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.

 

Enrichment upto 4.8%

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   


That is why they are legally permited to not only have uninspected nuclear power programmes, but also to have nuclear weapons.


This assertion always bugs me.

Somehow I have my doubts that if Iran withdraws from the NPT (which they are legally allowed to do) that the war proponents here are just going to say "oh well, guess they can have their nukes now" and give up...




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
This assertion always bugs me.

Somehow I have my doubts that if Iran withdraws from the NPT (which they are legally allowed to do) that the war proponents here are just going to say "oh well, guess they can have their nukes now" and give up...


You make a valid point, but as one of those 'war proponents', the legalities of the IAEA and the UN would become a non-issue with such a NPT withdrawal, IMHO.

Having said that, I am not heralding nor calling for war against Iran, and never have, but as long as Iran remains a signatory member of the NPT, then the legalities exist, are binding, and must be adhered to, as well as all sites, including those underground, being made readily available for IAEA inspections.

Listen, if Iran wants the world or those who are concerned to wholeheartedly believe that they are not seeking nuclear weapons and are indeed seeking nuclear energy for peaceful means and intents, then why not allow the IAEA access to all sites, including those underground, so as to PROVE that what they claim is truth? Doing so would draw Iran much more support, etc. As long as Iran continues to play the three shell game (ie: the three shell majic trick), those concerned will continue to assert that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and not a peaceful intent nuclear energy program. Furthermore, it would help greatly if they stopped supporting, aiding and abetting terrorists groups and organizations and terrorism, in general, along with ending the absurd rhetoric that is even turning other Arab nations away from Iran.
Arab Distrust of Iran Gains Momentum






seekerof

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Iran's not an Arab nation, and regardless of their nuclear program, Arab distrust of their Persian neighbors is a historical given.

And personally I don't think Iran wants anyone to believe their nuclear program is peaceful, despite the formal indignant denials. This confrontation with the West has the theocracy in it's best domestic political position in decades, bouyed by a surge of nationalism, and the price of oil (Iran's only major source of hard currency) is going through the roof... Iran is after something, but it's not necessary the bomb itself. The simple fear that they're going to get the bomb is serving their purposes quite well.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
seekerof are you jewish by any chance?. Just to let you know there is no arab gulf and definatley not just arabs living their alone. Its widely known as "THE PERSIAN GULF" and i am proud of that name and i think ahmadinejad has the right to correct the emir of Qatar.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
seekerof are you jewish by any chance?

And what if I am Jewish, you going to threaten to wipe me off the face of the map, too?





Just to let you know there is no arab gulf and definatley not just arabs living their alone.

Apparently, there is disagreement over the Persian/Arabian Gulf and its name?






Its widely known as "THE PERSIAN GULF" and i am proud of that name and i think ahmadinejad has the right to correct the emir of Qatar.

Um....I agree with the Emir of Qatar for in Western countries, Iran, etc. it may be called Persian Gulf, but in most ARAB countries it is called ARABIAN GULF, thank you very much. Proper diplomatic protocol would have dictated that the Iranian President should have abstained from making such a correcting wise arse comment to an ARAB Emir, you think?






seekerof

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Seekerof-


And what if I am Jewish, you going to threaten to wipe me off the face of the map, too?


no matter, everybody knows what jews are really like.






Apparently, there is disagreement over the Persian/Arabian Gulf and its name?


there may have been a big disagreement but its widely known as persian gulf, has been named persian gulf and will continue to be named persian gulf wether you like it or not.







Um....I agree with the Emir of Qatar for in Western countries, Iran, etc. it may be called Persian Gulf, but in most ARAB countries it is called ARABIAN GULF, thank you very much. Proper diplomatic protocol would have dictated that the Iranian President should have abstained from making such a correcting wise arse comment to an ARAB Emir, you think?


well i dont see any arabian gulf in the map now do i?, for a jew you sure do like sticking up for arabs in which just to let you know no country likes Israel especially in the regoin right now so don't act like you know everything or that it runs by your rules, now go do some research and try re-taking history class.


en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mehran]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
Seekerof-
no matter, everybody knows what jews are really like.

Allegedly, being I am a Jew to you, in truth, who knows what they really are like, Mehran, you or me--the JEW? Since when you become an expert on them, being your not Jewish?






there may have been a big disagreement but its widely known as persian gulf, has been named persian gulf and will continue to be named persian gulf wether you like it or not.

This is not a matter of whether "I" like it or not, but whether most ARAB nations believe and like it or not.







well i dont see any arabian gulf in the map now do i?,

You need to hit some 12th, 13th, and 14th century maps, because they are labeled in both names.




for a jew you sure do like sticking up for arabs

And to think some here thought I was prejudiced....






in which just to let you know no country likes Israel especially in the regoin right now

Umm, heads up Mr. "Try re-taking history class," Egypt, Jordan Against Israeli Withdrawal

I guess you better cross two off that list, Mehran.






so don't act like you know everything or that it runs by your rules, now go do some research and try re-taking history class.

Whatever. How about you and the governing body of Iran take a crash course in the Holocaust? Seems that the lot of you are in serious denial. Btw, "we" got our eyes on you.






seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
no matter, everybody knows what jews are really like.

They're kinda like iranians. And everyone else on the planet. They're, you know, human.


Waitaminute, I thought you were from Iran? But apparently it is Kazak-staHN!! Yess!

I Liiiike!
Chenqui!!!

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Nygdan]


Sep

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Apologies for my late reply. Been sort of busy lately.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Oh, please, Sep.
Names and locations, even for those underground nuclear facilities?
Here's a thought: try GOOGLE? FAS?

...external source....

Btw, how about provide the IAEA names and locations of ALL the Iranian sites that have been inspected, Sep, including the underground facilities....oopps, wait, I can use GOOGLE!


I should remind you that the site you provided is a speech given by a member of the MKO terror organization, ironic that a speaker for a terrorist group is allowed in the US, whilst the country is in middle of "War on terror" isn't it? Anyway I'll get to the quote: First allegation was that Iran is using universities to research on nuclear science. Has the IAEA requested to visit the university (I believe they are referring to the Imam Hussein University)? Recently Ahmadinejad visited there with a host of local as well as international reporters. If there is something there to hide, logic suggests that reporters shouldn’t be allowed there right? The second quote may be true; I have not done proper research. But from what I have seen on TV and other media sources, I think that Israel and the United States have expressed their intention to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. In Iran’s constitution, article 150 states: The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, organized in the early days of the triumph of the Revolution, is to be maintained so that it may continue in its role of guarding the Revolution and its achievements”. The quote you posted suggests that only recently they have initiated a more direct involvement in the program, and this can be linked to the barrage of threats Iran has faced recently. The third point made, can also be related to the threats. It says Iran is “moving” its program underground, indicating that it wasn’t doing so in the first place but has started doing so as the result of the recent threats. Regarding the sites it mentions, first one I already discussed, second site, there hasn’t been much talk about, and if you do a quick internet search you would see that. However, the point remains that the IAEA has to ask to visit the sites it wishes, and I don’t believe that they have asked to visit. If Iran had refused to allow them to inspect the site it would make international news. Since it hasn’t I think I can safely assume that the IAEA inspectors have never requested to visit the site. The Parchin Military Complex has been thoroughly inspected, so I don’t know why it is on the list. Regarding “under ground secret tunnels”, in Tehran, in his speech he indicated that many parts of it are under the Parchin site, which has been inspected several times. So I think we can safely conclude that the tunnels are non-existent. The last point, IRGC commanders are not people that can be interviewed under the jurisdiction of the IAEA. Its similar to them walking into the United States and requesting to interview random generals from the Marines. It just doesn’t work that way.

Its also fantastic to see that you know how to use the google search engine. I requested that you post the sites you are interested in so we could have a discussion we are both interested in rather than me finding information and refuting it with evidence that you probably could find yourself.




Accordingly, they did tell the UN and the international community that "they did not give a damn."


Its all about putting it into context my friend. And as you probably know, the sanctions, which Iran’s president does not care about, is not the call of the international community. Even within the six countries that attempted to negotiate the UN resolution, there were divisions. And we should keep in mind that among those six countries, not a single Muslim or African country was present (what percentage of the “world community” is that? Or do they not count?).


continued below.



[edit on 4-5-2006 by Sep]

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Sep]


Sep

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   


You talk a line when you need to, don't ya?
Tell you what, Iran can buy all the economic partners they want, but I know a number of Western and Eastern countries that will not be BOUGHT. Keep talking, you act like Iran is the next Saudi Arabia of oil or something.


I was talking of the well being of the “international community”. You care about those people don’t you? And I am speaking from logic. Iran has the second largest gas and oil reserves in the world, and more oil is being discovered every day. Right now China needs a lot of oil. Japan, Europe and America all need oil. The line between supply and demand is becoming thinner every day. Now take out one of the largest producers in the world, and you would be shooting yourself in the foot. Its fact. May be in half a century from now, you would have the luxury of isolating Iran, but until there is oil there, and there is a thirst for oil and gas, and international trade exists, no one would even contemplate taking Iran’s oil off the market.





Link the source where the IAEA has spent 1500 man-hours inspecting Iran's nuclear sites. While your at it, provide ALL the sites and locations that have been inspected by the IAEA and those that have not, k?


I apologize I was a bit off. It is actually 1700 hours of inspection. transcripts.cnn.com...

Regarding the sites. I thought you could use google. I was feeling so proud. I think that would be a waste of you as well as my time because you probably wouldn’t even bother looking through them.



First strike?! What the.....?
Sep, you had better re-read what the Iranian Ambassador to the UN said that you quoted:


"We have not and will not attack or threaten to attack another country."

See ANY mention of FIRST STRIKE in there, Sep? Spare me, dude. The sources I linked refuted your claims, the Iranian ambassador to the UNs claims, the Iranian president's claims, Rafsanjani's claims, etc!


Proclaiming to ability respond to another country’s attack is not a threat, and a threat can only be made by a person who has the jurisdiction to comment on a defence issue. Its like you threatening to punch me in the face, I say nothing, and my little sister, who although may have good intentions but is not involved in the argument and does not have the means to hurt you in any way, threatens to pinch you if you go through with your threat, and you suddenly proclaim that the person who you threatened originally is a rogue person who is out intimidate and bully you and the neighbours (sounded simpler in my head, but now reading it again it has given me a headache. Sorry).



According to who?
The IAEA?
Hell, how do they know when Iran will not let the IAEA check and verify each and ALL sites, including those underground?


Mate, just because someone half way across the globe, who has something to gain from the US attacking Iran, suddenly out of the blue proclaims that he has mysteriously found some information from an unnamed source that there are underground facilities that are going to be used later to create weapons of mass destructions, it doesn’t make it true. If the alleged facilities are non-existent how can Iran show them to the IAEA? In any court of law, the burden of proof lays with the prosecutor or plaintiff. If they can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that Iran has a WMD program then they loose the case. What I have seen now, is that western governments have claimed that Iran has something that it contends it doesn’t. Now the western nations have demanded that Iran prove that it hasn’t done the deeds and doesn’t possess the assets that they claim, a demand they have no right to make, under any international agreement. If they have any grievances or misconceptions about the way Iran is handling its energy needs, they should come forward with the evidence that Iran is mishandling the technology. Until they do, Iran must be view as innocent (innocent until proven guilty right?)



The one that I refuted with the mass of links I provided?


I am referring to the one we are discussing



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iraqi_king
Iran is surrounded by India and Pakistan and nearby Isreal whom all are have nukes, with Isreal deciding to avoid the question (why i dont know). India and Pakistan both openly decleared that their onging nuclear programs are primarily weapons based.
It would be foolish of Iran to stand aside while Isreal, India, Pakistan and to its west and east- Afghanistan and Iraq (under occupation by the U.S.A) with the U.S.A also having nukes.


Firstly, lets get one thing straight:
Nobody, I repeat NOBODY (except some arab states? let me know) would be ok with Iran having nukes. Not the US/western world/Israel, not Russia, not China , not India, not Pakistan. Another nuclear power in the region is just not allaowable.
It was a similar case with India and Pakistan but who could stop them? Sanctions? Oh yeah.. Military Action?

The nukes that the all nuclear weapons states have are not in ANY way related to Iran, except Israel. Israel doesn't exhibit any hostility towards the country of Iran, maybe palestinians(debateable), but NOT Iran. Israel has had nukes for over a decade now and it doesn't have an active missile program.
So playing the "everyone's got em', so why not us" card isn't valid here.

Secondly:
India (don't know about Pakistan) does not have a 'primarily weapons based
N-program'.
It is a mixed program, but recently 14 out of 22 reactors have been put under IAEA safeguards.

Lastly:

Uranium enriched to 4.8%??!! So WHAT??
Pop quiz: What percentage of enrcihment is required to create weapons grade uranium?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join