It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran warns US, Europe on nuclear program

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Link to this news story was front page of google when i started up my computer this morning. Dont know how credible the site is, just thought it was an interesting article. If its already been posted i apologize in advance.

LONDON, August 14 (IranMania) - Iran on Sunday warned the United States that any use of force over its nuclear programme would be a "mistake," and told Europe that its attitude would help determine whether it resumes uranium enrichment.

"Bush should know that our capabilities are much greater than those of the United States," Iran's Foreign Mministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. "We don't think that the United States will make such a mistake."

Bush, whose country is derided in Iran as the "Great Satan", refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over its resumption of nuclear work, which the United States charges is a cover for efforts to build the bomb.

He said "all options are on the table," in an interview with Israeli television, a line he has used before with regard a potential US response to Iran's nuclear work.

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said in a clear reference to Iraq, which the United States invaded in March 2003.

"I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies," he added.

Asefi also warned Europe -- which had been trying to obtain guarantees that Tehran's nuclear programme was peaceful in exchange for expanded trade benefits -- that its attitude would be a key factor in any decision to start up enrichment activities.

"The attitude and the actions of the Europeans in the next few days will be the determining factor," said Asefi.

Iran's decision last week to resume uranium conversion work, which is a precursor to enrichment, was "not negotiable", he added.

Asefi said the Iranian regime had not yet reached a concensus on uranium enrichment, a process which makes fuel for nuclear reactors but can also be the core of an atomic bomb.

At an emergency meeting Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Iran to halt the nuclear fuel cycle work and ordered the UN watchdog to report on September 3 on Tehran's compliance with international safeguards.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Saturday pushed aside the option of using force to contain Iran and its uranium enrichment activities, saying that military options were worthless.

"Let's leave military options aside, we have already seen that they don't amount to anything," Schroeder said.

Link

You guys think that the president has the set to go into Iran? They say they can take us down. I dont know what to think anymore. Our military is too spread out. We are in so many countries. Another question I have is, What gives us (the US) the right to tell anyone they cant have nuclear capabilities? If someone came to the US to tell us that we would kick them the hell out at the very least. Please discuss.




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
"What gives us (the US) the right to tell anyone they cant have nuclear capabilities?"

I'm not 100% sure, but arent Iran a part of some Treaty that says they wont make nuclear weapons? So this would be why US doesnt want them makin them.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

as quoted from the IranMania article
Iran on Sunday warned the United States that any use of force over its nuclear programme would be a "mistake"......

Ah yes, Iran simply reiterating its threats from February of this year where it stipulated Iran Warns US Not to Play with Nuclear 'Fire'. If Iran is threatening the US and the EU, along with Israel, etc., that 'such and such' actions will be a "mistake" and will unleash "nuclear fire", if, since Iran is ONLY seeking a nuclear programme for peaceful means and purposes, why would they make such threats as making a "mistake" and will unleash "nuclear fire"? Simple. Iran has systematically revealed over the last year plus that they intended to build nuclear weapons by making such threats, while proclaiming that their intentions are only for peaceful purposes. Which do you believe is the Iranian true intentions: they want a nuclear program for peaceful means and purposes or their real intentions are to acquire nuclear weapons? Despite how the Iranians are playing this diplomatically to the EU and the UN, in their continued rhetoric, their intentions reveal otherwise.





....and told Europe that its attitude would help determine whether it resumes uranium enrichment.

Iran is simply playing the continued word game of "keep the EU talking, while continuing their work". Furthermore, Iran can care less what the EU says or offers or what the EU and UN attitudes will be or are currently or in the future. How so? Try this: Iran calls for talks with EU, but says it will never stop uranium conversion. Iran has no intentions of stopping or halting what it is doing, none. The EU knows this, as does China


Again, as I have openly stated within ATS, the US simply needs to take a backseat to the EU and UN and let them continue to handle the ongoing faltering situation: 'Don't call us, we'll be in contact with you.'








seekerof

[edit on 14-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I dug up this link. I had mentioned that I had recalled this story but had thought it was older than this article, I was wrong... Dec. 14 ,2001, 3 months after 9/11. Who is doing the war mongering? Admittedly, the US government did label the Iranians as part of the "axis of evil" so this might have only been reactionary at that time. Recent events seem to indicate otherwise.

True intent?

Bottom line, war begets war. Peace can only be negotiated if all sides want peace.

I also recall that Iran had purchased nuclear subs from the former USSR following the end of the cold war. The date was 9/24/92 at the bottom of this link...
subs

So this has been in the making for some time now...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I really cant see how the US can tell country what and what not to do. I mean the US are he only country to ever use nukes and yet they seem to dictate who can and cant have them. I dont really care if Iran has nukes or not, as long as they dont use them. Im cool with it.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Exactly, "judge ye not lest ye be judged."
On what moral authority does any nation have to inflict its will on another nation? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

It's hard to love someone who hates you.

"An eye for an eye..." leaves the whole world blind and toothless. This is why Christ asks of us to love one another.

Definition of a diplomat, someone who tells you to go to hell and makes you believe you actually want to be there.

Lead by example.

The reasons for gaining ground (or having allies) in the Middle East is that without oil our industrialized nations would stop. Sharing is out of the question when the commodity is making trillions of dollars. Money is the root of all evil. A necessary evil some would say since a barter system only works within geographical boundaries... who drew the lines?

This logic leads to a one world order and the inevitability of it coming to pass is as sure as Armageddon between the diametrically opposed ideals.

IMHO


Sep

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Ah yes, Iran simply reiterating its threats from February of this year where it stipulated Iran Warns US Not to Play with Nuclear 'Fire'. If Iran is threatening the US and the EU, along with Israel, etc., that 'such and such' actions will be a "mistake" and will unleash "nuclear fire",


just to clear somthing up no Iranian official every used the words "nuclear fire" just thought it was worth mentioning.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
If Dick Cheney's plan goes through, or if we piss off Iran in any way, World War 3 will begin. www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by And1balla2829
If Dick Cheney's plan goes through, or if we piss off Iran in any way, World War 3 will begin. www.globalresearch.ca...


What a crock of BS.

What is that link? What does it have to do with WWIII? Nothing. All it is is a hate Bush, hate the US, Iran is great and wonderfull link.

Get a clue. Iran can't do a thing to the US unless they get nukes.

It should interest you that the US is not the only one worried. All of Europe, including - GASP! - France, is worried as well.

As for your WWIII claim, please, due tell my why Russia, China, or any other nation for that matter, is going to get into a nuke chucking contest with the US over Iran. Iran has some oil - big woop. So does Russia. Do you think they want Minutemen missles hurled at them over Iranian oil?

And then China...Laughable at best. They can't take a tiny island off their cost. How in the hell are they going to take on the US? Their nuclear arsenal is out gunned by a single US SSBN 'boomer'. Think about that. A single sub of the US has more nuclear power in it then all of China combined. Of course the US has what - about 20 of these subs? And that is to say NOTHING of the USAF arsenal.

No, Iran would not cause WWIII.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The way i see it there is 3 options.

1. Invade them and change their government (not likely to be popular after Iraq had no WMD, dispite claims that they did)

2. Convince them not to build them, somehow.

3. Let them build whatever they want and make sure you don't piss them off since I doubt they would attack any country that gave them a wide berth. While making it clear that if they do attack than it will be the end of their country also.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Actually there are more options that those there.

Limited air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and missile plants.

Blockade of the straight of Hormuns By the US Navy. (Really good option since gets 75-80% of its Energy Imports through that straight).


[edit on 15-8-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Whereas a country might normally be allowed to use nuclear power for peaceful means, Iran, being a fundamental Islamist government doesn't get that right due to the general fundie Islamist treatment of their female citizens (girl-children getting their clitorises carved out and women being stoned and forced to wear beekeeper suits). Once they act more like adults in regard to their weaker citizens, maybe they can be allowed to play with the big technologies, but not before then.

As for what America should do? At this point, when so much has come to pass, I don't see any way to stop what's coming.


[edit on 15-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
So boring, people... Let's get a clue! Iran is building nuclear weapons, any doubts? Then perhaps it's time to pull your head out of the sand. Secondly, to those posters who want to lament that the US has no right telling anybody who can or can't have nukes... um, it's called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (More on that here: www.un.org... ) and Iran signed it! So in essence, IRAN agreed to NEVER produce nukes; NOT the US saying that they can't have them. Once again, simply another straw to stack upon the back of the camel indicating WHY the UN is such a worthless beauracracy of hot air! Time and again the US has to enforce the UN policy that NO ONE else will... as is the case against Iraq (Let the flaming begin and I shall shred you!).

The mullahs in Iran are sided closesly with the Madrassas of Saudi Arabia and both espouse the West as the "Great Satan". Both groups have repeatedly called for the destruction of the US. And some people claim that it's "Cool for Iran to have nukes as long as they don't use them"???? What kind of short-sighted, wrong-minded hubris is that? The buck has to stop somehwere and I would surmise that a radical Islamic state hell-bent on the destruction of the West is a great place to start the end of nuclear proliferation. Anyone agree? If not, perhaps you should take some time to study what has happened to the countless Soviet nuclear weapons after the collaps of the USSR... Um, the US (With the help fo the UN, is you want to call it that) are paying for their security and the disarmament.

Come on folks! A little common sense sure can go a long way. Use your heads and I think that several things become obvious... 1.) Iran is developing nukes and they are employing the N Korean stall tactic to get there 2.) Iran's government is far too unstable to possess and guarantee the security of nuclear weapons 3.) Iran has KNOWN ties to terrorist organizations and possesses the wherewithall to outfit some such groups with WMD if they so desired. 4.) It is in the best interest of THE WORLD, as a whole, to ensure that Iran does not now, or in the future, come to possess nukes.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
i imagine overall if there is a Nuclear war that if the U.S gets bombed and when the war is way over...i bet THE WORLD will be a better place...We only think about the Iran ppl being bad because we are invading their territory and they fight back...If we had Iran ppl in are neighborhoods, i'd feel like kicking there asses too. u always want to defend ur country and id do the same as they are right now(except blowing myself up lmao)

Iran is probly a happy place and if the world was more like that it could maby be better.I bet the world will be run by one governtment and the price of a thing is the same everwhere and the worlds natural resourses are shipped equally to everypart of the world.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Whereas a country might normally be allowed to use nuclear power for peaceful means, Iran, being a fundamental Islamist government doesn't get that right due to the general fundie Islamist treatment of their female citizens (girl-children getting their clitorises carved out and women being stoned and forced to wear beekeeper suits). Once they act more like adults in regard to their weaker citizens, maybe they can be allowed to play with the big technologies, but not before then.

As for what America should do? At this point, when so much has come to pass, I don't see any way to stop what's coming.


LOL, well put. This is the 2nd time Ive read your post.

I hope your wrong tho....and I hope America has some sorta secret weapon up our sleeve that will set them back 20 or so years. Maybe that "Gay Bomb" Ive been reading about on Weekly World News...

Maximu§



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

LA_Maximus said: I hope your wrong tho....and I hope America has some sorta secret weapon up our sleeve that will set them back 20 or so years. Maybe that "Gay Bomb" Ive been reading about on Weekly World News...

Haha, hell yeah!

Wouldn't it be great if we really did have some super secret weapon that was non-lethal and which caused Muslims to forget their religion? What about some kind of helicopter-sprayed "Agent Allah" that when inhaled caused the person to simply wake up from their religious brainwashing. That'd be awesome. You'd have thousands of arabs surrendering to US troops and requesting school loans.

"Fill up the Cobras with Agent Allah, fellas! It's Ramadan and we're flyin' in low!"



[edit on 15-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BirDMan_X
i imagine overall if there is a Nuclear war that if the U.S gets bombed and when the war is way over...i bet THE WORLD will be a better place...We only think about the Iran ppl being bad because we are invading their territory and they fight back...If we had Iran ppl in are neighborhoods, i'd feel like kicking there asses too. u always want to defend ur country and id do the same as they are right now(except blowing myself up lmao)

Iran is probly a happy place and if the world was more like that it could maby be better.I bet the world will be run by one governtment and the price of a thing is the same everwhere and the worlds natural resourses are shipped equally to everypart of the world.


Exaclty when did we invade Iran?


Did I miss that watching the Eagles preseason game?


Sep

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Maybe that "Gay Bomb" Ive been reading about on Weekly World News...


You want over 35 million men to turn gay? I dont want to know why, but hey we can all dream at times.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join