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.

 

Ahmadinejad says no need for nuclear weapons

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
UNITED NATIONS - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Thursday that Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful and said he is "at a loss" about what more he can do to provide guarantees. "The bottom line is we do not need a bomb.....

Link here


Good Man !!




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Ofcourse. I feel for him. His nation is going to be attacked pretty soon, no doubt about it.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Ofcourse. I feel for him. His nation is going to be attacked pretty soon, no doubt about it.


?????

I am confused. Who exactly is going to be attacking Iran pretty soon?

The US? - Yeah, right. They're bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. I can't imagine the US sending troops there. If they do, it's going to be even harder than what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I seriuosly can't see anyone invading or attacking them soon. Tell me who.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Iran has no need for nuclear weapons, they have a far greater weapon at their disposal for diplomatic leverage...the 'STOP' button on the oil pumps



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Iran to U.S.: We're ready to talk.

That's the basic message here. This is the first time that Ahmadinejad has officially said the country is disinterested in pursuing nukes. Sounds like the Iranian security council has finally pressured the pres to back off against the U.S.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Do your research my man. Preparations in progress. Only a slight fraction of the military firepower has been committed to the Middle East. Do you really think we'd be bogged down if we fought a total war?




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Hold up a second here. A politician states something, and you take it at face value? Politicians lie, its what they do, regardless if they're from Iran, America, the UK, Bulgaria, or where ever else. Do you really think this Iranian President would come out and say, "Yes, we want this technology for nuclear weapons" ? That'd be absurd, and so is believing him if he says, "No, we don't want nuclear weapons".

It amazes me that a board comprised almost exclusively of skeptics and conspiracy theorists, who don't believe anything that the President of the United States or any member of his administration says, can take Ahmadinejad at his word.

What ever happened to "deny ignorance"? Or is that just a couple of buzz words that only apply when it fits into an agenda?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Hold up a second here. A politician states something, and you take it at face value? Politicians lie, its what they do, regardless if they're from Iran, America, the UK, Bulgaria, or where ever else. Do you really think this Iranian President would come out and say, "Yes, we want this technology for nuclear weapons" ? That'd be absurd, and so is believing him if he says, "No, we don't want nuclear weapons".

It amazes me that a board comprised almost exclusively of skeptics and conspiracy theorists, who don't believe anything that the President of the United States or any member of his administration says, can take Ahmadinejad at his word.

What ever happened to "deny ignorance"? Or is that just a couple of buzz words that only apply when it fits into an agenda?


Wow...you also show some naivte. Politicians lie? Absolutely. But they also love to play double speak, and political analysis 101 dictates that you take every word a politico says to divine what the real message is.

In this case, I believe Ahmadinejad is taking the first steps toward backing down on uranium enrichment. Or at least the first step toward a national policy of agreeing not to produce nukes.

Now, whether he does come to a pact or re-validate the non-nuclear proliferation treaty just to bide more time while clandestinely continuing a nuke weapon program -- that's open to discussion.

But on the face of this report, this is the first time he has plainly stated that Iran has no need for nukes. That's a big statement on his part, and seems to indicate he's taking another step toward the Western nations on a compromise.

This doesn't indicate he will stop enriching. My guess is he won't. But it does seem he is making overtures to countries like France and even to an extent England who are looking for some tolken of assurance prior to negotiations.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Here is my take on it. If Ahmed is being truthful or not, I think we should be talking to them. One, find out what they are really up to.
Hell, in the process, we could make some oil deals that could help out around here. And if we do find out they are wanting nukes, go forward with whatever they got planned. I just dont see what the big deal is with our president not wanting to talk.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
with regimes that support and fund terrorism! Good GOD people! Where have you been for the past 5 years!? yeah, let's take this LIAR for his word - just like he has denied funding Hammas and Hezbollah or arming Hezbollah during the last conflict with Israel!? Come on! DENY IGNORANCE!!! To put faith into ANYTHING this man is saying is folly to say the least.

Question: Why are people rushing to defend Iran and becoming apologists for their insistance on enriching uranium? The United States has liberated more people and contributed more aid than any other nation in the world, yet WE are the bad guys? There just cannot be that many stupid people in the world - can there be?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
If its peaceful, why are many of the facilities in underground hardened areas built to withstand any possible airstrikes. Sounds more like preventing anybody from interfering their objective which is the bomb.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
with regimes that support and fund terrorism! Good GOD people! Where have you been for the past 5 years!? yeah, let's take this LIAR for his word - just like he has denied funding Hammas and Hezbollah or arming Hezbollah during the last conflict with Israel!? Come on! DENY IGNORANCE!!! To put faith into ANYTHING this man is saying is folly to say the least.

Question: Why are people rushing to defend Iran and becoming apologists for their insistance on enriching uranium? The United States has liberated more people and contributed more aid than any other nation in the world, yet WE are the bad guys? There just cannot be that many stupid people in the world - can there be?


I'm not defending Iran, nor am I excusing a country that has supported terrorism. In fact, I think past comments on threads, I've been very vocal in my assessment that Ahmadinejad is the greatest threat to the world today.

I am simply saying that Ahmad has given a signal to the world community that he may be open to negotiations. By saying they are not interested in the bomb, he really is trying to baby step toward a face-saving solution to the standoff with the U.S.

That's it. Just an assessment. Not apologizing for Pres Tom.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
If its peaceful, why are many of the facilities in underground hardened areas built to withstand any possible airstrikes. Sounds more like preventing anybody from interfering their objective which is the bomb.


Maybe because the US is dominating all sides of their border? And has already decimated two Middle Eastern countries? I don't blame them for taking precautions.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Maybe because the US is dominating all sides of their border? And has already decimated two Middle Eastern countries? I don't blame them for taking precautions.


And what about denying access to IAEA inspectors? Don't you think that is a little fishy?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I do, however you may have missed the recent report from the IAEA that they beleive Iran is no nuclear threat. The US ignored it (obviously).



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I do, however you may have missed the recent report from the IAEA that they beleive Iran is no nuclear threat. The US ignored it (obviously).


I read it, lots of mumble jumble. Says can't conlude anything so its continuing its investigation. Doesn't say Iran is no nuclear threat.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Which one are you looking at?

(not one line)



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Which one are you looking at?

(not one line)


www.iaea.org...

Here you read it. Hope it helps provide their view of Iran's activities.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
G. 27. "Has been providing access to nuclear material and facilities."

I think they've done enough. As I was going to say earlier, the IAEA (or rather the US) wants to see everything, all of their records and information included. That to me is invading the right of privacy.

How would it be, if Iran lobbied in the UN for all of the US secret sites, anthrax facilities, and god knows what else to be completely opened up for inspection.

Double standards. It's obvious..



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
G. 27. "Has been providing access to nuclear material and facilities."

I think they've done enough. As I was going to say earlier, the IAEA (or rather the US) wants to see everything, all of their records and information included. That to me is invading the right of privacy.



Did you just like left some parts out?


Summary.
G. 27.

27. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to nuclear material and facilities, and has
provided the required reports. Although Iran has provided the Agency with some information
concerning product assays at PFEP, Iran continues to decline Agency access to certain operating
records at PFEP.
28. Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary
transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities. Iran has not suspended its
enrichment related activities; nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the Additional
Protocol.
29. The Agency will continue to pursue its investigation of all remaining outstanding issues relevant
to Iran’s nuclear activities. However, the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts
to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations with a view to confirming the
GOV/2006/53
Page 6
peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Director General will continue to report as
appropriate.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join