TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- U.N. agency: Iran withholding facts on current nuclear program
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

U.N. agency: Iran withholding facts on current nuclear program

WASHINGTON � Iran has provided answers to questions about its past nuclear activities, the United Nations' atomic watchdog reported Thursday, but hasn't provided "full transparency" about its current activities and continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council .

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency warns that the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program "is diminishing" because Iran hasn't provided the same type of information since early last year that it had previously.

"The agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran ," says the confidential report, obtained by McClatchy Newspapers .

The report is expected to play a crucial role in determining whether the Security Council will impose more sanctions on Iran .

But it could leave international powers once again at an impasse. The United States is likely to argue that the report underscores concerns that Iran is covertly developing a nuclear weapon. Russia , China and others are likely to contend that with Iran making some progress in addressing past questions, tougher sanctions are premature.

The Bush administration agreed with other world powers in late September to hold off on new sanctions while IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei sought Iran's cooperation in clearing up the history of its nuclear program.

LINK

We all know that Iran is trying to adopt a nuclear program for "peaceful" reasons

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover We all know that Iran is trying to adopt a nuclear program for "peaceful" reasons

I tend to think that they would disclose all their information if it were for peaceful reasons.

Who cares?! America's missile defence system is sooooooooo efficient it doesn't matter whether or not Iran has nuclear missiles!

Worst case scenario - Iran develops nuclear weapons. OK now, anyone here is dumb enough to think that Iran will launch a nuclear onslaught? And you think Iran is not gonna get its ass pulverized as a result? Where's the logic? Iran wants a destruction of its people? So far no nuclear armed nation has used nuclear weapons since, well, American government used them on hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians (because USA had a monopoly on nuclear weapons at that time). Right now Israel has a monopoly like that in Middle East, btw.

The only thing that does make sense in this scenario is that USA will eventually lobby hard enough to convince the world that Iran is developing nukes, attacks Iran, takes over its oilfields and puts another brutal regime like the one that replaced Mossadeq and once again no WMDs will be found. Kinda common sense judging by the recent history ;-) Iraq is a perfect example. Judging by the current US administration and its ability to easily lie and deceive the people and the world, there's no reason for us to trust anything say have on Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Worst case scenario - Iran develops nuclear weapons. OK now, anyone here is dumb enough to think that Iran will launch a nuclear onslaught? And you think Iran is not gonna get its ass pulverized as a result? Where's the logic? Iran wants a destruction of its people? So far no nuclear armed nation has used nuclear weapons since, well, American government used them on hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians (because USA had a monopoly on nuclear weapons at that time). Right now Israel has a monopoly like that in Middle East, btw. The only thing that does make sense in this scenario is that USA will eventually lobby hard enough to convince the world that Iran is developing nukes, attacks Iran, takes over its oilfields and puts another brutal regime like the one that replaced Mossadeq and once again no WMDs will be found. Kinda common sense judging by the recent history ;-) Iraq is a perfect example. Judging by the current US administration and its ability to easily lie and deceive the people and the world, there's no reason for us to trust anything say have on Iran.

I think the neocons forgot about the "Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine". After the perjury of the case for war on Iraq, only the hardcore Bush apologists will believe the same rhetoric coming from bush/cheney..

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Who cares?! America's missile defence system is sooooooooo efficient it doesn't matter whether or not Iran has nuclear missiles!

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover We all know that Iran is trying to adopt a nuclear program for "peaceful" reasons

Thats right,do you have a problem with that?

Re: U.N. agency: Iran withholding facts on current nuclear program

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover WASHINGTON � Iran has provided answers to questions about its past nuclear activities, the United Nations' atomic watchdog reported Thursday, but hasn't provided "full transparency" about its current activities and continues to enrich uranium in defiance of the U.N. Security Council . The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency warns that the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program "is diminishing" because Iran hasn't provided the same type of information since early last year that it had previously. "The agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran ," says the confidential report, obtained by McClatchy Newspapers . The report is expected to play a crucial role in determining whether the Security Council will impose more sanctions on Iran . But it could leave international powers once again at an impasse. The United States is likely to argue that the report underscores concerns that Iran is covertly developing a nuclear weapon. Russia , China and others are likely to contend that with Iran making some progress in addressing past questions, tougher sanctions are premature. The Bush administration agreed with other world powers in late September to hold off on new sanctions while IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei sought Iran's cooperation in clearing up the history of its nuclear program. LINK

Iran hasnt invaded a nation in over 300 years. In the last 7 years, the US has already invaded 2... and possibly its third one.

Who is more of a threat??

moron

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Worst case scenario - Iran develops nuclear weapons. OK now, anyone here is dumb enough to think that Iran will launch a nuclear onslaught? And you think Iran is not gonna get its ass pulverized as a result?

Ah yes but don't you know! Iran's President believes in God! Therefore he doesn't think rational like all religious people. It's a well known fact that if your full of religion you go mental and attack other countries just to satisfy your own bloodthirsty needs - just look at the Americans for proof!

I think this is more B.S. put out by Washington to justify another invasion. Call me crazy.

Re: Re: U.N. agency: Iran withholding facts on current nuclear program

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Iran hasnt invaded a nation in over 300 years. In the last 7 years, the US has already invaded 2... and possibly its third one. Who is more of a threat?? moron

Yes, because Iran just keeps to themselves doesn't interfere in other countries politics at all!

What business does Iran have in Iraq providing weapons to insurgents? If they are so peaceful, why can't they play by the rules?

Re: Re: Re: U.N. agency: Iran withholding facts on current nuclear program

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yes, because Iran just keeps to themselves doesn't interfere in other countries politics at all!

Iran doesn't OCCUPY other countries. Iran itself was the one occupied for decades, and had foreign interference in their own politics. 1979, they shook off this interference, and declared itself enemies to those perceived to be most responsible for foreign interference, Israel and the US. The US because of the espionage of the 1950's, and shah and saddam hussein support. Israel because they feel Israel seeks to keep the Middle East marginalized and keep Israel the top military power in the region.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan What business does US have in Iraq providing weapons to insurgents? If they are so peaceful, why can't they play by the rules?

FIXED...

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of weapons given to the Iraq government are....missing...Who is the #1 weapons proliferator in the world?...It ain't Iran...

Iraq did not attack the US, yet they are occupied by the US. Why can't our executive branch play by the rules?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan What business does Iran have in Iraq providing weapons to insurgents? If they are so peaceful, why can't they play by the rules?

You realize that the French gave weapons and funds to the colonists, right? Hell, they even provided military leaders to assist organizing the colonists. Does that make them "not peaceful."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton FIXED... HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of weapons given to the Iraq government are....missing...Who is the #1 weapons proliferator in the world?...It ain't Iran... Iraq did not attack the US, yet they are occupied by the US. Why can't our executive branch play by the rules?

My friend, losing weapons and providing weapons are two different things. Dont tell me now that the U.S purposely gave weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. That also does not make it excusable for Iran do be doing the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy You realize that the French gave weapons and funds to the colonists, right? Hell, they even provided military leaders to assist organizing the colonists. Does that make them "not peaceful."

Not for the British. Also, comparing that with Iraq is a bit off dont you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan My friend, losing weapons and providing weapons are two different things. Dont tell me now that the U.S purposely gave weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. That also does not make it excusable for Iran do be doing the same thing.

YES!!!!

We've equipped the same insurgents who were so bad, the American's called the Anbar Province "Triangle of Death". One American commander even wrote the Anbar province off as a "lost territory." Now we've equipped them, and also the shiites, whose government is infiltrated by sectarian death squads who have killed thousands of people and this is by killers in OFFICIAL UNIFORM. We've equipped them. We also equip the MEK, an anti-Iranian terrorist organization on the US FOREIGN TERRORIST LIST. We've supported the terrorist Contras in Nicaragua. We have supported coups, revolutions, and even osama bin laden....

And bush/cheney whackjobs keep yappin as if we don't support terrorism, and have all the fun in the world labeling other countries who do the EXACT SAME THING WE DO!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Not for the British. Also, comparing that with Iraq is a bit off dont you think?

He is comparing insurgencies. The American Revolution was an insurgency...

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan My friend, losing weapons and providing weapons are two different things.

Who is ultimately responsible for those weapons being lost?

quote:

Dont tell me now that the U.S purposely gave weapons to the insurgents in Iraq.

Where ya been the past few months?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/w.../11iraq.html?hp

quote:

That also does not make it excusable for Iran do be doing the same thing.

Perhaps not, but it does seem to demonstrate us being hypocritical asses, does it not?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Not for the British. Also, comparing that with Iraq is a bit off dont you think?

When did the colonists become the British? As for the Iraq = colonists thing, I think our Commander in Chief made that reference first. Remember trying to get them democracy...

The point I was analogizing was that Iran is, much like the French did, funding the people that they hope will control Iraq. It doesn't that we call them part of the Axis of Evil. I mean, who the hell would you support in that instance?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan What business does Iran have in Iraq providing weapons to insurgents? If they are so peaceful, why can't they play by the rules?

what business does the U.S have to be in Iraq?Why are they providing weapons to the Sunni's to fight the the shia's?

Iran has every right to fund their Shia neighbors. If Canada were to be attacked do you think the US would send them funding and weapons? Damn right we would because they're our neighbors, and we have quite a bit in common. Same with Iran. The only two countries in the middle east with Shia majorities are Iraq and Iran, so if you understand the hatred between Sunni and Shia you would realize that of course Iran is going to help them.

I consider it to be a huge hypocrisy that the only nation who has used nuclear arms and who is constantly at war seeks to keep others from arming themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Iran has every right to fund their Shia neighbors. If Canada were to be attacked do you think the US would send them funding and weapons? Damn right we would because they're our neighbors, and we have quite a bit in common. Same with Iran. The only two countries in the middle east with Shia majorities are Iraq and Iran, so if you understand the hatred between Sunni and Shia you would realize that of course Iran is going to help them. I consider it to be a huge hypocrisy that the only nation who has used nuclear arms and who is constantly at war seeks to keep others from arming themselves.

It seems like we've been in a constant state of war since December 7, 1941, with short periods of peace interspersed in between our ventures. Why can't we be like Switzerland!? Friends with all!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.