U.S. rejects Iran inspection offer - (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/30/iran.nuclear/)
Iran will allow snap inspections of its nuclear facilities if the U.N. Security Council does not get involved in the country's nuclear program, a senior Iranian official has said. But Washington was quick to reject the offer.
This is proof that the US has absolutely no interest in proving whether Iran has an Atomic Weapons programme or not and is evidence the US is simply provoking a war . This proves Iran's is co-operative and the US is the belligerent party in this imperial escapade.

The US Constitution has checks on presidential power, such as an executive power subject to laws to repel attacks but not to declare or finance war.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States
In demanding that Iran stop making fuel for their power reactors, The Bush Junta has broken the NPT, and in so doing, once again stands guilty or breaking the laws of the United States of America, and defying the Constitution of the United States, which his oath of office compels him to uphold.

you astound me with your absolute ignorance of american law.
defying the npt is not a violation of american law. where would you ever get that idea?

You should go to video.google.com and look up "alex jones." Good luck bird brain. (to Devil Inside)

stop spamming this.
i already told you that i know all about alex jones.
i agree with some of what he says, but most of it is just grasping at straws.

you astound me with your absolute ignorance of american law.
Oh would you just put me on your ignore list !
defying the npt is not a violation of american law. Ah yes it is in violation of US law as it is treaty the US goverment signed . This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
Article VI : United States Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html)
See the operative phrase there " shall be the supreme law of the land " .
where would you ever get that idea?
Because the US goverment was the prime originator and author of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/) The Treaty entered into force with the deposit of US ratification on 5th March 1970 . therebyb becoming US law .
Good luck bird brain. (to Devil Inside)
I like that one hahahaha .

international law is NOT american law, foley.
you have alot to learn.

international law is NOT american law, foley.
As a law student I meet a simmilar moronic error in many legal cases, where the USA citizens or companies try to apply their national (or even state) law to another country or nationals of another countries residing outside of the USA. That is especially vivid in copyright and patent cases.
Needless to say that it makes me want to bang my head against the nearest wall.

Even if the USA signed NPT it doesn't mean that another country signed the same NTP, there can be reservations that are not against the principles of the treaty.

Oh and international law doesn't become a national law when a treaty is signed, it just becomes an international law that is applied within the national legal system.

thank you, avatar.
at least ONE other person here understands the difference.

by foley's logic, allowing japan to have military forces in iraq is against american law because harry truman presided over their demilitarization.

Oh and international law doesn't become a national law when a treaty is signed, it just becomes an international law that is applied within the national legal system.
Explain what they mean by treaties becoming the law of the land .
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
Article VI : United States Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html)

It means what I said:
international law doesn't become a national law when a treaty is signed, it just becomes an international law that is applied within the national legal system.

It may affect you like national law, but it's an international law nevertheless.
And "supreme" means that internatioal obligations have a higher power than national laws, i.e., if there's a conflict between an international law and a national one, the international law will be the one applied.

In demanding that Iran stop making fuel for their power reactors, The Bush Junta has broken the NPT, and in so doing, once again stands guilty or breaking the laws of the United States of America, and defying the Constitution of the United States...

Unless there is a clause or clauses within the treaty which allows for a country to abrogate. Can anyone point us to a copy of it?

:m: Peace.

It may affect you like national law, but it's an international law nevertheless. And "supreme" means that internatioal obligations have a higher power than national laws, i.e., if there's a conflict between an international law and a national one, the international law will be the one applied.
It does matter under that Article of the constitution the US must respect all treaties it enters and signs . The US actively sought this NPT agreement and consorted other nations and it came into force . And accordingly to that the US must respect that treaty .
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;
Article VI : United States Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html)
OK now explain to me how the NPT treaty which was made under US authority is exempt from this Articles enforcement . And see below for the link .
Unless there is a clause or clauses within the treaty which allows for a country to abrogate. Can anyone point us to a copy of it?

:m: Peace.
TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/treaties/npt1.htm)
Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate March 13, 1969
Ratified by U.S. President November 24, 1969
U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow March 5, 1970
Proclaimed by U.S. President March 5, 1970
Entered into force March 5, 1970
There it is there the US President and US senate ratifying this treaty , which under Article VI of the US constitution becomes US law .

So... you read the entire treaty and the conclusions of the conference
convened 25 years later to confirm there is no clause for abrogation?

:m: Peace.

It does matter under that Article of the constitution the US must respect all treaties it enters and signs . The US actively sought this NPT agreement and consorted other nations and it came into force . And accordingly to that the US must respect that treaty .
Of course it has, but not doing so would be a violation of an international treaty, not of a national law,
as simple as that.

Besides the question of whether or not the NPT is US law, the supposed injunction is doubtful at best. Iran has not justified that its nuclear ambitions are wholly peaceful. The fact that their nuclear program was kept secret for 18 years is incriminating in itself, and a gross violation of the NPT (because that means that no IAEA safeguards were implemented or followed) - much worse than the US's, in fact, even if that is true. Hell, even if pigs do fly and Iran only has peaceful nuclear ambitions, this is still not the same as the US seeking to hinder their peaceful ambitions, because the US could be (is) doing it to avoid non-peaceful ambitions. Think about it.

And before you reply, Foley, bear in mind that the IAEA can in no way accept to forfeit their right to full and unhindered inspections (and recommendations to the Security Council following such inspections) in return for mere "snap inspections." It is an empty gesture from Iran designed to persuade the weak of mind that Iran is cooperating when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

So... you read the entire treaty and the conclusions of the conference
convened 25 years later to confirm there is no clause for abrogation?

:m: Peace.
Well read it for yourself , I have , its only a short treaty . I cant see any justification for the US policy toward Iran and I cannot see any requirement that Iran has dishonoured .
Of course it has, but not doing so would be a violation of an international treaty, not of a national law,
as simple as that.
Its still law of the land and according to this Article the US is obligated in its commitment to the NPT treaty . If a nuclear power company in the US , or a manufacturere of components for the Atomic industry contravenes this treaty then they will be prosecuted in a US court of law .

Of course, it's merely a technical detail.

Besides the question of whether or not the NPT is US law, the supposed injunction is doubtful at best.
Rubbish it is completely clear that as an international treaty concerning in this case the nuclear industry is one in which the US is a party to , and accordingly is US law .
Iran has not justified that its nuclear ambitions are wholly peaceful.
How do you know ? The US has not in anyway accused Iran of any criminality concerning its programme it has always said it suspects Iran of clandestine activity . No evidence has been forwarded to bolster US claims its learnt from the Iraq LIE .
The fact that their nuclear program was kept secret for 18 years is incriminating in itself,
To whose opinion ? America and Israel .
And before you reply, Foley, bear in mind that the IAEA can in no way accept to forfeit their right to full and unhindered inspections
Iran has always agreed to continual IAEA inspections , thats never been an issue , its the demand that Iran cease all nuclear activity .
Of course, it's merely a technical detail.
Ill take that as a concession on your behalf that the NPT is US law .

Ill take that as a concession on your behalf that the NPT is US law .
It is not.
It is an international treaty which in the USA has the power like a national law would have, only one level higher in the hierarchy of application.

Well, on a quick read, I find:

"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 Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment 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. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere."

So, within the past few months and the last couple of years, Iran has clearly violated the NPT, with respect to failure to report usage of fissile materials, as we've seen earlier.

Iran's second - and probably more serious violation - occurred with the receipt of weapons production documents, which falls under a violation of Article II:

"Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

This Article has also been utterly violated with the receipt of weapons production documents by Iran.

So the US' contention would appear to be that the NPT has been violated by Iran and that that situation has not been redressed. The IAEA also agrees with this, as per their report last week. Why is ongoing American objection to this sudden, suspicious volte-face being interpreted as an American violation of the NPT?

It would also be acceptable to go further and state that Iran is in violation of Article VI as well:

"Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Since the IAEA's main objective in Iran is that of preventing nuclear weaponry, then it's also true that Iran is in violation of the good faith agreement.

Does Iran have the option to leave the NPT? Of course: Article IX assures that right. Of course, they do have to notify three months in advance.

I also note that Article VIII allows amendments to the NPT on the basis of majority vote. Has there been any such amendment to the NPT as would affect Iran?

Geoff

It is not.
It is an international treaty which in the USA has the power like a national law would have, only one level higher in the hierarchy of application.
OK you tell me right or wrong , can an American company that manufactures industrial components for the nuclear industry be prosecuted for violation of the NPT treaty in an American court ?
Would that court decision from that American court be binding ?
If another country such as Britain decides to prosecute the same company in a US court for supplying components to aoother nation under NPT embargoe would that be prosecutable in the US ?
Of course and that is the meaning of Article VI , which concerns Internatioanl treaties then US enters , and as the Article said they become law of the land . No different with the extradition treaties the US has signed with other countries .
Well, on a quick read, I find:
What has this to do with the illegality of America demanding that Iran stop making fuel for their power reactors , as I clearly asked in the start of the thread ? Or better yet is there an article in the NPT which prohibits Iran from enriching Uranium as what we are discussing .

Iranian envoy asks U.N. to stop U.S. threats (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/01/iran.un/index.html)
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's ambassador to the United Nations has urged U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the U.N. Security Council to stop "Washington's illegal and impudent threats against Iran," the state-run Iranian news agency IRNA reported.
It will be interesting to see what actions , if any , will be taken by the UN concerning this . Other than that this is another indication of illegal US activity .

I find it very interesting how the IAEA cheif Muhammad Al Baradei was awarded for his criticizing of Iran.

"The United Nations' nuclear watchdog and its chief have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize. The award, one of the world's top accolades, went to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Muhammad el-Baradei for their efforts against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

More recently, the IAEA has found Iran in noncompliance with international nuclear proliferation safeguards. The agency’s board of governors stated last month that Tehran will be referred to the UN Security Council if it fails to alter its nuclear policy. Mjoes said that at a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing el-Baradei had "stood out as an unafraid advocate" of new measures to strengthen the regime of nuclear nonproliferation."

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/572E6EC2-26FD-4E03-B48E-174B1EE2183B.html

I don't understand exactly what Iran did wrong. Is it the fact that they did not voluntarily stop their uranium enrichment (which they have a right to under the NPT)? As I have seen, they have always allowed IAEA officials to monitor their nuclear activities. They have a right to a peaceful nuclear program under the treaty. I see this as a violation of Iranian right to energy production, and many Iranis see it the same. This is a strong national issue for Iran, they view this as denying them the right to a better life and easier access to energy.

Peace.

How do you know ? The US has not in anyway accused Iran of any criminality concerning its programme it has always said it suspects Iran of clandestine activity . No evidence has been forwarded to bolster US claims its learnt from the Iraq LIE .

But Iran's nuclear programme has been clandestine.

To whose opinion ? America and Israel .

You've got to be shitting me. You don't find it suspect that they kept it hidden for 18 years?

In any case, you read the NPT, right? Article III, part 1.

Iran has always agreed to continual IAEA inspections , thats never been an issue , its the demand that Iran cease all nuclear activity .

Inspections are only part of the deal. Disclosure, safegaurd implementation etc. are also important. You know, as they're obliged to.

I don't understand exactly what Iran did wrong.
Iran has done nothing wrong , in fact Iran is the most important nation in that region . Since 1979 after the Islamic revolution the leadership of Iran has nationalized its oil industry , picking from what the CIA deposed Mossadeq Iranian people empowerment policies . Whats happening now is the USA is economically contracting in the face of an expanding E.U . The US is using its military muscle as a last resort to deny the EU control of the control of distribution of mideast oil . The US will only attack when its assured Iran will go in with the EU , namely trading oil in Euros and accepting that lucrative EU trade deal that Iran rejected last year as not enough .
But Iran's nuclear programme has been clandestine.
On the contrary Irans has been the most open of all the nuclear programmes Those that were clandestine were Americas , Russia , Israel and South Africa , even Pakistans and Indias .
You've got to be shitting me. You don't find it suspect that they kept it hidden for 18 years?
Bullshit since the inception of Irans atomic power strive it has been completly open here read it for yourself , Iran did it with US co-opeartion .
Nuclear program of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program)
[2] Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, plans were drawn by the Shah Mohammad Pahlavi to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with the USA by the year 2000.
And here Iran signs a deal with Germans to :
In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.
In any case, you read the NPT, right? Article III, part 1.
What about it ? Heres is an indepth Wikipedia article , and accordingly Iran has been in compliance . So just what are basing your claims on ? I would sources and links .
Nuclear program of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program)
All ground inspections of Iran have shown the same evidence; Iran is using its nuclear capabilities in context of the NPT and has not pursued nuclear weapons.
Seems to me there is no evidence to back your claims .
Inspections are only part of the deal. Disclosure, safegaurd implementation etc. are also important. You know, as they're obliged to.
Nuclear program of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program) After one more year and over tens of thousands of man-hours of inspections, El Baradei again confirmed On January 31st 2006, the IAEA reported that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency...including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."[19]
Sorry mate you lose Iran is compliant and meets all safeguard standards .

do you NOT follow current events?
the iranians barred the UN panel from further inspections, and defied their resolution that they cease enrichment until further investigation is done.

doesnt sound like compliance to me.

Devil: Exactly.

And frankly, I don't care how open their nuclear programme was in the 70's under the Shah.

"if the U.N. Security Council does not get involved in the country's nuclear program"

The Key reason it was rejected......

Its like a Child Molester saying, "I wont molest kids, but only if you dont check up on my sex life...."

What has this to do with the illegality of America demanding that Iran stop making fuel for their power reactors

??

It's at all not illegal for the Americans, or any other signatory nation, to call for a halt to manufacturing if Iran is in violation of NPT. There's nothing in the agreement about co-operating with signatories if those signatories aren't following NPT. Why would NPT members co-operate with violators of the treaty so that the former can continue nuclear activities?

You're not making any sense at all. You've preselected your opinion that what the US is calling for is illegal under NPT, when clearly it's not. And it really doesn't matter what you called for in the start of the thread, when your question is unhinged.

Geoff

Sorry mate you lose Iran is compliant and meets all safeguard standards .

LOL - they clearly don't! When did they ever satisfactorily explain where that fissile material went? When did they explain those documents they accidentally gave to the IAEA (again, LOL)?

They're still in violation and they've already threatened to kick the inspectors out and leave NPT. That isn't co-operation and even you know that.

Geoff

On the contrary Irans has been the most open of all the nuclear programmes Those that were clandestine were Americas , Russia , Israel and South Africa , even Pakistans and Indias .

That's an utter lie - Iran quietly received weapons docs and apparently hid them.

Also, the USSR's and US's programs weren't clandestine under NPT.

You seem a bit biased.

Geoff

do you NOT follow current events?
Obviously you doint follow events closely .
Iran set to allow IAEA inspections (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.iran30apr30,0,7348276.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)
TEHRAN, Iran // Iran said yesterday that it would allow United Nations inspectors to resume snap inspections of its nuclear facilities, but only if the dispute again went before the U.N. nuclear monitor.

So Iran wants inspections solely by the IAEA , that is compliance .
The White House rebuffed the offer, which apparently came as Iran sought to avoid a full-blown U.N. debate over sanctions.
And the US kills it of course .
And frankly, I don't care how open their nuclear programme was in the 70's under the Shah.
And you forgot the thousands of man hours of IAEA inspections over the 3 years , a completel;y open nuclear programme . In other words I shot your whole argunment to pieces , thats why your avoiding addressing my answers to your claims , what a jerk .
"if the U.N. Security Council does not get involved in the country's nuclear program"
Isnt it the problem of the IAEA ? And its only because the Security Council wants to inflict sanctions on Iran if it doesnt cease all nuclear activity , and thats at the US prodding . Which by the way Iran has every right to pursue under the NPT and no evidence that Iran has an operative weapons programme has been forwarded .
??
It's at all not illegal for the Americans, or any other signatory nation, to call for a halt to manufacturing if Iran is in violation of NPT.
But Iran is not in violation of the NPT , and you still havent answered it does Iran have the right under the NPT to pursue an atomic programme and enrich Uranium .
That's an utter lie - Iran quietly received weapons docs and apparently hid them.
How could Iran of hid these documents if Iran volutariliy , and not requested by the IAEA , in 2004 handed them over to the IAEA with other documenation Iran Reportedly Holds Illicit Nuke Papers ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5584631,00.html)While diplomats familiar with the agency probe into Iran's nuclear program, speaking anonymously, said at the time that the papers apparently were instructions on how to mold highly enriched uranium into the core of warheads, the agency itself refused to make a judgment on what possible uses such casts would have. Asked about the finding, a senior diplomat close to the IAEA declined to elaborate but emphasized that the documents had no other use. He demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information. So the IAEA has had these documents for some time and had refused to make any judgement on them . The documents in question were given to Iran by members of the nuclear black market network, the IAEA said. Iran has claimed it did not ask for the documents but was given them anyway as part of other black market purchases. So the IAEA here is fully aware where Iran got this paperwork from . The papers were shown for perusal as part of unrelated documents, leading to speculation among diplomats accredited to the IAEA that Iran had revealed them in error. And here Iran had handed them freely over for inspection , Iran received this paperwork innocently as part of this purchase , something the IAEA knew about .. The same network provided Libya with drawings of a crude nuclear bomb which that country handed over to the IAEA as part of its 2003 decision to scrap its atomic weapons program. And here the IAEA admits knowledge of this blackmarket nuclear network . So why isnt the IAEA identifying which country of origin this blackmarket nuclear network and the IAEA has not made any official statement that Iran did deliberately purchase these files ?

Obviously you doint follow events closely .

no, mr. foley.
i follow the issue, not my own pre-biased opinion....as some are wont to do.

iran has blocked U.N. inspections, and started enriching uranium. if they wanted to clear their name, there would be complete transparency. it isnt only the U.S.A. prodding the U.N. for stricter supervision...or in your world do France, Great Britain, Russia, India, or China exist? all of these nations have said that Iran needs more openness and to stop being opaque.

read a freaking news source on the subject. and no, your opinion doesnt count as a news source.

Considering the US's tough stance against Iran and its considering Iran in the axis of evil, why would Iran want to put themselves as risk to American's demands if America has fully admitted they cannot share a single unbiased view of anything which concerns Iran?

I personally view Iran as in the right to produce nuclear material for a civilian reactor which they have a right to under the NPT.

I ask why aren't Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea under heat for their obvious violations of their nuclear energy programs while Iran is?

Peace.

I personally view Iran as in the right to produce nuclear material for a civilian reactor which they have a right to under the NPT.

I couldn't agree more. Nuclear energy is a definite good thing in my book. I just don't believe that that's what they're doing.

I ask why aren't Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea under heat for their obvious violations of their nuclear energy programs while Iran is?

Peace.
Well, for starters, because they aren't signatories to the treaty, and Iran is.

However what i wanted to say was that under such a treaty, Iran has every right to obtain nuclear uranium for peaceful purposes.

The countries I named where not signatories to the NPT, so they had no right to develop nuclear material even for civilian use.

Peace.

However what i wanted to say was that under such a treaty, Iran has every right to obtain nuclear uranium for peaceful purposes.

Agreed, but again, I don't believe Iran is pursuing their enrichment programme for peaceful purposes.

The countries I named where not signatories to the NPT, so they had no right to develop nuclear material even for civilian use.

Not so. Having not signed the NPT, it simply doesn't apply to them.

all i care about is that the UN asked iran to stop the enrichment, and iran has flagrantly belittled the UN's authority on the issue.
its no different than the USA doing the same for the iraq war. i was against that, too.

once iran is fully compliant with the world community's self chosen governing body (which iran CHOOSES to be a part of), i will not suspect them of wrongdoing anymore.

Obviously you doint follow events closely .

And you don't seem to remember that Iran was not co-operating for months and wanted to leave NPT. (And you claim other people don't follow events?)

And you forgot the thousands of man hours of IAEA inspections over the 3 years , a completel;y open nuclear programme .

Even from reading the Wiki article you can see that isn't true. "Completely open"?? Well that explains the two secret nuclear facilities, Nataz and Arak, then.

"But they were completely open secret nuclear facilities!"

Give it up.

Isnt it the problem of the IAEA ? And its only because the Security Council wants to inflict sanctions on Iran if it doesnt cease all nuclear activity , and thats at the US prodding .

And how exactly do you suppose the IAEA would enforce their position on Iran? With their elite IAEA-cops? Their secret, specially trained army of Nuclear Commandos that would infiltrate Iran and heroically arrest Ahmenjidad? Or maybe they'd batter their way in at the head of their IAEA-Army with Geiger-counter IAEA-Tanks.

What's next - a daring daylight raid by Mall Cops?

Of course the UN and US would get involved.

Which by the way Iran has every right to pursue under the NPT and no evidence that Iran has an operative weapons programme has been forwarded .

Iran has utterly no right under NPT to possess either weapons docs or to dispose of fissile material without documentation, or to secret build nuclear facilities. Iran is completely in violation and thus not entitled to pursue any nuclear objectives while in violation.

But Iran is not in violation of the NPT , and you still havent answered it does Iran have the right under the NPT to pursue an atomic programme and enrich Uranium .

But Iran is absolutely in violation of NPT (see above) and therefore not liable to the rights of any NPT article. Iran does have the right to pursue an atomic programme - but no when in violation.

How could Iran of hid these documents if Iran volutariliy , and not requested by the IAEA , in 2004 handed them over to the IAEA with other documenation So the IAEA has had these documents for some time and had refused to make any judgement on them . So the IAEA here is fully aware where Iran got this paperwork from . And here Iran had handed them freely over for inspection , Iran received this paperwork innocently as part of this purchase , something the IAEA knew about .. And here the IAEA admits knowledge of this blackmarket nuclear network . So why isnt the IAEA identifying which country of origin this blackmarket nuclear network and the IAEA has not made any official statement that Iran did deliberately purchase these files ?

This is an old post and I rarely respond to recyled cut-and-paste jobs.

The first problem is that your link doesn't work. It might just be old, but I can assure you that under Foleyan logic it has been proven beyond a doubt that you just made the link up. I must admit that I'm disappointed you would knowingly falslify evidence again - I can only hope that you take some time for reflection on the moral implications of your reliance on this tactic before commenting in future.

Besides which, this "link" of yours actually supports me:

The papers were shown for perusal as part of unrelated documents, leading to speculation among diplomats accredited to the IAEA that Iran had revealed them in error.

In other words: they revealed them because they were too dumb to just keep their mouths shut.


"No! Don't hand over those! Give them the refridgerator design!"

"Oops! Too late, cousin!"

"That's it, you're out of the neofeudal tribal clan organization. And I'm telling your dad."


Look...it's a simple request:

If you're trying to start some sort of 'doomsday device' programme to fight the international forces of good - whether it be a secret nuclear weapons programme or simply an ordinary giant "la-zer" in a hollowed-out volcano - and you're being inspected by the squeaky-clean agents of an effective, high-integrity organization like the...UN...anyway...please take the added extra security measure of not simply handing over your secret plans to the investigating organization : it just cheapens the experience of evil for everyone.

Honestly, this would be as dumb as supplying quotes that prove your opponent's point in a online debate or something.

So let's all try and do our level best to keep evil smart, OK?

Remember: good men only triumph if evil men do nothing right.

Or something like that.

Genius Geoff

Good rants, there, Geoff.

And you don't seem to remember that Iran was not co-operating for months and wanted to leave NPT. (And you claim other people don't follow events?)
Iran's Nuclear Program (http://www.mideastweb.org/iranhistory.htm)
IAEA inspectors became uneasy after finding several discrepancies in Iranian disclosures about their program, and after finding traces of highly enriched uranium in Iranian nuclear sites. Iran claims that these traces were present in machinery that was shipped to them from abroad. The IAEA gave Iran until October 31 to submit a full account of its nuclear program, and also asked for the right to snap inspections and other measures. After initial resistance, Iran complied, submitting the report ahead of time, and agreeing also to suspend the upgrading of uranium.
Iran seems co-operative here .
Even from reading the Wiki article you can see that isn't true. "Completely open"?? Well that explains the two secret nuclear facilities, Nataz and Arak, then.
What about them , the IAEA has already covered them .
International Atomic Energy Agency: Board of Governors : Iranian Nuclear Research and Development (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:BKwZSKSkAtEJ:www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf+International+Atomic+Energy+Agency:+Board+o f+Governors+:+Iranian+Nuclear+Research+and+Develop ment+&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=1)
In 2003, secreturanium production sites were uncovered in the city of Nataz and Arak. The discovery alarmed the international community inquestioning Iran’s real intentions of its nuclear research and development. In the same year, Iranian President Khatami invited theIAEA inspection. In the November of 2004, Iran with international pressure, agreed to put a freeze on its Nataz facilities. Withfurther negotiations from the European Union and the IAEA, Iran agreed upon placing protective seals on its Nataz facilities toensure the total suspension. However, in January of 2006, Iran announced that it had cut the protective seals in full to resume the development of weapon-graded uranium and fuel. This action sent a shockwave to the international community with the nuclear powers preparing for a nuclear strike to defend their interests in the international community. Iran, however, stated in the IAEA press conference that the reopening of the plant is for peaceful researching purpose only with no intentions of resuming the production of nuclear fuel
This is an old post and I rarely respond to recyled cut-and-paste jobs.
Then why bring up an old argument about the papers then here ?
And as long as you bring old debates , which by the way you were trounced on , Ill keep cutting and pasting my old debates . I aint got time for your shit , repetitive arguments , backtracking , contradictions , child like lies and games .
"No! Don't hand over those! Give them the refridgerator design!"
The drawings werent handed over they were found at a site during an IAEA inspection .
International Atomic Energy Agency: Board of Governors : Iranian Nuclear Research and Development (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:BKwZSKSkAtEJ:www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf+International+Atomic+Energy+Agency:+Board+o f+Governors+:+Iranian+Nuclear+Research+and+Develop ment+&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=1) During the inspection samples of enriched uranium were found, which seems to be against the provisions of the NPT. At the same time, drawings of what might seems to be a future planned construction of heavy water production and enrichment of uranium hexafluoride facilities were also found. With the knowledge that the uranium hexafluoride is often used for the creation of weapon grade uranium, Iran dismissed the drawings are used only for the engineers’ educational purposes with no constructionintentions. However, recent US intelligence photographs had shown that Iran may have put the drawings into actual construction ofthe facilities. Furthermore, recent IAEA found that the weapon grade uranium samples may have originated from Pakistan and Russian Federation.
Heres your job show me what the IAEA has done about that documentation , do a follow up , that is your responsibility as this is the second time you have brought this up . I want to see where the IAEA has prosecuted Iran under the usage of these documents .

The real issue isn't Iran....see the big picture.
The U.S. is converting the third world to western democracies, including former Soviet states, while Russia is arming Arab powers with modern weapon systems for their Jihad and setting up a buffer zone against the west in a race to control the oil.
The cold war has never been colder.
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060505/2006-05-05T102918Z_01_L05500235_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RUSSIA-USA-DC.html

The U.S. is converting the third world to western democracies
Sorry mate , Mum stopped reading me bedtime stories many years ago .

OK, that explains it :bugeye:

In the interest of homeland security........you must watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUYEHDBDxko&search=civil%20defense%20nuclear%20fallout%20Gene% 20Hackman%20conelrad%20atomic%20homeland%20securit y%20FEMA

Don't give a shit about your homeland.

Don't give a shit about your homeland.

I got a better one for you then....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGibj8e20y0&search=civil%20defense%20nuclear%20fallout%20Gene% 20Hackman%20conelrad%20atomic%20homeland%20securit y%20FEMA

Iran seems co-operative here .

Too little. Too late. Chapter 7, UN Charter.

What about them , the IAEA has already covered them .

And which illustrates handily (thanks) that Iran has not been acting in good faith throughout, as you claim:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:8MS3lbbYUvgJ:www.ucimun.net/topics/IAEA.pdf+Nataz+and+Arak+inspections&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=2

In 2003, secreturanium production sites were uncovered in the city of Nataz and Arak. The discovery alarmed the international community inquestioning Iran’s real intentions of its nuclear research and development. In the same year, Iranian President Khatami invited theIAEA inspection. In the November of 2004, Iran with international pressure, agreed to put a freeze on its Nataz facilities.

Then why bring up an old argument about the papers then here ?
And as long as you bring old debates , which by the way you were trounced on , Ill keep cutting and pasting my old debates . I aint got time for your

Waa waa. I cited the papers as evidence of Iran's failure on yet another level to comply. Your argument - long since canned - was that Iran's handing the papers over was indicative of their compliance, totally missing i) the fact that they weren't supposed to have any such papers in the first place, and ii) that they accidentally (as even your "link" indicated) gave them up!

Again, don't be evil if you must be dumb.

That sounds like a reggae song lyric.

The drawings werent handed over they were found at a site during an IAEA inspection .

*bonks head on desk* You git - your uttermost last defense was that Iran gave them up willingly. Now you're actually contradicting your other link (if indeed link it was ;) ) by stating that the papers were actually FOUND and not voluntarily surrendered.

Oh, man. So in other words, instead of the more 'good faith':

"Hey IAEA dudes we like, uh, found these, uh, papers, like, uh, in our pizza box from Pakistan? And I'm like, uh, hey Ahmad, um, like, what are these papers, dude? And he's like, uh, maybe we should like give them to the IAEA dudes that are coming by next week? So: here you go, infidel-inspector dudes."

to the:

"You found our secret plans! I knew we should have bought a documents locker from Office Depot! Did you know that they protect paper files and even currency in fires up to 500 degrees Celsuis? Oh, why did we not get a purchase order? I blame Tiffany."

Brian: stay out of the evil business. Please.

Heres your job show me what the IAEA has done about that documentation , do a follow up , that is your responsibility as this is the second time you have brought this up . I want to see where the IAEA has prosecuted Iran under the usage of these documents .

You want to see where the IAEA has prosecuted Iran under the usage of these documents?

Um, well lemme see: I'm not privy to their internal communications, much as I'd liket to be, but the IAEA has no cops (no, not even secret Radioactive Ninja Squads like you'd expect) and no world power....could it be that they might, say, refer the issue to their parent body? Now what group would that be...the UN? And - let me think for a microsecond here - the enforcing powers of the UN basically constitute peacekeepers and a Security Council...now who's on the Security Council - that wouldn't be the US, Britain and France among others now would it? So basically it falls to the SC to decide what to do.

Bad-um-bum.

Geoff

PS: Funk - thanks, mate. I'm a little glad evil people are dumb; still, doesn't hurt to take the piss out of them as they're on the way down. :D

PS: Naughty Brian, your frigging link is broken AGAIN.

I'm beginning to worry about my system.

Geoff

Some thoughts...

Whether Iran follows the NPT or not...they are not openly a nuclear state, so we can not grandfather them in. They do not have a dozen nuclear bombs aimed at Germany, France and UK, so that when we bomb Iran, they start bombing these countries. So, we do not want to create another Moslem country with Nuclear bombs. One country, Pakistan is enough. We will be in Afghanistan for a long time to make sure, Pakistan does not pass a dozen to the Iranians.

We would like to take our revenge for the way they took American hostages.

Spreading democracy is hard in Moslem countries...but it can be done...while Bush is still in office.

The big mistake Iran did...is to take Americans as hostages during a Democratic President. Now if the Republicans start another war, which democrat is going to complain?

We do have tactical nukes to destroy the nuclear enrichment sites with minimal civilian deaths.

The alternative is for Russia and China to persuade Iran to forget the nuclear ambitions for atleast 20 years. But that is not going to happen - because the Iranians want Islamic Nuclear Bombs. The intentions are obvious. One can understand the mortal enemies such as Pakistan and India have N. Bombs. But why does Iran need a Nuclear Bomb?

But why does Iran need a Nuclear Bomb?

yeah why?...word: Israel....of course has nothing to do in this situation

yeah why?...word: Israel....of course has nothing to do in this situation

My Jews friends tell me, while there are power hungry Iranian Mullahs who are against Israelis - because the Iranians are of Persian origin...there is less animosity between them....something about king Cyrus building the Temple of Jerusalem....so, the question still remains...why?

*bonks head on desk* You git - your uttermost last defense was that Iran gave them up willingly. Now you're actually contradicting your other link (if indeed link it was ;) ) by stating that the papers were actually FOUND and not voluntarily surrendered.
I clearly quoted 2 sources about the papers the first a Guardian source .
Iran Reportedly Holds Illicit Nuke Papers ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5584631,00.html)The papers were shown for perusal as part of unrelated documents, leading to speculation among diplomats accredited to the IAEA that Iran had revealed them in error.
And the second which is the IAEA source .
International Atomic Energy Agency: Board of Governors : Iranian Nuclear Research and Development (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:BKwZSKSkAtEJ:www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf+International+Atomic+Energy+Agency:+Board+o f+Governors+:+Iranian+Nuclear+Research+and+Develop ment+&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=1) During the inspection samples of enriched uranium were found, which seems to be against the provisions of the NPT. [B]At the same time, drawings of what might seems to be a future planned construction of heavy water production and enrichment of uranium hexafluoride facilities were also found. With the knowledge that the uranium hexafluoride is often used for the creation of weapon grade uranium, Iran dismissed the drawings are used only for the engineers’ educational purposes with no constructionintentions. However, recent US intelligence photographs had shown that Iran may have put the drawings into actual construction of the facilities. Furthermore, recent IAEA found that the weapon grade uranium samples may have originated from Pakistan and Russian Federation.
But there again you said you could not access this link , but now you can , hmm another lie .
Either way , I clearly asked you :
Heres your job show me what the IAEA has done about that documentation , do a follow up , that is your responsibility as this is the second time you have brought this up . I want to see where the IAEA has prosecuted Iran under the usage of these documents .
Now could I have an answer .
PS: Naughty Brian, your frigging link is broken AGAIN.

I'm beginning to worry about my system.

Geoff
Now I am going to demonstrate how you are lying again I will ask kmguru below if he can access my links .

Whether Iran follows the NPT or not...they are not openly a nuclear state, so we can not grandfather them in. They do not have a dozen nuclear bombs aimed at Germany, France and UK, so that when we bomb Iran, they start bombing these countries. So, we do not want to create another Moslem country with Nuclear bombs. One country, Pakistan is enough. We will be in Afghanistan for a long time to make sure, Pakistan does not pass a dozen to the Iranians.
Si if Iran has no atomic weaponery yet and the US predicts it wont be for 10 years then Iran cant be a thraet . Yet North Korea admitted last year that it dioes have atomic weapons so the US must attack this nation as its a part of the axis of evil . So why isnt the US going there first .
We would like to take our revenge for the way they took American hostages.
I think America wants to retain xcontrol of mideastern oil and absorb Irans oil producing capacity back under US corporate control .
Spreading democracy is hard in Moslem countries...but it can be done...while Bush is still in office.
The US does not have any intention of spreading democracy , the US will only set up stooge goverments like the corrupt one in Iraq .
The big mistake Iran did...is to take Americans as hostages during a Democratic President. Now if the Republicans start another war, which democrat is going to complain?
The big mistake Iran did was nationalize their oil industry in 1979 thereby taking US corporate control away .
We do have tactical nukes to destroy the nuclear enrichment sites with minimal civilian deaths.
In the advent of any US attack , the US will not bomb any atomic power plant in Iran. The US will have there hands full with the Iranian military .
The alternative is for Russia and China to persuade Iran to forget the nuclear ambitions for atleast 20 years. But that is not going to happen - because the Iranians want Islamic Nuclear Bombs. The intentions are obvious. One can understand the mortal enemies such as Pakistan and India have N. Bombs. But why does Iran need a Nuclear Bomb?
Here is a better alternative , no country is backing any attack on Iran but the US and Israel , so rather than put the onus on Iran how about we all tell the US to go home .
yeah why?...word: Israel....of course has nothing to do in this situation
Exactly remove Israel from the equation by disarming it and giving the Palestinians its nation back would solve it altogether . I see Russia is getting really in Americas face over this , I got a feeling a lot Russias weaponery is going to give the US one hell of a battering in Iran .

PS : kmguru & dragon listen could you 2 do me a favour and go to the top post on this page to the post under my name and check those links and see if they are all valid and work , Geoff here is saying they are broke , he is actually bullshitting so he wont have to answer questions . Thanks

foley:
your links work for me.
i would like for you to give an explanation as THIS statement in the first link:
"IAEA inspectors became uneasy after finding several discrepancies in Iranian disclosures about their program, and after finding traces of highly enriched uranium in Iranian nuclear sites. Iran claims that these traces were present in machinery that was shipped to them from abroad. The IAEA gave Iran until October 31 to submit a full account of its nuclear program, and also asked for the right to snap inspections and other measures. After initial resistance, Iran complied, submitting the report ahead of time, and agreeing also to suspend the upgrading of uranium."
<---iran has begun enrichment again, in defiance of the U.N.'s dictates. by your logic regarding the law, they should meet severe reaction from the entire world community. or is it only the united states that meets your strict standard? remember, you declared that the united states was breaking the law by calling for iran to cease enrichment during negotiations. well, YOUR OWN source is here saying that iran broke with the IAEA's dictates.

what do you suggest then, all-knowing one?

i am wondering why everyone thinks there will be american military presence in iran in the near future?

the american military is stretched thin, and the president can barely keep his pants on. congress will never support a full war against iran, unless they are shown a very very very well thought out and deceptive lie.

keep in mind that current trends show the republicans losing the majority in the coming elections. america will be taking the first steps toward the long healing process in store for the next 12 years.

America wouldnt attack Iran, if they tried there is no way the EU would support such an action. Without the EU as backing i find it hard to believe that the US would pull such a stunt.

After all, Iran sells vast quantities of oil to china, a vast, up-and-coming economic and military superpower. They are trading in euros, which therefore mean that the dollar is loseing its worth.

America is simply grasping at straws.

Yes, the links work.

Here are the issues:

Sooner or later, Iran is going to have Nuclear Bombs if they wish, since the technology is out there. Does the World community want Iran to be another nuclear power? if not, why not? If yes, then what can be done to protect future mishaps and terrorism?

Once the cat is out of the bag, it is very difficult to put it in the bag...once a country has nuclear bombs, and has the striking capabilities, then it is not a good idea to start a major war unless one is willing to take major losses. Are we ready for it. Can we sacrifice New York to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?

How about simple diplomacy? Can we use that or everything can be solved by fire power? It is easy to argue for an war (that is what we did in Iraq) without thinking the consequences or even have a good plan.

Iran case is a tough one with respect to using force. But an easy one if you can swallow your past history and talk directly. Now if sincere talk fails - there are many options to contain the situation, but one has to be sincere about it and not criticize every move the other party makes.

Now, we are not good at diplomacy. We did not get anything out of Hu Jintao's visit to USA. So, keep your finger crossed. We may be starting another war. In the meantime, every country will get so pissed off that they will make sure America has an economic collapse even though it will hurt them.

It is a complicated mess.

Are we heading for our economic collapse? You be the judge.

Gold hits $693, latest 26-year high; platinum rockets $30 to record level (http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BF0DE6EBD%2DAFFC%2D4CD6%2D8B8B%2 DB581A38B37FC%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=bnb)

I clearly quoted 2 sources about the papers the first a Guardian source .

And the second which is the IAEA source .

Both of which support me. Why did you even cite them? :D

But there again you said you could not access this link , but now you can , hmm another lie .

Not a lie, liar. Quit lying.

Either way , I clearly asked you :

And I responded. Now could I have an answer myself, please? How would the IAEA prosecute Iran except through the UN?

Sad.

Now I am going to demonstrate how you are lying again I will ask kmguru below if he can access my links .

It really wouldn't matter, as it might just be my system. In any event, you've been caught lying about this sort of thing before.

Geoff

Si if Iran has no atomic weaponery yet and the US predicts it wont be for 10 years then Iran cant be a thraet . Yet North Korea admitted last year that it dioes have atomic weapons so the US must attack this nation as its a part of the axis of evil . So why isnt the US going there first .

Not even you can honestly be that thick. The expression "it's no good shutting the door when the horse is already out of the barn" comes to mind. That and: North Korea would, of course, use them to strike Japan, and the US if they could. That's why - and read carefully this time - it's better to prevent nations from getting them altogether.

I think America wants to retain xcontrol of mideastern oil and absorb Irans oil producing capacity back under US corporate control .

As mountain likes to say: supposition. Hell, even Bush wants us off oil.

The US does not have any intention of spreading democracy , the US will only set up stooge goverments like the corrupt one in Iraq .

Supposition.

In the advent of any US attack , the US will not bomb any atomic power plant in Iran. The US will have there hands full with the Iranian military .

...beg pardon? Are you serious?

Here is a better alternative , no country is backing any attack on Iran but the US and Israel , so rather than put the onus on Iran how about we all tell the US to go home .

Or better yet, ensure that Iran sticks to the NPT or leaves it altogether and becomes subject to the political interest of any party outside NPT.

Exactly remove Israel from the equation by disarming it and giving the Palestinians its nation back would solve it altogether . I see Russia is getting really in Americas face over this , I got a feeling a lot Russias weaponery is going to give the US one hell of a battering in Iran .

Again...you're really comparing American and Russian gear? :bugeye:

PS : kmguru & dragon listen could you 2 do me a favour and go to the top post on this page to the post under my name and check those links and see if they are all valid and work , Geoff here is saying they are broke , he is actually bullshitting so he wont have to answer questions .

Amusingly, I actually already did answer the 'questions', if that's what you want to call them. Brian just doesn't want to acknowledge my answers so that he can whine about technical issues: it's really all he's capable of.

Geoff

America wouldnt attack Iran, if they tried there is no way the EU would support such an action. Without the EU as backing i find it hard to believe that the US would pull such a stunt.
Very true John , the reason why the EU wont support an attack is that Europe wants the US out of the mideast altogether . The object of America is to keep the EU out of Iran thereby outflanking US control of oil distribution .
After all, Iran sells vast quantities of oil to china, a vast, up-and-coming economic and military superpower. They are trading in euros, which therefore mean that the dollar is loseing its worth.
China is a paper tiger its been blown all out of proportion to its actually worth , remember 95% of all Chinas exports are actually re-exports to Western countries .
America is simply grasping at straws.
More than that this is Americas last throw of the dice before its economy goes into serious decline .
Yes, the links work.
Thanks I just had to have some reference against this nut .
Sooner or later, Iran is going to have Nuclear Bombs if they wish, since the technology is out there. Does the World community want Iran to be another nuclear power? if not, why not? If yes, then what can be done to protect future mishaps and terrorism?
Nothing has been proven against Iran , what evidence other tahn fears have been produced to suggest Iran is building a A-Bomb ?
Once the cat is out of the bag, it is very difficult to put it in the bag...once a country has nuclear bombs, and has the striking capabilities, then it is not a good idea to start a major war unless one is willing to take major losses. Are we ready for it. Can we sacrifice New York to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Actually Irans technical capabilities in this respect is some years away and when and if they do build a bomb technology possessed by the advanced Western powers wont have much of a problem finding it and destroying it .
How about simple diplomacy? Can we use that or everything can be solved by fire power? It is easy to argue for an war (that is what we did in Iraq) without thinking the consequences or even have a good plan.
The US has no want or desire for diplomacy the sole object of this gambit is to secure Iran within Americas economic control and manipulation .
Iran case is a tough one with respect to using force. But an easy one if you can swallow your past history and talk directly. Now if sincere talk fails - there are many options to contain the situation, but one has to be sincere about it and not criticize every move the other party makes.
Where has Iran ever been belligerant in fact Iran has been the object of aggression from Iraq and the US . Iran has no history of belligerence in fact Iran is a stabilizing force in the region .
Now, we are not good at diplomacy. We did not get anything out of Hu Jintao's visit to USA. So, keep your finger crossed. We may be starting another war. In the meantime, every country will get so pissed off that they will make sure America has an economic collapse even though it will hurt them.
This war on terror was initiated by America to deter the inevitable economic decline .
It is a complicated mess.
No its a very simple mess to understand once you appreciate imperial objectives of capitalist nations , and this is one of them . Seize by force so the entity can be exploited for the mother economy .

" As mountain likes to say: supposition."

" Supposition."
Supposition !!!! Why answer when just some days ago Neildo summed it up so well about you the other day ;)
US admits its war against the Mid East is the cause of terror (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54529&page=4&pp=20) I have just once again drilled you and your argument into the ground dont bother answering if you dont have any substantial evidence to bring to the debate .If I don't? Your entire argument is based on sheer speculation: "I would think", "I would expect", "it could be".Oh yeah, this coming from a guy that blindly believes that Iraq had WMDs, was three months from building a nuke, and Iran in the process of building nukes as well, despite there being no proof of it. :rolleyes:

Remember, guys, burden of proof, if ya even know what that means.

- N
And true to form Geoff has not bothered to return to the debate he cut and ran ......again :)
Amusingly, I actually already did answer the 'questions', if that's what you want to call them. Brian just doesn't want to acknowledge my answers so that he can whine about technical issues: it's really all he's capable of.
No you havent answered my question I asked you back on page 3
Heres your job show me what the IAEA has done about that documentation , do a follow up , that is your responsibility as this is the second time you have brought this up . I want to see where the IAEA has prosecuted Iran under the usage of these documents .
You havent provided an answer this is your responsibility as YOU were the poster who introduced this , now please could I have an answer .

why would anyone answer you? you dont have the good sense to know when you are licked.

iran is noncompliant. case closed.

chapter seven, gangsta.

"Let's Roll"
Remember flight 93

2nd The Devil Inside, Foley= no logical thought, just his oppinion.

"Let's Roll" - Neil Young
Remember flight 93

"Let's Impeach the President". - Neil Young
"Lookin' For a Leader". - Neil Young

:D

- N

I wonder if this Brian Foley guy went downstairs and pulled the cord on his suicide vest.

Probably not, all talk and no action. Foley, lets see more action; you and your vest.

lets just hope he didnt kill anyone with any worth to the human race.

Foley= no logical thought, just his oppinion.
After reading your illogical defence of Iraqs elusive WMD , I consider your appraisal of me above reassuring , because if you considered me logical I would be very worried indeed .
I wonder if this Brian Foley guy went downstairs and pulled the cord on his suicide vest.
And I imagine you are now going down the road to the recruitment office at this moment to enlist in the US army .
Probably not, all talk and no action.
Or is that statement more applicable to you ?
Foley, lets see more action; you and your vest.
Why blow myself up , its a waste , especially when I could plant bombs and set up ambush's over and over again .

.Why blow myself up , its a waste , especially when I could plant bombs and set up ambush's over and over again .

Why do any of them do it?
For the 72 virgins of course.
Better wear that belt around your shoulders, just in case it's true. ;)

Why blow myself up , its a waste , especially when I could plant bombs and set up ambush's over and over again .


www.fbi.gov

they monitor you too, mister foley. i would be careful. someone might just report you.

Why do any of them do it?
Only the Palestininas the racist Zionist regime has locked them into cages and thats the only way they can hit back with only their bodies as weapons .
For the 72 virgins of course.
And what do female suicide bombers get ? Fucked by 72 islmic cocks ! ROFL
Better wear that belt around your shoulders, just in case it's true. ;)
At least I got a penis .

Only the Palestininas the racist Zionist regime has locked them into cages and thats the only way they can hit back with only their bodies as weapons .


yeah, as opposed to using the law to get what they want.

terrorists control the palestinian authority. but lets not forget that this thread is about iran, mr foley.

your standard bait and switch wont work here. every time you diverge, im going to remind you what the topic of the thread is.

it isnt palestine, little guy....its iran.

Yea Foley, As a Platoon Sgt. I would really like to have you in my platoon in combat, you own mates would edcuate you permanently, the 2nd time you screwed up and cost some one there life, and from your mind set on the threads I wouldn't give you a week in combat.

shit, anyone who has ever had a gun pointed at them knows what you are saying, buffalo.

i doubt brian foley has ever even been within 30 feet of a gun.
and they are always the tough guys, arent they?

heh :m:

Yea Foley, As a Platoon Sgt. I would really like to have you in my platoon in combat, you own mates would edcuate you permanently, If I was in your platoon I would lead a mutiny and releive you of your command based on incompetence under fire .the 2nd time you screwed up and cost some one there life, and from your mind set on the threads I wouldn't give you a week in combat.
Christ mate you must of lived a very shelter life in the military , but here is one American smart cookie , if you thought more like him you would be on to it .
Insane (http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/OPINION/605130308/1047)
Saturday, May 13, 2006

The idea that the United States should use military force against Iran is completely insane and dangerous. Do we not have enough problems with the illegal war in Iraq?

I, like many, do not feel comfortable about Iranians having nuclear weapons. But there are diplomatic ways to deal with this.

And why is it OK to support nuclear proliferation in India, Pakistan and Israel but not in Iran?

I say no military force should be used in Iran.

FRANK J. ROGERS Army veteran Clementon

U.S. rejects Annan's call for direct talks with Iran (http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/eng20060513_265252.html)
The United States rejected on Friday UN chief Kofi Annan's call for direct talks over nuclear issues with Iran, accusing Tehran of having "refused to engage in a constructive and serious manner."

Expressing support for European and Russian efforts to negotiate an end to Iran's suspected nuclear program, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We believe that we are following the right diplomatic process now."
A letter, directly from the President of Iran to the President of the United States is a refusal 'to engage in a constructive and serious manner .

The letter that was rejected by Secretary Rice before she'd even had a translation of it completed is considered engaging in a constructive and serious manner .

It is very evident here what Iran is up against , Iran has agreed to unfettered IAEA inspections and an offer of direct negotiations have all been waved aside by America . The US has no intentions other than launnching an unprovoked war of agression against Iran .

If I was in your platoon I would lead a mutiny and releive you of your command based on incompetence under fire .


you watch too many movies.

and it is spelled "relieve", smart guy.

you watch too many movies.

and it is spelled "relieve", smart guy.
Spelled ????? Don't you mean " spelt " you clown .

Eather way in combat I wouldn't waste any time over you, muntiny is punishable by summary exicution. BANG!

Ill frag you instead then .

Frag? With what? You going to hit him with your computer? Nobody would give your paranoid ass a gun.

Frag? With what? You going to hit him with your computer? Nobody would give your paranoid ass a gun.
Christ who the fuck would let you loose with a gun is beyond me , after reading your anti-human spiel it would have to be a fellow sociopath .

Spelled ????? Don't you mean " spelt " you clown .

no, i meant "spelled", as i am an american.

learn your language.

foley, you wouldnt kill anyone.

you would get PWNT immediately by all the other soldiers, even if you succeeded.

oh yeah, i forgot...this is happening in a world where you are like a videogame character.
cheat codes dont work in real life, assface.

Yes Foley, tell me what you would do in your fantasy world, what I did was in the real world, you don't even know the first rule of combat? and as I said I woulden't even worry about you, your mates would would educate you on their own. Your a wantbee hero, and as such the first time the shit hit the fan, you would go into dep knee bends and shit yellow, you would even fire your gun, and you would die with your pants full of shit.

Yes Foley, tell me what you would do in your fantasy world, what I did was in the real world, you don't even know the first rule of combat? and as I said I woulden't even worry about you, your mates would would educate you on their own. Your a wantbee hero, and as such the first time the shit hit the fan, you would go into dep knee bends and shit yellow, you would even fire your gun, and you would die with your pants full of shit.
Im sorry ill equipped Vietnamese and Iraqi soldiers are not suitable combat comparisons . Your combat experience was up against teenage soldiers with a twitch .

Fact is if you came up in combat against an equal like a fully equipped Russian soldier who has the airpower and heavy fire power to back him up you would run .

Why dont you send them your precious money foley? I mean if your pity the poor Iraqi 'freedom fighters' why dont you help them out? Send them some guns! Better yet, why dont you go to Iraq and volunteer? Put your body where your keyboard is.

Guys leave off Brian; his posts have an equal value to all others, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

Supposition !!!! Why answer when just some days ago Neildo summed it up so well about you the other da

Yeah, that would have been a great response, if the IAEA and the UN didn't agree with me instead of you, eh? :D

And true to form Geoff has not bothered to return to the debate he cut and ran ......again

I like how the fascist gives me exactly three presses of his return key to respond. :D

"What? What's that Geoff? Can't respond in the middle of my post? Huh? What, are you running?"

Classic! And this from a guy who's never been able to finish an argument with me with anything resembling a win.

You havent provided an answer this is your responsibility as YOU were the poster who introduced this , now please could I have an answer .

The answer is: they are prosecuting Iran through the UN. Understand now?

I'm betting: not.

Now, you will respond to my questions:

i) what was Iran doing with those documents in the first place?

ii) why were they concealing them from the IAEA (since the handing over of those documents was an accident, as the IAEA inspectors knew)?

You never answer these questions, Foley. Why not?

Geoff

I would not call Brian a Fascist Geoff, come on now!!

It is very evident here what Iran is up against , Iran has agreed to unfettered IAEA inspections and an offer of direct negotiations have all been waved aside by America .

And by the EU. You forget that the EU is on the Yanks' side in this? Course you did. I understand. Up all night putting sequins on the tin foil chapeau, I expect.

Moreover, it's a case of too little, too late. They were in violation for a long, long time. Can't fix that with an "well now we're going to allow inspectors". And why now? Have they got all the enriched uranium swept up? Too late.

In fact, Iran has also the EU even tried their own diplomatic mission to Iran; it failed, rejected out of hand by the madmen in charge. Unsurprising.

The US has no intentions other than launnching an unprovoked war of agression against Iran .

Mindless speculation.

Frankly, I thought the US' plan was to trick the Iranians into attacking Israel so that the Israelis would obliterate them - or so you said last week, anyway. Those Yanks do seem to change their secret strategy a lot. How do you keep track of all the conspiracies you say they go through at such a lightning pace? You sitting in the Oval Office corner or something? Wireless laptop hooked up? Hope you're at least chipping in for roaming fees.

"So, the Illuminati's plan for this week, Mr. President, is to dig up Elv...saaaaay - who's that Aussie git in the corner? And why's he wearing a sequined tinfoil hat?"

"Oh now, y'all never mind him, he's m' good friend Brian!"

Come on.

A letter, directly from the President of Iran to the President of the United States is a refusal 'to engage in a constructive and serious manner .

The letter that was rejected by Secretary Rice before she'd even had a translation of it completed is considered engaging in a constructive and serious manner .

Got any proof for that statement? :D Frankly, I don't think I'd blame her. Can you imagine the sort of letter that idiot might write? I think there's a post of it online; I've read it but it's so bloody bad that I'm not sure it could possibly be the real one. Has anyone here got a sure link to the actual letter? Like I say, I've read one but it's so appallingly bad that I'm having trouble accepting that it could have been written by a head of state. More like something Brian would wri...

OH-MY-GOD.

:D

Geoff

I would not call Brian a Fascist Geoff, come on now!!

He's on side with Iran; that makes him a fascist.

I might add in all of this: there are proposals on the table to process fuel FOR Iran; this seems a totally reasonable solution under NPT. Iran wouldn't be blocked from nuclear research through NPT and they'd still have the ability to use nuclear energy. Why is this solution so untenable for the Iranian dictatorship?

Geoff

Oh, and something else, Zach: did you not have even one other bloody comment on Brian's nonsense? Not even one? No agreement with any of my points?

So you picked that one tiny thing out, eh? Did it seem that important to you?

Geoff

Here Geoff the UN translation:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE11Ak01.html

Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush


The following is a translation of the letter sent in Farsi by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to US President George W Bush. This version was released by United Nations diplomats. The letter was handed by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which then handed it to the Americans.

Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America

For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena - which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and among university students. Many questions remain



unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH) [praise be upon his name], the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], make war and terror his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the ... of a ... criminals in a village or city, or convoy, or for example the entire village, city or convoy, set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harm's way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course Saddam [Hussein] was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the ... war on Iran [in the 1980s], Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs [prisoners of war], accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, ie the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of World War I and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr President,

I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process.

Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying why are all UNSC [United Nations Security Council] resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live among the people and am in constant contact with them - many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D [research and development] one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,

Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution [of 1979], transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating with their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,

September 11 was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9-11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people - who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks - some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity - some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way - and was the justification - for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly - for the public to, finally, believe - and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?

As your excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist - to a larger or lesser extent - in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign - paid from the public treasury - be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention - which I am hoping you will agree to some of it - is: Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful - thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs'? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns? Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office - to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets- or not?

Mr President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity - raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts where would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is monotheism or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) "O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)."

Mr President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases. The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds. The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins. He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors. He is the Compassionate, the Merciful. He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness. He is witness to the actions of His servants, He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast . Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds. A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants. And a good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; (19,36) "And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium."

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans. We again read in the Holy Book: The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised: the day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man - based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets - and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: Do you not want to join them?

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Iran could nuke Austraillia tommorow and somehow it would be the US's fault.

I'm with Zach on this - baiting Foley is needless. I might not agree with him but he has the right to say what wants.

(So long as he doesn't say anything that makes a moderator ban him. That's Sciforums' free speech for ya.)

Classic! And this from a guy who's never been able to finish an argument with me with anything resembling a win.
I always thrash you in fact others actually volunteer that info like here and once again Ill let someone else do the talking here .
CNN caught Lying and thrown out of Iran (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51540&page=4&pp=20)Well, it seems to me Geoff is avoiding the issue and is instead just arguing with you. If this were an official debate, it would have been called off 2 pages ago. Instead of addressing the issues you raise that are backed up by some evidence, he is instead responding to your opinions. Admittedly your opinions are radical and just plain ignorant, but you still bring up valid points. I would say Geoff is losing this one.
See your an inept poster who cant debate with facts based on sources .
Now, you will respond to my questions:
And for the umpteenth Fucking time :
Iran Reportedly Holds Illicit Nuke Papers ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5584631,00.html)While diplomats familiar with the agency probe into Iran's nuclear program, speaking anonymously, said at the time that the papers apparently were instructions on how to mold highly enriched uranium into the core of warheads, the agency itself refused to make a judgment on what possible uses such casts would have. Asked about the finding, a senior diplomat close to the IAEA declined to elaborate but emphasized that the documents had no other use. He demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information. So the IAEA has had these documents for some time and had refused to make any judgement on them . The documents in question were given to Iran by members of the nuclear black market network, the IAEA said. Iran has claimed it did not ask for the documents but was given them anyway as part of other black market purchases. So the IAEA here is fully aware where Iran got this paperwork from . The papers were shown for perusal as part of unrelated documents, leading to speculation among diplomats accredited to the IAEA that Iran had revealed them in error. And here Iran had handed them freely over for inspection , Iran received this paperwork innocently as part of this purchase , something the IAEA knew about .. The same network provided Libya with drawings of a crude nuclear bomb which that country handed over to the IAEA as part of its 2003 decision to scrap its atomic weapons program. And here the IAEA admits knowledge of this blackmarket nuclear network . So why isnt the IAEA identifying which country of origin this blackmarket nuclear network and the IAEA has not made any official statement that Iran did deliberately purchase these files ?
I answered those the 1st time some 3 months ago and again last week and now tonight this is the third time .
You never answer these questions, Foley. Why not?
Because I think you have some form of psychiatric disorder Geoff , on this thread here and 2 other thraeds you claimed all my links were not working yet 3 posters all verified that indeed they worked . You have contradicted yourself openly on this forum twice and caught out on a LIE twice .

Why dont you send them your precious money foley? I mean if your pity the poor Iraqi 'freedom fighters' why dont you help them out? Send them some guns! Better yet, why dont you go to Iraq and volunteer? Put your body where your keyboard is.
Whats got you so fucked off about me is the fact I am a White skinned person who lives in a Western country Australia and who sympathizes with Brown skinned people at war with your nation .

Ill tell you something , this war on terror you so vigorously defend has only one reality and that is the reality of the victim . I watched in 1990 the US set upon the Iraq nation killing some 250,000 Iraqi human beings in a cowardly vicious and barbaric assault . I have seen since 1990 1.5 million Iraqi human beings die as the result of a medieval embargoe enforced by America . And I saw the worlds richest nation the US in 2001 attack the worlds most poorest nation Afghanistan in a most cowardly fashion . Then I watched the US Lie about Iraq in 2003 and deliberately launch an invasion against a totally devastated nation and since that day another 250,000 Iraqi human beings have died .

What you defend is nothing more than a windfall of death on defenceless human beings . I swear to God the only I want to do is to put your mouth where your convictions are shove you into Iraq in the middle of Fallujah , and tell them those victims to their face that this windfall death was necessary and what a big difference the US has made to their lives . You wouldnt have the guts to do it .

Guys leave off Brian; his posts have an equal value to all others, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
I'm with Zach on this - baiting Foley is needless. I might not agree with him but he has the right to say what wants.

(So long as he doesn't say anything that makes a moderator ban him. That's Sciforums' free speech for ya.)
Thanks you 2 , but I wouldnt worry about these two geoff and buffalo baiting me on sciforums , Crazy