No Evidence Iran Seeking Nuclear Weapons

[Kevin_Kennedy]

New International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano may have been the candidate of choice for Western nations, and in particular Israel, but he sought to assure the world today that he would remain independent and would seek to de-politicize the office.

In particular, Amano noted that going through the IAEA’s documents he didn’t see any evidence that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA had repeatedly certified that Iran was not diverting any of its civilian program’s enriched uranium to any other purpose, but outgoing chief Mohamed ElBaradei claimed to have a “gut feeling” that Iran secretly wanted the technology.

New IAEA Head: No Evidence Iran Seeking Nuclear Weapons -- News from Antiwar.com

 

[elvis]

New International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano may have been the candidate of choice for Western nations, and in particular Israel, but he sought to assure the world today that he would remain independent and would seek to de-politicize the office.

In particular, Amano noted that going through the IAEA’s documents he didn’t see any evidence that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA had repeatedly certified that Iran was not diverting any of its civilian program’s enriched uranium to any other purpose, but outgoing chief Mohamed ElBaradei claimed to have a “gut feeling” that Iran secretly wanted the technology.

New IAEA Head: No Evidence Iran Seeking Nuclear Weapons -- News from Antiwar.com

Do you have another source stating this besides antiwar.com?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

New International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano may have been the candidate of choice for Western nations, and in particular Israel, but he sought to assure the world today that he would remain independent and would seek to de-politicize the office.

In particular, Amano noted that going through the IAEA’s documents he didn’t see any evidence that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA had repeatedly certified that Iran was not diverting any of its civilian program’s enriched uranium to any other purpose, but outgoing chief Mohamed ElBaradei claimed to have a “gut feeling” that Iran secretly wanted the technology.

New IAEA Head: No Evidence Iran Seeking Nuclear Weapons -- News from Antiwar.com

Do you have another source stating this besides antiwar.com?

No sign Iran seeks nuclear arms: new IAEA head - Yahoo! News

Don't trust their word?

 

[GHook93]

Come on KKK,

I knew you were stupid and naive, but I didn't know you were that stupid and that naive!

Hey I have a bridge to sell ya!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Come on KKK,

I knew you were stupid and naive, but I didn't know you were that stupid and that naive!

Hey I have a bridge to sell ya!

I don't need a bridge, but maybe the head of the IAEA who also says there's no evidence would be interested?

 

[Paulie]

I wish the IAEA would make up their minds. One day, it's Iran is a year away from a bomb, next day it's "no evidence".

One day, Gates says they're nowhere close to a weapon, the next day the NIE chief says they could have one in months.

Let's just all realize that the only thing that's definite is that no one knows SHIT. All we get is jumbled up stories every other week to keep us on our toes and make sure we don't forget about how badly we'd like to attack another country and spend another trillion dollars and another 5,000 troops' lives.

 

[rhodescholar]

I wish the IAEA would make up their minds. One day, it's Iran is a year away from a bomb, next day it's "no evidence".

One day, Gates says they're nowhere close to a weapon, the next day the NIE chief says they could have one in months.

Let's just all realize that the only thing that's definite is that no one knows SHIT.

If the criminal fascists would stop preventing full and comprehensive inspections - as they are required to do under the NPT- the world would not be in the dark about it.

The fascists think that they are insulating themselves from being attacked b/c of their intentional vagueness - BUT - they are in actuality inviting an attack since they refuse inspections, answer many questions, or to allow various scientists to be interviewed.

It is LONG past the time they should have been attacked, with regime change as a fundamental aspect of the attack.

 

[rhodescholar]

Don't trust their word?

And the prior man in that position says in his gut he believes that they ARE working on nuclear weapons...do you have a point here?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Don't trust their word?

And the prior man in that position says in his gut he believes that they ARE working on nuclear weapons...do you have a point here?

Gut feelings are not evidence, and the current head of the IAEA says there is no evidence.

 

[rhodescholar]

Don't trust their word?

And the prior man in that position says in his gut he believes that they ARE working on nuclear weapons...do you have a point here?

Gut feelings are not evidence, and the current head of the IAEA says there is no evidence.

Its hilarious how the lunatic fringe left is giving such a total pass for iran, who refuses to allow full inspections, yet demands maximim evidence for any attack.

But if I put a gun to your head and said "does iran have nuclear weapons," something tells me you have enough brains to admit they are working on them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And the prior man in that position says in his gut he believes that they ARE working on nuclear weapons...do you have a point here?

Gut feelings are not evidence, and the current head of the IAEA says there is no evidence.

Its hilarious how the lunatic fringe left is giving such a total pass for iran, who refuses to allow full inspections, yet demands maximim evidence for any attack.

But if I put a gun to your head and said "does iran have nuclear weapons," something tells me you have enough brains to admit they are working on them.

Well I'm far from being left-wing and you have once again proven that you do not only insult people when insulted. I see no reason to send our troops to die when we have no evidence, so yes I certainly do think that we, at the very least, need evidence to support our propaganda.

If you put a gun to my head I have enough brains to tell you anything you want to hear.

 

[Paulie]

I wish the IAEA would make up their minds. One day, it's Iran is a year away from a bomb, next day it's "no evidence".

One day, Gates says they're nowhere close to a weapon, the next day the NIE chief says they could have one in months.

Let's just all realize that the only thing that's definite is that no one knows SHIT.

If the criminal fascists would stop preventing full and comprehensive inspections - as they are required to do under the NPT- the world would not be in the dark about it.

The fascists think that they are insulating themselves from being attacked b/c of their intentional vagueness - BUT - they are in actuality inviting an attack since they refuse inspections, answer many questions, or to allow various scientists to be interviewed.

It is LONG past the time they should have been attacked, with regime change as a fundamental aspect of the attack.

You obviously missed the point of my post. Our own government, and the international nuke agency both give conflicting stories on a week to week basis. That's got less to do with sunlight, and way more to do with intentional disinformation campaigns to instill fear and keep Iran fresh on people's minds...not to mention, giving both sides fuel for their fires to keep us divided and at each other's throats.

How does the Defense Secretary and the US national intelligence director not have the same information? After 9/11 that loose end was tied up. There's no excuse for it now. Gates and McConnell sit in the same intel briefings together.

Wise up.

 

[rhodescholar]

Well I'm far from being left-wing

In your opinion.

and you have once again proven that you do not only insult people when insulted.

Show where i insulted you...if you don't like being called a fanatical leftist, don't write like one.

I see no reason to send our troops to die when we have no evidence, so yes I certainly do think that we, at the very least, need evidence to support our propaganda.

You talk of the symptoms, rather than the cause - if iran would follow the treaty it signed, and opened its facilities and staff to inspections - then there would not need to be a war to clear the air, would there?

 

[rhodescholar]

You obviously missed the point of my post. Our own government, and the international nuke agency both give conflicting stories on a week to week basis. That's got less to do with sunlight, and way more to do with intentional disinformation campaigns to instill fear and keep Iran fresh on people's minds...not to mention, giving both sides fuel for their fires to keep us divided and at each other's throats.

How does the Defense Secretary and the US national intelligence director not have the same information? After 9/11 that loose end was tied up. There's no excuse for it now. Gates and McConnell sit in the same intel briefings together.Wise up.

Listen, we are way, way past the amount of capital needed to justify obliterating iran if we so chose. The maimed and murdered forces in iraq due to iranian weapons, support, money, training, etc. that made iraq a nightmare - when it could have been pacified so much faster and easier, without such a huge loss of life - is sufficient in my mind to attack and destroy its current leadership. For their war crimes in iraq, most of its leadership should be executed either by the US or UN.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I'm far from being left-wing

In your opinion.

and you have once again proven that you do not only insult people when insulted.

Show where i insulted you...if you don't like being called a fanatical leftist, don't write like one.

I see no reason to send our troops to die when we have no evidence, so yes I certainly do think that we, at the very least, need evidence to support our propaganda.

You talk of the symptoms, rather than the cause - if iran would follow the treaty it signed, and opened its facilities and staff to inspections - then there would not need to be a war to clear the air, would there?

Yes, and considering it's myself under the microscope I think my opinion holds a little more weight than yours. Also, those on the left might be insulted that you lumped me in with them.

Calling someone a lunatic is an insult, therefore you insulted me. The only fanatic is the one who is fanatically calling for war which will directly lead to the death of countless Americans and innocent Iranians over something we have absolutely no evidence for.

There is no evidence that Iran has broken the treaty, perhaps you should take it up with the head of the IAEA.

 

[rhodescholar]

The only fanatic is the one who is fanatically calling for war which will directly lead to the death of countless Americans and innocent Iranians over something we have absolutely no evidence for.

I didn't realize I was talking to a pacifist "peace at any cost" no war under any circumstances -believing individual. If that's the case, then you deserved to be insulted - as it is that lunatic mindset which has probably cost more lives than any other philosophy one can think of.

There is no evidence that Iran has broken the treaty, perhaps you should take it up with the head of the IAEA.

Why on earth do you keep repeating this bullshit on every thread? I am beginning to think you are a paid IRI hack. If they do not allow inspections - which the IAEA has many times pointed out in their reports - how can one gather evidence?

Is there a reason you are accepting this idiotic contradiction?

 

[elvis]

The only fanatic is the one who is fanatically calling for war which will directly lead to the death of countless Americans and innocent Iranians over something we have absolutely no evidence for.

I didn't realize I was talking to a pacifist "peace at any cost" no war under any circumstances -believing individual. If that's the case, then you deserved to be insulted - as it is that lunatic mindset which has probably cost more lives than any other philosophy one can think of.

There is no evidence that Iran has broken the treaty, perhaps you should take it up with the head of the IAEA.

Why on earth do you keep repeating this bullshit on every thread? I am beginning to think you are a paid IRI hack. If they do not allow inspections - which the IAEA has many times pointed out in their reports - how can one gather evidence?

Is there a reason you are accepting this idiotic contradiction?

he's a libertarian. He didn't believe in Gulf War I. (Desert Storm)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The only fanatic is the one who is fanatically calling for war which will directly lead to the death of countless Americans and innocent Iranians over something we have absolutely no evidence for.

I didn't realize I was talking to a pacifist "peace at any cost" no war under any circumstances -believing individual. If that's the case, then you deserved to be insulted - as it is that lunatic mindset which has probably cost more lives than any other philosophy one can think of.

There is no evidence that Iran has broken the treaty, perhaps you should take it up with the head of the IAEA.

Why on earth do you keep repeating this bullshit on every thread? I am beginning to think you are a paid IRI hack. If they do not allow inspections - which the IAEA has many times pointed out in their reports - how can one gather evidence?

Is there a reason you are accepting this idiotic contradiction?

Peace at any cost? What's the cost of peace? The cost of war is thousands of American deaths, a completely unmanageable debt, more hatred of America, and further destabilization of the region.

I keep repeating this fact because it's absolutely necessary to get across that all we're hearing is the same propaganda we heard before Iraq, who by the way had no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've got the head of the IAEA telling us that there is no hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I suggest we stop and think how smart it is to base a war on a gut feeling with no evidence to back it up.

 

[elvis]

The only fanatic is the one who is fanatically calling for war which will directly lead to the death of countless Americans and innocent Iranians over something we have absolutely no evidence for.

I didn't realize I was talking to a pacifist "peace at any cost" no war under any circumstances -believing individual. If that's the case, then you deserved to be insulted - as it is that lunatic mindset which has probably cost more lives than any other philosophy one can think of.

There is no evidence that Iran has broken the treaty, perhaps you should take it up with the head of the IAEA.

Why on earth do you keep repeating this bullshit on every thread? I am beginning to think you are a paid IRI hack. If they do not allow inspections - which the IAEA has many times pointed out in their reports - how can one gather evidence?

Is there a reason you are accepting this idiotic contradiction?

Peace at any cost? What's the cost of peace? The cost of war is thousands of American deaths, a completely unmanageable debt, more hatred of America, and further destabilization of the region.

I keep repeating this fact because it's absolutely necessary to get across that all we're hearing is the same propaganda we heard before Iraq, who by the way had no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've got the head of the IAEA telling us that there is no hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I suggest we stop and think how smart it is to base a war on a gut feeling with no evidence to back it up.

the question of whether Iraq had weapons has nothing to do with the question of whether Iran has weapons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't realize I was talking to a pacifist "peace at any cost" no war under any circumstances -believing individual. If that's the case, then you deserved to be insulted - as it is that lunatic mindset which has probably cost more lives than any other philosophy one can think of.



Why on earth do you keep repeating this bullshit on every thread? I am beginning to think you are a paid IRI hack. If they do not allow inspections - which the IAEA has many times pointed out in their reports - how can one gather evidence?

Is there a reason you are accepting this idiotic contradiction?

Peace at any cost? What's the cost of peace? The cost of war is thousands of American deaths, a completely unmanageable debt, more hatred of America, and further destabilization of the region.

I keep repeating this fact because it's absolutely necessary to get across that all we're hearing is the same propaganda we heard before Iraq, who by the way had no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've got the head of the IAEA telling us that there is no hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I suggest we stop and think how smart it is to base a war on a gut feeling with no evidence to back it up.

the question of whether Iraq had weapons has nothing to do with the question of whether Iran has weapons.

You're absolutely right, just because one didn't have weapons doesn't mean the other doesn't. My point was that we should be more cautious about calling for war when all we're hearing is propaganda with no evidence to back it up, especially when the head of the IAEA says there's no evidence.