88 replies to this topic

[Stellar]

Why, Yamato, is it ok for companies to sanction certain states based on gun policies, but the US cant sanction certain countries based on nuclear weapons policies?

[ExpandMyMind]

Stellar, on 24 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Why, Yamato, is it ok for companies to sanction certain states based on gun policies, but the US cant sanction certain countries based on nuclear weapons policies?

The U.S. has already admitted outright that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at this time (since 2003). So, how can these sanctions be against nuclear weapon policies, when Iran clearly has no such policy?

[and then]

ExpandMyMind, on 24 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

The U.S. has already admitted outright that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at this time (since 2003). So, how can these sanctions be against nuclear weapon policies, when Iran clearly has no such policy?

And Ahmadinejad doesn't want to do anything but replace Israel's political structure.  
http://www.iran-pres...htm  Rafsanjani says Muslims should nuke Israel.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742815
Ex are you for Iran developing nuclear weapons?  Do you think it's a good idea?  Considering how you continue in this tortured parsing of words and circumstances one would think you are all in favor of an Iranian bomb.  Wouldn't be "fair" not to let them have it, huh?  Unbelievable.
Iran was offered free fuel for their medical research and even for electric generation uses if I remember correctly...that was unacceptable.  They were asked for a chance to have a look at a facility (Parchin) where we suspect they were conducting high explosive trigger tests that would leave traces - they declined AND started removing the darned SOIL from where the site was - under a tarp no less. So what is it with the constant support you give this regime?  You surely do not believe they have no intention to build weapons.  Where I come from if it walks, quacks and looks like a duck, we call it a duck.

[Stellar]

ExpandMyMind, on 24 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

The U.S. has already admitted outright that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at this time (since 2003). So, how can these sanctions be against nuclear weapon policies, when Iran clearly has no such policy?

Ok, let me rephrase then:

If a company can chose arbitrarily which states it sells its product to based on decisions the states takes, why can't one country chose whether it trades products with a nation based on the decisions the nations take?

[Yamato]

Stellar, on 24 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Why, Yamato, is it ok for companies to sanction certain states based on gun policies, but the US cant sanction certain countries based on nuclear weapons policies?

Property rights.  

Because the resources companies "sanction" with are their own.   They didn't steal your money and then tell you what you can't do with it, ala the US.

[ExpandMyMind]

and then, on 24 February 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

And Ahmadinejad doesn't want to do anything but replace Israel's political structure.  
http://www.iran-pres...htm  Rafsanjani says Muslims should nuke Israel.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-742815
Ex are you for Iran developing nuclear weapons?  Do you think it's a good idea?  Considering how you continue in this tortured parsing of words and circumstances one would think you are all in favor of an Iranian bomb.  Wouldn't be "fair" not to let them have it, huh?  Unbelievable.
Iran was offered free fuel for their medical research and even for electric generation uses if I remember correctly...that was unacceptable.  They were asked for a chance to have a look at a facility (Parchin) where we suspect they were conducting high explosive trigger tests that would leave traces - they declined AND started removing the darned SOIL from where the site was - under a tarp no less. So what is it with the constant support you give this regime?  You surely do not believe they have no intention to build weapons.  Where I come from if it walks, quacks and looks like a duck, we call it a duck.

A-T, your posts so often contain so many inaccuracies and outright lies to support your warped theories, that it is often hard to keep up.

Iran was not offered free fuel for medical enrichment. What happened, was that Iran, Turkey and Brazil put a deal on the table which would have meant Iran stopping enrichment to 20% (and end to ALL the problems) in return for enriched material for isotopes from the other two countries, with Iran continuing enrichment simply for energy purposes. This deal was flat-out refused by the U.S..

Quote

THE DEAL struck in Tehran on Monday, May 17, could largely defuse the international crisis over Iran's nuclear activities—if it is accepted by the international community. It must be counted a considerable contribution to the peace of the region and should be widely welcomed.
The architects of the deal, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will win plaudits throughout the developing world for their mediation, particularly among those who resent American pressures and detest Israel's unashamed militarism, not least Iran itself and most of its Arab neighbors. Turkey's activist Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is understood to have played a crucial role in the successful outcome.
Hammered out in 18 hours of negotiations with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the agreement provides for Iran to transfer 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium—some 58 percent of its stock—to Turkey within one month, and to receive in exchange 120 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium for medical purposes within one year. As Turkey itself is not equipped to enrich Iran's uranium to the required level, Russia and France are expected to do the job.
Iran has declared that it would submit the agreement formally to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) within a week. Tehran has, however, left no doubt that it intends to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, as it is entitled to do under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which it is a signatory. Both Lula and Erdogan have indicated that they believe Iran has a right to atomic energy.

http://www.wrmea.org...-no-thanks.html

You also mention that they refused the IAEA entry to a military site. I'll tell you what, if you can show me any sort of legislation regarding the IAEA that gives them the right to search a military installation - a non-nuclear installation - then you can wear a pair of socks for a whole week, mail them to me afterwards, and I'll record myself eating them and upload the video to Youtube for all to see. That is a promise. The IAEA have literally no right whatsoever to enter a military site, and Iran have done literally nothing wrong in denying them in this request.

Look, I'm sorry A-T, but there is a gulf between our posts and opinions on this subject. I base my opinions and posts entirely on facts. Entirely. You base yours almost exclusively on speculation, rumour, and hear-say. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with you on this subject and most of these threads, thanks to you, should in reality be moved to the conspiracy section of the site.

[and then]

ExpandMyMind, on 25 February 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

A-T, your posts so often contain so many inaccuracies and outright lies to support your warped theories, that it is often hard to keep up.

Iran was not offered free fuel for medical enrichment. What happened, was that Iran, Turkey and Brazil put a deal on the table which would have meant Iran stopping enrichment to 20% (and end to ALL the problems) in return for enriched material for isotopes from the other two countries, with Iran continuing enrichment simply for energy purposes. This deal was flat-out refused by the U.S..



http://www.wrmea.org...-no-thanks.html

You also mention that they refused the IAEA entry to a military site. I'll tell you what, if you can show me any sort of legislation regarding the IAEA that gives them the right to search a military installation - a non-nuclear installation - then you can wear a pair of socks for a whole week, mail them to me afterwards, and I'll record myself eating them and upload the video to Youtube for all to see. That is a promise. The IAEA have literally no right whatsoever to enter a military site, and Iran have done literally nothing wrong in denying them in this request.

Look, I'm sorry A-T, but there is a gulf between our posts and opinions on this subject. I base my opinions and posts entirely on facts. Entirely. You base yours almost exclusively on speculation, rumour, and hear-say. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate with you on this subject and most of these threads, thanks to you, should in reality be moved to the conspiracy section of the site.

The mods can put them where ever they need to be properly placed.  If I don't meet your standards of what reasoned debate should be then I accept that, no harm, no foul and no hard feelings.  But you never answered my question, Ex.  And if the Parchin issue hinges on Iran's right not to be more open and forthcoming then they can be as secretive as they like - but considering their rhetoric they can also bear the consequences internationally.  Are you seriously saying that you do not believe that Iran is working toward the capability to produce a nuclear weapon?

[WHO U KIDDIN]

and then, on 25 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Are you seriously saying that you do not believe that Iran is working toward the capability to produce a nuclear weapon?

Our planet certainly does not need any more nuclear weapons but we as the American nation with our western allies have no right to tell the Iranians or any other nation in the world what they can do.

So Then let's say that the Iranians are able to put together 100 nuclear devices by tomorrow night, do you truly think that the Iranians are so totally insane and suicidal as a people and nation and that they would risk total annihilation by attacking like a mad dog both Israel and the entire Middle East the next day just because they possess these weapons ?

Do you truly believe that Iranians love death more than life? Is it because they are Islamic?

This may be hard to believe but they are humans too just like everyone else on this planet, no matter how much those who demonize the Iranians say otherwise.

All God-loving human beings must understand that the frightening reality of nuclear weapons use is the guaranteed mutual assured destruction of all on Earth. No Yahweh, Allah or God can save us from our MAD fate if we finally decide to commit the unthinkable.

“Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”
– John F. Kennedy

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 27 February 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[and then]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 27 February 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

Our planet certainly does not need any more nuclear weapons but we as the American nation with our western allies have no right to tell the Iranians or any other nation in the world what they can do.

So Then let's say that the Iranians are able to put together 100 nuclear devices by tomorrow night, do you truly think that the Iranians are so totally insane and suicidal as a people and nation and that they would risk total annihilation by attacking like a mad dog both Israel and the entire Middle East the next day just because they possess these weapons ?

Do you truly believe that Iranians love death more than life? Is it because they are Islamic?

This may be hard to believe but they are humans too just like everyone else on this planet, no matter how much those who demonize the Iranians say otherwise.

All God-loving human beings must understand that the frightening reality of nuclear weapons use is the guaranteed mutual assured destruction of all on Earth. No Yahweh, Allah or God can save us from our MAD fate if we finally decide to commit the unthinkable.

“Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”
– John F. Kennedy

It's a reasonable question and it was reasonable the first dozen or so times I answered it.  I have never contended that Iran wants to nuke Israel.  While I don't dismiss it as a possibility entirely, I still never said it was something I was concerned about.  Iran will eventually assemble a weapon at a time of their choosing and when they decide to exert pressure in the region they will get most, if not all of what they want.  That is going to happen imo.  The danger will be in the actions of their PROXIES.  Hizbullah or Syria will feel over confident at some point and push Israel a bit too hard or demands will be made against one of the Gulf states that causes a clash.  Escalation is the danger.  The 2006 Lebanon war happened because Hizbullah decided to attack a single Israeli patrol.  They simply miscalculated the response.  Iran will also expect Israel to be more docile in their dealings with Iran and may assume too much.  MANY different opportunities for misunderstandings and conflict.  And once Iran has a ballistic missile deliverable nuke the calculus becomes even more insane.  It's too late to stop it now.  We are just along for the ride.  If it turns out that a nuke gets deployed in war in the M.E. then I think maybe the world may rethink the idea of allowing proliferation based on what is "fair".  As to the humanity of Iranians, I never have demonized them.  I've known a couple from my college days and they were great folks.  The Iranian leadership is a group of radical nutjobs though.  And they are power mad as well.  A former president of Iran from a decade ago,Hashemi Rafsanjani,  summed it up by saying that Iran and the Muslim world should nuke Israel when they possessed nuclear arms because a single weapon could END the state while Israel could only "harm" Islamic countries.  The current president speaks more artfully but the sentiment is clearly the same.  And Kennedy was prescient.  He saw it for what it is and he saw it up close.  I think it will happen and I think it will happen in our lifetime.

[ExpandMyMind]

and then, on 25 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

The mods can put them where ever they need to be properly placed.  If I don't meet your standards of what reasoned debate should be then I accept that, no harm, no foul and no hard feelings.  But you never answered my question, Ex.  And if the Parchin issue hinges on Iran's right not to be more open and forthcoming then they can be as secretive as they like - but considering their rhetoric they can also bear the consequences internationally.  Are you seriously saying that you do not believe that Iran is working toward the capability to produce a nuclear weapon?

I believe that they are working on technologies that parallel some of the technologies needed to use nuclear weapons, such as ballistic missiles, but I am almost certain, due to the fact that even their collective enemies who seem to be hell-bent on going to war with them believe the same and have stated publicly, that they do not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Iranian sanctions really come down to the UN Security Council rewriting International Law to suit their own agendas. They have basically told Iran that because they don't like what they are doing (not because they are doing anything illegal or wrong), they must pay the punishment. It's a disgusting abuse of power. And, personally, I can't wait until there are another two or three on the council. Say, Brazil and India and Germany? Possibly African and Arab representation as well? It's long overdue.

[and then]

ExpandMyMind, on 27 February 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

I believe that they are working on technologies that parallel some of the technologies needed to use nuclear weapons, such as ballistic missiles, but I am almost certain, due to the fact that even their collective enemies who seem to be hell-bent on going to war with them believe the same and have stated publicly, that they do not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Iranian sanctions really come down to the UN Security Council rewriting International Law to suit their own agendas. They have basically told Iran that because they don't like what they are doing (not because they are doing anything illegal or wrong), they must pay the punishment. It's a disgusting abuse of power. And, personally, I can't wait until there are another two or three on the council. Say, Brazil and India and Germany? Possibly African and Arab representation as well? It's long overdue.

My definition of a nuclear weapons "program" must differ from the norm then.  Simple man that I am, I figure if the fuel is being prepared and explosive tests seem to have been concealed then maybe electricity isn't the real goal.  I firmly believe that they have a weapon as their goal and they can play for time until they have built a degree of redundancy into their enrichment facilities and processes that guarantees any strike would be insufficient to stop them from assembling what they need when they want it.  I admit I have no proof.  If that invalidates my participation in discussions here then you'll excuse my refusal to leave - or not.

[Yamato]

It invalidates your opinion, not your participation.  Opinions should be based on evidence, not creative imagination or political desires.

[Ogbin]

Iran is obviously seeking nukes. Iran obviously hates Israel. Iran obviously is funding Hamas who's whole agenda is to destroy Israel. Not one muslim county likes Israel.
I beleive Iran is seeking nukes to destroy Israel and bring about their mahdi.

Edited by Ogbin, 27 February 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

Ogbin, on 27 February 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Iran is obviously seeking nukes. Iran obviously hates Israel. Iran obviously is funding Hamas who's whole agenda is to destroy Israel. Not one muslim county likes Israel.
I beleive Iran is seeking nukes to destroy Israel and bring about their mahdi.

You should read the post directly before yours, Ogbin. It's actually comical that your post came directly after his.

[Ogbin]

Really? There is a post before mine that states that the government Iran is trying to bring about their god? Uh... must of missed it..

Edited by Ogbin, 28 February 2013 - 02:14 AM.