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 wants Security Council appearance

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I whole heartaly agree that Isreal should disarm itself of nukes along with every other country. Nukes are bad and cause to many problems, HOWEVER, the few countries that have nukes now are fairly responsable about how they go about it. The less countries we have with nukes the better.
Back on topic, Iran has chosen to continue even after sanctions, if they did mean peaceful means with its nuclear program, they probably would have not done this. Also as Xphiles has talked about, the heavy water reactors. All I'm saying is that it points more towards the building of nukes then not.




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by ludaChris
I'm all for Iran having nuclear energy, everyone should, its clean though expensive. If Iran can show without a shadow of a doubt that they are after energy only and not nukes, then I will support their endeavour 100%. But its just the way they have dealt with the IAEA that gives me pause about their motives. I will look forward to hearing the case he makes.


Thats the problem, they cant.

They refuse to use light-water reactors which do not produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium.

There is only a few reasons to use heavy-water reactors:

1. they can use raw uranium ore (unnecesary in iran's case since they enrich their uranium)

2. produce weapons grade plutonium

So their "peaceful" program is BS. The government knows this, thats why they are unconvinced.



Mate I don't think the problem is with the kind of reactor or at least the major part of the problem has nothing to do with the type of reactor it is the fact that Iran want a full fule cyle this means enrichment and reprocessing. Once Iran has this then it becomes a Nuclear capable state. This is were the problem lies!

Also I have heard that with heavy water reactors you only need uranium and not enriched uranium! I am not sure how ture this is but if true then this is surely a peacfull use of heavy water reactor??

Iran has had the need to hide its program as the regime inside Iran considers the whole world against it and they were sure that they would be stopped if they said from the begining what they were wanting to do which is a full peacfull nuclear cycle. Heck even now they are getting stopped imagine how easy it would have been if from the begining they had announced their intentions!

i am no supporter of the Mullah regime.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seeker PI

Originally posted by bodrul

would that be the speach where he said zionest regieme?
not israel which i last time checked zionest regieme wasnt a country :


It depends on what translation you read and who it came from bodrul.

I've seen it expressed as you state for sure. But I think it's irrelevant. It's the sentiment behind the words that count, and any "Zionist regime" has to include the State of Israel.

Dont get me wrong I would love see the situation resolved peacefully, but Ahmadinejad doesn't really want that, does he?]


Are you now agreeing that maybe Ahamadi saying the Zionist regime should be wiped maybe is similar to West saying that the Mullacracy in Iran should be wiped(regime change)? West doesn't say they want to kill Iranians, do they? So Ahmadi is not saying he wants to kill Jewish people.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well, Iran has been given the opportunity of using light-water reactors and it has refused. I cant understand why if they are already enriching uranium, they should not have a problem with light-water reactors, especially if it is for "peaceful purposes."

they insist on using heavy-water breeder type reactors.....

well, that kind of gives what they are up to away.


The problem is with the nuclear fule cylce that Iran wants, no?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
On the part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his administration, it is a master-stroke. President Ahmadinejad has been described as having charisma and that he is an excellent speaker. I am certain that he will "bring his case" to the UN in the hopes of acceptance by the world community and that the threat of sanctions can be eliminated. A question remains as to whether his "charisma" and the 'elequence of Farsi (the language of Iran) can be translated to mean that he will adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation agreements that his nation had signed. Let us hope that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to tell the UN general assembly that he was just kidding with them all of this time. Let us hope that President Ahmadinejad will permit inspections of his "peaceful nuclear program". That done, I'm sure that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will get all the acclaim, kudos and charismatic adoration that he desires.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
So their "peaceful" program is BS. The government knows this, thats why they are unconvinced.



and most of this is BS

where is your evidence iran is building a bomb or intends to
i want to see some facts not some BS opinion




their insistance on using breeder type reactors is pretty convincing in my mind.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   


Mate I don't think the problem is with the kind of reactor or at least the major part of the problem has nothing to do with the type of reactor it is the fact that Iran want a full fule cyle this means enrichment and reprocessing. Once Iran has this then it becomes a Nuclear capable state. This is were the problem lies!

Also I have heard that with heavy water reactors you only need uranium and not enriched uranium! I am not sure how ture this is but if true then this is surely a peacfull use of heavy water reactor??

Iran has had the need to hide its program as the regime inside Iran considers the whole world against it and they were sure that they would be stopped if they said from the begining what they were wanting to do which is a full peacfull nuclear cycle. Heck even now they are getting stopped imagine how easy it would have been if from the begining they had announced their intentions!

i am no supporter of the Mullah regime.


It doesnt need a full nuclear cycle to achieve its goal of energy production, thats where the lie lies. (sorry had to put a pun there)

I have no problem with Iran using reactors if it follows all the guidelines established by the IAEA and opens ALL its facilities to full inspections.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan


I have no problem with Iran using reactors if it follows all the guidelines established by the IAEA and opens ALL its facilities to full inspections.





Does US open All its facilities to UN inspecitons? Does Israel? Does France?

Why Iran should? what about the military installations? what about cutting edge research?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Until their is hard proof Iran is building nuclear weapons, we have no grounds to do anything.

Look at Iraq?
We did what we did on highly dubious evidence...

what makes you think it's going to succeed,

this time



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
So their "peaceful" program is BS. The government knows this, thats why they are unconvinced.



and most of this is BS

where is your evidence iran is building a bomb or intends to
i want to see some facts not some BS opinion




He has no evidence as he's yet another radicalized victim of fine American and Israeli propaganda. I'm not joking here, radicalism is not a Muslim only thing, as some believe on here nor is it always related to violence.

Europe, Israel and the US have no right to forbid Iran from enriching uranium; as for Israel, they don't even obey the UN themselves and Europe and the US allowed South Korea, Saudi Arabia and others to freely enrich uranium so saying Iran can't because we don't like them is no legit reason.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan

Originally posted by XphilesPhan


I have no problem with Iran using reactors if it follows all the guidelines established by the IAEA and opens ALL its facilities to full inspections.





Does US open All its facilities to UN inspecitons?



We arent threatening to "push israel into the mediteranean" either..



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2


He has no evidence as he's yet another radicalized victim of fine American and Israeli propaganda. I'm not joking here, radicalism is not a Muslim only thing, as some believe on here nor is it always related to violence.



And you have no evidence that they are not. At this point, as others have said, there is more evidence indicating that Iran does plan to develop nuclear weapons and if your a european, you should be very concerned as europe will be in range of their missiles.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Mdv2


He has no evidence as he's yet another radicalized victim of fine American and Israeli propaganda. I'm not joking here, radicalism is not a Muslim only thing, as some believe on here nor is it always related to violence.



And you have no evidence that they are not. At this point, as others have said, there is more evidence indicating that Iran does plan to develop nuclear weapons and if your a european, you should be very concerned as europe will be in range of their missiles.


Yeah your right,

so what should we do,

blow them up, similar with what we did to iraq ( look how well thats going )
Or allow them to prove themselves. Which will either end up with us blowing them up, or finding a new partner in a world stage.

what is the better option?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I think it is rather clear. We must simply wait and hear out President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If nothing else, the world might have a better idea of his intentions.

On one hand, I think it is quite justified that the UN has threatened increased sanctions against Iran. While it is quite proper that Iran develop nuclear power for the good of it's people, it is quite another thing for Iran to do so without complying to agreements that Iran made to allow inspectors -- just like all complying countries must do -- into Iran to ascertain compliance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

There is also justification in the lack of trust that the UN might have for Iran at this point. After all, it is one thing for a "regular joe" to express the desire to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth (to paraphrase President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) but it is quite another for a leader of country to do so. It certainly doesn't leave much room for diplomacy now does it?

Another aspect that might raise "alarm bells" is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed belief that he is on 'messianic mission' to bring about a predicted end of times as expressed in the Koran. Yes, this is troubling. It is troubling when American presidents do it and, likewise, it is troubling when the leader of Iran does it.

Let us listen to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and hear out his side of the story. After all, he is the one who asked for the time at the general assembly. Could we really ask for more? Perhaps his address will clarify things -- one way or another.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Yeah your right,

so what should we do,

blow them up, similar with what we did to iraq ( look how well thats going )
Or allow them to prove themselves. Which will either end up with us blowing them up, or finding a new partner in a world stage.

what is the better option?


No one said anything about invading or "blowing them up." But as Iran is a signatory of the NPT, is it too much to ask that they simply follow the guidelines they agreed to adhere to? I dont think so, and neither should anyone else as this agreements guidelines are pretty cut and dry. As long as Iran complies with the NPT, they are afforded with nuclear energy technology as a reward. Its in Irans interest to follow the agreement, and in no ones for them to deviate from it.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
And you have no evidence that they are not.


So you are suggesting that we should all change in a bunch of paranoid radicals and bomb the hell out of every suspicious individual or country? I know that human rights are not of relevance anymore to the current US administration, but I thought innocent until proven guilty was a typical American thing.

Perhaps the US should nuke Russia and China away to ensure they won't try anything stupid in the future.


Originally posted by XphilesPhan
At this point, as others have said, there is more evidence indicating that Iran does plan to develop nuclear weapons and if your a european, you should be very concerned as europe will be in range of their missiles.


I am honestly not afraid of Iranian missiles. Why? Because there's no reason to be afraid. The Iranian government, no Ahmadinejad has no power, he's a puppet, like Bush and has almost no influence on decisions made in Iran, won't attack Europe. Why? Because it would mean the end of the Ayatollah regime and they are aware of that. They won't attack anyone unless someone attack them and that's what's going on. Israel and/or the US will attack Iran sooner or later then they'll retaliate and likely Israel will be the target, not Europe as they simply have no reason.

Please don't come up with personal attacks on how anti-Israeli I am because they are fully responsible for it themselves should they decide to attack Iran.

There's more evidence that Iran does plan to develop nuclear weapons

What evidence do you speak of? The fact that they are not willing to obey to European/US/Israeli demands? Obviously, they have some dignity. I'm sure you weren't so radical when Israel ''secretly'' enriched uranium for the sole purpose of obtaining nuclear weapons. If the US wants to play the global cop so badly then it should act like it; that doesn't mean allowing one to enrich while demanding another to stop enriching. If not, you cannot expect one to take you serious.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
But as Iran is a signatory of the NPT, is it too much to ask that they simply follow the guidelines they agreed to adhere to?


Could you elaborate which guideline Iran currently violates?

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Could you elaborate which guideline Iran currently violates?


According to IAEA, Iran has numerous violations of the treaties that were signed and agreed upon by signatories that, most assuredly, included Iran. In other words, Iran agreed to these IAEA regulations and they were not something that the West "imposed" upon Iran.

Among the activities that places Iran in major violation of the IAEA treaties are:

- The failure to report Uranium Imports from China (Iran has acknowledged this)

- Iran did not inform the IAEA of it's program of Uranium Conversion (Iran acknowledged this).

-Iran did not report it's program of Uranium enrichment to the IAEA

-Iran did not report the presence of enrichment facilities or labs at several of their nuclear development sites.

-Iran did not report Laser Isotope Enrichment experiments, again an IAEA requirement

-Iran did not report the development of uranium dioxide and other Plutonium Experiments

Summary of Iran's IAEA violations



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by zurvan

Originally posted by XphilesPhan


I have no problem with Iran using reactors if it follows all the guidelines established by the IAEA and opens ALL its facilities to full inspections.





Does US open All its facilities to UN inspecitons?



We arent threatening to "push israel into the mediteranean" either..





I don't think Iran has threatened to push Israel into the mediteranean? has it? I thought it was Arab nations to said that?

The stupid President of iran said if translated corretly:
the Zionist Regime should be wiped of earth. as someone on this forum pointed out how is this different to US wanting regime change in Iran? Should the idea of regime change be taken as the will to kill all Iranians? or destroy Iran?

I am in now way a supporter of the regime in Iran



and yes you don't threaten Israel but US has used Nuclear weapons and is today threatening to us it on Civilians priembptively!



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Among the activities that places Iran in major violation of the IAEA treaties are:

- The failure to report Uranium Imports from China (Iran has acknowledged this)

- Iran did not inform the IAEA of it's program of Uranium Conversion (Iran acknowledged this).

-Iran did not report it's program of Uranium enrichment to the IAEA

-Iran did not report the presence of enrichment facilities or labs at several of their nuclear development sites.

-Iran did not report Laser Isotope Enrichment experiments, again an IAEA requirement

-Iran did not report the development of uranium dioxide and other Plutonium Experiments

Summary of Iran's IAEA violations



Good points. but they are all now declared aren't they? so can you show some present and acitve violations of NPT?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join