IAEA December 2006 report: Iran in serious non-compliance

[Slackware]

Yeah, and from last time around intelligence was worth ******.

The calim that the intelligence really said what the Admin said it said is really going to strike back now.

We ALL know the intelligence mostly said that Iraq was no threat but since the Admin cannot admit that, well...

Any evidence presented by this admin is taken with a fairly large grin of salt, even from Israel, in short, it's not worth the paper it is written on, and for a good 2-3 decades unless the US restores the worlds faith in their intelligence it is not going to be worth much.

GW ways "intelligence shows" rest of the world just assumes heäs lying again, what was that Texas saying again?

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

You seem to be saying that the Iranians are IN compliance?

Got anything from El Baradi (sp?) to support that contention?

Only the fact that he accused them of being in non-compliance with the additional protocols, and nothing more.

Do you think he'd let it pass if they weren't in compliance with the NPT agreements they signed?

Sometimes what isn't said has as much meaning as what is said... particularly wrt the IAEA and their recent alliance with the Bush Admin. First, the Admin threatened to have Baradei sacked with a no confidence vote, over the niger uranium forgeries, but after a personal and private meeting with Condi, he came out dancing to their tune... it's been hearts and flowers ever since...

Denial suits you well.

Well he is right, the events ARE actually correct ar thy not?

BTW, this one is Israels.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Slackware
what was that Texas saying again?

Don't squat with yer spurs on?

 

[Craig234]

Go read the posts in the thread about why the US needs hundreds of nukes, with our sophisticated delivery systems, and ask why Iran might want some too.

Why are the right wingers objecting to the suggestion that the US apologize for overthrowing Iran's democracy in 1953, offer it security guarantees, and *then* demand that it not get nukes under threat of force? Could it be because the plan is to overthrow Iran's government regardless, and they're rightly wanting the only weapon that the US notices? Or is it just ignorance and arrogance that it's ok to go around putting in dictators over nations and that we have the right to launch aggressive war even without nukes?

Somehow too many Americans think we have the right to unlimited numbers of any weapon, while other nations have the right to shut the hell up or else.

Power tends to corrupt, they say.

The west putting a hostile power next to the middle eastern nations and it being the only nuclear power would be utterly unacceptable if it were the US on the short end.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.

Anything? There are measures we could take to prevent them from getting it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: RichardE
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.

Dems have been telling us for the past year that the IAEA is happy with Iran. This article must have been fabricated by those evil neo-cons.

Seriously though, I stand firm on the need for us to destroy Iran. Nuclear proliferation needs to stop with North Korea, their radical allies in the Middle East must never be allowed to follow through.

Re read the articles. Nowhere does it say that iran is in non-compliance. In fact is says that there is no proof that it is not in compliance. Oops.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.

Iraq only cooperated at the point of the sword. Everytime the sword was removed, they went back to the old shell shuffle game.

Except that they didn't. And its been proven.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice spin. Looks like Karl Rove now has the time to write press releases for the IAEA.

Particularly wrt the NPT, which the Iranians agreed to, and with which the Iranians are in compliance, and not the "additional protocols" something the Bush Admin is trying to shove down their throats... something they never agreed to... basic moving the goalposts routine. I suspect that if they comply, there'll just be more additional protocols, and more...

After attacking the Iranians, the Bush Admin will finally have a rationale for staying in Iraq- to keep the Iranians from taking over, natch...

Can't wait for all the squealing from the young neocon wannabees when they bring back the draft...

You seem to be saying that the Iranians are IN compliance?

Got anything from El Baradi (sp?) to support that contention?

TIA,

Fern

reading comprehension ftw.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Does this honestly suprise anybody?

Does Jhhnn's defense of Iran's non-compliance surprise anyone either?

Iran will get theirs... i just hope the entire world steps up to the plate and does what needs to be done.

Iran IS in compliance with the NPT. It is the USA, EU and the IAEA who are not. Maybe you can point to ONE article of non-compliance? How about it?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: RichardE
I have said before and will say again that Iran is going for the bomb. I expect the people attacking me over this to come up with some reason for the IAEA and I look forward to seeying the explanation. Again, I will say I support Israel taking out Iran's nuclear reactors and keeping them unusable until a new leader is in place who is west friendly.

Seems pretty reasonable to me to suggest that they are going for the "bomb" capabilities. If only because of the type of reactor they have chosen.

Strikes me as kinda of funny/odd that the rest of the world needs to rely on little 'ole Isreal to enforce its policy of non-proliferation.

Fern

I should have been more specific I suppose. I would support any state that had the desire to ensure that Iran does not get the bomb. So far only Israel has shown a great desire. I don't really care what State goes up to task on this, but since Israel has been the only true vocal one in regards to it, I will support them in there efforts.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Slackware
what was that Texas saying again?

Don't squat with yer spurs on?

LMAO!

Bwaaahahahahhahah... that is ****** hilariious for an old weightliter like me.

i sincerely hope we can down some tequilas one day, we'd probably clean any pub so let's start at a pub that is to the left (feels kina natural to move to the right).

and business taken care off in one stop, i'm jst thinking, maye something stupid will be done and considering who it is, that would be a nice film... I can prove by an immediae IP number that some IDIOT has been snooping on some of my stuff, soooo.. i should report him, right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.

Iraq only cooperated at the point of the sword. Everytime the sword was removed, they went back to the old shell shuffle game.

Except that they didn't. And its been proven.

So what if eaglekeeper was right? A lot of people only don't commit crimes because of the 'point of the sword', the police; do you put them in jail anyway for that?

The question isn't why Saddam complied, but whether, and he did as Hans Blix, the person authoried to report on it, said he did, enough to recommend against invasion.

Who was out of compliance? Bush, with the UN charter.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: hellokeithUnfortunately, it appears from Mr. Elham's statements that Iran is already set on this path and cares nothing for either the IAEA or the NPT.

Another brain-fart from hellokeith. You may wish to join that other great mind, palehorse74 , and show me a single artcle of Iran's non-compliance with the NPT. I'm waiting.

... and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran...

Meanwhile, because we are unable to conclude that you're not a (drug dealer, child rapist, communist, ..., insert your favorite scarecrow), we insist that you do all you can to relieve our concern. In particular, you should suspend your going out of the house, submit to 24-hour surveillance, rectal exams on demand, and any other actions that the international community sees fit.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: hellokeithUnfortunately, it appears from Mr. Elham's statements that Iran is already set on this path and cares nothing for either the IAEA or the NPT.

Another brain-fart from hellokeith. You may wish to join that other great mind, palehorse74 , and show me a single artcle of Iran's non-compliance with the NPT. I'm waiting.

... and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran...

Meanwhile, because we are unable to conclude that you're not a (drug dealer, child rapist, communist, ..., insert your favorite scarecrow), we insist that you do all you can to relieve our concern. In particular, you should suspend your going out of the house, submit to 24-hour surveillance, rectal exams on demand, and any other actions that the international community sees fit.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.

Iraq only cooperated at the point of the sword. Everytime the sword was removed, they went back to the old shell shuffle game.

Except that they didn't. And its been proven.

And if they had not continued to play hide the pebble, then it could have been proven without the past 56 years of headaches.

Iraq played poker and was bluffing. The bluff was called - instead of showing the cards, the table was flipped making a mess. Childish behavior cost him his dignity, status and life.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.

And Cheney's outing of Valeria Plame and Brewster Jennings greatly damaged the CIA's ability to monitor activities in Iran.

Why might you ask?

Well, because they WANT war with Iran.

Iran is the grand prize. Iraq was just practice (and we've seen how well that's gone!)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.

And Cheney's outing of Valeria Plame........

I thought it had be revealed that Richard Armitage "outed" Plame?

Fern

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: smack Down
Of course they are going for the bomb and Bush screwed up so badly in Iraq we can't do anything to stop them.

And Cheney's outing of Valeria Plame and Brewster Jennings greatly damaged the CIA's ability to monitor activities in Iran.

Why might you ask?

Well, because they WANT war with Iran.

Iran is the grand prize. Iraq was just practice (and we've seen how well that's gone!)

Makes perfect sense. You want to go to war with a country, so you disable your intelligence links within it? Besides, I thought that revealing her identity was supposed to be revenge for the OpEd about the yellowcake?

 

[db]

Just another ramp-up for the next war. Yawn.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.

Iraq only cooperated at the point of the sword. Everytime the sword was removed, they went back to the old shell shuffle game.

Except that they didn't. And its been proven.

And if they had not continued to play hide the pebble, then it could have been proven without the past 56 years of headaches.

Iraq played poker and was bluffing. The bluff was called - instead of showing the cards, the table was flipped making a mess. Childish behavior cost him his dignity, status and life.

Where did they bluff? The turned over all their documents, let in inspectors. The claimed they had nothing and they didn't. Iraq folded on the flop, after we won the hand we decided that iraq in fact had not folded so we took their chips anyways.

 

[db]

"In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.

"The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

and,


"A...strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a
new Pearl Harbor." [9/2000]
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Scary. Iraq co-operates with inspectors and gets annihilated. Makes you wonder what we're going to do to Iran.

Iraq only cooperated at the point of the sword. Everytime the sword was removed, they went back to the old shell shuffle game.

Except that they didn't. And its been proven.

And if they had not continued to play hide the pebble, then it could have been proven without the past 56 years of headaches.

Iraq played poker and was bluffing. The bluff was called - instead of showing the cards, the table was flipped making a mess. Childish behavior cost him his dignity, status and life.

Where did they bluff? The turned over all their documents, let in inspectors. The claimed they had nothing and they didn't. Iraq folded on the flop, after we won the hand we decided that iraq in fact had not folded so we took their chips anyways.

How many times did IRaq kick out the inspectors.

How many times did they refuse entry into certain areas.

Each time they relented it was when the US/UN forced the issue.

Why was Iraq placing such obsticles in the inspectors way?

 

[hellokeith]

Yahoo! News

by Michael Adler Fri Jan 26, 9:19 PM ET

Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.

Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.

A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."

The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.

Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.

Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.

But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.

Iran can't even get along with the IAEA. Fingerpointing at IAEA officials over alleged leaks to the press is pretty weak, especially if Iran is truly developing peaceful nuclear energy. It's obvious they are not, and it's very troubling they are banning IAEA inspectors and adding more centrifuges at the same time.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Yahoo! News

by Michael Adler Fri Jan 26, 9:19 PM ET

Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.

Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.

A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."

The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.

Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.

Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.

But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.

Iran can't even get along with the IAEA. Fingerpointing at IAEA officials over alleged leaks to the press is pretty weak, especially if Iran is truly developing peaceful nuclear energy. It's obvious they are not, and it's very troubling they are banning IAEA inspectors and adding more centrifuges at the same time.

well, according to the Left, Iran's leaders are the good guys, and all they want is cheaper and more efficient electricity... yep, they're just swell!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Yahoo! News

by Michael Adler Fri Jan 26, 9:19 PM ET

Iran is planning to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000 centrifuges, the machines which enrich uranium, at an underground facility in Natanz, where it is already running two pilot cascades of 164-centrifuges each at a pilot site above-ground.

Iran's face-off with the IAEA went up a notch this week when the agency sharply answered Iran, asking it in a letter to reverse its ban on 38 IAEA inspectors from working in the country, a spokeswoman told AFP.

A diplomat said the IAEA was "pushing back" as "no country has ever de-designated so many inspectors in one go."

The strong IAEA response came even as Iran sent a letter of its own to the agency asking for the removal of the official overseeing the IAEA's inspection of the Iranian nuclear program, diplomats told AFP.

Iran had banned Christian Charlier, who is Belgian, last April from entering the country in retaliation for alleged leaks to the press.

Iran now wants Charlier no longer even to see reports on Iran at the agency's safeguards division, a diplomat said.

But IAEA officials told Iran that while it "has the right not to give visas, the IAEA decides what it does in Vienna," the diplomat said.

Iran can't even get along with the IAEA. Fingerpointing at IAEA officials over alleged leaks to the press is pretty weak, especially if Iran is truly developing peaceful nuclear energy. It's obvious they are not, and it's very troubling they are banning IAEA inspectors and adding more centrifuges at the same time.

well, according to the Left, Iran's leaders are the good guys, and all they want is cheaper and more efficient electricity... yep, they're just swell!

Link pointing to were those on the Left claim Iran's Leaders are the good guys?