U.N. Atomic Energy Chief Says Iran Wants Bomb Technology

[bananas]

Source: NY Times

PARIS — Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, said it was his “gut feeling” that Iran’s leaders wanted the technology to build nuclear weapons “to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world: ‘Don’t mess with us.’ ”

He spoke in a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday and Wednesday as protesters took to the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, demanding that last Friday’s disputed election result be overturned and confronting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the leadership’s biggest domestic challenge since the Islamic Revolution three decades ago.

Dr. ElBaradei has made similar points in the past, officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which he is director general, said Wednesday, but his latest remarks were less hedged with diplomatic caveats than previously.

Dr. ElBaradei, whose term of office is to expire in November, said in the interview that countries in possession of nuclear weapons were treated differently from others, citing the example of North Korea, which was invited to negotiations while Iraq under Saddam Hussein — which did not have a nuclear capacity — was “pulverized.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/world/18nuke.html

---

Unfortunately, Risk Analysis Finds Nuclear Deterrence Wanting
and Even a Limited Nuclear Exchange can Cause a Climate Disaster.

[aquart]

1. "Gut feeling"? Did he look into their eyes and see their souls, too?

A leader would have to be an idiot not to notice that only nations WITHOUT nuclear weapons are attacked by foreign armies.

[twitomy]

7. Well heck then

Lets give the Bomb to EVERY country!! World Peace ensured!

[Wizard777]

10. That's M.A.D.ness! Mutually Assured Destruction. Not world peace ensured.

[twitomy]

13. Yes I know that is what it is..

My point is, the phrase:

"...would have to be an idiot not to notice that only nations WITHOUT nuclear weapons are attacked by foreign armies"

leads to the logical conclusion that MAD is the way to go.

Disarming yourself is a sure way to get yourself run over.

I am not for nuclear proliferation, but I do think the reason there has not been a WWIII between superpowers is because of MAD...

[dipsydoodle]

2. Selective comments have been used there.

Here is the actual interview which I think was originally posted in narrative by the BBC on Tuesday and then the video added c. 5am Wednesday.

ElBaradei calls for Iran dialogue : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8104401.stm

[ohio2007]

3. Are you saying this is the first time comments have ever been taken out of context and posted here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3926773&mesg_id=3927895

[dipsydoodle]

5. Please don't quote

the world's biggest dickhead to me just because I'm english. :)

[bananas]

4. BBC: Iran 'would like nuclear option'

Nope, not taken out of context:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104388.stm

Page last updated at 18:21 GMT, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 19:21 UK

Iran 'would like nuclear option'

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he believes Iran is mastering nuclear technology and it wants the option of a nuclear weapon.

Mohammed ElBaradei told the BBC that countries with nuclear weapons were treated differently to those without.

He said North Korea, with a bomb, was invited to the conference table, while Saddam Hussein's Iraq, without one, was - as he put it - pulverised.

<snip>

According to google news, the NYT article was 7 hours old.

[dipsydoodle]

6. NYT was wrong

about the timing. I wasn't having a go at you about timing - it was their mistake not yours.

For timing see on my link "Page last updated at 04:49 GMT, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 05:49 UK" I'd remembered it and had searched back through google to find it.

BTW - I hadn't said "taken out of context"......I said the NYT had used selective comments.

[AverageJoe5]

8. Bush had a similar "gut feeling" that Iraq had WMDs

Bush invaded Iraq based on his "gut feeling" that Iraq was threatening us with WMDs. Where are those WMDs?

[bananas]

16. Vote in the poll!

"Is El Baradei's 'gut feeling' the same as Bush's?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5879627

[Mr. Sparkle]

9. Is this the same “gut feeling” that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction?

imho, Mohamed ElBaradei should be fired. After an astounding statement like that I have lost a lot of faith in him.

[Wizard777]

11. Never confuse Neocon's with the IAEA. Blixx could have stopped Bush cold in his tracks.

He could have declared Iraq in compliance with Resolution 1441. That would have take all the wind out of Bush's sails. But Blixx would have had to compromise the agencies integrity. He was not willing to do that. I agree with El Baradei's assessment. We need to be questioning the integrity of Ayatollah Khomenei. Not the IAEA. Their integrity is impeccable.

[Mr. Sparkle]

12. In fairness i dont think Hans Blix could have stopped the Iraq war.

He checked all the sites given to him by the coalition and still found nothing. If i recall correctly he was , by and large, told to leave Iraq just before the bombing. There was nothing more he could do.

My problem with El Baradei is that he is assuming , in his "gut" that Iran is trying to make Nuclear weapons. Given the times we live in and the large movement trying to start a war with Iran, it is a very dangerous comment.

The less gut feelings we use and instead rely on facts, the world would be a better place.

[Wizard777]

14. I agree with that to some extent.

A big part of Bush's cassus belli was that Iraq was not in compliance with Resolution 1441. If Blix would have proclaimed them to be in compliance. The security council would have had something to dispute Bush's claims with. That would have shut Bush down on that front. But Blix was not going to sacrifice the agencies integrity. They could not risk suffering the damage Bush suffered for being wrong. If Bush did find WMD's after Blix declared them in compliance. That would have filled Bush's sails with wind to secede from the UN.

To certain degree I think you are playing semantics here. A gut feeling could also be called anomalies that deserve closer scrutiny. A rose is a rose. But more people will comprehend calling it a gut feeling. He's merely reduced it to the vulgate.

[Mr. Sparkle]

17. Apologies for the late reply

I think you are way off the mark in that if Blix had proclaimed that Iraq was in compliance with Resolution 1441, Bush would have found another reason to invade. I firmly believe that the reasons to invade Iraq were two fold. One; was the neocons, a despot group made up of extremist right wing Jews and Christians whom use America to fight Israel's wars in the middle east. It amazes me how powerful they are in the Republican party when you consider they hate just about every minority going. I guess money talks.

And Two; The energy companies and military industrial complex. As we have seen from the Gulf war, they don't care who gets killed as long as they make large amounts of money. I remember reading a few years ago some ex Bush one officials saying the gulf war was all about the oil.

I don't think I'm play semantics, when someone says they have a gut feeling they are saying that they believe something to be true without the ability to prove it. And given the topic at hand I fell that's it's a very dangerous assumption which could have terrible consequences.

[bananas]

15. I posted poll asking that question.

"Is El Baradei's 'gut feeling' the same as Bush's?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5879627