(MSNBC)- Defying U.N., Iran to proceed with nuke plans - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012416/

VIENNA, Austria - President Mohammad Khatami said Tuesday that Iran will continue its nuclear program even if that means ending inspections by the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency. Separately, an Iranian scientist said the country has begun tests that will produce a large amount of material for nuclear centrifuges.

“We’ve made our choice," Khatami told a military parade in Tehran. "Yes to peaceful nuclear technology, no to atomic weapons.”

He added that Iran would continue along that path "even if it leads to an end to international supervision” of our nuclear activities.

The U.N. watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran freeze uranium enrichment and answer all questions about its nuclear activities within two months.

Failure to do so could lead the IAEA to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions on the country.

Enriching uranium
In Vienna, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told reporters that Iran had begun converting 37 tons of raw uranium into material which is fuel for nuclear centrifuges -- the machines that enrich uranium.

Iran insists it needs enrichment to generate power, but the process can also be used to create nuclear weapons.

One nuclear expert has said that, if enriched, the 37 tons would be enough material for five nuclear weapons.

"Some of the amount of the 37 tones has been used. The tests have been successful but these tests have to be continued using the rest of the material," said Aghazadeh, who is attending a general conference of the IAEA.

Iran had told the IAEA a few weeks ago it intended to run the tests. However, the announcement came after the IAEA board of governors passed a resolution on Saturday calling on Iran to halt all activities linked to uranium enrichment.

On Sunday, Iran denounced as the U.N. agency's demands as “illegal."

Hasan Rowhani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, also said his country would limit its cooperation with the IAEA if the watchdog refers Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Pressure put on Iran
Iran is not prohibited from enrichment under its obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it has for months faced international pressure to suspend such activities as a good-faith gesture.

The United States insists the 35-member board must refer Iran to the Security Council when it meets again on Nov. 25 if Tehran doesn’t comply.

++++++ What now for the neocon hawks, Iran's intent is pretty clear, their government is repressive, they have links to terrorists, they are most certainly going to build a nuke. Its all a matter of time before Iran has a nuclear weapon. Yet ironically sanctions the chickenhawks claimed failed in Iraq, so what makes them believe it will work in Iran. Most certainly even if sanctions are in place Iran will continue to proceed with their nuclear program, posing a threat to Israel that Saddam could only dream of, oh and by the way we still have North Korea. So will the globocops in Washington try to kick more ass or sit on theirs. The answer is pretty clear. Please Reps. what is the next step of action for these situations.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

Last edited by NYCTrancefan on Sep-21-2004 at 18:35

let them all build nuclear weapons let them blow each other up then maybe finally after they're all dead there will be peace in the middle east. it'll be radio active peace but still peace

The way you talk makes it seem as though talking is an option. I'd like to know what talking will solve in this situation.

I don't think anyone should help them build non nuclear reactors or appease them in any way. That is basically nuclear blackmail like what the North Koreans are doing right now with the Light Water Reactors.

Iran can't be attacked militarily from what I have seen as their nuclear capabilities appear to be spread all around the country and underground, it would be tough to find it all. The country also is much more mountainous than Iraq so sending in forces would be tough as they are stronger than Iraq militarily yet have the mountains of an afghanistan.

Honestly what can the UN realistically do. They really have no power. They can tell a country to do something, the country either has the right to say yes or no and then the UN perhaps votes to engage in sanctions which really doesn't mean much. Iran will still be funding its projects sanctions or not. I do find it humorous that Iran keeps talking about the uranium being used only for electricity yet they secretly produced it for some 18 years without telling anyone in the world. When you are doing something secretly for such a period of time it most likely isn't for such a noble purpose.

As far as I see it there realy is no way of dealing with this situation. Just like India, Pakistan, and probably soon North Korea, we are going to have to live with Iran as a nuclear threat. I don't think the biggest threat is them having a nuclear weapon as in today's world you really can't use one against another country without either being destroyed in kind from the same weapon or being totally isolated from the entire world. The real threat is the type of government they have, known terrorists in their country, and the spreading of knowledge, technology, and resources to terrorists who don't have to worry about retaliation like a country does.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Please Reps. what is the next step of action for these situations.

what would you have us do?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what would you have us do?

That's not his problem. He's there to complain about problems and offer no viable solutions. The solution is someone else's responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka That's not his problem. He's there to complain about problems and offer no viable solutions. The solution is someone else's responsibility.

I ask you the question about what is going to be done about these nations based on the Bush doctrine and the response of you guys are to ask me what would I do. I suppose it finally passed through the heads of many that using the military to try and solve problems only goes so far. North Korea is no less a threat than Iraq, Iran is no less a threat than Iraq yet I still don't see the chickenhaws strutting their stuff any longer. Mabye they learned something from Iraq. While it may be foreign language to some in this forum, I tend to believe in an approach of getting many nations on your side and being perceived as the good guy so as to increase the pressure on those you are battling against, ala the Cold War. I repeat we must have nations on our side in these conflicts and the way to do that is through respect, fairness and a sense of shared commitment to achieving a secured world. We didn't do it alone or with few in the Cold War and neither will we in the current world of rampant American hatred of our policies under the Bush administration.

Even if the Bush admin. wanted to go into Iran and North Korea they couldn't for obvious reasons as Iraq is showing. Then yet again Iraq may just be a figment of my imagination since I'm only dwelling on the lack of security, kidnappings, murder, bombings, etc other than that though its ok I ask once again how will they deal with Iran and North Korea Republicans since you support the Bush policy in Iraq as is right now, please answer this question instead of spinning.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

Why is it we? Maybe it should be the other countries in the region who need to step up this time, after all Iran is in THEIR part of the world. If they didn't like how the US handled Iraq perhaps they have a better opinion on how to solve the Iran problem.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Why is it we? Maybe it should be the other countries in the region who need to step up this time, after all Iran is in THEIR part of the world. If they didn't like how the US handled Iraq perhaps they have a better opinion on how to solve the Iran problem.

Hah! That has been my point all along, the problem is that America under George W. Bush has decided to be the leader in dealing with all of these conflicts, thereby being percieved as the main antagonists or protagonists depending on your P.O.V. in Iran and North Korea. After Iraq where can we go from there in handling these other two nations. America had always been viewed in a positive light, usually, so we were able to be a vision of justice and preserving freedom and democratic ideals for other nations. Now every ragtag of a third world dictator blames America for their problems and moreover when we speak where is the crediblity in espousing those values after events in Iraq.

I heard George W. Bush before the U.N. speaking about democracies, liberties and the free world must stand up to evil. How many outside of America you think cared to hear his words, much less heed them. While half of America may like Bush, the wider world in which America is viewed every step of the way has a different vision of him, guess that doesn't matter though.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan America had always been viewed in a positive light, usually, so we were able to be a vision of justice and preserving freedom and democratic ideals for other nations.

If America has always been viewed positively until the arrival of G.W. Bush, then why did Islamic Extremists attack and kill 3,000 on 9/11/01? Because they like us so much?

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Hah! That has been my point all along, the problem is that America under George W. Bush has decided to be the leader in dealing with all of these conflicts, thereby being percieved as the main antagonists or protagonists depending on your P.O.V. in Iran and North Korea. After Iraq where can we go from there in handling these other two nations. America had always been viewed in a positive light, usually, so we were able to be a vision of justice and preserving freedom and democratic ideals for other nations. Now every ragtag of a third world dictator blames America for their problems and moreover when we speak where is the crediblity in espousing those values after events in Iraq. I heard George W. Bush before the U.N. speaking about democracies, liberties and the free world must stand up to evil. How many outside of America you think cared to hear his words, much less heed them. While half of America may like Bush, the wider world in which America is viewed every step of the way has a different vision of him, guess that doesn't matter though.

Hah! did you get the answer you were looking for?

are you sure you not letting your personal hatred for Bush cloud your judgement toward enabling the free world to stand up against oppression? cause you know, and i think you would agree, that words only mean so much. and that applies to Bush too.

why do think that Germany France and Britain are spearheading the diplomacy regarding Irans nuclear aspirations?

there have been no indications of inducing the Bush Doctrine towards Iran or N.Korea. i have no doubt that there are policies already in place that we do not know about ready to be enacted upon certain political and military thresholds.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil As far as I see it there realy is no way of dealing with this situation. Just like India, Pakistan, and probably soon North Korea, we are going to have to live with Iran as a nuclear threat. I don't think the biggest threat is them having a nuclear weapon as in today's world you really can't use one against another country without either being destroyed in kind from the same weapon or being totally isolated from the entire world. The real threat is the type of government they have, known terrorists in their country, and the spreading of knowledge, technology, and resources to terrorists who don't have to worry about retaliation like a country does.

I thought this was the most intelligent thing I've read all day, but then I read this:

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan While it may be foreign language to some in this forum, I tend to believe in an approach of getting many nations on your side and being perceived as the good guy so as to increase the pressure on those you are battling against, ala the Cold War. I repeat we must have nations on our side in these conflicts and the way to do that is through respect, fairness and a sense of shared commitment to achieving a secured world. We didn't do it alone or with few in the Cold War and neither will we in the current world of rampant American hatred of our policies under the Bush administration.

To add to this answer, I would say that you (the US) cannot do much about the current anti-US feeling in the middle east. You need to gradually build up loads of good-will, while attempting to do damage control on the nukes-in-the-hands-of-terrorists issue. In some decades you may then reach a position where a nuclear bomb owned by Iran is as harmless as one owned by France or Britain.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka If America has always been viewed positively until the arrival of G.W. Bush, then why did Islamic Extremists attack and kill 3,000 on 9/11/01? Because they like us so much?

Unless you feel the whole world are terrorists then you would realize the innacuracy in your response. I used the term usually, meaning among individuals who wouldn't resort to cutting off the heads of other human beings, blowing up innocent civilians, etc. This isn't about the terrorist that I was referencing under any circumstance but individuals who looked towards the United States as a beacon of hope and positive leadership, once again as in the Cold War.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras