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 'responds to nuclear offer'

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Iran 'responds to nuclear offer'


news.bbc.co.uk

Iran has given its response to an offer of incentives by major powers for suspending uranium enrichment, Iranian state media report.

They say the response was delivered to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana by Iran's ambassador in Belgium, without giving any further details.

The incentives package - from China, the EU, France, Russia, the UK and US - was offered to Iran in June.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Iran has just sent a response to the package offer from the US/EU and so on.

wounder what the response could be?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
wonder what the response could be?


Two fingers. Guaranteed.

Edit for clarification - I do not think they will accept these incentives or halt enrichment. I get the impression that Iran will not outwardly admit to any wrongdoing.

[edit on 4/7/08 by Smokersroom]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smokersroom

Originally posted by bodrul
wonder what the response could be?


Two fingers. Guaranteed.


Ah...but which two? Would they be the middle ones on each hand, or the first and middle on one hand (the peace symbol)? I would like to think after Israel said no attacks, and the US said no attacks, that it would be the peace symbol.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It will be the usual stalling tactics. They'll say they won't stop enriching uranium, but that they think the proposals are a good basis for further discussions which could take place next month, etc, etc. And, as usual, the EU/UN will let it slide.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It seems as though, people don't want to admit that this story might just be the truth. It almost seems people are wanting doom and gloom. I think one biggest reason we have changed our stance is that Russia said if we attach Iran it's an attack against them. I don't think the US wants a war with Russia right now.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I've yet to see anything official from Russia saying that an attack on Iran is an "attack on Russia" - apart from one source (in another thread) which, as far as I know, was just from an "Iranian official" who is bound to say that anyway! In fact, Russia seems as frustrated as everybody else with Iran - not long ago they were admitting they were concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. The only reason the US hasn't attacked Iran yet (or given Israel the green light) is because they haven't secured Iraq and are worried the place will turn into an even bigger hell-hole than it is now. If Iraq had gone more to plan I'm betting Iran would have been attacked a while ago.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Okay, the way I see it is, the world is way too dependent on oil.
Iran recognizes this and doesn't want to be bound to a failing fuel source.
For the future of Iran, alternatives are the only option. Nuclear Power Plants being as efficient as they are, they are the best option.
Hence, they are building nuclear power plants.

Now, Nuclear Power Plants, and Nuclear Weapons have very little to do with each other, besides the original theory of fission.
The parts aren't interchangeable.

Now, outside of the Nuclear Power Plant discussion, they may or may not be making Nuclear Weapons. But suspending their construction of Nuclear Power Plants isn't an option.


1: The world needs to offer them deals based on proving against Nuclear Weapons... not based on suspending Nuclear Power Plants.

2: Iran needs to prove to the world that they do not possess nuclear weapons.


Unfortunately though, we've seen this play out before with Iraq.
Iraq didn't have WMD's either. And quite frankly, they proved it.
However, the US and a number of other countries ignored the evidence, and declared war.
Iran saw this, and knows that if they prove they don't have WMD's, they will still be attacked. They simply don't trust the US to stick to their word.

So in Iran's view... they are going to get attacked no matter what.
And because of this, they will now be actively seeking nuclear weapons when they weren't previously, because they don't want to be attacked.


Iran is looking out for themselves. As any country would.
The problem is, we've given them reason to believe they will be attacked whether they have WMD's or not.


So...
If you were in charge of a country that is about to be targeted (Iran), knowing that even if you try to reason with them, you will still likely be attacked. You just watched the exact same thing happen to your neighbor.
Would you still try to reason with them?

[edit on 4-7-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Probably be a middle finger and probably rightfully so. Iran has a right to nuclear energy by law because they are part of the NPT. But a peaceful end either way will make me happy.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
So it seems we were right to suggest that Iran wouldn't back down, even in the face of an appeasement by the EU.

See new thread below, 'Iran refuses to change nuclear position':

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 5/7/08 by Smokersroom]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Doesn't anyone see that of course Iran would reply to this, it buys them more time and offers them an opportunity to gain concessions.

It's a way to keep Israel cool for a little while. USA does not want this to happen now (war with Iran), we can't afford it.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join