Nuclear Deal Reached With Iran

Eastern Europe. Russia. Former soviet republics. Grenada. South Korea. Panama. Chile. South Africa. Israel. Japan to name a few off the top.

 

I have quoted the text of the NPT.

Please tell me what Article is violated by Iran.

And stop pasting irrelevant stuff.

 

You said that not me, I know you are trying to be smart but that line is not going to work being as I never said it.

Its responsible for plenty of deaths in those nations especially Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and many Latin American countries, obviously it is not responsible for the governments they have in some of them because they had their ass kicked out of them and the people formed their own governments without US interference.

All things were done for your won interests, governments do not do things that are not in their own interests.

I do not think there is any doubt that all their meddling had a bad effect on the states they were meddling in.

We know he did not act alone he was getting loans/weapons and training from the Americans obviously.

Britain.

 

No it doesn't always get trumped, but there is a recognition that America despite what its citizen's may think is not as ominpotent that it can wave some magic wand and voila - the world toes the american democratic line. Reality can be a real pain sometimes.

Surely you mean you became skeptical of some of the stuff you were taught in the 5th grade?
And Education is the foundation of growth, innovation, creativity, and pretty near everything of important in this life.

Teaching Keynsian economics is absolutely relevant in post grad econ., considering it is the majority view of global economists. A pretty substantive majority at that.

 

Sure. Start with this one as it is the easiest;

" Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. "

Iran is not permitting inspections by the IAEA to conduct this verification.

 

You refuse to refute my contention that the country that you assert "made the world safe for democracy" has not acted to install a democracy in the Mid-East, Southeast Asia, Central America, South Africa, or anywhere else, and has instead propped up colonialism, kings, shahs, and tin horn dictators all over the world.

BTW: Mark Twain said "Education consists mainly of what we unlearn."

Josh Billings said "It's better to know nothing than to know what ain't so."

(I had mixed the two together.)

 

It is obvious you don't know much about it. That you are totally unfamiliar with cold war military doctrine and the gaming that went on is obvious, or you wouldn't be quoting out of context descriptions of a select few of literally hundreds of scenerio/war plans.

Because the US and Europe were fighting them in the cold war and its numerous proxy wars AND THE SOVIETS LOST! Unbelieveable.




Its not in my own mind, its in black and white on these pages, try reading it before commenting



It happened before American democracy obviously, as did democracy in New Zealand and England..you really should not try and back up people who have been proven to know nothing.[/QUOTE]

 

You were asked to name states where the Soviets started a revolution and tried to overthrow their governments, you have not provided any examples around the world. I see you have none,therefore your little rant is rubbish and you know nothing just like your mate.

I will ask again, give me examples of states around the world that the Soviets started a revolution in to overthrow their governments?

 

And lets not forget about the Second World War. I wonder how democracy could have survived without America? The Allies never could have defeated the Nazis without the United States.

 

I can think of one example that might qualify. The Russians were actively supporting the rebels trying to overthrow the apartheid government in South Africa while the US was avoiding taking any action.

 

How terrible of them...

 

are you familiar with 20th century history or are you just blowing hard? The Soviets conducted massive external subversive operations just like the CIA. Proxy wars abounded with the Soviets supporting communist rebels/insurgents.

The Soviets behaved much like the CIA with coups and support for a particular side in a revolution or war of independence or outright wars. The list is as long if not longer than the CIA's.

That you should not know this important part of 20th century history, economics, geo-politics, diplomacy and warfare is quite telling.

 

back again and not one country named...seems you have none.

 

No doubt Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany became communist states because of Soviet commitment to the democratic process.

 

WW2 agreement with the allies.That is the best you can come up with,sad as (*)(*)(*)(*). You clearly know (*)(*)(*)(*) all about anything as proven anytime you post.what you are looking for are states where the Soviets went and started a revolution and put their man in power like the Americans did all over the world.

 

There was never any agreement for perpetual Soviet control of the region, and no agreement what so ever about the Soviets determining those nation's form of government.

 

Yes the russians were actively supporting the communist part of South Africa and the ANC which promoted communist ideals. A common strategy employed by the KGB throughout the world.

 

You do not know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about, Churchill and Stalin agreed to Soviet control over that area, its in all the history books ever (*)(*)(*)(*)ing written. Perpetual? Do you even know what the word means? Means forever? Are they there now? No..Duh!!!!

 

What you are looking for and have failed to provide when asked is a country where the Soviets went in started a revolution and put their man in power, never happened in South Africa, now have you got any or not?

 

I take you at your word about your background. And while I respect your personal experiences, they aren't really a good basis to judge the entire American political left. Marxist, communist, socialist, and progressive are all different things, in exactly the same way that Bircher, reactionary, Libertarian, and evangelical are all different things. I do not dispute that there are people like the ones you describe on the US. But there are also Christian Reconstructionists who basically want to impose "Biblical law." It's both unfair and untrue to paint an entire party in the colors of the most extreme people.

Let me put it to you this way. If the Democratic Party were actually being controlled by Marxists, do you really think a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate would really have passed a health care reform law that didn't have so much as a Public Option in it?

Umm, that's wrong on several fronts. The Whites were not the Tsar - the entire royal family was executed in early 1918. Nor were the Whites all monarchists. They were actually a very loose alliance of everyone who was opposed to the Bolsheviks, from monarchists to republicans to Russian nationalists to independence movements. Had the Whites won, it seems pretty likely they'd have immediately fought another civil war among themselves. And saying that the Bolsheviks were way worse is purely historical hindsight. At the time, western support of the Whites was based purely on an ideological opposition to and fear of communism. While there were plenty of horrible things that were done during the Russian Civil War (1917 - 1922), they were done by both sides and there's really no basis to say that the Bolsheviks were worse. Things like the Gulag and the secret police occurred much later. They certainly didn't start happening until after Lenin's death in 1924 and Stalin's rise to power. Had Trotsky, Lenin's designated successor, won the power struggle after Lenin's death instead of Stalin, history would certainly have unfolded in a very different way.

 

Oh for crying out loud, will both of you just go stuff it?? Listening to the two of you is sickening. "(Blank) was always on the right side of history," and "(Blank) is evil and has always been in the wrong," are both cartoonish distortions of reality no matter what you fill in the blanks with. America can do no wrong and America is to blame for everything are both equally idiotic and childish. If you two really feel the need to have a pissing contest, kindly do it with private messages.

 

this is a forum to debate politics

 

I liked both of the last posts. We've gotten a little off topic. Where do we go form here?

 

This is information directly from the IAEA Website.

At the end of deliberations beginning 17 November, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on the implementation of safeguards and relevant provisions of the UN Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The resolution expresses deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions. It also stresses the need for Iran and the Agency to "intensify their dialogue" aiming at the urgent resolution of all outstanding substantive issues for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding those issues.

The resolution urges Iran once again to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, and to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors. Expressing continuing support for a diplomatic solution, the resolution calls on Iran to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It further requests the Director General to include in his progress report to the March 2012 meeting of the Board of Governors an assessment of the implementation of this resolution.

The resolution on the implementation of safeguards in Iran was adopted by a majority.

-- by Rodolfo Quevenco, IAEA Division of Public Information...LINK...http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/iran-resolution.html

IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei today simultaneously circulated a report to the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors regarding Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), and 1803 (200 in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The report is being circulated at the request of the UN Security Council, which on 3 March 2008 asked for "a further report within 90 days from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the other provisions of resolution 1737 (2006), resolution 1747 (2007) and [resolution 1803 (200], to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration."

Its contents cover developments made since Dr. ElBaradei´s report of 22 February 2008.

The IAEA Board of Governors will discuss the report when it next convenes in Vienna on 2 June. The report´s circulation is restricted and cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise.
LINK...http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2008/iranreport0508.html

GOV/2008/15
Annex
Page 1

A. Documents shown to Iran in connection with the alleged
studies
A.1. Green Salt Project
Document 1: A one page undated flowsheet purportedly originating from the Kimia Maadan
Company (KM), which shows a process of bench scale conversion of UO2 to UF4 with a capacity of
1 tonne per year of UF4. The document is entitled “Process Flow Diagram – Green Salt Production –
Bench Scale”, bears the words “Kimia Maadan Group” and “Project 5/13”5
, and includes a detailed
legend of equipment and material balance information.
Document 2: A one page annotated letter of May 2003 in Farsi from an engineering company to KM
requesting instructions regarding the supply of a programmable logic control (PLC) system.
A.2. High Explosives Testing
Document 1: “Analysis and Review of Exploding Bridgewire (EBW) Detonator Test Results” dated
January–February 2004, comprising 11 pages in Farsi reporting on work carried out by “Project 3.12”
to design and construct an EBW detonator and a suitable detonator firing unit, including testing of
about 500 EBW detonators.
Document 2: One page undated document in Farsi providing text and a schematic diagram for an
underground testing arrangement. The diagram depicts a 400m deep shaft located 10km from a firing
control point and shows the placement of various electronic systems such as a control unit and a high
voltage power generator.
Document 3: Five page document in English describing experimentation undertaken with a complex
multipoint initiation system to detonate a substantial amount of high explosive in hemispherical
geometry and to monitor the development of the detonation wave in that high explosive using a
considerable number of diagnostic probes.
A.3. Missile Re-entry Vehicle
Document 1: One page piece of correspondence in Farsi, dated 3 March 2003, from M. Fakhrizadeh
to Shahid Hemat Industrial Group (SHIG) management, referring to the “Amad Plan” and seeking
assistance with the prompt transfer of data for “Project 111”.
Document 2: One page letter in Farsi, dated 14 March 2004, from a “Project 110” official to
Dr Kamran advising him of the views of the project supervisors regarding the report relating to
“Group E1” (part of “Project 111”).
Document 3: One page undated document in Farsi providing correspondence from the “Project 111
Office” to “Engineer Fakhrizadeh, Chief, Amad Plan,” referring to a meeting on 28 August 2002 and
the provision of the “Project 111” progress report to a Ministry official.
Document 4: Fourteen page document in Farsi dated February–March 2003 entitled “Documentation
Preliminary Training” which outlines, in both text and in copies of a presentation, the methodology to
be adopted for the production and management of technical reports and documents.
__________________________________________________________________________________
5
The project for the construction of a UOC plant in Gchine was referred to as project 5/15 (GOV/2008/4, para. 2.

Now....these are just a few issues and violations that the International Atomic Energy Agency has with Iran and if a person goes to the links provided they can look at Iranian IAEA Violations in chronological order.

As far as Israel is concerned....Israel did not sign the NPT thus Israel is not bound to NPT rules.

Any country can develop Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Weapons ON THEIR OWN....but a country like IRAN....that did not have either the people, the technology or the ability to develop Nuclear Reactors for power can sign the NPT and PURCHASE such Nuclear Reactor Power Generation Technology but what Iran cannot do is violate the rules of the NPT...which Iran has nor can Iran build secret Underground Nuclear Facilities...which Iran has done....and Iran cannot work on or develop specific technologies specific to creating a Nuclear Weapon....which Iran has done as well.

Now...I do not try to take sides as far as what every IDIOT TIN PLATED DICTATOR in the Middle East is trying to do against every other TIN PLATED DICTATOR in the Middle East.

Did Israel sign the NPT...no.
Did Israel have the people and technology to design Nuclear Weapons....yes.
Did Israel have at the time it was capable of building a Nuke the needed Weapons Grade Fuel needed....no.
Was Israel supplied this Weapons Grade Nuclear Fuel covertly....yes.
Was such a covert action in the best interest of the National Security of the United States...yes.

AboveAlpha

 

I asked perfectly clear when the UNSC judged they violated art 1441. Blix is not the UNSC.

They did not believe that one bit according to your source.

That is a forced transfer, and not just a transfer.

Don't be childish. The transfer is arranged by the government. They ethnically cleanse, plan and make housing, the roads, utilities, the protection,.. everything.

Civilians transferred themselves on occupied territory. That makes them warcriminals. All of them. The IDF supports them fully. Every Jew joins the IDF (the amount who do not, is not worth mentioning),.. so they are all in on the warcrimes. That makes them all warcriminals. And so, should we care when bad violent things happen to warcriminals? I don't thing we should.