Re: France: Iran has secret military nuke program


They can simply - as has been offered to them -
import the fuel they need for their reactors.

They may do that too if they can get a good price. :-)

Then they are lying when they say they want a fully independent fuel
cycle.
:-)


I think they do. Whether they are building a bomb or not, it just
makes sense.

I think they do too. But obviously not for their stated reason.




This would allow them to get
to their claimed goal of nuclear energy quicker and get the
international
community off their back.

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would. Nuclear power generation isn't subject NPT restrictions,
and
is in fact a stated right to the Iranian nation.

As are uranium refineries.

My point remains....



Every country 'remaining
seized of the matter' recognize this.


Unless you mean *only* import enriched uranium from a
very few sources. That would be short sighted since the Iranians
prefer a greater level of independence in being able to (1) process
the
limited ore in their own country and (2) trade for ore from many
places
in the world (far more places than they could get enriched uranium
from).

3) build a nuclear arsenal.

Now that's in the realm of speculation. It doesn't belong with the
first two points.

The whole notion they want nuclear power solely for civilian energy is
speculation.



Your still engaging in nonsensicalities regarding 'trading for ore'.
Its
incompatible with their stated intentions to be 'fully independent'.


It's perfectly compatible with being more independent.

But that's not their stated intention. That's just something you've
invented to avoid admitting Iran's excuses don't meet with reality.




It would be cheaper, less controversial, and more
effecient.

But less self-sufficient. Like growing your own wheat would be less
cheap and efficient but more self-sufficient.


Why do you continue to ignore the FACT that they CANNOT be
self-sufficient?



They can be "more self-sufficient" once they run out, if they do, of
the uranium ore in their own country.

You didn't answer my question.




Iran only needs uranium enrichment if they want to build bombs.

Or to fuel reactors.

Nope....they don't NEED uranium enrichment for that. They can import the
fuel.

Less reliably than if they had their own uranium refineries with a
wider choice of feedstock sources.

The point remains.... They only NEED uranium enrichment if they want to
build an arsenal. They don't NEED it for a civilian nuclear program.




They don't
need uranium enrichment (increasing their dependency on foriegn
markets)
for
a civilian power program.

They do need to to reduce their dependency on foreign markets - the
supply of ore being available from more sources than the supply of
enriched uranium.

That's just prudence.

There's zero 'prudence' in the Iranian position *IF* their goal is
civilian
nuclear power.

And self-sufficiency.

Which is impossible. I reiterate ...zero prudence.


They wouldn't want to be cut off too easily if
one of the few suppliers of refined uranium got a bug up their ass
about something.

Now who's speculating?

As long as Iran is using their imported refined uranium for civilian nuclear
power solely then there's no reason for anyone get a bug up their ass.



They are doing just about everything they can to not get
there.

They've started up 1/1000th of the number of centrifuges needed to
refine uranium themselves. If you want to sell them refined uranium
too be my guest. I'm sure they'd entertain any competitive, cost
effective offer.

Not so far. They've shut the door an all proposals offering to provide them
with EU.




This is why the French Foriegn minister is making the statement,

So he is wrong.

The facts don't indicate that at all.



this is why the IAEA has reported them to the UNSC,

The IAEA referred it to the UNSC because the US managed to twist enough
arms in the IAEA's board to get them to do so.

The typical moonbat 'blame the US for everything' response. I could have set
my clock to it. The IAEA referred Iran to the UNSC because their board voted
to do so in the face of ongoing non cooperation by Iran.



There's no evidentiary basis for the referral though - it's pure power
politics.

There's a mountain of evidentiary basis for the referral. Even El-Baradei
finally gave in to the evidence and supported the referral, an act he's been
trying to avoid for a very long time.



and this is why the
international community has to 'remain seized of the matter'.

Perhaps among those who swallow your swill.

Or don't engage in wilfull ignorance.


But that ain't the
"international community". (I wish you fascist blowhards would knock
of this prissy "internation community" bull***.)

And I wish you moonbats would drop the fiddling Nero routine. We're trying
to avoide nuclear proliferation. You're trying to facilitate it.

You'll excuse me if I take the moral high ground here. But I'm not the one
shilling for one of the most repressive regimes on the planet.





He might
as well have said "No military nuclear program can explain the
Iranian
nuclear program. So it is an Iranian civilian nuclear program."

Nope. That doesn't follow at all. A military nuclear program is - in
fact -
the only rational conclusion one can come to once one looks at all
the
available evidence.

What available evidence?

Please - you've been involved in this for too long now to feign
ignorance.

Please - you've failed to provide any evidence for too long now to
claim you have any now.

Not quite - you've simply failed to admit its there. Although I'm beginning
to suspect you've come to the same conclusions and are only arguing for the
sake of it.



It is a possible rational surmission but it is not the only rational
surmission. It takes evidence to chose between the various rational
surmissions.

What is not a rational surmission is the one they want us to believe -
to be
fully independent.

That is their desire. And to show off Iranian technical prowess.
That's what they have said.

Why do you uncritically accept everything this theocracy is telling you?




That is irrational because we know - and they know - that
they can never acheive it.

They can get closer to the desired state by refining uranium than they
can by not refining it.

But they can NEVER acheive what they say they want to acheive. And we know
they know that.



It is additionally irrational because their
stance is actually preventing them from acheiving their *stated* goal -
nuclear power.

Make them an offer on refined uranium. Both can proceed in parallel.

The russians have been trying. Don't you read the news?





So the only other possible rational surmission is they want to enrich
uranium to build weapons.

Or to operate a nuclear power program in as independent a manner as
possible.

But that's not their stated goal Kuff - that's something you've created.

Facts please - I know you have access to them.




But we already know you're not interested in looking at all the
available
evidence. Your ongoing myopia regarding this issue hasn't been
serving
you
very well lately. :-)

What do I ask for every time this subject is discussed? The very
same
question I was asking before the invasion of Iraq:

"Where's the evidence?"

*** dude, I'm not asking for a smoking gun here. Just show me as
little as a fucking shell casing. :-)

Well, a shell casing would be a smoking gun.

Not exactly. The shell is ejected from the gun which could be long
gone. The shell could even be from a cop's gun. :-)

Yeah - but a shell casing for a nuclear weapon isn't a shell casing for a
bullet. The existence of one would be a pretty clear indication that Iran
was trying to build a bomb. "Smoking gun" confirmed.


But just scraping the surface
....

How about blueprints to form enriched uranium into spheres - which only
has
an application in nuclear weapons?

Handed to them, unbidden, by the Pakistani nuclear salesmen. And
viewed with disdain by the Iranians.

Addressed below.




How about the wholescale removal (including the topsoil) of a suspected
site?

Lease expired. Cleared for new construction.

Here's the facts.... Lavisan Shian was originally identified in 2003 as a
suspected facility. The IAEA requested to inspect it. Iran said no, then
cleared the buildings *and* scrapped off the topsoil.

'Lease expired' is one of their more pathetic excuses, but not the most
pathetic excuse, they've come up with.

This is why I suspect you've come to the same conclusions everyone else has
and are now only arguing for the sake of arguing, as opposed to really
believing what you're saying.

I would never overstate your intelligence, but only a lobotomized fool would
accept 'lease expired' as a viable reason.


*IF* you're not looking for a smoking gun, and *IF* you're not going to
accept uncritically the Iranians ridiculous excuses, then surely you
haven't
abandoned rationality to the point that you don't see these things as AT
LEAST constituting circumstantial evidence.

The nuclear sphere thing - no.

So you *are* going to accept their ridiculous excuses uncritically. I think
we're almost done here. Its significantly more likely those documents were
part of a package of goods Iran was buying from the Khan network at the
time.

Which was illegal for them to do so.


The site clearance thing - maybe.

Definetely circumstantial evidence.



I tend to be sceptical of circumstantial evidence brought forth by
anti-Iranian sources because of the history of all/most of them turning
out to be false.

Actually they have an excellent record of being totally accurate. Iran even
had to admit to their malfeasance back in 2003 because of these sources.
Since then a veritable flood of data has come out of Iran regarding their
nuclear program. Most of it pointing towards building weapons.


And since Iraq was based on circumstantial evidence
put forth by the same or similar parties and my scepticism is only
enhanced.

Yeah.... we're almost done here. Iraq and Iran are two totally different
situations and relying on totally different sources of information. The
international community is largely speaking with one voice on Iran because
of the vast volumes of evidence mounting against her.


The circumstantial evidence about the "circumstantial evidence" is that
it's bogus. You have to admit that since March 2003 my circumstantial
evidence seems to have more historical backing.

I can admit no such thing. So far your 'circumstantial evidence' has been to
regurgitate the accused's excuses.

Anyway - its pretty clear you're still resistant to reason and incapable of
rationality regarding Iran's nuclear development program. I think we're
done here.






.

Loading