Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: The Science Angle (none / 0)
Now, do you see a pattern? One reminding of 2002/3?

Of course I'm seeing a pattern, and I've hinted myself that I feel there are warmonger drums being banged. It's just not the main issue I'm addressing. There is propaganda from two sides and right now I'm not going to take any side as the truth. My problem lies specifically with the nuclear facilities of Iran and there it ends.

You acknowledged that the beryllium issue was false.

Where did I do that? I asked for confirmation whether Be-contamination of the hex was true. In what way do you mean it is false? I don't understand at all. Elaborate, please.

In this context, one possible target gaining deterrence may reduce the threat of a nuclear war.

Blech. I can see your reasoning, but I completely disagree. In Chris Kulczycki's diary on the Culture of Guns, you see that lesser weapons around result in smaller numbers of accidents. I'd go with that on this issue as well.

I find the hyporcricy of nuclear nations equally disturbing, but I would go never so far as to knead it into a counter-argument for an increasing nuclear arsenal. I can see why people would use it, but I find it utterly self-destructive. To me, this has always been a two pronged fight: demote the nuclear use in other countries and promote the disbanding of nuclear weapons in those countries which have it.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 09:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The Science Angle (none / 1)
There is propaganda from two sides and right now I'm not going to take any side as the truth.

The problem is, of course, that you can read the propaganda of the Iranian side and the IAEA's factual assesments only channelled through sources often sympathetic to the EU-3+US side. Which sets the terms of the debate.

Where did I do that?

Sorry, was cursory reading, I completely messed up. I misread your last sentence in that post as an implicit reference that you know the following info: that the US claims that Iran imported large quantities of beryllium were disproved by IAEA a year ago. That one is in line with a series of over-egged to false claims, but not what you were speaking about.

Regarding what you were speaking about, the yellowcake impurities, worth to read this and this.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 11:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The Science Angle (none / 0)
The problem is, of course, that you can read the propaganda of the Iranian side and the IAEA's factual assesments only channelled through sources often sympathetic to the EU-3+US side. Which sets the terms of the debate.

Which is why I generally go back to the IAEA as the most reliable source... I take their factual assessment any time above the clamour of Iran or the USA.

Thanks for the links to the UF gas. That's indeed the issue I was looking confirmation for. Unfortunately, nothing is "official". Sources are among others anonymous IAEA diplomats - which at least gives it an appearance of credibility.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Sun Feb 19th, 2006 at 05:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: