UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying to....
 

[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article305741.ece:0aa59]Link...[/url:0aa59]

[quote:0aa59]
UN nuclear watchdog rebuts claims that Iran is trying to make A-bomb




The UN nuclear watchdog is preparing to publish evidence that Iran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons programme, undermining a warning of possible military action from President George Bush.

The US President told Israeli television that "all options are on the table" if Iran fails to comply with international calls to halt its nuclear programme. Both the US and Israel - the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power - were "united in our objective to make sure Iran does not have a weapon", he said.

However, Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results of a scientific analysis that will prove that the country's authorities were telling the truth when they said they were not developing a nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm bells in Western capitals where it was feared that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon under cover of a civil programme. The inspectors took the samples from Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.

But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from the Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan. He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by the IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the traces of weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The investigation is likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a Vienna-based diplomat told The Independent on Sunday.

The new information, which strengthens Iran's case after last week's contentious IAEA board meeting in Vienna, will be a central part of the next report to the board by Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA chief. "The biggest single issue of the past two years has now fallen in their [the Iranians'] favour," the diplomat said. The meeting of the 35-nation board, which ended last Thursday, urged Iran to suspend the uranium-related activity at its Isfahan plant, which many fear will be the first step towards building a nuclear weapon.

The resumption of uranium conversion at the plant last week caused an international crisis and prompted Britain, France and Germany, which have been attempting to find a negotiated solution to the dispute, to call the emergency IAEA meeting. In its resolution concluding the meeting, the board also asked Dr ElBaradei to report back by 3 September. Hardliners on the board - including Britain, the United States and Canada - had hoped that Dr ElBaradei's next report would be sufficiently damning to increase the pressure on Iran.

However those hopes will be dashed by the revelation about the IAEA analysis of the particles from Pakistan, which will remove any chance of Iran being referred to the UN Security Council. But the IAEA is not closing the book on its investigation of Iran's possible weapons programme. A team of IAEA experts arrived in Iran on Friday to pursue other outstanding issues, but they are unlikely to be resolved by the time Dr ElBaradei reports to the board.

The three European countries are fast running out of options, as there is no appetite among non-nuclear states on the IAEA board to report Iran to the Security Council for punitive sanctions, when there is no legal basis to do so. Iran, which agreed to suspend its uranium conversion during the talks with Britain, France and Germany, insists on its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian authorities restarted Isfahan after rejecting a package of security and economic incentives submitted to Iran 10 days ago by the three countries which sought a binding commitment that Iran would not pursue fuel cycle activities. "It's difficult to see things moving ahead if Europeans think that every country can have enrichment facilities except Iran," one Western diplomat said.

Dr Ian Davis, the director of the British-American Security Information Council (Basic), an independent nuclear thinktank, said that if the Europeans were prepared to compromise on the fuel cycle issue, "the negotiations may yet prevent a crisis".

However, a Foreign Office spokesman insisted that a new round of negotiations scheduled with Iran for 31 August would go ahead only if Tehran again suspended uranium conversion. "There are no talks with no suspension," the spokesman said.

Iran, sensing that it is gaining international support for its stand and with a new hardline President in power, also looks as if it is in no mood to compromise at this point.


[/quote:0aa59]

I hate hypocrites.

There is only one country that has used Atomic weapons in anger to date. How come Bush doesn't go...

...oh, right. rolleyes:

wilko you make it sound like the us went on a rampage. It was either couple hundred thousand, or millions (on both sides) and a dragged out war o mainland japan for the next 2-10 years

edit.... anyway if a country wants to develope nukes, thats cool, but don't complain when we overthrow your goverment and carpet bomb your country

[quote="newt.":3d3c5]wilko you make it sound like the us went on a rampage. It was either couple hundred thousand, or millions (on both sides) and a dragged out war o mainland japan for the next 2-10 years

edit.... anyway if a country wants to develope nukes, thats cool, but don't complain when we overthrow your goverment and carpet bomb your country[/quote:3d3c5]
....and you better not complain when that country returns fire with the nukes they were developing and blows the shit of the U.S....

Why should the U.S government dictate who has nukes and who doesn't? What gives them the right to overthrow a country that is developing nukes when they have nukes themselves??

The U.S is allowed nukes to protect themselves from the rest of the world, so why can't the rest of the world have nukes to protect themselves from the U.S?
Seems logical to me, especially seeing as they've started two wars in the last 5 years - And are the only country in history that has actually used a nuke as an act of war.

[quote=Tripper]....and you better not complain when that country returns fire with the nukes they were developing and blows the shit of the U.S....

Why should the U.S government dictate who has nukes and who doesn't? What gives them the right to overthrow a country that is developing nukes when they have nukes themselves??

The U.S is allowed nukes to protect themselves from the rest of the world, so why can't the rest of the world have nukes to protect themselves from the U.S?
Seems logical to me, especially seeing as they've started two wars in the last 5 years - And are the only country in history that has actually used a nuke as an act of war.[/quote:83927]

what I'm saying is..... USA is better.

tripper i think you have a much to positive view of people.

[quote="newt.":7081d][quote=Tripper]....and you better not complain when that country returns fire with the nukes they were developing and blows the shit of the U.S....

Why should the U.S government dictate who has nukes and who doesn't? What gives them the right to overthrow a country that is developing nukes when they have nukes themselves??

The U.S is allowed nukes to protect themselves from the rest of the world, so why can't the rest of the world have nukes to protect themselves from the U.S?
Seems logical to me, especially seeing as they've started two wars in the last 5 years - And are the only country in history that has actually used a nuke as an act of war.[/quote:7081d]

what I'm saying is..... USA is better.

tripper i think you have a much to positive view of people.[/quote:7081d]

Well, from my Foreign (ie: Not American) point of view, if i were a betting man, I would put money on the US starting a Nuclear war than North Korea, or (supposedly) Iran, or any of these other bumfuck nations that preport to have weapons of mass destruction. They are there purely to ward off bigger, more imperialistic nations, like the US.

The "USA #1!" arguement won't work with us, Newt. You gotta come up with something better than that :P

[quote=Wilko][quote="newt.":4fa2d]what I'm saying is..... USA is better.

tripper i think you have a much to positive view of people.[/quote:4fa2d]

Well, from my Foreign (ie: Not American) point of view, if i were a betting man, I would put money on the US starting a Nuclear war than North Korea, or (supposedly) Iran, or any of these other bumfuck nations that preport to have weapons of mass destruction. They are there purely to ward off bigger, more imperialistic nations, like the US.

The "USA #1!" arguement won't work with us, Newt. You gotta come up with something better than that :P[/quote:4fa2d]

Agreed.

I'm from the US and I still don't understand why we think we should get all the nukes, chemical weapons, and what not and dictate to the world whom shal have them. Last time I checked we weren’t being lead by a bunch of honorable, intellectuals with a proper sense of justices and a good sense of judgment.

Also...

How can you assert that the USA is number one? Have you ever visited other countries? Do you know anything else about other countries and their people?

There's no such thing as a #1 Nation. Any nation could be considered #1, depending on how you gauged it. It's purely subjective freak:

rock:

yes, the usa is #1... IMO. I'm an american.
and I feel safe with bush sitting on all the nuclear, bilogical, and chemical weapons the world has to offer. oOo: I understand what you guys are saying, and I do agree but ultimately this conflict of securities will best be solved thru world peace, which will probably never happen. but some of yous guys make the usa sound like a dicatorship where we can do anything, anytime, just because we feel like it.

[quote="newt.":9056d]yes, the usa is #1... IMO. I'm an american.
and I feel safe with bush sitting on all the nuclear, bilogical, and chemical weapons the world has to offer. oOo: I understand what you guys are saying, and I do agree but ultimately this conflict of securities will best be solved thru world peace, which will probably never happen. but some of yous guys make the usa sound like a dicatorship where we can do anything, anytime, just because we feel like it.[/quote:9056d]

Uh...when was the last time America refrained from doing what it wanted, like, ever? Signing a treaty to not fortify the Phillipines in the 20's is the last time I can think of rolleyes:

Look, i don't want to turn this into a "Foreign Leftie bashing the US" thread, but i think most people would agree that America is generally irresponsible and arrogant with the amount of power it wields.
Invading Iraq against the wishes of the United Nations and all but a few sycophantic nations (including, regrettably, Australia :/) is a textbook example of this.

Hey Trip, you reckon we could borrow Helen Clark next time the Yanks come knocking? Howard is useless when dealing with Bush stupid:

the UN needs reformed. as of now, it's a comical institution. Once that gets reformed, they should be the ones to decide who gets nukes and who doesn't. I don't think Iran is stable enough to have nukes, but we'll see whos right and whos wrong.

Transcendentalism ... transcendentalism hake:

I just hate how people can't be accepting in what they have or the fact people are different. Name 1 war that was started for a good reason? (I'm not talking about relatition) I mean that one guy or country has to fuck it up for the rest of us, then a bunch of comformists follow him because of some bs called patriotism. The only good war is if aliens came to our Earth and started shooting lasers at us.

iran doesnt need nukes they are hell bent on blowing away israel , israel has nukes just for this reason, if iran does get nukes whos to say they wont sell a briefcase bomb to some jihadist, if they let the U.N. atomic energy people monitor their nuke program i dont think anyone would have a problem with them having nukes, remember what israel did to iraq's nuclear reactor ??

As much as it goes against my view on human life. Let them do it. Israel is big kid they don't need Uncle USA to help them fight their own battles. If they lose, so be it. Its when countries that can't fend for themselves are attacked, the US should step in.

I completely agree with wilco's comment

It angers me how our own prime minister is so close to the US/ G bush. It just feels like we have lost our independence as a country, that whatever the US does that we have to follow. I hated how the french and other countrys got bitched at because they followed their views when deciding not to help invade iraq. As soon as bush decides to invade iran, Blair will be like "of course i'll help you invade iran" "Who gives a shit about what the rest of our country thinks." Most of our country has forgiven our PM for his decision in following the US into war. If this happens again, I dont think he'll be forgiven as easilly.

The US is a very dangerous country, they should also have their nuclear weapon program removed as well as every other country's.

yeah tony blair is falling right in line with the anti- terrorism fad . im glad hes kicking out the inmans that preach hate and that killing civilians is what allah would want . we have a nice place for all of them in cuba or some other country where torture is legal ...

Torture seems legal @ Guantánamo Bay & Abu Gharab.... Why can't Cubans toture people like America can ???

I pretty sure torture is illegal where ever it takes place. Its all about not getting caught oOo:

any method to prevent future terror attacks is fine in my book.

Hah, David Lange (Who just passed away a few days ago, R.I.P) is responsible for ruining our friendship with the Yanks back in the 80s, over the USS Buchanan - Which was a very smart move. Previously we were just as good allies as you guys are, during the ANZUS alliance, and we hadn't acted very indepently previously - But after we denied their possible nuclear ship their government hasn't wanted anything to do with us under our Labour government.

Helen Clark is holding the reigns though, god bless her. If we get a national government in power after the next election - We'll probably end up in the U.S's back pocket again. Being in a strong alliance with the U.S ain't terrible news (Potentially saved our ass having the big boys on our block during Vietnam, Korea, Malaya etc), but with them under their current government now it is, IMO.

so what im reading is that the US is more like to use nukes to start a war rather than the Islamo-fascists in Iran or the Koreans...both dictatorships?

just because you disagree with the war on terrorism, there is no reason to say that we are "irresponsibly wielding our power." every nation has the right to defend itself but i dont blame this administration for getting skittish when the nations that are arming themselves with nukes have hated the US a very long time (not because of the present administration but because we are the US), it scares the shit out of me that Korea and Iran are developing their program...not to mention China.

Dictatorship or not, the U.S is the only one starting wars. I never witnessed Iran or Korea invading two countries within 5 years under false pretenses, anytime recently.

That's why we worry.

so when they finally do (i have a hard time believing their weapons programs are just for defense) then what?

[quote:ad54d]I never witnessed Iran or Korea invading two countries within 5 years under false pretenses, anytime recently.[/quote:ad54d]

in your opinion...hussein was certainly a heck of a guy, just a little misunderstood...and that taliban, damn were they just screwed over a barrel...poor guys

Hang on to your hats, kids!

IMO, I think the U.S.'s support of Israel is only exacerbating the problem in the Middle East. It's just viewed as yet more undue Western meddling in their affairs. I'm no Anti-Semite, but from a purely geographical point of view, cramming two countries in where there used to be one was never going to be a good idea.

I was actually quite disappointed with Blair's (not Britain's) decision to back the Invasion of Iraq. Being of Half-British blood, and having family over there and such, i take a bit of interest in your affairs.

The thing i dont get is, Australia was almost bound to go. With international diplomacy and the like being what it is, we're always going to be someone's bitch, (First England, now the US) otherwise we'll be belted with economic sanctions like New Zealand was after they didn't go with the US to Iraq (Correct me if I'm wrong Trippar).
Britain, on the other hand, could have sided with the European powers and not gone. I mean, surely you rely on fellow European nations for commerce more than the US. Furthermore, it would have strengthened ties with the continent. Sure, the US would have thrown a heap of "OMG WW2 YUO BASTAGES" crap your way, but you wouldn't be in this shitstorm in Iraq at the moment, which, irregardless of whatever anyone says, I believe to be the new Vietnam. rolleyes:


The only valid war i can think of is probably the Second World War, because it was fought to stop someone forcefully taking over Europe, and then additionally to stop someone taking over Asia. I think it's valid because every other peaceful option was explored (especially by Chamberlain) before war was declared. This being said, if the abomination that was the First world war never happened, we wouldn't have had a disenfranchised Germany, which never would have given rise to Nazism, etc, etc. rolleyes:

I'm no pacifist, but i'm not warmonger either. I think that war will always be necessary while people try to impose their beliefs and control on others; but it should only be entered into when necessary, and not before.

[img]http://www.bgammon.freeserve.co.uk/johninmanp.jpg[/img]
Me too!


Well, that's it. I imagine this will make me fairly unpopular with the Patriot crowd, but there you have it. The rants of a Citizen of a politically insignificant nation happy:

You're a moron if you think any country develops nukes for a first strike. As soon as someone fires the first nuke it might as well be the end of the human race.

in your opinion...hussein was certainly a heck of a guy, just a little misunderstood...and that taliban, damn were they just screwed over a barrel...poor guys[/quote:080d8]

No, that's not my opinion. Don't put words in my mouth to make your argument work.
I don't think just because a country is in shit shape, it deserves to be invaded. That's fucking stupid. What about rawanda? Zimbabwe? Not to mention the countless other nations running under a dictatorship or countries with a body of citizens being oppressed. You can't just invade countries like that. War is a nasty, nasty thing and should only be used, like Wilko stated - when absolutely necessary.

Don't even try that worthless "Sadaam and the Taliban were bad" argument with me. You can't save a country by invading it. Iraq is now even more fucked than it was before. As is Afgahnistan.

the un is a joke

look tripper, i respect your opinion and your argument but i cant agree with you that iraq and afghanistan are more fucked up now than they were before and al quieda's organization is ducking and running...the aim for the "war on terror" in the first place

call me a moron if you like but i would rather err on the side of being wrong rather than some militant muslims who hate israel having nukes. given the fact that if they die in battle, they'll go to heaven, whats to stop them from finally ridding the world of the Zionists? not putting words into your mouth...lines are pretty easily read between and other than having a bargaining chip on the world stage, what in the world would korea and iran do with nukes?

Nuclear Weapons - 2005 Developments

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... ke2005.htm

so which is it .. they arent trying to build a bomb or are they oOo:

i can think of a few. The American Civil War is an easy example. A dude pushed us into it with patriotism essentially (Lincoln). By saying that, I do not agree that the middle east situation looks OK due to patriotism. People just blame everything on patriotism and religion b/c they don't agree with the other side. People that support the war are not walking, american t-shirt wearing zombies...please understand that.

I believe the Civil War indeed was fought for other sesession (sp), a just reason such as slavery was secondary in Lincoln's mind. It was necessary to form the country we have today; if it never happened, would we notice the difference?

si

Not a yes or no question. I mean would we patholigically see slavery as a bad thing or a necessary part of the economy?

Either way this is a discussion for another thread. /derailment.

agreed

You have to be insane. Iraq is fucked. The longterm is unkown, but right now - It is a giant shitstorm. There is absolutely NO WAY it is currently in better shape than it was before the invasion. I just don't accept that, It's total shit. (I'm excluding Afgahnistan, because It isn't in the same state).

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here on account of the terrible indecipherable sentence - But it looks as though you are turning this, once again, into something it's not. It's not about sides. Not supporting the U.S actions DOES NOT mean you automatically support the terrorists/insurgents. This isn't a sports match. I support the innocent people caught up in all this, American troops and Iraqi citizens.

That is an ignorant generalisation of the Islamic religion brought about by the media and the government exploiting paranoia. Why all of a sudden in the last 5 years, has everyone instantly become fearful of islamic fundamentalists coming to blow them up? 10 years ago, there was none of this on the scale it is now. It's called fear-mongering.

So you can rest easy, and take my word for it when I say not every muslim is ready to blow himself up to kill a few "zionists."

You must be on more drugs than me.

You were putting words in my mouth, you were telling me what my opinion was - and you were totally wrong. Don't shit me.

Let me put it too you this way, by rephrasing your question: Other than having a bargaining chip on the world stage, what in the world would the U.S do with nukes?

so the iraqi people were in better shape with saddam in power ? is that you are saying tripper ?

the afghani people were in better shape with the taliban in power ? is that what you are saying tripper ?

saddam used chemical weapons on his own people , invaded kuwait , brutally enforced his rule by murdering people that didnt agree with him, gave his sadistic sons power who in turn murdered and raped people at will. i say the iraqi are alot better without saddam in power

the taliban well thats a story that we all know about, opressed women , enforced the most strictest form of islam ever known to man, harbored a known terrorist that is responisble for the death of 3,000 or more innocent people , i say the afghani people are much better off without the taliban in power.

North Korea , well thats another well known story that kim il jung starves his people while he lives like a king, what good could possibly come from him having any type of nuclear weapons. the US offered to give the north korean people 60 tons of food in exchange for him giving up his nuclear weapon program , but once again he laughed at that.

Iran is lead by a religous zealot that wants to see israel destroyed , i say the world let israel handle this one on their own, they arent in fact trying to build a nuclear bomb even though buttocks posted a article which is nothing short of a lie , they already have nuclear weapons.


cheers beer:

Absofuckinglutely. Back then it was a COUNTRY. Not a fucking warzone with daily carbombings, limited power/water/healthcare. Not to mention all the junk and the shit that gets left behind in a war.

The type of government and it's leader that they had before the invasion is irrelevant whether it was good or not. The fact is they were a functioning country with citizens that commuted to society. Now the country isn't even a country. It barely has a government.

You would be far more safer in Iraq the country as opposed to Iraq the warzone. I can't believe you are even arguing this.

This is a bit different - I excluded this for that reason.....But you only need to compare the amount of innocent deaths from the war, to the amount of innocent deaths under the taliban government to get a clear idea. This area is more unstable than it was under the taliban.

Yes, that aspect (Sadaam out of power) is a good thing. Overall though - the people aren't better off as a result of the war.

.....3,000 dead over a longer period of time is alot better than 3,700 civilian deaths from American bombs. Afgahnistan is slightly different, seeing as there was more of a valid reason for invasion. Doesn't change the fact that the country is unstable and fucked. People keep on attempting to assasinate whatever puppet leader the Americans put in.

What good could possibly come from the U.S having any type of nuclear weapons?? For fucks sake. We have more reason to trust Kim Jong than we do Bush. The war in Iraq was started under false pretenses. What's stopping Bush from nuking North Korea under false pretenses? The U.S is the only country that has ever nuked anyone, so we know they're capable of it. Jong hasn't even started a war, unlike Bush, who in a single term - Started two wars, and is currently working on his third. rolleyes:

How do you know? Are you CIA? Even then, I wouldn't trust your judgement. (....WMDs). Can't you see a pattern forming with the way Bush conducts his foreign policy? "Hey! Middle eastern country - Our excellent intelligence proves you have some kind of weapon of mass destruction - Get rid of it or we will invade you. Not gonna get rid of it? Ok here we come!...........Oops. Turns out we were wrong. Oh well, too late."

You talk alot of shit about other countries doing this and doing that, but none of them top starting a war. Bush is indirectly responsible for causing more deaths than all of these dictators combined.

Trip, rdeyes stated in an earlier post that he is arguing in support of America because it's his own Country. He doesn't actually give a shit about the facts of the matter, he's just being blindly patriotic (like the Iraqis he hates, ironically enough :P). Don't bother with logic, you're wasting your time.

Use grunts and other monosylabic arguements instead. Mebbe they'll get through. Save the logic for people like ktog that actually have an understanding of what's going on that extends further than what CNN feeds him. rolleyes: