Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Iranian Cooperation with IAEA


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:22 AM

http://www.reuters.c...E81K1ZF20120222

This is another example of their "cooperating" with inspectors.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#2    wittyusernamefailed

wittyusernamefailed

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Still in frikkin kansas toto.

  • "Well, this is gonna be a wipe"

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:57 AM

To be fair to the Irani government, at this point they have little incentive to NOT get the bomb. They know war is coming, and the a-bomb is the only card they would really have to stave off invasion. So of course stalling for time while they work 24/7 would be the wisest thing to do. Especially as seeing their main existing enemy in the region (Israel) has est. 350+ 5kt warhead devices.
   The worst part is that there are no plans in place like we had with the Soviets in the Cold war(the hotline between leaders,diplomats that meet almost daily...) instead there is only silence, constant threats and vilification, and invocations of gods will on ones policy in it's entirety  (and yes this is true for all sides of the conflict.) There will be a war with Iran because there has been no plan but contest and aggression from the start.


#3    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:28 AM

More empty propaganda to paint the regime in a certain light in the eyes of the international community.

And then, please specify to me exactly which part of the NPT says that the IAEA has a right to visit a non nuclear site? This is yet another example of Iran being asked to go above and beyond what is asked of them as signatories of the NPT. and yet another example of the media incorrectly portraying the country as not carrying out thei 'obligations' as signatories. This entire situation would be completely comical if the ramifications did not have worldwide implications.


#4    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,772 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:42 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 22 February 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

More empty propaganda to paint the regime in a certain light in the eyes of the international community.

And then, please specify to me exactly which part of the NPT says that the IAEA has a right to visit a non nuclear site? This is yet another example of Iran being asked to go above and beyond what is asked of them as signatories of the NPT. and yet another example of the media incorrectly portraying the country as not carrying out thei 'obligations' as signatories. This entire situation would be completely comical if the ramifications did not have worldwide implications.

Do you think your stance is going to prevent a conflict? in my view its making matters worse. just leads to further suspicion which at this moment in time is a dangerous game to be playing.

The situation we find ourselves in, how is it possible for Iran not to go above and beyond whats being asked. Iran itself should be going above and beyond whats required of them. if i was Iran and my nuclear program was for energy, i'd allow IAEA access to all sites requested. especially when you know military action could be just around the corner.

the IAEA must have a reason for them wanting to visit this site, they must suspect nuclear material or devices of some sort relating to nuclear activities for them to ask for permission.

The IAEA are trying to prevent war by showing Irans nuclear program has no military dimensions and is peaceful. Iran on the other hand seem to be blocking them. i've said it many times visit the IAEA website and read the IAEA reports. no-one after reading them can honestly say Iran has been open and honest from the start.

Do you trust and accept the IAEA reports?

Edited by stevewinn, 22 February 2012 - 11:43 AM.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#5    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:06 PM

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=222577

Read all of the links in that thread. Quite simply, Steve, Iran are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Nor have they decided to do so in the future. Attack them, though, and that will all change - they will have no choice.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 22 February 2012 - 01:07 PM.


#6    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,264 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:26 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 22 February 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

More empty propaganda to paint the regime in a certain light in the eyes of the international community.

And then, please specify to me exactly which part of the NPT says that the IAEA has a right to visit a non nuclear site? This is yet another example of Iran being asked to go above and beyond what is asked of them as signatories of the NPT. and yet another example of the media incorrectly portraying the country as not carrying out thei 'obligations' as signatories. This entire situation would be completely comical if the ramifications did not have worldwide implications.
Exactly the IAEA is just a safety inspector, it could encourage Iran to use nuclear energy if this no evidence of making a weapon but have checks in case. About the denied access Iran should of give a reason why.


#7    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 February 2012 - 09:15 PM

View Postwittyusernamefailed, on 22 February 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

To be fair to the Irani government, at this point they have little incentive to NOT get the bomb. They know war is coming, and the a-bomb is the only card they would really have to stave off invasion. So of course stalling for time while they work 24/7 would be the wisest thing to do. Especially as seeing their main existing enemy in the region (Israel) has est. 350+ 5kt warhead devices.
   The worst part is that there are no plans in place like we had with the Soviets in the Cold war(the hotline between leaders,diplomats that meet almost daily...) instead there is only silence, constant threats and vilification, and invocations of gods will on ones policy in it's entirety  (and yes this is true for all sides of the conflict.) There will be a war with Iran because there has been no plan but contest and aggression from the start.
I respectfully disagree on the context of this... war would not be an issue if Iran had not first been a terror backing regime for 30 years and then made the decision to go for broke, against an international outcry, to develop a nuclear weapons capability.  I think they realize they are safe from invasion.  But they are willing to cause such hardship on their people as to risk losing power(the ultimate fear for them)just so they can have a nuke and the power in the world that comes with it.  It would make everyone think twice before calling them to account for whatever heinous actions they might commit.  Look at Assad's butchery.  He would long ago have been disposed of if he did not have chemical and biological weapons.  Imagine his protectors with a nuclear weapon.  
I agree that the danger of nuclear war is even greater due to the underlying religious aspect of this conflict.  There is no way for tensions to be quickly defused or for a "time out" to be taken in the run up to an exchange.  The concept of preemptive war is fraught with dangers but the very nature of the weapons nations possess today make preemption sometimes the lesser of two evils.  JMO

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#8    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:28 PM

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

I respectfully disagree on the context of this... war would not be an issue if Iran had not first been a terror backing regime for 30 years and then made the decision to go for broke, against an international outcry, to develop a nuclear weapons capability.  

Are these things that we're supposed to have a monopoly on? If you feel that any nation funding terrorism in another nation is bad, I'll agree completely.

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

I think they realize they are safe from invasion.  But they are willing to cause such hardship on their people as to risk losing power(the ultimate fear for them)just so they can have a nuke and the power in the world that comes with it.  

How are they supposed to realize they're safe from invasion when they just witnessed their next door neighbor invaded and devastated and see the preparation to do so again (almost verbatim and by the same nation that led that attack) directed at them?

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

It would make everyone think twice before calling them to account for whatever heinous actions they might commit.  Look at Assad's butchery.  He would long ago have been disposed of if he did not have chemical and biological weapons.  Imagine his protectors with a nuclear weapon.  
I agree that the danger of nuclear war is even greater due to the underlying religious aspect of this conflict.  There is no way for tensions to be quickly defused or for a "time out" to be taken in the run up to an exchange.

I agree. Nukes and other WMDs protect the nation from invasion. This allows both bad and good things to occur without direct dictation from more powerful countries.

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

The concept of preemptive war is fraught with dangers but the very nature of the weapons nations possess today make preemption sometimes the lesser of two evils.  JMO

Lord, I hope the rest of the world doesn't think this way... 'cause the country with the most nukes... the worst recent track record of attacking other sovereign nations... the only country to actually use a nuke on another nation - well, that would be the logical target for the rest of the world to preemptively take action against.


#9    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:02 PM

View Postsam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Are these things that we're supposed to have a monopoly on? If you feel that any nation funding terrorism in another nation is bad, I'll agree completely.



How are they supposed to realize they're safe from invasion when they just witnessed their next door neighbor invaded and devastated and see the preparation to do so again (almost verbatim and by the same nation that led that attack) directed at them?



I agree. Nukes and other WMDs protect the nation from invasion. This allows both bad and good things to occur without direct dictation from more powerful countries.



Lord, I hope the rest of the world doesn't think this way... 'cause the country with the most nukes... the worst recent track record of attacking other sovereign nations... the only country to actually use a nuke on another nation - well, that would be the logical target for the rest of the world to preemptively take action against.
No one has threatened Iran with invasion.  They are being threatened with the destruction of a weapons program that is itself threatening to the region and by extension to the world.  The fact that you act as though every US action occurs in some sort of vacuum, with no responsibility of other nations for their actions being factored in just proves your bias.  By your logic, if America was invaded and destroy a global justice would be served.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#10    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:05 AM

The implication is clear that they will be invaded. Like sam mentioned, the model for their destruction's just across the border.

Not only that, but of they are attacked Iran will retaliate, throwing not only the country but the entire region into chaos (with an invasion to follow).


#11    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:06 AM

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

No one has threatened Iran with invasion.  

So no one has ever said, "Military options are still on the table."? If a country said they didn't like Canada because there are bears there and bombed the crap out of them, then turned around and said, "Y'know, we don't like America because there are bears there too...", you don't think people in the US are being threatened?

Iraq had imaginary WMDs that we needed to neutralize. They got invaded. The same war machine that "revealed" the imaginary WMDs is hinting that Iran has imaginary nukes that we should neutralize - you don't think this is a threat of invasion?

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

They are being threatened with the destruction of a hypothetical weapons program that is itself threatening to the region and by extension to the world, assuming the hypothetical weapons were built and deployed.  

Fixed that

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

The fact that you act as though every US action occurs in some sort of vacuum, with no responsibility of other nations for their actions being factored in just proves your bias.  

No, the fact that you don't like someone to hold the US responsible for our actions proves your bias. IF we attack Iran, we're responsible for it unless it's a response to Iran attacking us or well substantiated intel that they're in the process of doing so.

View Postand then, on 22 February 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

By your logic, if America was invaded and destroy a global justice would be served.

No, that's your logic. Preemptive war against a dangerous nuclear threat. Again, we're the ones with the most nukes and the only ones who have used them, plus we attack other nations every few years. By your reasoning, the rest of the world should get together and eliminate the threat before we destroy everything.


#12    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:44 AM

View Postsam12six, on 23 February 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

So no one has ever said, "Military options are still on the table."? If a country said they didn't like Canada because there are bears there and bombed the crap out of them, then turned around and said, "Y'know, we don't like America because there are bears there too...", you don't think people in the US are being threatened?

Iraq had imaginary WMDs that we needed to neutralize. They got invaded. The same war machine that "revealed" the imaginary WMDs is hinting that Iran has imaginary nukes that we should neutralize - you don't think this is a threat of invasion?



Fixed that



No, the fact that you don't like someone to hold the US responsible for our actions proves your bias. IF we attack Iran, we're responsible for it unless it's a response to Iran attacking us or well substantiated intel that they're in the process of doing so.



No, that's your logic. Preemptive war against a dangerous nuclear threat. Again, we're the ones with the most nukes and the only ones who have used them, plus we attack other nations every few years. By your reasoning, the rest of the world should get together and eliminate the threat before we destroy everything.
If we attack Iran I am sure we will be held responsible.  The ramifications will be severe.  The fact that the US AND a large portion of Europe are convinced that Iran is a threat will not save the US from those consequences.  But sometimes governments have to do what is right to protect order and peace.  I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.  And if America ever finds herself without the ability to defend against such an attack I'm sure you and those like you here will see that attack quickly take place.  But be careful what you wish for, it may have unintended consequences.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#13    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:18 AM

Aye, I see what you mean. After you were held accountable for what you did to Iraq I'm sure... Wait, no, That's right! You're never held accountable - for anything.

Sorry, I should stay our of this dual debate. I'll leave it to Sam.


#14    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:29 AM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 23 February 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

Aye, I see what you mean. After you were held accountable for what you did to Iraq I'm sure... Wait, no, That's right! You're never held accountable - for anything.

Sorry, I should stay our of this dual debate. I'll leave it to Sam.

In fairness, it's not really a debate.

It's "They're Muslims. If we don't attack first, they'll attack us. You'll see!!!"

Versus

"We shouldn't attack anyone who hasn't either attacked us or is definitely positioning themselves to do so."

Less a debate than a difference in how we see the world. It's like:

I'd like to go into a bar and relax without being bullied. The best way to do so is to pick someone who looks like a pushover and beat the crap out of them. That'll send a message.

Versus

I'd like to go into a bar and relax without being bullied. If someone tries, I'll wreck him - otherwise, I'll just exist in peace.


#15    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:46 AM

View Postand then, on 23 February 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

  But sometimes governments have to do what is right to protect order and peace.

Oh well there you go. It's a "moral" question for you. America the moral leader of the free world. I see now. No need to explain yourself further. :rolleyes:

Edited by ninjadude, 23 February 2012 - 05:46 AM.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users