[Voice of Reason]

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.

No... it is not a Utopia. In my life, most people do possess the power of independent reason. Probably because if they don't, and instead just toe some party line, I can't really be bothered with them. What is the point when you already know that what they 'think' ( ) is whatever their ideology tells them to think?

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.

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.

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.

[filcher]

Quote:

1, There is no evidence that this is an if then clause. It is not surprising, unexpected, illegal, or immoral that the U.S. would support a DG that agrees with the U.S. on major issues. You're essentially complaining that someone supports a candidate because they agree with them. Where is the evidence that this is an ideological agenda to ignore fact? Which facts specifically are ignored?

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:

Google Vyacheslav Danilenko. Where do you get that he's only a diamonds expert?

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.

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:

"It is likely that some of this report is based on a source I don't trust" contains nothing conclusive. You might as well have linked to the report and say "I doubt it!" The report talks of its credibility. Right now you are just trying to talk down the credibility of the report without talking down the credibility of the IAEA itself.

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.

Quote:

Is this why he keeps following me around? Just to shout down what I say because his opinion is defined by what I say?

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 don't actually care about that because it does not relate to the topic in a significant way. I was entertaining the idea that someone wanted to talk about the "consequences" of the report

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 non-compliant then, there is your proof. This report offers what it calls credible pieces of information which can be used as evidence. Where is the evidence of bias?

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.

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.

[Voice of Reason]

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.

A lot of developing nations think so, and backed Abdul Minty for precisely that reason. It took months of political manoeuvring by the USA to get their man in there.

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.

To be accurate, Iran was not accused of being in breach of NPT. All NPT requires is the so-called Three Pillars - don't proliferate; disarm; and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran has not breached any of those, and the IAEA has never said they have. In fact, year after year they confirm that Iran has not breached any of those. Strangely, the Iran hawk idiots never mention that...

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.

No I don't.

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.

[Mars II]

Originally Posted by filcher:

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.

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:

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.

All this says is that he also works on nano-diamonds. Nobody said he didn't.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I don't think it relevant to the report.

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.

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:

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.

The treaty obligates them to accept the safeguards with the IAEA, which they failed to do. That is why they were non-compliant.

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

[filcher]

Originally Posted by Mars II:

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.

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.

Quote:

All this says is that he also works on nano-diamonds. Nobody said he didn't.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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?

No. He is scoring points with himself, by mocking your arguments.

Quote:

I don't think it relevant to the report.

Neither do I but you bought it up. I thought you should have an answer.

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.

Non compliant for not ratifying the agreement imposed by the UNSC and not IAEA, not non compliant as regards to the NPT.

Quote:

The treaty obligates them to accept the safeguards with the IAEA, which they failed to do. That is why they were non-compliant.

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.

[Mars II]

Originally Posted by filcher:

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.

There is no evidence to say that he supports measures without proof. Where is your evidence that he had no opinion or knowledge on Iran before he had these opinions? He served as chairman of the board of governors for a time. On the subject of the past DG, he had this to say:

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.

Without hearsay of implications:

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.

It is not disputed that he worked on nano-diamonds. You can read the section containing that if you want more information on the detonator needed for a nuclear weapon. It is not as simple as needing an explosive and detonator.

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.

I am not interested in justifications for an nuclear weapons program. If Iran has no nuclear weapons program, why does it need logistics to test nuclear weapons?

Quote:

No. He is scoring points with himself, by mocking your arguments.

It is called trolling. He seeks my attention so he lobs insults. The only reason he replies with topic matter is so that he doesn't get warned while doing it.

Quote:

Neither do I but you bought it up. I thought you should have an answer.

I did not bring it up, I was only entertaining the idea that someone actually wanted to discuss something tangentially related to the report.

Quote:

Non compliant for not ratifying the agreement imposed by the UNSC and not IAEA, not non compliant as regards to the NPT.

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;

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.

So there is that.

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.

I would like to see some links on this so I can look into it further. From what I've seen above, the safeguards where negotiated with the IAEA and Iran and Iran was found in non-compliance because of those safeguards. The document GOV/2003/75 does not mention the security council.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Mars:

He said he agreed with the U.S. to a U.S. ambassador.

Correct. Which proves that he is not impartial, just as filcher said.

Quote:

Just because he agrees with U.S. goals in the IAEA doesn't mean he's a puppet.

The bit where the USA campaigned like crazy to get him into the position does. They didn't do that just for fun.

Quote:

Weapons scientists don't just work on weapons all day.

Correct. Sometimes they work on nano-diamonds, just as Iran said. Congratulations on finally catching up.

Quote:

When did you first hear about the HEU implosion modeling? Or preparations for an underground test site?

2009, and I already provided the link. It just looks new to you because you are not as informed as the rest of us and missed it all the first time around.

Quote:

The treaty obligates them to accept the safeguards with the IAEA, which they failed to do. That is why they were non-compliant.

You don't know the difference between a material breach and a technical non-compliance, do you?

Quote:

The document GOV/2003/75 does not mention the security council.

Correct. Because is is only a technical violation. Do you understand yet?

Quote:

There is no evidence to say that he supports measures without proof.

There is no proof to support any of his "Possible Military Dimensions".

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;

Blah blah blah.

For the second time, does it say Iran is building nukes? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Quote:

Without hearsay of implications:

Blah blah blah.

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?

As explained in your own link, and by me at least three times, they want to be nuclear capable, able to build a bomb at short notice, just like Japan, or Brazil, or Argentina.

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.

The difference is that ELbaradei was around when the US Republicans where playing this silly game to justify attacking Iraq. He dealt with 'credible information' for 'a member state' and it was all wrong. Faced with same people saying the had 'credible information' about Iran, ELbaradei looked for independent confirmation and found none, so he rejected it as unreliable. Basically, "because the USA says so" doesn't work on an experienced DG like ELbaradei.

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.

Even if it is true, so what? Iran has no weapons grade material to implode - the IAEA confirms that year after year - and doing that research is not a breach of NPT. It is 1945 technology...

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

Reason says that before you can reduce a threat, the threat has to be proven to exist.

Again. i express an overwhelming sentiment of wowness.

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.

Music. Don't stop.

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.

You make it sound as if America has any interest in long term. Thats the type of thing tyrants imagine, i.e. politics needs a kick up the arse. What I really mean is, the world is headed in a direction that I like: tyranny by the vocal 'majority'. Once that gets leverage, every cunt and his camel follows. Democracy, baby.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

the world does not give a shit about politics.

Arab Spring and Occupy say the world does care about politics.

Quote:

You make it sound as if America has any interest in long term

I am not sure how you get that impression, but to make it explicit my view of democracy is that it is:

• Short sighted because politicians are invariably focussed on the next election and see no farther.
  
• Split into 'incumbent' and 'opposition', and hence invariably becomes polarised and ideological because the politicians are looking at their electoral base rather than looking for a solution.
  
• Biased towards activists and hence self-defeating to some extent.

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.

[MalcolmW]

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

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

Just to preface my post, I'm not American

The simple fact that you have to say that, have to make an unforced denial, is a strong indication that it is probably not true.

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.

They say the exact opposite. Incontrovertibly. Which, you may note, I can spell and you can't...

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."

[filcher]

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.

With the slow down of isotope production from Chalk River, it is understandable that they may want to have their own source of medical isotope for domestic use and for export, as there is a growing market opportunity. When you make such strong accusations based on misinformation. it calls into question your neutrality on the subject.

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

I can only consider your injection of cyproterone is not working.

[Gotterdammerung]

Let's invade Iran! They hate America! America is the greatest country on earth! God bless America! Yeehaw!

etc. etc.

Pakistan -> Piorneering radiotheraphy.
Iran -> Hell-bent on doomsday machine.

I r so smart.