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.

 

NEWS: IAEA votes to report iran to security council

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
As expected the IAEA has voted to report Iran to the secuirty council meeting on March 6th. Iran has replied it will now start commercial scale enrichment of uranium. There is a concern over any rushed repsonce from the UN , as iran is teh worlds 4th largest supplier of oil and shutting of the supply would hurt the west.
 



today.reuters. com
VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog voted on Saturday to report Iran to the Security Council over suspicions it plans to build atomic weapons, and Tehran responded it would start enriching uranium fuel that can be used in bombs.

The Islamic Republic said it would immediately halt U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities and pursue full-scale enrichment. It says it wants only nuclear power, not bombs, but claims a sovereign right to make uranium fuel on its own soil.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


And so it begins - Iran will enrich as much uranium as it can in the next 30 days , whilst a contingency plan to attempt to stop them is drawn up. IMO Iran allready have a bomb - and will take this all the way if anyone tries to stop them.

The question must be , will Tel Aviv go it alone (again) or will others step up to the plate and help? The forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan have there handsful right now.

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
uk.news.yahoo.com




posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Israel won't go it alone or go at all. It will make the US look inept and would be suicidal for Israel, since Syria and Palestine would likely get involved.

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad says Mehr news is full of it:


Iran denies report of order to resume atomic work

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Saturday denied a report carried by the Mehr news agency that the president had ordered the resumption of nuclear fuel work in response to Iran's case being sent to the U.N. Security Council.


[edit on 4-2-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
And here is the next step in the overall escalation:




Iran Plans to Resume Uranium Enrichment

Iran's president Saturday ordered the resumption of uranium enrichment and an end to snap inspections of its facilities after the U.N. nuclear watchdog voted to report Tehran to the Security Council.

more...



Here we go again....



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Iran doesnt fear the Security Council because it has a strategic, in size, contribution of oil to sell. The World Oil market cannot do without Iran's supply, so punitive sanctions cannot be applied without spiking already high fuel prices.

So that leaves ostracizing Iran on an international scale. e.g. like South Africa was due to appartheid.

I dont think there is any feasible way that Iran can be stopped in its nuclear pursuits, be it peaceful or military. I dont hold onto the doomsday outlook that most attribute to Iran getting the bomb. We were told exactly the same with Kim Jong Il getting the bomb - he's a mad man hell bent on taking down the capitalist South Korea which would spark a nuclear war...still waiting for that one.

With nukes come the very real prospect of nuclear anihilation, and thats something even the most crack-potted and irrational leaders understand.

[edit on 5/2/06 by subz]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Wait a second, hasn't the IAEA claimed for months(if not years) that there is no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program? How come all of a sudden they are all for a referral to the security council? Am I the only one who has noticed this?



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Probably because Iran showed the UN they had nuclear weapon plans, thus completely ending this phase of denial or smoke screening.

UN says Iran has warhead documents

In any event, UN referral has escalated the whole situtation. If they don't already have nukes (atomic bomb procurement could to explain Ahmadinejad's recent behavoir), they wll have nukes at this rate.

Ahmadinejad orders suspension of NPT Additional Protocol
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

Whether they have made a working warhead will be dependent on showing the world a nuclear weapon test, like Pakistan and India did in 98. Rumors indicating this may be next month.



[edit on 5-2-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
You are right, there is no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. But there is also no proof that there isnt a nuclear weapons program either. This is what they justify referal to the UNSC with.

I could justify a lot of things due to a lack of contradictory evidence, problem is that no one usually believes such flimsy cases. I could say the moon just winked at me at 6:47am AEST and in the absence of any photos of the moon at this time NOT winking I can continue to assert my claim. But when you have such powerful lobbyists as the Israeli government forcing such flimsy cases through the halls of power people tend to feign a response and action results.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   


You are right, there is no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. But there is also no proof that there isnt a nuclear weapons program either.


The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence huh?

Sorry, not a one liner.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
With the NPT and the IAEA, absence of evidence is evidence. Its up to the Iranians, under the treaty obligations, to demonstrate that they don't have a weapons program.

Also, this isn't 'all of a sudden'. The IAEA has cited Iran a number of times in the past few years over this nuke concern and its now gotten to the point where they have to refer them to the Sec. Counc.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its up to the Iranians, under the treaty obligations, to demonstrate that they don't have a weapons program.

Im intrigued, how would you be able to "demonstrate" that you dont have a weapons program? Allow access to all your nuclear sites? That didnt work. Short of literally going over the whole country with a fine-toothed comb this is impossible to prove.

It's the whole Iraq WMD issue repeated. How was Saddam meant to demonstrate that he didnt have any WMDs? It's impossible to prove a negative and it's up to accusers to prove something.

When you get taken to court the prosecution has formed a case against you that you must respond to. They dont just level an accusation at you and then it becomes your responsibilty to refute it, its impossible.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
No, Subz, it is not anywhere near the same thing. It is clear and evident what Iran is doing, and in order to miss this is amazing. To mention Iraq, efter we have learned that Iraq moved its crap to Syria, is pretty much misleading. We also know that Saddam had weaons, and we know he played the shell game for many months. Let's not play games, Subz.

A nation is trying to bring about nuclear weapons; the same nation that demands the destruction of another nation. Yup. Sounds stable to me.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, Subz, it is not anywhere near the same thing. It is clear and evident what Iran is doing, and in order to miss this is amazing. To mention Iraq, efter we have learned that Iraq moved its crap to Syria, is pretty much misleading. We also know that Saddam had weaons, and we know he played the shell game for many months. Let's not play games, Subz.

A nation is trying to bring about nuclear weapons; the same nation that demands the destruction of another nation. Yup. Sounds stable to me.

If its clear and evident what Iran is doing then why the diplomatic footsie and abscence of evidence? If it was clear and evident then we wouldnt have to rely on "strong beliefs" of biased nations.

You might believe Iraq moved "its crap" to Syria but there is also no proof of that either. Not even "strong beliefs" from the White House on that one.

Again, can I ask how you go about proving a negative?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
You didn't see it, you don't remember it, but that doesn't change it.

As you know, I have to go, now.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

If its clear and evident what Iran is doing then why the diplomatic footsie and abscence of evidence? If it was clear and evident then we wouldnt have to rely on "strong beliefs" of biased nations.


Because now a days people want to be PC in everything and are allowing some things to slide believing they will find some other way to solve problems.



Originally posted by subz

You might believe Iraq moved "its crap" to Syria but there is also no proof of that either. Not even "strong beliefs" from the White House on that one.


It is more than "just believing" subz, in fact it is some people like yourself who believe the evidence gathered from Iraq is not enough to prove Saddam was working on a wmd program. I mean it seems that you believe Saddam was planning on using empty chemical warhead missiles to fill them up with candy and send a few gifts to his enemies. Who knows, maybe the tons of documents found that dealt with wmd were just a memento that Saddam wanted to keep, it doesn't matter that he was supposed to get rid of all of it right?.... Not to mention the scud missiles and other missiles his regime fired at the coalition at the beginning of the war and he was not supposed to have, among some other things.

I guess when people have it in their minds that "Saddam didn't have wmd" nomatter what the evidence shows some people will keep believing he didn't have them, and some people just want to claim that president Bush was the one that lied about all of it even if president Clinton was saying the same thing and most of the world believed Saddam had wmd before the war.

I am pretty sure you and a few others will try to proclaim as lies the latest evidence about the wmd that Saddam had, and which one of the highest military officers who was working in that program in Iraq, and who is talking about it is just another "dissident who is being paid by the U.S. to claim these things".......


Originally posted by subz

Again, can I ask how you go about proving a negative?


It is not about proving a negative, it's about what the evidence and the actions of Iran's regime are telling us.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
People please start posting links and sources to whatever you claim. If not then I will have to report you all to the UN security council for your inability to prove yourself


I agree with you subz. Too many people are just jumping the bandwagon for reasons unknown. And while the U.S. is now working on a new missle defense strategy for North Korea, they have yet to launch any kind of attack against the South or Japan.

And the whole "the crazy Islamic fundamentalists have vowed to destroy Israel" crap means nothing. People just want to pick on Islam because some aspects seem slightly assertive. Saying things is not the same as doing things.

How many times did we hear Kim or his generals talking about starting a nuclear death or "sea of fire" in reference to US hostility. Thats even taking in that North Korea has taken hostile action against Japan in the past by kidnapping Japanese citizens for use as Japanese language instructors for North Korean spies.

I do not see Iran as a threat to Middle East stability regarding its nuclear ambitions. Nuclear power means much more oil to sell. If they got a bomb then what does it matter. Pakistan is an Islamic nation with nuclear weapons and they have been engaging border battles with another friggin nuclear armed nation (India) for as long as time can tell without any kind of nuclear exchange.

Leaders are not ignorant cave-dwellers. They know the consequences of using a weapon, and they know their duty to their citizens. People rise to power to stay in power, not to destroy themselves and everything they have gained for silly religious beliefs.

We should also not discuss matters of Iran supporting certain "supposed" terrorist groups in small pockets of land when The permanent member-nations of the security council of the UN is responsible for millions of small arms to be shipped to volatile regions which have destabalized a whole continent, (Africa), as well as many parts of Asia and Latin America. We are worried about two small pieces of land when the real criminals are contributing to the deaths and suffering of millions across the globe for unimaginable profits.

Cease dwelling on the past and look forward into the future. What happened has happened and cannot be changed. It is up to us to forgive and move on.

It is time people start treating a Nuclear Iran as a non-issue IMO.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Thanks for your insight DYepes. I share your belief that people in a position of leadership didnt get there via a casual disregard for retaining influence. That being said, which World leader would throw away their power by launching a suicidal and futile nuclear attack? I'd wager that none of them, Ahmadinejad/Ali Khamenei included, would risk their holds on power with such reckless actions. Attempting to exert influence under the umbrella of infered nuclear retaliation is another matter entirely and something none of the nuclear club can dare utter condemnation for.

It helps greatly if you can observe situations such as these dispassionately. Knee-jerk reactions arise when emotionally invested people react to the actions of other emotionally invested people. Those who view Iran with overt hostility or suspicion are incapable of rationalizing any threats (perceived or otherwise) because you already have the conclusion: you would prefer a World without Iran as it exists currently, sans nuclear weapons.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   

And the whole "the crazy Islamic fundamentalists have vowed to destroy Israel" crap means nothing. People just want to pick on Islam because some aspects seem slightly assertive. Saying things is not the same as doing things.


Ohmigod, DYepes, that was hilarious! "Some aspects seem slightly assertive."

Do you mean, like torching embassies?

You are truly the master of understatement.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Youre right Jsobecky but lets look at it in context. How assertive has the West been in its dictates over the last 50 years? In particular the United States. While youre more than capable of assessing the danger of Islamic assertiveness and dictates you should also acknowledge that we are just as meddlesome, if not more so than these Islamic expansionists.

Acknowledgment of this aspect of the West is vital in understanding why these Islamic expansionists have gained a foothold. If we ignore our own nations roles in direct, and indirect, contributions to their rise in power we aint gonna fix/stop/change squat.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join