Iran's nuke project

Replace Lindbergh with someone like Kofi Annan, Roosevelt with Bush and Hitler with Khameini, and you've got a pretty accurate Seuss comic here too.

 
Statement by the Iranian Government and visiting EU Foreign Ministers, 21 October 2003 - IAEA.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement by the Iranian Government and visiting EU Foreign Ministers
21 October 2003


Upon the invitation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Germany paid a visit to Tehran on October 21, 2003.

The Iranian authorities and the ministers, following extensive consultations, agreed on measures aimed at the settlement of all outstanding IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] issues with regards to the Iranian nuclear programme and at enhancing confidence for peaceful cooperation in the nuclear field.


The Iranian authorities reaffirmed that nuclear weapons have no place in Iran's defence doctrine and that its nuclear programme and activities have been exclusively in the peaceful domain. They reiterated Iran's commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and informed the ministers that:


The Iranian Government has decided to engage in full co-operation with the IAEA to address and resolve through full transparency all requirements and outstanding issues of the Agency and clarify and correct any possible failures and deficiencies within the IAEA.


To promote confidence with a view to removing existing barriers for co-operation in the nuclear field:


having received the necessary clarifications, the Iranian Government has decided to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol and commence ratification procedures. As a confirmation of its good intentions the Iranian Government will continue to co-operate with the Agency in accordance with the Protocol in advance of its ratification.


while Iran has a right within the nuclear non-proliferation regime to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes it has decided voluntarily to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as defined by the IAEA.

Dialogue

The Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Germany welcomed the decisions of the Iranian Government and informed the Iranian authorities that:


Their governments recognise the right of Iran to enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


In their view the Additional Protocol is in no way intended to undermine the sovereignty, national dignity or national security of its State Parties.


In their view full implementation of Iran's decisions, confirmed by the IAEA's Director General, should enable the immediate situation to be resolved by the IAEA Board.


The three governments believe that this will open the way to a dialogue on a basis for longer term co-operation which will provide all parties with satisfactory assurances relating to Iran's nuclear power generation programme. Once international concerns, including those of the three governments, are fully resolved Iran could expect easier access to modern technology and supplies in a range of areas.


They will co-operate with Iran to promote security and stability in the region including the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and now,

March 2ND, 2004: IAEA Director General Says Iran Verification "Moving in Right Direction"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAEA Director General ElBaradei said Iran is showing greater cooperation with the IAEA in the verification of its nuclear programme. "If you look at the big picture, we are clearly moving in the right direction. If you compare where we were a year ago and where we are today, that's a sea change"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should note that the accusations levelled against Iran, and passed to the IAEA (an aggressive nuclear weapons programme) were already proven baseless. The motives were obviously political, on the part of the US; and economic, on the part of Russia (Russia seeks to maintain Iran as a dependent nuclear fuel customer). The IAEA has to follow through, regardless.
 
The first thing to do once Bush will be re-elected is to invade Iran. I hope it won't be too late. Personally, I would even start it right now.
 
Originally posted by EmpireofVirtue
The first thing to do once Bush will be re-elected is to invade Iran. I hope it won't be too late. Personally, I would even start it right now.

I know that I say this every time that someone proposes war but... When are you planinng to enlist or are you already enlisted.
 
He did say that he would
Originally posted by EmpireofVirtue
Personally
start invading Iran right now. So I doubt he's got time to answer your question.
 
funny, if the bad guys don't do as Bush demands, they get their asses invaded.

if they do as he says, they are untrustworthy, thus must be lying, thus...

they get their asses invaded????

:rolleyes:
 
Yup. Case in point Syria. They've been "getting tough on terrorism" for years now at President Bush's request. They've made countless arrests within the country and accepted numerous suspect deportees from the US, deportees earmarked for interrogation by means not legal to the US government ( ;) ), and now they face sanctions, largely for their "harbouring terrorists" (in prisons) and their "human rights abuses" (the thugs practice torture). As the Syrian ambassador to the US put it, "They tell us if we don't do this, all hell will open up on Syria. We're caught between fires. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't".

The sanctions planned against Syria are, as with Iran, largely symbolic. Neither country depends on US trade. One component of the sanctions is the retraction of diplomatic personnel. This is supposed to improve matters.
 
I still advocate a new international law: Using nukes is forfeiting the right to maintain them.

I would love to see that law get passed by the UN. No nukes for the USA ;)
 
Originally posted by EmpireofVirtue
The first thing to do once Bush will be re-elected is to invade Iran. I hope it won't be too late. Personally, I would even start it right now.

At least that would garranty Kerry's election. Do you seriously believe that what the US need is to invade an other country at a time where it is already struggling in Iraq? And one with a population four time greater, an even greater territory and a much harsher ground?

rmsharpe: amusing cartoon. You posted very similar one before the Iraq War. Where are those WMDs again?
I believed Bush & Blair the last time they claimed that Saddam's WMDs were a large and urgent threat to the world. You might understand that I am unlikely to do so again.

Oh, and OT, I am very doubtful of Iran's claims. But if I have to trust anyone on the state of their nuclear program, it will not be Bush.
 
Yup. Case in point Syria. They've been "getting tough on terrorism" for years now at President Bush's request. They've made countless arrests within the country and accepted numerous suspect deportees from the US, deportees earmarked for interrogation by means not legal to the US government ( ), and now they face sanctions, largely for their "harbouring terrorists" (in prisons) and their "human rights abuses" (the thugs practice torture).

Getting tough on terrorism? Don't make me laugh.
Why do they still support the Hizbullah?
Why do they still provide a safe harbour to nearly all terrorist organization heads residing in the Palestinian Territories?
Why do training camps for terrorists still exist on Syrian territory?

As the Syrian ambassador to the US put it, "They tell us if we don't do this, all hell will open up on Syria. We're caught between fires. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't".

The Syrian ambassador is amusing to say the least. He sounds like a kid that when said "Wash the dishes", washes two small plates, and leaves 90% of the dishes untouched. "But I've already washed the dishes, mom!".
Unfortunately, some members of this forum believe the kid.
 
For the record, I still support the immediate start of peace negotiations between Syria & Israel, regardless of Syria's lack of actions. I think such a step will only improve the chances (or even stamp them in an agreement) of Syria stopping her support of terrorist organizations.
 
I have no illusions about the Iranian government. Theyre antidemocratic, theological thugs, to say the least. I also have no illusions about the authority of the U.S. to decide what weapons sovereign nations are allowed to have. That authority is non existent and is real only in the minds of U.S. government officials. The rest of the world goes along with this because after all, what are they going to do about? The U.S. sets the rules of the game, if you dont play, you pay. Might makes right.
 
Originally posted by EmpireofVirtue
The first thing to do once Bush will be re-elected is to invade Iran. I hope it won't be too late. Personally, I would even start it right now.

I believe u are right that Bush would so that, but what gives America the right to invade other countries when the are belived to have nuclear weapons. The United States has thousands of nukes and is the only country to nuke a city. Why should we be able to invade another country. Even if there isn't enough evidence that Iran has nukes, Bush will get his buddies to fabricate some more intelligence reports and blow even more money. American Politics, got to love it. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by stormbind
I still advocate a new international law: Using nukes is forfeiting the right to maintain them.

I would love to see that law get passed by the UN. No nukes for the USA ;)
Except the U.S.A. would veto it. And if we don't and we do use nuclear weapons then who will stop us? Canada? No they don't like dieing. China? Not with their crappy navy. Europe? Not woth their peace movements. The third world? HAHA
 
Originally posted by h4ppy
Except the U.S.A. would veto it. And if we don't and we do use nuclear weapons then who will stop us? Canada? No they don't like dieing. China? Not with their crappy navy. Europe? Not woth their peace movements. The third world? HAHA

Am i the only person here who finds this statement extremely arrogent???

Its this sort of 'the US can do what we like because what are you gonna do about it' attitude that has the USA facing the worst image problems it has faced in my life time.

I feel sorry for the many many good natured Americans who are labelled as arrogant arseholes because of statements like the above.
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
I have no illusions about the Iranian government. Theyre antidemocratic, theological thugs, to say the least. I also have no illusions about the authority of the U.S. to decide what weapons sovereign nations are allowed to have. That authority is non existent and is real only in the minds of U.S. government officials. The rest of the world goes along with this because after all, what are they going to do about? The U.S. sets the rules of the game, if you dont play, you pay. Might makes right.

To be fair, the US did have UN authorization to disarm Iraq. It wasn't just the US saying that they were dangerous and needed to disarm - virtually everybody agreed that Iraqi disarmament was important for the safety of the international community. The disagreement was over how it should be done, ie to continue with ineffective, bordering on farcical inspections, or through force. I would be shocked if the US decided to invade Iran without UN recognition of a pressing need to disarm. Iran seems to be warming to the idea of improved diplomatic relations with the West, and many people in the State Department believe Iran is our best shot at a bona fide democratic ally in the Middle East at some point in the near future. You can disagree with the war all you want, but it's unfair to say that the US is bent on disarming any country they deem in needing of disarmament. The acknowledgment of the need to disarm Iraq was universal.
 
Originally posted by Lifeblood
Is there anyone here who believes Iran is telling the truth?

I hope Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They must be distributed democratically to the whole world IMHO, instead of being monopolized by some countries. Right now it only serves as a weapon of defense, not of attack. I also hope Syria continues to support the liberty fighters in Palestine. Israel's invasion of Arab territory must end. The Israelites have been acting like fascists with the Palestinians for too long.
 
Originally posted by Androrc


I hope Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They must be distributed democratically to the whole world IMHO, instead of being monopolized by some countries. Right now it only serves as a weapon of defense, not of attack. I also hope Syria continues to support the liberty fighters in Palestine. Israel's invasion of Arab territory must end. The Israelites have been acting like fascists with the Palestinians for too long.


You're right!
The evil Zionists must be defeated... :p
The sooner the better. :rolleyes:

:king:
 
Top Bottom