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.

 

POLITICS: Iran Rejects Kerry's Nuclear Proposal

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
In a move that shows Iran will be a major policy problem no matter which candidate wins the U.S. election in November Iran has once again demonstrated its firm stance on proceeding with its current plans in regard to its nuclear ambitions.
 



www.reuters.com

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rejected a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The rejection of an offer by Kerry to supply nuclear fuel for its reactors by the Iranians as a possible solution for the current impass on Irans nuclear program shows just how determined the Iranians are in proceeding with aims to remain independent of any international control of its nuclear program.

Related News Links:
www.swissinfo.org
www.boston.com
news.xinhuanet.com
www.alertnet.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
TA-ANALYSIS: Iran Wants Nukes by January



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
They are going for their own nuclear program and own nukes, they're not going to take substitutes.

Too many states have shown that the only way to achieve national self-determination is by attaining nukes.

They are not going to be deterred by peaceful means. They are aiming for diplomatic recognition as a country without outside changes imposed on them and it seems nukes are the only way. Things are now coming to a head, either they will get them or we have a war with Iran.


TCR

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I've got to agree completely. Iran has determined that the only way to achieve "safety" and guarantee future soverienty is to proceed with research and armament. Whether right or wrong ( that's another issue), this is the course of action the mullahs have decided on.

In my opinion, the ruling parties of Iran feel they have a good chance to make the move and press on now. The U.S. is in the most difficult position militarily and polically it has seen in a while. We are stretched a bit, and at home our public opinion and support isn't the best it could be. We've lost a bit of support in the world at large etc etc. It's the best time Iran has seen in our lifetimes to make a move like this. That's just how I think they see it. Iran doesn't think we could invade if we really needed to, nor have the support at home or internationally. Any moves by the Israeli government would open another huge can of worms as well.

Any other governments would be even less likely to push against Iran in a military manner. Britain won't proceed militarily without the U.S in my opinion. Blair is having troubles on the homefront too... Sanctions or other things of course would occur. But in the end Iran gets what it wants. Then people would be forced to deal with a new completely different paradigm. This is the strategy that N. Korea has successfully used. It stands a good chance of working for Iran IMHO.

Just my opinion.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
What? Iran is rejecting Kerry's proposal?.... That can't be true..... the Bush administration must be behind this....so Americans vote for Bush....ya, it must be Bush's fault...



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What? Iran is rejecting Kerry's proposal?.... That can't be true..... the Bush administration must be behind this....so Americans vote for Bush....ya, it must be Bush's fault...


You said it, noone else did. I think you are being a little bit too trigger-happy and not focusing on the issue at hand.

I am not sure how much of a threat Iran would be to the US. So, in light of this, I think Iran has as much right to have nuclear weapons as any other country, which is null.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
You said it, noone else did.


Well, I guess I haven't done it enough times for everyone to see that it was....a sarcastic comment...

Anyways... We are in for some more trouble. Israel is probably going to make more threats of attacking Iran and Iran is not going to budge.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is why i believe Bush would be better for the job the next 4 years. I don't want an indecisive man such as Kerry in office while NK and Iran have nuclear weapons. Call me an arrogant american, but i don't want my country being pushed around by anyone, let alone rogue nations. Bush is firm and strong, and i think he could more successfully handle this nuclear situation--pre-emptive "isreali" strikes will happen very soon, IMO.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
i say let them have their nukes, if some countries can have them other countries should be allowed to as well


TCR

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
We just recently supplied them ( Israel) with some armament specific to that very task. I don't know if it was a type of warning to Iran or not, since they made the transation very public.


TCR

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kwintz
This is why i believe Bush would be better for the job the next 4 years. I don't want an indecisive man such as Kerry in office while NK and Iran have nuclear weapons. Call me an arrogant american, but i don't want my country being pushed around by anyone, let alone rogue nations. Bush is firm and strong, and i think he could more successfully handle this nuclear situation--pre-emptive "isreali" strikes will happen very soon, IMO.


I think something needs to be done as well. It's gonna be a serious situation though. Anything that will happen with of course be after the election. Of course that's almost assumed and a moot point, since the election is right around the corner anyway heh


edit: Oops shoulda tagged this to my previous post, apologies

[edit on 3-10-2004 by TCR]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Kerry is not even a president and on top of that, he's trying to appease the enemy by saying that he'll be giving them nuclear fuel to quit their fuel-producing programs!

Great! What's it going to be next? We'll supply the missiles and the warheads so they don't have to build them? Should we go ahead and give them a few of our nuclear-powered submarines, a few B-2 Bombers and Raptor technology (No wait! The whole aircraft w/ full armament) to make it easier for the poor Iranians to progress in their intent to wage another conflict in the Middle East!

Yeah! We need Kerry as CIC as bad as we need a Black Plague epidemic!

[edit on 3/10/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think the Iranians know they can not stop the threat a democratic or non theologic government in Iraq poses.
IMO the recent troubles in Iraq are more or less a rearguard action to buy the Iranians time to get their nuclear weapons which to them may lessen the threat from external sources.
The sixty- four dollar question remains, just what is it they can do about growing internal opposition.
Does anybody worry that Iran with its proven state sponsoring of terror, would eventually provide these weapons to terrorists for attacks on its percieved enemies? IE; nuclear attack w/o an immediatly traceable means of delivery.

With the rejection of the Kerry proposal it looks like they certainly have ended speculation that a leadership change in america would make any difference in what they do.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
There is only one road here - the US needs to take Iran as well as Iraq, there is no backing out now, if they do Iran will take Iraq and create a new super power in the Mid east. This super power will soon absorb the other islamic states in the mid east resulting in a regime that will be difficult, if not impossible to remove - this new islamic nation will have the ability to hold the west hostage with it's control of a substantial proportion of the worlds oil reserves. It will also hit Israel hard and fast - goodbye Israel.

One way or another the US needs to destabalise this region, especially Iran - they need to knock it's government and infrastructure - there is no need to occupy, they just need to make sure they do the job in such a way as to ensure chaos and lack of order reigns supreme - a civil war would be good, all they need to do is secure the oil, that is all that matters.

The US have the troops in place to secure the oil fields and the time is ripe to act NOW, maybe tactical nukes would be a viable option, whatever, Iran has to be knocked and knocked hard.

Mark my words - if the US and the West fails to act now, Isreal is gone and so is the oil.

REgards



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
That's what happens when you call them a terrorist state(axis of evil) they seen the invasion of Iraq and are scared they will be next,That's why they are putting a nuke program tegether so quickly,this way they could do alot of damage if the U.S tries to change their goverment like they did to Iraq. I guess you can't blame them.


TCR

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I think the Iranians know they can not stop the threat a democratic or non theologic government in Iraq poses.
IMO the recent troubles in Iraq are more or less a rearguard action to buy the Iranians time to get their nuclear weapons which to them may lessen the threat from external sources.
The sixty- four dollar question remains, just what is it they can do about growing internal opposition.
Does anybody worry that Iran with its proven state sponsoring of terror, would eventually provide these weapons to terrorists for attacks on its percieved enemies? IE; nuclear attack w/o an immediatly traceable means of delivery.

With the rejection of the Kerry proposal it looks like they certainly have ended speculation that a leadership change in america would make any difference in what they do.


They definately are going to continue regardless of who wins the U.S election, I agree.

The internal security question is certainly an interesting one. I'm not sure of the state of disallusion in Iran. I know there is a movemnt underway to some extent. No clue as to how effective it may end up being. I'm sure the mullahs are keeping a close eye on it. No doubt the U.S is providing at least limited support in some respects. I doubt that regime change is anywhere close to imminent however, just based on how the U.S is playing things out in the press.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
That's what happens when you call them a terrorist state(axis of evil) they seen the invasion of Iraq and are scared they will be next,That's why they are putting a nuke program tegether so quickly,this way they could do alot of damage if the U.S tries to change their goverment like they did to Iraq. I guess you can't blame them.


Maybe Bush has a plan after all. Call them axis of evil so they think they have to build nukes to protect themselves thus giving the US all the ammo it needs to justify military intervention. In my opinion after 9-11 the US government decided to change the middle east oil rich governments more toward being pro western. We depend more and more on their oil. Stable friendly governments in rich oil countries leads to stable economic times. Right now if Iran looks to either side they see the US. We the US do not need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, we'll let the Israelis do that with their F-16i and we'll mop up the mess that creates. After that is over we'll see what happens in Saudia Arabia. We cannot go after all of them at once, that would disrupt oil supplies severly damaging all of the worlds economies that depend on middle east oil. After this mess is over our government better change its energy policy to phase in new renewable energy sources if we don't the planet will end up being toast within 50 years. China is using more and more oil everyday. If we ever go to war with them it will be over middle east oil and it won't be pretty for the inhabitants of planet earth.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Kerry is not even a president and on top of that, he's trying to appease the enemy by saying that he'll be giving them nuclear fuel to quit their fuel-producing programs!

Great! What's it going to be next?

Yeah! We need Kerry as CIC as bad as we need a Black Plague epidemic!


Interlearthling...Kerry already said what he would do if he was president....

He said he plans to "unilateally halt US development of advanced weapon systems"... while most of the world is upgrading theirs...

He also mentioned that he "will not pre-emptively use force to protect the US unless such action passes a global test."

The whole world has to agree on what the US has to do to defend itself according to Kerry....


Here comes a nuclear missile straigh at a US city, what would Kerry do?
He runs to the phone to ask Chirac to have a UN meeting and decide if we should destroy the missile and attack whatever sub or entity launched the nuke....

Those are great plans Kerry has in store for the US huh?

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001

Maybe Bush has a plan after all. Call them axis of evil so they think they have to build nukes to protect themselves thus giving the US all the ammo it needs to justify military intervention.
.....


I see... so they have to be called names, which they are, in order for them to get nukes...

Let me use an analogy using your line of reasoning.

So according to you serial killers are just poor souls who have been cornered into killing people one after the other. Its not the serial killers' fault...it's the fault of those who call them serial killers....



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Muaddib, who are you calling a serial killer? I have never killed anyone. Clarify your accusation that I am a serial killer!!!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
In a move that shows Iran will be a major policy problem no matter which candidate wins the U.S. election in November Iran has once again demonstrated its firm stance on proceeding with its current plans in regard to its nuclear ambitions.


WHY is Kerry presuming to take it apon to make those type of US foreign policy decisions and better yet why wasnt the president who should be doing this not already doing it.... I have heard very little out of the incumbant that makes me believe this issue is at the top of his list last time I checked nukes where pretty D**N important to our interests and if I have just missed the president doing something or saying something please tell me where to locate the material




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join