Iran's nuclear progress exaggerated...

[bullypulpit]

...By Teheran itself. The IAEA has reported that Iran has only about 2/3 of the number of centrifuges in operation (around 2,000) as opposed to the 3,000 reported by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad earlier this week. With some 1300 centrifuges on line in April, the current number would indicate a significant slowing of the pace of Iran's uranium enrichment program.

According to the IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei, the problems could be as much technical as political. ElBaradei commented that, "My gut feeling tells me that Iran has responded positively to my repeated demands that it scale back the program."

Complementing that assessment is the view by those in diplomatic and technical circles that have long doubted Iran's technical ability to run and maintain the huge numbers of centrifuges needed to refine any significant quantity of weapons grade uranium.

The upshot of all this is that Bush's increasingly aggressive saber-rattling over the Iranian threat of a "nuclear holocaust" in the Middle East are equally overblown and inflated. And, after the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, painfully familiar. One can go back to the Bush administration's statements leading up to the the invasion and find an almost word for word correspondence with his jingoistic, overblown rhetoric towards Iran.

We won't be fooled again.

Source:

<a href=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II08Ak02.html>Iran spinning centrifuges - and half-truths</a> - Asia Times Online, 09/08/07

[avatar4321]

yet you still repeat the same mantra again and again as though something has changed.

[bullypulpit]

yet you still repeat the same mantra again and again as though something has changed.

And just what might that be? That Chimpy McPresident's drumbeat for military action against Iran is as unjustified as it was against Iraq? Jesus...Wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

[jafar00]

There is more on the subject. El Baradei is speaking the truth about Iran. The IAEA was right about Iraq. They will be proven to be right about Iran too.


By David R. Sands - The United Nations' top nuclear cop yesterday slammed critics of a new inspection deal with Iran as "back-seat drivers" trying to justify a war with Tehran in the same way they cleared a path for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, named no names in a briefing for reporters at the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna, Austria. But his harsh words reflected the depth of suspicion and distrust between the Egyptian diplomat and critics in the United States, both inside and outside the Bush administration.

Pleading for time to allow a new Iranian inspection plan to work, Mr. ElBaradei said, "I hear war drums that are basically saying that the solution is to bomb Iran. It makes me shudder because some of the rhetoric is a reminder" of the run-up to the Iraq war.

"There have been back-seat drivers putting in their five cents saying this is not a good working arrangement," he said, according to an account by the Reuters news agency.

"I tell them: Please, leave the driving to us and we will let you know where we are in November."

The official U.S. response to the IAEA chief's comments was measured, but U.S. officials also made it clear that Iran must do far more than meet the IAEA's goals to put to rest questions about its suspect nuclear programs.

"I would certainly hope that [Mr. ElBaradei's] comments would not refer to the United States, because they certainly wouldn't be true," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

Mr. Casey and the U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, said they back the IAEA's efforts to clear up "historical" questions about Iran's secret nuclear programs. But they added that the United States and its allies still demand that Iran suspend key activities, such as uranium enrichment, or face new international sanctions.

Mr. Schulte said late last month that the IAEA inspection agreement with Tehran has "real limitations" because key military and manufacturing sites inside the Islamic republic would not be covered.

Mr. ElBaradei has U.S. critics outside the Bush administration as well. A Washington Post editorial this week dubbed him a "rogue regulator" who is "undermining" the U.S.-led effort to curb Iran's nuclear programs.

Yesterday, Mr. ElBaradei said the U.S. press was rushing to discredit him.

"If you look at some of the American newspapers today, there is a coordinated, orchestrated campaign to undermine the process, undermine the agency, undermine me," Reuters quoted him as saying.

The Bush administration and Mr. ElBaradei had some tense exchanges before the Iraq war over the extent of dictator Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons programs. The IAEA could not verify U.S. claims of a major Iraqi nuclear effort, and postwar analyses largely upheld the U.N. agency's work.

The United States briefly tried to block Mr. Elbaradei's reappointment to the IAEA post in 2005, but found no support from the nearly three dozen nations that sit on the Vienna agency's board.

Meeting with a small group of reporters in Vienna yesterday, Mr. ElBaradei said his inspectors have uncovered little so far to back up charges Iran has developed a military nuclear capability. Iranian officials say their program is designed for peaceful energy uses.

"We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we received any information to that effect — no smoking gun or information from intelligence," Mr. ElBaradei said.

Mr. ElBaradei suggested yesterday that critics should give his inspectors until the end of the year to do their work.

"This is a reasonable time in our view to resolve a number of complex issues," he said.

But Jacqueline Shire and David Albright, nuclear specialists at the private Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said in an Aug. 30 report that the IAEA inspection deal signed with Iran on Aug. 27 is "limited in scope" in a number of key areas.

"The IAEA has also not been able to determine whether Iran has undeclared nuclear facilities," they wrote. "Iran may be installing centrifuges at a secret, undeclared plant."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070908/FOREIGN/109080042/1001

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But can we be too safe?
2. I say we go into Iran and kick their ass just to make sure.
3. Take out all their nuclear sites.
4. In these times, you can never be too safe?
5. Better to be safe than sorry.
6. Sorry bout that.:pee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[truthmatters]

I fear next week is going to be a very bad week.

[bullypulpit]

Sorry bout that,

1. But can we be too safe?
2. I say we go into Iran and kick their ass just to make sure.
3. Take out all their nuclear sites.
4. In these times, you can never be too safe?
5. Better to be safe than sorry.
6. Sorry bout that.:pee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You've been drinking Chimpy McPresident's kool-aid again, and it's really messed with your cognitive abilities, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are in possession of such abilities. Especially in light of your nonsensical, dumb-ass post, which I quoted above.

If you want to see the Middle East further destabilized, turn every hand in the world against America, wreck not only the US but the world economy and possibly trigger WW III, then Chimpy McPresident shoud follow your advice to the letter.

Of course, if you're one of those nihilistic biblical "end-time" prophecy believers, that would also be the course of action to take, because it doesn't really matter anyways.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh its coming.
2. You just can't see it coming.
3. And when it comes I will be the one saying.
4. Yep, I told you so, Iran had it coming.:pee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bullypulpit]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh its coming.
2. You just can't see it coming.
3. And when it comes I will be the one saying.
4. Yep, I told you so, Iran had it coming.:pee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Even though I know you don't, do you have even a single reference from a reputable source, or are you simply reading the big neon letters painted on the inside of your forehead?

[Guernicaa]

Even though I know you don't, do you have even a single reference from a reputable source, or are you simply reading the big neon letters painted on the inside of your forehead?
I wouldn't even bother responding to him. His level of intelligence is comparable to nevadamedics.

[Guernicaa]

This is what were seeing time and time again. Repeated requests from the neocons to go after a well developed country with millions of people living in its main city. It’s especially funny considering Iran is yet another country in the Middle East that we should have absolutely no interest in. The chances of them getting a nuclear weapon and trying to use it against us is the same as the chances were of Saddam getting one which, as we all know, there was no chance. This just more exaggerated rhetoric to try and scare the American people into voting Republican. It’s insane.

[Nukeman]

I wouldn't even bother responding to him. His level of intelligence is comparable to nevadamedics.Now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!:lol::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::lol:

[jafar00]

Sorry bout that,

1. But can we be too safe?
2. I say we go into Iran and kick their ass just to make sure.
3. Take out all their nuclear sites.
4. In these times, you can never be too safe?
5. Better to be safe than sorry.
6. Sorry bout that.:pee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

That's all well and good, except for that pesky International Law thing that forbids pre-emptive strikes in "just in case" or "what if" situations. It's a law to stop rogue nations making up lies and terrorising others for their own benefit.

[PostmodernProphet]

The chances of them getting a nuclear weapon and trying to use it against us is the same as the chances were of Saddam getting one which, as we all know, there was no chance.

???....are you crazy?........

[jafar00]

???....are you crazy?........

With everything from Islamic Law, to a Fatwa from the Ayatullah forbidding them from developing, obtaining or using Nuclear weapons, coupled with ongoing IAEA inspections and being signatories to the NPT, I think the chances of them ever getting a nuke are non-existant.

Not to mention the fact that if they announced they had one, they know Israel would immediately deplete it's stockpile of 200-400 undeclared nukes, in an all out pre-emptive attack.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think the chances of them ever getting a nuke are non-existant.

perhaps just naive.....

[theHawk]

That's all well and good, except for that pesky International Law thing that forbids pre-emptive strikes in "just in case" or "what if" situations. It's a law to stop rogue nations making up lies and terrorising others for their own benefit.

Its also very convenient for countries like Iran that sponsor terrorism. They can sit back and let small organizations they fund attack their enemies while they are protected against international law.

[jafar00]

Its also very convenient for countries like Iran that sponsor terrorism. They can sit back and let small organizations they fund attack their enemies while they are protected against international law.

Yes it is convenient for the US isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/04/us_hiring_mek_t.html

[jimnyc]

Yes it is convenient for the US isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/04/us_hiring_mek_t.html

Hey, Jafar, do you cherrypick who and what you'll respond to? I'm still eagerly awaiting your response in several threads! I see you responding everywhere else and yet my questions go unanswered.

Shall I just assume I was spot on with my assessment?

[theHawk]

Yes it is convenient for the US isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/04/us_hiring_mek_t.html

Only proves my point. You can preach about "international law" all you want. Any law that isn't enforced isn't a law at all. Nothing is going to prevent Iran from doing what it wants, and the same goes for the U.S. Nothing is stopping the Israelis from doing all of their 'illegal' activities, and nothing stops the Palistinians from using terrorism in return. Its a war, and in war both factions fight by any means neccessary. The problem is nobody wants to say they are at war. We are already at war with Iran, as we are at war with radical Islamists.

The Israelis and Palistinians are at war over a piece of land. We can protest the terrorist actions of the Palistinians, you can protest the actions of Israel. The point is its irrelivant how much we protest, the two sides are willing to fight over it so its going to happen no matter what we say about it. The only way to win a war is to destroy the will of the enemy to pursue their agenda. So until the Palistinians are beaten to the point where they will concede the existance of Israel, or until the Israelis are convinced Zionism isn't going to work, the war will always continue.