• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Very clear' signs of Iran sanitizing military site, Western diplomat says

Khayembii Communique said:
Just for fun, and since I assume (hope - for his sake) that Don stops responding to me to save face...
Click to expand...

The IAEA report dealing with the most recent issues e.g., the suspected sanitization of nuclear sites, has not been published yet. The May 24 report is an earlier report for which the work was completed much earlier. The most recent findings were just presented to the IAEA's Board on May 30.

From the Associated Press this evening:

The IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, presented some of those spy satellite images on Wednesday to the agency's 35-member nation board...
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The lying NYT article to which you linked did not mention nor have anything to do with Parchin whatsoever. Deny it all you want, the link is right there for everyone to see that it says absolutely nothing of Parchin and you brought it up in order to attempt to make people assume that it was related.

Regarding the lying, I already showed that to be true.
Click to expand...

You showed nothing.

I posted two articles, one of which cited Parchin and both of which dealt with it.

With respect to Parchin, the Associated Press reported:

The senior diplomat told the AP that despite months of apparent "sanitization," the building sheltering a metal pressure chamber where the explosions testing allegedly took place was still standing on the latest satellite images. But he said streams of what appear to be water trickling from inside indicate the chamber was being cleaned as well.

That's the nuclear trigger research in question. Explosives are the driving force of a nuclear trigger.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Here's the report you're looking for, I believe, which isn't listed on the IAEA site yet.

LOL okay, yes, the IAEA admission mean't nothing either. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier in this thread, like the IAEA, as will be noted in its forthcoming report, I have concerns about its recent activities. Iran, like any other state, bears the consequences of its choices. That assessment was spot-on. Far from suggesting that there's no evidence of illicit nuclear activities in Iran, Points 39-42 outlined activities for which IAEA is concerned.
 
donsutherland1 said:
As I stated earlier in this thread, like the IAEA, as will be noted in its forthcoming report, I have concerns about its recent activities. Iran, like any other state, bears the consequences of its choices. That assessment was spot-on. Far from suggesting that there's no evidence of illicit nuclear activities in Iran, Points 39-42 outlined activities for which IAEA is concerned.
Click to expand...
actually, no
if that were true, given its own stash of nuclear weapons and propensity to cross sovereign borders to initiate attack against its neighbors, there would be no nation on the planet more sanctioned than israel
 
The Islamic Republic will have to make up its mind soon .... clock is ticking.

Iran should wake up from its crazy dream ... its not too late yet.... still some weeks left.
 
Mya said:
The Islamic Republic will have to make up its mind soon .... clock is ticking.

Iran should wake up from its crazy dream ... its not too late yet.... still some weeks left.
Click to expand...

an invasion has been predetermined
just like with iraq
fabricate a ruse
then use that to justify attack, no matter what iran does
then, if the truth comes out, that iran was not actually a nuclear threat
the same folks will insist it was an intelligence error
no matter that they already directed the intelligence agencies to create a portfolio of data to justify the military action despite that there was no genuine threat
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Parchin is a military base, not a "nuclear installation". Further, Parchin as far as the IAEA has stated has never contained any nuclear material. The most that they have claimed is that there is a blast chamber at Parchin, over which the IAEA has no jurisdiction, even if they suspect it is linked to the Iranian nuclear program (about which they have provided zero evidence).



There is absolutely no evidence that anyone is covering up anything. You are speculating that the presence of a bulldozer and the dismantling of small buildings at a military site is signs of a cover up when there is no indication to even suggest so.



This was already covered in another thread. Regardless, IAEA inspectors do not have complete open door access to anywhere in the country.

The only people whose concerns would be amplified are those who consider the presence of a bulldozer and some construction work at a site completely unrelated to a nuclear program to be smoking gun evidence of a vast nuclear cover up by the Iranian government, i.e. loonies and liars.



Iran has cooperated well within the bounds of its obligations to the international community.
Click to expand...

Since Iran - and apparently you - feels it has no obligations to the international community, your statement is meaningless. The international community clearly disagrees.

I do find it interesting the number of defenders the Iranian nuclear program seems to have on this forum. Must be their splendid record on civil rights in Iran since their 'revolution' that has inspired such confidence.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
actually, no
if that were true, given its own stash of nuclear weapons and propensity to cross sovereign borders to initiate attack against its neighbors, there would be no nation on the planet more sanctioned than israel
Click to expand...

Ahh, the old 'moral equivalence between Israel and the Islamic despotic regimes that surround her' argument. You can always count on the Israel bashers to bring that one out.
 
Wiggen said:
Ahh, the old 'moral equivalence between Israel and the Islamic despotic regimes that surround her' argument. You can always count on the Israel bashers to bring that one out.
Click to expand...

and the zionists hate it when the truth emerges for all to see
 
We are putting in overtime effort to make sure we have a new war once we leave Afghanistan. We already have all those troops and supplies over there...might as well use them. They won't do any good inside the US.
 
Wiggen said:
Since Iran - and apparently you - feels it has no obligations to the international community
Click to expand...

Straw man.

The obligations it has to the international community are those it agreed to in various treaties. It has obligations, and it is meeting them.

I do find it interesting the number of defenders the Iranian nuclear program seems to have on this forum.
Click to expand...

So far as I know I haven't even defended the Iranian nuclear program, I have merely dismantled all the bull**** that is being claimed and showed it is meeting its obligations.

Must be their splendid record on civil rights in Iran since their 'revolution' that has inspired such confidence.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "if I cant debate on the current issue I'll deflect and generalize, that'll show em!" But hey, wonderful contribution to the thread, really high quality stuff. I can tell you tried particularly hard to write these posts.
 
Despite the surreal claims that Iran is meeting all of its obligations, the IAEA says otherwise. In one of its concluding points, the IAEA stated:

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.
 
I don't believe some of you understand the real implications of continuing this path to war with Iran. Some of you are talking about bombing Iran, but do you know that there will consequences to that?

We're talking of not only having innocent people being killed, but also the fact that Russia and China will not stand on the sidelines as we cripple the country they get oil from.

Going into Iran like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is a huge mistake. We're worried about the possibility of Iran obtaining one nuclear weapon when we dealt with a lot worse during the Cold War. Thinking that bombs will solve our problems is not smart because all it does is create even more hatred for us.

Why? Why do I want more American lives to be risked over war propaganda? Why do I want the spark for another World War to be started by our stupid preventative wars of aggression?

It makes no sense. I am tired of perpetual war. I am tired of using Israel as an excuse to go to war. You want Israel to be protected? Then we should allow them to do it without our input. We should allow Israel to have its sovereignty.
 
AreteCourage said:
I don't believe some of you understand the real implications of continuing this path to war with Iran. Some of you are talking about bombing Iran, but do you know that there will consequences to that?

We're talking of not only having innocent people being killed, but also the fact that Russia and China will not stand on the sidelines as we cripple the country they get oil from.

Going into Iran like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is a huge mistake. We're worried about the possibility of Iran obtaining one nuclear weapon when we dealt with a lot worse during the Cold War. Thinking that bombs will solve our problems is not smart because all it does is create even more hatred for us.

Why? Why do I want more American lives to be risked over war propaganda? Why do I want the spark for another World War to be started by our stupid preventative wars of aggression?

It makes no sense. I am tired of perpetual war. I am tired of using Israel as an excuse to go to war. You want Israel to be protected? Then we should allow them to do it without our input. We should allow Israel to have its sovereignty.
Click to expand...

How about, "It has nothing to do with NUKES." OIL is/was Iraq. OIL is/was Libya. "NUKES" is the strawman as an excuse to divert attention away from the "it's about OIL" reality. The powers that be don't want to acknowledge that the OIL money has purchased a policy of acquisition by war.. You can't deny history. Doesn't it feel just grand to be manipulated by our politicians and energy corporations? That'd be you and I.
 
donny said:
the IAEA says otherwise.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Not even in your quote. Not even in your underlined section. The IAEA has never said that Iran is in noncompliance with the obligations set forth either in the NPT or in its treaty with the IAEA.
 
DaveFagan said:
How about, "It has nothing to do with NUKES." OIL is/was Iraq. OIL is/was Libya. "NUKES" is the strawman as an excuse to divert attention away from the "it's about OIL" reality. The powers that be don't want to acknowledge that the OIL money has purchased a policy of acquisition by war.. You can't deny history. Doesn't it feel just grand to be manipulated by our politicians and energy corporations? That'd be you and I.
Click to expand...

I understand it is about oil. They used the WMD excuse on Iraq. I'm using the Cold War reference to punch holes in the Nuke excuse. Iran has what our government wants and that is oil. The problem is that Iran is not a country that stands on its own. If we continue down this path then we risk possible war with Russia and China.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No it doesn't. Not even in your quote. Not even in your underlined section. The IAEA has never said that Iran is in noncompliance with the obligations set forth either in the NPT or in its treaty with the IAEA.
Click to expand...

The IAEA stated that Iran is "not implementing its Additional Protocol..." There is no refuge from Iran's non-compliance in your semantical arguments. Any reasonably literate person understands that when it comes to contracts, agreements, treaties, and other similiar binding instruments, non-implementation, non-fulfillment, non-execution are the same thing as non-compliance.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The IAEA stated that Iran is "not implementing its Additional Protocol..." There is no refuge from Iran's non-compliance in your semantical arguments. Any reasonably literate person understands that when it comes to contracts, agreements, treaties, and other similiar binding instruments, non-implementation, non-fulfillment, non-execution are the same thing as non-compliance.
Click to expand...


All your arguments pre-suppose that our aggressive attitude towards Iran is about "Nukes," not OIL. Does your reasoning seem to be slipping? Does a "Contrived Agenda" make any sense to you? I realize you are very articulate in always supporting the gov't line and bandy the Multimedia line sounding like a true believer or just doing your job.
 
DaveFagan said:
All your arguments pre-suppose that our aggressive attitude towards Iran is about "Nukes," not OIL. Does your reasoning seem to be slipping? Does a "Contrived Agenda" make any sense to you? I realize you are very articulate in always supporting the gov't line and bandy the Multimedia line sounding like a true believer or just doing your job.
Click to expand...

Maintaining open access to the Persian Gulf through which oil shipping passes and assuring the safety of friendly oil producers e.g., Saudi Arabia, has long been a vital U.S. interest.
 
DaveFagan said:
All your arguments pre-suppose that our aggressive attitude towards Iran is about "Nukes," not OIL. Does your reasoning seem to be slipping? Does a "Contrived Agenda" make any sense to you? I realize you are very articulate in always supporting the gov't line and bandy the Multimedia line sounding like a true believer or just doing your job.
Click to expand...

The fact that US interests in the Persian Gulf are of paramount importance is no secret, however, as time passed that has not been the only interest. Indeed, the Carter Doctrine(1980) is very specific about that issue:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Jimmy Carter: The State of the Union Address Delivered Before a Joint Session of the Congress.

Prior to that, On February 16, 1943,President Franklin D. Roosevelt said the "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States."

http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Calkins/Bennett.pdf
 
DaveFagan said:
How about, "It has nothing to do with NUKES." OIL is/was Iraq. OIL is/was Libya. "NUKES" is the strawman as an excuse to divert attention away from the "it's about OIL" reality. The powers that be don't want to acknowledge that the OIL money has purchased a policy of acquisition by war.. You can't deny history. Doesn't it feel just grand to be manipulated by our politicians and energy corporations? That'd be you and I.
Click to expand...

The US has imposed sanctions against Iran so we do not purchase oil from Iran. Why would it make a scrap of sense to spend a trillion dollars in a war "about oil" there when they provide us with no oil?

No, contrary to liberal beliefs, not every war is about oil. Please quit lying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom