[Mr.Buttocks]

[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]

[Pyro]

I hate hypocrites.

[Wilko]

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

...oh, right. rolleyes:

[newt.]

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

[Tripper]

[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.

[newt.]

[quote=Tripper]

Originally Posted by "newt.":83927

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

....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.

[Wilko]

[quote="newt.":7081d][quote=Tripper]

Originally Posted by "newt.":7081d

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

....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

[Tripper]

[quote=Wilko][quote="newt.":4fa2d]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Stammer]

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?

[Wilko]

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:

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by Wilko

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:

[newt.]

Originally Posted by Stammer

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?

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.

[Wilko]

[quote="newt.":9056d]

Originally Posted by Stammer

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?

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:

[c312]

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.

[KTOG]

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.