Nuclear agency accuses Iran of willful lack of cooperation

[BoogyMan]

Something to make you say "Hmmmmmmm."


Source: Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/africa/27iran.php)

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran's suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remains "a matter of serious concern" and continues to need "substantial explanations."


The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be pointed less at energy generation than at military use.
Part of the agency's case hinges on 18 documents listed in the report and presented to Iran that, according to Western intelligence agencies, indicate the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design — activities that ordinarily would be associated with constructing nuclear weapons.


"There are certain parts of their nuclear program where the military seems to have played a role," said one senior official close to the agency, who spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic constraints. He added, "We want to understand why."


Iran has dismissed the documents as "forged" or "fabricated," claimed that its experiments and projects had nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program and refused to provide documentation and access to its scientists to support its claims.

...more... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/africa/27iran.php)

[Easy90]

There's no doubt (for any reasonable person) that Iran is dead set on developing nuclear weapons....The question is: Will they be allowed to do it? My suspicion is that they will not...and "there will be blood!"

[Wndrtch]

There's no doubt (for any reasonable person) that Iran is dead set on developing nuclear weapons....The question is: Will they be allowed to do it? My suspicion is that they will not...and "there will be blood!"

The Israeli's will never allow an Arab nation to become Nuke-capable.

And we won't stop them from defending themselves.

[Elrathin]

The Israeli's will never allow an Arab nation to become Nuke-capable.

They already have, the country is called Pakistan. You know, the country that has more Al-Qaeda in it NOW than Iraq did pre-2003.

[apdst]

The question is: Will they be allowed to do it?

Of course they will be allowed to do it. We're fixin' to have the most Liberal prez in history sitting in the White House. He'll have the most Liberal Congress in history supporting every assinine decision he makes.

They already have, the country is called Pakistan.

Pakistan isn't an Arab country.

[DamnYankee]

Nuclear agency accuses Iran of willful lack of cooperation

Iran will get the bomb with plenty of help from the Russians and the ChiComs. And the UN will not do a damn thing.

[Elrathin]

Pakistan isn't an Arab country.

They are a nation where 97% of them are Muslim.

[jafar00]

They are a nation where 97% of them are Muslim.

It can be argued that there are more non-Arab Muslims than Arab Muslims with Asians making up a very large portion. Just being Muslim doesn't make one Arab. I'm not an Arab.

They already have, the country is called Pakistan. You know, the country that has more Al-Qaeda in it NOW than Iraq did pre-2003.

So a friend of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is allowed to have Nukes, but a country that hasn't attacked or invaded anyone is not allowed to even think about getting their hands on one. The sums don't quite add up.

The Israeli's will never allow an Arab nation to become Nuke-capable.

Of course. There goes their unique position of being only ME country with the bomb. How are they going to keep threatening their neighbours with destruction if it will cause their own obliteration?


And we won't stop them from defending themselves.

You mean you will keep not stopping them from attacking their neighbours all the time.

[AlanC]

They are a nation where 97% of them are Muslim.


El, you do realize that being Muslim, doesn't make one an Arab, don't you?

Pakistan is mostly Muslim, but they are not an Arab country. But then, neither is Iran.

[Elrathin]

El, you do realize that being Muslim, doesn't make one an Arab, don't you?

Yes, I do know that Alan. I made a mistake in calling Pakistan an Arab nation so sue me. However, I see the hypocrisy in saying that an Arab nation shouldn't have nukes when a nation that has remnants of the Taliban and Al-Q hiding in it like Pakistan should be allowed them.

IMO that is an even greater threat than Iran getting them.

[BoogyMan]

Yes, I do know that Alan. I made a mistake in calling Pakistan an Arab nation so sue me. However, I see the hypocrisy in saying that an Arab nation shouldn't have nukes when a nation that has remnants of the Taliban and Al-Q hiding in it like Pakistan should be allowed them.

IMO that is an even greater threat than Iran getting them.

How about saying that a nation lead by an apocalyptically minded xenophobe like Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms? I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

[Elrathin]

How about saying that a nation lead by an apocalyptically minded xenophobe like Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms? I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

Apocalyptically minded? Oh that's rich Boogy, give we are the one labeling countries as the "Axis of Evil" lol.

[Deadshot]

How about saying that a nation lead by an apocalyptically minded xenophobe like Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms? I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

I agree with El on this one. Considering that George W. Bush is POTUS right now you could add Bush to Ahmadinejad as those with "apocalyptical" mindsets.

[BoogyMan]

I agree with El on this one. Considering that George W. Bush is POTUS right now you could add Bush to Ahmadinejad as those with "apocalyptical" mindsets.

Ah, then you won't mind quoting me the constant instances of Mr. Bush speaking about the coming destruction of other countries? Oh wait, there are none.

At least consider this with some intellectual honesty, Ahmadinejad consistently speaks of the downfall of Israel. Will you guys not be happy until that nut has made a smoking hole in the ground where Israel used to be?

[Deadshot]

Ah, then you won't mind quoting me the constant instances of Mr. Bush speaking about the coming destruction of other countries? Oh wait, there are none.

At least consider this with some intellectual honesty, Ahmadinejad consistently speaks of the downfall of Israel. Will you guys not be happy until that nut has made a smoking hole in the ground where Israel used to be?


Can you show me a quote where I have ever said that I want Israel wiped out?

Bush has talked about his link to God and how God has guided his hand. Considering what he's done to this country, one has to wonder if he's not preparing US for the end of the world!

[BoogyMan]

Can you show me a quote where I have ever said that I want Israel wiped out?

Bush has talked about his link to God and how God has guided his hand. Considering what he's done to this country, one has to wonder if he's not preparing US for the end of the world!

If you are making a line of argumentation that supports allowing Ahmadinejad to acquire nuclear arms with the full knowledge that he IS apocalyptically minded and that he IS consistently speaking of the downfall of Israel one has no other choice but to think you might just agree with him.

Bush has spoken of his faith consistently, that doesn't mean that he is apocalyptically minded, you are trying to obfuscate the argument DS.

[Deadshot]

I don't want Iran to have nukes. But Bush being the leader on this is a little disingenuous. Bush is not as bad as the Iranian leader, but he's hardly the leader of peaceful actions in the world. His war like nature and willingness to put soldiers in harms way (I'll NEVER forgive his SecDef for saying "You fight with the Army you have.") coupled with a new book from a former Press Secretary talking about Bush's lieing and such hardly puts him on good footing with God in my opinion.

[BoogyMan]

I don't want Iran to have nukes. But Bush being the leader on this is a little disingenuous. Bush is not as bad as the Iranian leader, but he's hardly the leader of peaceful actions in the world. His war like nature and willingness to put soldiers in harms way (I'll NEVER forgive his SecDef for saying "You fight with the Army you have.") coupled with a new book from a former Press Secretary talking about Bush's lieing and such hardly puts him on good footing with God in my opinion.

I don't want Iran to get Nukes either and I don't think that my commentary even mentioned Bush until you tried to tie this to him.

[Wndrtch]

If you are making a line of argumentation that supports allowing Ahmadinejad to acquire nuclear arms with the full knowledge that he IS apocalyptically minded and that he IS consistently speaking of the downfall of Israel one has no other choice but to think you might just agree with him.

Bush has spoken of his faith consistently, that doesn't mean that he is apocalyptically minded, you are trying to obfuscate the argument DS.

The problem is Boogy, that many people would only act after a massive loss of life. The idea of acting before (pre-emptive) an event, runs counter to many people's presumptions of "innocent, until proven guilty". "Innocent, until proven guilty" works well for maintaining order in a free society, but it's a lousy way to deal with dictators/despots/totalitarians foreign leaders.

Any leader of any nation that openly calls for the destruction of a people, nation, or religion, should be removed (peacefully if possible, by force if necessary) by the World body.

Madmen, or people who talk like madmen, should not have power over millions or access to a nation's resources.

[Elrathin]

Madmen, or people who talk like madmen, should not have power over millions or access to a nation's resources.
And who is the judge of who is a madman? YOU?

[Deadshot]

Boogy you don't need to mention Bush, as the leader of the USA his involvement is implied by the thread itself. As Wnd, points out, no one else will act.

To go along with El's statement, many think Bush is a madman!

[BoogyMan]

Boogy you don't need to mention Bush, as the leader of the USA his involvement is implied by the thread itself. As Wnd, points out, no one else will act.

To go along with El's statement, many think Bush is a madman!

This isn't about Bush, it is about doing the right thing with regard to Iran. Iran should not be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons, period.

[Deadshot]

This isn't about Bush, it is about doing the right thing with regard to Iran. Iran should not be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons, period.

And POTUS Obama, a man of peace, not lies and war, will handle that.

[Wndrtch]

And who is the judge of who is a madman? YOU?

Anyone with common sense, which rules out 90% of the DNC.

So, I take it you're one of those "non-judgmental" types? How can you have "good judgement", if you are not judgmental? :ponder:

[Wndrtch]

And POTUS Obama, a man of peace, not lies and war, will handle that.

And POTUS Obama, a man of hope, not common sense and experience, will drop the ball on that.

:nana:

[Deadshot]

Anyone with common sense, which rules out 90% of the DNC.

So, I take it you're one of those "non-judgmental" types? How can you have "good judgement", if you are not judgmental? :ponder:

So we should let the GOP judge?

*A party that backed a war that even it's own members are claim was unnecessary.
*A party that pushed for Bush, someone who's reigned over the worst market for oil and gas in the last 40 years.
*A party that has Bush as it's leader who is POTUS during the worst housing starts in the last 70 years.
*A party that has Bush as it' leader when the USA has not been more feared and hated by the world in the WHOLE LIFE OF THE COUNTRY!!!!

And your pointing to the DNC as having no common sense?

I wouldn't trust the RNC to know how to run the Church's Bake Sale!

As to Obama, just re-read the above and remember which party McCain is in.

[BoogyMan]

And POTUS Obama, a man of peace, not lies and war, will handle that.

If Obama is elected and confronted with the prospect of an Iran with nuclear arms, I am sure that you will see an Obama that presents a very different method of dealing with such a state than he has in his campaign rhetoric.