First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next  Last
Iran’s Nuclear Ambition
Posted 10/12/09

drizza wrote:
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."

Then your grandmother is a wise woman, in a sense that I can learn from her by me stop arguing with a fool like you.

You're such a fool, that you didn't even know that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration wasn't responsible for the 2002 NPT violation. When he only begin his presidency in 2005.

Therefore, I'll no longer continue arguing with a fool. Who treats everyone around him as jerks. Good night.


Ryutai-Desk wrote:
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.

Check the date stamp of both your source and mine, and you'll find that your source was dated this year, whereas mine was dated last year. The Iranian president only agreed with the IAEA inspection of their second nuclear site this year on October, when the Bush administration was offering talks since July 2008. When the US Secretary of State was still William Burns and not Hilary Clinton.

If the US wasn't going to talk about their view on the Iranians' nuclear program violation then what else should they be talking about? The Iranians' gays rights?

That 6 months advance notice form Iran was not agreed upon by the IAEA, when Iran first violated the NPT back in 2002. Afterward the IAEA requested further transparency from Iran to report their nuclear program all the way from their planning stage.

The nation of Israel, Pakistan and India didn't get sanctioned by the UN like North Korea did because unlike North Korea, those nations never declare their nuclear weapons capability.

You are not this foolish. So please don't make me think otherwise.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

Check the date stamp of both your source and mine, and you'll find that your source was dated this year, whereas mine was dated last year. The Iranian president only agreed with the IAEA inspection of their second nuclear site this year on October, when the Bush administration was offering talks since July 2008. When the US Secretary of State was still William Burns and not Hilary Clinton.

If the US wasn't going to talk about their view on the Iranians' nuclear program violation then what else should they be talking about? The Iranians' gays rights?

That 6 months advance notice form Iran was not agreed upon by the IAEA, when Iran first violated the NPT back in 2002. Afterward the IAEA requested further transparency from Iran to report their nuclear program all the way from their planning stage.

The nation of Israel, Pakistan and India didn't get sanctioned by the UN like North Korea did because unlike North Korea, those nations never declare their nuclear weapons capability.

You are not this foolish. So please don't make me think otherwise.


That was all from your sources too. I pointed out things which is the opposite from what you said, and I used your sources to clarify your statement of Iran's violation, which is I didn't find it from your sources either. or maybe I had missed something, so could you post it here instead rather than saying they commit mistake by only put the sources.
I also quoted what the previous U.S. National Security adviser James Jones said. And the result was "Iran did not appear to be closer to having a nuclear weapon."

Yes, in Bush administration and Obama, is there any talk offer from their President in person to Iranian President? If you've watched Ahmadinejad interview with Larry King (In case, you don't know Larry King is respected person than any ordinary person in media/jurnalism).
Larry King asked, "Why do you think US official doesn't want to talk with you in person?"
Ahmadinejad answered, "Well, ask them. I do not know their reasons. But I've been here (in America) to talk directly with their president, Iran always offers to talk, that's why I came here personally"

Could you post it here and write it specifically, in which part Iran had violated their NPT in 2002? I didn't have enough information from your sources, thus you saying like you want that they've violated without credible sources. If you have, post, highlight and put the sources so I will able to study it deeper. Otherwise, we will go nowhere.
Well, think this way. Iran had accepted IAEA safeguard and allowing their inspector to go to their nuclear plant. I don't see any violation, unlike those NFSW countries which are still producing nuclear warhead missile. And those 4 countries which haven't and do not want sign to their self-interest.

But they do have nuclear weapons capability. Doesn't this same at least similar to Iran who is hiding their nuclear plant? India, Israel and Pakistan never declare, but doesn't mean they don't have. same goes to China and Russia who never wanted to reveal its military spending due to many various reasons. Especially, information, political and power.

You are not this ignorant. So please don't make me think otherwise.
Posted 10/13/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
That was all from your sources too. I pointed out things which is the opposite from what you said, and I used your sources to clarify your statement of Iran's violation, which is I didn't find it from your sources either. or maybe I had missed something, so could you post it here instead rather than saying they commit mistake by only put the sources.
I also quoted what the previous U.S. National Security adviser James Jones said. And the result was "Iran did not appear to be closer to having a nuclear weapon."

Yes, in Bush administration and Obama, is there any talk offer from their President in person to Iranian President? If you've watched Ahmadinejad interview with Larry King (In case, you don't know Larry King is respected person than any ordinary person in media/jurnalism).
Larry King asked, "Why do you think US official doesn't want to talk with you in person?"
Ahmadinejad answered, "Well, ask them. I do not know their reasons. But I've been here (in America) to talk directly with their president, Iran always offers to talk, that's why I came here personally"

Could you post it here and write it specifically, in which part Iran had violated their NPT in 2002? I didn't have enough information from your sources, thus you saying like you want that they've violated without credible sources. If you have, post, highlight and put the sources so I will able to study it deeper. Otherwise, we will go nowhere.
Well, think this way. Iran had accepted IAEA safeguard and allowing their inspector to go to their nuclear plant. I don't see any violation, unlike those NFSW countries which are still producing nuclear warhead missile. And those 4 countries which haven't and do not want sign to their self-interest.

But they do have nuclear weapons capability. Doesn't this same at least similar to Iran who is hiding their nuclear plant? India, Israel and Pakistan never declare, but doesn't mean they don't have. same goes to China and Russia who never wanted to reveal its military spending due to many various reasons. Especially, information, political and power.

You are not this ignorant. So please don't make me think otherwise.

I don't do your homework simply because you don't read the sources that I provided. So instead you're getting another source about Iranians NPT violations during 2002 - 2003, in the form of an official UN report in PDF file.

Also, just for your cherry-picking convenient, here's a full transcript of President Ahmadinejad's interview in 2006. Which showed his Iranian nuclear program diplomacy was exactly the same as toady.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

I don't do your homework simply because you don't read the sources that I provided. So instead you're getting another source about Iranians NPT violations during 2002 - 2003, in the form of an official UN report in PDF file


Also, just for your cherry-picking convenient, here's a full transcript of President Ahmadinejad's interview in 2006. Which showed his Iranian nuclear program diplomacy was exactly the same as toady.



Actually, I did my research myself and found some 'violation' by Iran in vague laws set.

Iran is under no legal obligation to provide the information until 18o-days before the introduction of nuclear material into the site. THAT is the applicable standard, and there's no evidence that IRan has violated that standard.

In the past, as part of Iran's ill-fated negoatiions with the Eu-3, Iran agreed to TEMPORARILY provide such information quicker -- however when the negotiations fell apart Iran returned to abiding ONLY by its strict legal obligations.

The bottom line is that Iran has NOT "broken rules" and is in fact abiding by them by disclosing this site. Furthemore, this site is not a threat since it isn't even operational yet, and once it becomes operational it will be under IAEA safeguards since Iran declared it. And finally, it is PILOT enrichment site which means it can't be used to mass produce enriched uranium for bombs.

In fact, Iran's enrichment program as a whole was NEVER a secret and was widely announced on national radio in the 1980s. See IranAffairs.com for the details.

http://washingtonindependent.com/60932/has-iran-actually-violated-any-specific-international-obligations-here

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.

In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.


Look also the cooperation by Iran to send its uranium
Scientist Moderator
digs 
37013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
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


The world feared Hitler because he was murdering Jews (6,000,000 during the holocaust) and was also trying to conquer Europe. He invaded France, England, and other countries. Before this happened Hitler played the role of a diplomat. His mission was to just help the Germans and revive his nation (not so bad right?) He sounded good, but he was deceitful. He started breaking international laws (building up Germany's military) and slowly started invading other countries while Europe stayed silent. The world even voted to have the Olympics in Germany and Germany used this as an opportunity to pass off that what was going on was diplomatically good.... Then Hitler went and did what he intended to do from the beginning. My point is that politicians lie, leaders like Hitler play the diplomacy card and try to pass off as innocent and good. Europe is politically weak (most of the time), the like appeasing their enemies and hope that they go away... Doing that only allowed leaders like "Hitler to thrive and then do what they sought out to do. Ahmedinejad is the same way. We want to appease Iran, ignore the fact that they are breaking the NTP and have lied about nukes. The world wants to ignore Iran's threats against Israel (and it's my belief that Ahmedinejad's intent is to destroy Israel and try to destroy the US). We must learn from history and not take this lightly. Not all nations loot, rape, steal, etc... To my knowledge the United States has never done that, in fact we don't even claim territories for our own when we win wars (the Spanish war the US vowed not to make Cuba theirs even though we REALLY REALLY wanted to). We also didn't conquer the Philippines, we helped them. Right now in Iraq and Afganistan we are trying to destroy the Taliban and Al Quaida (terrorist organizations) because we were attacked by them. It was an act of war when Al Quaida made their terrorist attacks on 9/11 and killed thousands of Americans. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion though.


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?

I call him crazy because of his quotes and policies... the man denies the holocaust which has been proven to be true. He does this because of his racism against Jews and because of his hatred towards Israel. Ahmedinejad approves of the death of the innocent protesters and makes no effort to advance human rights in his country. If Ahmedinejad is going to point out the nations who occupy and kill, he must first turn to his own and see the horrors that come out of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and other nations that commit terrible human rights atrocities (for instance, FGM, the murder of homosexuals, the murder of non Muslims, human trafficking, oppression of womens' rights, terrorism, etc.) The only authority Ahmedinejad has in regards to human rights is the sense that he is a fellow human rights violator and a hypocrite to point fingers at nations he already racially hates with a passion.


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?


I didn't copy that from the interned, those are my own words. I have talked about the state of non Shi'a Muslims in Iran. It's hardly free and is heavily oppressed. Jews are not flocking to Iran, and Iran does not have the 2nd biggest Jewish population outside of Israel. Iran is actually near the bottom of the list. Here is a source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html I would actually love to visit Iran one day, but I would also like to visit Israel. If I go to Israel Iran will not allow me into their country because my passport has an Israeli visa...


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.


Israel does not violently abuse Palestinians. Their are Palestinians that live in Israel and have full rights and are completely equal with Jewish Israelis. What is going on in Gaza is for Israeli national security. You must take into account the fact that Gaza is run by the terrorist organization Hamas. Over 8,000 qasam rockets have been fired into civilian Israel and their have been many suicide bombing coming out of Gaza. I see the Arab world hating Israel for building a wall around Gaza (and because of the wall suicide bombings have dramatically decreased), why don't they talk about the fact that Egypt also built a wall around the part of Gaza that borders them? What is going on in the Israel/Palestine conflict is an issue of national security and protection of Israeli citizens who are daily faced with rockets and suicide bombers. They need to protect themselves from the terrorists on Gaza (and so does Egypt, they did the same). Also, what about the Muslims that live in Israel? Do the Middle Eastern Muslims hate their brothers and sisters that live there? Many religions believe in a family. Christianity is one too, it is an important part of our beliefs to be united as the family of Christ. Is Islam the reason why the Arab nations hate Israel? If they loved their Islamic brothers in Gaza they would tell them to overthrow Hamas and to stop the terrorist killings... Hamas kills Muslims who disagree with them (there was a violent coup in Gaza during the elections). I love the Palestinians and want to see peace in the region for all Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bah'ai, and other faith's and races. Although lets not deviate into a different issue (I find myself guilty of this do). Let's discuss Israel x Palestine in this thread http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-377801/the-nation-of-israel-and-palestine/


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.


Again though, if he is opposing injustice why doesn't he look at the injustice in his own country and in the countries around him like KSA, Oman, Yemen, etc? All countries have their problems. Ahmedinejad is a hypocrite because he focuses only on Israel and fails to take into consideration their view of the conflict. He also ignores other violations, even in his own country (and especially during the elections).


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.


How is America violating human rights? I am an American and I have lived in more than one American city. I was born here and I have lived in both the Washington D.C. area and here in Nashville, TN (where I live now). I don't see womens' rights being oppressed, I see religious equality. In fact, in my university (which is Christian based) we have Muslim students who freely practice their faith, some even wear the burqua. I have a few Muslim friends in my school as well, one of them was even born in Iran. In the area around Washington D.C. that I lived in there was a larger Muslim population. My babysitter was an Iranian Muslim woman and she was one of the nicest people in my life. In the United States the government doesn't regulate religion in religious places. Muslims may freely practice their faith, Jews can, Christians can, all religions can and all races can. In the 1960's we made a large leap towards civil rights, and even now we have a black president in a white majority country (even though I strongly disagree with Obama I still respect him). America isn't perfect, and I know on the individual level there are racists anywhere you go, but my country isn't violating human rights and in my opinion, is one of the most diverse and equality based nations in the world. America is also one of the world's largest foreign aid givers and is a leading peacemaker. We don't blindly support Israel, in fact we criticize them when they need it. I have looked very deep into the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I understand how both sides view things. Israel isn't perfect, Palestine isn't perfect. But Palestine calls for the destruction of Israel, Israel calls for peace and a two-state solution. But again, let's please keep this discussion in the thread that was made for it.
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
Actually, I did my research myself and found some 'violation' by Iran in vague laws set.

Iran is under no legal obligation to provide the information until 18o-days before the introduction of nuclear material into the site. THAT is the applicable standard, and there's no evidence that IRan has violated that standard.

In the past, as part of Iran's ill-fated negoatiions with the Eu-3, Iran agreed to TEMPORARILY provide such information quicker -- however when the negotiations fell apart Iran returned to abiding ONLY by its strict legal obligations.

The bottom line is that Iran has NOT "broken rules" and is in fact abiding by them by disclosing this site. Furthemore, this site is not a threat since it isn't even operational yet, and once it becomes operational it will be under IAEA safeguards since Iran declared it. And finally, it is PILOT enrichment site which means it can't be used to mass produce enriched uranium for bombs.

In fact, Iran's enrichment program as a whole was NEVER a secret and was widely announced on national radio in the 1980s. See IranAffairs.com for the details.

http://washingtonindependent.com/60932/has-iran-actually-violated-any-specific-international-obligations-here

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.

In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.


Look also the cooperation by Iran to send its uranium

If so, then how come the Iranian president Ahmadinejad never mention any of that in his official address to the UN General Assembly nor the unofficial interview afterward?

Simple, because he and the rest of the conservative Iranian parliament legislators along with their supporter back then had no intention to pass the "additional protocol" when he started his presidency in 2005. Due to the fact that this would force Iran to reveal their second nuclear site right from the planning stage. And this is how the Iranian conservatives changed their parliament legislation in 2004.

Not only that, they only agreed to sign the "additional protocol" because they only wanted the nuclear benefit from trading with the Russians under their NPT agreement in 2006. That's why the Iranians only voluntarily agreed with the IAEA "additional protocol" of transparency in order to win the IAEA's vote of confidence. Which is also why as soon as the Iranians got their nuclear fuels from Russia on March 2007, they immediately "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" within the same month.

Therefore when President Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he was talking about how Iran time and again deliberately deceived the trust of their UN allies, by them concealing their nuclear ambitions through manipulating their NPT agreement.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

If so, then how come the Iranian president Ahmadinejad never mention any of that in his official address to the UN General Assembly nor the unofficial interview afterward?

Simple, because he and the rest of the conservative Iranian parliament legislators along with their supporter back then had no intention to pass the "additional protocol" when he started his presidency in 2005. Due to the fact that this would force Iran to reveal their second nuclear site right from the planning stage. And this is how the Iranian conservatives changed their parliament legislation in 2004.

Not only that, they only agreed to sign the "additional protocol" because they only wanted the nuclear benefit from trading with the Russians under their NPT agreement in 2006[/link]. That's why the Iranians only voluntarily agreed with the IAEA "additional protocol" of transparency in order to win the IAEA's vote of confidence. Which is also why as soon as the Iranians got their nuclear fuels from Russia on March 2007, they immediately "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" within the same month.

Therefore when President Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he was talking about how Iran time and again deliberately deceived the trust of their UN allies, by them concealing their nuclear ambitions through manipulating their NPT agreement.


He doesn't obligated to tell that. Especially when he already informed IAEA , the International Agency that has been cooperated with Iran and has authority to represent the world to ensure the laws did not violated by any countries. After all, it's UN assembly. Ahmadinejad might thought it's not necessary to make an 'uproar' that telling audience Iran never violate international laws given by international agency. If he told them in the assembly, does it make any difference? While the other nations merely accused them having Nuclear Arms when IAEA even haven't conduct any inspection to the site.

It's not because of "causing Iran to force their nuclear site, it's because the people of Iran didn't satisfied of what reformist government did in their period.

"The result was that the reformists had little to show for their four years in parliament and seven in the presidency, and the public largely turned away from them. That much was evident in last year's local elections, which saw the right-wing gain control of the local councils by default as their hard-core loyalists turned out while erstwhile reformist sympathizers stayed at home. " Detailed Info(your source actually)

Iran has been signed the protocol since 2004, so it's not because just they have a deal with Russia then they merely signed the protocol. After all, Russia-Iran deal had being supported by UN security council and the nuclear fuel would be inspected by UN inspector.
In principle, all five members of the UN Security Council have backed the Russian plan. President Bush explicitly endorsed the proposal in late January, provided that all of the nuclear fuel is produced on Russian soil and that UN inspectors can monitor the transport of the fuel back tehran.


Also, Iran had been put sanctions by UN, just because of
Russia did not want the enrichment of Iran's facility in Natanz continue.
Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov informed some European officials that Russia had made a political decision not to deliver the fuel, adding that Russia would state publicly that the sole reason was financial, European officials said. And then last week, a senior Iranian official confirmed in an interview that Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen.

Members of the Security Council are moving toward a vote this week on a draft resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for its defiance of demands that it suspend enrichment activities and return to negotiations over its nuclear program. The resolution focuses on the country’s arms exports, a leading Iranian bank and the elite Revolutionary Guards military force. It will reduce Iran’s access to foreign currency and isolate the bank, Bank Sepah, from international financing.


Yes, Iran has "suspended" the protocol in March 2007. But it doesn't mean they do not follow the protocol at all.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

And in the latest IAEA report (GOV/2009/55) states that Iran has not yet implemented early provisions of design information in accordance with the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, which would require Iran to notify the agency of the construction of new facilities or modifications to existing ones as soon as such a decision has been authorized by the government or the plant operator. The original agreement required Iran to submit such information no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility (GOV/2003/40).
However, Iran had informed IAEA 18 months before they operating the nuclear facility .

Then why it's not apply to all nations in the world. Why Obama turned blind to India, Pakistan, especially Israel? Just because of those nations didn't sign the treaty? But the purpose of the treaty is to create international security and tose who possessed Nuclear Weapon must sign the treaty in order to accept safeguards by IAEA and to be clarified as a peaceful country.
Nuclear holder 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.

Thus, it's binding all nations on the world. After all, countries with free-zone of nuclear ALSO have to signed the treaty even though, they do not have or even have any intention to have one. It's apply to all nations to ensure there will no nations who intend to use nuclear for malicious purpose.

Also, instead of Iran. Why they did not seek the NWS parties like China, France, Russian, the UK and the US. To not enrich their nuclear weapon? I think, this is open-secret that the NWS still producing nuclear weapon.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

digs wrote:

The world feared Hitler because he was murdering Jews (6,000,000 during the holocaust) and was also trying to conquer Europe. He invaded France, England, and other countries. Before this happened Hitler played the role of a diplomat. His mission was to just help the Germans and revive his nation (not so bad right?) He sounded good, but he was deceitful. He started breaking international laws (building up Germany's military) and slowly started invading other countries while Europe stayed silent. The world even voted to have the Olympics in Germany and Germany used this as an opportunity to pass off that what was going on was diplomatically good.... Then Hitler went and did what he intended to do from the beginning.

My point is that politicians lie, leaders like Hitler play the diplomacy card and try to pass off as innocent and good. Europe is politically weak (most of the time), the like appeasing their enemies and hope that they go away... Doing that only allowed leaders like "Hitler to thrive and then do what they sought out to do. Ahmedinejad is the same way. We want to appease Iran, ignore the fact that they are breaking the NTP and have lied about nukes. The world wants to ignore Iran's threats against Israel (and it's my belief that Ahmedinejad's intent is to destroy Israel and try to destroy the US). We must learn from history and not take this lightly. Not all nations loot, rape, steal, etc...


Yes, any individual who only wanted to protect and strengthen its country is not bad, instead they'd be called as Patriot and Hero, that's all. But like you said, when they try to invade other countries and occupying them, it's not 'defensive act to protect' but 'offensive act to looting, occupying and killing'. I, as a kid who had experience in war zone before, know how this so insanely evil act.

But if you taken account of human's history. That's human nature, the evil one. I hate it, but that always happen when a nation is strong enough to protect itself, thus their greed instruct them to attack other countries too. It just, it can't be helped. That's why, we need international laws which is haven't been fulfilled by all nations even in current situation.

That's why Iran has been following the IAEA's safeguard, their protocol and other treaties as well to fulfilled international security and to prevent human's insanely evil act. Therefore, why big nations only focusing in Iran, the nation which already fulfilled IAEA agreement? they are not North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan who refused to sign the NPT and clearly announced they're producing nuclear weapon. That's why those 4 nations are the real threat to the world.

The world wants to ignore North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan's threats against the world (and it's my belief that US government's is to destroy Iran as they've already destroy its neighbor, Iraq and Afghanistan). We must learn from history and not take this lightly.


digs wrote:

To my knowledge the United States has never done that, in fact we don't even claim territories for our own when we win wars (the Spanish war the US vowed not to make Cuba theirs even though we REALLY REALLY wanted to). We also didn't conquer the Philippines, we helped them. Right now in Iraq and Afganistan we are trying to destroy the Taliban and Al Quaida (terrorist organizations) because we were attacked by them. It was an act of war when Al Quaida made their terrorist attacks on 9/11 and killed thousands of Americans. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion though.


Your statement really match to your words earlier saying "My point is that politicians lie, leaders like Hitler play the diplomacy card and try to pass off as innocent and good." It's still really controversial of how 9/11 being attacked by Al-Qaeda and Taleban. If they able to destroy such huge tower and it's in longer distance from middle-east, then why they do not able to attack Israel, which is in middle-east itself? How about the international fact US receiving oil from Iraq?http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=131620&page=1&page=1

Is that the purpose due to fuel deal decline from allies countries?
There is a good debate about this. We should read this too.


digs wrote:

I call him crazy because of his quotes and policies... the man denies the holocaust which has been proven to be true. He does this because of his racism against Jews and because of his hatred towards Israel. Ahmedinejad approves of the death of the innocent protesters and makes no effort to advance human rights in his country. If Ahmedinejad is going to point out the nations who occupy and kill, he must first turn to his own and see the horrors that come out of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and other nations that commit terrible human rights atrocities (for instance, FGM, the murder of homosexuals, the murder of non Muslims, human trafficking, oppression of womens' rights, terrorism, etc.) The only authority Ahmedinejad has in regards to human rights is the sense that he is a fellow human rights violator and a hypocrite to point fingers at nations he already racially hates with a passion.


It's physiological warfare, as we've been said in earlier post. Also there is a good post about it here http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-568421/holocaust-denial/?pg=2#28106768.

Does a president from single county in middle-east should interfere violations of human rights in his neighbor countries? If the world wants justice, then they already have Human Rights Watch for that. Well, as we can see the organization is dull and unreliable due to increasing conflict in the whole world. Ahmadinejad pointed out US because US attacking Iraq, Afghanistan and fearing they will attack Iran too in near future because of baseless accusation. Same method US had when they attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for accuse them having 'Biological Weapon' and 'Mass Destruction Weapon' which is haven't been proven yet. The only results is loss of civilians people of Iraq and Afghanistan and loss of US soldiers there.

You view that as justice because it's done by your country, the rest of the world see this as political moves and barbaric. Funny when all its allies helping them by sending troops just because of 'US is always right' Which terrorist US trying to destroy? where the victims also included women, children and elder people.


digs wrote:

I didn't copy that from the interned, those are my own words. I have talked about the state of non Shi'a Muslims in Iran. It's hardly free and is heavily oppressed. Jews are not flocking to Iran, and Iran does not have the 2nd biggest Jewish population outside of Israel. Iran is actually near the bottom of the list. Here is a source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html I would actually love to visit Iran one day, but I would also like to visit Israel. If I go to Israel Iran will not allow me into their country because my passport has an Israeli visa...


Then you should visit Iran first, then later Israel. I'd like to know Israel reaction when they know you had visited Iran. Iran is not isolated country, they allows their citizens to go around the world. In the few pages back, I've posted the story of Iranian Jews that visited Israel and came back to Iran and there's no problem at all.
But you're right that Iran in under that half of the list, but only if you taken the world population, not the middle-east area only. Iran has the 2nd biggest population of Jews in Middle-East after Israel.


digs wrote:

Israel does not violently abuse Palestinians. Their are Palestinians that live in Israel and have full rights and are completely equal with Jewish Israelis. What is going on in Gaza is for Israeli national security. You must take into account the fact that Gaza is run by the terrorist organization Hamas. Over 8,000 qasam rockets have been fired into civilian Israel and their have been many suicide bombing coming out of Gaza. I see the Arab world hating Israel for building a wall around Gaza (and because of the wall suicide bombings have dramatically decreased), why don't they talk about the fact that Egypt also built a wall around the part of Gaza that borders them? What is going on in the Israel/Palestine conflict is an issue of national security and protection of Israeli citizens who are daily faced with rockets and suicide bombers.

They need to protect themselves from the terrorists on Gaza (and so does Egypt, they did the same). Also, what about the Muslims that live in Israel? Do the Middle Eastern Muslims hate their brothers and sisters that live there? Many religions believe in a family. Christianity is one too, it is an important part of our beliefs to be united as the family of Christ. Is Islam the reason why the Arab nations hate Israel? If they loved their Islamic brothers in Gaza they would tell them to overthrow Hamas and to stop the terrorist killings... Hamas kills Muslims who disagree with them (there was a violent coup in Gaza during the elections). I love the Palestinians and want to see peace in the region for all Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bah'ai, and other faith's and races. Although lets not deviate into a different issue (I find myself guilty of this do). Let's discuss Israel x Palestine in this thread http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-377801/the-nation-of-israel-and-palestine/


I doubt it, especially when they attacked Palestinian in December-January, most victims are civilians. Also they used white phosphorus to attack Gaza. And they attacked UN building there, here is the video from UN Secretary itself and evidence Israel using white phosphorus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828577.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091111392884765.html
And information of white phosphorus in case someone wonder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus



digs wrote:

Again though, if he is opposing injustice why doesn't he look at the injustice in his own country and in the countries around him like KSA, Oman, Yemen, etc? All countries have their problems. Ahmedinejad is a hypocrite because he focuses only on Israel and fails to take into consideration their view of the conflict. He also ignores other violations, even in his own country (and especially during the elections)
.

You should questioning, what's the reason of conflict in elections? Wasn't it because of the opposition who doesn't want to accept the results? And the opposition raid the roads and BURNING car and many public facility. Causing riot and such chaotic conditions. To pressing and ensuring the country security, it's the government's job to stabilize its own security. It's sad. When we know, they can't avoid bloody conflict when the opposition are in rage, throwing stone to security forces and burning public facility.

I actually wonder, why they do that? I think it since it begun and I came to conclusion that "While Iranian government taking dangerous stance opposing the big nation, the people doesn't happy of the government stance against those big nations. It's create the prejudice of Iran people are evil as the previous leader of that big nation saying Iran is an Axis of Evil. That's why, Iranian people doesn't want to be called by evil by entire world (while it's actually the "US always right" saying that causing that prejudice). It's sad, Iranian people doesn't want to bring Dangerously Justice, instead they want Oppression Peace. Well, it's understandable, however Iranian took different way from its people to get the real justice from this world.


digs wrote:

How is America violating human rights? I am an American and I have lived in more than one American city. I was born here and I have lived in both the Washington D.C. area and here in Nashville, TN (where I live now). I don't see womens' rights being oppressed, I see religious equality. In fact, in my university (which is Christian based) we have Muslim students who freely practice their faith, some even wear the burqua. I have a few Muslim friends in my school as well, one of them was even born in Iran. In the area around Washington D.C. that I lived in there was a larger Muslim population. My babysitter was an Iranian Muslim woman and she was one of the nicest people in my life. In the United States the government doesn't regulate religion in religious places.

Muslims may freely practice their faith, Jews can, Christians can, all religions can and all races can. In the 1960's we made a large leap towards civil rights, and even now we have a black president in a white majority country (even though I strongly disagree with Obama I still respect him). America isn't perfect, and I know on the individual level there are racists anywhere you go, but my country isn't violating human rights and in my opinion, is one of the most diverse and equality based nations in the world. America is also one of the world's largest foreign aid givers and is a leading peacemaker. We don't blindly support Israel, in fact we criticize them when they need it. I have looked very deep into the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I understand how both sides view things. Israel isn't perfect, Palestine isn't perfect. But Palestine calls for the destruction of Israel, Israel calls for peace and a two-state solution. But again, let's please keep this discussion in the thread that was made for it.


That's true, that's why I admit America's society values all human rights into the core, until the extend of gay marriage and such.
However, because of government's policy that US has to violate human rights in middle east and the 'bay'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

You should watch documentary "Taxi on the Dark Side" too. It's available in youtube about US violating human rights.
Taxi on the Dark Side
It also mentioned of an US soldier there "If I didn't came here, to the desert country like this, I won't do anything that violate human rights"

It's the government who did wrong, its soldiers are suffering there. That's why, the world wanted to judge Bush administration as war criminal, which is being forgotten by divert the world topic to nuclear. Where is the justice?


Posted 10/13/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
He doesn't obligated to tell that. Especially when he already informed IAEA , the International Agency that has been cooperated with Iran and has authority to represent the world to ensure the laws did not violated by any countries. After all, it's UN assembly. Ahmadinejad might thought it's not necessary to make an 'uproar' that telling audience Iran never violate international laws given by international agency. If he told them in the assembly, does it make any difference? While the other nations merely accused them having Nuclear Arms when IAEA even haven't conduct any inspection to the site.

It's not because of "causing Iran to force their nuclear site, it's because the people of Iran didn't satisfied of what reformist government did in their period.

"The result was that the reformists had little to show for their four years in parliament and seven in the presidency, and the public largely turned away from them. That much was evident in last year's local elections, which saw the right-wing gain control of the local councils by default as their hard-core loyalists turned out while erstwhile reformist sympathizers stayed at home. "
Detailed Info(your source actually)

Iran has been signed the protocol since 2004, so it's not because just they have a deal with Russia then they merely signed the protocol. After all, Russia-Iran deal had being supported by UN security council and the nuclear fuel would be inspected by UN inspector.
In principle, all five members of the UN Security Council have backed the Russian plan. President Bush explicitly endorsed the proposal in late January, provided that all of the nuclear fuel is produced on Russian soil and that UN inspectors can monitor the transport of the fuel back tehran.


Also, Iran had been put sanctions by UN, just because of
Russia did not want the enrichment of Iran's facility in Natanz continue.
Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov informed some European officials that Russia had made a political decision not to deliver the fuel, adding that Russia would state publicly that the sole reason was financial, European officials said. And then last week, a senior Iranian official confirmed in an interview that Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen.

Members of the Security Council are moving toward a vote this week on a draft resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for its defiance of demands that it suspend enrichment activities and return to negotiations over its nuclear program. The resolution focuses on the country’s arms exports, a leading Iranian bank and the elite Revolutionary Guards military force. It will reduce Iran’s access to foreign currency and isolate the bank, Bank Sepah, from international financing.


Yes, Iran has "suspended" the protocol in March 2007. But it doesn't mean they do not follow the protocol at all.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

And in the latest IAEA report (GOV/2009/55) states that Iran has not yet implemented early provisions of design information in accordance with the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, which would require Iran to notify the agency of the construction of new facilities or modifications to existing ones as soon as such a decision has been authorized by the government or the plant operator. The original agreement required Iran to submit such information no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility (GOV/2003/40).
However, Iran had informed IAEA 18 months before they operating the nuclear facility .

Then why it's not apply to all nations in the world. Why Obama turned blind to India, Pakistan, especially Israel? Just because of those nations didn't sign the treaty? But the purpose of the treaty is to create international security and tose who possessed Nuclear Weapon must sign the treaty in order to accept safeguards by IAEA and to be clarified as a peaceful country.
Nuclear holder 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.

Thus, it's binding all nations on the world. After all, countries with free-zone of nuclear ALSO have to signed the treaty even though, they do not have or even have any intention to have one. It's apply to all nations to ensure there will no nations who intend to use nuclear for malicious purpose.

Also, instead of Iran. Why they did not seek the NWS parties like China, France, Russian, the UK and the US. To not enrich their nuclear weapon? I think, this is open-secret that the NWS still producing nuclear weapon.


Don't you even try to believe for a moment that you speak for the Iranian president Ahmadinejad, when you don't even know for yourself to be sure just what he might meant.

Second, don't you even try to cherry-pick my source for your own purpose, when Iranian "...Reformist parliamentary bills were assiduously blocked by the Council of Guardians, the highly-conservative, 12-man appointed watchdog body which supervises both legislation and elections." While the Iranian "... hard-line judiciary kept the reformists on the political defensive through a series of arrests and newspaper closures, embroiling them in one crisis after another." Thus "... The result was that the reformists had little to show for their four years in parliament and seven in the presidency, and the public largely turned away from them."

Third, don't you distort time line for the purpose of throw-off cause and effect, when the Iranians signed the IAEA "additional protocol" for transparency in 2004 as a confidence building measure of their NPT compliance. So that they could deceive the trust from the Russians to form a nuclear deal in 2006. And as soon as they got the enriched nuclear fuels from Russia on March 2007, the Iranians "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" in the same month. Thus they could conceal their plan for a second underground nuclear enrichment site both from the IAEA and hopefully, from the UN Security Council member Russia because "Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen". Otherwise, the Iranians could just continue implementing the "additional protocol" within their legislation both as an additional safeguard from the UN Security Council's intelligence agencies, and as a confidence building measure for the IAEA. Therefore, the cause that made the conservative Iranian president Ahmadinejad, their conservative Iranian parliament legislators, and their conservative supporting Council of Guardians led by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, to "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" in March 2007, is their intention to deceive the UN Security Council about their ambition of continuing their nuclear enrichment program, when they tried to conceal their second nuclear enrichment site underground.

Finally, don't you deviate the topic by pointing your finger to the members of the UN Security Council. When none of them are themselves holocaust deniers like Iran.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/13/09
Wow western mainstream media does a good job with fear mongering and distorting info. When they are wrong then the topic changes into something completely different. I still find it funny what people are trying to prove about Iran you have no proof for the weapons so what are you trying to prove? Lol funny a nation whose done nothing to nobody ever is now a new threat but nations occupying and bombing others are hailed and have support. We talk about democracy etc but support terror this is amazing just another reason why people see the west as hypocritical.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

Yep I was correct you do need classes no where in my response did I mention Mahmoud . Dom really what are you trying to prove here on this thread seriously? You cant prove he has a weapon I really dont see your point your debating about nothing. You talk about your , "Journalism ethics". Which is funny because if your Journalism ethics was good you would know why he denies the holocaust, your Journalism ethics would know that you dont have to be a muslim to live in Iran. Your ethics would know why the facility was hidden in 02 but sadly your Journalism ethics is giving you a one view of the story this is why all of your arguments gets defeated. Hell you probably didnt even know that some Jews agreed to the Islamic law of Iran as pointed out in one of your references. I dont make people look stupid when I feel like someone breaks the barriers of a debate by name calling and trying to make someone look stupid instead of keeping it mature then that I do the same.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

DomFortress wrote:

Don't you even try to believe for a moment that you speak for the Iranian president Ahmadinejad, when you don't even know for yourself to be sure just what he might meant.


True, it just like me talking as his Press Secretary. However, if you bother to look at any countries that support Iran. Their opinion pretty much same. As Iran has been followed IAEA regulation and fulfilled its obligation as usage of peaceful nuclear. And if you bother to look at youtube's comment in his interviews in various occasion, they support Ahmadinejad by saying "This man speaks the truth, we have to wake up America!, I don't like it, but he does making sense, Why the HELL this guy speaks what in my mind?! Oh, Jesus."
And from Obama, Sarkozy and Brown's speech, the comments are the opposite... You should read the comments too.


DomFortress wrote:

Second, don't you even try to cherry-pick my source for your own purpose, when Iranian "...Reformist parliamentary bills were assiduously blocked by the Council of Guardians, the highly-conservative, 12-man appointed watchdog body which supervises both legislation and elections." While the Iranian "... hard-line judiciary kept the reformists on the political defensive through a series of arrests and newspaper closures, embroiling them in one crisis after another." Thus "... The result was that the reformists had little to show for their four years in parliament and seven in the presidency, and the public largely turned away from them."


I did and have been picked from your sources as I stated above, also from your statement too.




After all, the laws of Light and Darkness applies here. Every countries has its evil and good side. This is human's nature. This is inevitable. This is endless. There is no real evil and real good when the conflict always being caused by greedy human beings. That's all. That's what it matters

Now, we know Iran has its bad and good side. However, they've been in right way by following IAEA procedure to have nuclear facility for energy. Why UN and the world do not put sanctions to the worse countries that even do not sign the treaty and not agreeing International Laws?

Oh, I know. It because of human beings nature. That's all.


DomFortress wrote:

Third, don't you distort time line for the purpose of throw-off cause and effect, when the Iranians signed the IAEA "additional protocol" for transparency in 2004 as a confidence building measure of their NPT compliance. So that they could deceive the trust from the Russians to form a nuclear deal in 2006. And as soon as they got the enriched nuclear fuels from Russia on March 2007, the Iranians "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" in the same month.

Thus they could conceal their plan for a second underground nuclear enrichment site both from the IAEA and hopefully, from the UN Security Council member Russia because "Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen". Otherwise, the Iranians could just continue implementing the "additional protocol" within their legislation both as an additional safeguard from the UN Security Council's intelligence agencies, and as a confidence building measure for the IAEA.

Therefore, the cause that made the conservative Iranian president Ahmadinejad, their conservative Iranian parliament legislators, and their conservative supporting Council of Guardians led by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, to "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" in March 2007, is their intention to deceive the UN Security Council about their ambition of continuing their nuclear enrichment program, when they tried to conceal their second nuclear enrichment site underground.

Finally, don't you deviate the topic by pointing your finger to the members of the UN Security Council. When none of them are themselves holocaust deniers like Iran
.

Those words I've highlighted by green are only your baseless statement. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith.

Even 'Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. The U.S. released an intelligence report about 18 months ago that said Iran abandoned a secret nuclear weapons program in 2003 under international pressure and has not restarted it."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/official-confirms-irans-missile-launch/

Don't you even try to believe for a moment that you speak for the nations that merely accusing Iran for no evidence, when you don't even know for yourself to be sure just what the situations might meant.
Posted 10/14/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Don't you even try to believe for a moment that you speak for the Iranian president Ahmadinejad, when you don't even know for yourself to be sure just what he might meant.


True, it just like me talking as his Press Secretary. However, if you bother to look at any countries that support Iran. Their opinion pretty much same. As Iran has been followed IAEA regulation and fulfilled its obligation as usage of peaceful nuclear. And if you bother to look at youtube's comment in his interviews in various occasion, they support Ahmadinejad by saying "This man speaks the truth, we have to wake up America!, I don't like it, but he does making sense, Why the HELL this guy speaks what in my mind?! Oh, Jesus."
And from Obama, Sarkozy and Brown's speech, the comments are the opposite... You should read the comments too.


DomFortress wrote:

Second, don't you even try to cherry-pick my source for your own purpose, when Iranian "...Reformist parliamentary bills were assiduously blocked by the Council of Guardians, the highly-conservative, 12-man appointed watchdog body which supervises both legislation and elections." While the Iranian "... hard-line judiciary kept the reformists on the political defensive through a series of arrests and newspaper closures, embroiling them in one crisis after another." Thus "... The result was that the reformists had little to show for their four years in parliament and seven in the presidency, and the public largely turned away from them."


I did and have been picked from your sources as I stated above, also from your statement too.




After all, the laws of Light and Darkness applies here. Every countries has its evil and good side. This is human's nature. This is inevitable. This is endless. There is no real evil and real good when the conflict always being caused by greedy human beings. That's all. That's what it matters

Now, we know Iran has its bad and good side. However, they've been in right way by following IAEA procedure to have nuclear facility for energy. Why UN and the world do not put sanctions to the worse countries that even do not sign the treaty and not agreeing International Laws?

Oh, I know. It because of human beings nature. That's all.


DomFortress wrote:

Third, don't you distort time line for the purpose of throw-off cause and effect, when the Iranians signed the IAEA "additional protocol" for transparency in 2004 as a confidence building measure of their NPT compliance. So that they could deceive the trust from the Russians to form a nuclear deal in 2006. And as soon as they got the enriched nuclear fuels from Russia on March 2007, the Iranians "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" in the same month.

Thus they could conceal their plan for a second underground nuclear enrichment site both from the IAEA and hopefully, from the UN Security Council member Russia because "Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen". Otherwise, the Iranians could just continue implementing the "additional protocol" within their legislation both as an additional safeguard from the UN Security Council's intelligence agencies, and as a confidence building measure for the IAEA.

Therefore, the cause that made the conservative Iranian president Ahmadinejad, their conservative Iranian parliament legislators, and their conservative supporting Council of Guardians led by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, to "suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information" in March 2007, is their intention to deceive the UN Security Council about their ambition of continuing their nuclear enrichment program, when they tried to conceal their second nuclear enrichment site underground.

Finally, don't you deviate the topic by pointing your finger to the members of the UN Security Council. When none of them are themselves holocaust deniers like Iran
.


You think that's the kind of reform that the Iranian people wanted? When hard-line conservative supporters like the Iranian Guardian Council, a bunch of "more ideologically-orientated, more fundamentalist, more hard-line conservatives" themselves, have no interest in Iranian social reform because they kept saying there's no issues with the Iranian "economy, social problems, political problems". While they strictly forbid people to talk about those issues openly and peacefully, even though the Iranian constitution stated that the nation's power comes from their people.

And your Light and Darkness speech? That's just another convenient excuse for you to pretend those dark issues in Iran are there because they're necessary balance of stupidity. Well guess what, thanks to your bright idea, the nations of Iran is now being ruled by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with no interest in globalization. Otherwise they would've kept implementing the IAEA's "additional protocol" for transparency, and not planning to conceal their second nuclear enrichment site from IAEA, by having it built underground just like the first one in 2002.

There's not secret when it's already a done deal. The second Iranian nuclear enrichment site is being constructed underground along with its 3000 centrifuges used for nuclear fuel enrichment, without the IAEA being notified about the planning of such site due to its underground concealment. Just like everything the Iranian president himself admitted. Or have you forgotten that the Russian president "Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen" in March 2007. Or perhaps do you think that the hard-line Iranian conservatives are too stupid to know that the whole purpose of this setup is to prevent them from ever stockpile enriched nuclear fuels? When they completed the underground portion of their second nuclear enrichment site which concealed its 3000 centrifuges first. Just what do you think they were planning to do with that?

You would know if you've ever worked in civil construction, that you put priority on a specific portion of a project in order to speed up final production. Therefore a nuclear enrichment site with only its centrifuges in place can begin nuclear fuel enrichment ASAP.

Now do you see why the urgency for a rapid IAEA inspection on the new site? Because there's a possibility that Iran had already begone with the enrichment process as soon as they installed the concealed 3000 "new generation of more efficient centrifuges" that are "made domestically". Because the Iranian nuclear scientists "gave no timeframe for the installation".

And Iran don't need long-range nuclear strike capability, when their military objective is more interested in mid-range surface-to-surface missile that's capable of reaching targets within the Middle East. Not to mention that when a nuclear missile reaches a high enough altitude and explodes, it can cause a massive wide-area EMP effect that can jam most electronics. This is known as the high-altitude nuclear explosion, aka HANE.

Therefore as you see, I know exactly what those situations can meant. When I study all kinds of warfare and world events in order to defuse them. Which is something that the hard-line Iranian conservatives obviously don't do, when they didn't even allow their people the rights to protest.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/14/09

DomFortress wrote:

You think that's the kind of reform that the Iranian people wanted? When hard-line conservative supporters like the Iranian Guardian Council, a bunch of "more ideologically-orientated, more fundamentalist, more hard-line conservatives" themselves, have no interest in Iranian social reform because they kept saying there's no issues with the Iranian "economy, social problems, political problems". While they strictly forbid people to talk about those issues openly and peacefully, even though the Iranian constitution stated that the nation's power comes from their people.

And your Light and Darkness speech? That's just another convenient excuse for you to pretend those dark issues in Iran are there because they're necessary balance of stupidity. Well guess what, thanks to your bright idea, the nations of Iran is now being ruled by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with no interest in globalization. Otherwise they would've kept implementing the IAEA's "additional protocol" for transparency, and not planning to conceal their second nuclear enrichment site from IAEA, by having it built underground just like the first one in 2002.

There's not secret when it's already a done deal. The second Iranian nuclear enrichment site is being constructed underground along with its 3000 centrifuges used for nuclear fuel enrichment, without the IAEA being notified about the planning of such site due to its underground concealment. Just like everything the Iranian president himself admitted. Or have you forgotten that the Russian president "Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen" in March 2007. Or perhaps do you think that the hard-line Iranian conservatives are too stupid to know that the whole purpose of this setup is to prevent them from ever stockpile enriched nuclear fuels? When they completed the underground portion of their second nuclear enrichment site which concealed its 3000 centrifuges first. Just what do you think they were planning to do with that?

You would know if you've ever worked in civil construction, that you put priority on a specific portion of a project in order to speed up final production. Therefore a nuclear enrichment site with only its centrifuges in place can begin nuclear fuel enrichment ASAP.

Now do you see why the urgency for a rapid IAEA inspection on the new site? Because there's a possibility that Iran had already begone with the enrichment process as soon as they installed the concealed 3000 "new generation of more efficient centrifuges" that are "made domestically". Because the Iranian nuclear scientists "gave no timeframe for the installation".

And Iran don't need long-range nuclear strike capability,
when their military objective is more interested in mid-range surface-to-surface missile that's capable of reaching targets within the Middle East. Not to mention that when a nuclear missile reaches a high enough altitude and explodes, it can cause a massive wide-area EMP effect that can jam most electronics. This is known as the high-altitude nuclear explosion, aka HANE.

Therefore as you see, I know exactly what those situations can meant. When I study all kinds of warfare and world events in order to defuse them. Which is something that the hard-line Iranian conservatives obviously don't do, when they didn't even allow their people the rights to protest.


=
That's why the current government and opposition always exists in every government on the world. Do you think all Iranian people oppose their government, not all. What was shown by media in your television was only opposition, seems large group, right? But the supporter of current government that wanted to keep those 'fundamentalist' and 'conservatives' rule the country are higher in number. That's why Ahmadinejad can continuing his 2nd period in presidency.

Amadinejad was elected in 2005 if I'm not wrong. He is from conservatives and rule the government of Iran from reformist president. Why Iranian people chose this conservatives figure? Because reformist faction was not fulfill Iranian expectation. Mohammad Khatami, Iranian's president from 1997-2005 was being described as failure along with his administration.

Middle East reformers should by now be used to failure. Every honest and hopeful attempt at reform has either failed or backfired on the people. Nasser's Pan-Arab movement promissed democracy and economic progress, and ended in the ruin of the 6-day war. Baathist Syria, Baathist Iraq, the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the regime of the Taliban all nightmares that resulted from implementation of dreams of reform in the real world of the Middle East. The pattern is familiar to us from the histories of every revolution gone bad: After the day of triumph, the earnest idealists find themselves in jail, and the new movement proceeds to impose a worse tyranny than the previous one.
Initial results suggest he received just under 77% of the vote. But the enthusiasm that greeted his rise to power four years ago is absent.
President Khatami has failed to deliver the reform that his followers had expected.

Of course, as developing country, you do not expect Iran has perfect society and can finish all their jobs, right? Even though, the iranian government has heat relation with the Jews country, they do not hate Jews. Jews in Iran has freedom to express their religion. Whether the country's under reformist or conservatives is not different as stated.

Although he is virulently anti-Israel in his public comments, Khatami was considered sympathetic to the Jews during his term as Iran's minister of culture and Islamic guidance. He paid a campaign visit to a social club for Jewish women in Tehran. ''We expect more freedom, an easier life, not just for Jews, for everybody,'' said Farangis Hassidim, an administrator of Tehran's Jewish hospital.

The government rejected the principle of the universality of human rights, and argued that Islamic rather than Western precepts should be used in determining the rights of citizens. They believe in Islamic laws rather than 'Freedom' like in the most western countries. But that's what they believe, we shouldn't interfere their choice of life and their principle.

After all, in all government, they have both conservative faction and reformist faction. You can't blame those conservative just because you have different views. In America, they had more conservative sit in parliament then democrat and those Liberal people was obstacles to Obama's reform. They were trying to vote NO in every reform Obama was going to deliver. Even they are brave enough, to yell 'YOU LIE' when Obama was talking in parliament. Did you know that incident?

=
Of course, it's not convenient excuse as you said. Their country is formed, mixed and united as one nation as a visualization of their people in order to keep government stabilization and represent all parts of Iranian people. But it's not all perfect, as there was disappointment to reformist's government and dissatisfaction among Iranian people. However, Iranian people tried to believe in Khatami and given 2nd chance to make the government better as he promised during his presidential election, but it's all same. No better change from this reformist figure. Like dissatisfaction in America's people to Obama? Kinda similar, right?

I believe you didn't read my post at all if you keep asking about conceal their nuclear facility. Read again.
Iran is under no legal obligation to provide the information until 180-days before the introduction of nuclear material into the site. THAT is the applicable standard, and there's no evidence that IRan has violated that standard.

In the past, as part of Iran's ill-fated negotiations with the Eu-3, Iran agreed to TEMPORARILY provide such information quicker -- however when the negotiations fell apart Iran returned to abiding ONLY by its strict legal obligations.

The bottom line is that Iran has NOT "broken rules" and is in fact abiding by them by disclosing this site. Furthemore, this site is not a threat since it isn't even operational yet, and once it becomes operational it will be under IAEA safeguards since Iran declared it. And finally, it is PILOT enrichment site which means it can't be used to mass produce enriched uranium for bombs.

In fact, Iran's enrichment program as a whole was NEVER a secret and was widely announced on national radio in the 1980s.


If so, then of what reasons Russia threatened Iran with an ultimatum? Does Russian knew about Iran's obligation with IAEA? just self-interest? I think of this as, economy's interest as Russia made huge deal with this trade and wanted Iran to depend on them in nuclear. So they can keep trading like this, Russia doesn't like when Iran finally can use their own nuclear facility. And the sanctions? It's all about politics as I've wrote in my post. Have you read it? read it so you will have brighter view.


After all, Russia-Iran deal had being supported by UN security council and the nuclear fuel would be inspected by UN inspector.
In principle, all five members of the UN Security Council have backed the Russian plan. President Bush explicitly endorsed the proposal in late January, provided that all of the nuclear fuel is produced on Russian soil and that UN inspectors can monitor the transport of the fuel back tehran.


Russia did not want the enrichment of Iran's facility in Natanz continue.

Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov informed some European officials that Russia had made a political decision not to deliver the fuel, adding that Russia would state publicly that the sole reason was financial, European officials said. And then last week, a senior Iranian official confirmed in an interview that Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen.

Members of the Security Council are moving toward a vote this week on a draft resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for its defiance of demands that it suspend enrichment activities and return to negotiations over its nuclear program. The resolution focuses on the country’s arms exports, a leading Iranian bank and the elite Revolutionary Guards military force. It will reduce Iran’s access to foreign currency and isolate the bank, Bank Sepah, from international financing.


Now, why Members of the Security Council agreed to put sanctions to Iran just because Russia wanted to make a further deal, this compulsory and one-side deal? While Iran has been obligated to following the rules set by IAEA. Do those Security Council know what's the terms and conditions having nuclear site? I think, it just because of their stupidity.

=
True, Iran has been developing their missile capabilities. Same goes to most all nations on the world. Do you have any evidence that their missiles are capable to carry Nuclear Warhead? If not, then it's baseless statement as always. I've read your sources but what I found just America and Soviet who are developing their nuclear missiles and now China 'secretly' test it. Well, it's open secret. So it's not baseless statement.

=
Therefore as you see, I know exactly what behind those situations can meant. When I experienced a war and became a part of cruel history world events in order to prevent them. Which is something that the super power nations obviously don't do and do not have any intention to do it moreover increasing the tensions, when they didn't even hear developed nations voice right to object in UN.

Therefore as I see, you don't know exactly what those situations would meant, which is can leads to war if this keep continuing. Do you want to see another mass murdered by those superpower nations like its neighbors? Where innocent people has been killed and thousand lives has been just just because of childish statement of 'Biological weapon' and 'Weapon of Mass Murderer' or 'Axis of Evil'.
Which is something super power nations DON'T CARE about those poor people in bloody cloth. When they didn't even experienced it themselves, sitting behind right their luxuries table.
Posted 10/15/09 , edited 10/15/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You think that's the kind of reform that the Iranian people wanted? When hard-line conservative supporters like the Iranian Guardian Council, a bunch of "more ideologically-orientated, more fundamentalist, more hard-line conservatives" themselves, have no interest in Iranian social reform because they kept saying there's no issues with the Iranian "economy, social problems, political problems". While they strictly forbid people to talk about those issues openly and peacefully, even though the Iranian constitution stated that the nation's power comes from their people.

And your Light and Darkness speech? That's just another convenient excuse for you to pretend those dark issues in Iran are there because they're necessary balance of stupidity. Well guess what, thanks to your bright idea, the nations of Iran is now being ruled by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with no interest in globalization. Otherwise they would've kept implementing the IAEA's "additional protocol" for transparency, and not planning to conceal their second nuclear enrichment site from IAEA, by having it built underground just like the first one in 2002.

There's not secret when it's already a done deal. The second Iranian nuclear enrichment site is being constructed underground along with its 3000 centrifuges used for nuclear fuel enrichment, without the IAEA being notified about the planning of such site due to its underground concealment. Just like everything the Iranian president himself admitted. Or have you forgotten that the Russian president "Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen" in March 2007. Or perhaps do you think that the hard-line Iranian conservatives are too stupid to know that the whole purpose of this setup is to prevent them from ever stockpile enriched nuclear fuels? When they completed the underground portion of their second nuclear enrichment site which concealed its 3000 centrifuges first. Just what do you think they were planning to do with that?

You would know if you've ever worked in civil construction, that you put priority on a specific portion of a project in order to speed up final production. Therefore a nuclear enrichment site with only its centrifuges in place can begin nuclear fuel enrichment ASAP.

Now do you see why the urgency for a rapid IAEA inspection on the new site? Because there's a possibility that Iran had already begone with the enrichment process as soon as they installed the concealed 3000 "new generation of more efficient centrifuges" that are "made domestically". Because the Iranian nuclear scientists "gave no timeframe for the installation".

And Iran don't need long-range nuclear strike capability,
when their military objective is more interested in mid-range surface-to-surface missile that's capable of reaching targets within the Middle East. Not to mention that when a nuclear missile reaches a high enough altitude and explodes, it can cause a massive wide-area EMP effect that can jam most electronics. This is known as the high-altitude nuclear explosion, aka HANE.

Therefore as you see, I know exactly what those situations can meant. When I study all kinds of warfare and world events in order to defuse them. Which is something that the hard-line Iranian conservatives obviously don't do, when they didn't even allow their people the rights to protest.


=
That's why the current government and opposition always exists in every government on the world. Do you think all Iranian people oppose their government, not all. What was shown by media in your television was only opposition, seems large group, right? But the supporter of current government that wanted to keep those 'fundamentalist' and 'conservatives' rule the country are higher in number. That's why Ahmadinejad can continuing his 2nd period in presidency.

Amadinejad was elected in 2005 if I'm not wrong. He is from conservatives and rule the government of Iran from reformist president. Why Iranian people chose this conservatives figure? Because reformist faction was not fulfill Iranian expectation. Mohammad Khatami, Iranian's president from 1997-2005 was being described as failure along with his administration.

Middle East reformers should by now be used to failure. Every honest and hopeful attempt at reform has either failed or backfired on the people. Nasser's Pan-Arab movement promissed democracy and economic progress, and ended in the ruin of the 6-day war. Baathist Syria, Baathist Iraq, the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the regime of the Taliban all nightmares that resulted from implementation of dreams of reform in the real world of the Middle East. The pattern is familiar to us from the histories of every revolution gone bad: After the day of triumph, the earnest idealists find themselves in jail, and the new movement proceeds to impose a worse tyranny than the previous one.
Initial results suggest he received just under 77% of the vote. But the enthusiasm that greeted his rise to power four years ago is absent.
President Khatami has failed to deliver the reform that his followers had expected.

Of course, as developing country, you do not expect Iran has perfect society and can finish all their jobs, right? Even though, the iranian government has heat relation with the Jews country, they do not hate Jews. Jews in Iran has freedom to express their religion. Whether the country's under reformist or conservatives is not different as stated.

Although he is virulently anti-Israel in his public comments, Khatami was considered sympathetic to the Jews during his term as Iran's minister of culture and Islamic guidance. He paid a campaign visit to a social club for Jewish women in Tehran. ''We expect more freedom, an easier life, not just for Jews, for everybody,'' said Farangis Hassidim, an administrator of Tehran's Jewish hospital.

The government rejected the principle of the universality of human rights, and argued that Islamic rather than Western precepts should be used in determining the rights of citizens. They believe in Islamic laws rather than 'Freedom' like in the most western countries. But that's what they believe, we shouldn't interfere their choice of life and their principle.

After all, in all government, they have both conservative faction and reformist faction. You can't blame those conservative just because you have different views. In America, they had more conservative sit in parliament then democrat and those Liberal people was obstacles to Obama's reform. They were trying to vote NO in every reform Obama was going to deliver. Even they are brave enough, to yell 'YOU LIE' when Obama was talking in parliament. Did you know that incident?

=
Of course, it's not convenient excuse as you said. Their country is formed, mixed and united as one nation as a visualization of their people in order to keep government stabilization and represent all parts of Iranian people. But it's not all perfect, as there was disappointment to reformist's government and dissatisfaction among Iranian people. However, Iranian people tried to believe in Khatami and given 2nd chance to make the government better as he promised during his presidential election, but it's all same. No better change from this reformist figure. Like dissatisfaction in America's people to Obama? Kinda similar, right?

I believe you didn't read my post at all if you keep asking about conceal their nuclear facility. Read again.
Iran is under no legal obligation to provide the information until 180-days before the introduction of nuclear material into the site. THAT is the applicable standard, and there's no evidence that IRan has violated that standard.

In the past, as part of Iran's ill-fated negotiations with the Eu-3, Iran agreed to TEMPORARILY provide such information quicker -- however when the negotiations fell apart Iran returned to abiding ONLY by its strict legal obligations.

The bottom line is that Iran has NOT "broken rules" and is in fact abiding by them by disclosing this site. Furthemore, this site is not a threat since it isn't even operational yet, and once it becomes operational it will be under IAEA safeguards since Iran declared it. And finally, it is PILOT enrichment site which means it can't be used to mass produce enriched uranium for bombs.

In fact, Iran's enrichment program as a whole was NEVER a secret and was widely announced on national radio in the 1980s.


If so, then of what reasons Russia threatened Iran with an ultimatum? Does Russian knew about Iran's obligation with IAEA? just self-interest? I think of this as, economy's interest as Russia made huge deal with this trade and wanted Iran to depend on them in nuclear. So they can keep trading like this, Russia doesn't like when Iran finally can use their own nuclear facility. And the sanctions? It's all about politics as I've wrote in my post. Have you read it? read it so you will have brighter view.


After all, Russia-Iran deal had being supported by UN security council and the nuclear fuel would be inspected by UN inspector.
In principle, all five members of the UN Security Council have backed the Russian plan. President Bush explicitly endorsed the proposal in late January, provided that all of the nuclear fuel is produced on Russian soil and that UN inspectors can monitor the transport of the fuel back tehran.


Russia did not want the enrichment of Iran's facility in Natanz continue.

Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov informed some European officials that Russia had made a political decision not to deliver the fuel, adding that Russia would state publicly that the sole reason was financial, European officials said. And then last week, a senior Iranian official confirmed in an interview that Mr. Ivanov had threatened Iran with an ultimatum: The fuel would be delivered only after Iran’s enrichment of uranium at Natanz was frozen.

Members of the Security Council are moving toward a vote this week on a draft resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for its defiance of demands that it suspend enrichment activities and return to negotiations over its nuclear program. The resolution focuses on the country’s arms exports, a leading Iranian bank and the elite Revolutionary Guards military force. It will reduce Iran’s access to foreign currency and isolate the bank, Bank Sepah, from international financing.


Now, why Members of the Security Council agreed to put sanctions to Iran just because Russia wanted to make a further deal, this compulsory and one-side deal? While Iran has been obligated to following the rules set by IAEA. Do those Security Council know what's the terms and conditions having nuclear site? I think, it just because of their stupidity.

=
True, Iran has been developing their missile capabilities. Same goes to most all nations on the world. Do you have any evidence that their missiles are capable to carry Nuclear Warhead? If not, then it's baseless statement as always. I've read your sources but what I found just America and Soviet who are developing their nuclear missiles and now China 'secretly' test it. Well, it's open secret. So it's not baseless statement.

=
Therefore as you see, I know exactly what behind those situations can meant. When I experienced a war and became a part of cruel history world events in order to prevent them. Which is something that the super power nations obviously don't do and do not have any intention to do it moreover increasing the tensions, when they didn't even hear developed nations voice right to object in UN.

Therefore as I see, you don't know exactly what those situations would meant, which is can leads to war if this keep continuing. Do you want to see another mass murdered by those superpower nations like its neighbors? Where innocent people has been killed and thousand lives has been just just because of childish statement of 'Biological weapon' and 'Weapon of Mass Murderer' or 'Axis of Evil'.
Which is something super power nations DON'T CARE about those poor people in bloody cloth. When they didn't even experienced it themselves, sitting behind right their luxuries table.

Coolio! The hyperlinks stopped acting up now!

I keep reading you respecting the Iranian belief and tradition, however if that's the case, then you as an 13 years old young woman shouldn't be even allowed to talk back at me. For that's one of the tyrannical ruling of the Iranian Guardian of Council during every Iranian reform movements; arresting those outspoken individuals. Otherwise just who do you think that ordered the arrest of those "earnest idealists" in 1997?

Face it kid. You're talking like you are now because in an Islamic society ruled by a Guardian of Council and led by a Supreme Jurist of hard-line conservative and religious fundamentalists, you're only to talk about what they would allow you to. Otherwise you'll be arrested for being "outspoken". The Iranian Guardian of Council said there were higher support in hard-line conservative, and that's ultimately what the Iranian populace will have to except. Just like how ultimately the Iranian Guardian of Council made the choice for their people on how they should live out their life.

Therefore I'm not interested in speaking to a mere puppet, when you don't even know that a HANE maneuver doesn't require a complicated warhead nor a computerized targeting system in order for it to work. Just enough enriched nuclear fuel, a simple device to trigger the nuclear explosion with conventional explosive, and a rocket to bring the nuclear bomb at high-altitude. And then you can create a massive EMP that will blanket nearly half the face of the earth, by bombarding the ozone layer with gamma radiation. Which then will result in zero nuclear fallout, but a global-wide electrical blackout.

But hey, I shouldn't be expecting a mere puppet to understand nuclear physics, nor the detail of the negotiation which led to the Iranians stopped implementing the additional protocol for transparency. When she's not told to understand anything by the Guardian of Council. And I can respect that, can't I? Just like the American Democratic party not trying to be a dick by them respecting their Republican opposition.
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.