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.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
What stalling game is NK playing?
WE played the stalling game with our end of the Agreed Framework.
North Korea was not "allowed" to have nukes. It agreed to a plan and still kept right on developing their nuclear ambitions while the world took them at their word. It is the fault of the world community that we did not demand more verification of North Korea's actions. That is what giving the benefit of a doubt does when a nation has nuclear weapon's ambitions.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
So, even when supposedly good-faith deals end up being a cover for secret weapons programs, and even when that is proven by the nation in question actually producing nuclear weapons, America is wrong- no matter what?
Oh look... there goes ArchAngel's credibility- everybody wave.
Nice to know where you stand though.
The requirement of a freeze on the reactors and related facilities clearly would apply also to their Uranium enrichment facilities.
As for North Korea though- the facts are in.
External Source
North Korea Nuclear/Missle Chronology
North Korea announces it will withhold from the IAEA any new nuclear information until the light-water reactors are finished and operating, a period of 10 years or more.
July 1998: The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that North Korea is refusing to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors full access to its nuclear sites.
Where do you think Iran got the gameplan on how to delay and deceive?
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Precedant has been established.
If you make a deal with America do not expect America to keep its end of the bargain.
External Source
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.
...
DICKEY: Do you have any indication that there is some other completely separate Iranian nuclear-weapons program?
ELBARADEI: No, we don´t. But I won´t exclude that possibility.
Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
So you believe Bush then? Iran is a threat?
Even when he lied about simular things before, and admittedly so?(Iraq, WMDs)
Even when top world leaders, like Russian General Leonid Ivashov, come out publically stating the war on terror is a fraud.
[edit on 24-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]
Why wouldnt they just comply and show everyone their nuclear program if it is in fact, peaceful. Doesnt make sense.
Why would they not accept Russias offer to process their nuclear fuel for them?
Originally posted by pavil
You are right AA, do not expect America to keep it's end of the bargain...... especially if you continue to develop your nuclear weapons program even while protesting that you have no nuclear weapon ambitions.
External Source
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.
...
DICKEY: Do you have any indication that there is some other completely separate Iranian nuclear-weapons program?
ELBARADEI: No, we don´t. But I won´t exclude that possibility.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
I don't see how this supports your supposition on Iran:'continue to develop your nuclear weapons program'
Quite the opposite.
There is not any indication that Iran has a seperate weapons program.
Why would any rational person use a source like this to support a false statement like that?
Its beyond me....
So the head of the IAEA can not say for sure after 3 years of investigating that Iran's nuclear plans are entirely peaceful.
Infact he can't exclude the posibility of a seperate nuclear arms program because of the continued lack of access to sites, people, documents ect the IAEA needs to make an accurate judgement.
Originally posted by ArchAngel
Everything they have is easily explainable, unless you are trying to explain to someone like you that wants war no matter the price.
news.scotsman.com...
The news came from Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who told a meeting of the 35-nation IAEA board in Vienna that the country was in possession of what appeared to be drawings of the core of an atomic warhead.
.....It (IRAN) described the discovery of the warhead documents as a "minor issue" that should not detract from the "tremendous progress achieved by joint co-operation of [the] IAEA and Iran" in clearing up questions about Tehran's nuclear programme.
Originally posted by pavil
Iran could settle this once and for all by letting the IAEA have full unfettered access to the ALL the sites, records, people invovled.
If Iran really wants to avoid a confrontation it would do just that. As of yet they have not done so. The IAEA has even reported that they still have concerns over Iran's lack of full cooperation.
If Iran's nuclear program is entirely peacful, what does it have to hide?
Iran does have a history of concealment and deception involved with it's nuclear plans. That is why the World community is concerned.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It certainly wouldn't be the first time the US manufactured a reason to go to war for other purposes, would it?
Originally posted by Boatphone
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It certainly wouldn't be the first time the US manufactured a reason to go to war for other purposes, would it?
Can you please give an example of this.
-- Boat