U.N 'Strongly Deplores' Iran Nuclear Cover-Up

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Well, Iraq and Iran are right next to each other and their history has been intertwined since Babylon. Both are members of the Axis of Evil. I'd say they go hand in hand.

but this isnt a thread about Iranian history since Babylon. Its a thread about the IAEA. Your post had nothing to do with the specifics of this thread.

You get 10 points for free association, however.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ts a thread about the IAEA.

Who btw, I dont remeber them ever saying anything about Iraqs nuclear program.

[Japher]

As Sloww likes to say:

Nuke 'em till they Glow
Then Nuke 'em some more

I hope they get more than a slap on the wrist; 100 French weapons inspectors ought to do the trick

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Who btw, I dont remeber them ever saying anything about Iraqs nuclear program.

Well if you dont remember what they said, i guess you dont have much to contribute to this thread.

[DinoDoc]

So much BS in this thread. At least che's crap was mostly on topic though. I'm still trying to figure out what inspired Lawrence's clueless rant.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

boredom

[GePap]

Iraq does have somehting to do with this thread..the Us wanted far harsher actions taken than the IAEA said was needed..and since the US's position vis a vi Iraq has shown itself to have been so incorrect, no one was willing to buy US hype about Iran'd program since the same intel orgs were so wrong vis a vi Iraq.

As for the list given by LoTM..the only bit of that list that does not apply to Pak (suport terrorism, including Muslim extremists-substitute India for Israel) is membership in the NPT.

So lets figure out what that means, shall we, since it is the only valid excuse as to why Iran can;t have nukes vs Pak, or India, or Israel. The NPT is a deal..states wih nuclear tech and wepaons help other states create peaceful uses of nuclear power as long as they agree not to make bombs. Now, over the years, since it has become pretty clear that once you have nuclear power, it is not a huge leap to nuclear weapons techonologically speaking, more and more rules were added to the deal. BUT all members of the NPT have the ability to OPT OUT of this treaty once they no longer see it as beneficil to their interests (or not join up, as India, Pak and Israel decided). So Iran (and NK) both have the right, if they whish, to ;leave the NPT and then there are NO legal limits on thier ability to make nukes. States still in the NPT would be forced to limit nuclear cooperation, but not that much.

So, Iran has decided to stcik with the NPT system..god for them. BUt until the day all states with nukes give a timeline for their won utter disarmament weith verifiable goals, those states stand on the very knives edge of utter hypocrasy by telling others they can;t have nukes, cause if anyone here thinks the states wit nukes have behaved more morally than those without, then you are living in a strange fantasy land.

[child of Thor]

well if i was running any of the countries mentioned in the axis of evil, or even if i just was maybe an unmentioned outsider - i'd be doing my best to start/continue my nuclear program!
Iraq didn't have nuclear capability and look what happened
If all Bush's administration respects is might, then it would be reasonable to expect a faster proliferation of WMD than at any other time?

EDIT: altough after iraq i dont think Iran or North Korea will have much to worry about in the short term, i cant see Bush getting away with another WOT anytime soon?

[Sarxis]

If Iran wants nukes so bad, we should just send them some...

you know, ballistically.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Iraq does have somehting to do with this thread..

What does it have to do with this thread other than the most tangential when it is the IAEA/UN Security Council not the US making these charges?

[atawa]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. None of those were members of the NPT, so there was no legal basis for UN sanctions.

I was talking about the American gouverment, not the UN.

2. South Africa was years ago, and i dont believe they ever actually built a weapon, in any case.

They build them, almost used them in Angola and dismantled them when it became clear apartheid was going down.

3. Obviously the US has special concern about Iran because Iran supports terrorism.

Has this ever been proven? Not to my recolection and anyway I think the terrorism isn't realy an issue, power in the gulf region is

A. Iran supports Hamas and Islamic Jihad in terrorist attacks against Israel

You mean the freedomfighters that fight against the zionist occupation of their country?

B. Iran supports Hezbollah, which among other things launched a terrorist attack in Buenos Aires that killed lots of innocent civilians some years ago, and has hijacked airplanes.

America supported both Hamas and Osama Bin Laden when it suited them, not to speak of all the ugly dictators during (and after) the cold war. Whats their point?

C. It seems clear that a good portion of the surviving leadership of Al Qaeeda is in Iran. Iran claims to be holding some AQ, but wont identify which ones or turn them over. The suspicion is that they are in fact working with AQ.

Most of the leaders would have fled to the tribal teritories in Pakistan and/or SE Asia as for sunite fundi's the shiites of Iran are just as evil as christians or jews.

If the people they are holding are Iranian citizens AND were involved in terrorist attacks they should either be send to the country the crimes were commited or tried in Iran, what reason can you give for the Iranians to hand them over to the US?

And I seriously doubt that any civilised country would hand over suspects if they are kept and tried on Cuba in a manor witch goes against every international treaty and basic human rights.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What does it have to do with this thread other than the most tangential when it is the IAEA/UN Security Council not the US making these charges?

You say this as if the US were not a part of these two groups, as if the US did not have a voice, as other states did, of what the statement would be. These bodies you mention are committees, who statements are the results of negotiations. The IAEA/UNSC would have said somehting very different had the US gotten its way, but the screw-up with Iraq meant the Europeans and moderates won out in committee. So it is far more than tangetial.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
If Iran wants nukes so bad, we should just send them some...

you know, ballistically.

If the US wants terrorists why dont we send some...

you know flying a boeing.

[DinoDoc]

You mean the freedomfighters

You mean the idiotic fantasy realm you seem intent on dragging the thread to?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
You say this as if the US were not a part of these two groups, as if the US did not have a voice, as other states did, of what the statement would be.

I'm saying that for the moment that such statements are irrelevent and shed no real light on the current situation as can be seen by the previous detour we took in that direction.

but the screw-up with Iraq meant the Europeans and moderates won out in committee. So it is far more than tangetial.

It's statements like this that make me think you don't know what you are talking about when the EU is paraising Iran for telling the truth about its nuclear program.