The IAEA’s “ovewhelming display of disapproval” for Iranian nuclear program is …

posted at 10:20 am on November 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Well, this ought to do the trick!  The IAEA, apparently angry at Iran’s refusal to stop doing what everyone knows damned well they’ve been doing for more than a decade, finally lost patience with Iran yesterday.  In what the New York Times hilariously describes as “an overwhelming display of disapproval,” the UN’s nuclear-control agency has … wait for it … sent Iran a strongly worded letter:

One day after the director general of the United Nations nuclear watchdog castigated Iran for blocking inquiries into its nuclear program, the organization’s governing body added a further rebuke Friday, demanding that the country freeze operations “immediately” at a once-secret uranium enrichment plant.

In an overwhelming display of disapproval, the governing body also expressed “serious concern” about potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.

The resolution censuring Iran was approved overwhelmingly by 25 votes to 3. It came after Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared in unusually blunt language on Thursday that Iran had stonewalled investigators about evidence that the country had worked on nuclear weapons design, and that his efforts to reveal the truth had “effectively reached a dead end.”

Are you overwhelmed by this display of disapproval?  Jazz Shaw is decidedly underwhelmed, but sees reason for optimism:

This comes close on the heels of the IAEA report stating that Iran was not cooperating with their inspections of Iran’s secret uranium enrichment plant. Despite the somewhat snarky title of this column, there is some tentative good news in this report. Both Russia and China signed on this time, which comes as something of a shock compared to their past attitudes. Some are attributing China’s apparent change of heart to Obama’s recent visit to that nation along with warnings from U.S. representatives to the Chinese that the escalating situation could result in threats to their oil supply from Iran.

Still, while there’s some reason to be hopeful, a “strongly worded letter” is far short of real action. The question is, will the Russians and the Chinese sign on for serious additional sanctions against Iran. A bit of lip service is one thing. Building a coalition of the worlds greatest powers to hit them in the pocketbook would be something else entirely. And if you are serious about wanting to avoid war with Iran, preferring a diplomatic resolution to the tensions there, sanctions from a unified front of Tehran’s biggest customers is likely the only tool we have in the bag.

China may be more likely to damage their own economic interests than Russia, considering the relative strength of their economies, but in truth neither will be at all likely to go beyond the strongly-worded letter.  As Jazz notes, the Chinese rely on Iranian oil, and even if they were willing to isolate Iran, the rest of the global supply probably couldn’t make it up.  Russia’s economy has cratered, and they need the exports to Iran to keep them afloat.

Besides, this isn’t the first time that the IAEA has taken this action. They did it in 2006 as well, with similar results. A year later, the US intelligence community would produce a National Intelligence Estimate that completely undermined the IAEA action, and would turn out to be completely wrong, as the revelation of Irans’ Qom facility would embarrassingly demonstrate.

If we want Russia and China on board, we have to be able to show that failing to contain Iran would be more dangerous to their interests than letting them proceed. So far, neither Obama nor Bush has been able to make that case, and not for lack of trying. Bush tried pressure, Obama tried sweet talk, and neither succeeded because China and Russia don’t really care all that much about Iranian nuclear ambitions — at least, they don’t care about that more than they do their own pocketbooks. And that’s not likely to change.

The boys at South Park Studios lampooned the New York Times’ hyperbole years before in their movie,Team America: World Police.  In the following not-safe-for-work (and I mean really NSFW) clip, Hans Blix tries the strongly-worded letter approach:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Self Parody.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM

They all know that when push comes to shove, Obama will be out to dinner.

Everyone knows that it is only a matter of time before Israel strikes.

tatersalad on November 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Wow! STRONGLY worded! That will set those mullahs straight. Yeah, right after they stop laughing.

GarandFan on November 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I never get tired of watching that Team America clip. But I am sort of tired of living it.

myrenovations on November 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Was the letter sent on recycled paper?

SouthernGent on November 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Still, while there’s some reason to be hopeful, a “strongly worded letter” is far short of real action.

“Reason to be hopeful,” eh? And what might that be?

Commentators who look for the silver lining (that would be people like you, Ed, and this “Jazz Shaw” person) are merely indulging in another version of the kind of wishful thinking that has kept the UN alive all these years.

We can be “hopeful” that a rattlesnake won’t bite when cornered. We can be “hopeful” that sticking a pin in a balloon won’t make it burst.

But rational people, of whom we have damn few in either government or the blogging class, know that the right way to deal with a threat it to make it clear to the miscreant that the consequences of their behavior can — and definitely will — be most unpleasant for them.

MrScribbler on November 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM

That’s it! Next time our dogs misbehave, I will send them a strongly worded memo. That should do the trick.

Johnnyreb on November 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Baliff, Whack his peepee.

Rocks on November 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM

What a worthless gaggle of slugs.

rplat on November 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Hans Blix responds to that clip. No seriously.

Also NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHZYtSfJB74

- The Cat

P.S. NSFW = Not Safe For Work, for those that do not know.

MirCat on November 27, 2009 at 10:29 AM

n the following not-safe-for-work (and I mean really NSFW) clip, Hans Blix tries the strongly-worded letter approach:

In many of the workplaces in America, what Kim says is mild. “Good morning, I love your outfit” would be the translation.

turfmann on November 27, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Doesn`t Mohamed ElBaradei retire in December?
I sure hope the next person to head this organization is a non-Muslim from a non-Middle Eastern country.

albill on November 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Iran has its own plans for global warning. Gotta hand it to the mullahs,..they have successfully exploited U.N. impotency and dithering for 10 years and Barry’s election was a godsend for them.

a capella on November 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

If the letter doesn’t work we should send MO over there to give Dinnerjacket “The Look”.

thomasaur on November 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

What a worthless gaggle of slugs.

rplat on November 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM

And that’s an insult to slugs.

TXUS on November 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Iran has its own plans for global warning. Gotta hand it to the mullahs,..they have successfully exploited U.N. impotency and dithering for 10 years and Barry’s election was a godsend for them.

a capella on November 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

True. Ever wonder how much they invested in that election outcome? Maybe in a series of credit card donations online?

MikeA on November 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Wow! STRONGLY worded! That will set those mullahs straight. Yeah, right after they stop laughing.

GarandFan on November 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Maybe the IAEA’s plan is to force the mullahs to laugh themselves to death???

doriangrey on November 27, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I know I’m cynical as hell, but I believe two things about the UN. First, they overwhelmingly hate Israel and will be happy to see it destroyed. Second, they hate America for our freedom, power and principles and would be happy to see us bloodied up a bit. Consequently, it is in their vile interests to kick this can down the road in the hope that the Jihadi scum they suck up to will only see fit to destroy Israel and bloody the US and leave the rest of them alone. I really want that worthless pile of UN sh*t out of my beloved country.

SKYFOX on November 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM

What makes my brain explode is that everyone is going to be shocked (shocked I say) when Iran tries, successfully or not, to nuke Israel or some other target. All the libtards will line up to say that they head no idea this would happen. The libtards will blame America and then they’ll ask for a reduction in our nuclear arsenal.

The target country will probably nuke Iran off the face of the map. They’ll have to change the name to Nukegahnistan or something like that.

As always, in their misguided efforts to “save” lives libtards always end with millions dead due to their fecklessness.

Mojave Mark on November 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Nothing that a bow and a speech can’t cure.

“This is not the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew…”

Drained Brain on November 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Stop…..or I’ll ask you to stop again!

search4truth on November 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM

“We are very upset! You have not responded as demanded in our last strongly worded letter. Thus, we have no recourse but to send you THIS strongly worded letter. You better pay attention, because if you don’t we’ll send you a strongly worded letter.”

SS/DD

GoldenEagle4444 on November 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I tell ya, those mullahs and Dinnerjacket better watch out. The IAEA may actually send a copy of the letter — oh, the horror — to…

The Cover-girl in Chief, mmm mmm mmm.

TXUS on November 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Imadinnerjacket may be a lunatic, but he knows a candyass when he meets one.

MikeA on November 27, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Doesn`t Mohamed ElBaradei retire in December?
I sure hope the next person to head this organization is a non-Muslim from a non-Middle Eastern country.

albill on November 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

El Baradei’s term is up November 30, the next IAEA leader is from Japan, I think. Yukiya Amano.

fourdeucer on November 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Doesn`t Mohamed ElBaradei retire in December?
I sure hope the next person to head this organization is a non-Muslim from a non-Middle Eastern country.

albill on November 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

When I read about this the other day, I thought to myself, “ElBarradei must be near the very end of his term, that’s the only reason he would deviate from his usual ignorant stupidity finally send one tough message.”

Sure enough, this moron’s complete ignorance and cowardice has been a constant for his terms. Now that he knows he can bail without risk, he writes one tough – an completely useless – letter.

USELESS….and they gave him a nobel prize.

Jackasses.

wildweasel on November 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM

My, oh my! What a surprise! The UN and our government are both one big joke!

One of the reasons I loved President Bush is that he saw through this appeasement crap and played the system for all it was worth. He made the UN and other weasel organizations and governments back up their words. The UN wasn’t happy about passing the resolutions that allowed the world to hold Hussein accountable, but boy were they surprised when Bush took them at their word! He played them like a Stradivarius.

NavyMustang on November 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Yes we have seen these negotiations before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P2jJdrz9bY

Good thing the adults are in charge.

Baxter Greene on November 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Remember the strongly worded letter that Charles, the Hammer, Martell sent to the Muslims when they showed up uninvited in France? Turns out they could not understand the Frankish nuance that Charles injected his letter with. So he was forced to hammer the Muslim basta*ds till they left, and they never returned for 1300 years.

BL@KBIRD on November 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Instead of carrying my Kimber in a concealed holster, I will now carry a strongly worded letter to take care of any potential threats.

Back off mugger man, this letter is written in BOLD FONT!

Bishop on November 27, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I wonder what the alternative is to this “strongly worded letter”. The UN is not an institution in and of itself. It is comprised of member states who seek to promote their own interests. If the US goes it alone and institutes unilateral sanctions, it won’t be effective. And if it clusterbombs Iranian sites then it will not only have to deal with the nest of hornets that will be released by the Ayatollah, but with angry allies whose own interests will have been damaged. And those allies are named Russia and China.

AlexB on November 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM

There seems to be a controversy in Iran over whether they did or didn’t confiscate the Nobel Peace Prize from the 2003 winner that is one of their citizens, Shirin Ebadi. Why do that unless she is part of the growing resistance?

Cindy Munford on November 27, 2009 at 11:16 AM

AlexB on November 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM

So, you propose surrender? Or just sacrifice Israel?

MikeA on November 27, 2009 at 11:18 AM

As of this moment……Iran is on DOUBLE SECRET probation!!

Talon on November 27, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I need a ruling from the judges here: does “a strongly worded letter” trump a “triple dog dare”, or vice versa, in the hierarchy of really, really kicka$$ threats?

ya2daup on November 27, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Why would Iran believe that anything truly painful will happen to them? North Korea has set off two underground nukes despite piles of resolutions and sanctions. This happened despite a worldwide ban on nuke tests that has been in effect for 20 years.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to merrily chug along with enrichment. Their 3600? operating centrifuges are capable of producing enough enriched uranium for two nukes per year.

GnuBreed on November 27, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Don’t make me stop this car!

mchristian on November 27, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Well, that’ll learn ‘em.

Hopefully it’s in all CAPS with strong and emphasis so that them Iranians know the UN is super, super serious.

I’m guessing the P.S. on the letter says “If you bomb those Israelis, make sure you bomb ‘em real good.”

Stupid, stupid IAEA.

And Neville Obama is busy doing his super serious job of trying to make Fox News Channel not a real news network.

OY, vey.

mjk on November 27, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The United Nations is a weak and ineffective assembly of ambassadors from lots of mostly small, mostly corrupt countries. The UN is a useless and deeply corrupt institution that has long ago outlived its world-wide usefulness. They have no bite. At best, all they can do is gum you. The UN has no teeth whatsoever. They are a laughing stock. The UN knows this well, but that does not matter so long as the big bucks that they stuff theirs and their cohorts pockets with keeps rolling in. From the U.N. “peacekeepers” who sexually abuse women and children, to their utter failure to protect populations in danger of genocide, and their rampant ongoing scandals and financial corruption, the UN contributes to our world’s problems, not mitigate them.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs laugh in the face of the UN. I wonder how much longer Israel is going to keep pussy footing around with Iran, at the behest of the United States and the United Nations, before they hit Iran’s facilities. When Israel finally has no other alternative and does take matters of their self-preservation into their own hands, you can be assured they will be portrayed as the bad guys and they will receive much much more than a harshly worded memo.

The United Nations is the laughing stock of the world’s dictators and evil-doers for good reason and it is well deserved. The UN is impotent.

SilverStar830 on November 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM

I need a ruling from the judges here: does “a strongly worded letter” trump a “triple dog dare”, or vice versa, in the hierarchy of really, really kicka$$ threats?

ya2daup on November 27, 2009 at 11:32 AM

sorry, no Man card for you.

Every MAN knows that a Double, let alone TRIPLE Dog dare is somthing that “Must be Done”… while this letter is somthing which “Must be Laughed At”…

Its in Chapter 2, page 37 of the MANual.

Of course, I go by the old book, not the updated wimpified “Progressive” Book.

Romeo13 on November 27, 2009 at 11:38 AM

The UN seems much less concerned about Iran than other crises.

Expression of serious concern? What happened to expressions of grave concern.

They’re really letting Iran skate.

eeyore on November 27, 2009 at 11:46 AM

…the end of the road. I think that’s the IPCC’s latest plan for Iran. Iran is a real global threat, unlike AGW which isn’t.

Kissmygrits on November 27, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Iran’s refusal to stop doing what everyone knows damned well they’ve been doing for more than a decade

Iran has been enriching uranium, which is completely legal. The US should be aiding Iran in their efforts to enrich uranium, and because they are doing the opposite, the US is in violation of the NPT.

The IAEA’s letter which “censures” Iran for doing something legal reminds me of another incident involving the IAEA. When it was discovered that Iran separated 200 milligrams (1) of plutonium for use in research experiments, it was a major issue worldwide. There were breathless reports of how the tests indicated that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, (2) and the issue was investigated by the IAEA intensively for 4 years before they finally determined that the issued had been resolved. (3) However, when it was discovered that South Korea separated 700 milligrams of plutonium back in 1982, (4) the reaction was quite different. In the South Korea case, the IAEA made a “casual inquiry” about the issue to South Korea by fax, and did not start an official investigation until 5 years later. (5) This investigation lasted 2 months, and the IAEA responded by “chiding” South Korea. (6) Iran gets a 4 year investigation, and South Korea is “chided.”

This unequal treatment is heightened by the fact that, unlike Iran, South Korea’s plutonium experiments were conducted in IAEA safeguarded facilities. (7) In addition, although there was never any evidence that Iran’s experiments were related to nuclear weapons, there were reports that South Korea’s experiments were run specifically to give the option for South Korea to make nuclear weapons if they chose to. (8) The South Korean government claimed that it did not know about these experiments, which was highly implausible given the fact that they were conducted by government workers in a government facility. (9)

1) “Total amount of plutonium separated in the research activities is estimated by the
agency to be about 200 milligrams.”
A.A. Soltanieh, “Iranian nuclear activities and interaction with the IAEA,” Atoms for Peace: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005, copy can be found here:
ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/cps/16962206/articulos/UNIS0606130141A.PDF
Also, see:
“The Agency has been following up with Iran information provided by Iran concerning experiments involving the separation of small (milligram) quantities of plutonium”:
GOV/2006/27, paragraph 27:
iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-27.pdf
2) “Iran has been caught secretly developing the technology to produce a nuclear bomb, The Independent can reveal. It has been forced to admit producing plutonium – the material associated with nuclear arms – after concealing its nuclear weapons programme from UN inspectors until last month, according to a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency” The Independent, “Iran Developing Nuclear Bomb Technology,” 12 Nov. 2003 by Leonard Doyle and Andrew Buncombe
3) “On 20 August 2007 the Agency stated that earlier statements made by Iran are consistent with the Agency’s findings, and thus this matter is resolved.”
iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf
4) “According to the international media, the IAEA report says South Korean scientists produced a total of 0.7 grams of plutonium comprising 98 per cent of fissile PU-239 in its 1982 test.” BBC Worldwide Monitoring quoting Chungang Ilbo, “South Korea downplays UN nuclear report,” 13 Nov. 2004
5) “The first indication of a plutonium experiment came to light in 1998 after international inspectors detected traces of the substance at a government-run nuclear research center in Seoul, according to the South Korean science ministry. IAEA sources said the samples were inconclusive, and inspectors began additional testing in other areas of the country. The South Korean government said the IAEA made only a “casual inquiry” by fax in 1998 and submitted an official request about the incident in 2003. During that work, the South Koreans allegedly dismantled a test site, moved equipment and failed to notify the IAEA about the experiments while they knew the agency was trying to determine whether such tests had been conducted, according to the diplomats. By 2003, inspectors had collected irrefutable evidence of plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment, and they confronted the South Koreans with it last December.”
Washington Post, “S. Korea Admits Extracting Plutonium; Acknowledgment of ’82 Test Follows Disclosure on Uranium,” 10 September 2004 by Anthony Faiola and Dafna Linzer
6) “Following a meeting of the 35-nation board of governors, the IAEA chided South Korea for breaching nuclear safeguards with the experiments, but allowed it to escape referral to the UN Security Council.”
Agence France Presse, “South Korea breathes sigh of relief over IAEA decision on nuclear tests,” 27 Nov. 2004
7) “The inspectors also uncovered a plutonium separation experiment in 1982 that was carried out ‘in a safeguarded facility and was not declared to the agency.’” (inside quote from IAEA report)
The International Herald Tribune, “Nuclear agency’s headaches proliferate; Report details South Korean cover-up,” 25 Nov. 2004 by James Brooke
8) “A former senior U.S. official responsible for conducting U.S.-Asian nuclear diplomacy said in September that, when Korean scientists conducted reprocessing experiments in 1982, South Korea ‘wanted to be ready’ to separate plutonium to produce nuclear weapons should the country’s leadership deem that necessary for national security reasons.”
Nucleonics Week, “ROK military said to have begun nuclear weapons plan in 1980s,” 18 Nov. 2004 by Mark Hibbs
9) “A week after admitting that government scientists enriched tiny amounts of uranium four years ago, the South Korean government disclosed on Thursday that scientists in 1982 conducted an experiment in plutonium extraction at a state-run research facility.”
International Herald Tribune, “Seoul tells of 1982 test to extract plutonium; Admission follows revelation of uranium experiments in 2000,” 10 Sept. 2004 by Andrew Salmon

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM

well well, look who it is, comrade ☭dave742☭

back to push your anti-semitic lies and BS as usual.

Iran has been enriching uranium, which is completely legal. T

who says its ‘legal’ and who cares?

iran is a threat, we should nuke them before they nuke us…but we won’t… I hope they deliver the results of their research to YOUR neighborhood…you anti-semitic piece of trash.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Iran has been enriching uranium, which is completely legal. The US should be aiding Iran in their efforts to enrich uranium, and because they are doing the opposite, the US is in violation of the NPT…

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM

How does one respond to that nauseous post except to say that if Iran was in reality being all peaceful like with their nuclear ambitions, would they be taking great pains to hide extraction and enrichment facilities and disallowing any transparency in their nuclear proliferation program whatsoever? And while at the same time the Iranian President is publicly profusing that Israel will be destroyed and wiped off the global map, etcetera ad nauseum?

You probably think Adolf Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood, too, dontchya?

SilverStar830 on November 27, 2009 at 1:02 PM

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I hope you fail.

Del Dolemonte on November 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Silverstar830:

would they be taking great pains to hide extraction and enrichment facilities

They did not hide the Qom facility, they reported it earlier than they were required to.

and disallowing any transparency in their nuclear proliferation program whatsoever?

They have been transparent. They have cooperated with all reasonable requests, and all requests that are within the law.

right4life:

who says its ‘legal’ and who cares?

I do. If you would like to discuss it, let me know. The US certainly does not care about what is legal, because they are a rogue nation. Rogue nations do not care about the law, or treaties that they sign.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM

I do. If you would like to discuss it, let me know. The US certainly does not care about what is legal, because they are a rogue nation. Rogue nations do not care about the law, or treaties that they sign.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM

oh since the great and mighty dave742 says so, then of course that makes it OK…right.

the US is a rogue nation? right, where does your twisted little mind come up with this one at?

where have we violated a treaty we have signed? hmmm??

you’re pathetically stupid. a typical left-wing wacko…why don’t you move to Iran, since you love them so??

Iran wants to destroy the jews…and thats what you REALLY like about them…

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM

They did not hide the Qom facility, they reported it earlier than they were required to.

davey boy, where do you come up with such lies and BS? have you no shame??

“They hid Qom, and our intelligence agencies found it in the nick of time,” says David Albright, a former weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security. “We can’t count on that next time.”

link

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 2:04 PM

They have been transparent. They have cooperated with all reasonable requests, and all requests that are within the law.

really now davey boy? if they are so transparent, why does the UN have to DEMAND more information??? hmmmm???

THE UN atomic watchdog has demanded more information from Iran about the purpose of a previously secret nuclear site and indicated the Islamic republic could be hiding other facilities.

link

do you enjoy making a fool out yourself?

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM

and just today davey boy….

VIENNA (AP) – The International Atomic Energy Agency probe of Iran’s nuclear program is at a dead end because Tehran is not cooperating, the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Thursday in an unusually blunt expression of frustration four days before he leaves office.

link

iran isn’t cooperating…so everything you’ve said is a lie.

no surprise there.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM

right4life:

where have we violated a treaty we have signed?

In relation to the subject of this thread, the US is in violation of Article IV(2) of the NPT, and has been for quite some time.
The US is also in violation of Article VI, and has been for decades. See:
David Koplow, Parsing Good Faith: Has the United States Violated Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?, 1993 WIS. L. REV. 301, 393 (1993)

“They hid Qom”

Iran is required to notify the IAEA 18 months before the introduction of nuclear material. Iran did this. If you would like to discuss details, let me know.

why does the UN have to DEMAND more information?

The article that Ed linked to did not say that the IAEA demanded more information, it said that they “demanded the country freeze operations ‘immediately’ at a once-secret uranium enrichment plant.” The IAEA “demand” for Iran to freeze uranium enrichment is illegal, and countries are not bound by illegal demands, they are bound by treaties.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 2:56 PM

right5life:

so everything you’ve said is a lie.

You keep quoting the MSM like they are the ICC. They are not. The MSM is propaganda. If you would like to discuss laws, let me know. If you would like to discuss something specific, let me know. Show me an instance where Iran did not cooperate with the IAEA.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM

In relation to the subject of this thread, the US is in violation of Article IV(2) of the NPT, and has been for quite some time.

this is BS. who have we given nuclear material to? and where does the UN cite us for violating the treaty? hmmmm??

who is dave koplow? some left-wing wacko professor no doubt??

Iran is required to notify the IAEA 18 months before the introduction of nuclear material. Iran did this. If you would like to discuss details, let me know.

what details? I’ve already posted that they hid it..and nothing you have said, or posted contradicts this. your ‘baffle em with BS’ doesn’t work.

The article that Ed linked to did not say that the IAEA demanded more information, it said that they “demanded the country freeze operations ‘immediately’ at a once-secret uranium enrichment plant.” The IAEA “demand” for Iran to freeze uranium enrichment is illegal, and countries are not bound by illegal demands, they are bound by treaties.

who cares? the article *I* posted says the following:

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM

VIENNA (AP) – The International Atomic Energy Agency probe of Iran’s nuclear program is at a dead end because Tehran is not cooperating, the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Thursday in an unusually blunt expression of frustration four days before he leaves office.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 3:06 PM

You keep quoting the MSM like they are the ICC. They are not. The MSM is propaganda. If you would like to discuss laws, let me know. If you would like to discuss something specific, let me know. Show me an instance where Iran did not cooperate with the IAEA.

I just did, from the words of Mohamed ElBaradei himself.

what do you know about laws? obviously nothing. you try to excuse a planned genocide. its disgusting, and downright evil.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 3:07 PM

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I take your point about unequal treatment and, of course, SK and Iran are of equal stature in the sense that both are independent nations. Also they both have belligerent and aggressive neighbours so they both have good reason to feel unsafe.

However, in other respects they are highly unequal. Iran is generally believed to be fomenting conflict in Lebanon and in Gaza and the West Bank. There is also more than a little bad feeling between Iran and the UK, and between Iran and the USA. Iran’s recent elections also fell far short of what is expected from civilized nations.

Moreover, what Iran is actually doing is only one part of the story. The other part is what Israel thinks Iran is doing. Given the potential fire-storm that will be created for Israel by an attack on Iran, I feel confident that Israel will not attack unless they are convinced that Iran poses a threat. Equally however, if Israel feels threatened then I am confident that they are going to attack.

Consequently, even if Iran is genuinely disinterested in nuclear weapons and genuinely wants peace, then it needs to be extra careful to keep the tension down. Nations are independent and sovereign and can do what they like, but wise nations are careful not to stir the pot unnecessarily.

The suspicion here is that Iran is deliberately trying to create trouble, possibly setting a trap by trying to provoke an Israeli military attack in order to bring an indirect economic and military attack against Israel indirectly. How does that work?

Iran fakes a nuclear weapons program. Israel attacks suspected facilities. Iran feigns outrage and brings in independent inspectors who find that there really is no nuclear weapons program. Thereupon Israel will be guilty in almost all Liberal, Muslim and Arab minds of unwarranted aggression against a peaceful state and will be the target for everybody’s ire. Iran’s losses will be minimal because Israel will attack only suspected nuclear sites which will be fakes anyway. In the ensuing turmoil Iran would be hoping that other nations will withdraw support from Israel thereby leaving Israel vulnerable to attack by its sovereign neighbours and by proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

In short, nuclear weapons or not, it seems possible, perhaps likely, that Iran is trying to force Israel into conflict.

YiZhangZhe on November 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM

In short, nuclear weapons or not, it seems possible, perhaps likely, that Iran is trying to force Israel into conflict.

YiZhangZhe on November 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Iran is also fighting against the US and saudi arabia in Yemen…they’ve been at war with us for 30 years..and we’re too stupid to fight back.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Iran is also fighting against the US and saudi arabia in Yemen…

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Which raises interesting questions about balances of power etc.

Given that mostly Shia Iran has tensions with the mostly Sunni states, it is possible that Iran wants to keep Israel on edge in order to keep the Arab states and Sunni Muslims focussed on Israel, rather than on Iran. The other oil states might be incapable of *making* nuclear weapons but they can easily afford to *buy* a few from North Korea or Pakistan and that could really alter the tone of the next theological spat between Iran and the rest of the Islamic world.

Personally I am more concerned about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan than I am about Iran. In my ignorance, it seems to me that of those three nations Iran is by far the more civilized, reasonable and potentially amicable.

YiZhangZhe on November 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM

right4life:

this is BS. who have we given nuclear material to? and where does the UN cite us for violating the treaty? hmmmm??

Article IV(2)says nothing about giving nuclear material to anyone. Since you are unable to even read a document, I will simply post Article IV(2) here:

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

The US has violated this article

who is dave koplow? some left-wing wacko professor no doubt??

This is Koplow. I don’t suppose you would like to talk about the content of his argument. I sure calling him a wacko is enough for you.

Tehran is not cooperating

You don’t even know what this refers to, but you believe it.
This refers to the infamous “laptop of death,” which Israel “found” laying around somewhere, that just happened to contain all of Irans “top secret” information regarding their nuclear weapons program. Most of those top secret documents, BTW, are written in English. This is a bad joke. If Iran says that they “found” a laptop containing proof that the US is in violation of the NPT (and those documents are written in Farsi), and that the SC should impose sanctions on the US as a result, do you think anyone would listen? You would have to be an imbecile to take something like that seriously, right?

YiZhangZhe:

The other part is what Israel thinks Iran is doing.

Are you frikin’ kidding me? So if China “thinks” that the US is doing something bad, they have the right to attack us?

but wise nations are careful not to stir the pot unnecessarily.

Why is following a treaty considered “stirring a pot”? Iran is doing what they agreed to when they signed the NPT. Taking advantage of your rights is not “stirring the pot.” If we make a deal, and you say I can do “X” and I say you can do “Y”, and you go ahead and do “Y”, are you stirring the pot? Do you have the slightest idea why the NPT exists? The reason that the NPT exists is the result of a “grand bargain”. Before the NPT existed, every country in the world had the legal right to manufacture nuclear weapons. Did you think that nearly every non-nuclear weapon state in the world signed the NPT and gave up their right to manufacture nuclear weapons just to be nice? Well, that’s not the reason. The reason they signed it relates to the “grand bargain” of the NPT. The non-nuclear states agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons in return for certain things, including:

1) Guarantees not to be attacked by nuclear weapons states
2) Assistance be given to them in developing their nuclear power capability
3) Retaining the right to the full nuclear fuel cycle
4) The agreement that nuclear weapons states will disarm their nuclear weapons

Here is the result of the NPT from Iran’s point of view:
1) The US threatens to attack Iran using nuclear weapons
2) The US does everything possible to hinder Iran’s capability to develop nuclear power
3) The US wants Iran to give up it’s right to the full nuclear fuel cycle
4) The US does nothing for 30 years regarding disarming their nuclear weapons, and works in the opposite direction and develops new nuclear weapons (a clear violation of Article VI on the NPT. I am sure sanctions against the US will begin soon).

All Iran is doing is insisting that it get at least a tiny part of what was agreed. The US denies giving them this, but it is Iran that is stirring the pot? You are insane.

The suspicion here is that Iran is deliberately trying to create trouble

I think you are right. I think Iran wants Usrael to attack them. If they do, Usrael will go down the toilet. I am going to love watching it happen.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM

The US has violated this article

really? how? with who? I’m supposed to believe it because you say so?? right

koplow is some law professor…big whoop.

You don’t even know what this refers to, but you believe it.
This refers to the infamous “laptop of death,” which Israel “found” laying around somewhere, that just happened to contain all of Irans “top secret” information regarding their nuclear weapons program. Most of those top secret documents, BTW, are written in English. This is a bad joke. If Iran says that they “found” a laptop containing proof that the US is in violation of the NPT (and those documents are written in Farsi), and that the SC should impose sanctions on the US as a result, do you think anyone would listen? You would have to be an imbecile to take something like that seriously, right?

what BS is this about? Iran was hiding their program….they were hiding Qom…and all your BS is just that…BS.

you can’t even do a good job of defending those scum. its really laughable.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 4:10 PM

1) The US threatens to attack Iran using nuclear weapons

when did we do this?? I would LOVE IT…post your proof…just more lies and BS on your part.

your lies aren’t working there davey boy.

2) The US does everything possible to hinder Iran’s capability to develop nuclear power

what have we done? not much from my perspective. ‘everything possible’ means we would have already attacked them.

again your lies and BS are just laughable.

4) The US does nothing for 30 years regarding disarming their nuclear weapons, and works in the opposite direction and develops new nuclear weapons (a clear violation of Article VI on the NPT. I am sure sanctions against the US will begin soon).

why should we? you are lying about what the treaty says…its not a disarmament treaty. you are so full of it…all you’re good for is a few laughs.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 4:13 PM

I think you are right. I think Iran wants Usrael to attack them. If they do, Usrael will go down the toilet. I am going to love watching it happen.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM

oh just the opposite davey boy…Iran is going to have a VERY UGLY surprise…and they are going down…big time.

the Ezekiel option….

and Israel will survive….they have this Friend….and Israel will never be destroyed again…learn to love it you anti-semitic trash.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Are you frikin’ kidding me? So if China “thinks” that the US is doing something bad, they have the right to attack us?
dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM

That depends what you mean by ‘bad’ but if China believed that they were about to be attacked militarily by the USA then yes, they do have the right to launch a pre-emptive military strike. It is called the right of self-defence. No nation is expected to do nothing if it believes it is about to be attacked. In some situations, even economic hostility would justify military retaliation.

Regardless of whether you think pre-emptive strikes are allowed, the fact is they happen. I refer you to KAL007 and IR655 as examples of nations taking pre-emptive action against non-threats that were wrongly perceived to be threats. In the six-day war Israel observed the build-up of hostile military forces on its borders and decided that it was better to shoot first than to wait for hostile nations to begin. Throughout the cold-war both sides allowed unannounced visits from military observers of the opposition in order to try to build confidence and reduce the risk of either side taking pre-emptive action.

Why is following a treaty considered “stirring a pot”?

By itself it isn’t. Iran may well be exercising its sovereign and treaty rights, but it is doing so in ways that seem to be calculated to inflame rather than cool. If you want peace you don’t throw oil on hot coals, even if you happen to have the right to do so.

Sensible, peace-desiring nations try to avoid creating suspicion and tension, but Iran seems to be deliberately trying to create and exacerbate tension through its use of proxy armies, its weapons test activity in Iraq, and its hostile remarks.

On top of all this there is good reason to think that Iran would want nuclear weapons. If I were part of the Iranian government I could think of good reasons (Iraq, Saudia Arabia and China for starters) why I would want to consider having nuclear weapons, even if Israel didn’t exist.

YiZhangZhe on November 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM

right4life:

when did we do this?? I would LOVE IT…post your proof

What does Hillary mean when she speaks of “obliterating” Iran?

We threatened Saddam twice. First in 1991:

The only time the US has threatened to use nuclear weapons against possible chemical attack was during the 1991 Gulf War when it led Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to believe that if he used chemical weapons against American forces, he would be nuked.
THE AUSTRALIAN
December 9, 1997, Tuesday
US delinquent on deterrence
BYLINE: GREG SHERIDAN

And again in 2002. Threatening to use nukes, even in response to a chemical attack, is illegal.

Also, read about the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review and it’s first strike threat. Also, veiled threats have been made repeatedly.

why should we? you are lying about what the treaty says…its not a disarmament treaty.

It is not solely a disarmament treaty, but it is what I said it was. It was an agreement that NNWS would not develop nukes as long as NWS did what I listed above, including disarming. That is why Article VI exists. Start reading before talking, please.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 5:21 PM

if China believed that they were about to be attacked militarily by the USA then yes, they do have the right to launch a pre-emptive military strike

I don’t have time right now for nonsense. See:

Chapman Law Review
Fall, 2005
9 Chap. L. Rev. 111
LENGTH: 19664 words
ARTICLE: The Illegality of the U.S. Policy of Preemptive Self-Defense Under International Law
NAME: Chris Bordelon

Iran seems to be deliberately trying to create and exacerbate tension

No. This is what the US is doing. Iran is doing more than what most sovereign nations would do. That they do not bow down before the US does not mean they are creating tension. You simply have no idea what position Iran is in. If you want to try and understand, read this.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Stop, or I’ll say stop again!

madmonkphotog on November 27, 2009 at 5:41 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577345,00.html

France selling warship to Russia?

And if this goes through- will Russia sell technology of French Warship to Iran, Venezuela and N Korea? You betcha.

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 27, 2009 at 6:43 PM

I don’t have time right now for nonsense. See:

Chapman Law Review
Fall, 2005
9 Chap. L. Rev. 111
LENGTH: 19664 words
ARTICLE: The Illegality of the U.S. Policy of Preemptive Self-Defense Under International Law
NAME: Chris Bordelon

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Do you think China or Israel or any other nation that considers it might soon be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack is going choose its response policy to suit the refined sensibilities of ‘Chris Bordelon’?

International law is not determined by the law journals of the USA. Sovereign nations do whatever they think is in their best interests, and the foremost ‘best interest’ of any nation is usually to survive. If survival requires pre-emptive attacks then pre-emptive attacks will occur.

Besides, actual events trump speculative hypotheses every time, and I already gave you examples in which nations, including Israel, have used pre-emptive force in response to perceived threats.

Iran seems to be deliberately trying to create and exacerbate tension

No. This is what the US is doing.

It is possible that both countries are acting unreasonably. Its not like the USA is the only country to think that Iran is behaving irresponsibly, and in any case, the world’s problems do not revolve around the USA. The USA is not the only nation capable of idiocy and malignancy.

If you want to try and understand, read this.
dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM

That convoluted discharge of verbosity was perhaps not the best way of trying to clarify the issues, but fortunately I have long understood that Iran might have some legitimate grievances against other countries.

No grievance that Iran might have with the its neighbours or with the USA, UK or Russia justifies trying to foment a war that would involve Israel, Lebanon and Syria and possibly other nations too.

YiZhangZhe on November 27, 2009 at 6:57 PM

ARTICLE: The Illegality of the U.S. Policy of Preemptive Self-Defense Under International Law
NAME: Chris Bordelon

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM

this is pathetically stupid. I actually hope Obama follows your advise, and people like you get the ‘benefits’ of this policy…

you are a typical left-wing piece of trash. just hope its people like you who die under your policies.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 7:53 PM

What does Hillary mean when she speaks of “obliterating” Iran?

We threatened Saddam twice. First in 1991:

with Hillary she’s probably threating to unleash her thunder thighs on dinner jacket!!

And again in 2002. Threatening to use nukes, even in response to a chemical attack, is illegal.

now you’re lying again…this is what you said:

1) The US threatens to attack Iran using nuclear weapons

can’t keep your lies straight now can you? when did we threaten IRAN??? hmmmmm??

And again in 2002. Threatening to use nukes, even in response to a chemical attack, is illegal.

nope nothing about iran there…and who says its illegal?? you are so full of shit its laughable!!

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (UPI) — The White House threatened the use of nuclear weapons if the United States, its troops or allies were attacked with weapons of mass destruction. The plan was in a document, that included the use of pre-emptive strikes to keep WMD from being used against U.S. interests, sent Wednesday to Congress.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 7:56 PM

It is not solely a disarmament treaty, but it is what I said it was. It was an agreement that NNWS would not develop nukes as long as NWS did what I listed above, including disarming. That is why Article VI exists. Start reading before talking, please.

its not a disarmament treaty at all…again you’re a liar.

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 7:57 PM

oh and thank God for the use of pre-emptive strikes…like Israel did against Iraq’s nukes…or saddam would have had nukes…the only bad thing is that saddam didn’t get a chance to use them against people like davey boy…

right4life on November 27, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Right now, nuclear proliferation only works against US interests. If we want to get Russia and China to help us stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and to get North Korea to give up their weapons, we must make it clear that we will help other countries acquire nuclear weapons. I think Russia and China would be more focused on the risks of nuclear proliferation if Taiwan and Poland were about to get them. Perhaps we could lease some nuclear warheads and missiles to a few countries like them, and use that as leverage.

Otherwise, there is really no incentive for the Russians and Chinese to help us. They know that Iran and North Korea won’t use their nuclear weapons against them, so they prefer an outcome where both of those states have them. I get the impression that China and Russia take turns blocking any practical measures, such as sanctions, so they can both take turns extracting concessions from us in return for their (temporary) support.

dirc on November 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM

right4life:

can’t keep your lies straight now can you? when did we threaten IRAN???

Fine. Hillary’s quote was directed towards Iran. Making a stupid comment about her statement is not the same as addressing it. I mentioned the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. It talks about a first strike threat against 7 countries. Do you have any doubt that Iran is one of them?

its not a disarmament treaty at all

Then please explain to me what article VI is about.

YiZhangZhe:

International law is not determined by the law journals of the USA.

No. It is determined by a wide range of sources. These sources and issues are dealt with and addressed by authors who write articles in US law journals, however.

Sovereign nations do whatever they think is in their best interests

Yes, and if these actions do not conform with international law, eventually the rest of the world will dismiss them as rogue nations. If your only concern is acting in your best interest, then does that theory apply to individuals as well as nations? If one person sees another person on the street late at night, and there are no witnesses around, it is in that person’s best interest to crack the other person’s head open and take his wallet. Is that the way people, or nations, should behave? Or should we follow laws? If Hitler told German citizens that, even though there is no evidence that Poland is about to do anything to Germany, he “thinks” they are about to, and for that reasons Germans should support him in his attack on Poland, should they? Or should they try to think past the propaganda?

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM

Fine. Hillary’s quote was directed towards Iran. Making a stupid comment about her statement is not the same as addressing it. I mentioned the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. It talks about a first strike threat against 7 countries. Do you have any doubt that Iran is one of them?

you said we threatened to NUKE IRAN..you ‘sir’ are a liar. plain and simple. and I have shown you be a liar, over and over and over again in this thread.

you have been unable to address any point I have raised, all you can do is ignore, and excuse, the iranian drive towards a nuclear bomb.

if they get it, and with people like you around they will, I hope they use it wherever you live…and you watch your friends and family die. scum like you deserve the results of your beliefs. you are sick, twisted and evil.

Then please explain to me what article VI is about.

its a NON PROLIFERATION TREATY not a disarmament treaty..how hard is this?

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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.

lets see the russians the chinese are building new nuclear weapons…and you want us to disarm..where are the good faith negotiations on the part of the russians and the chinese, and the iranians, and the north koreans, and the syrians? your statements that we are violating this treaty are a lie…like everything else you have said.

again you are a piece of trash. you don’t deserve the freedom others have died to give you.

oh and I’m glad we nuked japan, aren’t you?

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM

Or should they try to think past the propaganda?

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 10:02 PM

its real easy to think past your propoganda.

and its real easy to make you look like a fool. not that you need any help…

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 12:43 AM

They did not hide the Qom facility, they reported it earlier than they were required to.

they hid qom, and did not report it. you are a liar.

I do. If you would like to discuss it, let me know. The US certainly does not care about what is legal, because they are a rogue nation. Rogue nations do not care about the law, or treaties that they sign.

dave742 on November 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM

the US has not violated any treaty and is not a rogue nation…you are a liar.

Article IV(2)says nothing about giving nuclear material to anyone. Since you are unable to even read a document, I will simply post Article IV(2) here:

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

The US has violated this article

the us has NOT violated this…you are a liar.

1) The US threatens to attack Iran using nuclear weapons

we have not done this. you are a liar.

4) The US does nothing for 30 years regarding disarming their nuclear weapons, and works in the opposite direction and develops new nuclear weapons (a clear violation of Article VI on the NPT. I am sure sanctions against the US will begin soon).

ever hear of the START treaty? you are a liar.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 12:49 AM

right4life;
You’re funny.

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM

right4life:

ever hear of the START treaty?

From the Koplow article:

The rest of the world was immediately supportive of these efforts and pleased that the pressures and interests reflected in article VI were producing such prompt results. And — jumping ahead in the chronology — the international community has continued to be a keen observer and a grateful supporter whenever the superpowers have been able to lurch toward a strategic arms accord. n178 But there was never any suggestion that the partial success of the SALT n179 and START n180 [*343] talks could fully discharge the article VI commitment.

Putting a cap on nuclear weapons is not “complete disarmament.” After 40 years, the US still has 10,000 total warheads. For any sentient being, this does not constitute “good faith.”

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM

you said we threatened to NUKE IRAN..

Yes, we have. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review threatens a first, nuclear strike against Iran. Hillary has threatened to “obliterate” Iran. If Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, and then threatened to “obliterate” the US, you would consider it a nuclear threat. It works the same both ways.

[The US does everything possible to hinder Iran’s capability to develop nuclear power] what have we done?

We have worked for decades to stop Iran’s nuclear power plans:

“Mr. Pierre Villaros, a French engineer on the IAEA team, went as far as “deploring that Iran is under a de facto embargo on nuclear equipments.”…”What we do want,” Amrollahi says, “is to complete two units of 1,200 megawatts each on the site of the southern city of Bushehr. Work on those units began under the imperial regime. We have already paid the Germans for those two reactors but they have told us they are under US pressure not to finish the job.””
Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
February 18, 1993, Thursday

A Lexis search gives 547 articles that talk about “US pressure” being used to stop any work on Iran’s nuclear power plans. 547 incidents of a breach of the NPT by the US. The US is obliged to aid the Iranian nuclear power plans, not hinder them.

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 8:29 AM

Yes, we have. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review threatens a first, nuclear strike against Iran. Hillary has threatened to “obliterate” Iran. If Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, and then threatened to “obliterate” the US, you would consider it a nuclear threat. It works the same both ways.

I looked at that nuclear posture review..I didn’t find the word ‘iran’ in it. no wonder you can’t quote it. you are a liar.

Hillary was a candidate when she said that, not a government official. Obliterate can mean many things, and as the world has seen in places like Tokyo in WWII, we don’t need to nuke something to obliterate it. you are a liar.

A Lexis search gives 547 articles that talk about “US pressure” being used to stop any work on Iran’s nuclear power plans. 547 incidents of a breach of the NPT by the US. The US is obliged to aid the Iranian nuclear power plans, not hinder them.

you’re a liar. the NPT talks about peaceful nuclear power…Iran is using nuclear power to get a bomb, to use against us the jews.

its because you want to an other genocide of the jews isn’t it? thats why you support iran getting a bomb.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Putting a cap on nuclear weapons is not “complete disarmament.” After 40 years, the US still has 10,000 total warheads. For any sentient being, this does not constitute “good faith.”

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 8:05 AM

you are a liar.

The Bush administration announced in 2004 that it had decided to cut the nuclear weapons stockpile “nearly in half” by 2012, but has refused to disclose the actual numbers. Yet a fact sheet published by the Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the stockpile will decline from approximately 9,938 warheads today to approximately 5,047 warheads by the end of 2012.

link

what other country has cut its nuclear weapons as much? hmmm?? and since we are cutting nuclear weapons, why is Iran and NK trying to get them?

again, you are a liar.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 8:52 AM

right4life;
You’re funny.

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM

you’re a sick evil liar. its been fun exposing you, and making a fool out of you.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 8:53 AM

right4life:

what other country has cut its nuclear weapons as much? hmmm??

Russia. They are the other signatory to the START/SORT treaties. I said we have 10,000 warheads, you say 9,938. Fine. We can use your number. The point is, we signed a treaty that said we would have zero warheads “at an early date.” You say that we will have 5,000 warhead by 2012, but “under current plans, dismantling the backlog of retired warheads will take until 2023.” (your link) So we will still have them, but we just won’t count them. So let’s say we have 5,000 after 45 years. When do we get to zero? 200 years? 1,000 years? One million years? Do you consider any of these numbers to be “an early date”?

its been fun exposing you, and making a fool out of you.

You really schooled me.

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 10:37 AM

hat other country has cut its nuclear weapons as much? hmmm??

Russia.

really now?

An additional
9,300 warheads are believed to be in
reserve or awaiting dismantlement, for
a total Russian stockpile of approximately
15,000 nuclear warheads.

wrong again…

link

do you ever have any facts to back up what you say? just curious.

The point is, we signed a treaty that said we would have zero warheads “at an early date.

we signed a treaty that said we would NEGOTIATE in good faith to reduce nuclear weapons…again you are a liar.

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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.

we have done that, we have pursued negotiations good faith, we have pursued disarmament. but you cannot disarm when people like iran and NK and china are still nuclear threats.

where is your outrage at these countries? oh but they’re trying to kill jews, or are OK with that, so you defend them.

I enjoy exposing your lies…and I notice you cannot respond to any of my questions or points. you cannot go beyond talking points…typical left-wing wacko.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

how can you have this when a country like Iran does the following?

VIENNA (AP) – The International Atomic Energy Agency probe of Iran’s nuclear program is at a dead end because Tehran is not cooperating, the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Thursday in an unusually blunt expression of frustration four days before he leaves office.

try to answer this question davey boy.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 10:46 AM

The
most significant development in 2006
was the deployment of the Topol-
M1, the road-mobile version of the
single-warhead Topol-M (NATO designation
SS-27). The Topol-M1 will

so the Russians have deployed a new NUCLEAR MISSILE..I’m sure you’re outraged and will denounce the russians immediately, right davey boy?

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM

During a press
conference with foreign
media on January 31,
2006, Putin described
the weapon as “a new
missile system that as
yet has no equivalent
anywhere else in the
world.” Putin said he
shared the principles of
the system with French
President Jacques Chirac
at a military space
facility in Russia, adding
that the weapon
“is not a response to
ABM systems, because
it does not matter to
these missiles whether
there is an ABM system
in place or not, for, as
I have said, they operate
at hypersonic speed
and can change their
trajectory both in terms
of course and altitude.

so what new nuclear missiles are we working on davey? when was the last time we deployed a new nuclear missile?

your statement about the russians is a laughable lie.

got any more good ones??

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM

no outrage, no surprise.

and of course no outrage at iran trying to get a nuclear bomb, and kill the jews…and no outrage from davey boy about them hiding their activities, and stiffing the IAEA.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM

right4life:

so the Russians have deployed a new NUCLEAR MISSILE..I’m sure you’re outraged and will denounce the russians immediately, right davey boy?

The Russians are also in violation of the NPT. Their mobile TOPOL missiles replace old versions, and their deployment conforms to existing arms control treaties.

so what new nuclear missiles are we working on davey?

Obama did kill the RRW program:
“Consistent with President Obama’s campaign promises to oppose development of new nuclear weapons, the passback document calls zeroing out all funding for the reliable replacement warhead (RRW) and cutting back other nuclear weapons programs aimed at expanding the nation’s nuclear arsenal or production capacity.”
Of course, he now seems to be changing his mind:
“Obama will propose updating America’s aging nuclear-weapons manufacturing complex and funding design work that would tiptoe to the very edge of crafting a new warhead”
Another link.

we signed a treaty that said we would NEGOTIATE in good faith to reduce nuclear weapons

If you think Article VI envisioned still having thousands of nuclear warheads 45 years into the future, then you are disingenuous. Not a surprise. Everyone on the planet knows that the US and othe NWS have ignored the NPT, and the NNWS are getting tired of it. Koplow’s article is dated, but he talks about the results of the US and others ignoring the treaty:

“At the same time, the NPT is in serious trouble. The NNWS have tolerated its inequality for over two decades, and their patience is wearing thin. Many have condemned it as discriminatory, outraged that the NWS have not done more to fulfill the article VI commitment, especially regarding CTBT. The implied threats about NNWS withdrawal and about termination (or only short extension) in 1995 must be taken more seriously. An increasing number of NNWS may come to agree with the NWS negotiator who, years ago, described the NPT as one of the “greatest con games of modern times.” Certainly, the efforts to enhance and strengthen the NPT verification regime have already proven problematic. Only by promptly fulfilling its obligations in good faith can the United States rescue the NPT and avoid the disintegration of the global non-proliferation campaign, at a time when much better outcomes are now attainable and urgent.”

So far, the NPT has survived, but as long as the US and others ignore it, eventually the NNWS will also ignore it, and more and more countries will develop nukes. The blame for this will be on the NWS, for not honoring the treaty for decades. One side of a treaty will not abide by it forever while the other side ignores it.

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Obama did kill the RRW program:

so now we have more unreliable nuclear weapons? oh thats great! right..

If you think Article VI envisioned still having thousands of nuclear warheads 45 years into the future, then you are disingenuous. Not a surprise. Everyone on the planet knows that the US and othe NWS have ignored the NPT, and the NNWS are getting tired of it. Koplow’s article is dated, but he talks about the results of the US and others ignoring the treaty:

thats YOUR interpretation of the treaty. its not what it says….you’ve been lying about this treaty from the start, as you’ve been lying about everything else you post. There is no timetable, no numeric requirements…just a vague, ‘lets negotiate’ and you can’t negotiate with people like Iran, OBVIOUSLY….at least obviously to anyone but an iranian propogandist like you.

who cares who Koplow says? he’s a left-wing hack, like you. and why should the US rescue the treaty?

you have ignored every question I have asked, you are unable to hold an intelligent conversation. all you can do is post talking points.

So far, the NPT has survived, but as long as the US and others ignore it, eventually the NNWS will also ignore it, and more and more countries will develop nukes. The blame for this will be on the NWS, for not honoring the treaty for decades. One side of a treaty will not abide by it forever while the other side ignores it.

the only reason the NPT exists at all is because the US has upheld it. in your twisted little worldview the US is always the bad guy. but you are unconcerned about Iran gettting nuclear weapons and killing us, or killing the jews, in fact you applaud killing jews. you don’t want us to pre-emptively strike iran, even though it may save millions of our lives.

again, you are a sick, twisted liar.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 7:03 PM

right4life:
I’m schooled again. Maybe I’ll stop before you make me look even more foolish.

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 10:27 PM

dave742 on November 28, 2009 at 10:27 PM

you’re a typical talking-point liberal troll..and an anti-semitic one to boot.

what a waste of space.

right4life on November 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM