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.

 

Iran pulls curtain on atom sites

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

They say that Tehran opened up only after being caught hiding clandestine nuclear advances for nearly two decades, and that when it did cooperate, ?a steady accretion of clues suggested that much else remained hidden


www.iht.com...

Should Irans past secrecy reflect on their current scerecy? If they want to use nuclear power for non-military puposes then what are they hiding




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
how Iran is going about their Nuclear Program is worse than how Saddam was trying to hide what Iraq did/didnt have in the build up to that war.

Iran is going to be given the same ultimatum as Iraq eventually, can't wait to see what they decide on!



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
It's interesting that the 'pro-Iran'/'anti-US' crowd has not attempted to discredit this article yet and blame it on Isreal or the US as total fabrication.

Here you have comments made by the IAEA, Iran is no longer allowing inspections....yet Iran has nothing to hide?!?

When will the 'pro-Iran'/'anti-US' groups wake up and realize Iran is a threat not to just Isreal but the world?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I think Iran's attitude is symptomatic of the disdain that Dictators feel for democratic/parliamentary bodies.

They start to believe their own propaganda; namely, that because democratists are so talkative, that they will never actually begin to act.

Hitler used this, when he demanded that a foreign state (Czechoslavakia) hold a plebiscite to see if the ethnic germans wanted to join the reich. The world powers weren't ready to risk a war to stop him. When his troops rolled into the Sudetenland (German area), they just kept going and occupied the whole state.

Hitler told his underlings that, since "the West" was unready to wage war, that there would never be a price to be paid.

He didn't understand that France, Russia, and England began, at this point, to arm against what their "hawk" members of their respective governments saw as inevitable: invading Germany.

Saddam had this same type of hubris. When there was no immediate response to his annexation of Kuwait 1991, he assumed there never would be. He didn't realize how the western media, showing his troops stealing light poles and manhole covers and fireplugs and carting them home, would infuriate the rest of the world.

In Gulf War II, when Clinton's half-hearted missle attacks in 1998 weren't followed up by anything more substantial, he again told his aids that the west would never invade again, and that if they did, they would "stop short" of Baghdad.

I don't think amenhadjidad realizes that his biggest risk is not with America right now---it's that European voters might eventually decide it's more expedient for Iran to be "taken out" than for him to be allowed to go on the offensive.

A fresh wave of Iranian-funded violence in Lebanon or by Hammas in Israel would probably set things rolling in a thoroughly unpredictable direction. Worse, an offensive into northern Iraq could bring the Turks in, as well.

Part of the reason we haven't heard from Kim Il Sung recently is that I think the PRC sat him down and had a long talk with him. When you're vilified by one or two western nations, you're probably doing things right. But when even rivals agree (like US, France, and Russia, for example) then you'd better sit down and be quiet for a year or so.

I've said before that a criminal mindset is one which mistakes mercy for weakness. And tyrants share that particular mindset. They don't understand that a willingness to parley is not a surrender flag.


.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
It's interesting that the 'pro-Iran'/'anti-US' crowd has not attempted to discredit this article yet and blame it on Isreal or the US as total fabrication.


- Naaa, far more interesting is the way you are trying to define and force the issue into a pure and simple 'one or the other' straight-jacket.

To be 'anti' this possible new war is not to be necessarily pro-Iran nor anti-US.

Most of those I see here are anti-war, not pro-Iranian, and do not believe this episode is best tackled with the usual heavy-handed intimidation and threats.

......and to be 'anti-this US administration' is quite different from being anti-US, although the administration's tactic of attempting to shore up support by claiming otherwise is rather well-worn.


Here you have comments made by the IAEA, Iran is no longer allowing inspections....yet Iran has nothing to hide?!?


- That is to distort what is being said in the article.

No-one is denying Iran once hid their nuclear program.

Equally it should not be news to anyone following this story that Iran has become less cooperative with the IAEA since the referral to the UN SC and the various threats made to them; they see their cooperation as producing nothing of value, so, what's the point in cooperating?


When will the 'pro-Iran'/'anti-US' groups wake up and realize Iran is a threat not to just Isreal but the world?


- You might prefer to believe that kind of propaganda but I have seen nothing in any of this which persuades me that Iran is any kind of real 'threat' to anyone - least of all those countries equipped with a nuclear retaliatory capacity (such as Israel, the US, Europe, China, India, Pakistan and Russia for instance).

Trying to inflate the 2nd or 3rd world nations up into the kind of threat the USSR once was is simply not really convincing anyone.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
one nuke is too great of a risk to the world community. There is no reason why the world community needs to risk a potential nuclear war because of Mahmoud Ahmenadjad's Short Man's syndrome.(He's around 5'6')

One Nuke could bring down the American Economy, as history has shown us there is no reason why the West or any country for that matter should let the Islamo-fascist world hold it hostage.

If you don't think the Iranian President is a threat to the US why don't you try to find some of the Americans that he helped to take hostage in '79 and talk to them.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
one nuke is too great of a risk to the world community.


- Nonsense, one hypothetical and unused nuclear weapon is neither here nor there in today's world given the totals of real and actual nuclear weapons.
Not that there is the slightest bit of proof that they even have that one.


There is no reason why the world community needs to risk a potential nuclear war because of Mahmoud Ahmenadjad's Short Man's syndrome.(He's around 5'6')


- Jayzuss wept, is that really the level current thinking in the US is at?!

Do you honestly think Iran's rights under the NPT etc are a matter of the man's height (or lack of it)?!


One Nuke could bring down the American Economy, as history has shown us there is no reason why the West or any country for that matter should let the Islamo-fascist world hold it hostage.


- History show us no such thing.
History shows us that it is far far better that we learn to get along properly rather than shout threats and attempt to intimidate each other.....and that the alternative is invariably disastrous.


If you don't think the Iranian President is a threat to the US why don't you try to find some of the Americans that he helped to take hostage in '79 and talk to them.


- Yeah and while 'we' trot out 'our' grievances and so-called 'proofs' maybe they can trot out those hundreds and thousands tortured and the graves of those murdered whilst the totalitarian regime 'we' propped up and turned a blind eye to was in power over there.

That kind of rhetorical jibe really isn't much use when you're dealing with a situation as is/was over there.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
What rights does Iran have after hiding information of their Nuclear Program for over 2 decades from the NPT.

"History shows us that it is far far better that we learn to get along properly rather than shout threats and attempt to intimidate each other.....and that the alternative is invariably disastrous."

Is that what Nazi Germany taught us? What about the Empire of Japan?

"That kind of rhetorical jibe really isn't much use when you're dealing with a situation as is/was over there."

I agree, nice rhetoric!!!

What is your solution to the problem Sminkey? I would LOVE to hear it!!!!!!



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
What rights does Iran have after hiding information of their Nuclear Program for over 2 decades from the NPT.


- If you want to be held hostage by the events of 4yrs ago+ then carry on with that kind of thinking.
I prefer to deal with how things are now.
In any event they hide their program for understandable reasons (nuclear Ayatollah even with NPT in the 1980's on, I don't think so) .....and it still doesn't amount to having the bomb.


Is that what Nazi Germany taught us? What about the Empire of Japan?


- Yes, exactly.
'We' were heavily involved as architects of those disasters, in large part 'we' assisted the creation of what was to come through a heavy-handed and unjust peace after WW1.
Not all 'our' responsibility, of course, but not none of 'ours' either.


What is your solution to the problem Sminkey? I would LOVE to hear it!!!!!!


- Oh, you know, stuff like what we were doing, cooperation and trust building with 24/7 monitoring and IAEA inspections on a go anywhere anytime basis.

That's what's so crazy about all of this, it isn't a case of war or nothing, we did have a perfectly acceptable inspection regime agreed (until UN SC referral spoiled things).



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
great, so what's your solution?

The IAEA was in charge of this issue until they referred it to the UN Security Council where it sits today.

Do you know why the IAEA reported Iran to the UN Security Council?

www.iaea.org...

Was it so the UN can start a war with Iran?

No, of course not, it was to check Iran on its Nuclear Intentions.

From what the document says, read it for yourself, Iran, IN 3 YEARS TIME, has not been able to account for all of the Nuclear Radiation within its boarders.

For the IAEA, this was enough of ANOTHER NPT violation from Iran to call for the referal to the Security Council.

This is where the issue lies today.

The problem with a regime like that is that you know what their intentions are because of their leaders big mouth. Say Iranian agents in the future might be able to smuggle in a small Nuke into the US, Europe, Australia, or Israel and detonate it, how would the country attacked be able to trace the origins of the Nuke back to Iran?

And finally, what is your solution to the problem?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Say Iranian agents in the future might be able to smuggle in a small Nuke into the US, Europe, Australia, or Israel and detonate it, how would the country attacked be able to trace the origins of the Nuke back to Iran?


- IIRC all nuclear weapons have a 'fingerprint' I don't believe it is possible for this imagined threat to be as anonymous as you think.

But why stop there?
Anyone can guess away at anything.


And finally, what is your solution to the problem?


- I have already told you, respectful cooperation and engagement without the threats and intimidation.

That was what got us 24/7 monitoring and IAEA inspections anytime anyplace.

The attempt to use 'pressure' and all the bluster that has entailed (including excuses about ill-advised rabble-rousing rhetoric......the likes of which has been confined to mere verbal use for many many years) has delivered a worse situation, not better.

Treating people like they are probably going to be our enemies generates actual enemies; treating people well generates a greater climate of well being for all.
We should be trying to ease tensions, not adding to them......and while 'we' are at it 'we' should face up to the fact that having a habit of helping brutal dictators is liable to rebound badly on 'us' when they inevitably get chucked out of power.

.....and we certainly should not be pretending that Iran is about to mount a nuclear attack on the world.

The current vogue for imagining the world is at greatest risk from the least militarily equipped countries would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.


[edit on 19-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Low Orbit, please, stop watching Fox News.


ONE nuke is gonna cause a global nuclear war? Are you high? 1 nuke, rofl!

Let you tell it, we here in the US have no reason for over 20,000 nukes when a country with 1 nuke can take you out.
Guess we could have used all that time, effort, and money for something else.

BTW, if you're worried about their 1 super jihadi nuke that will be made in 10 years, you should DEFINITELY be worried about their EMP bomb. It will blast us back into the Dark Ages...




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
So Sminkeypinkey, you wouldn't do anything different than what the Bush administration is currently doing?


and for truthseeker you underestimate the power of the nuke. It has the potential to kill millions of lives. Realize that your life could potentially be on the line because of it as well(if you live in a place half decent)



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Truthseeka & SminkeyPinkey,


You may want to familiarize yourselve's with the Report to Congress regarding the singular Nuclear Detonation threat posed to this country.

If you wish to argue with the opinion's of several PHD's in physic's as well as a 4 star General of the Air Force, be my guest. But please, give us your credential's so we can make an effective comparison.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
well i just hope iran is not bluffing...altho i would prefer iran not having nuclear weapons...they shld learn from what happened to iraq...

if iran doesnt have any nuclear weapons...they shld start at least some from of cooperation or end up like iraq...

if they do...then they can say/do whatever they want and should be prepared to defend their country like any other sovereign nation...



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Say Iranian agents in the future might be able to smuggle in a small Nuke into the US, Europe, Australia, or Israel and detonate it, how would the country attacked be able to trace the origins of the Nuke back to Iran?


- IIRC all nuclear weapons have a 'fingerprint' I don't believe it is possible for this imagined threat to be as anonymous as you think.


yep...thats the worst case scenario...when a terrorist org detonates a non-missile nuke bomb in the us...i dont think one can determine the origins of the people responsible if at all quickly...if no one takes credit for it and if all they wanted was to disrupt the lives and economy of american citizens...

the prez might have to rely on "sketchy" evidence once again to show that something is being done and the us is not to be ****ed with...





[edit on 20/5/06 by SpanishFly]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
At least it is not just us who are angry with Iran, like I said previously the UN has unsuccessfully. for 3 years time, tried to disprove their nuclear intentions and have not been able to. Imagine how they feel.




top topics



 
0

log in

join