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.

 

Compromise with Iran? I guess we'll see.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It seems a compromise may be reached with Iran in regards to uranium enrichment....



VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The United States and Europe are ready to compromise with Iran over its nuclear program and have tentatively approved a plan that would allow it to make the precursor of enriched uranium, senior officials said Thursday.

The officials said the plan would allow Iran to convert raw uranium into the gas that is spun by centrifuges into enriched uranium.

But the actual enrichment would take place in Russia, the officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to reveal the strategy.
www.cnn.com...


If Iran is indeed only after nuclear energy, they should have no problem with this, if they are after nuclear weapons, they will reject it. Time will tell, but I truly hope this works and all the talk of imminent war with Iran will fade out.




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   


If Iran is indeed only after nuclear energy, they should have no problem with this, if they are after nuclear weapons, they will reject it. Time will tell, but I truly hope this works and all the talk of imminent war with Iran will fade out.


I have a felling in my bones that Iran will reject it because there ARE after nuclear weapons



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
I have a felling in my bones that Iran will reject it because there ARE after nuclear weapons


lets hope they do reject this

no one has a right to dicatate what another country can't and can do
i fail to see why they should be dependent on other countries when it comes to their nuclear power.

lets just hope the bush admin dont have a imagination overload


[edit on 10-11-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well, I think at least it will put to rest any idea that they're only after peaceful energy if they do reject it. We don't need any more wars, but we also don't need any more nuclear powder kegs like Pakistan and India. The more nuclear enemies, the more chances somebody is not going to just use it as a deterrent. Pakistan and India were almost ready to nuke each other before any conventional war even started. It was almost a first resort, and I think some (not all) religious leaders in Iran would be more than happy to nuke Israel under the belief that Allah would protect them. I just hope they accept the compromise.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
If Iran do develop nukes in the comming years i think it'l be a M.A.D between them because Iran is just to hostile the only reason they didnt attck isreal yet is because they dont want nuked back to timbuck2



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Well, I think at least it will put to rest any idea that they're only after peaceful energy if they do reject it. We don't need any more wars, but we also don't need any more nuclear powder kegs like Pakistan and India. The more nuclear enemies, the more chances somebody is not going to just use it as a deterrent. Pakistan and India were almost ready to nuke each other before any conventional war even started. It was almost a first resort, and I think some (not all) religious leaders in Iran would be more than happy to nuke Israel under the belief that Allah would protect them. I just hope they accept the compromise.


they have had plenty of time to rain bio logical weapons on Israel
if they were that keen on destroyoying the state as it would keep almost all structures intact.

Remember one thing Israel also has one of the holliest places to muslims and no real muslim would try to harm it.
so dont bring in Irans religous leaders into this as they wouldnt dream of this. (maybe in some americans wet dream , wont say who )

also give up on the Allah will protect them rubbish
i am sure bush and his mates think Jesus(rest be apon him) will protect them.
religon isnt the biggest factor in war MONEY AND POWER is what makes the world go around


Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
If Iran do develop nukes in the comming years i think it'l be a M.A.D between them because Iran is just to hostile the only reason they didnt attck isreal yet is because they dont want nuked back to timbuck2


Again Iran have had the means to attack Israel for 30 years plus and have chosen not to,
and secoundly the only hostile nations that stand out is the united states which banters on about invading and keeping other countries under its thumb



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
they have had plenty of time to rain bio logical weapons on Israel
if they were that keen on destroyoying the state as it would keep almost all structures intact.


Do you really think Iran has a bio capability able to destroy Israel as quickly as nuclear weapons?



Remember one thing Israel also has one of the holliest places to muslims and no real muslim would try to harm it.


So Israel being wiped off the map, as Iran's president called for, wouldn't harm it?



so dont bring in Irans religous leaders into this as they wouldnt dream of this. (maybe in some americans wet dream , wont say who )


Oh, they've already been "brought". How do you know what they would and wouldn't dream of? Do you know them personally? Even if you do, I've seen cases where family members say "he would never dream of doing that", when, they did. The fact is, they want Israel destroyed, and neither you or I know for sure the circumstances that may exist, or what lengths they will go to in the future to achieve that. We need to be reducing the number of nuclear weapons in this world, not opening the flood gates.



also give up on the Allah will protect them rubbish


Why is that rubbish? Is it any more rubbish than the belief that if you blow yourself up, you get 72 virgins in paradise? Irrational is irrational.



i am sure bush and his mates think Jesus(rest be apon him) will protect them.


Well I'm no more a fan of Bush than the Mullahs, and if he thinks that, he is just as irrational.



religon isnt the biggest factor in war MONEY AND POWER is what makes the world go around


Only for those at the very top, for those actually fighting the wars, religion is a big factor. How much money and power does one gain when they strap a bomb to themself?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Do you really think Iran has a bio capability able to destroy Israel as quickly as nuclear weapons?


its a well known fact that they have a large stock pile of chemical weapons
which they have but never used




Originally posted by 27jd
So Israel being wiped off the map, as Iran's president called for, wouldn't harm it?


as a figure of speach
which was denounced by Irans foriegn office straight away
its highly doutfull that they would go any further then all mouth


Originally posted by 27jd

Oh, they've already been "brought". How do you know what they would and wouldn't dream of? Do you know them personally? Even if you do, I've seen cases where family members say "he would never dream of doing that", when, they did. The fact is, they want Israel destroyed, and neither you or I know for sure the circumstances that may exist, or what lengths they will go to in the future to achieve that. We need to be reducing the number of nuclear weapons in this world, not opening the flood gates.



did i say increase Nuclear weapons in the world?
or doesnt what i say follow Iran have all the right to develop their nuclear power which they have stated and have allowed close eye is for suvilian purpose only

also
i state they would never dream of it as being muslim it is all against Islam to do such a thing and them being mullahs would know (and i come from a long line of Hafiz's)

also there is a big diffrence from a family screwing up from a Leaders of a country




Originally posted by 27jd
Why is that rubbish? Is it any more rubbish than the belief that if you blow yourself up, you get 72 virgins in paradise? Irrational is irrational.


if you read or get someone to read you the Quran it states clearly harming or killing anyone that has done no harm to you is like killing all of man
the only time someone can do such an act is if they are prevoked into doing and have no other way of fighting back (but that does not excuss them from killing innovent people.

and to prove these suicide bombers arent even muslim they target muslims as well as non muslims.




Originally posted by 27jd

Well I'm no more a fan of Bush than the Mullahs, and if he thinks that, he is just as irrational.


cant argue with you there



Originally posted by 27jd
Only for those at the very top, for those actually fighting the wars, religion is a big factor. How much money and power does one gain when they strap a bomb to themself?


lets see
most suicide bombers are poverty striken and get money given to their family
or
they have nothing to lose and they are doing it out of revenge.

Power is for the people at the top who push people into doing this
Money is what makes them go to that extent


[edit on 10-11-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
lets hope they do reject this

no one has a right to dicatate what another country can't and can do
i fail to see why they should be dependent on other countries when it comes to their nuclear power.


Ohh yes, lets hope Iran rejects this because they really need nuclear weapons


This is a country whos leader wishes to destroy a whole other nation.

This is a nation that admits to supporting terrorism.

Frankly, if they reject this, it is time to prepare for war against them.


NR

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Its too bad this whole thing has been rejected by Rice. Kind of makes you think as if they want more from us than just negotiations.


Rice denies deal on Iran nuclear work



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
its a well known fact that they have a large stock pile of chemical weapons
which they have but never used


Chemical weapons would not be anywhere near as effective as nuclear weapons when it comes to immediate destruction. Iran may get a wave or two in, and alot of Israelis would die, but Iran would then be destroyed. You can protect yourself from chemical weapons, but with nukes, not so much.



as a figure of speach
which was denounced by Irans foriegn office straight away
its highly doutfull that they would go any further then all mouth


So we should just take every threat as a figure of speech? No responsible nation should make such statements, especially if they believe they should be free to do whatever they want with nuclear energy. It's not just a matter of what they have a "right" to do, we all live on this planet, we should all have a say. I've never even heard Bush, as ignorant as he is, call for any country to be "wiped off the map".


Originally posted by 27jd
did i say increase Nuclear weapons in the world?
or doesnt what i say follow Iran have all the right to develop their nuclear power which they have stated and have allowed close eye is for suvilian purpose only


Are they allowing access to ALL sites? I don't think so, they pull the same shell game crap as Saddam did, opening access here, closing it there. It makes them look highly suspicious, if Saddam had allowed full access to all his suspected sites all the time, Bush would have had no grounds to attack no matter how much he wanted to, Saddam would still rule Iraq today. But pride brought him down, just as will happen in Iran. You hope they reject the deal? Well then you and Bush have something in common.



also
i state they would never dream of it as being muslim it is all against Islam to do such a thing and them being mullahs would know (and i come from a long line of Hafiz's)


Oh, I see. So because you are part of a religion, you know exactly how all other muslims think and behave, based on what you would do. I know alot of Christians that can't stand Bush, and would not go to war with Iraq, but Bush did, and he's a "Christian". People are people, regardless if they're muslim or not, you have no idea what's going on inside their head.



also there is a big diffrence from a family screwing up from a Leaders of a country


My point was, no matter how much you think you know somebody, they can surprise you.




if you read or get someone to read you the Quran it states clearly harming or killing anyone that has done no harm to you is like killing all of man
the only time someone can do such an act is if they are prevoked into doing and have no other way of fighting back (but that does not excuss them from killing innovent people.


I'm sure the bible says pretty much the same thing, doesn't stop Christians from killing. Not everybody who is religious puts their religion above their own personal agenda, in fact most don't.



and to prove these suicide bombers arent even muslim they target muslims as well as non muslims.


I'm sure they think they are muslim.





cant argue with you there


Then why the sarcastic rolly eyed guy?



lets see
most suicide bombers are poverty striken and get money given to their family
or
they have nothing to lose and they are doing it out of revenge.


What family would want a member to die for any amount of cash? Let alone the measly sums paid to those familys? And if one wanted to exact revenge, wouldn't it be more logical to try and live as long as you can, and kill as many of those you seek revenge against as you can until you stand alone, or are killed? It's not revenge that makes somebody blow themself up, it's a belief of a reward in the afterlife, it's religion. Plain and simple.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Well boyos its time to polish those guns were going into war o yea and dont forget thoses radation suits



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

If Iran is indeed only after nuclear energy, they should have no problem with this, if they are after nuclear weapons, they will reject it. Time will tell, but I truly hope this works and all the talk of imminent war with Iran will fade out.


As you would say: Rubbish!

There are very good reasons, and its the same ones that existed before the current conflict began.

1. They are entitled to an enrichement cycle as signatories to the UNIAEA.

2. Accepting would set a precedant that could later be used against other nations.

3. They would be at the mercy of foreigners for their supply of fuel which would threaten their electric power supply, and the nations economy.

Just imagine if suddenly there were no electricity where you live, and no hope in sight of it being restored.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
i will give you a proper reply in the morning 27jd
also i am use to the rollyeyes so no sarcasem there



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
Its too bad this whole thing has been rejected by Rice. Kind of makes you think as if they want more from us than just negotiations.


Rice denies deal on Iran nuclear work


Hopefully she's just trying to save face because their proposal was leaked and they don't want it out there yet. I would like to see a compromise reached, and maybe even see things cool off in the middle east. The people there deserve that.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
As you would say: Rubbish!

There are very good reasons, and its the same ones that existed before the current conflict began.

1. They are entitled to an enrichement cycle as signatories to the UNIAEA.


But as signatories, aren't they required to allow full access to all sites for inspection?



2. Accepting would set a precedant that could later be used against other nations.


And allowing them to do whatever they please with nuclear energy would also set a precedent, everybody and their mother will claim the right to to whatever with nuclear technology, and this world would be festering with nuclear weapons, more and more unstable regimes would get them, and they WOULD be used on somebody somewhere. It's pretty much a guarantee. I'm not trying to be hypocritical, I just think we need to get back on the track of reducing nuclear weapons, not increasing several times over. That would suck for us all.



3. They would be at the mercy of foreigners for their supply of fuel which would threaten their electric power supply, and the nations economy.


It's funny that you say that, don't we have that same problem here?



Just imagine if suddenly there were no electricity where you live, and no hope in sight of it being restored.


I don't think Iran is dependent on nuclear energy.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

But as signatories, aren't they required to allow full access to all sites for inspection?


I have heard this supposition before, but with all my research I have yet to find where Iran is currently denying access to any sites in the extended inspection program that Iran agreed to.

Please provide a reference as what you say conflicts with my understanding that is far beyond what 99% of Americans have researched.

You do understand that Iran has agreed to more intrusive inspections than any other nation on Earth.


And allowing them to do whatever they please with nuclear energy would also set a precedent, everybody and their mother will claim the right to to whatever with nuclear technology, and this world would be festering with nuclear weapons, more and more unstable regimes would get them, and they WOULD be used on somebody somewhere. It's pretty much a guarantee. I'm not trying to be hypocritical, I just think we need to get back on the track of reducing nuclear weapons, not increasing several times over. That would suck for us all.


I did not say anything like what you said here "to do whatever they please".

They should do all that is required by the IAEA.


It's funny that you say that, don't we have that same problem here?


But this has nothing to do with any UN regulation.

The parallel you make does not apply.

Your point is moot.


I don't think Iran is dependent on nuclear energy.


The energy system they are building will depend on the nuclear fuel.

IF they get the reactors operational the infastructure would depend on the nuclear fuel.

If it were later cut off for any reason they would then have no electrical power from the plants.

Your point is moot.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I'll have to respond a bit later, I'm off work now, and I gotta get to the gym.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Okay, I have returned....


Originally posted by ArchAngel
I have heard this supposition before, but with all my research I have yet to find where Iran is currently denying access to any sites in the extended inspection program that Iran agreed to.

Please provide a reference as what you say conflicts with my understanding that is far beyond what 99% of Americans have researched.


I'd be glad to...



On 05 January 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said "we expect to visit Parchin within the next days or a few weeks". Iran allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit the Parchin military site in January in the interests of transparency following the allegations, but the visit was limited to only one of four areas identified as being of potential interest and to only five buildings in that area.

On 01 March 2005 Iran turned down a request by the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency to make a second visit to the Parchin military site, which has been linked in allegations to nuclear weapons testing.
www.globalsecurity.org...


Perhaps your research has not been as indepth as you think.



You do understand that Iran has agreed to more intrusive inspections than any other nation on Earth.


They may have agreed, but they don't seem to be following through, now do they?



I did not say anything like what you said here "to do whatever they please".

They should do all that is required by the IAEA.



Okay, so where would the line be drawn? Don't you think it will be quite a task to monitor every nation that decides it has a right to enrich uranium? In your haste to proclaim nobody has the right to say who can and cannot enrich uranium, you're readily inviting nuclear hyper-proliferation. Soon, if you havfe your way, nuclear weapons will be readily available to anybody who wants them. I'm sure regimes like those of the warlords in Africa would never use nuclear weapons in their many genocides.


And again, they don't seem to be doing what is required by the IAEA.



But this has nothing to do with any UN regulation.

The parallel you make does not apply.

Your point is moot.


Iran is not being forced to use nuclear energy, and their sitting on alot of oil.

You don't make the decision if parallels I make do or do not apply.

My point is valid.




The energy system they are building will depend on the nuclear fuel.

IF they get the reactors operational the infastructure would depend on the nuclear fuel.

If it were later cut off for any reason they would then have no electrical power from the plants.

Your point is moot.


Again, that's their choice.

The Russians helped them build the reactors, and I'm sure they would be more than happy to provide the fuel.

Are you suggesting their entire electrical infrastructure will be nuclear? And why would the Russians cut off their fuel supply? I don't think there are many nations out there that aren't dependent on others.

Your point is moot.

Mine, again, is valid.


[edit on 11-11-2005 by 27jd]


Sep

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Sorry if I am intruding into a debate between you two, but I thought I may give my perspective.


Originally posted by 27jd
I'd be glad to...



On 05 January 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said "we expect to visit Parchin within the next days or a few weeks". Iran allowed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit the Parchin military site in January in the interests of transparency following the allegations, but the visit was limited to only one of four areas identified as being of potential interest and to only five buildings in that area.

On 01 March 2005 Iran turned down a request by the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency to make a second visit to the Parchin military site, which has been linked in allegations to nuclear weapons testing.
www.globalsecurity.org...


Perhaps your research has not been as indepth as you think.


The site in question is a military base. No country in the world would allow an international delegation to visit a military site. It’s like Iran asking the US to allow Iranian nationals to visit area 51. But on a side note, the IAEA officials got access to the site you mentioned a couple of weeks ago:


Iran: IAEA Inspectors Revisit Parchin
November 02, 2005 12 37 GMT

International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors were allowed to revisit the Iranian military facility at Parchin as part of their efforts to determine whether Tehran is developing a nuclear weapons program, diplomats involved in the visit told The Associated Press on Nov. 2. One unidentified diplomat said no traces of radioactivity were found in the complex, and that inspectors were able to access buildings in the complex that previously had been out of bounds.


As you said "Perhaps your research has not been as indepth as you think."

Although Iran would have be within its rights to deny the inspectors visit to its military complexes it is nice to see that it is willing to compromise to build up confidence in the west and prove that it is not hiding anything.




They may have agreed, but they don't seem to be following through, now do they?


It would be nice to see some proof that they are not following it.



Okay, so where would the line be drawn? Don't you think it will be quite a task to monitor every nation that decides it has a right to enrich uranium?


Wherever the line is drawn, it should be the same line for everyone. It is hypocritical of a nation to enrich uranium, and keep the biggest nuclear weapon arsenal on earth whilst requesting that others, for no particular reason give up their rights and not enrich uranium because it is not convenient.


In your haste to proclaim nobody has the right to say who can and cannot enrich uranium, you're readily inviting nuclear hyper-proliferation.


Perhaps an international agreement can be reached to whether the entire world can enrich uranium or not. If one country is allowed to enrich so should the rest. If the case is different then this is called discrimination and double standards, which may lead to hostilities.



Iran is not being forced to use nuclear energy, and their sitting on alot of oil.


In 1975 the US thought that nuclear energy was essential for Iran what has changed now? Except offcourse that Iranian oil supplies are lower, the production is lower, and the population is higher.




[edit on 11-11-2005 by Sep]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join