[Looger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You sure about that?

yep.

from your own article:

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif denounced the council for imposing sanctions on Iran, whose facilities are under U.N. safeguards, while doing nothing about Israel, whose prime minister recently appeared to confirm long suspicions that it is a nuclear power.

also, never hurts to go the horse's mouth:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...an/index.shtml

the past problems with iran, and how they've changed their tune, despite the rhetoric from their firebrand idiot figureheads and the neo-con 'glass parking lot' - chanting warmongers:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Trans...l21022005.html

SPIEGEL: The Bush administration seems more concerned about Tehran´s nuclear program than that of North Korea. The Iranian government claims it is only interested in nuclear energy for civilian uses. However, former CIA director James Woolsey says that there is "not a shadow of a doubt" that Iran´s leadership is trying to build its own nuclear weapons. Who is correct?
ELBARADEI: We at the IAEA lack conclusive evidence. We have yet to see a smoking gun that would convict Tehran. I can make assumptions about intentions, but I cannot verify intentions, just facts.
SPIEGEL: But Iran repeatedly lied to and deceived your agency. For example, the world only found out about the nuclear enrichment facility in Natans through information provided by Iranian dissidents. Hardliners in the Bush administration have accused you of being inexplicably soft on the Iranians.
ELBARADEI: It´s not a matter of dispute as to whether Iran lied and deceived in the past. We made that very clear in our reports. In the meantime, however, Iran has improved its cooperation, which, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is obligated to provide. In response to our pressure, Tehran also signed the supplementary protocol last year, which allows us to perform more comprehensive inspections on short notice. I am certainly proud of what we have accomplished in Iran. Eighteen months ago, the country was more of a black hole for us...
SPIEGEL: ...which goes to show how completely the IAEA inspections had failed...
ELBARADEI: ...but now we have a rather clear picture of what is happening there.
SPIEGEL: Really? Or has the game of hide-and-seek just taken on a new, more refined form? Hardly any European expert is willing to believe the claims coming out of Tehran. After all, Iran has enough oil and especially natural gas that it could do without nuclear power.
ELBARADEI: There is a technical justification for everything. And I´m not saying that the rulers in Iran are not interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. If they have decided to operate a secret nuclear weapons program - for which we, as I mentioned, have not found any evidence to date -- they are likely to have a bomb in two to three years. They certainly have the know-how and the industrial infrastructure.
SPIEGEL: The Americans and the Israelis will hardly permit that to happen. That leaves only the military option, which US President Bush has expressly declined to rule out. But is it really possible to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with missiles? Aren´t they too widely dispersed and in some cases underground?
ELBARADEI: Aside from the problems you mention, I do not believe that military strikes can solve this problem. They can delay development at best. Following an attack, the Iranians would most certainly go underground to produce a weapon as quickly and deliberately as possible.

no, iran is no angel. they have lied in the past, and the IAEA is subsequently quite suspicious of their intentions. but guess what, they inspect the hell out of iran's facilities.

the only way to guarantee iran has a nuclear program, is to strike their nuclear facilities.

it's important to realize how ridiculous this situation is, i mean israel isn't even a member of the NPT and plenty of their top leadership is not in any way interested in peace with anyone.

Originally Posted by transplant99

I suspect if Iran had complied with everything, we wouldn't have the UN imposing sanctions.

yeah, cause the security council is totally altruistic...

when israel gives even basic lip service to the 34+ violations of UN resolutions it currently violates, come talk to me aboot iran, a country that has by and large played ball.

someone accusing you of something does not mean you're automatically guilty.

when israel signs the NPT and submits to inspections, then there is a case for debate here.

oh, that's right, i forgot! god's chosen people are above international law, and can do no wrong. silly me.

as to the invasion, the intention of the neocons has more to do with cheney's infamous energy task force map, showing the locations of the major major reserves in the mideast, with sunni-controlled reorganized states sitting on top of all the prime finds. coincidentally the western chunk they want of iran - a sunnistan or some nonsense - has the vast majority of iran's oil.

listening to kristol or perle drone on and on, they say that they think that they can cause enough political instability in iran to break off this chunk. anyone with half a brain knows that these measures to destabilize, are actually emboldening the sicko faction of iran's leadership. they know this, but the vast majority of their idiot followers that are 'in on the program' remain hooked on the kool-aid.

i recommend to all neo-con lovers to investigate the founder of their movement, leo strauss, and what he says aboot lying to the public and keeping a constant state of warfare and unaccountability because the leadership should be completely unwilling to answer to the people. interesting stuff.