Alleged secret Syrian reactor

[_Philospher_]

Syria has alread paved over the site to prevent the easy access to additional evidence. They had months to clean the place up and bury it. I don't think there is anymore evidence coming. Either you believe the photos are real, or you don't.

Well that brings me to point 2:

And will never see unified sanctions against Syria if it is actually an illegal nuclear facility. Such is the world of idiotic global politics....Nothing ever changes.

Just more U.N. bickering

 

[JollyRoger]

Syria has alread paved over the site to prevent the easy access to additional evidence. They had months to clean the place up and bury it. I don't think there is anymore evidence coming. Either you believe the photos are real, or you don't.

When it's the Washington Generals dribbling the ball down the court for the slam dunk, one just keeps a skeptical eye out for Meadowlark Lemon.

 

[demokratickid]

When it's the Washington Generals dribbling the ball down the court for the slam dunk, one just keeps a skeptical eye out for Meadowlark Lemon.

Ah, but remember the last slam dunk?

Spoiler :

ITS IRAQ

 

[Ecofarm]

Ah, but remember the last slam dunk?

Spoiler :

ITS IRAQ

No, sorry. This evidence is VASTLY different from what Powell presented to the UN. We are talking about photos of a reactor core here.

 

[demokratickid]

No, sorry. This evidence is VASTLY different from what Powell presented to the UN. We are talking about photos of a reactor core here.

Kind of like the pictures Bush Sr. showed Saudi Arabia to convince them Iraq was massing on their borders just so the US could enter the Gulf War? [Sarcasim] Ah, I see. Now, everything is credible![/Sarcasim]

 

[I'm Cleo!]

MobBoss,

You said the law of war is silent. It is not silent. It's no big deal -- you typed too quickly, or you weren't clear. Maybe you were just wrong. It's okay, MobBoss.

The ICJ coming to a conclusion that the law does not necessarily prohibit the use of nuclear weapons in all circumstances (which was how the ICJ answered the questions posed to it) does not mean that there is no law. The ICJ doesn't have to answer all questions before it. If there wasn't any law, the Court would have found a non liquet (a "gap in the law"). I can email you pdfs of the briefs submitted by the states in that case if you'd like; I assure you, they do apply law to the question of nuclear weapons use.

Moreover, the ICJ's opinion clearly indicated that you could determine whether a particular use of nuclear weapons was lawful or unlawful. By applying law.

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

Kind of like the pictures Bush Sr. showed Saudi Arabia to convince them Iraq was massing on their borders just so the US could enter the Gulf War? [Sarcasim] Ah, I see. Now, everything is credible![/Sarcasim]

I have no idea what you are talking about or what your point is.

The Gulf War or Arabian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991)[8][9] was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force from 34 nations[10] authorized by the United Nations (UN) and led primarily by the United States in order to return Kuwait to the control of the Emir of Kuwait. The conflict developed in the context of the Iran-Iraq War and in 1990 Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing Iraq's oil through slant drilling.[11]. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops was met with immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by some members of the UN Security Council. The expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait began in January 1991 and was a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which took over Kuwait and entered Iraqi territory. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and bordering areas of Saudi Arabia. Iraq also launched missiles against targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel in retaliation for their support of the invading forces in Kuwait.

wiki

So we had fake fights on the border of SA just to make Bush's evidence seem real? Fake evidence is one thing, but now you are accusing Bush of fake battles?

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss,

You said the law of war is silent. It is not silent. It's no big deal -- you typed too quickly, or you weren't clear. Maybe you were just wrong. It's okay, MobBoss.

Well, the actual law of war i.e. the geneva and hague conventions are very vague, ambiguous and essentially silent on the issue...the issue being the use of nuclear weapons. Ergo the courts ruling.

Again, my point stands regardless of your semantics and it certainly isnt 'completely false' as you allege.

I leave you to your semantics.

Oh and again:

Well, I certainly wouldnt want to misrepresent you. Lets clarify then. So which is Iran? A theocratic dictatorship with no elections as you allege or a theocratic republic with elections as I point out?

A fairly simple question for you to answer.

Or will you simply continue to avoid it?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

MobBoss,

I don't think you know what the word "law" means.

Oh, and I'll continue to avoid it.

Cleo

 

[brennan]

It's a slam dunk case.

I'd like to see someone say it isn't.

Even old Jolly doesn't deny the obvious. I can think of a couple CFCrs that would though

Ok, I've watched it and:

It isn't a slam dunk case.

The pictures certainly seem damning, on the one hand it's hard to imagine what else a giant steel & concrete thermos could be when you're given a picture of a Korean reactor for comparison, but on the other hand I seem to recall that there's more than one use for an aluminium tube...

The site looks odd. It's just a big box in the middle of nowhere. The computer model didn't look to be the same proportions as the photographs, the underground water tank and pipes appear to be pure speculation, the part at the end where the remains are compared with Yongbyon jars since the 'heat exchangers' are in a different place - and they do not look like a matched pair. The stuff about the site being 'hidden' is rather unconvincing, and i'm sorry but it takes more than a photograph of two guys to convince me they are in cahoots:

Spoiler :

...and doesn't it all look incredibly unsophisticated for a nuclear reactor?

The oddest thing about this whole affair is the context: as i've pointed out in a recent thread, the Syrians have been cooperating with the IAEA for decades over their domestic nuclear programme, why would they suddenly decide to build a bigger reactor without telling anyone? How could they expect to get away with it? Where's the fuel? Where's the reprocessing plant?

There are just too many unanswered questions at this stage.

 

[Den Valdron]

Syria has alread paved over the site to prevent the easy access to additional evidence. They had months to clean the place up and bury it. I don't think there is anymore evidence coming. Either you believe the photos are real, or you don't.

Hmmm. The United States claims it has conclusive evidence, yet sits on that evidence for eight months, concealing it from the IAEC and other parties. Why? In the time that the United States has sat on its 'evidence', Syria has allegedly paved over the site to hide the rest of the evidence. Presumably, the United States knew that this was likely to happen, so... why conceal their own evidence for eight months and give the Syrians such a head start.

I still remember all those 'conclusive' satellite photographs and other evidence Powell presented on Iraq.

I'm sorry, but there's a real credibility issue in the story as presented by the United States. It doesn't hang true on a number of respects.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss,

I don't think you know what the word "law" means.

Oh, and I'll continue to avoid it.

Cleo

And they say I have problems admitting I am wrong.

So I will make it simple for us all.

You were simply wrong in your description of Irans political situation.

 

[Ecofarm]

And they say I have problems admitting I am wrong.

So I will make it simple for us all.

You were simply wrong in your description of Irans political situation.

Are you serious?

Mullahs, the top power, are not elected. They select people for parliament and let the populace "vote" to put those selected people in the puppet parliament. Where's the republic?

When you cannot vote for the top positions in government, and the people who run for lower office are dictated by the upper power....

If Bush got to choose who gets to run for congress and he could never be removed from office, would we be a republic?

 

[Patroklos]

Hmmm. The United States claims it has conclusive evidence, yet sits on that evidence for eight months, concealing it from the IAEC and other parties. Why?

If you are not a ******, it is obviously because calling out NK when we are making real progress is counter productive. The site is already destroyed, getting substative concessions from NK is far more important that tattle tailing on Syria after the fact.

The information was only realeased because a Congressmen demanded it. He is an idiot.
Moderator Action: More trolling / flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[brennan]

Are you serious?

The legislative body (The Majlis) is indeed elected (subject to the approval of the mullahs).

Frankly I see a page of trolling over this followed by a no-score draw.

 

[Den Valdron]

The Syrian ambassador claimed that the walls of the structure were far too thin to be a nuclear facility. I'm not a nuclear technologist, so I'm not really in a position to say yea or nay. But still, it seems to be a point.

 

[Ecofarm]

The legislative body (The Majlis) is indeed elected (subject to the approval of the mullahs).

Frankly I see a page of trolling over this followed by a no-score draw.

The "legislative body" is completely controlled and staffed by the Mullahs.

My analogy holds:

Bush can never be removed from office and noone can run for congress without his approval... republic?

 

[MobBoss]

Are you serious?

Yup. Its classified/listed as a Theocratic Republic and yes, they do indeed have elections for every office with the exception of the office of Supreme Leader who is chosen by an elected assembly.

The president is elected in a vote consisting of all citizens age 15 and above.

Their parliment is also elected in a vote consisting of all citizens age 15 and above.

So yeah, I was serious.

Mullahs, the top power, are not elected.

Actually, yes...they are. The 'Assembly of Experts' which is the group that elects or removes even the "Supreme Leader" are indeed elected for 8 year terms.

 

[Den Valdron]

Trolling, Patroklos?

 

[Ecofarm]

Yup. Its classified/listed as a Theocratic Republic and yes, they do indeed have elections for every office with the exception of the office of Supreme Leader who is chosen by an elected assembly.

The president is elected in a vote consisting of all citizens age 15 and above.

Their parliment is also elected in a vote consisting of all citizens age 15 and above.

So yeah, I was serious.



Actually, yes...they are. The 'Assembly of Experts' which is the group that elects or removes even the "Supreme Leader" are indeed elected for 8 year terms.

You live in a dream world. No Mullah (council of guardians?) has ever lost power via election and nor has the Supreme Leader.

Iran is as much a republic as Iraq was and nK is.

The system comprises several intricately connected governing bodies. The Supreme Leader of Iran is responsible for delineation and supervision of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[71] The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace.[71] The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader.[71] The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem.[72] The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties.

wiki

The "council of experts" are nothing more than cronies.

Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic revolution.

That's real democratic!

All Majlis candidates and all legislation from the assembly must be approved by the Council of Guardians

Again.

The Assembly of Experts, which meets for one week annually, comprises 86 "virtuous and learned" clerics elected by adult suffrage for eight-year terms. As with the presidential and parliamentary elections, the Council of Guardians determines candidates' eligibility.

and that

The Council of Guardians comprises twelve jurists including six appointed by the Supreme Leader. The others are elected by the Parliament from among the jurists nominated by the Head of the Judiciary

The council of guardians gets to pick everyone that is eligible for any office, and only allows those who support "the ideals of the Islamic revolution".

The government is so convoluted, it's not even funny. If you seriously think that is a republic, you don't deserve to live in one.