IAEA Confirms Potential Meeting With Iran

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
The IAEA confirmed a request by Iranian officilas to come and inspect it's nuclear programmes.The potential meeting is intended "to work to remove any ambiguities with the aim of resolving the issues and to conclude and stop this endless process," Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh added.

May be this will delay in some way, if war don't happen first, the coalition forces advancements in the M.E..

Source / Alternative source

The International Atomic Energy Agency on Wednesday confirmed it might dispatch a high-level delegation to Iran, which on Tuesday indicated it had proposed the visit to address questions over the nation's nuclear efforts, Reuters reported (see GSN, Dec. 20).

Iran previously issued a similar proposal to receive IAEA safeguards chief Herman Nackaerts, but delayed the visit indefinitely after the Vienna, Austria-based agency in November raised "serious concerns" that the Middle Eastern state was seeking a nuclear-weapon capacity. Tehran insists its atomic activities are strictly nonmilitary in nature.
edit on 21-12-2011 by Daedal because: Added source




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 
Crazy Iranians!

Ok, seriously - I would love to see nothing suggestive come of this, but for some reason I seriously doubt US leadership will accept whatever comes out... "Oh, ok. Cool Iran, thanks for letting us be sure. Take care now."

I'm probably wrong, but didn't Saddam let a lot of inspectors into Iraq, finding nothing but getting attacked anyway?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Regardless of their real nuclear intentions (i'm on the fence) we're probably going to claim they're working on nuclear weapons

I wonder how the American people would take the results if they turned out to be negative on the weapons
edit on 21-12-2011 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
Regardless of their real nuclear intentions (i'm on the fence) we're probably going to claim they're working on nuclear weapons

I wonder how the American people would take the results if they turned out to be negative on the weapons
edit on 21-12-2011 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)


I kind of feel that way to. Just think of all the posturing that is going on. If they don't find anything, people just expect them to say, "Whoops, we were wrong"?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
I'm probably wrong, but didn't Saddam let a lot of inspectors into Iraq, finding nothing but getting attacked anyway?



They'd been in Iraq years earlier to confirm the destrustion of the WMD's (which history now shows to have actually been done to some high degree of completion), but returned in 2003 for another inspection.
Unfortunatly, they might find no WMD's, again, so something had to be done...

U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.
After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.


According to Dubya, there simply wasnt enough time to let the inspectors do their job.

CBS
edit on 21-12-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


They are stalling for time...

We are coming close to the finish line and Iran is doing nothing but stalling for time.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
stalling for time. yep!

also, theyve had ample time to setup shop in an underground plant. theyll show the nuclear inspectors everything they want to know about their 'publically known' reactors, because there's nothing there against the rules.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
stalling for time. yep!

also, theyve had ample time to setup shop in an underground plant. theyll show the nuclear inspectors everything they want to know about their 'publically known' reactors, because there's nothing there against the rules.


Exactly, those rediculous people must think we are stupid. Why can't they just sign over their sovereignty to the US like responsible slaves and let us troll endlessly through their land until we can plant enough evidence to be able to bomb them. How dare they only show us the stuff we are already aware of.
edit on 12-22-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Care to link your sources that the US is planting information across the Iranian countryside?

Also before they sign their sovereignty away, they first need to withdraw from the treaties they signed that prevents them from having a nuclear weapons program. That way they can refuse access to sites and information those pesky IAEA inspectors need in order to do their job to make sure Iran is in compliance. It also would make it easier on Iran to better hide the secret facilities they failed to disclose, which honestly shocked the hell out of me.

I mean with Iran being so transparent and open about their secret nuke program, we should have nothing to worry about right?

The next questions is when do we stop them?

Should we do it now or after we see a mushroom cloud over Israel?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Care to link your sources that the US is planting information across the Iranian countryside?

Also before they sign their sovereignty away, they first need to withdraw from the treaties they signed that prevents them from having a nuclear weapons program. That way they can refuse access to sites and information those pesky IAEA inspectors need in order to do their job to make sure Iran is in compliance. It also would make it easier on Iran to better hide the secret facilities they failed to disclose, which honestly shocked the hell out of me.

I mean with Iran being so transparent and open about their secret nuke program, we should have nothing to worry about right?

The next questions is when do we stop them?

Should we do it now or after we see a mushroom cloud over Israel?


It was sarcasm.. I should have indicated it as such. Meant to be a satirical comment.

As for when we stop them.. how about we consider the fact that with all the opportunity they have had to cause mass death and destruction over [Insert random country here], nothing has happened?

Only one country on this planet has ever detonated a nuclear weapon in agression.
edit on 12-22-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
It was sarcasm.. I should have indicated it as such. Meant to be a satirical comment.

Ah.. my bad man..



Originally posted by rogerstigers
As for when we stop them.. how about we consider the fact that with all the opportunity they have had to cause mass death and destruction over [Insert random country here], nothing has happened?

The funding of Hamas / Hezbullah dont cause death and destruction? The brutal oppression of their own people is not death or destruction?



Originally posted by rogerstigers
Only one country on this planet has ever detonated a nuclear weapon in agression.

Then maybe Japan should have thought twice about attacking the US? Even Yamamoto warned the Japanese leadership at the time attacking the US would be a mistake.

Secondly Germany and Japan both had nuclear weapons programs and I guarantee that if either Germany or Japan perfected it first, things would be different today.


If you are going to play stick ball in Brooklyn you better know the rules.


People seem to ignore the fact the US attempted to remain out of both world wars. After we saw how well appeasement and the mindset of "its in their borders and its not our problem" worked. After cleaning up after 2 world wars and leading the west during the cold war it was decided that intervention before things escalated into a world war was more practical, less deadly and less costly.

In todays day and age when you can build something in your backyard and sneak it into my backyard, its very much our business.
edit on 22-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The funding of Hamas / Hezbullah dont cause death and destruction? The brutal oppression of their own people is not death or destruction?

Then maybe Japan should have thought twice about attacking the US? Even Yamamoto warned the Japanese leadership at the time attacking the US would be a mistake.

Secondly Germany and Japan both had nuclear weapons programs and I guarantee that if either Germany or Japan perfected it first, things would be different today.

In todays day and age when you can build something in your backyard and sneak it into my backyard, its very much our business.



Hamas and Hezbullah don't launch attacks against the US unless we are in "their back yard". Why do we insist in interventionism?

here's a quote regarding nukes:



"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441


I might also point out that the "Allies" defeated Germany without the need of a nuke.

Yamamoto did an unprecedented job of trying to prevent Pearl Harbor from happening. He felt it was a dangerous thing to do and wanted the Empire to pull out of its agreements with Germany and Italy. When he realized that an attack was going to happen no matter what, he insisted they do it his way in order to minimize deaths and the damage to Japan. He even threatened to resign over it. Our reaction to Japan was, of course, 100% warranted.

Also, because they were still unioned with Germany and Italy at the point of the Pearl Harbor attack, the result was that we were at war with the whole "axis". In addition, france had already been overrun and it was very clear that Germany was a rougue country that was ACTIVELY taking over Europe.

When it came to WWII, the US did the honorable thing of staying out of a regional conflict until it became no longer regional and we were attacked.

The United States is NOT qualified to be the police of the world. Christians especially should understand the hypocricy of trying to make people behave...


Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Matthew 7:3
edit on 12-22-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Iran has caused death and destruction by their support of extremist groups, just as they argue the US supports extremist Israel. If Iran and arab countries decide to recognize Israel, sign peace treaties and stop funding terror, then I would support a reduction of military aid to Israel.

As far as WWII and nukes go the person you quotes is leaving out a key piece of info - fighting styles based on culture. It is true both militaries expected their troops to die rather than be captured or give ground.

The difference though is the view of honor and disgrace. In Japan, surrender is not an option and doing so is considered an act of betrayal and treason. Germany on the other hand could apply those standards to the SS, and even then it was not absolute. the blood oath the SS takes was to give their lives for hitler and greater germany.

The death estimates for the invasion of the Japanese mainland measured anywhere from 70k up to 240k deaths give or take.

Should nukes be used? Absolutely not - we agree on that part, and im actually for the elimination of them all together, along with all other weapons of mass destruction. At the same time though, during that time period and stating it again, if Japan or Germany got to the nukes first, we would not be discussing the finer points of American foreign policy.,

On that note I am heading out the door to visit the parental uits for Christmas. I willl try and check in so we can continue the conversation.

To all those who have holidays this month - Enjoy and be safe.
For the atheists, T- 9 days for the big new years eve party..

Merry Christmas all
edit on 22-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I'm sure if they can't "find" (read: manufacture) any evidence of non-peaceful research being done by Iran, we'll then hear stories of how their nuclear technicians invaded a maternity ward and took babies out of their incubators, placing them on the floor.....



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


The IAEA has reported time and again activities that are incompatible with a civilian nuke program. People are so quick to blame the US for fabricating evidence that those same people have a tendency to ignore actual evidence.

Refusal to allow certain scientists to be interviewed by the IAEA.
Refusal to disclose all sites of their program.
Enriching uranium to levels above a civilian purpose program.
Enriching uranium to levels above test reactors / medical use.
Having secret non declared enrichment facilities.
Having power reactors that aren't connected to the electrical grid.
Using computer simulations dealing with nuclear explosions / bomb related simulations.
IAEA detecting enrichment at weaponized levels and then being denied access to that site for further investigation until it was "cleaned up".


I can keep going but you should get the idea....



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Daedal
 


They are stalling for time...

We are coming close to the finish line and Iran is doing nothing but stalling for time.

Pro war arent you? as expected from you.





People are so quick to blame the US for fabricating evidence that those same people have a tendency to ignore actual evidence.

Refusal to allow certain scientists to be interviewed by the IAEA. Refusal to disclose all sites of their program. Enriching uranium to levels above a civilian purpose program. Enriching uranium to levels above test reactors / medical use. Having secret non declared enrichment facilities. Having power reactors that aren't connected to the electrical grid. Using computer simulations dealing with nuclear explosions / bomb related simulations. IAEA detecting enrichment at weaponized levels and then being denied access to that site for further investigation until it was "cleaned up".


I guess you also believe that Iraq Had Nukes then to dont you?
edit on 25-12-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Im not Pro war at all, and after several conversations we have had I figured you would know this by now.

Nuclear bombs? Nope.

A Nuclear weapons program? I do believe they had one.

What you and others need to get through your head and understand is all of the UN Resolutions dealing with Iraq did not allow for them to have any programs of WMD - AT ALL. They did not allow for Iraq to have ANY amount of precursor material, AT ALL.

Material was found and is still being found. Ironically though people like you reject those finds because it undermines your position and view towards the actions of the US, in addition to the UN failing to do its job.

The bulk of Iraq's WMD programs had been transfered to Syria.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join