NationStates Jolt Archive

AEA: No evidence Iran is making nuclear weapons
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Chief UN atomic watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now," the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.
...
His comments came as US President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been sharply ramping up their rhetoric about Iran, leading some critics to draw parallels with the late 2002 verbal escalation against Iraq.

In recent months, Bush has predicted "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" if Tehran gets atomic weapons, while Cheney has warned of "serious consequences" for Iran if it defies global demands to freeze uranium enrichment -- echoing the UN resolution that Washington says authorized war in Iraq.

ElBaradei said if the United States had more information on Iran's nuclear drive than the IAEA, "I would be very happy to receive it and go forward."
Sources Yahoo/AFP/IAEA/CNN/OccNEWS
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071028/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaus_071028162940

We need to send some Nigerian Cake to the UN, served by our disposable waiter Mr Collin Powell. :D

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now."

Did someone go to Iran to actually investigate that? Of course he won't "receive" such information!

We need to send some Nigerian Cake to the UN, sever by our disposable waiter Mr Collin Powell. :D

In case someone needs it, the "co-workers" of the italian Secret Services are ready to support ANY claim and fake ANY proof... see mr.Scaramella.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Scaramella

Anyway, I doubt that the US can allow themselves to go against Russia, which is likely to happen were they to attack Iran. Also, after the Iraq fiasco, who's going to believe the Bush administration about WMDs? Maybe just mr.Gordon Bleu Brown (the pun is just to see if someone remembers Bristow)

"I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now."

Did someone go to Iran to actually investigate that? Of course he won't "receive" such information!

Demanding proof that something does not exist... sounds vaguely familiar somehow....I wonder why?

In case someone needs it, the "co-workers" of the italian Secret Services are ready to support ANY claim and fake ANY proof... see mr.Scaramella.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Scaramella

Anyway, I doubt that the US can allow themselves to go against Russia, which is likely to happen were they to attack Iran. Also, after the Iraq fiasco, who's going to believe the Bush administration about WMDs? Maybe just mr.Gordon Bleu Brown (the pun is just to see if someone remembers Bristow)

I doubt gordon Brown would risk the unpopularity that would result, hopefully he is also less of a poodle than Bliar

“I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now.”

Did someone go to Iran to actually investigate that? Of course he won’t “receive” such information!
So how has the US et al received such information?

I mean, the incessant press releases can’t be based on politically expedient rhetoric, now could it?

I demand proof that Santa Clause does not exist... Until such time as I am furnished with proof that he does not exist; and proof that his elves are not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, then we will continue our plans of invading the North Poll.

This'll be interesting. It'll be a West vs. East dogpile because when the US invades Iran, China and Russia will be all over them which will cause Western Europe to halp the USA...

Like one big chess match, this. The sad part is that nobody will win if it happens, yet nobody (in a position of authority) realizes it.

Demanding proof that something does not exist... sounds vaguely familiar somehow....I wonder why?

I seem to recall something about Wallpaper of Man's Displacement or something of the such from a couple years ago, something about a rack, and some guy named Sad Adam Who's Sane...

Not sure though, memory's fuzzy.

This'll be interesting. It'll be a West vs. East dogpile because when the US invades Iran, China and Russia will be all over them which will cause Western Europe to halp the USA...

Like one big chess match, this. The sad part is that nobody will win if it happens, yet nobody (in a position of authority) realizes it.

I was thinking more like it's going about with all the grace of a drunken fight in a back alley, but I suppose chess works.

So the UN is making excuses for Iran?

Yeah, it does sound familiar.

Demanding proof that something does not exist... sounds vaguely familiar somehow....I wonder why?

I'm not demanding a proof, I'm saying one can't claim something (such as "Iran isn't making nuclear weapons") without even checking it. The fact that Mohamed ElBaradei hasn't "received any information" is not enough to disprove nor to prove anything. There's a difference between saying "We don't think it's happening" and saying "It's not happening".

I'm not demanding a proof, I'm saying one can't claim something (such as "Iran isn't making nuclear weapons") without even checking it. The fact that Mohamed ElBaradei hasn't "received any information" is not enough to disprove nor to prove anything. There's a difference between saying "We don't think it's happening" and saying "It's not happening".

Well, there is a group of people who are willing to believe that Iran has these weapons, regardless of the fact that there is no actual evidence to support.

I demand proof that Santa Clause does not exist... Until such time as I am furnished with proof that he does not exist; and proof that his elves are not manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, then we will continue our plans of invading the North Pole.120 thermoNuclear bombs ready to lunch, Lock and Loaded, those -axis of evil- North Pole Elves are so fucked.

*Calls Re/Max agent.. "Hi, this is Occean, please make an offer on that bargainpriced Bolivian Land you told me about last week"*

Please, dude. Check before you post. This issue already has a thread.

I'm not demanding a proof, I'm saying one can't claim something (such as "Iran isn't making nuclear weapons") without even checking it. "Israel isn't making nuclear weapons".

can I claim that without even checking it? ... or shall we send UN inspectors to do the checking?.

"Israel isn't making nuclear weapons".

can I claim that without even checking it? ... or shall we send UN inspectors to do the checking?.

Lol, I'm actually one of those who are certain that we (Israel) do have nuclear weapons (Israel indeed isn't "making", it already has, in my opinion).

Israel indeed isn't "making"...How do we know that? enough is what?

We need UN inspectors.

How do we know that? We need UN inspectors.

I added "in my opinion" in the end of that sentence to indicate I'm not claiming it's a fact. I don't know if Israel is or isn't making for sure, but given that I believe Israel already has, I don't see a need to make more.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541932

This one came first. Stop jacking other people's topics.

I don't know if Israel is or isn't making for sure..(off-Topic) Can you answer a Yes or No question?

Q: -as a sovereign Country- Does Israel has more rights than Iran to have weapons?

As a sovereign Country, does Israel has more rights than Iran to have weapons?

I had a hunch this is what you were aiming to when you posted this thread.

You assume all other conditions are equal, while they aren't. Israel is not Iran. Are you asking me if I, as an Israeli, think Iran should not have nuclear weapons? In this case - No, I think it should not. Why? Because as an Israeli, I feel I have much more reasons to fear an Iranian nuclear capability, than an Iranian has to fear such an Israeli capability.

Are you asking me if I, as an Israeli, think Iran should not have nuclear weapons? No, I am NOT asking you that.

See.. If I could ask all and everyone "Should Israel be given Nukes"?
Most will probably answer: NO!

The offTopic question is -and I repeat-: Should Israel have more rights than Iran?

Should Israel have more rights than Iran?

Your question was about nuclear weapons. So:
"Should Israel have more rights than Iran to have nuclear weapons?"
In my humble opinion, yes, it should.

"Should Israel have more rights than Iran to have nuclear weapons?"
yes.I dont agree, I think sovereign Countries should have EQUAL rights to develop their technology and Military, but...

Thank you for giving me an straight answer, I find it harder and harder to get straight answers lately.

(off-Topic) Can you answer a Yes or No question?

Q: -as a sovereign Country- Does Israel has more rights than Iran to have weapons?

Disregarding that the concept of sovereignty is vastly overrated in its importance as a legal structure (originally it had everything to do with the divine right of Kings, as it was a justification for the authority of German Princelings to determine the religion of their populace, rather than for the populace to determine their own religion), as it stands, though, the Israeli reasoning for possessing nuclear weapons is radically different from the Iranian reasoning.

The Israeli nuclear stockpile exists as a deterrent force. Israel is surrounded by hostile states, all of which would like nothing better than to drive the Jews into the sea, a threat that the Yom Kippur War came very close to legitimizing. The Israelis built their weapons because of this very threat.

The Iranians, on the other hand, are working towards nuclear weapons for the purpose of regional power projection, improvement on prestige issues and growing the potential for regional hegemony. An Iranian atomic bomb would give Iran the leverage it needs to challenge the Arab states openly, with little fear of reprisal. Their goals are revisionist, whilst the Israeli goals are in favor of maintaining the status quo.

So, depending on what a country's goal with those weapons happens to be, then yes and no.

Now, on the matter of nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic has actually had a fairly good record. For years, the Shah sought his own nuclear force by illicit means, and when the Mullahs initially came into power they were so polite as to totally disband this program. But, recently their record on nuclear weapons has experienced a change. Quite to the contrary of dismantling the program, now they are undergoing a program of massive development towards this very goal. Quite contradictory, but when matched with their increasingly assertive external policy, this would seem to be the most likely motivation.

I think sovereign Countries should have equal rights

I think so too, but I also think that under certain conditions, countries should be denied the right to have nuclear weapons.

I think so too, but I also think that under certain conditions, countries should be denied the right to have nuclear weapons.

Possession of nuclear weapons is not a right, rather, it's a privilege of power.

Disregarding that the concept of sovereignty is vastly overrated in its importance as a legal structure (originally it had everything to do with the divine right of Kings, as it was a justification for the authority of German Princelings to determine the religion of their populace, rather than for the populace to determine their own religion), as it stands, though, the Israeli reasoning for possessing nuclear weapons is radically different from the Iranian reasoning.

The Israeli nuclear stockpile exists as a deterrent force. Israel is surrounded by hostile states, all of which would like nothing better than to drive the Jews into the sea, a threat that the Yom Kippur War came very close to legitimizing. The Israelis built their weapons because of this very threat.

The Iranians, on the other hand, are working towards nuclear weapons for the purpose of regional power projection, improvement on prestige issues and growing the potential for regional hegemony. An Iranian atomic bomb would give Iran the leverage it needs to challenge the Arab states openly, with little fear of reprisal. Their goals are revisionist, whilst the Israeli goals are in favor of maintaining the status quo.

So, depending on what a country's goal with those weapons happens to be, then yes and no.

Now, on the matter of nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic has actually had a fairly good record. For years, the Shah sought his own nuclear force by illicit means, and when the Mullahs initially came into power they were so polite as to totally disband this program. But, recently their record on nuclear weapons has experienced a change. Quite to the contrary of dismantling the program, now they are undergoing a program of massive development towards this very goal. Quite contradictory, but when matched with their increasingly assertive external policy, this would seem to be the most likely motivation.Like I said, I find it harder and harder to get straight answers lately. ;)

Andaluciae, EQUAL rights for them.. Yes or No?

You can post all the circular explanations you want in the second Paragraph (and the third and the Fourth, etc), but it would be refreshing if -for a change- you type "Yes" (or "No") as the first word.. or at least inside the first phrase.

Possession of nuclear weapons is not a right, rather, it's a privilege of power.says who? The UNSC? The Masters of the Universe? The ones that already have these Weapons?

Please, dude. Check before you post. This issue already has a thread.

Yes but this one has the all important ######### in front of it. Somehow it is more official that way.


As for the clowns posting the China and Russia will get involved in Iran if the US attacks are dreaming. China and Russia would not go to war vs the US and or Nato over Iran.

Like I said, I find it harder and harder to get straight answers lately. ;)

Not every question has a "straight" answer. The world is far more complex than that, and you should know that.

Andaluciae, EQUAL rights for them.. Yes or No?

It's not a Yes or No question.

You can post all the circular explanations you want in the second Paragraph (and the third and the Fourth, etc), but it would be refreshing if -for a change- you type "Yes" (or "No") as the first word.. or at least inside the first phrase.

Once again, you should know better than that. Not every question has a Yes or No answer. You can moan all you want about how I won't give you a yes or no, but that doesn't change the fact that the complexity of this issue does not permit such a clear cut answer.

Yes but this one has the all important ######### in front of it. Somehow it is more official that way.


As for the clowns posting the China and Russia will get involved in Iran if the US attacks are dreaming. China and Russia would not go to war vs the US and or Nato over Iran.I dont know who would what.. if the US starts a War vs Iran.

BTW you bring an interesting question: if Europe is not attacked, Would Nato join a preemptive attack (vs Iran)?

Now, on the matter of nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic has actually had a fairly good record. For years, the Shah sought his own nuclear force by illicit means, and when the Mullahs initially came into power they were so polite as to totally disband this program. But, recently their record on nuclear weapons has experienced a change. Quite to the contrary of dismantling the program, now they are undergoing a program of massive development towards this very goal. Quite contradictory, but when matched with their increasingly assertive external policy, this would seem to be the most likely motivation.

What makes you so sure they don't want them as a deterrent force as well? If I were Iran I'd get on the fast track for those immediately as soon as I saw the U.S. invade Iraq, because there's no way in hell I'd leave myself open to that crazy bastard Bush.

BTW you bring an interesting question: if Europe is not attacked, Would Nato join a preemptive attack (vs Iran)?


Well let me put it this way. If China and or the Russians attacked the US it would not be just the Persian Gulf region that was attacked. Most likely we would see sat's be destroyed, world wide assets attacked. So a surprise attack would trigger the NATO defense pact in my opinion. Such a war would be idiotic for either Russia or China to join in on because of the likely hood it would lead to a nuclear war.

Well let me put it this way. If China and or the Russians ...:confused:

all that has nothing to do with the Question I asked.

Will NATO/Europe Join the US.. If Washington starts a war by preemptively attacking Iran?

a Yes or No would be appreciated.. followed by your explanations if you wish.

:confused:

all that has nothing to do with the Question I asked.

Will NATO/Europe Join the US.. If Washington starts a war by preemptively attacking Iran^

a Yes or No would be appreciated.. followed by your explanations if you wish.

Ok what I was explaining in the event that the US is attacked by either Russia and or China for invading/attacking Iran as some posters suggested. I figured you were carrying on with that thought.

You were asking something different which I think that France and the UK will most likely join in. I think this would be more of a coalition then the one that went into Iraq. That is if anything happens. I am on the fence if they are actually going to do anything at all.