Iran nuclear negotiator calls for atomic arms ban

Iran nuclear negotiator calls for atomic arms ban

news.yahoo.com

TOKYO – Iran's chief nuclear negotiator called for a global nuclear weapons ban on Monday but insisted all nations — including his own — have the right to develop nuclear energy.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.khaleejt imes.com

Some highlights from the article:

"The crime that was committed in Hiroshima must never be repeated," Jalili told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, referring to the United States' dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II.

"All the efforts of the world should be directed toward the eradication of these weapons," he said.

In Paris on Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the international community has no other choice but to impose new U.N. sanctions on Iran for its refusal to cooperate on its nuclear program.

Kouchner said Russia was already "on board" with the need for sanctions, and that he believed "the Chinese will follow."

"I think there is no other solution," Kouchner told journalists.

America's top military officer agreed Monday that Tehran shows no sign of backing down in the standoff and said that military force must therefore remain an option.

"My belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security and that military force will have limited results," Adm. Mike Mullen wrote in an annual assessment of the nation's risks and priorities. "However, should the president call for military options, we must have them ready."

U.S. Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, emphasized to television network ABC on Monday, however, that "sanctions have to be tried before we explore the last option," like a military attack.

Iran has balked at the plan, and Jalili dodged questions Monday about Tehran's response to it. He accused the West of trying to "monopolize" the nuclear fuel supply by rejecting Iranian offers to buy fuel rods for its research reactor and then by making conditions on the uranium swap.

The U.N.-brokered plan was seen by the U.S. and its negotiating partners as a step toward building confidence in Iran's claim that its nuclear program is designed only for civilian pursuits — medical purposes and to generate electricity.

"The Tehran reactor is for pharmaceutical use, for humanitarian use," Jalili said. "Using nuclear energy is the right of every nation."

Iran itself is calling for complete eradication of Nuclear weapons but at the same time insisting to use Nuclear technology for electricity and medical purpose.

The comments made by Kochner and US Admn. are alarming nonetheless. This is view of Ahmadinejad last statement

“Everything is possible, 400 kilos, 800 kilos, it’s nothing,” for enrichment abroad, he said in a new gesture to try to end the nuclear standoff.

“But not in a climate where they threaten us. They have to change their vocabulary, in respect and legality.

“In this case we will say, very good you want to keep your word, in this case we are ready to sit down at the table to reach an agreement,” Ahmadinejad said in an interview in the Danish capital.

Ahmadinejad says Iran open to nuclear deal if “threats” stop

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

A nuclear arms ban has been talked about before.
It has not happened in the past, and I don't think it will happen now.
I also think the negotiator who is quoted in this thread knows that.

"Sanctions have to be tried"?

Really, mr. McCain? You mean like how they were tried on Iraq? 12 years of what, in every sense of the word, was an active genocide against the Iraqi people, in order to keep Saddam from obtaining "weapons of mass destruction"? To the point where vaccines, detergents, even PENCILS were not allowed into Iraq?

And to what end? Despite the savage, kid-killing sanctions and constant bombing runs still perpetrated against Iraq, in 2002, we were told that oops, despite those twelve years of nation-crippling, Saddam Hussein was STILL dangerous and DEFINITELY had WMD.

In effect we were told that the 12 years of sanctions were completely and utterly useless, and, I suppose, were only maintained because killing Iraqis via disease, starvation, and radiation was something the State Department and the UN found amusing.

So let's try the same thing on Iran? What's the definition of insanity again?

Let me get this straight. Just a few days ago I read about Iran accusing the US of falsifying documents regarding it's nuclear program. Now they are asking for a ban on weapons.

I had a funny feeling that all Iran wants is a nuclear energy program from the very beginning, and now all fingers are pointing me in that same direction.

reply to post by Namaste


Ahmadinejad has been saying that over and over and over again. The world just assumed he was a maniac and was lying. He still might be, but I think they just want nuclear power plants.

Radioactive isotopes from nuclear reactors have many important and critical applications.

One of the downsides of the War on Terror is fewer and fewer reactors create some of the most critical and important isotopes because the ones that do can more easily convert fissionable material.

Iran is right to now want the U.S. or Israel or Europe dictating how it uses nuclear energy and what kind.

It is kind of rediculous all the people with bombs are threatening military action against a nation that doesn't have a bomb that simply imagine wants to have one too.

Anyone who takes these kinds of comments seriously by the regime officials are extremely gullible.

I wouldn't even call the comment by Jalili newsworthy. How about them answering the crimes against their own peaceful people first before trying to lecture other countries.

reply to post by john124


No matter what country you're from, your remark is dripping with unintentional irony.

American, British? You should swallow that mouthful of dead Iraqi before you start to speak.

I got to the first part and stopped

"The crime that was committed in Hiroshima must never be repeated," Jalili told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, referring to the United States' dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II.

That was no crime. That is war.

I am no longer interested in hearing what this man has to say.

[edit on 12/21/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm not speaking as a government official representative of the UK or US.

Jalili spouts nonsense just like the rest of the officials in the disintegrating Islamic regime.


[edit on 21-12-2009 by john124]

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


War doesn't make laws absolute. Doesn't matter what your own opinion on the issue is.

Originally posted by john124


I wouldn't even call the comment by Jalili newsworthy. How about them answering the crimes against their own peaceful people first before trying to lecture other countries.

You can use that against almost every country that has a problem with

a nuclear Iran

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

War doesn't make laws absolute. Doesn't matter what your own opinion on the issue is.

lol

Since when?

reply to post by Sean48

You can use that against almost every country that has a problem with

a nuclear Iran

Not when the specific crimes are kidnapping 100's of students, placing 25 in each prison container, and then gang-raping them all.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Im not saying it was not the most strategically smart thing to do in ww2 for the scenarios at hand.

But by your logic to just brush it off as being war, and ok. Then does that mean you justify mass rapes as not being crimes but being part of war? What about killing of unarmed civilians as not being a crime during a war?

Just saying, where do you draw the line if you even draw one.

So tell me, why are these very same threats of sanctions not being made to Israel ?

Why not threaten Israel with military force and trade imbargoes, and cutting off all foreign aid if it does not sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and allow weapons inspectors into Israel ?

If you are going to set standards, and demand that countries comply, with threats of punitive military action, why is Israel exempt ?

The hypocrisy of all this stinks to high heaven.