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.

 

Criticism mounts over Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
This is not just a United States issue as some on this board would have you believe.


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Russia and the European Union joined the United States on Wednesday in condemning Iran's assertion that it had enriched uranium in defiance of a U.N. demand, but Moscow said force could not resolve the dispute.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Tuesday that Iran had enriched uranium for the first time and would now press ahead with industrial-scale enrichment.

His triumphant announcement keeps the Islamic Republic on a collision course with the United Nations and with Western countries convinced that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, not just fuel for power stations as it insists.



The Russian Foreign Ministry urged Tehran to stop all enrichment work, saying its proclaimed atomic advance ran counter to the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. Security Council.

to... day.reuters.com/

[edit on 12-4-2006 by ferretman2]

[Mod edit - shrink a link]

[edit on 12/4/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Some Americans really think there's only one true country on earth yes. Glad you found out it's not a one-on-one problem.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
so?
Its not against UN regulations that a country cannot enrich uranium for suvilian purposes.

i say good for Iran
the more self sufficent it is less chance of it of having to relly on other countries.

look at our Gas problems in europe which we get from russia and so forth



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
so?
Its not against UN regulations that a country cannot enrich uranium for suvilian purposes.


Erm, Iran signed the NPT which means they're only allowed to enrich uranium for civilian purposes under supervision of the IAEA, who in turn report to the UN. Iran hid a secret program for 18 years from the IAEA, hence the start of the current crises. Try doing some research. Or are you saying Iran can sign up to an international treaty, ignore the terms and conditions to suit themselves, then refuse to cooperate when they're asked to do so by the governing body?


Nobody is saying Iran can't have civilian nuclear power - but there are proper ways to do this. Telling lies and refusing to cooperate isn't going to get you anywhere with something as important as nuclear technology, and rightly so.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
as far as i have seen in the news Iran has cooperated enough with the US and co.
they stoped inrchment and so forth when its wasnt required by UN regulations
so when they restarted they wernt under any binding terms and conditions on if they could do that.

fair play if they were trying to build bombs
but there has not been any evidence to show that but speculations from the US and our goverment.

as i said before its not against the NPT to enrich uranium at full scale
if it is please feel free to show me



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
as far as i have seen in the news Iran has cooperated enough with the US and co.
they stoped inrchment and so forth when its wasnt required by UN regulations
so when they restarted they wernt under any binding terms and conditions on if they could do that.


You can't pick and choose when to comply and when not to. That would be like you robbing a bank and then claiming it's OK because you've followed some other laws in the past.
The fact is they lied for 18 years. This means the international community doesn't have much trust. Would you? They are now being asked to suspend enrichment by the IAEA, UN, EU, US, etc and return to negotiations. This would help difuse the crises. They're not doing that. How does that look when we already don't trust them very much.


fair play if they were trying to build bombs
but there has not been any evidence to show that but speculations from the US and our goverment.


It's only a relatively small step once you've mastered enrichment. And the IAEA found evidence that Iran bought blueprints on how to build a bomb from Pakistan. This is why not only the US and UK are worried, but also Russia, Germany and France.


as i said before its not against the NPT to enrich uranium at full scale
if it is please feel free to show me


Again, it's a trust thing. The idea of the NPT is that you fall under the supervision of the IAEA - who are now telling Iran to stop. Or, again, are you saying Iran is allowed to ignore the governing body? As far as I'm concerned to either cooperate fully or you don't. With something as potentially dangerous as nuclear technology there can be no middle ground.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
You can't pick and choose when to comply and when not to. That would be like you robbing a bank and then claiming it's OK because you've followed some other laws in the past.
The fact is they lied for 18 years. This means the international community doesn't have much trust. Would you? They are now being asked to suspend enrichment by the IAEA, UN, EU, US, etc and return to negotiations. This would help difuse the crises. They're not doing that. How does that look when we already don't trust them very much.


first off comparisent is kind of rubbish (robbing a bank?)
curious how can you lie about building a nuclear program when you have another country building the dam thing.
it would be a secret if they were working on it soley on their own.
heck they even open up the dam thing to the UN and offerd survalance with live security cameras.

also why should Iran have to relly on russia or any other country for their fuel for their reactors (as i said before look at europe and the GAS problem)

and you will see most of the international comunity has lost their faith/trust in the US and co



It's only a relatively small step once you've mastered enrichment. And the IAEA found evidence that Iran bought blueprints on how to build a bomb from Pakistan. This is why not only the US and UK are worried, but also Russia, Germany and France.


the IAEA never found out,
it was surrenderd to them by IRAN big diffrence
if they truely wanted to cover that up they would have kept the blue prints a secret.




Again, it's a trust thing. The idea of the NPT is that you fall under the supervision of the IAEA - who are now telling Iran to stop. Or, again, are you saying Iran is allowed to ignore the governing body? As far as I'm concerned to either cooperate fully or you don't. With something as potentially dangerous as nuclear technology there can be no middle ground.


if the US can ignore the UN and so on
since they think they are above the LAW why should Iran?
trust has nothing to do with it as i said before Iran have complied with the UN and US enough.


[edit on 12-4-2006 by bodrul]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Bodrul -

Read the article.

Iran did not come out voluntarily about their nuclear program:


Information provided in 2002 by Rajavi's National Council of Resistance of Iran, which wants to oust Iran's clerical rulers, forced Tehran to lift the veil on its nuclear program.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Doesnt look good folks, If Natanz is brought up to full capacity, they could make a nuke in just 16 days. !!

A 3000 Centrifuge Cascade would be able to make a nuke in 271 days according to this article. (Bloomberg)





``Natanz was constructed to house 50,000 centrifuges,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. ``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days.''


Full Article is here. Bloomberg


This would mean that by the end of the year with a 3000 Centrifuge Cascade they would have the capacity and the technology to make enough HEU by 28th September next year *THIS IS WITHOUT ANY EXTRA CENTRIFUGES* Clearly the more they build the less time it takes.

This simply cannot be allowed and I wonder when not if the breaking point will come for Israel to demand that either the US do something or they will.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Bodrul -

Read the article.

Iran did not come out voluntarily about their nuclear program:


Information provided in 2002 by Rajavi's National Council of Resistance of Iran, which wants to oust Iran's clerical rulers, forced Tehran to lift the veil on its nuclear program.




i read diffrently on a bbc report (i will try and find the article)

also
Oilbourse2006
14 days you say (im gob smaked) first Iraq with what 41 days to launch a bio logical attack and now Iran 16 days


where do they get their information from


[edit on 12-4-2006 by bodrul]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   


first off comparisent is kind of rubbish (robbing a bank?)


I assume you mean Comparison? And my analogy stands. Is that the best you can do - calling it rubbish?


curious how can you lie about building a nuclear program when you have another country building the dam thing.
it would be a secret if they were working on it soley on their own.
heck they even open up the dam thing to the UN and offerd survalance with live security cameras.


What are you going on about? The issue was that Iran had a secret enrichment program. It hid it for 18 years. They only came clean when they were confronted about it by the IAEA. Does that make it OK? I say again, you can't just pick and choose when to be honest and when to lie.


also why should Iran have to relly on russia or any other country for their fuel for their reactors (as i said before look at europe and the GAS problem)


They had their chance to play by the rules but they lied for 18 years. Why should we trust them now? If they want to enrich their own uranium then fine - but they need to stop enrichment now, return to negotiations, regain the trust of the international community and get their president to stop spouting rubbish about wiping other countries off the map. I'm all for Iran have its own nuclear power production - but they need to go about it the right way. Their past behaviour in this issue means we can't trust them right now.


and you will see most of the international comunity has lost their faith/trust in the US and co


Predictable response from you. Is the IAEA reporting the USA to the UNSC?


the IAEA never found out,
it was surrenderd to them by IRAN big diffrence
if they truely wanted to cover that up they would have kept the blue prints a secret.


True. But what were they doing with them in the first place? Did they just blow over the border on a gust of wind?


if the US can ignore the UN and so on
since they think they are above the LAW why should Iran?
trust has nothing to do with it as i said before Iran have complied with the UN and US enough.


OK, cool. So everybody can just do what they like then? Good luck with that. And trust has everything to do with it - that's what this is all about. You can keep saying "Iran has complied with this and that" all you want. It doesn't change the fact they're still only complying with things when it suits them. And again, if there really isn't an issue here then why did the IAEA take this to the UNSC in the first place?


[edit on 12-4-2006 by bodrul]


[edit on 12-4-2006 by Curio]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Well that doesnt mean 16 days from now, that means from when Natanz becomes fully operational, which is at least a year away, but Iran has notified the IAEA that they intend to install 3000 (which can produce enough HEU for a weapon in 271 Days) in the 3rd or 4th Quarter of this year.

Iran is rapidly approaching this "Break Out Capability" stated.

Plus what also needs to be addressed is this question.

Q. Is there a hidden military nuclear program with already running cascades?

There is clearly a lag between the civilian sector technology in the US compared with the Military, One would assume that this would be the same in the US, Hell, They have had a nuclear program for the past 18 years! The US made a nuke from scratch in 2 (1943 -1945)

I would assume therefore that the Iranian Military if they wanted a nuclear weapon either have had one for at least a decade or have a couple that were recently made.

This is the only sane reason I can come up with to explain why the Iranian govt is being so blase about this whole situation.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio

I assume you mean Comparison? And my analogy stands. Is that the best you can do - calling it rubbish?



well it is
you could have said a better one that actuily went with the subject since ribbing a bank compared to a country developing a nuclear program is like apples and oranges





What are you going on about? The issue was that Iran had a secret enrichment program. It hid it for 18 years. They only came clean when they were confronted about it by the IAEA. Does that make it OK? I say again, you can't just pick and choose when to be honest and when to lie.


just tell me where they were lieing?
or does every country have to report everything that is happening in their boarders law?
post up 3 times where they have lied about their nuclear program



They had their chance to play by the rules but they lied for 18 years. Why should we trust them now? If they want to enrich their own uranium then fine - but they need to stop enrichment now, return to negotiations, regain the trust of the international community and get their president to stop spouting rubbish about wiping other countries off the map. I'm all for Iran have it's own nuclear power production - but they need to go about it the right way. Their past behaviour in this issue means we can't trust them right now.


well that has done no good
each time the US wants iran to abanden more of its project and relly more on other countries




Predictable response from you. Is the IAEA reporting the USA to the UNSC?


lol how is it predictable?
the US takes the piss of the UN



True. But what were they doing with them in the first place? Did they just blow over the border on a gust of wind?


ask your mates in pakistan



OK, cool. So everybody can just do what they like then? Good luck with that. And trust has everything to do with it - that's what this is all about. You can keep saying "Iran has complied with this and that" all you want. It doesn't change the fact they're still only complying with things when it suits them. And again, if there really isn't an issue here then why did the IAEA take this to the UNSC in the first place?


like any soverign country Iran have the right to comply and not comply with things that will bennifit their country.

only reason IAEA took iran to the UNSC is because iran wants to produce its own fuel which the US disagrees with.

one question if this was the US in question and they were in Irans shoes what would the US do? hypertheticaly



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
There is a major flaw with your theory bodrul, anb this is a little scientific but I will explain...

Iran is using heavy water reactors......

www.payvand.com...

www.globalsecurity.org...

regimechangeiran.blogspot.com...

www.firstwatchint.org...

Heavy water reactors have two advantages over the light-water reactors.
(these reactors are called "light water" or "heavy water" for the type of moderator/coolant they use. )

Heavy water reactors are used to breed plutonium from uranium. a key way to manufacture nuclear weapons. They have purchased from china a reactor similiar to north korea's.

There is however another possibility, in heavy water nuclear reactors enriched uranium is unnecessary. So why are they enriching uranium if they are going to use heavy water reactors? certain types of duel puropose reactors require a slightly enriched uranium. all evidence points to a weapons program.

www.fas.org...

www.ieer.org...


Some are designed for duel purpose, electricity anb weapons production.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrulTrue. But what were they doing with them in the first place? Did they just blow over the border on a gust of wind?


ask your mates in pakistan


you just admited why we shouldnt trust pakistan either.



one question if this was the US in question and they were in Irans shoes what would the US do? hypertheticaly



Doesnt matter, the US isnt threatening to wipe countries off the map and NO the recent reports of the use of tactical nukes was never mentioned by the bush administration.

besides the US is part of the UNSC which is the organization that helps mandate these rules.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Some Americans really think there's only one true country on earth yes. Glad you found out it's not a one-on-one problem.
yes, and its mostly the bleeding heart liberals who think this. Why do you think we're called bullies?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
'Criticism mounts over Iran" tells it all.

I personaly find it very peculiar that an admission drops at an optimum time to feed ‘criticism’: or more importantly American public paranoia with a world to back it up! The ‘thing’ just didn’t seem to be moving…now it has a chance.

Now, let’s see if it flies…



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Well I hope this means that other countries will join the United States in any war that might occur over nuclear warfare; I shudder at the thought of my country going into another war, before really bringing the first two to a conclusion - I'd feel much safer with the backing of the United Nations, or at least some of its more powerful members.

-Omniscient



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
so?
Its not against UN regulations that a country cannot enrich uranium for suvilian purposes.

No it is not, if done properly, but apparently--as you seemingly have forgotten--Iran is and has been in violation of the NPT.

Talk to the IAEA for more on this.




seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join