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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

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.



Like thats the end of the world, welcoming to the world Iran

Most countries in the world outside the middle east are at the mercy of foreigners for their supply of fuel. Not so much for countries in the middle east since that have massive reserves of oil.

Its not like the whole world including Iran's allies would get together make some secret pact and agree to not sell Iran fuel for its reactors
As long as they have money somebody will always sell it. If thats really a concern Iran is more paranoid then I thought.




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
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.


You cant protect your self from all chemical weapons
If Iran did aquire nukes and decide to nuke they would face being nuked back
So Its VERY unlikey they would use them



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".


Bush threatening to launch attacks and attack other countries is completely different
And he seems to be all mouth and action.
So being faced with threats from Israel and America who regularly threaten to attack

also you have to remember that the iranian president doesnt hold the same power as the president of the US and so on



Originally posted by 27jd
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.


They are allowing access to all sites read the news
Plz don’t compare me to your dumb president



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.


Ok
This also goes towards your assumptions against them
Since you stated them thinking allah will protect them if they attack

And I didn’t say I know what all other muslims think or believe as you say I pointed out that no muslim would do such an act as it says in the quran



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

Then you should watch the Iranian’s they might surprise you




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.

Then why bring religion into this?




I'm sure they think they are muslim.

By killing people in cold blood they have proven not to be muslims




Then why the sarcastic rolly eyed guy?


use to the




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.


Ignorance is a very power tool indeed


If you look into the suicide bombers in Israel(use that as a example)
You will see most are below poverty and have a hard time supporting their familys since getting a job is so hard.

Also as I stated most do it in revenge because they have nothing to lose
And it’s the only way they can fight back since they don’t have other means of doing so.

The belief of a reward is just bull**ing so its not Plain and simple as you say

So in the end its about Power and money
And I am not going to explain that again


[edit on 11-11-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
WWIII who be started by a 'King' on the middle east?

Could he have been talking about Iran with nuclear weapons?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
"But the actual enrichment would take place in Russia"

This line caught my attention, I would'nt trust Russia as far as I can throw them. At the same time their fighting radical Islam in and on their borders, they help Iran build nuclear power plants and develop long range missiles....its like one hand does not know or care what the other hand is doing.

Im sure Iran will reject it and they can kiss their nuclear program goodbye.....because it will be a pile of glowing rubble by the time America gets thru with it.

Maximu§



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
First and foremost I am an American. With that being said.. what is it ANY of our business what Iran does? Why do we have to police the whole damn globe and yet we can't even deal with problems within our own country????

Look at it from a logical standpoint. Lets say Iran does develop nuclear weapons. First it would take somewheres around 10 years for them to even develop the bomb (i read that somewhere else on here). Do they have the balistic capabilities to actually deliver a payload?

Secondly, as another poster has stated.. I don't think Iran is that stupid to just up and decide to nuke Israel. They would most definitly face the wrath of MANY nations (not just the US). It would also not benefit them at all. And the man who was spewing the stuff about destroying Israel (the president) is not the same as the president of say the US. He's more of a showpeice nowdays.

My basic point is to give me one good sound reason why the US has to have their thumbs up the ass of the entire mideast? (besides oil). We invaded a soverign nation who never attacked us after "wmd" which we never found. Now over 2000+ US soldiers are dead. For what? And now were gonna sound the trumpets and say we're gonna go kick Iran's ass??? There is so much more "GOOD" we as the US could be doing in this world. I guess that won't happen for what... at least 3 more years.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I just love the way that, no matter how this goes, it is never going to be good enough.

No matter what the contradiction either.

For some reason some in the US are determined that Russia (despite horrendous problems with fundamentalist terrorists herself - predating any US problems by many years) is just going to help those nutty Iranian crazies get nuclear weapons to be going nuts with.

That just makes no sense at all.

.......and if we in Europe are meant to soil ourselves in fear when shown these scary long range Iranian missiles (which are capable of carrying these imaginary nuclear warheads - or even the actual chamical or biological ones) how come Russia (also supposedly within range) is not in the least bit bothered either, hmmm?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
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.


Shell games. Open access here, close it there. It was just last month that Iran said it may stop IAEA inspections all together....
www.chinadaily.com.cn...

But what you're saying is, all countries should be able to enrich uranium, and as long as it's done in a military complex, they should be able to deny inspectons and make nuclear weapons? The earth will be a much nicer place to live I'm sure. It's ironic to see the "anti-war" crowd so bent on nuclear weapons for all, in the name of fairness, of course. I'm not trying to be a hypocrite, I want to see all nuclear weapons done away with, which was the goal for a short while there, it was nice while it lasted I guess. But your crystal balls tell you that nobody would actually use their nuclear weapons, I guess that's good enough for me. Nuclear weapons for EVERYBODY! YAY! Good times are on the horizon.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
It would be nice to see some proof that they are not following it.


I don't know what you would consider "proof" and I'm obviously in no position to provide you with any, however here is an article from after the Parchin inspection....



7 November 2005 -- The director of the UN's nuclear watchdog agency has urged Iran to cooperate more swiftly with monitors to answer outstanding questions regarding its nuclear program.


Muhammad el-Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told a conference on nonproliferation in Washington today that his agency still has some key unanswered questions about the extent of Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

El-Baradei said he hoped Iran would allow his inspectors to visit the nuclear site at Lavizan, near Tehran. Lavizan is the only declared nuclear site that the IAEA has not inspected in Iran.

He also said there are signs of progress with Iran, including the recent visit of IAEA inspectors to the nuclear site at Parchin.

El-Baradei added that IAEA is getting access to sites that are beyond Iran's treaty obligations, and he added the more transparency that Iran can show, the better.

www.rferl.org...


Again, it looks like shell games to me. The inspectors are not allowed full access to all sites at all times, and it's not the U.S. that is leading this, it's the EU-3 for those who keep parroting the "U.S. should stay out of other people's business" line. We ALL live here on earth, it's ALL of our business to ensure that everybody and their mother doesn't have the ability to wipe us all out if they get the whim.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   


it's not the U.S. that is leading this, it's the EU-3 for those who keep parroting the "U.S. should stay out of other people's business" line.


In my post I was simply saying it always "seems" to be OUR business to take control of the situation. If it is the EU-3 then fine... great... I was simply responding to the "we'll kick the crap out of Iran" statements. It should not be "our" job to "kick the crap out of them".... your right.. if their intentions are to create nuclear weapons then it should be the worlds job.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
How is -


getting access to sites that are beyond Iran's treaty obligations.

www.rferl.org...


"shell games"?



The inspectors are not allowed full access to all sites at all times


- But the IAEA is getting access to "all sites in accordance with Iran's obligations" and there is also monitoring equipment in there 24/7.

I think there is also a handy confusing of the events in Iran and Iraq.
That is the shell game going on, IMO.

IIRC (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) Iran has never thrown out the inspectors, nor harrassed them nor refused them entry to the country.

Iran has complained about her sovereignty (as any country would) and raised questions when it comes to expecting to inspect a miliary base (particularly given the tensions some have created lately) but Iran is not Iraq and is nevertheless acting in "accordance with her obligations".


and it's not the U.S. that is leading this, it's the EU-3 for those who keep parroting the "U.S. should stay out of other people's business" line.


- Yeah but the US just can't help chucking it's (often unhelpful) 2 pennies in every now and again to keep up the pressure and do a little back-seat driving, hmmm?


We ALL live here on earth, it's ALL of our business to ensure that everybody and their mother doesn't have the ability to wipe us all out if they get the whim.


- It's unfortunate those attitudes aren't reflected a little better elsewhere then isn''t it?
So, pressing for sweeping US nuclear disarmament now are we.....or is it always just 'the others' that can't be trusted?
Uh huh.


[edit on 11-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
You cant protect your self from all chemical weapons


Maybe not, but that kind of weapon is much less predictable than a nuclear weapon. It may work well, and it may not.



If Iran did aquire nukes and decide to nuke they would face being nuked back
So Its VERY unlikey they would use them


Right, it probably is unlikely they would use them, but what about other more unstable and cruel regimes? If we're gonna allow further spread of nuclear weapons across the globe, it is VERY likely somebody will use them. Why is it so important that we increase the odds of nuclear war?



Bush threatening to launch attacks and attack other countries is completely different
And he seems to be all mouth and action.


But if he wanted to "wipe a country off the map", he could. And besides, I have the feeling that the Dems may gain control of the House and Senate next year, and hopefully they will impeach him, I'm hoping he doesn't finish his term. My fingers are crossed.




also you have to remember that the iranian president doesnt hold the same power as the president of the US and so on


I'm aware of that, and it's a bit more concerning to me. Religious leaders hold most of the power, Imagine Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Scary thought, isn't it?




They are allowing access to all sites read the news


No, they're not, read the news.




Plz don’t compare me to your dumb president


I didn't compare you to him, I just said you had something in common. If you believe he wants to attack Iran, than wouldn't you say he is hoping they reject this compromise? And didn't you say you hoped they reject this compromise? Something in common, just different motivations.



Ok
This also goes towards your assumptions against them
Since you stated them thinking allah will protect them if they attack

And I didn’t say I know what all other muslims think or believe as you say I pointed out that no muslim would do such an act as it says in the quran


But you also pointed out that those who may not be true muslims act against what the quran says, how do you know all the Mullahs are true muslims?



Then you should watch the Iranian’s they might surprise you


I have nothing against the Iranians at all, I just don't think the world needs anymore nuclear rivalries. It should be a simple thing to understand really. I was quite nervous when India and Pakistan nearly nuked each other before any conventional exchanges, and they're the new kids on the nuclear block, how many more powder kegs do you want on earth?




Then why bring religion into this?


Because religion, of any kind, can lead to irrational behavior based on faith and afterlife, not consequences here on earth.




By killing people in cold blood they have proven not to be muslims


I agree with you. But they thought they were carrying out the will of god, just like abortion clinic bombers here, etc.




use to the


Whatever.




Ignorance is a very power tool indeed


If you look into the suicide bombers in Israel(use that as a example)
You will see most are below poverty and have a hard time supporting their familys since getting a job is so hard.


Right, but it's even harder to support you family when you're blown to pieces. They don't get paid enough to support them for life, and a child is without his/her daddy because he was used as a tool.



Also as I stated most do it in revenge because they have nothing to lose
And it’s the only way they can fight back since they don’t have other means of doing so.


Yeah there is, perhaps learn to detonate bombs after you get away from them, or learn to snipe. It's not necessary to blow yourself up.



The belief of a reward is just bull**ing so its not Plain and simple as you say


It has to be, if you knew 100% there was no afterlife, how much money would it take for you to strap a bomb to yourself?



So in the end its about Power and money
And I am not going to explain that again


You don't have to, just answer my question above.

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



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
First and foremost I am an American. With that being said.. what is it ANY of our business what Iran does? Why do we have to police the whole damn globe and yet we can't even deal with problems within our own country????


True. Let's deal with our problems first. However, by the same token, I have no interest in helping Iran solve their energy demand issues. And even if the Iranian President's thing about "wiping out" country XYZ is a figure of speech, that's a real bad figure of speech. Is the blatant anti-US propaganda on the Iranian TV a figure of speech as well? I doubt it.

I just have a hunch that the US is way better off with no nukes in Iran. The ways it needs to be achieved are up to those in charge, I regretfully doubt the talent of the current team.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
How is -


getting access to sites that are beyond Iran's treaty obligations.

www.rferl.org...


"shell games"?


Sure, there is progress, but it's funny how you cut only that part to support your argument, I quoted the whole thing, including the IAEA's calling for more ccoperation, access to Lavizan, and to assist in clearing up unanswered questions about their nuclear program. It's shell games and as soon as they develop some nukes, they will extend the middle finger just like NK.




- But the IAEA is getting access to "all sites in accordance with Iran's obligations" and there is also monitoring equipment in there 24/7.

I think there is also a handy confusing of the events in Iran and Iraq.
That is the shell game going on, IMO.

IIRC (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) Iran has never thrown out the inspectors, nor harrassed them nor refused them entry to the country.

Iran has complained about her sovereignty (as any country would) and raised questions when it comes to expecting to inspect a miliary base (particularly given the tensions some have created lately) but Iran is not Iraq and is nevertheless acting in "accordance with her obligations".


Then why would the IAEA have made these statements?



The director of the UN's nuclear watchdog agency has urged Iran to cooperate more swiftly with monitors to answer outstanding questions regarding its nuclear program.


Muhammad el-Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told a conference on nonproliferation in Washington today that his agency still has some key unanswered questions about the extent of Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

El-Baradei said he hoped Iran would allow his inspectors to visit the nuclear site at Lavizan, near Tehran. Lavizan is the only declared nuclear site that the IAEA has not inspected in Iran.


"Sure, you can visit Lavizan, after we move some things. We'll let you know when you can inspect that site. Don't call us, we'll call you."



- Yeah but the US just can't help chucking it's (often unhelpful) 2 pennies in every now and again to keep up the pressure and do a little back-seat driving, hmmm?


Yeah, you're probably right, but France, who doesn't like to let the U.S. drive from the back seat, seems more concerned about this than the U.S., why is that, hmmm?




- It's unfortunate those attitudes aren't reflected a little better elsewhere then isn''t it?
So, pressing for sweeping US nuclear disarmament now are we.....or is it always just 'the others' that can't be trusted?
Uh huh.


Nope. If you read up a few posts, you'll see I stated I wanted to see all nuclear weapons disarmed. So, we are pressing for sweeping world nuclear disarmament. I know it's just a pipe dream, but it was a goal at one time. But not anymore, now everybody wants to see nuclear weapons for every nation that wants to excercise it's "right" to have them.




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



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
it's funny how you cut only that part to support your argument


- I thought the pertinent point was the bit where the IAEA said all of Iran's obligations were being met in full.


I quoted the whole thing, including the IAEA's calling for more ccoperation, access to Lavizan, and to assist in clearing up unanswered questions about their nuclear program.


- Yeah well considering the way in which some (you know who and their regional proxy) are intent on using the issue to stir the pot (and making it clear they will probably just attack anyway) where's the surprise the guy is worried and asking them (the Iranians) to go further for peace?


It's shell games and as soon as they develop some nukes, they will extend the middle finger just like NK.


- What "shell games"?
You have zero evidence for saying this and the rest is just to guess the worst.

In fact since this started they have been negotiating with Europe and Russia seriously about the matters, I see no "shell games".

I do see a country with the same kind of national pride in their secrets and 'sovereignty' that you would probably not be pleased to see ignored were it your own country.


Then why would the IAEA have made these statements?


- Because of the international backdrop and threats?
Because the IAEA feel moved to go to the nth degree thanks to pressure from 'you know who and who'?

Not one of those statements says Iran is acting in bad faith nor that they have ejected, stopped or obstructed the inspectors.


"Sure, you can visit Lavizan, after we move some things. We'll let you know when you can inspect that site.


- You can put your spin on this as much as you like but the IAEA did not ask to inspect lavizan until very recently (that ought to indicate something) but what are you going to say when the inspection finally happens there and nothing is found?
4 major sites and yet everything is supposed to be hidden in the last place to look?

No doubt the same old nonsense from Iraq will surface again. oh look everybody they hid everything?
As if.


Yeah, you're probably right, but France, who doesn't like to let the U.S. drive from the back seat, seems more concerned about this than the U.S., why is that, hmmm?


- Says who?
Cos I can assure you that as a British European our news is full of how our people are negotiating but all the pressure to up the ante on this is coming from the USA and Israel, not France not Germany and not the UK.


Nope. If you read up a few posts, you'll see I stated I wanted to see all nuclear weapons disarmed. So, we are pressing for sweeping world nuclear disarmament.


- Then surely the best places to begin would be with those with the most massive arsenals and 'overkill' capacity, no?


I know it's just a pipe dream, but it was a goal at one time. But not anymore, now everybody wants to see nuclear weapons for every nation that wants to excercise it's "right" to have them.


- I don't see that as the point at all.

I see a perfectly foreseeable consequence of all the threats and intimidation is that more and more countries will want nuclear weapons.

Which IMO is actually the point.

It creates huge unease, inflates tensions across the globe, shakes things up and stirs conflict in a world that was looking far too settled........ and there is no (big) money in that, is there?


[edit on 11-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
First and foremost I am an American. With that being said.. what is it ANY of our business what Iran does? Why do we have to police the whole damn globe and yet we can't even deal with problems within our own country????

Look at it from a logical standpoint. Lets say Iran does develop nuclear weapons. First it would take somewheres around 10 years for them to even develop the bomb (i read that somewhere else on here). Do they have the balistic capabilities to actually deliver a payload?

Secondly, as another poster has stated.. I don't think Iran is that stupid to just up and decide to nuke Israel. They would most definitly face the wrath of MANY nations (not just the US). It would also not benefit them at all. And the man who was spewing the stuff about destroying Israel (the president) is not the same as the president of say the US. He's more of a showpeice nowdays.

My basic point is to give me one good sound reason why the US has to have their thumbs up the ass of the entire mideast? (besides oil). We invaded a soverign nation who never attacked us after "wmd" which we never found. Now over 2000+ US soldiers are dead. For what? And now were gonna sound the trumpets and say we're gonna go kick Iran's ass??? There is so much more "GOOD" we as the US could be doing in this world. I guess that won't happen for what... at least 3 more years.



Unfortunately Iran doesn’t live in a bubble that is separate from the rest of the world. It's easy to discount that kind of responsibility when you have no vested interest in it, but when you are the leader of the most powerful country in the world you have certain obligations. Most important, to protect the said population. With Iran coming out and saying "Death to Israel and America!” what would you expect the world to do?

Bolded because you keep trying to mislead people. It is in fact the greater majority of the world who does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.



oh look everybody they hid everything?
As if.

Because coming to that conclusion is insane after a decades worth of shooting at inspectors and ignoring resolutions.

The revisionists are in full form these days.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by Dronetek]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I thought the pertinent point was the bit where the IAEA said all of Iran's obligations were being met in full.


Then what grounds do the EU-3 and the U.S. even have to raise the issues they have? Why doesn't the IAEA just come out and say Iran has met it's obligations, end of story? Is it maybe because the obligations set by the IAEA are not sufficient to ensure nuclear weapons are not being created? I'm not sure personally, but if it were as cut and dry as you say, how is this an issue at all? It's not just the U.S. and Israel that are concerned. What good is being a signatory of the IAEA if the IAEA requirements are not able to deter the production of nuclear weapons, like they are meant to?



- Yeah well considering the way in which some (you know who and their regional proxy) are intent on using the issue to stir the pot (and making it clear the ywill probably just attack anyway) where's the surprise the guy is worried and asking them to go further for peace?


Well if they're not hiding anything, why not go as far as needed for peace? Whatever Bush and Sharon claim, Iran should make it completely clear how wrong they are by allowing immediate access, discrediting the U.S. and Israel.




- What "shell games"?
You have zero evidence fot saying this and the rest is just to guess the worst.


Why did they originally only allow inspectors in to 1 of 4 sites? If police come to search your home, you can't tell them they can search the living room, but not the kitchen or the bedrooms. It's the same type of thing Saddam did, just maybe not as blatant.



In fact since this started they have been negotiating with Europe and Russia seriosuly about the matters, I see no "shell games".


They have since ended those negotiations, it seems, IMO, they are just stalling as long as they can.



I do see a country with the same kind of national pride in their secrets and 'sovereignty' that you would probably not be pleased to see ignored were it your own country.


I guess it depends, if the ultimate goal were to do away with nuclear weapons, I would not have a problem with it.



- Because of the international backdrop and threats?
Because the IAEA feel moved to go to the nth degree thanks to pressure from 'you know who and who'?


When has the IAEA been threatened? Why would the IAEA bow to pressure from the U.S. and Israel when there are other nations in the U.N. that can counter that pressure?



Not one of those statements says Iran is acting in bad faith nor that they have ejected, stopped or obstructed the inspectors.


But they certainly directly suggest the IAEA has unanswered questions regarding Iran's nuclear program.



- You can put your spin on this as much as you like but the IAEA did not ask to insect lavizan until very recently (that ought to indicate something) but what are you going to say when the inspection finally happens there and nothing is found?


How do you know when they asked? And I'm not trying to spin anything, I have no agenda. I don't want to see any more wars, I think I made that clear from the start.



4 major sites and yet everything is supposed to be hidden in the last place to look?


I'm sure there are no surprise inspections, if everything is scheduled it makes it easy to move things around.



No doubt the same old nonsense from Iraq will surface again. oh look everybody they hid everything?
As if.


I hope not, that's why I hope this compromise works, and the same nonsense has no way to surface.



- Says who?
Cos I can assure you that as a British European our news is full of how our people are negotiating but all the pressure to up the ante on this is coming from the USA and Israel, not France not Germany and not the UK.




France on Wednesday, speaking in the name of Europe but also Britain and Germany, told the Islamic Republic to cooperate "fully" with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and present a "crystal clear" report on its controversial atomic activities to the next meeting of the Agency's Board of Director, scheduled for mi-June, or "face loosing international confidence and possible consequences".
www.iran-press-service.com...



French President Chirac warned Iran

He looks pretty pissed, doesn't he?








- Then surely the best places to begin would be with those with the most massive arsenals and 'overkill' capacity, no?


IMO the best place to begin would be to stop the spread of the cancer first, then focus on massive arsenals.





I know it's just a pipe dream, but it was a goal at one time. But not anymore, now everybody wants to see nuclear weapons for every nation that wants to excercise it's "right" to have them.


- I don't see that as the point at all.


Whether you see it as the point or not, it's true.



I see a perfectly foreseeable consequence of all the threats and intimidation is that more and more countries will want nuclear weapons.

Which IMO is actually the point.


Bush is temporary, after he's gone, all those countries will still have nuclear weapons, do you think they will just give them up after the threats and intimidations subside? Are you willing for your children to live under a greater and constant threat of nuclear war because of Bush? That's the point.



It creates huge unease, inflates tensions across the globe, shakes things up and stirs conflict in a world that was looking far too settled........ and there is no (big) money in that, is there?


No big money in nuclear wasteland either, is there?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Hey now US and Russia are are optimistic about the whole thing


MOSCOW (AP)- Top diplomats from Russia and the United States expressed hope Friday that a deal could be reached with Iran over its nuclear program, which the West fears aims to develop atomic weapons, but the status of a reported possible compromise remained unclear...


source



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Then what grounds do the EU-3 and the U.S. even have to raise the issues they have?


- As best as I can make out the issues are raised on the grounds that some see Iran with a nuclear weapon as very scary.
There was a small amount of enriched uranium contamination found during one visit.

That was the basis for all of this as far as I can tell (and all now discredited as a serious worry too).


Why doesn't the IAEA just come out and say Iran has met it's obligations, end of story?


- Because it is an on-going issue.

Iran has yet to enrich uranium.
But they have said they want to so as not to be beholden to other countries in their domestic needs.

Others claim then this indicates a clear desire of theirs to make nuclear weapons.


Is it maybe because the obligations set by the IAEA are not sufficient to ensure nuclear weapons are not being created?


- No, I don't think so.

Especially as the current informed US estimates are that Iran is at least 10yrs off of a bomb (if they were trying for one).

There is absolutely no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapon.

In fact sometimes you get a little closer to the truth when people here talk about 'better safe than sorry'.

There is nothing in reality for anyone to fear right now but the mere thought of what some imagine might happen is, for some, sufficient grounds to attack Iran (and frankly they couldn't care less if those unprovoked attacks on nuclear facilities result in poisoning (ie murdering) Iranian people or polluting their territory).


I'm not sure personally, but if it were as cut and dry as you say, how is this an issue at all?


- Because some people are determined to make and keep this as an issue.


It's not just the U.S. and Israel that are concerned.


- I think it mostly is; they are certainly the only place where the threats (implied or outright) are coming from.


What good is being a signatory of the IAEA if the IAEA requirements are not able to deter the production of nuclear weapons, like they are meant to?


- Well if they actually had a bomb you might have a point but seeing as they are at least 10yrs off of one (and that is only if they are actually trying for one at the moment).........?


Well if they're not hiding anything, why not go as far as needed for peace?


- They are doing the same as anyone else would do.

They are trying to find a way to keep as much of their security intact as possible whilst saving as much face as possible whilst answering the concerns.
(cos it isn't like they don't feel under sustained threat or anything, right?)

They are not, however, just going to roll over and do anything the USA says because the US says so (I take it Iranian/US history isn't unknown to you?).


Whatever Bush and Sharon claim, Iran should make it completely clear how wrong they are by allowing immediate access, discrediting the U.S. and Israel.


- ......and can you think of a single time when any other nation has just dropped the security surrounding itself to expose every 'facility' to demontrate they do not have 'xyz'?

The whole thing about this is you cannot 'prove' a negative; all that will happen is (after every known facility is revealed and found empty) there will be claims regarding 'secret sites'.
Just like before.
Just like now.

Why would anyone want to engage in that game?


Why did they originally only allow inspectors in to 1 of 4 sites?


- Because they obviously saw this as another put up job by the US and Israel (having just witnessed the similar farce in Iraq).

They insisted the IAEA follow their normal proceedures, which the IAEA subsequently did - to the point where the IAEA now publicly say Iran is completely fulfilling her requirements and obligations.


If police come to search your home, you can't tell them they can search the living room, but not the kitchen or the bedrooms. It's the same type of thing Saddam did, just maybe not as blatant.


- But Iran is not the subject of a 'police raid' no matter how much the US likes to imagine all the UN bodies simply are there to act on her behalf.

You cannot just barge in when and where you like.
You follow the usual proceedures (unless you have some spectacularly good reasons for behaving otherwise....and in this case no one has).

Jayzuss wept, there is a large movement in the US against the whole idea of the world police and having you national sovereignty trashed......do you think Iranians (with all that has passed between them) look kindly on the USA thinking she can barge in or just get others to barge in (and do the USA's work for them) and tell them what to do anytime they feel like it?


They have since ended those negotiations, it seems, IMO, they are just stalling as long as they can.


- Again despite all the evidence to the contrary it appears you prefer to simply 'believe' the opposite to current events.
The Russians seem to be making good progress, no?

But whether the negotiations are successful or not, right now, Iran still has not made nuclear weapons nor will she have.


I guess it depends, if the ultimate goal were to do away with nuclear weapons, I would not have a problem with it.


- No one is talking 'Iranian nuclear weapons' but the USA and Israel.


When has the IAEA been threatened?


- I said pressured not threatened. A find distinction ok but one that is there nevertheless.


Why would the IAEA bow to pressure from the U.S. and Israel when there are other nations in the U.N. that can counter that pressure?


- I think Iraq proved the fallacy of that idea.

However the farce that was Iraq has led to the USA trying to be seen to let Europe attempt to work wonders.
Blame avoidance and all that, you know?


But they certainly directly suggest the IAEA has unanswered questions regarding Iran's nuclear program.


- .....and?
OK, so there may be some questions (to cover the absolute nth degree).

That is a million miles away from the IAEA accusing Iran of making nuclear weapons or Iran having an actual nuclear weapon.


How do you know when they asked?


- If you look you will find several news articles which mention that this site was never subject to an inspection request originally.


I'm sure there are no surprise inspections, if everything is scheduled it makes it easy to move things around.


- That's just the same mentality as used in Iraq.

No matter that they find nothing it's always just them being too crafty by half and hiding everything.
Sorry, I just don't think it credible (and I think you'll find those sentiments all across the majority in Europe).

Frankly I think the Iraqi program that was revealed post gulf war mk1 showed just how unlikely this is (and they now have experience of going after hidden programs).
I do not think it is possible to move stuff around and leave no trace; a secret facility maybe (but they never stay secret for long) but not a "shell game", no.


France on Wednesday, speaking in the name of Europe but also Britain and Germany, told the Islamic Republic to cooperate "fully" with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and present a "crystal clear" report on its controversial atomic activities to the next meeting of the Agency's Board of Director, scheduled for mi-June, or "face loosing international confidence and possible consequences".
www.iran-press-service.com...


- Not exactly the strongest diplomatic language anyone ever heard, hmmm?

It's negotiation, and Iranians/Persians have been known for centuries as canny negotiators.
We push they give a little but not everything and not for nothing.


French President Chirac warned Iran

He looks pretty pissed, doesn't he?


- Yet despite drawing those kind of conclusions from a mere picture you cannot say that he is saying much to indicate that, hmmm?


IMO the best place to begin would be to stop the spread of the cancer first, then focus on massive arsenals.


- I have no desire to see nuclear weapons spread myself.

I do think that this is being handled in a manner that probably ensures they will be, if not with Iran then someone else.

But I do think that for a nuclear free world we have to look to who has the most and do something about those vast stockpiles.

The possibility that Iran might at some point down the line get a pifflingly small nuclear capacity compared to the USA's or Russia's or Frances or China's or the UK's hardly seems to be focusing in on where the main problem lies.


Whether you see it as the point or not, it's true.


- I disagree, the point is not that others feel they have a right to produce nuclear weapons (Iran has made no such claims herself) and will try to get them.

IMO the true point is that when faced with what they see as threats and intimidation by countries already in possession of nuclear weapons those without may well try to move to get them so as to deter attack (whether nuclear or not).


Bush is temporary, after he's gone, all those countries will still have nuclear weapons, do you think they will just give them up after the threats and intimidations subside?


- Why not?
That is exactly what happened between the so-called superpowers.

Once they realised the vast destructive power of what they had, got out of the habit of continuing to make or imply insane threats and decided to begin to try and trust each other they were able to make serious strides in giving up large parts of their nuclear weaponry.

It may be that this ends up being a necessary step if it comes to it.
Maybe, as India and Pakistan are now finding, they are better off knowing that whatever small spats they have neither are really going to attempt to try and kill the other so horribly because each would lose.

Maybe that is the point at which things move on a sensible and realistic footing.

It isn't unknown, once each side realise that neither can win a victory of any real meaning over the other the sane talk may well start.


Are you willing for your children to live under a greater and constant threat of nuclear war because of Bush? That's the point.


- I think you are mistaken.

I think our track record on conflict resolution between the nations is getting better.


No big money in nuclear wasteland either, is there?


- No arguement here about that one.



[edit on 11-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I would like to think that they just wont to have a big stick to be like the other big boys.
I do not think that they would use nukes on others do to the Very good part that We (U.S. Of A.) or some other world power would light them up.
It would be nice if we all could just get passed our crap and live what time we have in peace!
People still have not learned a damn thing from the past.


NR

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Sminkey thanks for your posts i enjoy reading them and when i get the chance to vote your on my list. As for others when you guys say we havent gaved any full access to IAEA than your wrong because they did our nuclear facilities. All of our documents related to our nuclear projects and military bases, god what heck do you guys want? whats next searching down our pants for possible nukes?. As for Ahmedinijad he is not liked in Iran anymore because we have banned the threats towards Israel 10 years ago and none of our government or other type of leaders even knew about it. I'll give you all a hint* this picture was taken a week after our president remarks towards Israel and everybody was invited from nuclear negotiators to top offcial governers/former presidents etc.... but he was not accpeted and got kicked.....






new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join