Iran YET again in Violation of the Nuclear Treaty

[M.Dancer]

That makes lots of sense, who's ass did you pull this from?

I though it was clear. Your positions are always ludicrous, but seem to be prescription depending. I just wondered if you have a new physician...

[eyeball]

I though it was clear. Your positions are always ludicrous, but seem to be prescription depending. I just wondered if you have a new physician...

Nope, I've had the same family doctor for decades. He seem's to think I'm fine. As you know I'm required to have an official medical fitness certificate to legally work and the kinds of meds you're alluding to would cancel that immediately. You figure they just pass these (MFC's) out to anyone? Like a lot of things. you'd be wrong about that too.

Edited September 25, 2009 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Then why did we help fill the world up with so many of them?

We? What is it with you posters who feel they're part of some vast crowd?

You're obviously nuts. We're talking about Iran in 2009 not Europe in the 1940's.

Get a grip.

If non-interference is your stated policy then Hitler or any other mass murderer would be free to do whatever they like...

I'm also not the one talking in plural...re: nuts. Do you hear these voices often? Always? Full Moons?

[M.Dancer]

Nope, I've had the same family doctor for decades. He seem's to think I'm fine. As you know I'm required to have an official medical fitness certificate to legally work and the kinds of meds you're alluding to would cancel that immediately. You figure they just pass these (MFC's) out to anyone? Like a lot of things. you'd be wrong about that too.

So you come by your lunacy honestly then...

[eyeball]

We? What is it with you posters who feel they're part of some vast crowd?

Go ask Bush_Cheney2004.

If non-interference is your stated policy then Hitler or any other mass murderer would be free to do whatever they like...

If interference in the affairs of other countries were a universal policy there's a very good chance we would never even have heard of Hitler.

I'm also not the one talking in plural...re: nuts. Do you hear these voices often? Always? Full Moons?

I said you're (as in YOU are) nuts. I see you underscoring this all the time.

[M.Dancer]

If interference in the affairs of other countries were a universal policy there's a very good chance we would never even have heard of Hitler.

.

I would like to teach the world to sing

In perfect harmony.....but I can't so instead of pretending that univesal harmony is possible, I will live in the real world.

[eyeball]

So you come by your lunacy honestly then...

Do you honestly think the government would issue a lunatic an MFC?

I suppose if you believe our government should just jump headlong into whatever quagmire it comes across you'd probably believe anything.

[M.Dancer]

Do you honestly think the government would issue a lunatic an MFC?

Given your rants about the incompetance of the DFO and other ministries, I have no doubt you believe they would.

[DogOnPorch]

If interference in the affairs of other countries were a universal policy there's a very good chance we would never even have heard of Hitler.

Yeah right, Neville. I trust the version of history rattling around inside your head as much as your understanding of Iran's president. You're sounding just like those old Nazi apologists letting Hitler walk all over Europe because he's really just a peaceful man of the people. Let him take Czechoslovakia...he'll calm down. Douche-bags like that caused WW2.

[eyeball]

...instead of pretending that univesal harmony is possible, I will live in the real world.

You can't pretend its possible, you have to work at it.

I would like to teach the world to sing

In perfect harmony...

Get on with it then, there's nothing stopping you from trying other than your own unwillingness.

[DogOnPorch]

You can't pretend its possible, you have to work at it.

Get on with it then, there's nothing stopping you from trying other than your own unwillingness.

Wavy Gravy here has plans for breakfast in bed for 500,000. Hippies...if only they didn't smell so bad.

[M.Dancer]

Hippies

Can't live with them

Can't shoot them without someone crying about it.

Edited September 25, 2009 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

Given your rants about the incompetance of the DFO and other ministries

Geez, you'll apologize for just about every single thing people speak out against won't you? Is there a medical term for compulsively obsequious sycophants?

[M.Dancer]

Geez, you'll apologize for just about every single thing people speak out against won't you? Is there a medical term for compulsively obsequious sycophants?

Apologize? Heck! I'm agreeing with you. There are levels of incompenatnce that go deep so that the possibility of a lunatic getting approval is fair to middling....at least according to your reports.

[Topaz]

A US Admiral was asked about US taking out the nuke site in Iran and he said it could be done BUT it would be very difficult to do and it would be the last thing on the list. I think Israel would go there first, if Iran doesn't admit or prove it has done nothing wrong. I hope that Russia will join the US, France and Britain to get China on board and then we may not have to worry about Iran's nukes. He also said that if there were attacks on Iran that the Terrorists attack around the world be increase greatly!

[bush_cheney2004]

...He also said that if there were attacks on Iran that the Terrorists attack around the world be increase greatly!

So? Are you afraid of the terrorists getting "mad" ?

[Wild Bill]

A US Admiral was asked about US taking out the nuke site in Iran and he said it could be done BUT it would be very difficult to do and it would be the last thing on the list. I think Israel would go there first, if Iran doesn't admit or prove it has done nothing wrong. I hope that Russia will join the US, France and Britain to get China on board and then we may not have to worry about Iran's nukes. He also said that if there were attacks on Iran that the Terrorists attack around the world be increase greatly!

It may not come to mititary action. Iran is still struggling to handle the protests against its last election. There are a lot of Iranians who are not happy with living under a religious fundamentalist regime. If the world applies REAL economic sanctions against Iran involving gasoline, food and essentials it might very well trigger an internal revolt big enough to topple that regime.

In fact, if the revolt were so widespread as to be obviously expressing the majority will of the Iranian people it could serve as the excuse for a UN invasion.

It would be Iraq all over again, only this time there ARE WMD's involved!

The leaders of Iraq may have actually forced the UN down this path. They are faced with the choice of letting what appears to be a religious fanatic regime have nuclear weapons that may lead to the nuking of Israel while also disrupting the supply of oil to most of the world OR acting to topple that regime. Forcing a regime change is always expensive, messy and distasteful but Iran with the Bomb looks like a far worse option.

Has anyone stopped to consider how toppling the religious fanatics would change the face of the Middle East? If Iran became a modern, more western secular country with rule based on personal freedoms and western values, it would make the area far more progressive. Iran has a base of very well educated younger people. If they were in control Iran would likely quickly become the most powerful country thereabouts, only in a positive sense! The only ones who would regret it are the religious fanatics.

[Sir Bandelot]

Hype hype hype.

Let's all be a mob, and point at the "bad" guys, and tell half-truths and omissions of truth.

"The IAEA only actually requires that it be informed six months before an enrichment facility comes online, and the new site is at least that far from completion. Nuclear material has not been added, and the IAEA says that the data they’ve been given suggests that as with the existing Nanatz facility, the new site is only designed to enrich uranium to 5%, useful for energy production at the nation’s Bushehr power plant but not for military purposes.

Western leaders are now demanding that UN inspectors be given access to the new site. Such a demand would be seemingly reasonable, if Iran hadn’t already promised to do so days ago to the IAEA and publicly said hours before the “demands” that they have every intention of doing so."

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-requ...nrichment-site/

- According to various sources the new Iranian nuclear facility won't be ready for operations for another 18 months

- According to IAEA there has been no shipment of nuclear material to the facility (no breach of regulations has occurred).

When we don't tell the public about what Iran said (offer to allow inspections), but stand at the podium and demand loudly that they comply fully with regulations and allow inspectors in, then when Iran does what they said they would do anyway, gosh we look good...

Edited September 26, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[M.Dancer]

The date they ahve been given is from the source that has repeatedly been in violation of the accorrds and assured the agency that there were no new facilities.

While you might trust liars.....

[Sir Bandelot]

While you might trust liars.....

I give no trust, just information. Besides, there are liars, and then there are those who conveniently omit the truth. In either case we have a politician.

But the rules of the IAEA are unambiguous. Or so it seems

This case comes down to whether the facility is more, or less than 6 months from completion, as well as its technical capabilities for making nuclear material. Inspectors will tell us this. So if Iran is not in legal violation, we should soon know about that. For real, not from a politician.

Information from inspectors has been conveniently ignored by our leaders in the past, so it still means nothing.

[Wild Bill]

I give no trust, just information. Besides, there are liars, and then there are those who conveniently omit the truth. In either case we have a politician.

But the rules of the IAEA are unambiguous. Or so it seems

This case comes down to whether the facility is more, or less than 6 months from completion, as well as its technical capabilities for making nuclear material. Inspectors will tell us this. So if Iran is not in legal violation, we should soon know about that. For real, not from a politician.

Information from inspectors has been conveniently ignored by our leaders in the past, so it still means nothing.

If things are as you describe, then why did Iran lie about it?

If Iran felt the need to lie, how can you assume that this is the only thing they are hiding?

I don't see your logic here.

[DogOnPorch]

All this 'when will Iran get the bomb?' talk assumes weapons of a certain size...say Hiroshima size (20-25kt range). But it is quite possible to build atomic weapons MUCH smaller than that...that still go BOOM in a rather large fashion.

Buffalo-Kite from 1956 being a good example...3kt yield...still a heap of bad news on an urban target.

[Sir Bandelot]

If things are as you describe, then why did Iran lie about it?

If Iran felt the need to lie, how can you assume that this is the only thing they are hiding?

I don't see your logic here.

If what I have shown is correct, then Iran did not lie. The main point being, they must declare the existence of such a facility no less than 6 months before it goes operational. If it is 18 months away from completion, they still have another 12 months to declare it to the IAEA.

Also apparently in its application to the IAEA last week they did indicate that they will allow inspectors to examine it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/ts_af...nuclearpolitics

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

Now look, I am not trying to defend Iran... I certainly wouldn't trust them over anyone else. But I know a little bit about the power play and the theatre that goes on the international scene, and I don't trust any country. They simply cannot be honest, because of each other.

[Shady]

Iran is also not signatory to any nuke treaty. They were, but you can opt out of it.

I think you were asked when Iran opted out of the treaty? When did they? Or are you just talking out of your ass again?

It's funny that when you got called on your lie in this thread, you ran away and stopped posting.

[Wild Bill]

If what I have shown is correct, then Iran did not lie. The main point being, they must declare the existence of such a facility no less than 6 months before it goes operational. If it is 18 months away from completion, they still have another 12 months to declare it to the IAEA.

Also apparently in its application to the IAEA last week they did indicate that they will allow inspectors to examine it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/ts_af...nuclearpolitics

"This site will be under the supervision of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and will have a maximum of five percent (uranium) enrichment capacity," Ali Akbar Salehi said on state television.

The plant, which is "not an industrial scale" unit, will be operational in two years' time, he said.

Now look, I am not trying to defend Iran... I certainly wouldn't trust them over anyone else. But I know a little bit about the power play and the theatre that goes on the international scene, and I don't trust any country. They simply cannot be honest, because of each other.

I still don't understand your real position. Are you more concerned with the letter of the legalities than the actual likelihood that Iran is hellbent to have the Bomb, complete with delivery systems capable of wiping Israel off the map?

Which of course leads to the debatable but certainly valid worry that the leadership of Iran might actually DO this, considering they seem to be more fanatical in their fundamentalist religion than most countries' rulers! Their words, deeds and actions seem far from a parallel with the USSR leadership during the Cold War.

Besides, Israel certainly does not have the luxury of its critics in being academic in its arguments and waiting for a first strike to fall upon its head, when that first strike would be nuclear!

You seem to be saying that the process is paramount, that shooting the goalie is not justified, even when the goalie has pulled the pin on a grenade and is preparing to throw it at you!

It should also be considered that Iran may be counting on the fact that after it nuked Jerusalem, the world would be so aghast that they would be against any retaliation at the same nuclear level! There would be sanctions, of course. Maybe even a UN-led invasion that might force the mullahs from power. To a religious fanatic, balanced against "wiping Israel from the face of the Earth" it might seem worth it.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Wild Bill