Iran Cracks US Stealth Spy Drone’s Secrets, Shows Proof

[Zinegata]

al Qaeda are defending their brothers from foreign imperialism, including counter-attacks on strategic targets (with bonus revenge). Wouldn't any military in the world do the same?

Blatant lies, which again shows you don't believe in peace and love. All you're saying is that it's okay for Al Qaeda to commit violence.

And no, the Swiss Army doesn't go out of their country and shoot up people who wronged them.

That's no excuse for us to refuse to show evidence for our accusations (to "humor them" as I said in a previous post).

Again, no. The UN had already mandated his arrest since 1999. Your bullshit argument that evidence must be presented is meaningless given he has an existing warrant issued not just by America, but by the United Nations.

They're not. Doesn't mean we can't strive to that standard.

Sorry, but that doesn't excuse your apologism for Al Qaeda. If you believe in pacifism, everyone must be held to the same standards.

This has nothing to do with the American situation. They don't hate us because we're gay

No, but I'm demonstrating that the Taliban are not a sane and rational regime.

So again, let me repeat, because you evaded the question: Can the Taliban be considered a sane regime given that they subscribe to religious law, which believes homosexuality is a crime that can carry the death penalty?

Yes or no. Answer the question. Are they a sane and rational regime, or not?

[Zinegata]

Are you kidding me? When countries are invaded, they and/or their allies almost always strike back.

You're failing to realize that the lie is.

The lie is the idea that Al Qaeda was defending their Muslim brothers. They weren't. Their stated goal was to spread their Shariah Law intolerance to all over the Muslim World. They were delusional conquerors. They weren't fighting for anyone, they were trying to conquer the Mideast and playing propaganda games.

That is why AQ's participation in the Arab Spring (which is arguably the event that truly "freed" the Arab world from an anti-imperialism perspective) was nearly nil. Giving the people of the Middle East a truly indpendent liberal democracy was not part of their goals.

AQ weren't defending anyone, much less their Muslim brothers. They were trying to conquer them; needing to get rid of existing pro-western governments that have dominated the Mideast was just one of the goals on the path to their ultimate goal of Shariah Powah.

If you're saying though that America used the opportunity of 9/11 to push some pre-existing agenda... well, I can probably agree with that.

Yeah, because Gabon totally had a secret pre-existing agenda in 1999 too. Neo-Con shenanigans aside, the UN was already calling for Bin Laden's head in '99. Asking for due process when an existing warrant is already out is silly.

Yes, of course. That's why I called you a racist with an anti-religious bias when you suggested otherwise.

Okay. Destructionator XIII believes that religious intolerance is perfectly acceptable and rational. You believe that killing homosexuals as part of religious law is also perfectly acceptable and rational. As long as it's not "us".

And that if you disagree, you're a racist and an anti-religion SDNer, because you have no right to judge "them".

That's pretty sick dude.

BTW, here's some religious law for you. Take a gander at Exodus 20:13 or Matthew 7:12 some day.

Oh sure, there's some intolerant stuff in there too. That's the point of NOT applying them as part of your legal code - they have no place in a rational or sane government.

[Zinegata]

The stated motives for 9/11 were burning towers in Lebanon, sanctions against Iraq, support for Israel, and American troops in Saudi Arabia.

So, you're so smart and see through US Government press releases, but don't see through the AQ agenda? LOL.

No, no, no. If we wanted bin Laden due to the '99 warrant, why did we wait until late 2001 to go get him?

No, you idiot. You're demanding evidence. I said asking for evidence was irrelevant because based on the existing evidence the United Nations had already issued a warrant for other terrorism charge.

I'll just mark this as "concession accepted" because you're seriously just lying now.

No, that's not what I said. The fallacy you're making is saying that holding one belief means they can't make any rational decisions.

Yes it was. I asked you: Do you believe that the regime is sane and rational when they pursue policies based on religious law?

You said "Yes". You then called me a racist.

Now you're what you actually meant is that the Taliban were sane SOMETIMES.

Wrong. Again...

Why does being homophobic or religious mean they can't make rational military or diplomatic decisions?

Because when they were making the diplomatic moves, they were still making unsubstantiated accusations that 9/11 was a Jewish plot. And that 4,000 Jews had advanced warning and didn't go to work that day. Which is nothing more than anti-Jewish religious intolerance on their part.

Again, is that a sane counter-accusation? Nope. Is it based on any real evidence? Nope. Is it rational? Nope.

And again, this accusation was made in the midst of their supposed peace moves.

Nothing they did indicates any sanity. It was an insane regime of intolerant fucknuts from start to finish.

[fordlltwm]

No, you idiot. You're demanding evidence. I said asking for evidence was irrelevant because based on the existing evidence the United Nations had already issued a warrant for other terrorism charge.

So a UN warrant allows you to invade a country and instigate regime change to find one man? Seems a little over the top to execute a single warrant.

[Ryan Thunder]

You can not want to be bombed and still be unacceptably irrational.

[SpaceMarine93]

They're not developing nuclear weapons.

A search warrant would need probable cause, and there's no credible evidence of it. Even the IAEA report people point to only says it is probable that they could if they wanted to and some technology might have dual use... but it shows no active effort toward a weapon since 2003 (a program that was controversial inside Iran).

Note that the Supreme Leader of Iran banned any nuclear weapons program, believing that the weapons are tools for killing innocent people, which is a sin in Islam.

BTW, there is a country in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT, does not allow inspectors in, and has a pile of nuclear weapons.... this country also routinely commits human rights violations, including genocide, assassinations, restricting freedom of movement, maintaining a naval blockade on another peoples, and commits outright invasions and occupations of its neighbors.

But, this country faces very little push back from the United States, and indeed has our backing for almost everything they do.

What's up with this?

It's called realpolitik. Despite people still being naive enough to believe in maintaining moral high ground and upholding human rights, at the end of the day only this mattered in international politics.

The US won't care if the Iranians are being truthful in not developing nuclear weapons. They won't care if Iran is not a real threat. So long as their interests in the Middle East showed even the SLIGHTEST possibility of being threatened they would do everything to oppose Iran and grind it down. If innocents gets in the way, well, tough luck.

It's all about power. POWER. It's unfair, but it's how the world works.

And even if you insist on maintaining moral high-ground, Israel would still get away with it; people might despise the actions of the CURRENT Israel government, but if they have to choose between the borderline-fascist state of Israel and a theocratic-false democracy of Iran they would choose Israel.

(And you honestly think that the Supreme Leader of Iran's ban on nuclear weapons development would last? Religious leaders often had a reputation throughout history of going back on their own words and beliefs out of necessity and power. Mark my words, it won't last)

[Simon_Jester]

You can not want to be bombed and still be unacceptably irrational.

Even if someone deserved to be bombed*, they would still not want to be bombed. And they might say whatever they thought would help them avoid being blown up.

Hell, if I thought someone was going to drop a bomb on me, I'd probably sing like a bird trying to talk them out of it, whether what I was saying made sense or not, and whether I deserved it or not. Almost anyone will do whatever they can to avoid death. Not wanting to die doesn't make you a better person than you were before the question came up.

*I won't try to tell a pacifist that's possible, not this moment- but suppose they did.

They're not developing nuclear weapons.

A search warrant would need probable cause, and there's no credible evidence of it. Even the IAEA report people point to only says it is probable that they could if they wanted to and some technology might have dual use... but it shows no active effort toward a weapon since 2003 (a program that was controversial inside Iran).

Note that the Supreme Leader of Iran banned any nuclear weapons program, believing that the weapons are tools for killing innocent people, which is a sin in Islam.

BTW, there is a country in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT, does not allow inspectors in, and has a pile of nuclear weapons.... this country also routinely commits human rights violations, including genocide, assassinations, restricting freedom of movement, maintaining a naval blockade on another peoples, and commits outright invasions and occupations of its neighbors.

But, this country faces very little push back from the United States, and indeed has our backing for almost everything they do.

What's up with this?

It's called realpolitik. Despite people still being naive enough to believe in maintaining moral high ground and upholding human rights, at the end of the day only this mattered in international politics. It's unfair, but it's how the world works.

The US won't care if the Iranians are being truthful in not developing nuclear weapons. They won't care if Iran is not a real threat. So long as their interests in the Middle East showed the SLIGHTEST possibility of being threatened they would do everything to oppose Iran and grind it down.

Its all about power. POWER.

And even if you insist on maintaining moral high-ground, Israel would still get away with it; people might despise the actions of the CURRENT Israel government, but if they have to choose between the borderline-fascist state of Israel and a theocratic-false democracy of Iran they would choose Israel.

(And you honestly think that the Supreme Leader of Iran's ban on nuclear weapons development would last? Religious leaders often had a reputation throughout history of going back on their own words and beliefs out of necessity and power. Mark my words, it won't last)

Oh, scary, ALL CAPS.

Okay, let's see if you've grown up about this stuff a bit more: can you explain the exact meaning of the word Realpolitik?

Can you explain how the phrase "not worth the cost" fits into realpolitik? How it fits in with "will do everything it can to grind Iran down?"

[Ryan Thunder]

Given the options: a) die, b) flee, or c) give up that one guy, saving face with the evidence request, and carry on more or less intact.... (c) seems like the winning option.

The bolded part is why we couldn't do something like that. Make sense?

SpaceMarine, would you please do yourself a favour and try not to act like some kind of caricature of an angry young teenager who has no idea what he's talking about but desperately wants people to think that he does? Because seriously, that was just painful to read.

[Simon_Jester]

What do they do next? Well, assume they want to have their cake and eat it too. They'll maybe try bullshitting; help him escape and say "lol he got away not my fault".

Well, we could counter that by saying "if you don't deliver, whether it is your fault or not, the bombing is back on".

They don't want to die, we've made it clear that we won't take bullshit.... so, surely, they'd want to do something now.

But then bin Laden would have gotten away already and we'd be bombing the crap out of them just to prove that we don't take bullshit. Which would be kind of a waste, compared to actually chasing bin Laden.

And besides, if we stick to your basic model of warfare and justice and injustice... you'd probably now be telling us how wrong it is to attack people out of vengefulness and vindictiveness when the guy you're chasing already got away.

The reason "ultimatums" exist in diplomacy (but are rare) is because sometimes you already know how things are going to turn out if the other fellow decides to stick to their usual methods- and if you can't convince them to change their behavior by talking, then you're going to have to resort to force of arms sooner or later.

Randomly delaying the attack when you know the only thing the other guy is going to do is baffle you with bullshit while trying to find a way out... it really isn't a good idea. It doesn't necessarily present a realistic chance of avoiding war, and it can change the situation in ways that make the war even shittier than it would be otherwise.

To wax Trekkie, you can be all talky and bald and tea-earl-grey-hot, and that is cool. But sometimes you gotta be willing to convince the Ferengi you've got some iron in you, because otherwise they'll just keep photon torpedoing your ass every time you have something they want.

To me this is one of those "turnabout is fair play" things, of course. It applies to everyone. But it's still true when someone big ends up in that situation.

Of course, the big problem from their perspective is the United States wanted to have their cake and eat it too... too. And America is so mighty that when we're set on having something, we're gonna have it.

This left the Taliban with the option they are playing now: scatter and draw this fight out for the long haul.

Honestly, I think if the Taliban had really tried, in an honest way, to haul bin Laden out, then they had a pretty good chance of being left alone, jackasses though they were. There wasn't a big economic motive to invade Afghanistan, and the US has tolerated other fundie hellholes and will no doubt continue to do so.

But that really wasn't in the cards- although if the Taliban of the time were people able to consider things with detachment, I think they'd have taken the chance.

[Nephtys]

Back to the ACTUAL topic...

"I am giving you four codes so the Americans understand just how far we have gone in penetrating the drone's secrets," he says, speaking on Iranian TV on 22 April.

"In October 2010, the aircraft was sent to California for some technical issues, where it was repaired and after flight tests, it was taken to Kandahar (in Afghanistan) in November 2010, when a series of technical problems still prevailed," Hajizadeh says. "In December 2010, it was sent to an airport near Los Angeles for repair of its equipment and sensors, and flight tests. The drone was then sent back to Kandahar."

...those aren't 'codes'. That's the fucking maintenance log they probably taped on the inside of a panel. 'Penetrating' these secrets involves getting a guy who can read English lining up '10-2010' with 'Flight Test' and 'California Site'.

[Simon_Jester]

But then bin Laden would have gotten away already and we'd be bombing the crap out of them just to prove that we don't take bullshit. Which would be kind of a waste, compared to actually chasing bin Laden.

Well, it depends on if they believe your threat or not. If they do, it won't come to that.

Very important realization with threats though is they need to believe you when you say you're going to do it.... but they also need to believe you when you say you aren't going to do it.

Well, put it this way.

If it was me, I like to think I could make people believe me like that. I think, if it was you assuming you really stick to your avowed ideas about how to do things... people wouldn't believe your threats. And you'd wind up having to do nasty things just to prove you could, which is probably worse than doing nasty things because someone wronged you.

If they think they're screwed anyway (or of the demands are so outrageous they may as well be screwed), there's no incentive to cooperate.

That's the big problem with President Bush's strategy. He made it very clear that he wasn't going to put up with their bullshit... but, at the same time, he didn't give them much of a way out.

Maybe. I'm not sure what read I'd put on that chain of events in hindsight. And to be honest, I was more worried about eleventh grade and my broken ankle at the time.

Now, I don't know what Realpolitik actually means, but if it is about power, let's put ourselves in their shoes. Suppose you're a powerful guy, or consider yourself to be one.

Frankly, it's about "real politics." That is, politics about things that are real, not things that aren't.

Only ignorant people try to translate it as "burning ambition for ULTIMATE ALL-POWERFUL POWAH at any cost! Do you hear me? ANY COST!"

And a few days later, it became "show us the evidence and your allies can have him" (Oct 17).

Obviously, they were willing to budge in the offers, but they still wanted something out of it.

Refusing to give some kind of face-saving way out misses the pride aspect of power. We should have showed them the evidence and crossed the next bridge when we came to it.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe their budging was just more bullshit, but we should have tried.

To tell the truth, the importance I attach to giving people a face-saving way out depends on how much I think their face deserves saving.

Some countries, yeah, cut them some slack. But for all I care, the Taliban can go spray acid on their faces like some of their guys do to teenage schoolgirls they don't like. I feel the same way about other regimes too, some of them US allies- but I definitely feel that way about the Taliban.

[Zinegata]

No, you idiot. You're demanding evidence. I said asking for evidence was irrelevant because based on the existing evidence the United Nations had already issued a warrant for other terrorism charge.

So a UN warrant allows you to invade a country and instigate regime change to find one man? Seems a little over the top to execute a single warrant.

Actually, I did say that how you execute the warrant is another can of worms entirely that I am not touching .

But to say that there was no evidence is false. You can say "We shouldn't have gone to war", and I wouldn't really mind. But saying there was no evidence to pin mass acts of terrorism against Bin Laden was a lie, plain and simple.

[Zinegata]

You can be homophobic and still not want to be bombed.

Obviously, you can be. But again, because you are employing Wall of Ignorance: Their ambassador was off accusing Jews of bombing the World Trade Center. Based on NO evidence. When they were demanding evidence from the US to hand Bin Laden over. If you're trying to show the world you're actually sane and serious for once, then that ain't the way to do it. Fail to address this again and it's simply concession accepted.

And again, the reality is much simple: They were insane from start to finish. They weren't rational, ever.

They were a bunch of morons who lived in their own sheltered fantasy where extreme interpretations of Holy Books somehow make good basis for running a country, and they simply shot anyone who disagreed with their little echo chamber. There is a reason why the Arab Spring - which is again the event that really overturned the Western-supported dictatorships of the MIddle East - had almost nothing to do with Al Qaeda whatsoever. Their hero ain't Osama Bin Laden. It's Mohamed Bouazizi.

Finally - you do realize that admitting that the Taliban are a bunch of douchebags who didn't want peace either doesn't actually make other objections to the US invading Afghanistan invalid, yes? And I'm not even arguing you're wrong for not wanting the war.

[Simon_Jester]

Whether the Taliban blamed the Jews for 9/11 would be irrelevant if the question was "was the Taliban behind 9/11?"

Whether they blame the Jews for 9/11 is relevant if the question is "are the Taliban in touch with the reality of the outside world, do they grasp the perils and ethics of the situation, or are they using the opportunity to posture and bloviate in their traditional way?"

I have no respect for someone who sees a new event as an excuse to say the same old bullshit. We get enough of that about terrorism in the US- every time some suicidal idiot sets his groin on fire we get people huffing and puffing about the need to tighten security over and over. It's ridiculous.

Blaming the Jews for everything is at least that ridiculous. Probably more so.

People who are willing to be that ridiculous in the face of a major disaster... you cannot really trust or rely on them to deal with you in an honest way. There have been so many politicians throughout history who were like this, who had some set of prepared, pre-programmed methods for securing their own power, but who totally failed to cope with the unexpected. Dealing with them in a crisis is often a waste of time, because they'll be so busy trying to secure their own privileges that they won't actually do anything important to help you, even if it would be in their own interests to do so.

Politicians are good at pursuing self-interest when they can do so by following traditional methods that have worked for them in the past, or when they have plenty of time to realize the times have changed. Not all of them handle it well when weird shit is happening- just like regular people.

[HMS Conqueror]

PWR uses 3.5% enriched uranium. CANDU uses natural (unenriched) uranium. If Iran simply bought CANDUs and exported the waste, the whole issue goes away. But that assumes their only goal is to make civil powerplants.

Others have pointed out why thats a political no-go. However another point to consider is that CANDU style reactors IIRC have higher up-front costs which maybe Iran and others don't want to pay?
CANDU reactors also produce tritium. A substance used in Hydrogen/boosted nuclear weapons. I'd wager that even if Iran tried to get CANDU's someone in the West would start screaming that Iran was aiming for h-bombs...

Oh come off it, it's willful self-deceit at this point. If Iran says tomorrow "Ok guys, that bomb thing was a misunderstanding, we just want CANDUs and a bit of money," and this is refused, at that point I will take the American imperialism angle seriously. As it stands, they already rejected subsidised foreign reactor building that leaves them with domestic nuclear power but no access to weapons grade fuel and by-products.

[PeZook]

Oh come off it, it's willful self-deceit at this point. If Iran says tomorrow "Ok guys, that bomb thing was a misunderstanding, we just want CANDUs and a bit of money," and this is refused, at that point I will take the American imperialism angle seriously. As it stands, they already rejected subsidised foreign reactor building that leaves them with domestic nuclear power but no access to weapons grade fuel and by-products.

So, international law and treaties only matter when they're not signed by brown people, correct?

The NPT specifically allows uranium enrichment for the purpose of nuclear power generation and research/medical applications (describes it as an "inalienable right", even!). As long as they don't use it to make nukes, Iran has every right to enrich uranium according to international law. Incidentally, they also have every right to shoot down the fucking drones that regularly violate their airspace.

And funnily enough the US knows that, and knows that it can, at most, ask politely for the wreckage to be returned to them. Which is why they have to do the whole bullshit media circus before they can bomb Iran without causing an international shitstorm...

[HMS Conqueror]

The NPT specifically allows uranium enrichment for the purpose of nuclear power generation and research/medical applications

The whole point is that it is not clear whether this is all they want. If it is, the international deals give them everything they want. If it's not, they're doing something sinister and illegal. If they're just trying to make a point, I can think of a few less worthwhile things about which to endanger thousands if not millions of lives, but not very many.

[PeZook]

The whole point is that it is not clear whether this is all they want. If it is, the international deals give them everything they want. If it's not, they're doing something sinister and illegal. If they're just trying to make a point, I can think of a few less worthwhile things about which to endanger thousands if not millions of lives, but not very many.

The only relevant thing is whether or not they're complying with IAEA safeguards regarding civilian use of nuclear power, as per the fucking treaty. If they are, no amount of whining changes their right to enrich uranium. And it seems like the US itself agrees with me, since they're desperately looking for some concrete evidence that they aren't.

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

[Simon_Jester]

PeZook, may I present this from my point of view?

1) The Iranians totally have the right to shoot down anything we send over their airspace without permission, just as we reserve the right to shoot down anything they send over our airspace without permission. Turnabout is fair play.

2) A country with a meaningful nuclear arsenal becomes unconquerable. The Iranians are a state with many rivals and enemies, both close to their territory and far away from it. They seem to want to (mostly indirectly) expand their sphere of influence over the Middle East enough to bring them into sharp contact with some of those neigbhors. None of this is especially out of line for a nation-state, but it does justify a degree of wariness and preparation for the chance of war with Iran among Iran's neighbors.

3) The Iranians have excellent strategic reasons to want a nuclear arsenal. For the moment, no sane country would attack someone with nuclear-tipped long range missiles if they had any choice. Having a nuclear arsenal would make the Iranians almost unattackable. They would be immune to enemy aggression. They would also be practically immune to threats of retaliation for small provocations, just as the US is today. It makes perfect sense if they do aim at a nuclear bomb program.

4) The Iranians have denied having a nuclear weapon program, but I'm not sure how convincing that is. They keep a lot of their program secret and do not reliably cooperate with the IAEA (seriously, read IAEA reports on this). That's what I know I'd do if I wanted to keep a side-program to make nuclear bombs hidden while I worked on it. So unless we simply copy-paste their press releases and call it news- which is surely foolish when we do it while talking about Western countries- we should think twice about believing the Iranians' assurances.

5) While the Iranians have the right to enrich uranium for atoms-for-peace, exactly what they choose to do with this right provides information about their intentions. If all they want is a string of nuclear power plants, they would accept an offer to help them build those plants, even if it denies them access to bomb-grade fissiles.

If there is some quibble, some detail about the agreement that they don't like, they would negotiate. Say, they want the right to run one or two research reactors at a higher enrichment, or for purposes of nuclear medicine. They might reasonably say "we will keep this one facility running to provide high-enrichment uranium." And others might say "we want to be able to inspect that facility to be sure it's being used peaceably." And the Iranians, if they're really not into nuclear bombs, might say "okay."

But if they do none of this, treat the inspectors as a violation of their sovereignty like so many Arizonans, and stand firmly on their right to do whatever the hell they want... well. That suggests that they're using their rights to do something the rest of the world wouldn't be too happy about, if it found out.

Does that justify invading Iran? In my opinion, no. But I think people who insist that Iran has no nuclear bomb program because Iranian state TV says so are deluding themselves.

[PeZook]

I actually suspect much the same. While the CIA doesn't think they're making bombs, they might want to have all the relevant technology so they can build a device quicklish ; My issue is actually with Conqueror saying that they should just submit entirely to the West, buy Western reactors and stop complaining, as if they don't have any reason nor right to develop their own nuclear sector.

[Simon_Jester]

If all they want is reactors, they "should:" it would be smarter, cheaper, and get them what they want. If they want to beat their chests about the superiority of fundie science, or quietly develop a nuclear bomb without anyone noticing, then obviously they'd be fools to take the offer. But in that case they (and we) really should accept widespread suspicion as part of the price they have to pay.

When the US keeps things secret and refuses to tell people what it's doing, people get suspicious and attribute evil motives and secret crimes to the US. Why should Iran be treated any differently?

[HMS Conqueror]

The whole point is that it is not clear whether this is all they want. If it is, the international deals give them everything they want. If it's not, they're doing something sinister and illegal. If they're just trying to make a point, I can think of a few less worthwhile things about which to endanger thousands if not millions of lives, but not very many.

The only relevant thing is whether or not they're complying with IAEA safeguards regarding civilian use of nuclear power, as per the fucking treaty. If they are, no amount of whining changes their right to enrich uranium. And it seems like the US itself agrees with me, since they're desperately looking for some concrete evidence that they aren't.

They are getting into a position where they can produce a bomb at short notice, doing as much as possible within the letter of the law until there is nothing left that can be done, then they decide whether to go for broke - if they make a bomb before the West attacks, it will not attack, and they 'win'. 20% enriched uranium is used for very few peaceful purposes, totaling a few millions (not billions) of dollars of imports. The real purpose is to obtain a large number of centrifuges which can be used to produce material for a bomb when they are ready to do so.

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

[Aaron MkII]

Democracy is not a magic wand, they've been guilty of quite a few atrocities. Iraq happened under a "liberal democracy".

[Simon_Jester]

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

This appears to me to be a non sequitur. I get that you believe what you are saying, but it doesn't seem like a logical reaction to what he said.

[HMS Conqueror]

Frankly, Iran has all sorts of reasons for not wanting to rely on western sources of nuclear technology - like, say, the fact the west has supported coups and and armed their enemies with weapons of mass destruction, so who the fuck knows if they'll continue to support the reactors in the future?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

This appears to me to be a non sequitur. I get that you believe what you are saying, but it doesn't seem like a logical reaction to what he said.

Really?

The reason we are worried about Iran having the capacity to make a bomb, and the alleged reason they want a bomb, is we think they might do Bad Things that we might want to stop, and if they have a bomb we will not be able to. We also worry they might do something crazy with the bomb. If we were dealing with some sort of mega-Belgium in central asia it might raise eyebrows and probably would be protested, but people wouldn't be that worried. Nor would mega-Belgium have much reason to fear being attacked to prompt it to make a bomb, at least not by the West.

The root cause of the problem is that Iran is a nutty quasi-dictatorship that publicly hangs gays and political dissenters from cranes mounted to the back of trucks.