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 rules out suspending enrichment program

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Iran rules out suspending enrichment program


www.washingtontimes.com

GENEVA (AP) - Iran on Saturday ruled out freezing its uranium enrichment program, casting doubt over the value of its talks with six world powers less then an hour after they started.

The talks _ with the U.S. in attendance for the first time _ had raised expectations of possible compromise on a formula under which Iran would agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities. In exchange, the six powers _ including the five permanent U.N. Security Council members _ would hold off on passing new U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

(visit the link for the full news article)

 


Update:

U.S., Allies Give Iran Ultimatum After Nuclear Talks Stall



www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-7-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The U.S. is participating in these talks, and it is possible that this could be from the U.S. perspective a one last shot at a diplomatic solution.

For Iran, this could mean that preemptive strikes from the USA and perhaps Israel can move forward soon, as they will now be able to say we gave them every opportunity to resolve this diplomatically.

Setting the stage for preemptive strikes?



www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I just read this too. Condi Rice (that wild baby child!) talked with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, talking smack and acting like IRAN was a unruly teenager that needed car keys taken away.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 


I seen that too, Rice seemed to make the case that this was Iran's last chance at a "diplomatic resolution".

It almost seemed like a threat more than a means to avoid conflict.

In my opinion it seems more for show, so that when Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked it can be said for world opinion that "we gave them every chance to resolve this diplomatically"

Perhaps they knew Iran would do this and this is simply a way to expedite the military option?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 


Exactly, and there have been enough news stories to the contrary..."no war with IRAN" almost a drumbeat, like "let's cover our asses and then have no choice upon the next 'terrorist' attack." These crooks are dangerous, will be the death of us all, and the sad part is, we've allowed them to do it.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It will be interesting to see the oil markets reaction to this latest news.

$160 a barrel by close Monday?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I really wish Iran would just come out and say ok fair enough we will stop pursuing nuclear weapons.And stop all uranium enrichment programs straight away.
Then what would they do?What excuse would they use?
Man wouldn't that rain on there parade.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Being_From_Earth
 


In that case the first thing that would happen is Iran would be accused of bluffing and offers no proof that they are actually suspending their nuclear programs.

Actually I believe the Iranians are expecting preemptive strikes regardless of what their public positions are.

That would at least explain why only one hour into these meetings they ruled out suspending their uranium enrichment program.

I am wondering what Iran is planning in retaliation to any preemptive strikes on their nuke facilities.

Basically neither side seems willing to compromise their positions now, so what other options does that leave the USA?

How long do you honestly think the Israelis will wait before they take action on their own with a military response?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez


Originally posted by pluckynoonez
Condi Rice (that wild baby child!) talked with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, talking smack and acting like IRAN was a unruly teenager that needed car keys taken away.


 


Here is some of that interview originally aired yesterday...


"One Shot Deal"






[edit on 19-7-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Were it not for the various threats made by Iran to Israel, I would almost consider taking their side on this. They have claimed on multiple occasions that the enriched fuel is being used to power the reactors at powerplants, in order to help stimulate the economy or improve quality of life or whatever else you do with electrical energy.

If this is the case, though, and America REALLY, REALLY didn't want Iran to continue enriching Uranium, they could fly in and install a couple CANDU reactors. Besides being safer than most other designs, they run on natural, ie. unenriched, uranium. That way, Iran gets the power they want, and the US gets to watch them NOT make enriched uranium. Both sides win?

Instead, though, the solution once again seems to come down to arms.

I have to ask myself exactly why America would even want Iran. Before anyone says "oil", consider that Alberta is a much closer location if you wanted to barge in and take it by force. (Good Luck on that one, though.)


[edit on 19-7-2008 by Ephiram-Lo]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I suggest readers view the above video, after reading the news report in the opening post, see the contradictions, and think for a while about the possible implications.

Is a war with Iran as inevitable as the current war in Iraq was?

[edit on 19-7-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ephiram-Lo
If this is the case, though, and America REALLY, REALLY didn't want Iran to continue enriching Uranium, they could fly in and install a couple CANDU reactors. Besides being safer than most other designs, they run on natural, ie. unenriched, uranium.


The international community has made an offer like the above to Iran see the report here:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I believe Iran was given a time period to accept the offer and so far has not, also there was a stipulation that Iran abandon its enrichment program.

I believe the time for Iran to accept that offer has already expired.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Worrying.

I really do think we're on the brink of a war that will change this world for a very, very long time to come.

Good night and good luck.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 

Iran (a proven state sponsor of terror) is going for nukes clear as day. Time is being wasted dilly dallying around waiting for what? An Iranian climb down? It clearly just isn't going to happen. The only way of stopping the main pillar within The Axis of Evil is by other means.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The Axis perished at the end of the Second World War.

Do your history lessons before you talk about any sort of far-away country's actions being "clear as day".

Also, where is the proof that they're sponsor terrorism as a state? Even then, if the state is sponsoring you, you're acting in its interests. Doesn't that make you a soldier, not a terrorist? Your name might not be on an official military roster, but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to "protect" against some sort of "threat."

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Ephiram-Lo]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ephiram-Lo
Also, where is the proof that they're sponsor terrorism as a state? Even then, if the state is sponsoring you, you're acting in its interests. Doesn't that make you a soldier, not a terrorist? Your name might not be on an official military roster, but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to "protect" against some sort of "threat."


The media proof:

This from 1998:

query.nytimes.com...

From 2004

findarticles.com...

From 2005 (PDF file)

www.washingtoninstitute.org...

Other various reports:

www.cnn.com...

www.state.gov...

www.meforum.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

There is much more out there.

Question, do you really think the world should allow Iran to have nukes?







[edit on 19-7-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 

Allow Iran nukes? The answer is a very big no because it's blatantly not in our interest to allow a proven state sponsor of terror a nuclear weapon. Is it good for us to allow Mr Armadinnerjihad an arsenal of nukes to hand out to proxies throughout the world in order to attack western interests. Nope and with the clock running out it's time to stop the Iranians in their tracks.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoorbhunter
 


You may be wrong and right, as this recent news seems to indicate that all "diplomatic efforts" have failed to get Iran to suspend the enrichment program, so war could be imminent.

I still hold out hope for a possible peaceful resolution, yet I can't help but expect that Israel in particular will NOT let that happen, for them there can be only one solution... An Iran with NO nuclear capabilities, or NO Iran!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Yep and the World 6 just gave Iran a 2 week ultimatum. I wonder how thats going to turn out?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
As Kissinger pointed out there's too much hardware in the theatre and too much history to avoid a war especially as both sides are seemingly unable to change course. To be frank it's going to happen like it or not. If the US doesn't do it then Israel will for sure. What happens after is the big question. A surgical strike surely will only encourage the regime to crack on with its nuclear plan. I can't see any hope that this surgical strike is anything more than a delay in Irans nuclear quest. The only long term answer is either put Iran back to the stone age or and it's the real answer............ Regime change and basically making another ME colony out of Iran. We may as well colonisxe the whole ME if we are to be sure of deterring an Islamic fundamentalist state from getting nukes.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join