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.

 

UN Council powers said close to deal on Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
hopefully this time it will be even better or atleast let us do small scale uranium.



UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The five U.N. Security Council powers are close to a deal on Iran's suspect nuclear program and hope for approval of a new draft statement when the full council meets on Wednesday, diplomats said.

Britain and France, backed by the United States, distributed a revised text late on Tuesday to all 15 Security Council members that makes concessions to Russia and China. But it still calls on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment efforts, which the West believes are a cover for bomb making.

"We have reached agreement on the bulk of the text, so there was movement on all sides. And now we need to see whether we can cross this last bridge, but we're very close," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters on Tuesday.

"We have been incredibly flexible. Incredibly flexible. I probably have never been more flexible," Bolton said of the compromises.

abcnews.go.com...


[edit on 29-3-2006 by Mehran]




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Well merhan I hope it's a power plant.
But iran must become very transparent in it's actions, in all it does in this matter.
I'm not saying it's a bomb but you never know, so that's why it must be transparent if your nation is going to profit from nuclear energy (the right of every nation)it must wellcome un inspectors and not keep things under cover.
Personaly I dont know what it is, I go with 70% power plant and 30% a bomb, you dont know what your president is thinking, he may be telling the truth or maybe he isnt, so i think it's in your best intrest and in the best intrest of all your fellow iranians that it's a power plant.
So you got to be sure it's a power plant, so the population should push there for transparency.
No body wants war, war serves no one, mistakes can hapen on bolth sides, like diplomatic mistakes where something not understood can lead to unwanted outcomes.
So you and other iranians should push for a transparent project, so you can get your power plant, hope it's a power plant and NOT something else.
I trully do.


[edit on 29-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Iran doesn't need a security council resolution to do any of this stuff, they just need a thumbs up from the IAEA, as per the NPT terms that Iran agreed to.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Iran doesn't need a security council resolution to do any of this stuff, they just need a thumbs up from the IAEA, as per the NPT terms that Iran agreed to.


Which they happened to ignore for 18 years until they were caught with a hidden nuclear program.

Th big question is:

Can Iran be trusted?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I'll trust an Iranian citizen, but I don't trust any Iranian leader or Revolutionary Guard member.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The big question is:
Can Iran be trusted?

"trust, but verify". Indeed, even if we don't trust them, if the international community can keep tabs on their programme, then it doesn't matter what the iranians want to do, because it will all be laid out.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

Iran doesn't need a security council resolution to do any of this stuff, they just need a thumbs up from the IAEA, as per the NPT terms that Iran agreed to.


Which they happened to ignore for 18 years until they were caught with a hidden nuclear program.

Th big question is:

Can Iran be trusted?



All the countrys did the same.
I dont think we need to focus on what was, the focus must be pointed to the present.
Alot of power plants were constructed with out aproval of the united nations, the balcans is 1 of those places.

I dont contradict you, it may very well be a bomb but it may be very well a power plant, so I think the best way to resolve this is to start diplomatic talks, and for the project that their doing to become transparent, that means access to all the facilities.
It's not only up to Iran to do those things, the west has also a big responsability.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I heard the UN "deal" for Iran was to give them all the plutonium they want, already enriched too!

Of course, it would be on the tip of some well placed ICBM's traveling at a couple thousand miles per hour...



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Look's like the Mullahs in Iran have to suspend all enrichment activities. Sorry Mehran looks like your SOL, No enrichment for you, not even on a small scale.




UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a statement Wednesday demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.

The statement, which is not legally binding, will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium, a process that can lead to a nuclear weapon.

The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations between the five veto-wielding members of the 15-nation council, which has the power to impose sanctions. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.

/o8esa - Yahoo Artical



www.iranfocus.com... - Cause I know you love Iran Focus


[edit on 29-3-2006 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by digitalassassin]

[edit on 29-3-2006 by digitalassassin]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I hope these talks go well.Im sure all governments have the will power to sort this situation out in a peaceful manner.

So far theres no ground proof of a weapon programme underway.The Iranian government has even offered U.N watchdogs on their nuclear programme and this is a good oppirtunity to prove theres no such programme

Im not saying that Iran has no weapons of mass distruction at all,that would be impossible,nobody knows.But as far as I could see it,the west,in particular the Bush administration is jumping to toomuch conclusions a the moment.The Iranian government has offered to allow UN watchdogs in,I say,let that happen.

The last thing we need here is another Iraq.The middle east is at a very vulnerable point.The last thing this reigon needs is more confrontation.To go into another war purely over speculation is just out of the question.

The consequences of this ending up like Iraq are just un imaginable.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Notice a couple key mentions here:


Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
Five U.N. Members Agree on Iran Statement

The first and most relevant mention at this time, which incidentally, indicates the relative weakness and impotent nature of the UN--the neutral inability to 'enforce':
"...which is not legally binding..."

The second most relevant mention, which gives very possible indication of future ineffective 'action':
..."as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes..."




Bear in mind that Iran has consistently stated that anything that would prevent them from having control of the full nuclear program would be and has been unacceptable.

As such, it (Iran) has also often insinuated that anything done to physically hinder their (Iran's) nuclear program, including sanctions, would be construed (interpreted) as an act of war.

Also consider that Iran has stated openly and mockingly on how they duped the UN and EU and were able to continue and complete phases of their nuclear programs while under the guise of cooperation and 'agreement' talks.

Having said that, both the UN and the EU, having wasted nearly two years in talks and offerings with Iran over their nuclear program, seeing no other choice but to let Iran have its way, after being punted by Iran on numerous occasions after those 'buying-time-talks', has recently stated that a military option(s) was out of the question, period.

By the time that the UN gets finished implementing their ineffective incremental approach, Iran will have built a small number of nuclear weapons.

So, in short, the ineffective UN, in resolving this issue, is going to be about as effective as.....a lone mosquito on an elephant's arse?

Btw, someone might want to send a lil' note to Russia and China and let them know that besides Israel and aspects of Europe, that their own lovely countries will be within range of those Iranian soon-to-be nuclear-tipped Shahib missiles....sometime in the very near future.


As Riddick said in "The Chronicles of Riddick", I'll just stay content for now... in the 'back of the bus.'






seekerof

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
double post. Sorry.
*shrugs*


[edit on 29-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
triple post, sorryx2.
*shrugs*



[edit on 29-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Notice a couple key mentions here:
The first and most relevant mention at this time, which incidentally, indicates the relative weakness and impotent nature of the UN--the neutral inability to 'enforce':
"...which is not legally binding..."


Now if only we could get rid of the garbage bin that is the UN and just go back to what there was before even the League of Nations. If you don't like something, get an army together and bomb the heck out of it....

Okay, on second thought...don't we do that already?

I mean hasn't the UN degenerated into the League of Nations all over again, except that this time the US is actually involved?



The second most relevant mention, which gives very possible indication of future ineffective 'action':
..."as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes..."

Bear in mind that Iran has consistently stated that anything that would prevent them from having control of the full nuclear program would be and has been unacceptable.


Like what someone else was saying, I don't mind the Iranian people from having nuclear energy capacity, what scares me is what would happen if we give the Iranian government the capacity for nuclear power, and pretty much allow them to have nuclear weapons.



As such, it (Iran) has also often insinuated that anything done to physically hinder their (Iran's) nuclear program, including sanctions, would be construed (interpreted) as an act of war.


When will people learn...if you are going to try to run a country that isn't yours, you probably either need to a) Bribe them into submission, b) get the UN to give you controll, or c) Bomb them into submission. This is pretty much how our world works in a sense anymore. Though economics has become a huge part in the way things are done


And on top of that, no one thinks that no one would get angry because soemone is trying to tell you you can't turn on the lightbulb!

If some jerk tried doing that to the US, they would be toasted in a few seconds...





Also consider that Iran has stated openly and mockingly on how they duped the UN and EU and were able to continue and complete phases of their nuclear programs while under the guise of cooperation and 'agreement' talks.

Having said that, both the UN and the EU, having wasted nearly two years in talks and offerings with Iran over their nuclear program, seeing no other choice but to let Iran have its way, after being punted by Iran on numerous occasions after those 'buying-time-talks', has recently stated that a military option(s) was out of the question, period.

By the time that the UN gets finished implementing their ineffective incremental approach, Iran will have built a small number of nuclear weapons.

So, in short, the ineffective UN, in resolving this issue, is going to be about as effective as.....a lone mosquito on an elephant's arse?



*sigh* Only gives proof to what I said before, the UN is worthless, and the EU probably won't be far behind....on a side note, did they ever ratify a constitution? Or did that fall through? If someone knows, could you please u2u me?



Btw, someone might want to send a lil' note to Russia and China and let them know that besides Israel and aspects of Europe, that their own lovely countries will be within range of those Iranian soon-to-be nuclear-tipped Shahib missiles....sometime in the very near future.



Ah....sounds like a plan to me....no, not really.

Though I remember when I first heard about N. Korea and Iran wanting Nukes, I thought to myself "Sure, why not......on the end of missles...."

But now, I say we just can't do that...the people would suffer too much from a nuclear strike, and seeing as how there are threats going every which way, I don't see how anyone could escape without a small (I use the term in a relative sense, like maybe one or two nuke detonations) hit...


Anyway, I really wish it was two days from now so I could give Seekerof a vote, cause this is a good post (to me anyway..)



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   


Bear in mind that Iran has consistently stated that anything that would prevent them from having control of the full nuclear program would be and has been unacceptable.


that is true Seekerof but from that view of point we have already mastered nuclear technology so taking that away from us is is something unacceptable.




As such, it (Iran) has also often insinuated that anything done to physically hinder their (Iran's) nuclear program, including sanctions, would be construed (interpreted) as an act of war.


not as an act of war, as the act of pulling out of NPT and no more contacts between the IAEA/U.N.




Also consider that Iran has stated openly and mockingly on how they duped the UN and EU and were able to continue and complete phases of their nuclear programs while under the guise of cooperation and 'agreement' talks.

Having said that, both the UN and the EU, having wasted nearly two years in talks and offerings with Iran over their nuclear program, seeing no other choice but to let Iran have its way, after being punted by Iran on numerous occasions after those 'buying-time-talks', has recently stated that a military option(s) was out of the question, period.



I guess your right, after all china and russia have rejected most offers given by the U.N. and said they want everything from their way to irans nuclear program. Not to mention Russia still has to built us 20 more nuclear reactors resulting in a 20billn dollar contract. Again, this is benefiting Iran alot and i do think were going to win this, they will let us enrich uranium and buy as much as we want but the deal will come to us not building our own indigenous nuclear reactors.




By the time that the UN gets finished implementing their ineffective incremental approach, Iran will have built a small number of nuclear weapons.

So, in short, the ineffective UN, in resolving this issue, is going to be about as effective as.....a lone mosquito on an elephant's arse?

Btw, someone might want to send a lil' note to Russia and China and let them know that besides Israel and aspects of Europe, that their own lovely countries will be within range of those Iranian soon-to-be nuclear-tipped Shahib missiles....sometime in the very near future


I hope we dont build any nuclear weapons but if we do it will gurantee our safety from an invasion. Nuclear tipped shahabs is no threat to China or Russia, not even to Israel. Whats the point of nuking a country with only a couple when the other has way more than you with a bigger coalition alliance?.



[edit on 29-3-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I just thought of something, why hasnt' a country just said "f-you, I'm out of here." to the UN?

I mean, wouldn't that pretty much solve their problems and let them do what they wanted? The other countries would still be too engrossed in their bickering to do anything really, and the country that left would have all the freedoms it wanted really...

At least I think so.

I mean, the great "forum of peace" has turned into a great "I'm right and your wrong" podium for the US. As an American, I don't like this at all.

Of course I'm also of the idea of the US "Taking it's balls and going home" so to speak. The world seems to have it out for us, so why don't we just go home within our borders, and just worry about our citizens for once, superpower status be hecked...



new topics




 
0

log in

join