First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Iran’s Nuclear Ambition
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:


blancer wrote:

Azera is right. I am not saying that everything that is happening in Iran is good, but worst things are or were happening in other countries as well, but americans are interested only in middle east. And I still think that no one has right to meddle in other countries affairs, that is how all this started. Maybe it is time for west to start learning on their mistakes.

OK, little example: At the moment EU does not have capital punishment, and US does. On that preamble, I can say that americans are inhumane and that they are killing people, and some of them are killed innocent, etc. So, EU has every right to attack US to bring justice and democracy back to that once glorious nation.
This sounds stupid, but that is what is going on in middle east. West is trying to change other countries to their liking. What of cultural differences, what of religious rights. Who can guarantee that US is not going to attack my country tomorrow for some stupid reason? Live and let live. West has, at this moment, far to many problems of their own. And damn those americans, because where do you think all those refugees are going? To EU of course, where they are in some countries (Belgium for example) responsible for 80 % of crimes. But now I am just whining.


Azera is only right because he buries his head in the sand. But for you to agree with him by looking for an excuse, you went a step further by making things up as you go. You'll make a fine Iranian president yet.

To avoid a global nuclear genocide without US getting involved in another war, negotiations for a peaceful nuclear program with Iran is the only solution. If you want to dissolve globalization, then at least do so by raising your own resistance in front of the UN General Assembly.


Azera is right when US doesn't have any rights to interfere other country affair, moreover attacking them just because of false accusation. That's why Iran has been cooperating with IAEA and offering talks with US government last year in New York and Washington. Also Ahmadinejad intended to visit 'Ground Zero' to commemorate the victims of 9/11. Thus rejected with no reason.

Sadly, US government seems don't have any intention to talk with Iran while the president itself already visited US. Where's the manner from US government? (Well, it's under Bush government. So we've figured out much)
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09 , edited 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:


blancer wrote:
So what you are saying is that US is acting as mediator between Israel and Iran? Well, that could be possible, but I think they are pretty biased for that. But politics are changing as the wind blows, so...
As for making things up as I go, just say what it is, and I will give facts in spoiler, since this will get really off topic.


Safe your effort. because as much as you want to win this argument, the moment that you so desperately try to prove me otherwise, you just want to see a war. And that's not what I want to see, which is why I'm on the other side of the argument.

BTW, that's how you properly polarize the argument by drawing a line in the sand.


See a war? I think when this childish statement keep going on and on, it'll become another war in middle-east. Afghanistan, Iraq and next? Iran. It has been proven their decision to interfered and attacking those countries were the worst decision ever by US government. As people from both sides are suffering until now and live in everyday bombing events. Also, US soldiers are violating human rights in those countries in Bagram and Abu Ghraib prisons.

That's why, why people in other side of argument? Because this is their government or because US is their allies to their country or because of prejudiced and hatred towards Middle-Eastern and their ideology? Why they simply can't form trust in their agreement where the other side already and always been offering talks when they were visiting New York?
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09


DomFortress wrote:
,



DomFortress wrote:
just like a certain "Jewish-majority country" called Israel. Which is why the US, "a nation that promotes peace, human rights and democracy", will be negotiating with Iran
about the reason why Iran was hiding their nuclear enrichment site. So that Israel won't nuke Iran simply because Iran failed to comply with NPT by them withholding the detail about their nuclear program from IAEA.



the quotes try to playing around with me...
=====
Ryutai-Desk wrote:

I've read your links and no proof that Iran were hiding their nuclear site. You do know Iran had informed IAEA 18 months before they operating the new facility, right?

And Ahmadinejad said the new facility won't be operational for 18 months so Iran has not violated any requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Maybe it's true that they didn't informed IAEA when they build the new plant but they did told IAEA they've made a new one even before they operating it, right? What it matters is the time when they use the facility not the time when they build it.


Ali Akbar Salehi made the remarks in an exclusive interview with Press TV late on Monday.

"Iran has taken all the precautionary steps to safeguard its nuclear facilities," Salehi was quoted as saying, adding that the plant is under construction within the framework of the IAEA regulations.

He said Iran has informed the IAEA that the new plant will produce enriched uranium of up to 5 percent.

Salehi accused some countries of politicizing Iran's nuclear activities, saying that Iran will try to resolve the issue both politically and technically with six major countries including Russia, Britain, France, the United States, China and Germany, and also the IAEA.

He also reiterated that Iran has no intention to make nuclear weapons and that its atomic drive is only aimed at peaceful purposes.

"It is against our tenets. It is against our religion to produce, use, hold or have nuclear weapons or arsenal. How can we more clearly state our position? since 1974 we have been saying this," he told Press TV.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/29/content_12127265.htm


Click the picture.

Btw, I didn't know that inside Nuclear facility is kinda... confusing with those spiral...lol
Well, with this photo it's the proof Iran do not hide anything from IAEA and the world, of course if they're willing to seek deeper which is sadly, they just bluntly accuse them.

u
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:

.Wasn't it wrong that the Iranian government deliberately conceived about their current nuclear program for the second time while they're still under the agreement of NPT? Wasn't it wrong for the Israelis to be publicly alarmed about the current Iranian presidency due to his politics toward the people of Israel?

.Wasn't it wrong for the US to negotiate with Iran about the current Iranian nuclear program due to the current US alliance with Israel, while the US is currently serving as a member state of the UN Security Council per agreement of NPT? Wasn't it wrong for the current Iranian presidency to use his political status to isolate Iran, when the Iranian presidential election was skewed in favor of the current Iranian presidency due to no small part of the current Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni?

Our history can taught us lessons about ourselves. But if you're using history as an excuse for you to claim that things will never change about us, then you've learned nothing.


Of course not, that's why Iran has been cooperating with IAEA under NPT, while Israel not.
You should read deeper into NPT and their 3 pillars


Of course, that's what Iran seeks from long time ago. But where is the US government respond when Iranian president visited US last year? Also US's allies is not accomplish anything to International Agency due their nuclear programs.

Iran stated something like "Emergency Status' that's why before the government can stabilize the situations and conditions in Iran, they weren't allowed anyone from other countries interfere with their affair. Which is the duty of government to protect their country by raging demonstrator just because they lost the election.

History taught us lessons about humanity's mistake. But if you're using history as an excuse to attack and having negative sentiments to certain people, then you've spread hatred.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:


drizza wrote:

Wow I have been so inactive and this thread is still thriving I thought me and Ryu shut down the competition. As I am reading I am still seeing name calling, false information with absolutely no proof what so ever.

@Chthulhu it is for energy as far as facts go but the neo cons, Israel and the USA is making blank statements back by nothing that it is nuclear. They using the same tactic like they did with Iraq. Hopefully Obama doesnt fall into this trap but who knows everything he promised has not came true. He changed nothing regarding our economy or change in the middle east. The man has no backbone especially when it comes to Israel but if you think about it what president had a backbone when it came to Israel?

If there is a war it would be from the USA or Israel not Iran I can gaurentee that 100%. If look at the past which countries are the ones occupying and bombing other countries in that region. Thats right Israel and the USA. Which countries is threatning to bomb other countries in that region? Thats right Israel and the USA so Iran has every right to obtain a nuclear weapon if they wanted to due to nuclear threats coming from these nations.

Then the Iranian can just further isolate themselves, by them withdrawing their agreement from NPT. That way the US won't even have to be negotiating with Iran because the Iranians don't trust the US nor Israel, just like you've suggested throughout history.

But you know what? Up 'til this day, the Iranians are still obligated under their NPT agreements which they did signed since 1968. So just what are these empty threats that you're talking about?

And If you want the UN Security Council to deal with Israel, sure! When you can think of a way to get Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea to agree with the NPT, you let them know about it.


Well, it's obviously you haven't read the NPT Treaty fully yet.
And its 3 pillars as well, also the history why India had the nuclear weapon, also to Israel and Pakistan.


DomFortress wrote:

And just what's so secret about http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ the Israeli nuclear program? When they honestly never signed the NPT back in 1968. Which is why IAEA never bothered with Israel because they were clear about their nuclear program intention and thus, did not agree with the NPT.


Well, NPT was created because of Nuclear Weapon uproar in WW2 and its destructive power which is really inhuman. I've already said this in page 2 why Israel, India and Pakistan have to signed the treaty when they possess the nuclear weapon to ensure the 3 pillars in NPT in order to get peace. That's why those 3 countries should've been put under sanctions like North Korea for not sign the treaty.

We know, all countries, either they have it or not, have to sign the treaty due to paranoia that nuclear being misuse after war period. However the 5 countries which they already had the nuclear weapon can keep their nuclear weapons but they have to follow the international laws and follows the procedure from IAEA.

Well, many politics involve regarding this. that's why many countries that had been signed the treaty did not satisfy with NPT yet. Because it's injustice.


10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

digs wrote:

I see some saying "if Israel doesn't Iran doesn't." the truth is that Israel is not bound by the treaty, Iran is. The truth is that Israel is not making nuclear threats and is seeking peace, the aren't the aggressors. Israel needs nuclear weapons for self defensive purposes, the Arab league and Arab nations have shamefully attacked them and caused wars on many occasions. They need protection from countries like Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc... Regardless, Israel has nothing to due with this issue as they play no part in what Iran is doing. You can't point to them as an excuse because it is a completely different issue under completely different treaties and laws. What we have before us is Iran, not "well Israel has them, so that means we deserve them too." Israel is irrelevant when it comes to Iran possessing nukes and it's an irrelevant excuse to bring Israel's possession of nukes into the discussion.

On the flip side... Iran has lied about their facilities, they call for the destruction of Israel, they are a theocratic regime with an apocalyptic goal, they are trying to enrich more uranium than would be necessary for power (which suggests weapons). And iran repeatedly lies to the international community while making militant gestures against the nation of Israel that they refuse to acknowledge as a nation. Israel has every right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities because it is their duty to protect their citizens from harm. Iran is a national threat to Israel and any logical world power would do the same to defend themselves from a nuclear war. Ahmedinejad is crafty with his lies and manipulation like Hitler was... let's learn from history and not let this happen again.


From 2nd page.


Ryutai-Desk wrote: lol
the NPT created because of non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology rules that has to be followed by its member. By not signing the NPT, they abused the international treaty and not cooperate with international laws as they possessed Nuclear weapon. Israel, India and Pakistan should be put sanctions instead for not reach the agreement.

As the NPT says "Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): China, France, Russian, the UK and the US
Therefore, NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. That makes Iran not violated NPT unlike Israel.

Those who possessed Nuclear Weapon must sign the treaty in order to accept safeguards by IAEA and to be clarified as a peaceful country. Very contradict with Pakistan, India and Israel which are in the war zone between their own neighbor. It's also funny that US was the one who given Nuclear technology to Pakistan, knowing they are in war with terrorist and having bad relations with India, not signed the treaty and also can be a threat to the world like North Korea.

I think you should read all 3 pillars of NPT for further discussion.


They did not lie. In fact, they've informed IAEA 18 months before they operating its facility.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/89737/ahmadinejad-iran-informed-iaea-18-months-before-operating-new-facility.html
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:

This debate was about the Iranian nuclear program and was never about an nuclear weapon, as stated by the original topic starter by SeraphAlford. He also left backgrounds and references to support his view that:

Personally, I think Iran’s just asking for trouble. The last time they attempted to produce nuclear weapons Israel preemptively bombed them and pretty much said, “And we’ll do it again.” The Iranians feel that Israel and the United States are robbing them of their right to use nuclear power which would allow them to power their cities without using oil-which they prefer to trade abroad.
Now tell me, did he ever personally claimed that Iran has a nuclear weapon?

And now I ask:
Were the two incidents that Iranians had failed to comply with their NPT agreement happened during president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration? Was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got reelected this year for his ultra conservative campaign policies that led to those two failures of NPT compliance? Were those ultra conservative campaign policies had anything to do with the nation of Israeli because they talked about holocaust denials for 4 years and counting?

And finally, just what has any of that got to do with the fact that while during the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration, the president irresponsibly hid the Iranian nuclear program for 18 years until 2002, and tried to conceal an Iranian nuclear site in 2009? Even though Iran weren't suppose to do so, due to the fact that they signed and agreed with the NPT back in 1968. Could it be that the majority of the Iranians wanted a deliberately deceiving and conceiving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' as a president? When he denied the holocaust and never said anything about the fact that he tried to conceal an entire Iranian nuclear site from IAEA during the UN General assembly. If he was indeed building a nuclear facility for energy purpose, then why he gone through the trouble of concealing it in the first place? He could let the IAEA know ahead of time, even before the US intelligence found out about them concealing the site.


I'd like to the source that Iran had failed to comply with NPT. Then, I will analyze it and explain it to you.



Ryutai-Desk wrote:

As their statement to not having Nuclear arms and cooperation to IAEA for years (Unlike Israel, which world widely believed having such weapon) made me believe they actually use same strategy like they used in Holocaust. I think, they also accepted Holocaust as true events that actually happened as we, muslims around the world also accept Holocaust as inhuman tragedy and sad because innocent Jews being murdered and killed by certain mustache person.

If you and those leaders noticed, Iran has been using Psychological Warfare to maintain its influence and security for the sake of Iranian people. Denying Holocaust and test firing missiles designed to hit Israel are pretty much Psychological Warfare, which is common in higher state of foreign relation of countries. I laughed when Israel president brought a list and teary story about the victims of Holocaust, I mean mustache person. He doesn't understand behind the meaning of Iran's statement. You could see his video of interview in US by Larry King, Democracy Now and many interview when they asked about Holocaust. I mean, of course we are sad of Jews being murdered blindly but is that a reason to occupying Gaza and abusing Palestinian people? Israel are not even the real Jews we admired

Physiological Warfare is one of politician toy, either in State, Parliament or in foreign relations. It is common sight we always seen. Remember Biological Weapon? Know so-called 'Axis of Evil'? Even Hugo Chavez made a joke in UN previous meeting when he said "Now we have fresher air here" (Referring to Bush which is being called Devil itself) and made UN members chuckled when he says it. When you already in politics area, you will know further about weaponry in politics. Propaganda, accusing are common.

However, Iran had been cooperate with IAEA, undeniable fact. We all know, unlike Israel.

.

10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09
Gone for a while and this thread still alive. Well, let's get start crackin'

Some fact, old fact.






source in pictures.

Owning 1 page btw, oh wait...
Posted 10/12/09 , edited 10/12/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

DomFortress wrote:
I know you're smarter than that, so don't let yourself be deceived by those who lack ethics.

Maybe so, because I didn't pay attention and could care less about media ethics wherever they have sources and wrote the news without removing the original content. After all, an information always based from another information gathered together. That's what it called Associated Press (AP)

As far as I know, there's no problem with the sources here.

Yes there is, in a sense that your sources were misleading when they separated and deviated their original source in order to deceive their readers. That's the first sign that they too don't even trust their own sources. And when a news source lacks trust, they are lying.

And if you don't even put passion into what really matters to you, then what's to say that you ever truly cared? My father taught me the importance of journalism ethics because both he and I care about the world that we're in. When we even self-taught ourselves about the world after we're out from school.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
37029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


digs wrote:

No offense (and I'm not acting on anger, I respect you) but please stop saying all my opinions are propaganda and bias against Iran. Please address the content so we can adequately discuss. I supported my opinions with proof that can't be ignored. If I must go into my personal life I will. When I was younger my babysitter was an Iranian Muslim woman who fled the country (I believe during the Islamic revolution because she was a Sunni). I would stay at her house and she would babysit us. I don't hate Iran and I don't hate the Iranian people. I believe my opinion because I see the facts that Iran is racist towards Israel, they do oppress religious minorities and fellow Muslims. Ahmedinejad says Israel has no right to exist, and his beliefs are Jihadist and extremist in nature. Iran repeatedly lies to the UN and the international community. They should never have nuclear weapons, the world is being too soft on them just like they were with Hitler.


Of course, that's what we called discussion. We all respecting each other's opinion, questioning and seeks the truth from any singles of us. Thus, we gained knowledge through it. However, when we looked again to your statement few pages back. You said something like, "Ahmadinejad is crazy, he is nut case, Iran is a world problem. Moreover saying President from another country 'crazy terrorist' when he freely walked around in New York with intention to talk with US government (which is being turned down by US government with no reason)'"in page 3 and saying Iranian people other than muslim doesn't have freedom to practice their belief which is totally results of biased media and prejudiced that you took literally from it. You know, there are Jews in Iran, right? (I know, same to Israel. There are Arabs in there). And also in Israel-Palestine thread. you also posted something like "All Middle-Eastern are racist".

Okay, no offense, after all we're entitled to our opinions. But, Anyone who've seen your posts condemning people in different countries would most likely assume that you're being biased and thus have bad prejudice towards people in Middle East. Well, no offense to you. I see what my eyes told me, so no offense. As saying goes "Your (biased)opinion doesn't matter"


I never said that all Middle Eastern people are racist in any thread. If anything you may be referring to some stats I posted about how much of the Arab world and nations have been at war with Israel and deny their existence because they are a Jewish state. My opinion is that Ahmedinejad is a crazy terrorist because that is what his rhetoric says. Hitler was crazy and he was a terrorist as well, but he still attended international meetings and had diplomatic relations with other nations. Judging my Ahmedinejad's holocaust denial and his anti-Israeli rhetoric I believe that he is crazy (mainly for his holocaust denial and extremist form of Islam).

I have posted sources as to how non Shia Muslims in Iran has less freedom and are oppressed by the government. The Jewish population in Iran has dramatically shrunk and continues to shrink. In 1948 there were about 100,000 Jews, in 1979 right before the Islamic revolution there were about 80,000 Jews, in 2004 there was about 25,000 Jews in the country. They aren't shrinking and leaving because Iran is such a happy and free place to be. The government regulates all religions and all religions must report to Islamic leaders who decide how they may practice their faith and how they may be allowed to conduct religious services (like churches, synagogues, temples, etc.) They aren't allowed to disagree openly with Islam because this is "blasphemy of the prophet" and is a law punishable by death. It is illegal for any other religion to print materials in Iran (churches can't even print bulletins). All religious buildings must be approved and regulated by the Islamic government. It is somewhat like a religious dictatorship. Although they tolerate it to a small extent, it is still controlled and oppressed. Even fellow Muslims of other branches (like the Sunni) are controlled and discriminated against. Not just religiously, but also politically (just look at what happened in June with the presidential elections in Iran).

My view of the Middle East is that I support the nation of Israel and I support an independent Palestine. However, I view the Arab league and being anti-semitic and biased against Israel for whatever reasons (whether they be political, religious, racial, etc...) Hardly any of the nations in the Middle East recognize Israel as a country, and many others won't allow Israeli citizens into their country purely based on the fact that they come from Israel. Even people who have a visa in their passport from Israel are barred entry. Each nation is different, but in the case of Iran it is an extreme display of anti-semitism and anti-Jew. He supports the destruction of Israel, he believes that a Jewish state has no right in the Middle East (his view is that the Middle East must be Muslim only) and he also believes that in order to bring about an armageddon of the infidels (all non Shia Muslims) America (great satan) and Israel (little satan) must be destroyed in order to awaken the 12th imam who will then proceed to the genocide of nations. Ahmedinejad holds that he was divinely appointed to his position in order to bring about this fate... Iran lies about their program, they make threats against Israel, and they are oppressive of human rights. They can't be trusted with nukes and this is why I believe what I believe.
Posted 10/12/09 , edited 10/12/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
Azera is right when US doesn't have any rights to interfere other country affair, moreover attacking them just because of false accusation. That's why Iran has been cooperating with IAEA and offering talks with US government last year in New York and Washington. Also Ahmadinejad intended to visit 'Ground Zero' to commemorate the victims of 9/11. Thus rejected with no reason.

Sadly, US government seems don't have any intention to talk with Iran while the president itself already visited US. Where's the manner from US government? (Well, it's under Bush government. So we've figured out much)


So is this happening to Iran, now that the US is under Obama administration? When there's indeed a negotiation offered by the US Secretary of State William Burns to Iran about the Iranian nuclear program for peaceful purpose, which took place during the Bush administration in July of 2008.


Ryutai-Desk wrote:
See a war? I think when this childish statement keep going on and on, it'll become another war in middle-east. Afghanistan, Iraq and next? Iran. It has been proven their decision to interfered and attacking those countries were the worst decision ever by US government. As people from both sides are suffering until now and live in everyday bombing events. Also, US soldiers are violating human rights in those countries in Bagram and Abu Ghraib prisons.

That's why, why people in other side of argument? Because this is their government or because US is their allies to their country or because of prejudiced and hatred towards Middle-Eastern and their ideology? Why they simply can't form trust in their agreement where the other side already and always been offering talks when they were visiting New York?

Which is why now with the Obama administration, the US will let the Middle-Eastern nations themselves to decide if they want US troops to continue occupying those said nations. That's the line in the sand that the US has drawn for themselves.


Ryutai-Desk wrote:
I've read your links and no proof that Iran were hiding their nuclear site. You do know Iran had informed IAEA 18 months before they operating the new facility, right?

And Ahmadinejad said the new facility won't be operational for 18 months so Iran has not violated any requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Maybe it's true that they didn't informed IAEA when they build the new plant but they did told IAEA they've made a new one even before they operating it, right? What it matters is the time when they use the facility not the time when they build it.


Ali Akbar Salehi made the remarks in an exclusive interview with Press TV late on Monday.

"Iran has taken all the precautionary steps to safeguard its nuclear facilities," Salehi was quoted as saying, adding that the plant is under construction within the framework of the IAEA regulations.

He said Iran has informed the IAEA that the new plant will produce enriched uranium of up to 5 percent.

Salehi accused some countries of politicizing Iran's nuclear activities, saying that Iran will try to resolve the issue both politically and technically with six major countries including Russia, Britain, France, the United States, China and Germany, and also the IAEA.

He also reiterated that Iran has no intention to make nuclear weapons and that its atomic drive is only aimed at peaceful purposes.

"It is against our tenets. It is against our religion to produce, use, hold or have nuclear weapons or arsenal. How can we more clearly state our position? since 1974 we have been saying this," he told Press TV.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/29/content_12127265.htm


Click the picture.

Btw, I didn't know that inside Nuclear facility is kinda... confusing with those spiral...lol
Well, with this photo it's the proof Iran do not hide anything from IAEA and the world, of course if they're willing to seek deeper which is sadly, they just bluntly accuse them.

u

The Iranians tried to conceal their second underground nuclear site from IAEA, otherwise how did they even managed to prepare the underground site itself near Qom years before their notification to IAEA. Not to mention that when Iran first failed to comply with their NPT agreement back in 2002, due to the fact that they've been hiding a fully operational underground nuclear enrichment site from IAEA for 18 years. The Iranian once again failed to comply with IAEA's new stricter rule of transparency, when they reverted back to the old 6 months rule without being agreed upon by IAEA.

Now you tell me, does that even look like the Iranians had a clear intention to comply with the IAEA per their NPT agreement?


Ryutai-Desk wrote:
Of course not, that's why Iran has been cooperating with IAEA under NPT, while Israel not.
You should read deeper into NPT and their 3 pillars


Of course, that's what Iran seeks from long time ago. But where is the US government respond when Iranian president visited US last year? Also US's allies is not accomplish anything to International Agency due their nuclear programs.

Iran stated something like "Emergency Status' that's why before the government can stabilize the situations and conditions in Iran, they weren't allowed anyone from other countries interfere with their affair. Which is the duty of government to protect their country by raging demonstrator just because they lost the election.

History taught us lessons about humanity's mistake. But if you're using history as an excuse to attack and having negative sentiments to certain people, then you've spread hatred.

The Iranians protesters had good reasons to protest. And even if they didn't, the Iranian government shouldn't denied their rights for peaceful protest and media coverage. Just like Israeli had the right not to sign the NPT because they don't agree with its policy. Therefore the only Iranian "Emergency Status" is the fact that the rights, liberty, and freedom of the Iranian people are endangering the ultra conservative Iranian presidency, the administration, and the supporters.


Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Then the Iranian can just further isolate themselves, by them withdrawing their agreement from NPT. That way the US won't even have to be negotiating with Iran because the Iranians don't trust the US nor Israel, just like you've suggested throughout history.

But you know what? Up 'til this day, the Iranians are still obligated under their NPT agreements which they did signed since 1968. So just what are these empty threats that you're talking about?

And If you want the UN Security Council to deal with Israel, sure! When you can think of a way to get Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea to agree with the NPT, you let them know about it.


Well, it's obviously you haven't read the NPT Treaty fully yet.
And its 3 pillars as well, also the history why India had the nuclear weapon, also to Israel and Pakistan.


DomFortress wrote:

And just what's so secret about http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ the Israeli nuclear program? When they honestly never signed the NPT back in 1968. Which is why IAEA never bothered with Israel because they were clear about their nuclear program intention and thus, did not agree with the NPT.


Well, NPT was created because of Nuclear Weapon uproar in WW2 and its destructive power which is really inhuman. I've already said this in page 2 why Israel, India and Pakistan have to signed the treaty when they possess the nuclear weapon to ensure the 3 pillars in NPT in order to get peace. That's why those 3 countries should've been put under sanctions like North Korea for not sign the treaty.

We know, all countries, either they have it or not, have to sign the treaty due to paranoia that nuclear being misuse after war period. However the 5 countries which they already had the nuclear weapon can keep their nuclear weapons but they have to follow the international laws and follows the procedure from IAEA.

Well, many politics involve regarding this. that's why many countries that had been signed the treaty did not satisfy with NPT yet. Because it's injustice.

Next time, provide the official NPT article when there is one from IAEA. Otherwise you'll only embarrass yourself with just a wiki reference. Because the 5 pages treaty never mentioned about Israel, India and Pakistan must comply with IAEA. For not agreeing with a treaty that they did not sign.

BTW, the North Korea was put under sanction because after they withdrew themselves from NPT in 2003, they declared that they have nuclear weapons capability since 2005.


Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

This debate was about the Iranian nuclear program and was never about an nuclear weapon, as stated by the original topic starter by SeraphAlford. He also left backgrounds and references to support his view that:

Personally, I think Iran’s just asking for trouble. The last time they attempted to produce nuclear weapons Israel preemptively bombed them and pretty much said, “And we’ll do it again.” The Iranians feel that Israel and the United States are robbing them of their right to use nuclear power which would allow them to power their cities without using oil-which they prefer to trade abroad.
Now tell me, did he ever personally claimed that Iran has a nuclear weapon?

And now I ask:
Were the two incidents that Iranians had failed to comply with their NPT agreement happened during president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration? Was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got reelected this year for his ultra conservative campaign policies that led to those two failures of NPT compliance? Were those ultra conservative campaign policies had anything to do with the nation of Israeli because they talked about holocaust denials for 4 years and counting?

And finally, just what has any of that got to do with the fact that while during the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration, the president irresponsibly hid the Iranian nuclear program for 18 years until 2002, and tried to conceal an Iranian nuclear site in 2009? Even though Iran weren't suppose to do so, due to the fact that they signed and agreed with the NPT back in 1968. Could it be that the majority of the Iranians wanted a deliberately deceiving and conceiving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' as a president? When he denied the holocaust and never said anything about the fact that he tried to conceal an entire Iranian nuclear site from IAEA during the UN General assembly. If he was indeed building a nuclear facility for energy purpose, then why he gone through the trouble of concealing it in the first place? He could let the IAEA know ahead of time, even before the US intelligence found out about them concealing the site.


I'd like to the source that Iran had failed to comply with NPT. Then, I will analyze it and explain it to you.

Then here they are again:
The Iranians tried to conceal their second underground nuclear site from IAEA, otherwise how did they even managed to prepare the underground site itself near Qom years before their notification to IAEA. Not to mention that when Iran first failed to comply with their NPT agreement back in 2002, due to the fact that they've been hiding a fully operational underground nuclear enrichment site from IAEA for 18 years. The Iranian once again failed to comply with IAEA's new stricter rule of transparency, when they reverted back to the old 6 months rule without being agreed upon by IAEA.

And here's an overview about the Iranian violation of their NPT, as according to their none compliance of IAEA rules and regulations.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:


drizza wrote:
I will continue with this tomorow I am getting sleepy and right now am too lazy to look up links and write long paragraphs. Just to add a side note that paragraph you posted by the OP it reads "The last time Iran tried to produce nuclear weapons...." Anyways see you tomorrow.

"Tried to produce" is different than actually having a nuclear weapon.

And you can just answer all of my question with either yes, no, or a simple no comment. Anyone of the above reply will do. I don't want to here anymore of your excuse, now that I've boiled the topic down to these keynotes:

A. The Iranians had twice failed to comply with their NPT agreement
, which happened during president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration via:
1. hid the Iranian nuclear program for 18 years until 2002 and,
2. tried to conceal an Iranian nuclear site in 2009

B. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got reelected this year for his ultra conservative campaign policies, who had irresponsibly caused those two failures of NPT compliance during his administration

C. Some of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ultra conservative campaign policies had to do with the nation of Israeli because they talked about holocaust denials

D. The recent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reelection victory as according to the Iranian Supreme Jurist Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggested that the majority of Iranian voters as well as himself, are in favor with his ultra conservative campaign policies, which include Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 4 years old holocaust denials.

Therefore I highly recommend that you stick to the framework within those keynotes. Otherwise you'll be wasting not just my time, but yours as well. I'll even give you a hint: I left you an opening in one of my keynotes. Because it's not fun for me when you can't fight back even on my own terms.

ZZZ here we go again going off topic. If you dont think this whole thread is about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon then you need to go back to school and take some more reading comprehension classes.

The reason why Iran hid their first nuclear site was because of their sanctions which was place on them. They couldnt buy it from anyone and the US wouldnt allow them to obtain nuclear energy. They had to hid it so they bought their items from black markets and the like. Once their program was revealed the IAEA inspected and as usual of what I been posting on this thread and STILL YOU HAVENT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS BEING BUILT NOR WAS THEY CLOSE TO OBTAINING ONE ANYTIME SOON! They even threatened to hide it again because the US is still trying to take measures against them for making nuclear energy for peaceful purposes which every country has a right to http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-25-iran-nuclear_x.htm. Now even though it is hard for you to accept that fact now your trying to change the subject and talk about holocaust and denials. What the hell does that have to do with anything nuclear? So what if he denies the holocaust does that mean more sanctions. You dont even know why he denies it do you? I fail to see your logic I mean you fail at proving anything dude.

Now I am getting tired of repeating myself this is where your reading skills come on I posted this countless times on tthis thread that our government already knew about this second facilty. But seeing you repost it again tells me you havent been reading anything I typed and this is why I see myself typing the same thing over and over again. You re-read this thread and I gaurentee either my second or third post will deal with this second facility. Now I feel like am debating with someone ignorant is why I am repeating myself. Because with ignorant people no matter what kind of hard proof you show them to their own ignorance they will stay that way and nothing can be done about it.

Regarding the elections why is this even being bought up? What are you trying to achieve with this and how does this correlate to any type of nukes? In Iran they did an investigation and found out the election was fair:

Iran's top electoral body, the Guardian Council, has formally confirmed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in the country's disputed election. After a partial recount it says it's found there were few or no errors despite the claims of the main Opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2612855.htm

Iran's Supreme Leader declares elections fair http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/06/19/supreme_leader/index.html

There is many more also if you want to do the math you can refer to larry king lives second interview with him and he asks that question. I am really to lazy to pull it up right now but it is on youtube. I am not going to put much time on this either because like I said what are you trying to prove by bringing this up? Why do we even care if this was another country nobody would even air it but because of the sheer fact Iran is our enemy and we have to prove to sheep like you that he is developing weapons with no proof we side with anyone against Iran no matter what. You can either take Irans word for up or some other source with no inside proof what so ever that the elections was rigged. I am damn sure if Mccain called for a protest in the 08 elections he would have rallied up many supporters who voted for him screaming the same thing. The cameras would show all those people and say, "these people here represent the whole of the USA." When in reality they dont.

Now if your going to keep dancing around the main topic our debate is finish I hate having to keep repeating myself. I have better things to do. Either you come up with better arguements as to why Iran is producing a nuclear weapon with some hard hitting proof or I am arguing with a fool. Like my grandmother always said, "If you argue with a fool you will never win."
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote:

As far as I know, there's no problem with the sources here.


Yes there is, in a sense that your sources were misleading when they separated and deviated their original source in order to deceive their readers. That's the first sign that they too don't even trust their own sources. And when a news source lacks trust, they are lying.

And if you don't even put passion into what really matters to you, then what's to say that you ever truly cared? My father taught me the importance of journalism ethics because both he and I care about the world that we're in. When we even self-taught ourselves about the world after we're out from school.


When I said about 'no problem' is not about the source. What I always concern is the content of the media itself. If the content only condemning specific country like someone here often used it to make bad a country without even read the whole content. Therefore, in that case, the news might deceiving the readers, that's why we have to fully know what kind of media we used. Whether it's from amateur press who lacks journalism ethic or someone who only wanted provide hatred.

The source could be associated by multiple media just to get a news. We aware of this as many journalist used this method in dangerous countries like in middle-east. When they lacking information, they combined the sources they had to make one news then published it.
Then from which part the news is deceiving when yourself already pointed the original source(?) ? Does the content deceiving when there are 2 or even more published the article?
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

digs wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote:

"Your (biased)opinion doesn't matter"


I never said that all Middle Eastern people are racist in any thread. If anything you may be referring to some stats I posted about how much of the Arab world and nations have been at war with Israel and deny their existence because they are a Jewish state. My opinion is that Ahmedinejad is a crazy terrorist because that is what his rhetoric says. Hitler was crazy and he was a terrorist as well, but he still attended international meetings and had diplomatic relations with other nations. Judging my Ahmedinejad's holocaust denial and his anti-Israeli rhetoric I believe that he is crazy (mainly for his holocaust denial and extremist form of Islam).

I have posted sources as to how non Shia Muslims in Iran has less freedom and are oppressed by the government. The Jewish population in Iran has dramatically shrunk and continues to shrink. In 1948 there were about 100,000 Jews, in 1979 right before the Islamic revolution there were about 80,000 Jews, in 2004 there was about 25,000 Jews in the country. They aren't shrinking and leaving because Iran is such a happy and free place to be. The government regulates all religions and all religions must report to Islamic leaders who decide how they may practice their faith and how they may be allowed to conduct religious services (like churches, synagogues, temples, etc.) They aren't allowed to disagree openly with Islam because this is "blasphemy of the prophet" and is a law punishable by death. It is illegal for any other religion to print materials in Iran (churches can't even print bulletins). All religious buildings must be approved and regulated by the Islamic government. It is somewhat like a religious dictatorship. Although they tolerate it to a small extent, it is still controlled and oppressed. Even fellow Muslims of other branches (like the Sunni) are controlled and discriminated against. Not just religiously, but also politically (just look at what happened in June with the presidential elections in Iran).

My view of the Middle East is that I support the nation of Israel and I support an independent Palestine. However, I view the Arab league and being anti-semitic and biased against Israel for whatever reasons (whether they be political, religious, racial, etc...) Hardly any of the nations in the Middle East recognize Israel as a country, and many others won't allow Israeli citizens into their country purely based on the fact that they come from Israel. Even people who have a visa in their passport from Israel are barred entry. Each nation is different, but in the case of Iran it is an extreme display of anti-semitism and anti-Jew. He supports the destruction of Israel, he believes that a Jewish state has no right in the Middle East (his view is that the Middle East must be Muslim only) and he also believes that in order to bring about an armageddon of the infidels (all non Shia Muslims) America (great satan) and Israel (little satan) must be destroyed in order to awaken the 12th imam who will then proceed to the genocide of nations. Ahmedinejad holds that he was divinely appointed to his position in order to bring about this fate... Iran lies about their program, they make threats against Israel, and they are oppressive of human rights. They can't be trusted with nukes and this is why I believe what I believe.


Either in Hitler wasn't crazy. If he was crazy, how come the world feared of crazy person?
Oh, okay. Do you referring to Holocaust and saying he was crazy because of massacre he did? Then we could said, all nations are crazy and all of us are terrorist for having such tragedy past in world war. Mostly European countries, Japan and America. You do know in war time, it's very common in human's history that they always slaughtering, looting and occupying another county in order to get land, gold and glory also to spread gospel. Do you think only Hitler did that? No, then all who were participated in war were all crazy, especially those who took offensive stance against other countries. Same goes to what happened in Rwanda and Cambodia, also there are countless massacre in human's history. Well, not to mention there are some who's still occupying, looting and VIOLATING human rights right before our eyes in this modern history. Then all west countries who supported this evil nation are all crazy.
Great, right? this world has been leaded by crazy people on the world

Why you called Ahmadinejad crazy? When he pointed out the nations who occupying and killing in middle east are in false and violating human rights? Does Ahmadinejad and his country even do what those nations did?

You said it yourself, "They aren't shrinking and leaving because Iran is such a happy and free place to be."Although I suspect you copied this from internet. Not only Jews, many religions even Muslims itself were out from Iran when there was revolt there. The situation were depressing that make enough reasons to leave the country and some already came back to Iran after the revolt. Since then, Iran's government has regulations to practice all religions freely. If not, then why Jews in Iran has 2nd biggest number after Israel? Sure not because they dislike what Iranian government did. But because they liked to live and stay there. Now have you actually see or visiting Iran and take a close look of what those religious people practice their religion?

Why Arab nations don't like Israel, simply, because Israel violently abuse Palestinian people which is also Muslims. You see, in Islam we have stronger bonds toward our people than any other religions. That's why we called them Brother and Sister when we meet (Stranger) Muslim everywhere in the world. That's why Arab nations condemning Israel for attacking, looting and killing their Brother and Sister which we already treating them as family. I've posted Jews people life in Iran and their comments how peaceful they are there.

Well, if Ahmadinejad speaks non-sense or saying all he wants to maintain his position. Then why we believing what he said? because, so far, he didn't speak non-sense. In our eyes, he is a man that bravely oppose injustice international countries.

You do know what America does is violating human rights, yes? Or you turned your eyes blind just because that's your country? That's what I called biased. Then why America can has Nuclear Weapons, when they freely attack each single country on the world without concerning anything about human rights?
You do know how to differ Jews and Zionist, right? even Jews in US condemning and saying Israel is barbaric nation.
You believe what you believe without looked deeper in it. That's why your opinion doesn't matter.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/12/09

DomFortress wrote:

So is this happening to Iran, now that the US is under Obama administration? When there's indeed a negotiation offered by the US Secretary of State William Burns to Iran about the Iranian nuclear program for peaceful purpose
which took place during the Bush administration in July of 2008.

Which is why now with the Obama administration, the US will let the Middle-Eastern nations themselves to decide if they want US troops to continue occupying those said nations. That's the line in the sand that the US has drawn for themselves.

The Iranians tried to conceal their second underground nuclear site from IAEA, otherwise how did they even managed to prepare the underground site itself near Qom years before their notification to IAEA. Not to mention that when Iran first failed to comply with their NPT agreement back in 2002, due to the fact that they've been hiding a fully operational underground nuclear enrichment site from IAEA for 18 years. The Iranian once again failed to comply with IAEA's new stricter rule of transparency, when they reverted back to the old 6 months rule without being agreed upon by IAEA.

Now you tell me, does that even look like the Iranians had a clear intention to comply with the IAEA per their NPT agreement?

Next time, provide the official NPT article when there is one from IAEA. Otherwise you'll only embarrass yourself with just a wiki reference. Because the 5 pages treaty never mentioned about Israel, India and Pakistan must comply with IAEA. For not agreeing with a treaty that they did not sign.

BTW, the North Korea was put under sanction because after they withdrew themselves from NPT in 2003, they declared that they have nuclear weapons capability since 2005. <_<

The Iranians protesters had good reasons to protest. And even if they didn't, the Iranian government shouldn't denied their rights for peaceful protest and media coverage. Just like Israeli had the right not to sign the NPT because they don't agree with its policy. Therefore the only Iranian "Emergency Status" is the fact that the rights, liberty, and freedom of the Iranian people are endangering the ultra conservative Iranian presidency, the administration, and the supporters.

Then here they are again:
The Iranians tried to conceal their second underground nuclear site from IAEA, otherwise how did they even managed to prepare the underground site itself near Qom years before their notification to IAEA. Not to mention that when Iran first failed to comply with their NPT agreement back in 2002, due to the fact that they've been hiding a fully operational underground nuclear enrichment site from IAEA for 18 years. The Iranian once again failed to comply with IAEA's new stricter rule of transparency, when they reverted back to the old 6 months rule without being agreed upon by IAEA.

And here's an overview about the Iranian violation of their NPT, as according to their none compliance of IAEA rules and regulations.


================
Well, your quotes are messed up. No problem though.

First from your link:
The Bush administration says Mr Burns's presence is designed to demonstrate the West's unity and to reiterate that the terms of negotiations remain the same - namely that Iran must halt its uranium enrichment programme for further talks to take place.
You think anyone would agree to hold talk if the other side already proposed conditions before talks?

Of course, Iran had been cooperated with IAEA from long time ago. Look few pages back to know.
After all, from your link :
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/04/world/international-uk-iran-nuclear-elbaradei.html?_r=1

Iran agreed with six world powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- in Geneva on Thursday to allow IAEA inspectors unfettered access to the site.

"IAEA inspectors will visit Iran's new enrichment facility, under construction in Qom, on 25th of October," International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammed ElBaradei told a joint news conference with Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi.

"It is important for us to have comprehensive cooperation over the Qom site ... It is important for us to send our inspectors to assure ourselves that this facility is for peaceful purposes."
The West suspects the Islamic state is covertly seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies it

U.S. National Security adviser James Jones said Iran did not appear to be closer to having a nuclear weapon.

But ElBaradei said there was no "concrete proof" that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons capability, adding that the IAEA remained concerned over the possibility.

Western officials said Iran had agreed "in principle" in Thursday's meeting to ship out most of its enriched uranium for reprocessing in Russia and France. It would then be returned to power a Tehran reactor that makes medical isotopes.


You do know, Iran had sent nearly 80% of its uranium to Russia and France to be checked to ensure not having nuclear weapon, right?

From your links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm
What has Iran said?
President Ahmadinejad said: "We have no secrecy." He said the facility was open for inspection by the IAEA and was 18 months away from completion. Iran acknowledged the plant in a letter to the IAEA four days before Mr Obama's announcement. It told the IAEA that the project was a pilot and would enrich uranium only to low levels. It later said there were no other plants.


Just to let you know, Iran had informed IAEA for their plant 18 months ago.

You asked for the treaty, then you should read deeper and and read it word by word:
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war.
Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States,

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in co-operation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/
NPT obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Nuclear weapon States Parties are also obligated, under Article VI, to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_5/Carlson
Accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be...concluded with the [IAEA]...and the Agency's safeguards system...with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. ... The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

India does not want to sign the treaty because of political reasons.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/embassy_non_proliferation.htm

You should read also the article and 3 pillars of it. Even countries who do not have the facility nor ave intention to having such ahve to sign the treaty to ensure and preventing not having or helping certain countries to have Nuclear Weapon, That's why Israel, Pakistan and India should've been put sanctions instead.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.