NEWS: Iran Warns G8 It Will Not Halt Nuclear Program

The world's major powers endorsed a plan on Wednesday to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and singled out North Korea and Iran for concern. Iran however has no intentions to halt it's 'pieceful' nuclear program. "Using peaceful nuclear energy is Iran's natural right and...G8 countries should not expect Iran to abandon this right," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement carried by state media.



More Sources
- TheMoscowTimes
- Russia Qualifies Its Nuclear Cooperation with Iran
- G8 set to curb traffic in nuclear knowhow

[edit on 10-6-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

[edit on 6-15-2004 by Valhall]

To me Iran and North Korea are the real threats to the world. Their production is still ongoing. How this situation is dealt with will have Huge effects. I just want to know why nothing is being done to these two. We had the war in Iraq under false pretenses of WMD's, and we invaded (liberated). We know without one ioata of doubt that they have Nuclear Weapons, or at least Nuclear Weapon Capabilities. I would hate to be the ones making a decision with these two.

The Iranian government is taking a page right out of North Koreas playbook from the early 90's - Deny, Deny, Deny...............

Debka's Report on Vanishing Nuclear Facilities

The most secret section of the latest report the International Atomic Energy Agency�s director Mohammed ElBaradai has drafted on Iran�s nuclear program is also the most embarrassing for the international nuclear watchdog. Our intelligence sources reveal exclusively that when inspectors arrived in Iran in mid-May and asked to revisit installations they saw in February or April, they were astonished to find empty spaces. When they questioned their Iranian escorts, they were greeted with blank stares. �What installations?� the officials asked.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
To me Iran and North Korea are the real threats to the world. Their production is still ongoing. How this situation is dealt with will have Huge effects. I just want to know why nothing is being done to these two. We had the war in Iraq under false pretenses of WMD's, and we invaded (liberated). We know without one ioata of doubt that they have Nuclear Weapons, or at least Nuclear Weapon Capabilities. I would hate to be the ones making a decision with these two.

Perhaps another submotive for the invasion of Iraq was to gain a foothold against Iran? Even though Iraq will be granted independance on the 30th (so it appears at the moment), will the US be allowed to have any military installations in Iraq? From what I understand, however, if military action were to be taken against Iran, occupation would be nigh impossible. Who knows?

Good. Why shouldn't they have them. It would change the strategic momentum in the middle east. Perhaps it will bring the U.S and Isreal to the bargining table as equals instead of bullies.
When you have a pre-emptive policy where you need little or no mirage of justification for attack, like the US now has, it leaves other countries no choice. Since they cannot compete militarilly with the US they have two options, terrorism and WMD. This conclusion is self-evident and axiomatic. We are surely seeing this play out on the world now...notice North Korea's INSISTENCE that the US sign a non-agression treaty as a pre-requisite for talks about their nuclear program.

but whoever said imperialism wasn't fun......


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse

First off Iran has the right to use nuclear energy. Good for them. Who are we or anyone else to tell them they can't. It strikes me as extremely arrogant. And if they develop nukes so what. Who on earth could blame them. Look at the area. Pakistan and India have them and just about used them. And then there is Israel who has absolutely no regards for any international treaty and does whatever the heck they want. I'm sorry but if I lived in that area I'd want nukes in a huge way to keep other countries like Israel from getting cute and trying something. Every country has a right to defend itself. You may not like how they do it but that isn't their concern. Want them to disarm? Disarm yourself then. Its only fair.

You're right, it is a great idea to give anyone who wants a nuclear weapon one.

In fact, let's just open America's armories up to everyone in the Middle East and then let them at each other.

We'd only have to wait a short while before that entire region was no longer wracked with war. Or life.

We aren't giving them one. If they decide to build one for themselves it is their right as a nation to do so. Just like we have them. Or do you propose we eliminate 100% of our nuclear arsenal? Are you going to make sure that Israel, Pakistan and India don't have them as well? If you aren't going to make those provisions then you have zero right to impose any restrictions on them. I don't see them at war with anyone right now. They want the right to generate affordable electricity and MAYBE the right to defend themselves from an aggressor.

Originally posted by Indy
We aren't giving them one. If they decide to build one for themselves it is their right as a nation to do so. Just like we have them. Or do you propose we eliminate 100% of our nuclear arsenal? Are you going to make sure that Israel, Pakistan and India don't have them as well? If you aren't going to make those provisions then you have zero right to impose any restrictions on them. I don't see them at war with anyone right now. They want the right to generate affordable electricity and MAYBE the right to defend themselves from an aggressor.

Indy I am sorry but the preposition that Iran needs nuclear power for electrical generation flies in the face logic, this is a country that EXPORTS oil because it cannot use what it produces.

Also according to your logic the second amendment means everyone capable of producing their own machine gun has the right to own it, is that how you feel or are you just spouting off political crap.

Phoenix... without a bout everyone has a right becuase it is a right granted to us by the constitution. If you have a problem with that perhaps you should work on taking that provision out. Until such time I as well as millions of other Americans will enjoy that right.

You also ever thought that perhaps Iran can make more money by selling the oil than it can by using it to generate electricity for its own people.

Can you blame them? I'm no expert on this kinda thing, but I think that Iran isn't just going to stop right in the middle of something that is making them bleed (financially of course) out their butts. They're right to resume, they started it, and they'll finish it.

That's my two cents.

Originally posted by spngsambigpants
Perhaps another submotive for the invasion of Iraq was to gain a foothold against Iran?

I posted somthin to this effect in an earlier thread. It could be staging grounds for a possible war with Iran and N. Korea. I would think you would have to go after both at the same time. If you go after one, the other would know they were next and possibily attack. This would need the whole worlds co-operation, which I do not believe Bush will gain.,

After Iraq I find it unlikely that Bush will gain much support for any where whether it be from the UN or from Americans. He has pretty much burned his bridges.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Indy I am sorry but the preposition that Iran needs nuclear power for electrical generation flies in the face logic, this is a country that EXPORTS oil because it cannot use what it produces.

I am vehemently against allowing Iran's current regime to acquire nuclear weapons, but I just want to point out that this argument doesn't make sense. Iran has to divide the oil that it has between internal use and exports. The less it uses internally (assuming a cheaper substitution), the more it can export and the more money it can get for it. So saying that Iran doesn't have a straightforward motivation to minimize oil use is saying that Iran doesn't need money (which is wrong). However, that being said, Iran is a theocratic state that has supported and continues to support terrorists, and can not be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa
Iran is a theocratic state that has supported and continues to support terrorists, and can not be trusted with nuclear weapons.

exactly. we let this continue unchecked a major western city could just be destroyed. i say start with harsh sanctions and then if that fails destroy the plants them selves.

Originally posted by Phoenix
The Iranian government is taking a page right out of North Koreas playbook from the early 90's - Deny, Deny, Deny...............

Debka's Report on Vanishing Nuclear Facilities

The most secret section of the latest report the International Atomic Energy Agency�s director Mohammed ElBaradai has drafted on Iran�s nuclear program is also the most embarrassing for the international nuclear watchdog. Our intelligence sources reveal exclusively that when inspectors arrived in Iran in mid-May and asked to revisit installations they saw in February or April, they were astonished to find empty spaces. When they questioned their Iranian escorts, they were greeted with blank stares. �What installations?� the officials asked.

WWIV is comming folks!

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
To me Iran and North Korea are the real threats to the world. Their production is still ongoing. How this situation is dealt with will have Huge effects. I just want to know why nothing is being done to these two. We had the war in Iraq under false pretenses of WMD's, and we invaded (liberated). We know without one ioata of doubt that they have Nuclear Weapons, or at least Nuclear Weapon Capabilities. I would hate to be the ones making a decision with these two.

In my opinion North Korea is the bigger threat becuase they are the ones pushing their weight around. But as for Iraq, I've heard theories of a stargate located in the Ruins of Uruk(an ancient city). Bush wanted the stargate, simple as that. But again its one crazy rumor.

"Bush wanted the stargate"

Is this true ? Bush wanted the star gate ? CHRIST! does that mean he can now travel to different world ?! Oh my god! does the press know ? If this is true then it could blow the whole war wide open!!! A STARGATE! christ, technology like that could make the US the most powerfull nation in the world, I thought it was just a film and a lame TV show, but your saying there really is one! in Iraq! will those weird Egyptian aliens try to destroy earth ?!?! someone needs to inform the newspapers about this!

oh... no... wait... your insane aren't you.

HeirToBokassa claim that iran is a theocratic (a state run by people called Theo ;p ) and could not be trusted with nukes, reminds me how theocratic the USA is.
Did you read the report that Bush went to ask the Christian fundamentalists in the US if the Sharon plan (the one to pull out of Gaza but keep the west bank) was OK? US sure sounds theocratic to me!

The point being... bad argument! Iran can/should have nukes if they want. I mean the US has 'em and I wouldn't trust the US as far as i could throw them!

P.S. Voice_of Doom Great Lao-Tse quote!

Originally posted by Corinthas
Did you read the report that Bush went to ask the Christian fundamentalists in the US if the Sharon plan

Right. So Bush consulted religious groups, and that makes the U.S. a theocratic state? Consultation can not compare to tightly constraining laws and policies, according to extremist fundamentalist views, and against the interests of a country's citizens (Iran). And by the way, I think this was an odd if not stupid move (that is, if the reality is not being exaggerated by the media ), but Bush will be punished appropriately for politicizing religion if he has indeed done so (by Jewish groups such as the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, for example).