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 bars 38 atomic inspectors

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
today.reuters.com... Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7&rpc=92


Iran has barred 38 inspectors with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from entering the country, an Iranian lawmaker was quoted by Iran's ISNA news agency on Monday as saying.



"Iran has decided not to give entry permission to 38 inspectors from the IAEA and has announced this limitation to the IAEA officially," Boroujerdi told ISNA.


But...but it's for 'peaceful' purposes.........we're not hiding anything...




[edit on 22-1-2007 by ferretman2]




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
would you let in a group of people that are basicallly spies into your country and labs.

we are going to go through that inspectors in iraq thing again are we.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
they will give them permission after some political bargains with EU...
This is their style...first take a tough stans and then give something in political bargains..



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

But...but it's for 'peaceful' purposes.........


I agree that Iran would probably be using its enriched uranium for military weapons. But:

1) You don't start a war on speculation
2) You don't start a war on US intelligence (example: Iraq)
3) It's none of the US's business
4) Nuclear weapons are predominantly to strengthen one's political position

And if you believe that they would launch nuclear missiles on Israel, you should stop reading fairy tales.

The Soviet Union, once Western's biggest enemy, did not launch a single nuclear missile on Western soil, nor has China. Now the magical answer why nuclear weapons have only used once:

Because Japan did not have nuclear weapons, if they did, the US would probably not have dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan to avoid self-destruction

When are people going to understand this?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Seeing IAEA are in the region anyway, wouldn't it be a great idea if they jogged on over to Israel and conducted some long overdue inspections there ?

And why not, indeed ?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Dock....Israel is not a siqnatory to the NPT.

All Iran has to do is give 60 day notice and they can withdraw fro the NPT and do what-ever they pleae.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by ferretman2

But...but it's for 'peaceful' purposes.........


I agree that Iran would probably be using its enriched uranium for military weapons. But:

1) You don't start a war on speculation
2) You don't start a war on US intelligence (example: Iraq)
3) It's none of the US's business
4) Nuclear weapons are predominantly to strengthen one's political position

And if you believe that they would launch nuclear missiles on Israel, you should stop reading fairy tales.



Lets go over it point by point

"1. You don't start a war on speculation."

True

"2) You don't start a war on US intelligence (example: Iraq)"

False, then what should we start wars with, origami? Just because it was wrong this time doesn't mean it is always unreliable or that we should not trust it in the future.

3) It's none of the US's business

Nukes + Terrorists make it the US and the rest of the morally conscious world's responsibility. According to Augustine's docrine of war you would be correct, however weapons today aren't what they were in the 15th and 16th centuries. Today the Nuke and the destruction it can cause has changed war theory.
Hence, when there is Nukes + Terrorists(people with known intent) it is morally acceptable to go in early!



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit

False, then what should we start wars with, origami? Just because it was wrong this time doesn't mean it is always unreliable or that we should not trust it in the future.


On institutions such as the NATO and UN. UN inspection pointed out very clearly that Saddam Hussein was willing to cooperate and no traces of Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found. US intelligence, however, did come up with some vague ''evidence'', which turned out to be worthless and confirms that US intelligence should not be used for a final decision.



Originally posted by Low Orbit
Nukes + Terrorists make it the US and the rest of the morally conscious world's responsibility. According to Augustine's docrine of war you would be correct, however weapons today aren't what they were in the 15th and 16th centuries. Today the Nuke and the destruction it can cause has changed war theory.
Hence, when there is Nukes + Terrorists(people with known intent) it is morally acceptable to go in early!


Terrorists Ahmadinejad is an US-propaganda-made terrorist. Due to Bush's rhetoric, every single person that does not obey Washington is a terrorist nowadays.

Except China and Russia. Since they are too powerful and dangerous to mess with. China does not support the strategy to isolate Iran; when the US disclosed its frustration last week, China responded by telling Washington that it has no right to meddle with China's interests. The same applies for Russian nuclear fuel and arms deliveries to Iran.

The ignorant, dominant, brutal and unrespectable attitude and foreign US policies are the reason for the current increasing discord pattern.

After Vietnam and Iraq, the US is still convinced it can win by conducting war. That's no key to solve problems in most cases. Europe is a stage ahead in this perspective. We have had so many wars that we are now very well aware that we should try to avoid it if possible. I remember that Americans tended to call Europe ''weak'' and ''nancy’s'' and ''old Europe''. Now look were they ended up, in one big dirty mess with no escape possible.

Lately, it leaked out that Israel and Syria had been engaged in peace talks for years. Do you really think Washington was not aware of this? Yes, Bush, has called Syria time after time ''the Axis of Evil''.

This behavior has lead to current situation, in which the US has so many enemies and the number is only increasing.

Ask yourself why so many people do support the mission in Afghanistan while they don't support the war in Iraq? And willing to stop one from enriching uranium, just because you don't like him, or don't want a country that become to strong and not obeying to Washington is no legimit reason to attack Iran.

This is where we need troops: Darfur. The AU has decided to send 7000 thousand peace keepers, perhaps we could send 20.000 Americans to Darfur instead of to Iraq. I'm sure most Americans would be supporting it. But who cares about people dying? We do only care about them if they are useful for a political strategy.



[edit on 22-1-2007 by Mdv2]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Mdv - You happen to forget the other countries the US received 'reliable' intel from:

Germany
France
England
Russia

All angencies failed, it was not just a 'US' intelligence failure.

Oh and now we should go into Dafur.......

The US went into Vietnam under the same pretenses (civil war and to save the French) and look how all 'you' react to that.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Mdv - You happen to forget the other countries the US received 'reliable' intel from:

Germany
France
England
Russia

All angencies failed, it was not just a 'US' intelligence failure.


I didn't forget them intentionally, though. However, the crucial difference is that Germany and France urgently wanted to give the UN inspectors more time once it turned out that no WMDs could be identified, while the US was too impatient to wait and pushed on.

US interests have likely been of importance to the decision to go at war with Iraq.


Originally posted by ferretman2
Oh and now we should go into Dafur.......


The US should not have gone to Iraq, instead the should have gone to Darfur and to other regions where people want and desperately need our help.



Originally posted by ferretman2
The US went into Vietnam under the same pretenses (civil war and to save the French) and look how all 'you' react to that.


Your claim is false, and your perfectly know that. Back then it was like now: ''you are either with the communists or with us''. Both the US and Soviets tried to install communist and decromatic regimes everywhere possible.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by ferretman2

But...but it's for 'peaceful' purposes.........


And if you believe that they would launch nuclear missiles on Israel, you should stop reading fairy tales.

The Soviet Union, once Western's biggest enemy, did not launch a single nuclear missile on Western soil, nor has China. Now the magical answer why nuclear weapons have only used once:



Martyrdom isn't a goal in China or Russia. MAD is only effective against folks that don't wish to die. When you're dealing with an ideology such as the Iranian president has, you can't assume self preservation is as important as in other societies. Waiting for a city to be glowing before action is taken is unacceptable, as the stakes are too high.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Martyrdom isn't a goal in China or Russia. MAD is only effective against folks that don't wish to die. When you're dealing with an ideology such as the Iranian president has, you can't assume self preservation is as important as in other societies. Waiting for a city to be glowing before action is taken is unacceptable, as the stakes are too high.


Based on what facts do you base your assertion that the Ayatollahs want total destruction of Iran? I haven't been able to find any dogmas teaching that. I personally don't buy US and primarily Israeli propaganda, claiming how cruel and dangerous Iran is.

But if you can show we some (historical) facts to prove the opposite, feel free to show me.

Perhaps you would like the conclusion of the Oxford Research Group report:


Disputes over Iran's nuclear programme must be resolved through dialogue and negotiation, not through the use of force or even threats to use force. To his great credit, the former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw consistently argued while in office that the use of military force against Iran was "inconceivable". However, it is not enough to make pious statements while the inexorable march of events is moving towards a disastrous confrontation. The British Prime Minister Tony Blair has consistently refused to completely rule out a military attack on Iran. In order to make up, in part, for his ill-judged support of the neocon-driven war on Iraq, he must now make a resolute effort to act as an honest broker and mediator between the United States and Iran, and push for a peaceful and honourable solution to the present impasse. That policy would help both Iran and the United States and would be Mr Blair's greatest legacy for posterity. Meanwhile, America's greatest assistance to democracy in Iran would be to give people hope, to recognise Iran's legitimate rights and address her legitimate security concerns. In return, Iran could help stabilise the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf and help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Iran's population is young, educated, well-informed and outward looking.Iran has the second highest number of per capita internet bloggers in the world, only second to the United States. Persian is incredibly the fourth most commonly used language on the internet. 70% of Iran's 70 million population is below 30. Literacy is at around 80% nationwide, and over 90% among those below the age of 25. There are 22 million pupils in schools and close to 3 million university students, over 60% of them girls. That population can be won over with a genuine hand of friendship, not with threats and bullying. Israel's security, meanwhile, would best be served by an Iranian government that is more engaged with the West than one that is isolated, or by inflicting yet one more disastrous conflict on the region. The policy of sanctions followed by military action and regime change has failed, and is bound to fail again.

Source


America, don't make the same mistake again. Listen to the world, or you'll find yourself in an even tougher and more dangerous position.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Mdv2]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well they must be hiding something....just enough time to hide whatever they have...NO or YES?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I personally don't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon or not, and I do not believe Iran will nuke the US or Israel (though Israel is not my concern). The US wants no regional power in the Middle East...nor does Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. either frankly...

It isn't for our safety...the last and only war we really fought for our safety was World War 2. I don't believe in such nonesense, and most Americans are finally aware enough that they do not want another war under any circumstance, for the wrong circumstances.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
nor does Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. either frankly...


Which is why they are all going nuclear. Saudi Arabia probably has already nuclear weapons, while Jordan, Egypt and several other Gulf States have announced to be interested in nuclear programs.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
All Iran has to do is give 60 day notice and they can withdraw fro the NPT and do what-ever they pleae.


I don't think its as simple as that. I believe that even if they resign from the NPT they are still held to occurances while under the NPT, so they would still be screwed.

As far as Israel goes, no they are not signors of the NPT but the manner in which they took reciept of the technology and the heavy water was illegal. If it was legit, then why the need for shipments being diverted through other countries and falsified shipping documents? While they may not be part of the NPT, the countries that sold them these things are still responsible for giving it to them and Israel for possesing/purchasing it illegally and not within the operating guidelines they said the intended use was. Obviously they have not been using it for peaceful power production. I wouldn't count Nuclear warheads as an energy byproduct



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I don't know why this news is surprising. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't kick out the IAEA a while ago. Israel has been harrassing them for over a decade making accusations that they were "this close to the bomb" constantly calling for sanctioning as well, then you allow Israel to go on spouting that they want to attack them openly and publicly, now they have American warships surrounding them, and to top it off, we recently kidnapped 5 of their countrymen in Iraq from a Consulate in progress. I don't know what it is Irael and the USA are trying to accomplish but I think that whatever the results will be it will be nothing but violence and death in the end for people that have no say or control over the matter.

So far they have been allowing not only physical inspection but video monitoring as well, so now what will be the fruit of all this? Secret labratories? More Deep Underground bunkers? This looks like an almost repeat of Iraq and yet people are still behind it. Amazing.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I don't think that the majority of the Iranian people wish to be martyred
in the name of their president. It's evident by the criticism he's been getting at home that there are a lot of folks that disagree with his policies and rhetoric. He on the other hand has taken very extreme positions, which can't be taken lightly. The bigger danger of the Iranian nuclear program is the supplying of terrorist group with nukes. One can retaliate against a country, but it's much more difficult to respond to a nuclear attack from a small group. That's why these extreme nations can't be allowed to have these sorts of weapons. They can't be trusted not to give them to groups to do their dirty work for them.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
I don't know why this news is surprising. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't kick out the IAEA a while ago. Israel has been harrassing them for over a decade making accusations that they were "this close to the bomb" constantly calling for sanctioning as well, then you allow Israel to go on spouting that they want to attack them openly and publicly, now they have American warships surrounding them, and to top it off, we recently kidnapped 5 of their countrymen in Iraq from a Consulate in progress. I don't know what it is Irael and the USA are trying to accomplish but I think that whatever the results will be it will be nothing but violence and death in the end for people that have no say or control over the matter.

So far they have been allowing not only physical inspection but video monitoring as well, so now what will be the fruit of all this? Secret labratories? More Deep Underground bunkers? This looks like an almost repeat of Iraq and yet people are still behind it. Amazing.



I'm not sure kidnapping is the most accurate term to use with regards to rounding up FIS types.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

I'm not sure kidnapping is the most accurate term to use with regards to rounding up FIS types.


What does FIS type mean? Do we now operate like Israel does and just take people we deem guilty without explanation other then they are supplying insurgents? I highly doubt these 5 people are supplying Iraq with the means to fight the US off. I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraqis aren't also using the huge shipment of explosives that went missing some time ago. Tons of explosives just mysteriously disappear and nothing is done about that. I guess it just vanished and none of it is used to make IED's at all? Maybe someone sold it to China to make bottlerockets and firecrackers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join