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

[chuckd]

But the fact that you re missing in all of this is that the IAEA have not found one piece of evidence to show that the Iranians are developing any form of Nuclear Weapon. Iran signed up to the IAEA AND the NPT. It willingly let the IAEA in, yet Israel will do neither. Doesn't it bother you that there is a country with 200-300-500 Nukes out there that will not sign ANY of the international agreements on Nuclear Weapons ...Israel.

In response to the quoted part of your post I have two comments.

1. It is worth pointing out that India and Pakistan never signed the NPT. North Korea has withdrawn their participation in NPT. Now those countries do bother me. How about you?

From the following link:

"Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity."

Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-11709428

2. Here is a link that might update the nuclear weapons program Iran is likely/allegedly pursuing.

http://articles.cnn....s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

You can point out whatever you like Chukd. The other 3 nations that you mention have all made it clear that they possess Nuclear Weapons. Israel point blank refuses to admit it. The other 3 are not the main threat to WWIII kicking off in the Middle East. India also signed a formal treaty on non first use, in that it will never use a Nuclear Weapon unless one is fired upon India first. That fact and its conduct with its civilian Nuclear program earned it an 'exclusion' by the US administration under Bush and the US now openly trade Nuclear with India and Austrailia provide India with fissile material. The threat to the Middle East is not there.

Thank you for your link updating the 'NUclear Weapons program you say Iran is likely/allegedly pursuing. It says very early on in the article.

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

So, as I said, no evidence has been found.

We are being taken into another war on lies and the spreading of false terror in the population.

Thank you for pointing out what my linked article says early on. Here is what it says at the end.

________________________________________________________

"Since 2002, the IAEA has regularly received new information pertaining to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, the report said.

It said Iran has made "efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities" and has acquired nuclear weapons information from "a clandestine nuclear supply network."

It has also worked on mastering the design of a nuclear weapon and tested components, the report said."

________________________________________________________

I find it rather interesting you believe what Pakistan, North Korea and even India claim to be their intentions. North Korea is a ticking bomb and Pakistan is hardly a friend of the West and other non-Muslim countries. It would seem you perceive only Israel as a threat to world peace.

Up to you, as they say.

Edited December 6, 2011 by chuckd

[GentlemanJim]

Chukd

I find it rather interesting you believe what Pakistan, North Korea and even India claim to be their intentions. North Korea is a ticking bomb and Pakistan is hardly a friend of the West and other non-Muslim countries. It would seem you perceive only Israel as a threat to world peace.

Now come on, I didn't say anything about the intentions of North Korea and Pakistan did I? I mentioned India's intentions as the rest of the world led by the US and then a major provider of fissile material...Australia are definitely convinced of their intentions. I do not believe that N Korea or Pakistan are a threat to world peace. N Korea could achieve nothing and owning the weapons is just world leader willy waving. Pakistan would be snuffed out in a heartbeat by the US and India. The main Nuclear threat to world peace comes from Israel, which is continually adopting an aggressive stance to those around it. All in my opinion.

Regards the IAEA report on Iran, the overarching comment still holds true

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

If Iran wanted a nuke they would simply buy it/them from Russia, the Ukraine or China, or perhaps N Korea or Pakistan.

If Iran is attacked, China has already stated it will step in to protect Iran. Then we have WWIII. China will not tolerate a US take over of Iran.

We are being taken into another war on lies and the spreading of false terror in the population.

[Ulysses G.]

The main Nuclear threat to world peace comes from Israel, which is continually adopting an aggressive stance to those around it. All in my opinion.

All in your opinion for sure.

Israel has been threatened and attacked over and over again by "those around it" and never resorted to nukes.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

The main Nuclear threat to world peace comes from Israel, which is continually adopting an aggressive stance to those around it. All in my opinion.

All in your opinion for sure.

How funny Ulysses G.

Now you seem to have excluded the rest of my paragraph. Would you like to edit and insert it, or does your post have to be reported for contravening the forum rules?

Engaging brain before keyboard is always a useful maxim.

[Ulysses G.]

It is not against the rules to quote you. It is against the rules to change what you have said and I did not change a word.

[Scott]

Baiting posters is against the rules and it will get you in trouble.

Let's please not ruin an interesting and informative thread. Let's leave Israel out of the discussion as much as possible since it will only bring out the kind of discussion that will cause a problem.

Thanks.

[GentlemanJim]

The main Nuclear threat to world peace comes from Israel, which is continually adopting an aggressive stance to those around it. All in my opinion.

All in your opinion for sure.

How funny Ulysses G.

Now you seem to have excluded the rest of my paragraph. Would you like to edit and insert it, or does your post have to be reported for contravening the forum rules?

Engaging brain before keyboard is always a useful maxim.

Ulysses G wrote

"It is not against the rules to quote you. It is against the rules to change what you have said and I did not change a word. "

Well in the interests of what would have been polite and according to netiquette I will insert my paragraph that you omitted. It does after all add to perspective doesn't it.

Now come on, I didn't say anything about the intentions of North Korea and Pakistan did I? I mentioned India's intentions as the rest of the world led by the US and then a major provider of fissile material...Australia are definitely convinced of their intentions. I do not believe that N Korea or Pakistan are a threat to world peace. N Korea could achieve nothing and owning the weapons is just world leader willy waving. Pakistan would be snuffed out in a heartbeat by the US and India. The main Nuclear threat to world peace comes from Israel, which is continually adopting an aggressive stance to those around it. All in my opinion.

The whole subject of our perception of Iran's desire to have a nuclear weapon is based on an urban myth which never existed, namely that Iran's President said "Israel should be wiped off the face of the map". That was never ever said, and what was said on that day and totally (purposely?) mistranslated was in no way aggressive towards the state of Israel. We are now in a standoff with both sides now taunting the other and Israel desperately wanting to go pre-emptive. There has been a calculated massive over reaction to the words within the IAEA report, focusing on some words and not the others to give an altered meaning. Just like not posting a quote in the context it was intended Ulysses G.

It amazes me how glibly many people would sit and watch the destruction of a nation and all it's citizens and the deaths of thousands more of our own servicemen without demanding to know more and without demanding to know the truth. If you were told tomorrow you had an illness with 3 months to live you would go for a second opinion even a third opinion with an independent consultant. Yet the world hangs in the balance on the say so of a Government propaganda and everyone just accepts what is said without thinking of the dreadful consequences.

We are going to be taken to war (again) based on lies and the spreading of false terror within the population.

[Pedzie]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

The middle east would be a safer place devoid of nukes but we know this is not the case, if the west was to attack Iran it would be a prelude to WW3 and people may forget that Iran has the ability to severely disrupt oil shipments to the west due to It's geographical location!

[GentlemanJim]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

The middle east would be a safer place devoid of nukes but we know this is not the case, if the west was to attack Iran it would be a prelude to WW3 and people may forget that Iran has the ability to severely disrupt oil shipments to the west due to It's geographical location!

Spot on. I think that your point concerning disruption of oil supplies would be valid, but may pail into insignificance if China dusted itself off to come to the aid of Iran as they have implied. What would Russia do? Well It could hedge its bets and stay out or move with China, it has vast energy reserves and the US need China and Russia far more than China and Russia need the US. The fact is in any scenario it would be very very bad. Is this what the Mayans saw coming!

The consequences are so dire that I cannot envisage Iran building Nukes to use. It has energy reserves but it knows it cannot sustain the countries requirements indefinitely. Nuclear energy is one of its only options for the future.. It does not have many friends it can rely on to supply fossil fuels or alternative resources. I dislike intensely the Iranian leadership and the treatment of their population. Persia is a country of outstanding natural beauty and its peoples are amongst the most hospitable in the world (apart from the rent a crowd mobs used to burn US and UK flags. Normal Iranians are not like that).

There is far too little dialogue in the world these days, far too little diplomacy and a propensity towards sanctions and war. Sanctions do not hurt the government, they only hurt the people, and when the government dont give a shit about the people, then sanctions are just not going to achieve anything, look at N Korea.

What is needed is lots and lots of relationship building with Iran. Lots and lots of dialogue and building of friendships. Why do we insist on using the big stick when we could use the Golden carrot? Why do we impose sanctions if Iran doesn't do what we want? Why not offer excellent trade deals and opening up of world trade resources and agricultural aid to persuade it to comply. Reward for doing instead of punishing for not doing. The outcome will be the same, an Iran without nukes, the way to achieve it is just slightly different, and only one of the ways will succeed.

Edited December 6, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Steely Dan]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

The middle east would be a safer place devoid of nukes but we know this is not the case, if the west was to attack Iran it would be a prelude to WW3 and people may forget that Iran has the ability to severely disrupt oil shipments to the west due to It's geographical location!

How can you possibly reconcile Iran;s claim that they are not seeking nuclear weapons in light of their obvious and very visible ballistic missile tests in conjunction with them actively moving their nuclear facilities deep underground? You don't do this and you also would allow the IAEA inspection teams in if your nuclear program was completely peaceful, that's unless you enjoy facing economic sanctions that is.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Ulysses G.]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

It is not hard to imagine for most people.

[GentlemanJim]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

It is not hard to imagine for most people.

Ulysses G

It seems I need to alter the tone of my reply to you.

The man in the video is Charles Krauthammer MD. He describes himself (source Wiki) as Jewish but not religious. His statements in the video are both untrue and an inaccurate reflection of what the IAEA report says. Your comments regarding a Weapon for Iran being 'not hard to imagine for most people', are not really appropriate considering the pedigree of the person involved in the video. Just a brief search on his background will display that he is completely unqualified to say what is 'clear' in the IAEA report and that he is just a sensationalist time filler for Fox News..Even his body language whilst speaking displays that he has no idea what he is talking about. Why are you posting this video here to support your argument? It is not quite as bad as the one you posted earlier, but all the same still lacks any credibility.

Edited December 6, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

Actually, Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent, respected, and informed conservative commentators in America. He's an exception among conservative media figures that way. I love how obvious enemies of Israel are obsessed with who is Jewish or not. They never fail to point out who is Jewish. Classic. Yes, I think it is very clear Iran wants weaponized nukes. Can they be stopped short of military action? Maybe.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Actually, Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent, respected, and informed conservative commentators in America. He's an exception among conservative media figures that way. I love how obvious enemies of Israel are obsessed with who is Jewish or not. They never fail to point out who is Jewish. Classic. Yes, I think it is very clear Iran wants weaponized nukes. Can they be stopped short of military action? Maybe.

Wow! And so we escalate Jingthing. How offensive. So now I am an enemy of Israel? I am amazed you haven;t thrown in the A-S term. See my comments at 2058. I am no fan of the Iranian government. That still does not mean I want a blood bath. I was simply pointing out that Krauthammer cannot be a credible source of commentary concerning this subject and Iran. Not discounting the fact that however well respected he may be in the USA his comments still remain untrue and are an inaccurate portrayal of the IAEA report.

Yes, I think it is very clear Iran wants weaponized nukes.

Oh well that's all ok then Why are we hanging about, lets call POTUS and lets get this war started, why bother waiting to hear the better informed people in this world, Jingthing thinks its a goer, despite no evidence to the fact.

I am no enemy of Israel Jingthing, and although a personal attack I would like your post to remain as it shows your true colours and is a much worse reflection on you than me. I am an enemy of unwarrented, unrequired war.

Edited December 6, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

Actually, Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent, respected, and informed conservative commentators in America. He's an exception among conservative media figures that way. I love how obvious enemies of Israel are obsessed with who is Jewish or not. They never fail to point out who is Jewish. Classic. Yes, I think it is very clear Iran wants weaponized nukes. Can they be stopped short of military action? Maybe.

Wow! And so we escalate Jingthing. How offensive. So now I am an enemy of Israel? I am amazed you haven;t thrown in the A-S term. See my comments at 2058. I am no fan of the Iranian government. That still does not mean I want a blood bath. I was simply pointing out that Krauthammer cannot be a credible source of commentary concerning this subject and Iran. Not discounting the fact that however well respected he may be in the USA his comments still remain untrue and are an inaccurate portrayal of the IAEA report.

Why did you mention he was a Jew then? Not credible, why?

[GentlemanJim]

Actually, Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent, respected, and informed conservative commentators in America. He's an exception among conservative media figures that way. I love how obvious enemies of Israel are obsessed with who is Jewish or not. They never fail to point out who is Jewish. Classic. Yes, I think it is very clear Iran wants weaponized nukes. Can they be stopped short of military action? Maybe.

Wow! And so we escalate Jingthing. How offensive. So now I am an enemy of Israel? I am amazed you haven;t thrown in the A-S term. See my comments at 2058. I am no fan of the Iranian government. That still does not mean I want a blood bath. I was simply pointing out that Krauthammer cannot be a credible source of commentary concerning this subject and Iran. Not discounting the fact that however well respected he may be in the USA his comments still remain untrue and are an inaccurate portrayal of the IAEA report.

Why did you mention he was a Jew then? Not credible, why?

He himself goes to great lengths to say so, and therefore his impartiality on the subject of Iran has to be questioned. During the Israeli/Lebanon war a few years ago he wrote an article saying the world must let Israel win the war! His views have proven never to be accurate Jingthing, and whether I stated simply what he states or not, or whether I critisize the government/administration of that country does not give you the right to label me 'an obvious enemy of Israel'. That is fundamentalist and lacks any intelligence or forthought. This thread is not about people bashing Israel, it is discussing the potential for Iran desiring nuclear weapons and that cannot be discussed without looking at the area and the number one antagonist in the area. Get over yourself and please try and refrain from being so clearly offensive. Your statement is reprehensable.

I seem to recall you telling us on here you were jewish. lets see is this a bit like calling a black man a N? If a blackman calls himself or his friends a N, its cool and ok, but if I call him one its racist and offensive?

Any chance you could get back on thread now please.

Edited December 6, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

You guys are so funny. When a commentator is Jewish and pro-Israeli, people biased against Israel say they have no credibility because they are clearly biased due to ethnicity. When a commentator is Jewish and anti-Israeli, they become a big propaganda brownie prize for anti-Israelis; imagine a Jew saying something anti-Israel, this opinion must be correct because it's a Jew saying it. It becomes absurdly overvalued. So yes I think you lack credibility by suggesting his opinions are worthless because he is a Jew.

You are the one who led with Krauthammer is a Jew. Now you want out. Can't blame you.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Jingthing

All I have done is point out for several reasons that the video is not appropriate to the argument presented by Ulysses. You have jumped on the outrage band waggon and once again are destroying any opportunity for a reasoned discussion, which it has been all day until 2325 hrs. I don't want out of anything. You have some apologizing to do Jingthing. Don't you think labeling me an 'obvious enemy of Israel' is a bit OTT?

[Jingthing]

Don't you think labeling me an 'obvious enemy of Israel' is a bit OTT?

Not really. Strictly based on your posts. You can call me a friend of Israel. I don't mind.

Look I've made it clear before that I think it is a total waste of time discussing Middle East political issues with people who assert all the problems with Iran wanting nukes are due to Israel and all the problems with the Palestinians are due to Israel and that Israel should be expected to give it all up with no concession demanded. That kind of thinking is not the path to peace, I can assure you.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Don't you think labeling me an 'obvious enemy of Israel' is a bit OTT?

Not really. Strictly based on your posts. You can call me a friend of Israel. I don't mind.

Look I've made it clear before that I think it is a total waste of time discussing Middle East political issues with people who assert all the problems with Iran wanting nukes are due to Israel and all the problems with the Palestinians are due to Israel and that Israel should be expected to give it all up with no concession demanded. That kind of thinking is not the path to peace, I can assure you.

Fair enough Jimgthing. I don't think you would know a path to peace if you fell over it. Lets end the dialogue now eh.

[Jingthing]

Fair enough Jimgthing. I don't think you would know a path to peace if you fell over it. Lets end the dialogue now eh.

We're a model for the hopelessness of the situation there.

[Pedzie]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

The middle east would be a safer place devoid of nukes but we know this is not the case, if the west was to attack Iran it would be a prelude to WW3 and people may forget that Iran has the ability to severely disrupt oil shipments to the west due to It's geographical location!

How can you possibly reconcile Iran;s claim that they are not seeking nuclear weapons in light of their obvious and very visible ballistic missile tests in conjunction with them actively moving their nuclear facilities deep underground? You don't do this and you also would allow the IAEA inspection teams in if your nuclear program was completely peaceful, that's unless you enjoy facing economic sanctions that is.

They have a right to develop nuclear to energy to which they have stated, wether they are developing a bomb is anyone's guess, as I said before I think Iran should NOT have a nuclear bomb and no nukes in the middle east in general.

If the Iranians are developing a bomb then you can't really blame them with the rhetoric that's coming out of Washington&London at the moment, As I mentioned Iran has signed the NPT unlike another country in the middle east! Why should Iran accept that a neighbour can have 100's of unchecked nukes, whilst Tehran is being hounded for a perceived weapons program!

It's my belief that we are not being told everything and that Iran's nuclear program is being used as an excuse for a strike or indeed full blown war. The reasons for this is anyone's guess, I have my own opinion but here is not the place to share it, even the thought of war with Iran is scary for everyone, especially with western economies teetering on the blink of collapse.

[GentlemanJim]

I stick by what I said, It's hard to imagine the Iranian leadership making a pre-emptive strike against anyone, assuming Iran is indeed striving towards a weapon, which they say they aren't !

The middle east would be a safer place devoid of nukes but we know this is not the case, if the west was to attack Iran it would be a prelude to WW3 and people may forget that Iran has the ability to severely disrupt oil shipments to the west due to It's geographical location!

How can you possibly reconcile Iran;s claim that they are not seeking nuclear weapons in light of their obvious and very visible ballistic missile tests in conjunction with them actively moving their nuclear facilities deep underground? You don't do this and you also would allow the IAEA inspection teams in if your nuclear program was completely peaceful, that's unless you enjoy facing economic sanctions that is.

They have a right to develop nuclear to energy to which they have stated, wether they are developing a bomb is anyone's guess, as I said before I think Iran should NOT have a nuclear bomb and no nukes in the middle east in general.

If the Iranians are developing a bomb then you can't really blame them with the rhetoric that's coming out of Washington&London at the moment, As I mentioned Iran has signed the NPT unlike another country in the middle east! Why should Iran accept that a neighbour can have 100's of unchecked nukes, whilst Tehran is being hounded for a perceived weapons program!

It's my belief that we are not being told everything and that Iran's nuclear program is being used as an excuse for a strike or indeed full blown war. The reasons for this is anyone's guess, I have my own opinion but here is not the place to share it, even the thought of war with Iran is scary for everyone, especially with western economies teetering on the blink of collapse.

Steely

If I owned assetts that I had spent billions on in order to develop Nuclear energy for the country and I was threatened by attack and bunker buster bombs, I would also move them deep underground. Experts said the balistic missile tests are likely to be for missiles carry conventional weapons but could carry nuclear warheads because of their capacity (about 750KG payload), they could also be for the space research program Iran is undertaking for satelite launches etc. As i said earlier the whole situation needs lots of dialogue, masses of it, which is far preferable to a war.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. Please stick to the topic.

[Ulysses G.]

If the Iranians are developing a bomb then you can't really blame them with the rhetoric that's coming out of Washington&London at the moment,

Huh? The "rhetoric" is all about them developing nuclear weapons. How can you say that they "need" to have a bomb because the civilized world is asking them to live up to the treaties that they have signed?

[flying]

Huh? The "rhetoric" is all about them developing nuclear weapons. How can you say that they "need" to have a bomb because the civilized world is asking them to live up to the treaties that they have signed?

Couple of things.....

1) Is the implication that the *civilized* world does not include Iran

2) Is that those deemed part of the *civilized* world are living up to treaties They signed like the NPT They signed.

They are NOT...The US has long been in breech of article VI of the NPT...

So perhaps before telling others how to clean their house those that claim to be civilized should clean their own 1st.

Lastly the constant expansion & beating of war drums that have occurred recently by the US has caused even countries like China to resume military expansion. Why should others not feel the same threat & the need to go defensive?

Because civilized nations would never threaten? Nice thought but the reality suggests otherwise.

Edited December 6, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Lastly the constant expansion & beating of war drums that have occurred recently by the US has caused even countries like China to resume military expansion.

Come on. China is expanding their military because they have the money to do it. Stopping Iran from prodcing a nuclear weapon has little do do with it.

Any country that could massacre thousand of its own citizens for trying to establish a democratic government, is not civilized IMO.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Lastly the constant expansion & beating of war drums that have occurred recently by the US has caused even countries like China to resume military expansion.

Come on. China is expanding their military because they have the money to do it. Stopping Iran from prodcing a nuclear weapon has little do do with it.

Your argument here is what?

That Iran does not have the money?

Because other than that the root of any expansion of defense capabilities remain the same *right* for all countries.

The sad fact & underlying common thread is that certain aggressive countries cause the need to go defensive.

One does not spend money they have or not on defense unless a need is perceived.

[pauljones]

Israel built that big wall on the border.

Do you think they will let Iran lob a nuke over that wall?

I don't think so.

[Pedzie]

Lastly the constant expansion & beating of war drums that have occurred recently by the US has caused even countries like China to resume military expansion.

Come on. China is expanding their military because they have the money to do it. Stopping Iran from prodcing a nuclear weapon has little do do with it.

Your argument here is what?

That Iran does not have the money?

Because other than that the root of any expansion of defense capabilities remain the same *right* for all countries.

The sad fact & underlying common thread is that certain aggressive countries cause the need to go defensive.

One does not spend money they have or not on defense unless a need is perceived.

Aggressive countries like the US maybe!