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.

 

No proof of Iranian Nuke program found

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   



Iran accuses US of "psychological war"

...............................
....................................
...............................................

ElBaradei has said he has found no proof of a weapons programme in Iran but at the same time has said he cannot give the Islamic Republic a clean bill of health.


news.yahoo.com...



there you go guys. Absolutly no proof has been found and still the british and americans are beating the war drums. And the west acts as if middle easterners are uncivillised.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
1.) He found no proof because the Iranians weren't showing him everything - they have a secret program for nuke development which they would hardly go showing to the inspectors now would they?

2.) He says himseld that he can't give them a "clean bill of health". That's because he doesn't really have a clue what they're up to, but he can't say that.

3.) Hardly anybody (Russia included...) trust Iran on this issue, hence the current crises.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
You can go over all this at Global Security and easily determine that it is in Iran's best interest to aquire nuclear weapons to prevent the threat of invasion. Iran is in non-complaince with UN mandates and there's no way the security council can determine they do not have nuclear weapons, when Iran only shows the UN the parts they want to show.


Iran & Nuclear Program
Iran - Nuclear Weapons


EU paper outlines tough action on Tehran
But the paper – a response to last month’s request from foreign ministers for a list of options concerning Tehran – is a recognition that, as the nuclear dispute continues, the EU may find it necessary to act in parallel or ahead of the UN Security Council, which has struggled to forge a consensus on the issue.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is due to visit Tehran this week in the hope of procuring more documentation on Iran’s nuclear programme, ahead of producing a report on Iran’s compliance by the end of the month for the Security Council and the IAEA board.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Iran Said to Have Nuclear Warhead Plans
The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in a report Tuesday that Iran obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. Tehran warned of an "end of diplomacy" if plans to refer it to the U.N. Security Council are carried out.

The report by the agency, ahead of a meeting of its 35-member board Thursday, also confirmed information recently provided by diplomats familiar with the Iran probe that Tehran has not started small-scale uranium enrichment since announcing it would earlier this month.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It's not for kicks and grins
Iran halted UN inspections, admitted they have procurred nuclear warhead plans and continue to pursue enriching uranium. It would be a fool's gambit to think Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons or already has nuclear weapons. Whether they are willing to use them in a pre-emptive attack is another story.

Playing dumb or being naive is not a virtue either.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
once again people here have opinions. they have suggestions but nobody has any proof. people say iran has this or that. they say its in irans best interest yet nobody has any evidence all they have is speculation and opinions.

dont you see where headed down the same path as we did with iraq.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
dont you see where headed down the same path as we did with iraq.


They won't get more proof either unless Iran wants them to and cooperates.

They have proof they are enriching uranium that isn't needed for just power generation and they have proof they that had nuclear warhead plans. The EU/ UN is acting on that proof, they just don't jump around for kicks and grins either. IMO, let Iran develop nukes and if they use them then deal with it, but that's not for me to decide.

Whether the Bush regime and PNAC's preventive pre-emptive war plans allow Iran to develop nukes is yet another story. They current administration has a pattern of pushing the agenda to get what they want and the public's opinion doesn't mean squat. Iran is a big pie and they are hungry.



"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."--Jean-Paul Sartre



[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
there you go guys. Absolutly no proof has been found and still the british and americans are beating the war drums. And the west acts as if middle easterners are uncivillised.

Oi!
Watch those blanket statments. There's us Canucks in the west too, ya know. We're not beating any wardrums. Hell, we refused to go in while you Brits acted the toady last time.

We just know we'll end up having to go in and clean up the mess left behind by irresponcible Yanks when they fail to keep their human right promises... just like every other bloody time.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
We just know we'll end up having to go in and clean up the mess left behind by irresponcible Yanks when they fail to keep their human right promises... just like every other bloody time.


Yanks can be dual nationals too, that think destruction and war is the polar opposite of creation and order. Let's hope the course of events changes soon.



One size doesn't fit all, even if some want it that way.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Yanks can be dual nationals too, that think destruction and war is the polar opposite of creation and order.

One size doesn't fit all even if you want it that way.

Agreed.
I was speaking from a national identity position.
Slighty smaller blanket.


I believe there's a distinct difference between America and Americans. One being the administration and political track record and the other being people.

I didn't choose my words very well.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   
sorry guys didnt mean to include all of you guys i know some of us still have some common sense left and arnt warmongers asking for fights. i meant the warmongers in america and britian are beating the drums who are in the government. please accept my appologies if you where offended.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I won't claim Iran doesn't have intentions to develop nuclear weapons, because I have no way of knowing, however, even if one program were to be 100% disproved, many in positions of power would still maintain their belief that they are pursuing a secret program in parallel to the public one. While that may very well be an accurate assumption, it concerns me because I have to add it to the growing list of reasons why miscalculation by Iran or one of its counterparts is developing into an ever more distinct possibility. By “miscalculation,” I’m not implying that either side has incorrectly assessed the other, but rather that assumptions may be incorrectly made without sufficient assessment in the first place, as the deep distrust on both sides makes any comprehensive assessment not entirely certain from their respective points of view.

So far the reasons on that list are:
1) Even when hearing of U.S. contingency plans which include tactical nuclear weapons, Iran dismisses this as psychological warfare. It may be - and probably is - a psych-out, but if they dismiss this, what won't they dismiss? This raises the possibility that they may not take even a genuine threat of conflict seriously enough to consider making concessions. (I’m not implying that this is the case. I simply consider it possible.)
2) The U.S. and others are convinced that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program in progress parallel to the one the IAEA has seen thus far. Based on this conviction, even a cessation or dismantling of the public nuclear program might not be enough to avoid confrontation. This also heightens the possibility of greater reluctance to make concessions in situations where perhaps it would be strategically and diplomatically advantageous to do so, such as times when Iran makes genuine concessions of their own, but the U.S. is unable to accept them or prove them because it still suspects more is going on than they’re being told. (Again, I’m not saying this has happened or will happen, but merely that it easily could.)
3) Iran may believe the U.S. and its allies have a determined plan to invade and occupy Iran, and possibly even other states in the region. This is an unlikely and probably unfounded suspicion for them to have, but that doesn't mean they don't consider it a real threat. If so, they may think they have nothing to lose, and that nuclear weapons are their best option for national survival.
4) The U.S. may likewise fail to realize Iran believes is has no alternative but to develop nuclear weapons (if it does believe that), and may instead interpret their development as a purely offensive strategy designed to dominate the region when possible. As such, the U.S. may play diplomatic hard ball and miss a chance to offer them a diplomatic path to disengagement in which both sides save face, and in which whatever fears or concerns are fueling Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons are at least minimally addressed. (Some would argue that this isn't in the U.S.'s best interest, however it is surely better than allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, or going to war with Iran, if the alternative exists.)
5) If either Iran or the U.S. believe a confrontation is inevitable and that their adversary is intent upon military confrontation in the short-to-mid-term, then actions on the part of one or the other that would normally otherwise be interpreted as routine or unthreatening, might now instead be seen as provocative or aggressive in nature.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
This was just an act. They intend on attacking wether or not the IAEA says they have them or not. Its quite obvious this decision was made way before this that they intend to invade/attack. I feel bad for our men and women over there who will get caught up in this. I also feel bad that we inevitably will be paying the price years from now if this comes to fruition. Gas will be 10 bucks a gallon and we will be working to pay bills only. Shipping, travel,transportation will be skyhigh



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Iran is in non-complaince with UN mandates and there's no way the security council can determine they do not have nuclear weapons, when Iran only shows the UN the parts they want to show.

Iran shows the UN everything they ask for. Iran is in full compliance with all UN 'Mandates'. They did withdraw from the Paris accords, but that was non-binding.

Iran halted UN inspections

This is not true. Inspectors are there right now.

admitted they have procurred nuclear warhead plans

The same plans you can find on the internet.

and continue to pursue enriching uranium.

Iran has the right to enrich Uranium for their nuclear reactors as signatories of the NPT.


They have proof they are enriching uranium that isn't needed for just power generation and they have proof they that had nuclear warhead plans.


If not enriched Uranium what do you think is used for nuclear reactor fuel?

Bubble Gum, Flubber, Corn Mufffins, Oysters on the half shell?

Of course you use enriched Uranium, and their centrifuge system is designed for just that. If they were making weapons grade material they would be working on much longer centrifuge cascades.

As it stands today they are more than a decade away from being able to make a single nuke, and thats only if the IAEA inspectors are kicked out, and they have years of time alone without someone looking over their shoulder.

You really do need to look at the UN reports, and news from sources other than American Mass Media.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Did Iran lie and hide a nuclear program for 20 years?

Yes they did.

Can they be trusted now?

No they can't.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Did Iran lie and hide a nuclear program for 20 years?

Yes they did.

Can they be trusted now?

No they can't.


iran actually never was hiding there nucluer power. iran has been seeking nucluer power for over 30 years infact united states started to build a nuke power plant in iran while the shah was in power.

united states have been providing nucluer material to iran for decades and has a history in iran supplying the puppet Shah with nucluer technology and material :
www.nti.org...



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
You are incorrect. Iran had signed the NPT. They stated they did not have an nuclear program.............20 years later is turns out they did.

They lied and disregarded the NPT.

They were deceptive then................

They can not be trusted now.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Im sure Iran was just buying nuclear weapons secrets from Pakistan's "Father of the Bomb" Dr Abdul Qadeer for purely academic purposes. He already confessesed to doing this.

link

Or the fact that they have lied to the IAEA and have not cooperated fully with them

link

The IAEA has already detected high enriched ( weapons-grade ) uranium in its environmental samples in Iran.

link

For those of you that dont know Weapons grade isnt even close to the levels of what is used in Reactors. For reactors your talking enriched to 3% to 5% 235U. Compared to weapons grade at least 93% 235U. Its like night and day with the levels.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
iran actually never was hiding there nucluer power. iran has been seeking nucluer power for over 30 years infact united states started to build a nuke power plant in iran while the shah was in power.


The IAEA publications speak for themselves additionally any violations of an enacted NNPT Safeguards Agreement by any state is a violation of the NNPT, period. Iran has been in violation.

The US has helped many friendly nations develop nuclear energy; the regime change ousting the Shah inside Iran lead Regan’s inclusion of her on a list of 60 odd nations in the 198o’s that would not receive this technology from the US and various aligned states. What happened during the years prior to Iran’s regime change is not at this time in question nor applicable to Iran’s failure today to willfully comply with the many, many requests for transparency but the international community.


mg



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The 'no proof of a weapons programme' portion is irrelevant.

news.yahoo.com...
ElBaradei has said he has found no proof of a weapons programme in Iran but at the same time has said he cannot give the Islamic Republic a clean bill of health.

That is the basis for this upcomming war. Iran joined an international treaty in which it was given nuclear technology, equipment, and expertise, in exchange for permantently forsaking nuclear weapons and permanently being open up to international inspections. If they do not have a 'clean bill of health' from the IAEA, then the legalistic justification for the war remains in place.

It is only a matter of time before the US decides that it cannot wait any longer and attacks. Getting iran to cooperate and comply with the IAEA, as its own treaty obliges it to do, will 'short circuit' any war track.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
You are incorrect. Iran had signed the NPT. They stated they did not have an nuclear program.............20 years later is turns out they did.

You seem unaware what NPT means. NPT doesn't forbid a civilian nuclear program, which Iran never denied of having.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Man, please.


You have any idea how many other countries flat out REFUSE to even let the IAEA have a look at their stuff? (oh, yeah, the US is one of those that hides the good stuff
) Oh, but that wicked Iran, THAT'S who needs to be invaded. Not Israel, who haven't even admitted to having nukes, much less signed a NPT treaty. But that's cool, because America is Israel's bitch.

And you people CONTINUE to listen to the professional liars. I'm laughing at you, but the liars themselves are laughing even harder...





top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join