IAEA board adopts resolution voicing 'increasing concern' about Iran's nuclear work

[midas]

Anyway, I applaud the resolution, but remain very skeptical it will have any real impact in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear WEAPONS program.

Yes because they have 2 big brothers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ugq-KleU8IA

[Steely Dan]

Is there a cone of silence thrown over news flow at the moment? Iranian students storm the UK embassy causing it's closure and not a whisper here. At least events are coming to a head and imminent regime change for Iran should be on the menu soon.

[Jingthing]

Is there a cone of silence thrown over news flow at the moment? Iranian students storm the UK embassy causing it's closure and not a whisper here. At least events are coming to a head and imminent regime change for Iran should be on the menu soon.

I agree it is a very big news story indeed but for that to be on topic, the board here will have to open a thread as members can't open news threads.

[Steely Dan]

Is there a cone of silence thrown over news flow at the moment? Iranian students storm the UK embassy causing it's closure and not a whisper here. At least events are coming to a head and imminent regime change for Iran should be on the menu soon.

I agree it is a very big news story indeed but for that to be on topic, the board here will have to open a thread as members can't open news threads.

You are right Jing, however if I stray too far O/T I'm sure I'll be told, but what do you know, another explosion in Iran, what are the chances of that?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/11/this-calls-for-some-champagne-a-second-iranian-nuclear-facility-has-exploded.html

Edited December 1, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Scott]

Yes, for now, let's stick to the IAEA situation. Unless someone can show a link between the embassy fiasco and the nuclear situation, it would be off-topic.

A fair number of news topics come through and I think it's only a matter of time.

[midas]

" The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype by Western officials as a "game changer" because it, for the first time, suggested that Iran may have (mostly between 1998 and 2003) engaged in research work on the construction of nuclear warheads. But the report contained little that was new —offering no evidence of any current effort to build nuclear weapons —and failed to win over the majority of governments outside of the Western alliance who remain skeptical of the U.S.-led effort to isolate Iran. "

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/12/01/after-the-embassy-attack-are-iran-and-the-west-lurching-toward-war/

Edited December 1, 2011 by midas

[Ulysses G.]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Exsexyman]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

Did the IAEA also inspect Israel's nuclear weapons capability, and if so what were the findings? It is probably worth pointing out that Israel's nukes release flowers and candy when detonated, unlike Iran's (Non Existent) nuclear weapons which of course would cause death and destruction.

[midas]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

Did the IAEA also inspect Israel's nuclear weapons capability, and if so what were the findings? It is probably worth pointing out that Israel's nukes release flowers and candy when detonated, unlike Iran's (Non Existent) nuclear weapons which of course would cause death and destruction.

[midas]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

I don't know what you mean? he is listed on Wikipedia as follows

" Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist.He is Jewish, and a noted anti-Zionist writer. "

I think that makes him eminently suitable to comment on these matters with an independent perspective

Edited December 1, 2011 by midas

[Exsexyman]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

I don't know what you mean? he is listed on Wikipedia as follows

" Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist.He is Jewish, and a noted anti-Zionist writer. "

I think that makes him eminently suitable to comment on these matters with an independent perspective

Ah but what you have to understand Midas, is that the usual suspects on here who act as apologists for any acts by Israel that the majority of the civilised world considers abhorrent, refuse to differentiate between an Anti Zionist and an Anti Semite. If you dared to criticize the Irish Republican Army for any of their activities, i am sure they would accuse you of being an Anti Catholic!

[Jingthing]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

I don't know what you mean? he is listed on Wikipedia as follows

" Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist.He is Jewish, and a noted anti-Zionist writer. "

I think that makes him eminently suitable to comment on these matters with an independent perspective

Ah but what you have to understand Midas, is that the usual suspects on here who act as apologists for any acts by Israel that the majority of the civilised world considers abhorrent, refuse to differentiate between an Anti Zionist and an Anti Semite. If you dared to criticize the Irish Republican Army for any of their activities, i am sure they would accuse you of being an Anti Catholic!

It depends really on how you define Zionism.

At its core what it means is Jewish nationalism realized in the existence of the Jewish state of Israel.

So if you mean anti-Zionist to mean you oppose the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state (for as long as the majority of the Jewish PEOPLE there actually still want that -- self determination), yes, of course by definition that is anti-semitism unless you are opposed to all other peoples having a right to their own state. Differentiate that of course from opposing specific policies of the Israeli government, and of course supporting statehood for Palestinians isn't anti-semitic unless you support the majority view there to push all the Jews into the sea.

Its easy to voice support for a two state solution, I do, but in actual reality so far it has been impossible for that to happen, and the reason for that can be found in strong factions on BOTH sides.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

The latest IAEA report on Iran published earlier this month failed to live up to its hype

If you know anything about the guy who writes this blog, you would take anything he says about Israel with a huge grain of salt.

I don't know what you mean? he is listed on Wikipedia as follows

" Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist.He is Jewish, and a noted anti-Zionist writer. "

I think that makes him eminently suitable to comment on these matters with an independent perspective

Ah but what you have to understand Midas, is that the usual suspects on here who act as apologists for any acts by Israel that the majority of the civilised world considers abhorrent, refuse to differentiate between an Anti Zionist and an Anti Semite. If you dared to criticize the Irish Republican Army for any of their activities, i am sure they would accuse you of being an Anti Catholic!

And what precisely has Israel's behavior got to do with the IAEA report on Iran exactly?

[Exsexyman]

Steely Dan, maybe you should ask UlyssesG, he is the one who managed to introduce Israel into this topic. As usual.

[sbk]

Steely Dan, maybe you should ask UlyssesG, he is the one who managed to introduce Israel into this topic. As usual.

As has already been made clear by a mod, keep it ON TOPIC.

One baiting comment removed keep up the trollish behavior and suspensions will be handed out.

[Moonrakers]

I don't want to go off topic

But the embassies being closed is quite a biggy yet there is still no thread for it here. I'd start a thread for it myself, but I can't.................

[baboon]

I am just as afraid of nukes under the control of the American religious right - what a bunch of loonies they are!

The world`s largest proliferator of weapons and the only country to have used the bomb in anger is hardly in the moral position to lecture others.

[chuckd]

I am just as afraid of nukes under the control of the American religious right - what a bunch of loonies they are!

The world`s largest proliferator of weapons and the only country to have used the bomb in anger is hardly in the moral position to lecture others.

You might want to check out Operation "Downfall". If you are willing, scan down to "Estimated casualties" and give some thought to that subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Edited December 2, 2011 by chuckd

[baboon]

I saw nothing on there which alters my opinion vis a vis Iran and religious fundamentalist crackpots.

Imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbwhatever with the bomb? Give me Kim Jong il any day. At least he just wants to be left alone....

[Ulysses G.]

Give me Kim Jong il any day.

That pretty much says it all.

[baboon]

Give me Kim Jong il any day.

That pretty much says it all.

How do you mean, comrade?

[chuckd]

I saw nothing on there which alters my opinion vis a vis Iran and religious fundamentalist crackpots.

Imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbwhatever with the bomb? Give me Kim Jong il any day. At least he just wants to be left alone....

Since you took it off topic referring to the US use of nuclear weapons, I simply thought you might like to learn something.

Guess I was wrong.

[baboon]

I was not having a go at you. I just did not find anything there that changed my mind. No offence was intended...

[Steely Dan]

I am just as afraid of nukes under the control of the American religious right - what a bunch of loonies they are!

The world`s largest proliferator of weapons and the only country to have used the bomb in anger is hardly in the moral position to lecture others.

You might want to check out Operation "Downfall". If you are willing, scan down to "Estimated casualties" and give some thought to that subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

This illustrates the danger with Iran perfectly, the decision to use the bomb was a difficult one borne of pragmatism rather than any religious conviction, especially not a messianic doomsday prediction as per Shiite theological belief. It is this which makes Iran impervious to the logic of MAD even over and above nations such as Pakistan, where even if it became an outright theocracy it would be a Sunni Muslim one and therefore not subscribing to the same doomsday beliefs.

[lovetotravel]

I saw nothing on there which alters my opinion vis a vis Iran and religious fundamentalist crackpots.

Imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbwhatever with the bomb? Give me Kim Jong il any day. At least he just wants to be left alone....

You do understand the difference between talk show hosts and leaders of nations, right? Kinda hard for Ann or Rush to "push the button". Easy for Kim Jong il or some nut job religious fanatic in charge of a nation to do so.

I'm no fan of Ann nor Rush. But their intelligence level is way above a few leaders of "rogue" nations.

[lovetotravel]

Some more info on N. Korea. Not a good country to use as a role model for nuclear weapons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today,^[4] having the fourth largest army in the world, at about 1,106,000 armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17–54 in the regular armed forces.^[5] Military service of up to 10 years is mandatory for most males. It also has a reserve force comprising 7,700,000 personnel.^[6] It operates an enormous network of military facilities scattered around the country, a large weapons production basis, a dense air defense system,^[7] the third largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world,^[8] and includes the world's largest Special Forces contingent (numbering 180,000 men).^[9] While the aging equipment,^[10] deriving from the economic plight of the country, is seen as major defect of the North Korean military capability, it is nevertheless regarded as a significant threat due to its size and proximity to major civilian areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Military

[/url]

Multiple international organizations, including and , accuse North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation. North Koreans have been referred to as "some of the world's most brutalized people" by Human Rights Watch, due to the severe restrictions placed on their and .

have testified to the existence of with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 inmates (about 0.85% of the population), and have reported torture, starvation, rape, murder, , forced labour, and forced abortions.Convicted political prisoners and their families are sent to these camps, where they are prohibited from marrying, required to grow their own food, and cut off from external communication (which was previously allowed).

[baboon]

I saw nothing on there which alters my opinion vis a vis Iran and religious fundamentalist crackpots.

Imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbwhatever with the bomb? Give me Kim Jong il any day. At least he just wants to be left alone....

You do understand the difference between talk show hosts and leaders of nations, right? Kinda hard for Ann or Rush to "push the button". Easy for Kim Jong il or some nut job religious fanatic in charge of a nation to do so.

I'm no fan of Ann nor Rush. But their intelligence level is way above a few leaders of "rogue" nations.

I doubt it is as easy as all that for any world leader to wake up with a hangover one morning and decide to use their one or two crappy, unreliable devices. The military top brass have families, quality drugs/booze and real estate deals keeping them happy. Why give them up?

It is suspected Saudi has the bomb. Why is no - one threatening them?

[Scott]

Please note that the topic is about Iran. If you are going to discuss other countries with nuclear weapons, please do so within the context of the OP.

[lovetotravel]

I doubt it is as easy as all that for any world leader to wake up with a hangover one morning and decide to use their one or two crappy, unreliable devices. The military top brass have families, quality drugs/booze and real estate deals keeping them happy. Why give them up?

It is suspected Saudi has the bomb. Why is no - one threatening them?

Seems as if many leaders have done just this. Take a look at the leaders in the middle east. They did some really stupid things and have paid the price.

Here's one reason we don't want Iran to get it. It would destabilize the entire region, with the various countries trying to get their own devices:

http://www.guardian....ar-weapons-iran

A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device "would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences".

http://en.wikipedia....of_Saudi_Arabia

Saudi Arabia is not known to have a nuclear weapons program. From an official and public standpoint, Saudi Arabia has been an opponent of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is a member of the coalition of countries demanding a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East.^[1][2] Studies of nuclear proliferation have not identified Saudi Arabia as a country of concern.^[3]

[Jingthing]

If/when Iran gets nuke-weaponized, it will clearly escalate nuclear proliferation in the region. That can't be a good thing, period, and will greatly increase the chances that the apocalyptic visions of the fundamentalist types of two great world religions will come to fruition. The trouble is stopping Iran would probably be so messy and difficult that most likely they won't be stopped. It is clear they won't voluntarily stop without massive external pressure making them stop. Can they be stopped short of a big war (which I can tell you America has no stomach or budget for at the moment)?

Edited December 2, 2011 by Jingthing