• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran Nuclear Agreement

In related news, Israel just caught a ship with 60 tons of advanced weaponry smuggled by Iran en route to Syria and Hizbullah.

But I'm sure these folks will keep their words on pieces of paper they sign where they promise not to do something.
 
Skeptic said:
In related news, Israel just caught a ship with 60 tons of advanced weaponry smuggled by Iran en route to Syria and Hizbullah.

But I'm sure these folks will keep their words on pieces of paper they sign where they promise not to do something.
Click to expand...
Try this: just rearming the poor oppressed Hozebaggah's to defend them against Israeli aggression.

DR
 
Oliver said:
Just in ...
Click to expand...
The IAEA has declined to comment on whether the inspectors came across anything surprising or were able to obtain all the documentation and on-site access they had wanted at the remote spot about 160 km (100 miles) south of Tehran.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't want to say anything bad, so just refuse comment...
 
IAEA seeks explanation from Iran on nuclear weapon implosion device
The Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has requested a response from Iran in regard to evidence that the country has experimented with the creation of advanced implosion devices designed for use in nuclear weapons.

The report, which was compiled by using the data of numerous intelligence agencies over an extended period charges that Iranian scientists have been working on creating the components in a “two-point implosion” device. Such a device is used to bring about the chain reaction in a nuclear fission warhead. Furthermore, the device would be smaller than other nuclear implosion devices, which would in turn give Iran the ability to create much smaller warheads and therefore require a smaller missile system to deliver it to its target.

IAEA Director General IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei stated that the information obtained is regarded as reliable because it "appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran."

Since the United States’ faulty intelligence on Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s nuclear ambitions prior to the Iraq war, the IAEA has been more thorough in its evaluation of intelligence gained from the international community.

Iran claims that the development of such implosion devices is for civilian applications; however, according the Guardian they have thus far not supplied any information on such uses. No civilian uses are known to the international community.
Click to expand...

ETA: I'm curious if anyone can think of ANY other use for a 2 point implosion device other than a hydrogen bomb.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
And it looks like the deal about sending uranium out of the country is not gonna happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/07/iran.uranium.shipment/index.html

Anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you mistook an unofficial statement for an answer by Iran on the deal. The report may very well be predictive, and the Iranian side of the negotiations might decide to keep playing at unfeasible alternatives, but a "semiofficial" media statement in Iran is not the Iranian government.

-----

WildCat said:
MikeMangum said:
IAEA seeks explanation from Iran on nuclear weapon implosion device


ETA: I'm curious if anyone can think of ANY other use for a 2 point implosion device other than a hydrogen bomb.
Click to expand...

And you think that's suspicious? They probably figured out a way to make kittens with it.

Why do you hate kittens Mike?
Click to expand...

lold.jpg
 
Pardalis said:
And it looks like the deal about sending uranium out of the country is not gonna happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/07/iran.uranium.shipment/index.html

Anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

Not once I read:

CNN said:
The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency said under the deal, Iran would get the converted fuel back by the end of 2010.
Click to expand...

Iran would have to be very naive to pay everything in advance and then wait a year to receive goods from parties that have not kept previous agreements.

Would it really take a year to manufacture the required fuel? I'd like some actual data rather than "It could be true" responses. Of course it could be true, but is it?

If there really is an intention to provide the goods once payment is made, then maybe some kind of security could be provided. Let America transfer 100billion in gold* to Iran, to be returned when the fuel is delivered on time. Just a suggestion. :D



*number chosen to tweak noses, but principle is a serious suggestion.
 
FireGarden said:
Let America transfer 100billion in gold* to Iran, to be returned when the fuel is delivered on time. Just a suggestion. :D

*number chosen to tweak noses, but principle is a serious suggestion.
Click to expand...
It isn't America's problem, it is "the international community's" problem.

Thus, a better proposal would be to transfer 1/3 of the gold in Belgian banks, Brussels Belgium being where EU HQ resides, to Iran, all or most of it to be returned when the fuel is delivered on time.

Just a suggestion, to accomodate the internationalists who are tired of America throwing it's weight around. :p

In other words, put up or shut up.

DR
 
Pardalis said:
And it looks like the deal about sending uranium out of the country is not gonna happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/07/iran.uranium.shipment/index.html

Anyone surprised?
Click to expand...

Interesting look from the WaPo yesterday at the hardliners in Iran:

The prospect of a deal with the Great Satan produced a political frisson in Tehran. . . . Critics chided Ahmadinejad for giving away the nuclear store. . . . Khamenei joined in the attacks last week, warning that negotiating with America would be "naive and perverted." The leader was implicitly criticizing Ahmadinejad, who had characterized the Geneva deal as an Iranian victory. . . .

But reading the Iranian press, you get the sense that for Iran's ruling elite, engagement with America remains a bridge too far. "America is still the Great Satan. Negotiations are meaningless," thundered the hard-line weekly Ya-Lesarat.​
Swap out a few names and replace "great satan" with "Persian Hitlers" and you have a pretty accurate portrayal of American hardliners urging against the deal stateside..;)
 
Last edited:
Praktik said:
Interesting look from the WaPo yesterday at the hardliners in Iran:

The prospect of a deal with the Great Satan produced a political frisson in Tehran. . . . Critics chided Ahmadinejad for giving away the nuclear store. . . . Khamenei joined in the attacks last week, warning that negotiating with America would be "naive and perverted." The leader was implicitly criticizing Ahmadinejad, who had characterized the Geneva deal as an Iranian victory. . . .

But reading the Iranian press, you get the sense that for Iran's ruling elite, engagement with America remains a bridge too far. "America is still the Great Satan. Negotiations are meaningless," thundered the hard-line weekly Ya-Lesarat.​
Swap out a few names and replace "great satan" with "Persian Hitlers" and you have a pretty accurate portrayal of American hardliners urging against the deal stateside..;)
Click to expand...

I agree, but the cool thing is how that is precisely the type of response that is going to prove beneficial for the reformers and opposition in Iran.

Keep in mind, turning up the burners and turning off the communication from the outside tends to unite Iran in radicalism, turning down the burners and turning up the communication enables the hardliners to dig their own graves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom