IAEA chief: Iran investigation at 'dead end'
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 5 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 25 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
19 Comments
Login to comment
0
SuperLib
Well said, Mr. ElBaradei.
0
SushiSake3
America, Britain, Russia and China - all countries with nuclear weapons - are telling Iran - a country that no one has proved has nuclear weapons - 'Hey! You can't have what we've had for 50 decades!'
Like that argument is ever going to fly...which is likely why it never has.
BTW, I'm not slamming Iran, therefore I must be a supporter of that country's evil regime.
That argument flies about as high as the first one.....
0
Kapuna
SushiSake3 wrote "'Hey! You can't have what we've had for 50 decades!" Really? 500 years?
0
WilliB
Trust Mohammed El Baradai to put the breaks on the islamic bomb. Yeah, right.
0
Foxie
Having had those nuclear weapons for 50 decades, obviously gives priority to Iran. Iran even gets backed by South American countries nowadays. It is about time to rethink this whole situation. I can't agree either that some countries have the right to explore nuclear energy and that some don't.
0
SushiSake3
Kapuna - well spotted. :-)
My error - 50 years or 5 decades is what I meant to write.
0
SuperLib
Pulling out the old high school argument, eh?
0
victimcrat
I think most of the leftists in the first world defending Iran aren't doing so from any sort of logical conclusion but because they identify with groups like Iran's leadership (losers, basically) they believe are being bullied.Case in point, this silly 'argument' above:
"America, Britain, Russia and China - all countries with nuclear weapons - are telling Iran - a country that no one has proved has nuclear weapons - 'Hey! You can't have what we've had for 50 decades!'"
0
Madverts
Well old friend, no one likes a bully afterall.
My old high school argument is that Bush Co (yes sailwind, george w bush!!) basically screwed us all on this issue - the fiasco's in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan was the best gift the Iranian mullah's could ever have been given, since it effectively removed the credible threat of force from the table and showed even the best equipped armed forces can get their arses kicked by a third-world insurgency.
I for one support a strike on the nuclear facilities before they get left un-checked to become operational - something the Iranians are busy doing as fast as they can whilst the whole donkey following the carrot "negotiations" is ridiculing the other parties.
They had the option of light-water reactors. They opted out. They had the US, France and even Russia bending over backwards to strike a different deal. They've clearly opted out.
If the Iranians attitude doesn't say anything to those arguing otherwise above then with respect, you're all off you're trollies - and I've got a car for sale. They want nukes, and it looks like they're probably going to get them.
0
SushiSake3
victimcrat - "I think most of the leftists in the first world defending Iran aren't doing so from any sort of logical conclusion but because they identify with groups like Iran's leadership (losers, basically) they believe are being bullied."
No, it's because we actually think before we make judgements.
That's the key difference.
0
SuperLib
Madverts, I don't think a military strike against Iran was ever really an option, not unless it included regime change. A strike will just delay Iran, they already have a lot of the know-how and most of their equipment is underground. And after the strike Iran would no longer need to pretend that they aren't building nukes....you'd basically be giving them an open reason to build them for defense. On top of that the other countries in the Middle East would be forced to support Iran, something they're not doing now.
Removing the credible use of force would have been more reinforced had Bush not invaded Iraq, not the other way around. Iran would have watched Saddam invade another country, get around sanctions, then refuse full inspections, at which point Iran would have been even less likely to cooperate with the UN to the extent that they have to date. Plus they'd have even more of a desire to have nukes if they believed Saddam was still a threat. Like I said before....if Saddam were still in power today we'd probably be seeing a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq.
The only option is Israel....not that it clears up anything I've said before, but because the West has the potential to distance themselves personally from the strike.
0
Madverts
" Iran would have watched Saddam invade another country, get around sanctions, then refuse full inspections, at which point Iran would have been even less likely to cooperate with the UN to the extent that they have to date"
Pure specualtion......and it isn't even credible speculation. Saddam couldn't have invaded anybody - he couldn't even get an fighter plane of the ground to defend the American on-slaught for pete's sake annd the army couldn't wait to surrender.
Had Bush Co ramped up the pressure with the threat of force, something that strangely freaked Saddam out so much he allowed the inspectors un-fetted access to everything - and then backed off - then I would have said it was an intelligent play of cards.
But they didn't, because they were "hellbent" on invading, remember? They were going in for other reasons than "WMD" and freedumb something you don't wish to admit. The inspections then ran their course due to the increased pressure - and Hans Blix and his team found nothing other than some stone-age missiles that could go 20 paces further than the naughty man was allowed. I'm sorry, but this proves my point further - the threat of force could have worked with Iran like it worked perfectly on Iraq.
"Like I said before....if Saddam were still in power today we'd probably be seeing a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq."
Again, how can you attempt to justify speclation of this kind, when in the aftermath of the invasion, Iraq's "nuclear programme" consisted of a few stainless bolts that had been buried in a scientists garden since 1991? Quite the contrary to a real threat that Ian poses, no?
Heh, you're not convincing me very well buddy.
"The only option is Israel....not that it clears up anything I've said before, but because the West has the potential to distance themselves personally from the strike."
I'm not sure - that would inevitably mean a bloody war between the pair. But I guess for all the backing the Jewish state gets from the West it's time they did us that particular favour.....
0
SuperLib
Correct me if I'm wrong, Madverts, but I believe it was Bush who wanted to include the threat of force by including a military option if Saddam didn't comply, language that the Europeans balked at. I'll have to go back and do some research or perhaps you can cite some sources.
And we're just going to have to agree to disagree about Iran. I think that by not using force and letting Saddam stay in power would have sent a message to the Iranians that they can get away with bloody murder themselves. I don't understand why you feel the threat of force would be more threatening to Iran than actually seeing their neighbor get destroyed. If you see some guy breaking the law and getting away with it don't you think it makes it more likely for others to follow suit?
0
Madverts
"Correct me if I'm wrong, Madverts, but I believe it was Bush who wanted to include the threat of force by including a military option if Saddam didn't comply"
Yes, that was the part I agreed with above, it was Bush Co's making good on the threats despite extensive UN inspections turning up not one "WMD", depsite the spurious allegations.
Frankly, I don't think the US is capable of taking on Iran without abandoning Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush Co removed the credible threat of force, and all we can do now is sit back as the mullah's aquire nukes.
I could be wrong, but I don't think even the fundie governance in Israel will risk a strategic strike.
0
Madverts
Oh,
"I don't understand why you feel the threat of force would be more threatening to Iran than actually seeing their neighbor get destroyed."
Becuase destroying Saddam actually helped the mullah's. We took out there arch enemy, and the Iranians must have been smirking as the occupiers floundered in the throes of a bitter and bloody insurgency.
We clearly part company at the point where Saddam had been humiliated and forced to fess up that he had no "WMD" and that he had been forced, by Bush Co, to open up - something I would have saluted them for had they stopped there. (Rhetorical as you know)
Pure specualtion on my part but I'm willing to bet that had events un-folded in this manner, and the troops were now massing on the Iranian border - and everybody important player is on board this time....
...I reckon the Iranians would be brown-trousering it instead of making a mockery of the negotiations.
0
victimcrat
No blame for Iran's German suppliers, UN malfeasance, Khomeini's French enablers, the BBC in Iran - called 'voice of Khomeini' back in the 70's...
No, no, it is still all about "BushCo."
0
Madverts
Yes, please try and follow what me and Super have been discussing, though that will involve reading.
Mentioning European involvement in Iran kinda cracks me up - but as usual - your selective memory seems to forget American involvement.
The Iranians respond to the threat of force. Your hero Reagan knew that, and so did the Iranians.
0
SuperLib
I understand what you're saying, Madverts. And we're both just speculating. I just think that leaving Saddam in power would have added to Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons not only from the standpoint of protecting themselves from a possible belligerent Saddam but also by seeing how the world let him get by without complying. The Europeans would have been hard pressed to make a case against Iran when the Iranians could simply turn around and say, "Why don't you guys confirm what Saddam has before you bother us with your bullshit." In reality neither of us knows how it would have all played out so we're just expressing opinion.
Back to top