Iran's cheating on nuke deal

[Only_]

43 minutes ago, and then said:

Characterize me however you like, everyone else here does.  You and others here refuse to admit there even might be a problem with a nuclear armed Islamo/Fascist state that repeatedly threatens the west and Israel specifically.  Yet you accuse ME of over reacting?  Selective outrage doesn't seem to cover it.  It borders on irrationality.  But hey, as long as a conservative can be blamed after the nuke detonates, life's good, right?  Unbelievable.

Didn't your learn anything from the 2003 Iraq fiasco? Intelligence can be fabricated, falsified or simply misinterpreted. It isn't 'proof' of anything. The last thing we need right now is a conflict with Iran, they are our unspoken ally in the fight against Daesh.

[Leonardo]

6 hours ago, and then said:

Don't be obtuse.  But hey, if denial is the best you can manage, carry on.

I'm not being obtuse, and then, I honestly have no idea what you were referring to.

Look, you think I'm so awesome I can remember what everybody/anybody said or thought a year ago - I get that and thanks! But the truth is - and I don't want to admit this because it may be too much of a shock to some people - I'm really not that awesome. So, you'll have to clarify what it is you said, or thought, a year ago that apparently I made come true.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Leonardo

[+Hammerclaw]

The members of the present administration are political hedonists. Anything they do which feels good IS good.

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The members of the present administration are political hedonists. Anything they do which feels good IS good.

Which would make Bush and Chenney, masters of the simple life... and pointless war.

[Lilly]

I've found that political extremes are generally bad. However, getting involved in very bad international agreements is bad across the board.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Which would make Bush and Chenney, masters of the simple life... and pointless war.

Wars with a point are the exception, not the rule.

[+Hammerclaw]

All a Third World country does when it develops nuclear weapons is to paint a nuclear bull's-eye on itself and render itself incapable of acting with even conventional forces outside it's own borders. If it did act against a major power, the military response will be to render the aggressor nuclear incapable by any means. If a Third World country were to exercise it's nuclear option it would be the last action it took as an independent nation-state for quite some time.

[Phaeton80]

On 5-8-2016 at 7:42 AM, and then said:

So Iran has no ambition to become a nuclear weapons state and German intelligence is faulty?  Sources for that? Otherwise this vid is just another political hatchet job for dimwits.

 

Not only does the BfV report refer to ballistic missile / dual use technology, and does not confirm any acquirements were actually effectuated after July, the German officials explicitly stress Iran is not necessarily in violation of last year’s nuclear accord based on these findings. Ofcourse, it is passionately latched onto by the usual suspects to call for further hostile action against the last of an impressive military sequence against 'uncooperative ME nations'.
 

Quote

The disclosures by the BfV will be welcomed by opponents of the nuclear deal, such as Israel, which says Iran cannot be trusted to give up its ambition of building an atomic bomb.

A more detailed assessment of Iran’s activities in Germany was contained in the annual report of the BfV in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state, which was published on Monday.

It said that counter-intelligence agents had recorded 141 attempts to acquire technology for “proliferation” purposes in 2015 — nearly twice as many as in the previous year. Two-thirds of these — or nearly 100 — were traced to Iranian entities.

But the report said Iran’s main focus was to procure parts for its missile programme, rather than for nuclear purposes. German officials have used that detail to stress that Iran is not necessarily in violation of last year’s nuclear accord.

“The agreement with Iran was about nuclear capabilities,” said one. “It has nothing to do with the ballistic missiles that Iran is in possession of.” Neither report gives a breakdown of how much of the 2015 activity took place before or after the summer deal, but

they make clear that some attempts to acquire equipment were made after July.

https://next.ft.com/content/9739d5c0-4449-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

 

Any individual who fails to recognize the geo political motives behind the focused demonisation of Iran - which was already promoted by 'strong leader' Netanyahu by way of claiming Iran approaching nuclear capability as early as the 90'ies - is either fooling him/herself, or has a dog in this race.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

All a Third World country does when it develops nuclear weapons is to paint a nuclear bull's-eye on itself and render itself incapable of acting with even conventional forces outside it's own borders. If it did act against a major power, the military response will be to render the aggressor nuclear incapable by any means. If a Third World country were to exercise it's nuclear option it would be the last action it took as an independent nation-state for quite some time.

Indeed.  And when Tehran's leaders begin acting like the Chinese and becoming demanding about say, passage of the straits, who do you imagine would go to war over that once they have their nuke?  

 

2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Not only does the BfV report refer to ballistic missile / dual use technology, and does not confirm any acquirements were actually effectuated after July, the German officials explicitly stress Iran is not necessarily in violation of last year’s nuclear accord based on these findings. Ofcourse, it is passionately latched onto by the usual suspects to call for further hostile action against the last of an impressive military sequence against 'uncooperative ME nations'.
 

 

Any individual who fails to recognize the geo political motives behind the focused demonisation of Iran - which was already promoted by 'strong leader' Netanyahu by way of claiming Iran approaching nuclear capability as early as the 90'ies - is either fooling him/herself, or has a dog in this race.

Which is YOUR dog, P80?  Since you consistently defend the Iranians in these discussions I have to assume you are a mullah fanboy.  I have real trouble believing that you actually think Iran has no nuclear weapons ambition.  I've never hidden my support of the state of Israel, I never will do.  An Iranian government that announces it's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a WORLD problem.  The fact that you found a German publication that raises some questions is hardly surprising considering the amount of cash at stake in this little game.  As I mentioned to Leo, I have always known that those who constantly act as defenders for Iran here on this issue will never admit, under any circumstance, that they were in error.  When they test, probably at some time of chaos in world events, there won't be a single one of you guys with the integrity to admit you were wrong.  You will transition effortlessly from denying the Iranians want a bomb to explaining why it's their right to have one.  For the record, I really don't care who has the Bomb.  Non proliferation failed when Pakistan tested.  The Genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back.  The ONLY reason Iran has been singled out in such a manner is that they have consistently acted globally as an agent of terror since 1979.  They have a history of boldly spreading their special flavor of fundamental Islamic evil over the region - with a goal of the wider world being next.  Once they join the club they become untouchable.  You KNOW this, as does everyone else here who shills for them.  I personally believe that the reason you're willing to overlook the danger to the globe is that you see some short term benefit in bringing "justice" to the Jewish state.  You point to a Jewish leader who has worked steadfastly to end this threat to HIS people and country as though it were itself, evil somehow.  You need not be concerned over America bombing Iran.  If Israel does it it will only be because they realize if they refrain a moment longer they will be attacked by nukes. As Hammerclaw points out, any nuclear state that actually uses them only does so once and they go dark after that.  He also knows that with such a shield over their military they can feel free to exercise their will far more aggressively in the region. You seem to be okay with that so long as the US and or Israel are the target. It's a foolish, shortsighted stance and you will come to regret it someday.  

 

[Only_]

And Then wants to go Biblical on Iran. His reasons to wage war on that country are NOT rational. It's mingled with prophecies and God's Kingdom on Earth (Israel). This is why people like him are not allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. It's too dangerous.

Edited August 6, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[Leonardo]

1 hour ago, and then said:

As I mentioned to Leo, I have always known that those who constantly act as defenders for Iran here on this issue will never admit, under any circumstance, that they were in error.

Is this what you meant when you obscurely referenced "something you thought a year ago" in a reply to one of my posts, and then?

If so, I can say with an absolutely clear conscience that I have never been a "defender of Iran". However, unlike some here I do not have any vested interest in attacking Iran.

If Iran has a nuclear program and develops a series of nuclear stations to replace or supplement their oil-dependence, then I say more power (pun intended) to them. So long as they comply with the IAEA and allow inspections, etc, I'm not going to let the hyperbolic rhetoric of chickenhawks sway me to the belief Iran is "an evil empire in the making".

Edited August 6, 2016 by Leonardo

[Lilly]

Well, how about looking at Iran and its stand on human rights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran

Restrictions and punishments in the Islamic Republic of Iran which violate international human rights norms include harsh penalties for crimes, punishment of "

victimless crimes" such as fornication and homosexuality, execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists and political cartoonists), and restrictions on freedom of religion and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion). Reported abuses falling outside of the laws of the Islamic Republic that have been condemned include the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes.^[10] Also condemned has been firebombings of newspaper offices and attacks on political protesters by "quasi-official organs of repression," particularly "Hezbollahi," and the murder of dozens of government opponents in the 1990s, allegedly by "rogue elements" of the government.

[Unusual Tournament]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Wars with a point are the exception, not the rule.

...and which of Bush and Chenney's wars would they be?

[Leonardo]

39 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Well, how about looking at Iran and its stand on human rights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran

Iran does have a poor record with regards human rights, Lilly - but so does Israel.

Yet whether either of those nations has a nuclear program is entirely unrelated to their record regarding human rights. I can condemn the latter without protesting they cannot have, or are not entitled to, the former.

[Phaeton80]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Well, how about looking at Iran and its stand on human rights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran

Restrictions and punishments in the Islamic Republic of Iran which violate international human rights norms include harsh penalties for crimes, punishment of "

victimless crimes" such as fornication and homosexuality, execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists and political cartoonists), and restrictions on freedom of religion and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion). Reported abuses falling outside of the laws of the Islamic Republic that have been condemned include the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes.^[10] Also condemned has been firebombings of newspaper offices and attacks on political protesters by "quasi-official organs of repression," particularly "Hezbollahi," and the murder of dozens of government opponents in the 1990s, allegedly by "rogue elements" of the government.

 

 

Right right. And the USA, for example, does not fill their prisons with purpetrators of victimless crimes (ie. cannabis use). It does not sentence innocent (mainly black) individuals to death, does not limit the right on freedom of speech / protest, it does not act vehemently agressive towards whistleblowers, it does not sentence / execute people (including but not limited to US nationals) without due process.. or none of that Middle Eastern backwardness. We good, they bad. Oorah!

[Lilly]

Well, I'm not wearing a burka, my friend's gay son is free to be who he is, there are many different religions around here, local Native Americans protested last Thanksgiving, no one I know has been sent to prison without a lawyer and a trial ...I could go on. Oh yeah, America is just like Iran (insert extreme sarcasm). 

[Phaeton80]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Indeed.  And when Tehran's leaders begin acting like the Chinese and becoming demanding about say, passage of the straits, who do you imagine would go to war over that once they have their nuke?  

 

Which is YOUR dog, P80?  Since you consistently defend the Iranians in these discussions I have to assume you are a mullah fanboy.  I have real trouble believing that you actually think Iran has no nuclear weapons ambition.  I've never hidden my support of the state of Israel, I never will do.  An Iranian government that announces it's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a WORLD problem (A).  The fact that you found a German publication that raises some questions is hardly surprising considering the amount of cash at stake in this little game.  As I mentioned to Leo, I have always known that those who constantly act as defenders for Iran here on this issue will never admit, under any circumstance, that they were in error.  When they test, probably at some time of chaos in world events, there won't be a single one of you guys with the integrity to admit you were wrong.  You will transition effortlessly from denying the Iranians want a bomb to explaining why it's their right to have one.  For the record, I really don't care who has the Bomb.  Non proliferation failed when Pakistan tested.  The Genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back.  The ONLY reason Iran has been singled out in such a manner is that they have consistently acted globally as an agent of terror since 1979 (B).  They have a history of boldly spreading their special flavor of fundamental Islamic evil over the region - with a goal of the wider world being next.  Once they join the club they become untouchable.  You KNOW this, as does everyone else here who shills for them.  I personally believe that the reason you're willing to overlook the danger to the globe is that you see some short term benefit in bringing "justice" to the Jewish state.  You point to a Jewish leader who has worked steadfastly to end this threat to HIS people and country as though it were itself, evil somehow.  You need not be concerned over America bombing Iran.  If Israel does it it will only be because they realize if they refrain a moment longer they will be attacked by nukes. As Hammerclaw points out, any nuclear state that actually uses them only does so once and they go dark after that.  He also knows that with such a shield over their military they can feel free to exercise their will far more aggressively in the region. You seem to be okay with that so long as the US and or Israel are the target. It's a foolish, shortsighted stance and you will come to regret it someday.  

 

 

(A) Well sir I know its excessively inconvenient, but Im afraid facts tell a different story, especially in light of the full spectrum of nuclear capable nations. Iran hasnt attacked another nation in centuries. Netanyahu has been crying Wolf about Iran acquiring nukes since the early 90'ies. It was politically motivated scaremongering then, and the chances are unimaginably large it is mainly politically motivated scaremongering now. Nothing new under the sun. Furthermore, the present Iranian orthodox theocratic leadership was facilitated to a large extent by US/GB led operation Ajax (one of the first, but certainly not last regime change policies employed enmasse, throughout the world, by the USA), overthrowing Iran's democracy in 1953, which set the stage for the present orthodox regime.

The USA also aided Iraq in her attack against Iran in the 80'ies, providing Iraq with weaponry (including chemical warfare assets that were used against Iranians). Which (chemical weapons), comically, was the very reason that was forwarded to invade Iraq in 2002. For the past decade, the United States has labeled Iran an evil nation, attacked and destroyed the other non-nuclear nation on the list of evil nations, designated part of Iran’s military a terrorist organization, falsely accused Iran of crimes including the attacks of 9-11, murdered Iranian scientists, funded opposition groups in Iran (including some the U.S. also designates as terrorist), flown drones over Iran, openly and illegally threatened to attack Iran, and built up military forces all around Iran’s borders, while imposing cruel sanctions on the country.

Another area of ongoing lie debunking, one that almost exactly parallels the buildup to the 2003 attack on Iraq, is the relentless false claim, including by candidates for U.S. President, that Iran has not allowed inspectors into its country or given them access to its sites. Iran has, in fact, voluntarily accepted stricter standards than the IAEA requires. And of course a separate line of propaganda, albeit a contradictory one, holds that the IAEA has discovered a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran was not required to declare all of its installations, and early last decade it chose not to, as the United States violated that same treaty by blocking Germany, China, and others from providing nuclear energy equipment to Iran. While Iran remains in compliance with the NPT, India and Pakistan and Israel have not signed it and North Korea has withdrawn from it, while the United States and other nuclear powers continuously violate it by failing to reduce arms, by providing arms to other countries such as India, and by developing new nuclear weapons.

(B) I think most of the world would disagree, evenmore; would implicate the USA as the source of global terror since the second part of the 20th century. Which would be factually much more correct than your statement, all bias aside.

 

(Edit: However you would like to push me in the Iran fan corner, I am not a supporter of Iran. Not in the slightest, I think it a repressive, fascist regime. This does not mean however, I need to abide by your slanted, simplistic, prophetic/zealot world view; where you divide the world in 'the good' & 'the bad'. Structurally rationalizing and or ignoring the evil coming from 'your side', while passionately latching onto any and every opportunity to demonise, in this instance, the last of the 'Axis of Evil' nations.. part of 'the others, the bad, the evil', desperately hoping for yet another 'military intervention', Christian.)

Edited August 6, 2016 by Phaeton80

[+and-then]

40 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Well, I'm not wearing a burka, my friend's gay son is free to be who he is, there are many different religions around here, local Native Americans protested last Thanksgiving, no one I know has been sent to prison without a lawyer and a trial ...I could go on. Oh yeah, America is just like Iran (insert extreme sarcasm). 

The thing that sickens me at times is that they say it with a straight face and act like the two really are equivalent.  As far as I'm concerned anyone who supports Iran in this issue is an enemy of my country - INCLUDING my current president.

[+and-then]

43 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Iran hasnt attacked another nation in centuries.

• That's a straight up LIE.  They've killed US Marines in Lebanon and other military personnel in Iraq.  I hear that little gem from time to time and it just shows how much a shill the purveyor is.  If I train, pay and provide weapons for a murderer then I AM a murderer.  

[SHaYap]

Indeed you are ...

~

 

~

Operation Boot / TPAJAX Project

Quote

Washington, D.C., November 29, 2000 – The CIA history of operation TPAJAX excerpted below was first disclosed by James Risen of The New York Times in its editions of April 16 and June 18, 2000

• nsa archive gwu edu link

~

The Iran Documentation Project - Malcolm Byrne, Project Director -

~

[Lilly]

The US certainly isn't innocent of international intrigue...not even by a long shot. However, when it comes to basic human rights the US certainly scores better than Iran.

[SHaYap]

Are we keeping tabs on who has more blood on which hand ?

~

[Lilly]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Are we keeping tabs on who has more blood on which hand ?

~

I'd say there's plenty of blood and/or suffering to go around for everyone. Take look here: http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-revolution-by-numbers/25260205.html

[SHaYap]

Just now, Lilly said:

I'd say there's plenty of blood and/or suffering to go around for everyone. Take look here: http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-revolution-by-numbers/25260205.html

"By the rivers of Babylon .... "

~

[+and-then]

The sign of large numbers of educated young women is a hopeful one.  There is a direct correlation to declining birth rates as the female population in Islamic states become more educated - just as there is in the rest of the world.  The young people who exist in that culture are voting with their fertility - or lack thereof.  Who can blame them?