran in a few hours by it's surrounding neighbors ... Iran or Israel. Israel had not been very far from it in 48'... thats why they say we don't lose... we just can't.

I'm sure your going to bring up Iraq again at this point... to which I will again say not to draw a line between...

just a few posts ago... I really did think it would take more time:

iiB wrote:

I think you'd be better off investing your time rationalizing an iranian nuclear bomb rather denying the possibility of one, and, unfortunately, Im sure with time and further revelations you will...

iiB · Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 66

P4man wrote:

Doing it in other secret locations wouldn't exactly be easy either, its not like either Israel or France managed to hide their nuclear bomb programs despite not being spied upon nearly as much as Iran. Imagine doing so while subject to IAEA inspections.

Pakistan managed to do develop a nuclear bomb relatively unnoticed by western intelligence.

I think you are giving to much credit to those intelligence agencies this 'little' facility wasn't spotted by western intelligence until being tipped off by an Iranian exile group, not to long before it was to be completed and covered in earth.

Quote:

According to the NCRI, as of August 2002, the project had cost 95 billion toumans. Funding had been provided by the Supreme Security Council and was outside of the supervisory purview of the Budget and Planning Organization. A front company had specifically been created for project. Named Kala-Electric, whose headquarters are located in Tehran

Doesn't look one bit suspicious...

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge, Iran has complied with every single letter, dot and comma of the NPT treaty (very much unlike other signatories). In 2003, Iran agreed to be subjected to additional inspections ("Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards) which goes beyond what the NPT calls for, and there is some discussion wether or not they where completely in compliance with those or not, prior to 2003.

No its not in 'discussion'... it has already been ruled that Iran violated the NPT safegaurds agreements.

Quote:

Don't take my word for it, ask the IAEA.

Well the IAEA has not given it's final word.
It's very clear they are strongly against any military interference -. but they have been very critical of Iran and sent it's case to the security council before.

That's ElBaradei a week ago:

Quote:

"I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed,"
...
"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb,"

So while he strongly rejects any forceful measures right now. He is really not as calm as you... 'it will not be the threat from tomorrow'... but it also imply that iran could become a threat. and we don't have to face the issue whether Iran should be bombed 'right now' - it also implies that we may have to face it latter on.

Quote:

maybe Turkey is secretly working on a nuke, maybe we should subject them to additional protocols, then revoke their rights to nuclear technology, and if they don't like that, bomb them because their "non compliance" could be a sign of something secret. Why take the risk, right? After all, the Turks already slaughtered over a million civilians once, who says they wouldn't do it again ? Lets bomb Turkey before its too late!

This is irrational thinking.

If turkey overtly buy nuclear reactors under the NPT then covertly enriches uranium breaking the NPT safeguard agreements. then maybe.
if on top of that turkey is unwilling to comply (or comply and break) with IAEA demands to stop enrichment acts until it's (up to not to long ago covert) nuclear program is cleared. then maybe.
if on top of that turkey is found to make an NPT proscribed nuclear material. then maybe..
if on top of that turkey would deny my country's rights to exist and my nations rights to self declaration. then maybe.

I can go on somewhat further but I think you get the point. it's not exactly the same situation is it...

Quote:

Among other things, what is at stake here, is a nuclear monopoly by the same countries that have seats in the UN security council that dictated that Iran could not process its own fuel and had to buy it from one of them.

The costs of the feed material small in the overall costs structure of nuclear energy production when compared with energy production from fossil fuels.
On top of that I'm sure a supply agreement could be achieved that would hold the price structure of enriched uranium and guarantee it's production and supply...
but this is really a none-issue compared with organizations such as OPEC.

I really don't think that any future finical insecurity about the supply of enriched uranium is the reason.

Quote:

Iran is no different, their strategy of proceeding with their program while cooperating the IAEA makes perfect sense

Iran is different - it's not like say... turkey :)
cooperating with the IAEA has not been Iran's strong side - is it?

Quote:

The political state of Israel, yes indeed. Guess what, the political state of Iran is in much more peril right now, wouldn't you think? Arguably Turkey is in bigger danger. So if that is a good reason to produce a bomb, Iran or even Turkey has every reason to develop one. But they are not, for now.

I think no one doubts Iran or Turkeys right to exist as a country for starters... or very very remotely facing such danger

Quote:

Israel was founded with the memory of almost 7 million Jews who we're killed in the holocaust.

Quote:

IWhich means its a good idea to develop bombs that, when used will kill million others ?

Do you know any 'better' or good ideas at all, really? there are none....

Hey im not justifying... I am just saying you cannot ignore the impact of the holocaust on the Jewish people or the state of Israel.

Quote:

BTW, nearly a million Iranians died after the Iraqi invasion, much more recently than the holocaust

That was an 8 year war over border dispute - how can you even compare?
was Iran facing annihilation ? no.
was this about destroying Iran ? no.
was this about the illegitimacy of Iran as a state? no.
was it even remotely possible that Iraq would overtake Iran? No.

And just for accuracy - I've read 500-750 thousand dead on the irainan side and 500 on the iraqi side.

Quote:

Of course Iran is facing intentions of regime change,

I had not really brought regime change up at all... I guess when they told you to pick your fights you really took it hard.
but in any way I think the regime change Iran should fear (or perhaps hope for, I dunnu) is by the people in Teheran's university putting up signs saying "death to Ahmadinejad" rather then any forgien affairs.

Quote:

And Iran has suffered far more casualties as a result from foreign invasion than Israel.

Open a up a map and tell me who can be overran in a few hours by it's surrounding neighbors ... Iran or Israel. Israel had not been very far from it in 48'... thats why they say we don't lose... we just can't.

I'm sure your going to bring up Iraq again at this point... to which I will again say not to draw a line between...

just a few posts ago... I really did think it would take more time:

iiB wrote:

I think you'd be better off investing your time rationalizing an iranian nuclear bomb rather denying the possibility of one, and, unfortunately, Im sure with time and further revelations you will...

martinw · Joined: 06 Sep 2007 Posts: 139

iiB wrote:

but in any way I think the regime change Iran should fear (or perhaps hope for, I dunnu) is by the people in Teheran's university putting up signs saying "death to Ahmadinejad" rather then any forgien affairs.

Or maybe they should fear it from the powers who did it 50 years ago by overthrowing their existing democracy to install a dictatorship, and who now surround them along both of their main borders and constantly issue belligerent threats:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210

Most in the West probably don't know the history, but the irony of the West claiming to be "bringing democracy to the Middle East" must ring pretty hollow in most parts of the middle east, given the sorry historical record of doing precisely the opposite and taking away any democracy that existed. And to add to the irony, that led directly to the overthrow of the Shah and to the very fundamentalism that is now supposed to be such a threat to the world. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

iiB wrote:

Pakistan managed to do develop a nuclear bomb relatively unnoticed by western intelligence.

LOL are you kidding me? For 2 decades it was known Pakistan was working on a bomb, and frequently threatened with sanctions -until the US canceled them because they considered Pakistan to be too valuable as an ally for other geopollitical agenda's, especially after the USSR invasion of Afghanistan

It was not even a public secret, it was no secret at all. Pakistans prime minister announced in 1965 "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. We have no alternative,'" Almost 20 years before they achieved it.

Quote:

I think you are giving to much credit to those intelligence agencies

Yeah and we gave far too much credit to UN weapon inspectors in Iraq as well. They didn't look hard enough either, did they?

Quote:

this 'little' facility wasn't spotted by western intelligence until being tipped off by an Iranian exile group, not to long before it was to be completed and covered in earth.

What makes you so sure it wasn't spotted by western (or Israeli) intelligence? It didn't make the media until then, that doesnt mean no one noticed it. In fact, its highly unlikely the "Iranian Resistance " that brought out this story got this information from anywhere else as western or Israeli intelligence.

Secondly, its worth pointing out under the NPT regulations Iran signed, they didn't have to report on this facility until 6 months after it was in use (those stipulations where changed later).

Lastly, you might be able to construct a building unnoticed, but that is something entirely different as equipping it, operating it for years and have vast quantities of uranium disappear from your nuclear centrals which are under IAEA inspections.

If not even North Korea could do it secretly, there is no way Iran would be able to do this, especially not when under IAEA protocol

Quote:

According to the NCRI, as of August 2002, the project had cost 95 billion toumans. Funding had been provided by the Supreme Security Council and was outside of the supervisory purview of the Budget and Planning Organization. A front company had specifically been created for project. Named Kala-Electric, whose headquarters are located in Tehran

So top secret it was, that IAEA was invited there for inspections long before even the building was ever completed, never mind fully equipped and operational, never mind operational for 6 months as was the requirement back then.

Quote:

No its not in 'discussion'... it has already been ruled that Iran violated the NPT safegaurds agreements.

I said they never violated the NPT treaty. They arguably broke the additional protocol and the Paris agreement (I believe it was called) after the EU-3 did so. Iran was asked to temporarily halt their enrichment, and they did as a "confidence building" measure. Eu-3 at that point reiterated Iran had every right to enrich uranium. When later EU-3 backtracked on that, and and the security counsel denied Iran this right, Iran broke the seals and continued its program in compliance with the NPT it had agreed to.

If anyone is in non compliance with the NPT, it is clearly the existing nuclear powers. Of the three main pillars of the treaty, all nuclear signatories are in severe breach of two of the three pillars: disarmament and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Some of them (notably China) are even in breach the third pillar as well (non proliferation).

Quote:

"I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed,"
...
"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb,"

So while he strongly rejects any forceful measures right now. He is really not as calm as you... 'it will not be the threat from tomorrow'... but it also imply that iran could become a threat.

LOL. Which country could not one day become a (nuclear) threat ? Who could ever guarantee what any country will do in 10 years ? Thats hog wash. As long as they comply, lets stop sanctioning them, threatening them and denying them basic rights and let's instead keep to our end of the bargain.

Quote:

This is irrational thinking.

It is, but is the exact same line of thought followed with Iran.

Quote:

If turkey overtly buy nuclear reactors under the NPT then covertly enriches uranium breaking the NPT safeguard agreements. then maybe.

I have yet to read where Iran broke NPT treaty.

Quote:

if on top of that turkey is unwilling to comply (or comply and break) with IAEA demands to stop enrichment acts until it's (up to not to long ago covert) nuclear program is cleared. then maybe.

We have not asked Iran to stop enrichment until their program was cleared by the IAEA, we are denying Iran the right to enrich uranium period!

Quote:

if on top of that turkey would deny my country's rights to exist and my nations rights to self declaration. then maybe.

Turkey is "denying the right" of Cyprus "to exist". It is denying Kurdistans right to exist. It has a history of genocide.

Quote:

I can go on somewhat further but I think you get the point. it's not exactly the same situation is it...

It is almost exactly the same, the main difference is we are currently not denying Turkey the right to enrich their own uranium, and Turkey is not perusing that just yet. But that is likely to change really soon:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-16-voa15.cfm

It will be very interesting to see how that turns out. And Turkey won't be the last state, expect all major countries to go down that road.

Quote:

The costs of the feed material small in the overall costs structure of nuclear energy production when compared with energy production from fossil fuels.
On top of that I'm sure a supply agreement could be achieved that would hold the price structure of enriched uranium and guarantee it's production and supply...

I really don't think that any future finical insecurity about the supply of enriched uranium is the reason.

The issue is clearly not just the price of the fuel, rather than the leverage the supply of the fuel would give foreign nations over Iran. Given how Iran has been cheated on time after time by the west and even the UN security counsel (including Russia and China), Iran's wish to be independent from them is entirely logical.

Quote:

cooperating with the IAEA has not been Iran's strong side - is it?

No matter how much I despise the regime, I actually admire their stance on this. Despite the fact pretty much all other nations are violating the NPT and Irans right under the NPT, Iran sticks with it. Despite being threatened with war and regime change, an important part of their army declared a terrorist organization, despite being sanctioned, they continue to work with the IAEA. I find that commendable.

BTW, how is your government cooperating with the IAEA ?

Quote:

I think no one doubts Iran or Turkeys right to exist as a country for starters...

Really? talked to any Kurds lately?

Quote:

Do you know any 'better' or good ideas at all, really?

Yes. Dismantle the apartheid regime and become a true democracy.It worked for South Africa, it could work for Israel. Its interesting how many parallels there are to be drawn between SA and Israel; both have (had) an apartheid regime that grossly discriminates based on ethnic (race). Both regimes (as well as US/UK/etc) labeled opposition to their apartheid regime terrorists you could not possibly negotiate with (ANC, remember?), both felt they needed nukes to defend themselves from hostile neighbors that supported the terrorists. And in fact, both regimes where the only ones in the world the Islamic republic or Iran didn't recognize after the revolution, for these exact same reasons.

Quote:

I had not really brought regime change up at all...

You said "Israel had been facing termination", but regime change is what most Arabs and Persians wanted and still want in Israel, not the annihilation of all Jews as you seem to think or imply. The threat to Irans regime is therefore quite comparable to the one facing Israel's current regime. Neither country's people are being threated with extermination by anyone. One more thing they have in common: I hope both of them go away, peacefully and be replaced by something more democratic.

Quote:

Open a up a map and tell me who can be overran in a few hours by it's surrounding neighbors ... Iran or Israel.

You tell me. If I open a map or Iran, I see it being surrounded by countries that have hostile US installed regimes, some of them nuclear armed, and about 200 thousand soldiers from a nation that has the the strongest military in the world, that openly threatens Iran with war, and that has recently invaded two other sovereign neighboring countries.

When I open a map of Israel, I see no credible military threat from any of its neighbors.