Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
and then

Iranian Cooperation with IAEA

26 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would Iran sell so called 'dirty bombs' to terrorist factions.The small cheap bag sized nuclear bombs you used to hear about. they might set these things off anywhere. If they supported terrorism in the past then why not now and in the future? Can any of us take the risk to let them continue their nuclear program. They live in a desert type are. why not solar power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel has supported many forms of terrorism as well, especially their own government's. Do you also feel that they would give one to a terrorist? Then why do you feel Iran would be so stupid?

I say 'stupid' because any such bomb would have a unique radiological signature, leading investigaters right back tothe original source. The nation of Iran would be committing collective suicide as effectively as if they had dropped a bomb themselves.

This is all empty conjecture anyways, as it has been confirmed countless times that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and have not made the decision to do so in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Excellent points and excellent analogy, Sam. Perfect analogy in truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel has supported many forms of terrorism as well, especially their own government's. Do you also feel that they would give one to a terrorist? Then why do you feel Iran would be so stupid?

I say 'stupid' because any such bomb would have a unique radiological signature, leading investigaters right back tothe original source. The nation of Iran would be committing collective suicide as effectively as if they had dropped a bomb themselves.

This is all empty conjecture anyways, as it has been confirmed countless times that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and have not made the decision to do so in the future.

I thought people could make nuclear enriched uranium (or whatever) the same for energy as you would for weapons to a certain point, then swap over. Not only that, you can use any radioactive material to blow up in a conventional bomb to infect an area with radioactive dust.

So inspectors in the past may have only seen nuclear stuff being created but they would have no idea what it's final use would have been.

I don't see the hardship of letting inspectors in again. Also, to ask again, why does Iran not pursue solar or wind powered energy why does it have to be nuclear?

Is there an un-biased read anywhere you can point me to about Iran and terrorism in the past. As some people say they are/were terrorist supporters and some say not.

I feel I have a massive gap of knowledge about the whole thing but unfortunately the news appears to be one sided from what some people are saying.

My belief (not really founded on much) is that one day they will turn round and announce they have nuclear missiles. Then what? Will the middle east be safer, like in a cold war stand off kind of way or just a massive disaster waiting to happen.

I doubt Israel will sleep ever again knowing Iran has WMD. This is why logically looking at what has been represented so far, to completely destroy all of Irans nuclear facilities would make sense. In fact, from certain points of view the Iranians should never have been allowed to finish the reactor in the first place. If it was stopped (blown up) in the first place then they may have tried again but it could have been stopped again. Then if Iran were serious about energy they would have maybe followed a solar or wind powered route.

How about if Israel or America offer to 'buy' all of the Iranian nuclear program in its entirety (then dismantle it) and to fund and help with a massive world leading project into solar power based in Iran? Then we would have peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the thread about Panetta on this forum. In particular, read the lengthy Huffington Post article. It is by far the most extensive and informative article regarding the subject that I have read this year. It will clear up a lot of your views. And, unlike and then, I actually think that you will read it, for it seems to me you are interested in learning the facts and truth.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought people could make nuclear enriched uranium (or whatever) the same for energy as you would for weapons to a certain point, then swap over. Not only that, you can use any radioactive material to blow up in a conventional bomb to infect an area with radioactive dust.

So inspectors in the past may have only seen nuclear stuff being created but they would have no idea what it's final use would have been.

I don't see the hardship of letting inspectors in again. Also, to ask again, why does Iran not pursue solar or wind powered energy why does it have to be nuclear?

Is there an un-biased read anywhere you can point me to about Iran and terrorism in the past. As some people say they are/were terrorist supporters and some say not.

I feel I have a massive gap of knowledge about the whole thing but unfortunately the news appears to be one sided from what some people are saying.

My belief (not really founded on much) is that one day they will turn round and announce they have nuclear missiles. Then what? Will the middle east be safer, like in a cold war stand off kind of way or just a massive disaster waiting to happen.

I doubt Israel will sleep ever again knowing Iran has WMD. This is why logically looking at what has been represented so far, to completely destroy all of Irans nuclear facilities would make sense. In fact, from certain points of view the Iranians should never have been allowed to finish the reactor in the first place. If it was stopped (blown up) in the first place then they may have tried again but it could have been stopped again. Then if Iran were serious about energy they would have maybe followed a solar or wind powered route.

How about if Israel or America offer to 'buy' all of the Iranian nuclear program in its entirety (then dismantle it) and to fund and help with a massive world leading project into solar power based in Iran? Then we would have peace.

All good points IMO. But the fact that they are playing so tough and pushing relentlessly even though they are being badly harmed by sanctions is exactly because they are working on a weapon. Only a liar or a fool would deny that at this point. And unless stopped they probably will test a bomb in the next year or two. Though, they don't really have to test. A gun type fission bomb like Little Boy is of such a simple design it is sure to work. Proof positive of their intentions to build a bomb is the military research center at Parchin. They've built a containment vessel used only for high explosives testing and refuse to let inspectors look at it or the testing done in it. They're sitting on one of the largest pools of oil on earth so saying they need nuclear energy is a joke. They've resisted every attempt to be boxed into a nuclear program that could only be used for energy production. Unless the events in Syria beat them to the draw this intransigence on their part will lead to a regional war in one of the most critical and currently unstable regions on earth. Yet they can't be bothered with simple inspections by an international body - nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Israel will sleep ever again knowing Iran has WMD.

What makes you think Iran and the rest of the middle east is sleeping well knowing that ISRAEL has WMD?!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think Iran and the rest of the middle east is sleeping well knowing that ISRAEL has WMD?!!!

If they were afraid of Israel using WMD they would be a bit more circumspect with their own constant threats against the Jewish State. But they prattle on freely because they know Israel is rational and will not use them except as a last resort. They've had about 40 years to see the evidence of such. If they are uneasy it's just because they know they cannot realize the sick dream of genocide they nurture.

An Iranian bomb, ironically, will have the rest of them up nights. So much so that SA has already decided to buy, then build one of their own as soon as Iran tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were afraid of Israel using WMD they would be a bit more circumspect with their own constant threats against the Jewish State. But they prattle on freely because they know Israel is rational and will not use them except as a last resort. They've had about 40 years to see the evidence of such. If they are uneasy it's just because they know they cannot realize the sick dream of genocide they nurture.

An Iranian bomb, ironically, will have the rest of them up nights. So much so that SA has already decided to buy, then build one of their own as soon as Iran tests.

really now? the same South Africa that already Once dismantled its nuclear facilities? the same South Africa that was "helped" by Israel to attain their nukes in the first place? changed their minds so much after 30 years have they? unless SA stands for something else of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really now? the same South Africa that already Once dismantled its nuclear facilities? the same South Africa that was "helped" by Israel to attain their nukes in the first place? changed their minds so much after 30 years have they? unless SA stands for something else of course.

Actually...it was Saudi Arabia. And it's pretty common knowledge for a couple of weeks now that they have stated they will buy(from their client State Pakistan)a bomb to tide them over until they can get a program up and running. I see you don't refute my points, just look to pounce on what appears to be a mistake. That's kind of a childish attitude to bring to a discussion forum. Unless your objective is to deride and demean others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.