Posts: 6852/7006
(17-Nov-2011 at 06:08) ![]() |
Quote:
You must live in some kind of real life utopia if normal people use reason to critique propaganda spew at them from various channels.
![]() Right now, for example, there is no need to ask Republicans what they 'think', because they just parrot whatever is in the latest example of the Politics of the Absurd, the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which is exactly what Mars is doing. Reason says that before you can reduce a threat, the threat has to be proven to exist. There is no proven threat from Iran. Worse, sanctions that have no proven justification are illegal in ICL. What justification have these idiots given other than "We don't like Iran because they don't live like we do"? None. None at all. That is the difference between ideologues and rational, reasoning people.
Quote:
Why can't we just have an infinite supply of independant candidates? Oh no wait, that's what true democracy is about, but the world has never had that outside the mind of Plato.
When it comes to foreign policy though, yes - I do think reason should prevail. Trying to politicise international organisations, just to further some childish little political agenda, is absolutely not democracy and should not be tolerated. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 6853/7006
(17-Nov-2011 at 13:37) ![]() |
Quote:
it raises questions when the present DG had already made his intentions to support the US policy towards Iran clear before his appointment, and prior to the investigations contained in this report.
Maybe the developing nations were all wrong, but regardless of that the USA politicising the IAEA to further their own ends is not something to welcome. We need co-operation in such bodies; not petty partisan confrontation.
Quote:
Iran was found not compliant to the ratification of Protocol Agreement which it refused to sign in 2003 as agreed. Until that is ratified by Iran it cannot be compliant with the demands of the IAEA. Iran has allowed inspections and monitoring of all nuclear facilities, but has not allowed inspections of non nuclear facilities unless it can be shown that these locations are part of the IAEA mandate, which is it's right. It also does not need to answers questions beyond the mandate of the IAEA, both of which draws the IAEA criticism of Iran.
What Iran was accused of is technical violations of the Safeguard Agreement. They are not the first country to technically violate a Safeguard Agreement.
Quote:
So VoR argues for the same reason you do; to score points with those willing to serve as onlookers.
Firstly, if there is no reason there is no argument, so when it is ideologues like Mars I am engaging in a form of ridicule. Point out the many holes in their argument and watch them start whining. It is fun! Secondly, if the other person can reason I like to hear it. If I can find a weakness in their position - great, I have confirmed my world view. If I can't - great, I have learned something. In neither case is point scoring or impressing an imaginary audience part of the process. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 2830/2860
(17-Nov-2011 at 19:58) ![]() |
Whether facts have been ignored or not is definitely not clear, but it raises questions when the present DG had already made his intentions to support the US policy towards Iran clear before his appointment, and prior to the investigations contained in this report.
Quote:
Apparently his name is on nano diamond patents dating from the 60's, and he has been associated with industries that are involved with nano diamond development. He was on the team of scientists that first created the process, and later helped develop various procedures for the creation of diamonds. That he worked out of an all Russian Research Facility at Snezhensk does not mean he was involved in the research or development of nuclear weapons, nor does the ability to create a series of timed explosions make it acceptable as far as triggering an atomic device. American Universities that research nanotechnology reference his work on creating nanodiamond technology.
Quote:
Whether his lectures and teachings can be used to trigger a nuclear device is unimportant; he claims that his teachings and lectures were to help the Iranians develop a nano diamond industry, and his background in nano diamond technology would suggest he is telling the truth. In addition, sources close to the IAEA have referenced him as the person written in the reports.
Quote:
The report contains nothing new, some poorly thought out evidences of Iranian conspiracy, some thinly veiled hints about Iranian attempts to create a bomb, and the usual mutterings about missing materials from pre 2003. We have been here, and have seen all these accusations with other reports on Iran. Nothing has changed, Iran will be accused of being in non compliance of the NPT until they accept the Protocol of Safeguard Agreement. Meanwhile the US breaks the NPT by selling nuclear supplies to India, a non NPT country.
The Agency has information provided by a Member State that Iran may have planned and undertaken preparatory experimentation which would be useful were Iran to carry out a test of a nuclear explosive device. In particular, the Agency has information that Iran has conducted a number of practical tests to see whether its EBW firing equipment would function satisfactorily over long distances between a firing point and a test device located down a deep shaft. Additionally, among the alleged studies documentation provided by that Member State, is a document, in Farsi, which relates directly to the logistics and safety arrangements that would be necessary for conducting a nuclear test. The Agency has been informed by a different Member State that these arrangements directly reflect those which have been used in nuclear tests conducted by nuclear-weapon States.
Quote:
Not quite. I know little about the theory of arguing, but it seems we argue to win points and not to create converts. So VoR argues for the same reason you do; to score points with those willing to serve as onlookers. Very few people are swayed by any but the most reasoned arguments, and then seldom on any topic they care about.
So why do we argue? To some arguing and debate may be part of a process to refine and confirm their own beliefs, while other people may simply want to have their beliefs confirmed as acceptable. It is a question that has been studied by sociologists, and there are still theories being developed why we created the ability to argue.
Quote:
I mentioned this only because you wondered if anyone had done calculations on casualties. This was not the first site I found, but it did have the most controversial numbers in my opinion, but I was more interested in the actual responses to the suggestion contained in the figures that a nuclear war was winnable.
Quote:
Iran was found not compliant to the ratification of Protocol Agreement which it refused to sign in 2003 as agreed. Until that is ratified by Iran it cannot be compliant with the demands of the IAEA. Iran has allowed inspections and monitoring of all nuclear facilities, but has not allowed inspections of non nuclear facilities unless it can be shown that these locations are part of the IAEA mandate, which is it's right. It also does not need to answers questions beyond the mandate of the IAEA, both of which draws the IAEA criticism of Iran.
Quote:
That Iran may be said to be non compliant under the terms of the UNSC directives, does not mean they are in violation of any of their actual treaty obligations under NPT or any other treaty.
Quote:
Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance
|
||
|
Posts: 3965/3983
(18-Nov-2011 at 00:54) ![]() |
Re: Report: Iran developing nuclear bombs
He said he agreed with the U.S. to a U.S. ambassador. He didn't agree to support the U.S. regardless. Just because he agrees with U.S. goals in the IAEA doesn't mean he's a puppet. U.S. goals are not by default bad. In addition, the report was announced well before its release. Yukiya Amano had been involved with the IAEA since 2005. It is not surprising that he was well versed with the current issues. He served on the board of governors.
Quote:
All this says is that he also works on nano-diamonds. Nobody said he didn't.
Quote:
Having a background in nano-diamonds doesn't mean he didn't work on nuclear weapons or that the detonators aren't similar or contradict anything saying he was a weapons scientist. Iran isn't going to outright claim that he was there for that purpose. Weapons scientists don't just work on weapons all day.
Quote:
When did you first hear about the HEU implosion modeling? Or preparations for an underground test site?
The Agency has information provided by a Member State that Iran may have planned and undertaken preparatory experimentation which would be useful were Iran to carry out a test of a nuclear explosive device. In particular, the Agency has information that Iran has conducted a number of practical tests to see whether its EBW firing equipment would function satisfactorily over long distances between a firing point and a test device located down a deep shaft. Additionally, among the alleged studies documentation provided by that Member State, is a document, in Farsi, which relates directly to the logistics and safety arrangements that would be necessary for conducting a nuclear test. The Agency has been informed by a different Member State that these arrangements directly reflect those which have been used in nuclear tests conducted by nuclear-weapon States. That Iran is finding out how to build a nuke and how to handle it safely. It does not mean that they are willing to build one or want one. However, ccording to conventional wisdom, the only reason to have nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to attack. Considering talk in Israel and the US about military action against Iran, then Iran may want nuclear weapons for no other reason than as protection against military action. However for Iran to make a nuclear device they need fissible materials, which they do not have access to.
Quote:
So he thinks he's scoring points with search engines? Because those are about the only things "watching" this. I do not think anyone is out there cheering someone on. This forum is as vacant as you can get most days. I just do it because I learn things in the process sometimes. That's why I stopped talking to him, it was usually just lies/grammar/childish insults. That's why I don't care what he says. Nobody cares to read his flaming anymore. Except Gotter. Who knows what he's thinking?
Quote:
I don't think it relevant to the report.
Quote:
I remember this argument. Iran does not have to comply with an agreement because it didn't ratify it. An agreement which nobody else has to ratify. You can read the old thread on this topic, but the fact of the matter is that Iran was found non-compliant.
Quote:
The treaty obligates them to accept the safeguards with the IAEA, which they failed to do. That is why they were non-compliant.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
Posts: 2831/2860
(18-Nov-2011 at 02:56) ![]() |
When he supports stricter measures against Iran without reviewing the evidence warranting those measures, it is unacceptable. Also, being involved with the IAEA does not mean he is familiar enough with the Iran dossier to pass critical judgement on the beliefs of the past DG.
Iran seeking nuclear weapons technology: ElBaradei
Quote:
It was implied he is a weapons specialist and was in Iran as a weapon specialist. This is not true. He was in Iran as a lecturer on nano-diamonds and the explosions that form them. The IAEA report apparently stated this, but in a manner that implied it was questionable, and the media neglected to mention it in any manner, which is very poor investigative skills on the part of the IAEA and the media covering the story.
The Agency has strong indications that the development by Iran of the high explosives initiation system, and its development of the high speed diagnostic configuration used to monitor related experiments, were assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable in these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career with this technology in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin. The Agency has reviewed publications by this foreign expert and has met with him. The Agency has been able to verify through three separate routes, including the expert himself, that this person was in Iran from about 1996 to about 2002, ostensibly to assist Iran in the development of a facility and techniques for making ultra-dispersed diamonds (“UDDs” or “nanodiamonds”), where he also lectured on explosion physics and its applications.
Quote:
Placing charges to demolish a building may give one the ability to create nuclear detonators also, but we do not claim these people can build or set off a nuclear device. Unless there is a clear link to the nuclear weapons projects that were running at the time, he is a nano diamond specialist. The available evidence linking him to nuclear weapons and making him a nuclear weapons expert is tenuous at best.
Quote:
Which means what exactly? That Iran is finding out how to build a nuke and how to handle it safely. It does not mean that they are willing to build one or want one. However, ccording to conventional wisdom, the only reason to have nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to attack. Considering talk in Israel and the US about military action against Iran, then Iran may want nuclear weapons for no other reason than as protection against military action. However for Iran to make a nuclear device they need fissible materials, which they do not have access to.
Quote:
No. He is scoring points with himself, by mocking your arguments.
Quote:
Neither do I but you bought it up. I thought you should have an answer.
Quote:
Non compliant for not ratifying the agreement imposed by the UNSC and not IAEA, not non compliant as regards to the NPT.
Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute;
Originally Posted by GOV/2003/75:
On 6 June 2003, the Director General submitted to the Board of Governors a report
(GOV/2003/40) providing further information on the nature of the safeguards issues involved and the actions that needed to be taken, and describing developments in that regard since March 2003. In that report, the Director General stated that Iran had failed to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material imported into Iran and the subsequent processing and use of the material, and the declaring of facilities and other locations where the material had been stored and processed. He described these failures and the actions being taken by Iran to correct them.
Quote:
It obligates them to accept the safeguards as negotiated with IAEA, but the safegaurds they are in non compliance with were placed by directive of the UNSC.
|
||
|
Posts: 6854/7006
(18-Nov-2011 at 03:13) ![]() |
Originally Posted by Mars:
He said he agreed with the U.S. to a U.S. ambassador.
Quote:
Just because he agrees with U.S. goals in the IAEA doesn't mean he's a puppet.
Quote:
Weapons scientists don't just work on weapons all day.
Quote:
When did you first hear about the HEU implosion modeling? Or preparations for an underground test site?
Quote:
The treaty obligates them to accept the safeguards with the IAEA, which they failed to do. That is why they were non-compliant.
![]()
Quote:
The document GOV/2003/75 does not mention the security council.
Quote:
There is no evidence to say that he supports measures without proof.
Quote:
Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards
Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute; For the second time, does it say Iran is building nukes? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Quote:
Without hearsay of implications:
Is any of that a breach of NPT? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Quote:
If Iran has no nuclear weapons program, why does it need logistics to test nuclear weapons?
What part of that is too difficult for you?
Originally Posted by filcher:
Also, being involved with the IAEA does not mean he is familiar enough with the Iran dossier to pass critical judgement on the beliefs of the past DG.
But then, the USA campaigned to get a US-friendly DG installed, who then published the information, provided by the USA, that the USA wanted to be published. But of course he is no puppet. ![]()
Quote:
The available evidence linking him to nuclear weapons and making him a nuclear weapons expert is tenuous at best.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. Last edited by Voice of Reason, 18-Nov-2011 at 03:16. |
||
|
Posts: 1466/1637
(28-Nov-2011 at 15:58) |
Re: Report: Iran developing nuclear bombs
Reason says that before you can reduce a threat, the threat has to be proven to exist.
I am downright envious of your immediate 'tribe' of association. I am simultaneously reminded of the 5 billion others against you who have no further thoughts than "mmmm... rice". And no, that isn't some shallow appeal to the undeveloped world, it is a factual statement towards the mental capacity of everyday humans. That is, the world does not give a shit about politics. In short, I want to care, but no one else does, so why, in turn, given reason and all, should I?
Quote:
There is no proven threat from Iran.
Quote:
Correct. Independent candidates is democracy. Party politics isn't. If the USA wants to self-destruct in an orgy of partisan stupidity, politicising absolutely everything, fair enough - it is their loss.
Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 28-Nov-2011 at 15:58. |
||
|
Posts: 6858/7006
(30-Nov-2011 at 08:11) ![]() |
Quote:
the world does not give a shit about politics.
Quote:
You make it sound as if America has any interest in long term
You can see it all in action right now. Republicans are not being obstructionist because it is good for America. They do it to appeal to their electoral base by being seen to oppose, and they don't care if their actions harm America as long as they get voters out for the next election. The voters they want to appeal to are the Tea Party radicals; not because they are numerous (self-declared non-Tea Party Republicans out-number Tea Party nutters by around ##:##) but because they can be trusted to go out and vote. The same applies to all the crap about Iran. The Republicans are not ranting about it because Iran is an actual threat, but because their ideology is built on scare-mongering which requires an 'enemy' to be scared of. Last time it was Iraq. Now it is Iran. This allows them to bullshit about protecting America, being patriotic, blah blah blah - just like the WoT did - in the run up to the next election. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 1/1
(06-Feb-2012 at 08:30) |
![]() Just to preface my post, I'm not American - I'm a canadian from toronto, who disagrees with pretty much everything about american policy, albeit far less so with obama compared to bush (although the entire american political system, whether democrat or republican is completely controlled by their financiers, ie corporate lobbyists backing both horses).
That being said, if you actually believe Iran is doing nuclear grade testing for 'medical purposes', you are either: A) an Iranian secret agent B) a F*cking R*tard. I mean, forget everything the US has to say - Even the UN nuclear council, probably one of the most impotent, pathetically underpowered groups on the planet, agrees they're Incontravertably developing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't they? Obviously 90% of Iranians aren't locked in the dark ages (as demonstrated by the green revolution after the completely contrived 'victory' in their last presidential election - speaking of ridiculous election fraud, hats off to vladamir putin! That's how a dictator really acts like a pro - the Illusion of democracy! What a champ... But anyways, back on topic.... Iran is developing nuclear weapons because they can clearly see their back is against the wall. It's a race against time, sanctions verus Iran's scientific ability to figure it out. I don't know about you, but religion has no place in international politics- Iran is yet another pathetic example of the degenerative effect of religion on human evolution - if you ask me, you should have to Choose. Religion or science. You can either believe in Jesus Christ, Allah, that earth was created in 7 days, blah blah blah bs, or use electricity. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of science you like. Either we evolved, or never use a single piece of technology, trusting in your 'god'. Don't even get me started on how pathetically deluded you must be to believe in Mormonism/Scientology/Astrology.... Anyways, rant aside.... if what I've said angered you, please do the gene pool a favour and chemically castrate yourself ![]() |
||
|
Posts: 6973/7006
(07-Feb-2012 at 12:30) ![]() |
Quote:
Just to preface my post, I'm not American
Quote:
Even the UN nuclear council, probably one of the most impotent, pathetically underpowered groups on the planet, agrees they're Incontravertably developing nuclear weapons.
![]() From the opening link: "The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb." From the report itself: "...the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at these facilities and LOFs." "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest. |
||
|
Posts: 3982/3983
(11-Feb-2012 at 00:37) ![]() |
Quote:
That being said, if you actually believe Iran is doing nuclear grade testing for 'medical purposes', you are either:
A) an Iranian secret agent B) a F*cking R*tard. The question is not whether Iran will make a weapon in the future, but whether they are making one now. There has been no concrete evidences they are, and there are security measures in place to warn the IAEA if they decide to go this way.
Quote:
if what I've said angered you, please do the gene pool a favour and chemically castrate yourself
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Does the US have any actual policy on nuclear proliferation? | Voice of Reason | Respectable General Discussions | 113 | 21-Mar-2009 10:35 |
Defiant Iran | Royal Assassin3 | Respectable General Discussions | 319 | 05-Feb-2007 09:53 |
Nuclear Proliferation: So? | Subterranean | Respectable General Discussions | 38 | 16-Aug-2005 12:03 |
Russia Set to Sign Nuclear Deal with Iran, Irk U.S. | Aussie Girl | Respectable General Discussions | 25 | 27-Feb-2005 01:59 |
So Iraq didn't teach us a lesson...is Iran next? | Henry Returns | Respectable General Discussions | 66 | 30-Jan-2005 20:35 |