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 rebuffs U.S. as UN powers ready incentives

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Just seen this doesn't look like this has been posted yet, if so remove please.

I didn't think Iran would stop enriching uranium anyway, talks yes, but not stop enrichment.
So what does this mean now, apart from referral to the UN etc.
Strikes?

newsbox.msn.co.uk... ws&t=4023&id=2931896&d=20060601&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en

My avatar has just disappeared


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Denied]




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Your post is missing the other half of the truth.


Iran welcomes U.S. talks offer, but rejects conditions

Iran strongly rejected U.S. conditions for talks over its nuclear program, saying it was prepared to negotiate with Washington, but unwilling to suspend uranium enrichment activities, BBC reported.

In a major policy shift toward Iran, the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Washington would join European states in talks with Iran if it agreed to halt its nuclear work.

Responding to the U.S. offer, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said: "We support dialogue in a fair and unbiased atmosphere, but we will not talk about our undeniable and legitimate rights, because this is the right of our people according to international laws and treaties.”

More at source


They are willing to talk, but not willing to give up their rights in order to talk.

Placing pre-conditions on talks shows that America has no intentions of talking.

Iran already had suspened enrichment activities for almost three years as talks went by, and America kept moving the goal posts or simply ignored Iran.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I dont agree,

I believe if Iran were really hell bent on aquirering this for ' peacful ' purposes..
putting it on HOLD while fine details are worked out will do what?
maybe delay there goals a few months?

its not like they NEED this energy source now. .and are struggling without it.

They are simply being hot .ed, and stubborn.
but why?

They are agreeing to talks, to make the world believe they are TRYING to resolve this peacefully.
But they are going against the requests... and for no apparent reason but ' because we dont want to '

They believe they are tricking the worldi nto believe the US are the real bad guys.
yeah the US at the moment is pretty dodgy, but iran doing what its doing says to me they are aware of the world situation, they are aware the us is in a hard place.. and they are aware they DONT want to attack.

so.. they are going to make them decide
either we let iran go nuclear, thus allowing iran to destroy israel when they place a outragoues request, that if isnt met is met by missles..
or we go in, risk a major crisis in the region.

either way.. no one wins.
a smart leader is needed to decide on a path and stick to it.

unfortunately it isnt Bush.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Its like a saying i heard once.

Smart bombs, stupid leaders.

As i said, it was obvious that Iran was not going to stop, and the US knew that, so now in the news i see they are finalising plans on this deal of which Iran has already declined, but US have not taken that as the final answer, yet.

newsbox.msn.co.uk... 3354&d=20060602&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I dont agree,

I believe if Iran were really hell bent on aquirering this for ' peacful ' purposes..
putting it on HOLD while fine details are worked out will do what?
maybe delay there goals a few months?

its not like they NEED this energy source now. .and are struggling without it.



I don't understand why they should have to wait. They are signers of the NPT and entitled to the research and enrichment. Did India wait? Did Pakistan wait? Has Israel or North Korea ever waited? Have any of these countries been subjected to the IAEA? They are all weaponized for sure! They didn't have to wait. These guys have not been proven to be making the bomb at this moment. Why should they be forced to enrich uranium somewhere else? Why , if uranium is one of their resources should they have to buy it from someone else? Why would we want them to have to transport enriched uranium over borders where a convoy could be hijacked instead of in a secure environment where its protected? To give other terrorists access to material for a dirty bomb? Why not just allow them to do their enrichment in their own secure facilities while under the watchful eye of the IAEA?

Not for nothing but if you were the leader of a country and you were basically surrounded on all sides by nations with unknown amounts of WMD's, I would say it was your duty as protector of your people to do likewise at any cost.

The sooner everyone disarms, the better. Hans Blix has the right idea.



UNITED NATIONS: Group: Outlaw nuclear weapons

A study led by former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix called Thursday for outlawing nuclear weapons and reviving global cooperation on disarmament.

As long as any nuclear, chemical and biological arms remain anywhere, "there is a high risk that they will one day be used by design or accident," the two-year investigation by the independent Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission concluded.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the stocks of such weapons remain extraordinarily high, including 27,000 nuclear weapons, about 12,000 of them still actively deployed, the commission said.

Source




top topics
 
0

log in

join