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

[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.

Your argument here is what?

My argument is that your implication that China is expanding its military because the US wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is fallacious.

[maidu]

From my personal experience, I was wrong about Iraq in the prelude to the 2nd war there. I actually believed most of the reports stating that Iraq had WMD. Even tho none were found, I still believe they had some such programs earlier, and that the many months of sabre rattling prior to the invasion enabled them to dispose of that capacity.

This relates to the Iran/nukes situation, because I now believe Iran is building a nuclear bomb capability. Though, because of being fooled before by western/UN drum beating, am open to the idea that the accusations could be false. In lieu of that, there should be conclusive (or as close to conclusive) evidence. Thus far, there have been reports of many centrifuges in Iran, which are used to refine Uranium, and probably other data that you and I are not familiar with.

I honestly can't say that, if Pakistan, N.Korea, probably Isreal have nukes, that Iran shouldn't. Obviously the best scenario is for there to be no nukes anywhere, and some people are actively stiving toward that goal. But this isn't a perfect world. It's a world still populated, in large part, by archaic, paranoid, sentiments that predated Genghis Khan.

China would be pissed off if there was a pre-emptive strike against Iran, but it wouldn't be so stupid as to jump in the fight. Pakistan might. Indeed, I think Pakistan is the wild card - in some ways more troubling than Iran. Iran has its Immans, who at least know what they're thinking (however repressive and anal retentive). However, Pakistan is like a serpent with many heads, always changing priorites and concurrently harboring and fighting insurgents. It's like a giant mish-mash of alliances, and it's got the bomb.

[Scott]

Off-topic, argumentative posts have been removed as well as replies. Please stick to the OP. The article is about the IAEA and Iran.

[Scott]

And another off-topic post has been deleted.

[flying]

Your argument here is what?

My argument is that your implication that China is expanding its military because the US wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is fallacious.

Sorry your comprehension/understanding of my argument is wrong.

I never implied China was expanding due to Iran ....China is expanding due to US aggressive global military prescience.

Not the US prevention of Iran's nuclear capability for defense.

Iran is expanding due to the same reason + Israel.....That much is obvious to most.

Lastly you cut out from my post which addressed your treaty concerns the important/glaring contradiction of the US ignoring treaties they signed...Not to mention some nuclear capable threats/neighbors of Iran who do not even take part in such treaties.

So for anyone to claim Iran is in breech of that which they themselves do not honor...well you know...it is a bit odd at best......

More of what I call situational ethics.

Edited December 7, 2011 by flying

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

Topic: Iran, IAEA. If you are going to cite examples of other countries, then it must be relevant to the topic and it must not be meant to bait or inflame.

[chuckd]

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.

Mr. Jim:

One portion of your earlier post needs to be addressed. This is not baiting but simply addresses an issue that remains in public view.

______________________________________________________________

You stated:

"Even his body language whilst speaking displays that he has no idea what he is talking about."

______________________________________________________________

Provided for your information:

______________________________________________________________

"It was during his freshmen year in medical school that he had the accident that changed his life. He dove off the diving board at a swimming pool and hit his head on the bottom. Since then, he’s been confined to a wheelchair, something few people know unless they’ve seen him in person or on television."

http://www.mitchellbard.com/articles/kraut.html

______________________________________________________________

Please explain how the body language of a paraplegic with breathing difficulties can be read. Were you unaware of his physical handicap and trained in reading body language?

[Ulysses G.]

Don't forget the absurd remark about Krauthammer being "unqualified" to judge the report.

Charles Krauthammer, MD (pronounced /ˈkraʊt.hæmər/; born March 13, 1950) is an American Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column appears in The Washington Post and is syndicated to more than 275 newspapers and media outlets.[1] He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. He is also a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington[2] and a nightly panelist on Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier.

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

Edited December 7, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

While considering Charles Krauthammer's position on the Iranian situation with regard to nuclear weapons; like his position on rights for paraplegics, would likely be biased. The right or wrong of that bias aside. It simply is what it is. He would normally be removed from a jury in either regard and that is pretty much all you need to know.

[Ulysses G.]

He would normally be removed from a jury in either regard and that is pretty much all you need to know.

So would pretty much everyone posting on this thread and most of their sources.

[Pakboong]

He would normally be removed from a jury in either regard and that is pretty much all you need to know.

So would pretty much everyone posting on this thread and most of their sources.

Agreed

[Orac]

What would be more surprising was if Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program.

They are in a very volatile part of the world and their three biggest neighbours are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is also another regional nuclear power that they are not on the best terms with.

Though nuclear weapons can be used as offensive weapons, their greatest 'strength' is as a detterent which is probably why there has not been a major global conflict for some time - it is a whole new ball game to attack a country that has the ability to wipe you out of they lose.

The only way through this is if Iran can be made to feel secure within its own borders and therefore sees no need to develop a nuclear defence which needs to be acheived through dialogue coupled with some sort of 'guarantee' of safety.

I see the role of China being crucial to this as they are probably the only player that has both the military power and positive relationship with Iran to provide the commitments for their safety that they would believe. Since China has already stated they would be prepared to defend Iran if they were attacked they are part way there already, what we need to see now is for them to make their commitment conditional on Iran ceasing its weapons program.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Orac

[Pedzie]

Your argument here is what?

My argument is that your implication that China is expanding its military because the US wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is fallacious.

Sorry your comprehension/understanding of my argument is wrong.

I never implied China was expanding due to Iran ....China is expanding due to US aggressive global military prescience.

Not the US prevention of Iran's nuclear capability for defense.

Iran is expanding due to the same reason + Israel.....That much is obvious to most.

Lastly you cut out from my post which addressed your treaty concerns the important/glaring contradiction of the US ignoring treaties they signed...Not to mention some nuclear capable threats/neighbors of Iran who do not even take part in such treaties.

So for anyone to claim Iran is in breech of that which they themselves do not honor...well you know...it is a bit odd at best......

More of what I call situational ethics.

+1

When the US spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined then It's only natural other nations will seek to further their military capabilities.

[koheesti]

While considering Charles Krauthammer's position on the Iranian situation with regard to nuclear weapons; like his position on rights for paraplegics, would likely be biased. The right or wrong of that bias aside. It simply is what it is. He would normally be removed from a jury in either regard and that is pretty much all you need to know.

If he is biased then so is anyone in the West (excluding Oz & NZ) who might end up a target of Iran.

[koheesti]

Your argument here is what?

My argument is that your implication that China is expanding its military because the US wants to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is fallacious.

Sorry your comprehension/understanding of my argument is wrong.

I never implied China was expanding due to Iran ....China is expanding due to US aggressive global military prescience.

Not the US prevention of Iran's nuclear capability for defense.

Iran is expanding due to the same reason + Israel.....That much is obvious to most.

Lastly you cut out from my post which addressed your treaty concerns the important/glaring contradiction of the US ignoring treaties they signed...Not to mention some nuclear capable threats/neighbors of Iran who do not even take part in such treaties.

So for anyone to claim Iran is in breech of that which they themselves do not honor...well you know...it is a bit odd at best......

More of what I call situational ethics.

+1

When the US spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined then It's only natural other nations will seek to further their military capabilities.

China IS NOT expanding their military out of fear of the USA. They have their own regional territorial objectives they want to achieve and need to expand regardless what the USA's policy towards Iran is. They want Taiwan and total control over the South China Sea to name a couple of those objectives. Maybe later they'll decide that Australia is much too big for just 30 million people. Roughly the same size as China but with over 1.3 billion less people? That won't last forever.IF Iran have nuclear weapons, China will be overjoyed because that is one more distraction and thorn in the side for the USA. Just like North Korea. China could fix that situation in one day except that it likes the problems it causes the USA.

Edited December 7, 2011 by koheesti

[koheesti]

What would be more surprising was if Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program.

They are in a very volatile part of the world and their three biggest neighbours are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is also another regional nuclear power that they are not on the best terms with.

If you are talking about Israel, they have apparently had nukes for decades, have never used them, have never threatened to use them, and even their own neighbors who have attacked them multiple times aren't worried about them so WHY would Iran feel they need them for self defense? Answer is: they don't. They don't need them for defense but they would like them to have as leverage when they start making a play for more Sunni Arab land around the Arabian/Persian Gulf.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[flying]

If you are talking about Israel, they have apparently had nukes for decades, have never used them, have never threatened to use them, and even their own neighbors who have attacked them multiple times aren't worried about them so WHY would Iran feel they need them for self defense? Answer is: they don't. They don't need them for defense but they would like them to have as leverage when they start making a play for more Sunni Arab land around the Arabian/Persian Gulf.

That is a silly argument.....

All but the USA can say the same...ie: never used them but feel the need for them ....obviously

As for *they* dont need them...the same could then be said for any that hold them ( again obviously except the USA <sic>)

Edited December 7, 2011 by flying

[GentlemanJim]

If you are talking about Israel, they have apparently had nukes for decades, have never used them, have never threatened to use them, and even their own neighbors who have attacked them multiple times aren't worried about them so WHY would Iran feel they need them for self defense? Answer is: they don't. They don't need them for defense but they would like them to have as leverage when they start making a play for more Sunni Arab land around the Arabian/Persian Gulf.

Similar to the secret of good comedy I guess....Timing!

[Pedzie]

What would be more surprising was if Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program.

They are in a very volatile part of the world and their three biggest neighbours are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is also another regional nuclear power that they are not on the best terms with.

Though nuclear weapons can be used as offensive weapons, their greatest 'strength' is as a detterent which is probably why there has not been a major global conflict for some time - it is a whole new ball game to attack a country that has the ability to wipe you out of they lose.

The only way through this is if Iran can be made to feel secure within its own borders and therefore sees no need to develop a nuclear defence which needs to be acheived through dialogue coupled with some sort of 'guarantee' of safety.

I see the role of China being crucial to this as they are probably the only player that has both the military power and positive relationship with Iran to provide the commitments for their safety that they would believe. Since China has already stated they would be prepared to defend Iran if they were attacked they are part way there already, what we need to see now is for them to make their commitment conditional on Iran ceasing its weapons program.

I agree, Iran does need some security, we only see the sabre rattling side of the Iranian regime and that is through the corrupt western media outlets. It goes back to nukes in the middle east in general, we all know the cause of this.

The problems with Pakistan is also very serious I believe, much more so than the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuke. We have a country which partly is lawless in its border with Afganistan plus coupled with a corrupt ISI intelligence service in bed with the Taliban.

It doesn't look good at all, I will be amazed if there is not some sort of serious conflict within 1 year in the middle east.

[lovetotravel]

What would be more surprising was if Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program.

They are in a very volatile part of the world and their three biggest neighbours are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is also another regional nuclear power that they are not on the best terms with.

Though nuclear weapons can be used as offensive weapons, their greatest 'strength' is as a detterent which is probably why there has not been a major global conflict for some time - it is a whole new ball game to attack a country that has the ability to wipe you out of they lose.

The only way through this is if Iran can be made to feel secure within its own borders and therefore sees no need to develop a nuclear defence which needs to be acheived through dialogue coupled with some sort of 'guarantee' of safety.

I see the role of China being crucial to this as they are probably the only player that has both the military power and positive relationship with Iran to provide the commitments for their safety that they would believe. Since China has already stated they would be prepared to defend Iran if they were attacked they are part way there already, what we need to see now is for them to make their commitment conditional on Iran ceasing its weapons program.

I agree, Iran does need some security, we only see the sabre rattling side of the Iranian regime and that is through the corrupt western media outlets. It goes back to nukes in the middle east in general, we all know the cause of this.

The problems with Pakistan is also very serious I believe, much more so than the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuke. We have a country which partly is lawless in its border with Afganistan plus coupled with a corrupt ISI intelligence service in bed with the Taliban.

It doesn't look good at all, I will be amazed if there is not some sort of serious conflict within 1 year in the middle east.

So you are saying non-western media outlets are not corrupt? Ridiculous.

[Scott]

We will not argue the intelligence or corrupt practices of media. If a source is presented, you may agree or disagree with it, but the topic of the thread is not the media.

[chuckd]

Do you have contacts within the Chinese military to know that they are not expanding out fear from the US ? Yes China has It's own interests in the region, not all of them military, but both territorial and military objectives will involve competing with the might of the US, Taiwan is backed by the US and has been for decades, with the capability of defending itself from a Chinese attack! All US military hardware... the US has a vested interest in the South China Sea (like every other sea)

Australia...Why do you think Barack Obama has just very recently sent US marines to be based in the country? With the promise of more AU&US co-operation! I wonder..

Iran will not be allowed a nuke, there will be a war in the middle east before that happens and indeed the possibility of WW3.

Do you have contacts within the Iranian military services that tell you what will or will not happen in their camp?

[GentlemanJim]

Do you have contacts within the Chinese military to know that they are not expanding out fear from the US ? Yes China has It's own interests in the region, not all of them military, but both territorial and military objectives will involve competing with the might of the US, Taiwan is backed by the US and has been for decades, with the capability of defending itself from a Chinese attack! All US military hardware... the US has a vested interest in the South China Sea (like every other sea)

Australia...Why do you think Barack Obama has just very recently sent US marines to be based in the country? With the promise of more AU&US co-operation! I wonder..

Iran will not be allowed a nuke, there will be a war in the middle east before that happens and indeed the possibility of WW3.

Do you have contacts within the Iranian military services that tell you what will or will not happen in their camp?

chukd

Agreed +1

Pedzie

You write some interesting arguments but you don't really have to have contacts in the Chinese military to know if they are expanding due to fear of the US or not. The same could then be said of you in order to support your stance/opinion. Military analysts all over the world have opinions on this and write up those opinions on the net amongst other places. The problem is of course they are a bit like economists, get 10 military analysts and you will get 10 different opinions.

[koheesti]

koheesti

China IS NOT expanding their military out of fear of the USA. They have their own regional territorial objectives they want to achieve and need to expand regardless what the USA's policy towards Iran is. They want Taiwan and total control over the South China Sea to name a couple of those objectives. Maybe later they'll decide that Australia is much too big for just 30 million people. Roughly the same size as China but with over 1.3 billion less people? That won't last forever.IF Iran have nuclear weapons, China will be overjoyed because that is one more distraction and thorn in the side for the USA. Just like North Korea. China could fix that situation in one day except that it likes the problems it causes the USA.

Do you have contacts within the Chinese military to know that they are not expanding out fear from the US ? Yes China has It's own interests in the region, not all of them military, but both territorial and military objectives will involve competing with the might of the US, Taiwan is backed by the US and has been for decades, with the capability of defending itself from a Chinese attack! All US military hardware... the US has a vested interest in the South China Sea (like every other sea)

Australia...Why do you think Barack Obama has just very recently sent US marines to be based in the country? With the promise of more AU&US co-operation! I wonder..

Iran will not be allowed a nuke, there will be a war in the middle east before that happens and indeed the possibility of WW3.

I know I have a better grasp of why China is building up their military more than those who think it is because they are afraid of the USA.

I think Iran WILL be "allowed" nukes because no one will go to war to stop them. The voters in the USA will have no interest in another war in the Middle East (or elsewhere) - at least for a couple decades. Plenty of time for even the Iranians to figure it out.

[Pedzie]

Do you have contacts within the Chinese military to know that they are not expanding out fear from the US ? Yes China has It's own interests in the region, not all of them military, but both territorial and military objectives will involve competing with the might of the US, Taiwan is backed by the US and has been for decades, with the capability of defending itself from a Chinese attack! All US military hardware... the US has a vested interest in the South China Sea (like every other sea)

Australia...Why do you think Barack Obama has just very recently sent US marines to be based in the country? With the promise of more AU&US co-operation! I wonder..

Iran will not be allowed a nuke, there will be a war in the middle east before that happens and indeed the possibility of WW3.

Do you have contacts within the Iranian military services that tell you what will or will not happen in their camp?

chukd

Agreed +1

Pedzie

You write some interesting arguments but you don't really have to have contacts in the Chinese military to know if they are expanding due to fear of the US or not. The same could then be said of you in order to support your stance/opinion. Military analysts all over the world have opinions on this and write up those opinions on the net amongst other places. The problem is of course they are a bit like economists, get 10 military analysts and you will get 10 different opinions.

Yeah I understand that Jim, I think China is expanding simply due to the US, who else is a threat to them in their territorial/military quests? No-one that I can think of.

[Pedzie]

koheesti

China IS NOT expanding their military out of fear of the USA. They have their own regional territorial objectives they want to achieve and need to expand regardless what the USA's policy towards Iran is. They want Taiwan and total control over the South China Sea to name a couple of those objectives. Maybe later they'll decide that Australia is much too big for just 30 million people. Roughly the same size as China but with over 1.3 billion less people? That won't last forever.IF Iran have nuclear weapons, China will be overjoyed because that is one more distraction and thorn in the side for the USA. Just like North Korea. China could fix that situation in one day except that it likes the problems it causes the USA.

Do you have contacts within the Chinese military to know that they are not expanding out fear from the US ? Yes China has It's own interests in the region, not all of them military, but both territorial and military objectives will involve competing with the might of the US, Taiwan is backed by the US and has been for decades, with the capability of defending itself from a Chinese attack! All US military hardware... the US has a vested interest in the South China Sea (like every other sea)

Australia...Why do you think Barack Obama has just very recently sent US marines to be based in the country? With the promise of more AU&US co-operation! I wonder..

Iran will not be allowed a nuke, there will be a war in the middle east before that happens and indeed the possibility of WW3.

I know I have a better grasp of why China is building up their military more than those who think it is because they are afraid of the USA.

I think Iran WILL be "allowed" nukes because no one will go to war to stop them. The voters in the USA will have no interest in another war in the Middle East (or elsewhere) - at least for a couple decades. Plenty of time for even the Iranians to figure it out.

I think Israel will never allow Iran to have nukes.

Since when do the voters in the US have a say on when and whom the US goes to war with ? But anyway I sincerely hope you are right in that no-one has the stomach for a war.

[koheesti]

Since when do the voters in the US have a say on when and whom the US goes to war with ? But anyway I sincerely hope you are right in that no-one has the stomach for a war.

The voters are always the determining factor. If it isn't popular with the voters, the politicians won't chance it. Prior to the Iraq and Afghan wars, public opinion was highly in favor. Getting in is much easier than getting in. Once involved in the war, one big event can sway public opinion but by that time it is too late as forces have already been committed. However smaller operations like in Somolia 20 years ago or Lebanon 30 years ago can be ended quickly when the voters (public opinion) want out.

[chuckd]

Do you have contacts within the Iranian military services that tell you what will or will not happen in their camp?

chukd

Agreed +1

Pedzie

You write some interesting arguments but you don't really have to have contacts in the Chinese military to know if they are expanding due to fear of the US or not. The same could then be said of you in order to support your stance/opinion. Military analysts all over the world have opinions on this and write up those opinions on the net amongst other places. The problem is of course they are a bit like economists, get 10 military analysts and you will get 10 different opinions.

Yeah I understand that Jim, I think China is expanding simply due to the US, who else is a threat to them in their territorial/military quests? No-one that I can think of.

Except perhaps Japan and South Korea.

[Pedzie]

Since when do the voters in the US have a say on when and whom the US goes to war with ? But anyway I sincerely hope you are right in that no-one has the stomach for a war.

The voters are always the determining factor. If it isn't popular with the voters, the politicians won't chance it. Prior to the Iraq and Afghan wars, public opinion was highly in favor. Getting in is much easier than getting in. Once involved in the war, one big event can sway public opinion but by that time it is too late as forces have already been committed. However smaller operations like in Somolia 20 years ago or Lebanon 30 years ago can be ended quickly when the voters (public opinion) want out.

Things are maybe different when it comes to war and middle east, all it takes is for a pre-emptive strike on Iran from Israel and then the US is involved in a war overnight if Iran strikes back at Israel, the war would be in the national interest of Israel and the US voters would have zero say on US defence of Israel.

When it comes to full scale invasions like Iraq and Afgan then yes the voters need to accept such action.