ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Well, Iran violated the rules, Safeguards Agreement, by not allowing the IAEA to inspect the Qum site before construction, nor did they inform the IAEA about what the site was going to be used for.

Also, Iran has failed to fully inform the IAEA about possible military aspects to the enrich program. The Iranians continually refuse to provide details about IAEA questions concerning possible military connection.

spartan wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e0b08e9e64fe15a987c1cf73dd8c5fe2.521&show_article=1
i wonder what the surprise will be?

Footwedge wrote: Whoa there PTowne. Better check your facts there. Iran DID NOT start the construction of Qum before the IAEA was informed. The debate centers around Iran not being forthright during the PLANNJING STAGE. Big difference...especially since the "agreements" were not crystal clear if a "planning stage" constituted any violation of anything. To say that they violated any agreement is a far reach....and a debatable one. Don't fall victim to the propaganda machine. It's that type of irresponsible reporting that can accelerate into needless wars.

Also, Iran has failed to fully inform the IAEA about possible military aspects to the enrich program. The Iranians continually refuse to provide details about IAEA questions concerning possible military connection.

Sure there have been some cat and mouse games going on. But at the end of the day, the IAEA has always publicly concluded compliance in regards to Iran and Iran's peaceful nuclear ambitions.

The US combined intelligence politic announced that Iran ended their interest in making nuclear weapons in 2003.

Yet....the release of that information doesn't suit the agenda of the War Party members.

So....on and on it goes...where the world's headed...nobody knows.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Whoa there PTowne. Better check your facts there. Iran DID NOT start the construction of Qum before the IAEA was informed. The debate centers around Iran not being forthright during the PLANNJING STAGE. Big difference...especially since the "agreements" were not crystal clear if a "planning stage" constituted any violation of anything. To say that they violated any agreement is a far reach....and a debatable one. Don't fall victim to the propaganda machine. It's that type of irresponsible reporting that can accelerate into needless wars.

Also, Iran has failed to fully inform the IAEA about possible military aspects to the enrich program. The Iranians continually refuse to provide details about IAEA questions concerning possible military connection.

Sure there have been some cat and mouse games going on. But at the end of the day, the IAEA has always publicly concluded compliance in regards to Iran and Iran's peaceful nuclear ambitions.

The US combined intelligence politic announced that Iran ended their interest in making nuclear weapons in 2003.

Yet....the release of that information doesn't suit the agenda of the War Party members.

So....on and on it goes...where the world's headed...nobody knows.

Umm, here is the November, 2009 IAEA Report. p. 4, point 17.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-74.pdf

It states that Iran has agreed to the 2003 Safeguards agreement, once Iran was originally caught enriching uranium without telling the IAEA.

Iran provided the first documents in Sept, well past the planning stage. Iran only provided documents because the U.S. found out about the facility and Iran wanted to cover their ass.

There is a "debate", but if you take the letter of the law, Iran violated the safeguards agreement by not telling the IAEA about the facility before they broke ground. The IAEA also explains how they have no idea how this facility will fit in the overall nuclear complex, given that its size is perfect for a small weapons program.

Iran has failed to fully explain how integrated their military and missile program is involved in the enrichment and reprocessing programs. Pp. 6&7 of the report.

As to the 2007 Intel NIE, remember they said that with "moderate" confidence. That means pretty much 60/40. So, there is doubt and the fact that it is unknown how the military is involved leaves a lot of questions.

Now, all this said, Iran is still years away from a bomb, and still has many hurdles. But, Iran is doing some shady stuff and is not fully disclosing all information to the IAEA.

Footwedge wrote: Here ya go PTowne. I will find other sources if you don't like this neutral one.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/09/27/iran%E2%80%99s-new-nuclear-site-much-ado-about-nothing/

Footwedge wrote:

"Moderate" confidence? Again, completely false.

From the official NIE released report....

"A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Again...be careful who you listen to. Those WMDd's still haven't shown up in Iraq.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Wait, so out of all that evidence, you drum up the 2003 NIE report? Yet, do not refute the IAEA report that says that Iran is in violation of the 2003 safeguards and is hiding the military aspects.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

"Moderate" confidence? Again, completely false.

From the official NIE released report....

"A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Again...be careful who you listen to. Those WMDd's still haven't shown up in Iraq.

Wait, so out of all that evidence, you drum up the 2003 NIE report? Yet, do not refute the IAEA report that says that Iran is in violation of the 2003 safeguards and is hiding the military aspects.

Out of all what evidence? You made the claim that the NIE's statement was "moderate". So I showed you IN PRINT that the NIE's ascertation was "high confidence".

It's not like you to be be so far off in your assessment.

Secondly, I stated quite clearly that there has been cat and mouse games between Iran and the AIEA.

The AIEA has periodically cried wolf regarding Iran. But the fact is...they have followed up with official statements citing compliance.

I didn't read your link....just as you didn't read mine. Big deal. My link shows clearly that Iran has not violated the Safegaurds Agreement. Like I said above....you can believe your sources on the issue...and I will continue to believe mine.

When it comes to war in the Middle East. Mesopotamia or Persia, I am very cautious in buying the bull shit.

Look, the point is Iran is not fully disclosing all activities to the IAEA. Now, what is the true nature of the program is up for debate, but given the uncertainty, I would like to think the worst to cover our ass. It may be for energy purposes. But, if it was, Iran should sign the Additional Protocol, open up all sites, inform the IAEA before digging more sites, and inform them of possible military connections.

I have shown linked articles that disagree with your claims.

Now, that doesn't mean we should conduct airstrikes or invade like Iraq. Not at all and I'm not part of that crowd sorry.

I put a smiley face on my last comment, PTowne....so it wasn't meant for you per se. But don't think for a minute that millions of Americans would love nothing more than a nuclear wipeout of Iran.

I mean...just look at the horse shit on the deceased Murtha thread. Murtha is viewed as Tokyo Rose and Jane Fonda all rolled into one. Murtha was a spending pig no doubt....but he was the first recognizable war veteran who called out the slimeballs from the last administration for what they did in Iraq.

When it comes to escalating our war expansionism, one needs to be very careful in who they read and what the agenda is. That's all I'm saying here.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Wait, so out of all that evidence, you drum up the 2003 NIE report? Yet, do not refute the IAEA report that says that Iran is in violation of the 2003 safeguards and is hiding the military aspects.

Your correspondent is infamous for shaping facts to fit his argument at best, making facts up from whole cloth at worst.

Footwedge wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Out of all what evidence? You made the claim that the NIE's statement was "moderate". So I showed you IN PRINT that the NIE's ascertation was "high confidence".

It's not like you to be be so far off in your assessment.

Secondly, I stated quite clearly that there has been cat and mouse games between Iran and the AIEA.

The AIEA has periodically cried wolf regarding Iran. But the fact is...they have followed up with official statements citing compliance.

I didn't read your link....just as you didn't read mine. Big deal. My link shows clearly that Iran has not violated the Safegaurds Agreement. Like I said above....you can believe your sources on the issue...and I will continue to believe mine.

When it comes to war in the Middle East. Mesopotamia or Persia, I am very cautious in buying the bull shit.

I have shown linked articles that disagree with your claims.

I put a smiley face on my last comment, PTowne....so it wasn't meant for you per se. But don't think for a minute that millions of Americans would love nothing more than a nuclear wipeout of Iran.

I mean...just look at the horse shit on the deceased Murtha thread. Murtha is viewed as Tokyo Rose and Jane Fonda all rolled into one. Murtha was a spending pig no doubt....but he was the first recognizable war veteran who called out the slimeballs from the last administration for what they did in Iraq.

When it comes to escalating our war expansionism, one needs to be very careful in who they read and what the agenda is. That's all I'm saying here.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23884&prog=zgp&proj=znpp

Here is the James Acton piece, which the article you stated said that Iran was not violation. Well, like most things in the media, he gets it wrong. Acton (Who I work with sometimes) made the opposite argument, that Iran is bound by the latest Safeguards Agreement and is in violation of them. Iran has yet to violate the NPT, but is in violation of their Safeguard Agreement with the IAEA, per the IAEA.

Second, the IAEA is about as unbiased as you can get when talking about the Iranian program. Remember, the IAEA stated there were no active WMDs in Iraq. My link has way more credibility than yours. I mean yours is a an official/ journalists and mine is the actual report filed by the IAEA.

Iran has not been in compliance, per the latest IAEA report, which I posted (Go ahead read it, it is the official report). Iran has no signed the Additional Protocol, has not described military aspects, and has not fully disclosed what Qom is going to be used for.

Technically here, and I'll cite David Albright at ISIS, who was a weapons inspector in Iraq, says that the Qom is not the correct size for energy purpose. The size and shape of the building can only a hold a few thousand centrifuges. For energy purposes, one needs over 50,000 centrifuges just to gain enough Low Enriched Uranium for a power plant. Yet, a small facility at Qom can house a clandestine weapons program, as the centrifuges can produce enough uranium for a bomb.
http://isis-online.org/countries/category/iran/

I'm not for bombing or military action, but one cannot ignore that Iran is shady on fully disclosing. Now, again, I prefer to cover our ass and suspect that Iran has the technical means to breakout and has not due to political decisions. Now, yes the NIE said high confidence (I was going off of memory that did not serve me right). But, Iran is still a worry about what we don't know.

Also, given the Qom facility, I'm willing to bet that Iran is building more clandestine sites.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Iran has told the IAEA that it plans to enrich its uranium to 20% for its medical isotope reactors. The plan is to take the facility at Natanz to produce uranium that can be used for medical purposes. Iran states it is allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich it does domestic purposes.

It is important to note, that Iran is no where close to 20% and does not even have enough uranium to run a research reactor (1-2% enriched). So, any talk of going to 20% soon is relatively difficult given that the Iranians have not mastered the technology of the gas centrifuge, nor have they the technology to really produce a fuel reactor to produce uranium of 20%. Nor is 20% anywhere close to weapons grad uranium (90-95% enrichment) So, 20% enrichment could take several years.

But, it is not a good step. Iran has been recently talking about how they are willing to go back to the table to exchange uranium, as they do need it for medical purposes. But, U.S. officials, mainly SECDEF Gates have been reluctant to state that a deal is on the table to exchange Iranian low enriched uranium of 1-2% for safeguarded medical uranium of 20%.

Again, important to keep in mind, this does not mean Iran is soon going to have the bomb, given the immense technical steps still left, but is unwelcome as one more sign that Iran is really play hard ball.

Hopefully, this can lead the Chinese to get their act together and stop blocking UN Security Council sanctions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020801384.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585064,00.html?test=latestnews

bigmanbt wrote: Wake me when we leave the UN. I'm tired of being the military arm for a group that doesn't have our best interests at heart and takes our foreign policy away from us.

eersandbeers wrote: The actual nuclear issue aside, wouldn't you say Iran's actions make more sense in reference to simply playing the power game against the US? It serves a couple of purposes...

1. It is the Iranian regime trying to demonstrate they can stand up to the US through rhetoric
2. The government tries to deflect attention away from the numerous domestic problems
3. They can milk the US for concessions and ending sanctions
4. They are doing exactly what China and Russia want. Which is knocking the US down a peg.

bigmanbt wrote: Wake me when we leave the UN. I'm tired of being the military arm for a group that doesn't have our best interests at heart and takes our foreign policy away from us.