CNN Breaking: "U.N. nuclear watchdog agency adopts resolution...(Iran)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

NO story yet, just this breaking headline on CNN's front page:

"U.N. nuclear watchdog agency adopts resolution calling on Iran to halt nuclear fuel development. Details soon."

http://www.cnn.com/

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Should this be in LBN

the fireworks are just beginnin'

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. So, when does shock and awe in Iran start? And will it be "nucular"?

[Lerkfish]

7. by september, and yes, is my guess.

[Javaman]

3. Here we go again...

And were is the outraged rage-aholic bolton?

I would think he would be banging his shoe on the podium about now.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

4. Here's the story:

U.N. agency urges Iran to stop nuclear activities

Thursday, August 11, 2005; Posted: 11:22 a.m. EDT (15:22 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/11/iran.iaea/index.html

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors passed a resolution Thursday asking Iran to suspend its nuclear activities, according to a Western diplomat at the meeting in Austria.

The resolution was "somewhat amended from its original form, which expressed "serious concern" about the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. CNN is awaiting a copy of the new resolution to compare it to the old.

The resolution -- written by France, Britain and Germany -- urges Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities, including uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan plant.

Those activities were restarted Wednesday after Iran removed IAEA seals on its nuclear equipment there.

[digitaldave]

5. The story is slanted and misleading as usual

Early on the article notes:

"Uranium conversion is a first step toward uranium enrichment, which could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons."

This language is what courts call "prejudicial", meaning that it unreasonably leads to a specific and unwarranted conclusion. It does so by omitting any other things that uranium enrichment "could" lead to, misleading the reader into thinking either there are no other uses, or they’re too remote to mention. In fact, it is "the manufacture of nuclear weapons" which is really the most remote possibility, as evidenced by these other statements found in the same column:

1: Isfahan is not an enrichment plant

2: Even if Iran restarted its ENTIRE nuclear program TODAY and intended to build nuclear weapons, it would still be 5 to 10 years from being able to do so

3: The United Nations inspectors cannot definitively conclude that Iran does not have any undeclared nuclear materials*

4: the plant "is fully monitored by the IAEA" and does not produce enriched uranium

5: Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz remains frozen, and they have indicated it will remain that way

* Use of negatives, or NOTs, tends to breed confusion. Even among professional computer programmers, logical constructs with NOT lead to programs with bugs. Best practice rules typically denounce NOT logic. The original statement contained 3 negatives; enough to confuse pretty much everyone. Let's see what we get when we straighten this out.

Three NOTs:

United Nations inspectors cannot definitively conclude that Iran does not have any undeclared nuclear materials.

One NOT:

United Nations inspectors cannot definitively conclude that Iran has declared all of its nuclear materials.

Zero NOTs:

United Nations inspectors "believe" Iran has declared all of its nuclear materials.

[gasperc]

6. Bolton make quick order of getting war with Iran on fast track

let's see where this fucking diaster will lead.

scenarios off the top of my head.

Iran cuts back slightly on oil production sending prices soaring.
US bombs key miltary installations, sending oil prices soaring.
US won't use diplomacy, screwing the pooch and sending oil prices soaring.