IAEA: Iran tripled higher-grade uranium production
Source: Reuters
IAEA: Iran tripled higher-grade uranium production
By REUTERS
Last updated: 03/05/2012 14:45
Amano voices "serious concern" over Tehran's nuclear program to UN atomic watchdog's 35-nation governing board.
Read more: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=260522
I hope it resolves with sanctions, but clearly, fanatical Mullachracy of Islamic Republic's nukes is a global threat.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)We've been down this road before - military action against a country suspected accused of building nuclear weapons.
Mosby
(16,350 posts)snip
During the meetings in the Iranian capital in January and February, Iranian officials stonewalled the IAEA's requests for access to a military site seen as central to its investigation into the nature of the Islamic state's nuclear activity.
"The agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," Amano told the closed-door meeting, according to a copy of his speech.
The IAEA "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," he added.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iaea-voices-serious-concerns-about-possible-military-dimensions-to-iran-nuclear-program-1.416620
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Saddam played all kinds of cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors, and would often refuse access to various areas.
In that case, it was more about exercising his sovereignty and screwing with the UN.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you said "fanatical Rabinocracy of Jew State's nukes" you'd have half a dozen Alerts by now. As it is, not many people even noticed your slurs because the so many are deaf from the constant propaganda din . . . and, this is supposed to be a progressive, anti-war crowd. Tells you how dangerous things really are.
Behind the Aegis
(53,985 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)By the standards of secular western states, Israel is in many ways a theocracy, if you define it as a state where religious institutions and bodies have a formal role in shaping the administration of law, and where automatic membership in the state on religious grounds is determined by a body of clerics. As for the distinction, it's between one nn and two and a choice of adjectives.
How about engaging the issue on a substantial level, rather than being pedantic?
Behind the Aegis
(53,985 posts)But, I wasn't wrong and you're simply trying to create an issue where there is none, in order to avoid the actual topic.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)to be their enemies. And, even about that, they're wrong.
To mindlessly condemn Iran as a warlike threat to the world on the basis that they enrich uranium, particularly by states that have hundreds or thousands of actual nuclear weapons (and in the case of the US, have actually used them, twice), strikes me as being the most extreme form of hypocrisy; and, to say Iran is particularly bad because it's a "Mullocracy" is also manifest bigotry.
Behind the Aegis
(53,985 posts)I see the same issue, though, when Israel is invoked. There is no denying their is bigotry against Muslims, but this isn't an example, despite your best efforts to create such a situation. Commenting on their potential threat and declaring they're a theocracy is not the same thing, cdespite the best efforts to convolute the situation and make it about something it isn't.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you honestly don't see that comment as expressing bigotry, I don't know what to say to you.
Behind the Aegis
(53,985 posts)It is one of the reasons I don't think comments should be allowed in LBN thread-starters. It isn't bigoted despite your best efforts. You are reading into it. Discussions of Islamophobia are important, and sadly needed. However, just because someone doesn't like Iran or uses it's officical name doesn't mean it is bigoted anymore than it is bigoted to refer to Israel as the Jewish state and go on a tear about how evil and dangerous that country is, and that is something you will see here on almost a daily basis. You think that is also bigoted? Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Any group of self-identifying people are welcome to run their own state on their own land in their own way provided they don't harm their neighbors. That goes for Israel as well as Iran and Palestine.
Behind the Aegis
(53,985 posts)I'll keep that in mind.
bananas
(27,509 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Iran is a theocracy lead by a supreme leader (who is a Mullah) and refers to itself as an Islamic Republic. Just because someone doesn't want to invade a country, doesn't mean they have to ignore what a danger Iran could be.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)each other. You can insult them, but it is becoming the sole accepted form of discourse with reference to the latest, greatest neocon monster of the month.
Propaganda framing has narrowed the conceivable options to sanctions or war, and is moving toward war. That's how we got into Iraq. If you liked that, you will LOVE Iran.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)What, exactly, are the criteria? Do they include an actual propensity for and history of aggression that has resulted in the deaths of millions? Perhaps the number of invasions conducted in recent history plays a role in making such a determination?
If so, I can think of a country that is FAR more threatening than Iran.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)That's a bit much. It's a two bit military force, with a crack pot figurehead ruled by a bunch of religious nuts.
A regional threat? Arguably. A serious threat to Israel? Of course.
But the world has already seen NK and Pakistan become nuclear powers. Iran joining the club doesn't really alter things that much. Now, I agree we should pursue sanction as we are doing, but military force would be a disaster in this case. Ultimately even if Israel decides to attack it would not be in our interests to assist them in any way.
Devil_Fish
(1,664 posts)And which country actually nuked a civilian population not just once, but twice officially and much more if you count DU.
if the USA fight for democracy, Iran must have nukes to !
Response to cocorocotum (Reply #8)
Post removed
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Please elaborate. It's not at all clear to me.