What the hell are we waiting for? It is time to enforce the rules of humanity and end Iran's threatening nuclear ambitions. Force cooperation.
Iran hopes to present new nuclear plan in a month
Iran said on Friday it hoped to present within a month a plan to head off EU preparations to refer it to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, but diplomats interpreted the move as stalling.
Britain, France and Germany, the "EU3," have held two years of talks with Iran to try to persuade it to abandon sensitive atomic work that both the 25-nation bloc and the United States suspect is a preliminary step toward making nuclear arms.
But the talks appear close to collapse after Iran resumed uranium conversion this month, prompting the EU to cancel an August 31 meeting. Frustrated by Iran's refusal to stop such work, the EU is now preparing the road to possible sanctions.
Asked whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would present his proposal within a month, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told reporters: "I hope so."
But diplomats who follow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran appeared to be stalling for time, as the EU3 were likely to push for Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council in less than a month -- when the IAEA governing board meets on September 19.
"I think they're stalling," a diplomat from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of mainly developing countries said.
Larijani was speaking after a meeting in Vienna with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei which appeared to be an attempt to forestall the EU's efforts.
"With the power that Iran enjoys in the region, there is no way that Iran can be worried about the threat of the Security Council," he said, speaking through an interpreter.
ElBaradei is due to report on Iran's activities on September 3.
Larijani said he thought talks could still succeed, and France said it was still open to talks.
"The door is open, our hand is outstretched, and so we are completely open to contact with the Iranians, and such contact could occur at any time," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei told a regular news briefing.
NEW PROPOSAL
Larijani said on Thursday Iran was finalizing a new plan which would include broadening negotiations to involve nations outside the European Union trio.
Countries within the Non-Aligned Movement of mainly developing states and "major countries who could have an impact on negotiations" had expressed an interest in getting involved in the talks or in parallel negotiations, he told reporters.
"There have been several but I can only mention one -- South Africa has been particularly active in this area," he said.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council spokesman said the initiative would also encompass plans for resuming other parts of Iran's nuclear program, currently suspended under an agreement with the EU3 made last November.
Iran says all it wants to do is build nuclear power stations to satisfy booming domestic demand for electricity.
But the United States says Iran's record of hiding its nuclear program for 18 years and irregularities exposed by IAEA inspectors reveal its desire to build a bomb.
The EU says Iran broke its pledge to suspend nuclear work while talks were in progress. The EU3 is now preparing for the IAEA board meeting on September 19, when the trio is expected to urge the board to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council.
The Europeans and Americans had explored the possibility of an emergency board meeting before September 19, but developing countries on the IAEA's 35-nation board, along with China and Russia, opposed the idea, EU diplomats told Reuters.
What happens at the September 19 IAEA meeting will depend on ElBaradei's report, EU diplomats said.
"First we have to see what is in the report, which will formally say that Iran has violated the suspension, we expect," the diplomat said.
But there will probably be resistance to a Security Council referral from the non-aligned developing states which make up around a third of the board, diplomats said.
Russia has called on Iran to resume the suspension but has repeatedly said it opposes a Security Council referral.
Dropping an a-bomb on Iran wouldnt just kill the bad people, it would also kill lots of inocent people ... and make the land unlivable for a long long time
Something HAS to be done to stop this Islamic terrorist infection from growing any further. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq. These are the places where the roots lie. Within those places are hot spots. Whole communities of hate.
"enforce the rules of humanity" by killing millions and destroying a country. That's some kind of humanity you've got going there, sordidmesh.
Iran's going to get the bomb, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, or will do. Iran is more confident today than it's been in a generation, which is no surprise seeing as it's just witnessed the hash America has made of Iraq. Bush managed to achieve for Iran what Iran failed to do in the 8 year war with Iraq, and that's have influence and power in Iraq.
And forget nuking Iran, if that's the best solution, lets just forget humanity altogether and destroy the whole planet.
Blame Bush's irresponsible foreign policy first for the danger growing in the ME. Remember: the first atomic bomb has been conceived more than 60 years ago. Electronics hardly existed, there were no computers ... technology has dramatically changed since then, and, more importantly, it is widely spread in the world. So, you can already consider that any country with a few scientists can manufacture a bomb; the only limitation being the procurement of the raw stuff. But, considering its ties with countries once part of former soviet union, this should not be a problem either ....
Iran will have the bomb.
Cheney: Iran Will Not Be Allowed to Have a Nuclear Weapon
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Tuesday that any enrichment of nuclear fuel on Iranian territory was unacceptable, while Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States won't tolerate Tehran possessing a nuclear weapon.
"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "We join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Cheney also echoed remarks made to the same conference over the weekend by John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, when he said Iran's insistence on enriching uranium will lead to "tangible and painful consequences."
White House officials say they fully expect the matter to be taken up by the U.N. Security Council this week. The Bush administration spearheaded the effort to get the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the Security Council, which it did.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Let us win glory for ourselves, or yield it to others.
Desert Hawk said this in post "Should several Neutron bombs be dropped on Iran? post #7 quote:
WITHOUT A DOUBT."
You are a walking contradiction.
You have spoken about the war in Iraq being a reactionary war to a "rogue regime" that consistantly broke "international law".
Yet, in your mind, you see nothing at all wrong with dropping Nuclear bombs on a country. What is wrong with you is what is wrong with so many Americans, not all thank god, but many.
You are sold. Completely and utterly sold.
You have most likely never been to Iran, never met an Iranian, no nothing of Iranian history except that which your government and media "open up" for you. You base your entire arguement on provocation. You're arguements apeal to your fundamental racism, them and us mentality.
Your country has dropped such bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the effect devastating, still to this day one of the single worst examples of a war crime never punished.
You and many like you wish horrific consequences for governments around the world that practise the very things your government excells at.
The production and manufacture of WMD.
The sale of WMD to aggressive nations actively involved in war.
Abuse of human rights.
Supporting dictatorship and twarting democracy.
The murder of innocents on an alarming scale.
The use of WMD on civilian infrastructure.
STARTING WAR ON POOR COUNTRIES UNABLE TO ADEQUATELY DEFEND THEMSELVES.
You are unable to back your assertions with anything other than catchphrases and concepts sold to you, you are fueled up with nothing other than racist driven rhetoric, your arguements are baseless.
I defy you to back ANYTHING you adhere to regarding US foreign policy WITHOUT contradicting yourself. YOU CANT.
Desert Hawk said this in post #9 : Cheney: Iran Will Not Be Allowed to Have a Nuclear Weapon
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Tuesday that any enrichment of nuclear fuel on Iranian territory was unacceptable, while Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States won't tolerate Tehran possessing a nuclear weapon.
"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "We join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Cheney also echoed remarks made to the same conference over the weekend by John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, when he said Iran's insistence on enriching uranium will lead to "tangible and painful consequences."
White House officials say they fully expect the matter to be taken up by the U.N. Security Council this week. The Bush administration spearheaded the effort to get the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the Security Council, which it did.
How strange that such prestigious guests make these comments at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee gathering.
Israel has an ever growing influence over US foreign policy these days dont you think?
Ireland said this in post #10 :
You are a walking contradiction.
You have spoken about the war in Iraq being a reactionary war to a "rogue regime" that consistantly broke "international law".
Yet, in your mind, you see nothing at all wrong with dropping Nuclear bombs on a country. What is wrong with you is what is wrong with so many Americans, not all thank god, but many.
You are sold. Completely and utterly sold.
You have most likely never been to Iran, never met an Iranian, no nothing of Iranian history except that which your government and media "open up" for you. You base your entire arguement on provocation. You're arguements apeal to your fundamental racism, them and us mentality.
Your country has dropped such bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the effect devastating, still to this day one of the single worst examples of a war crime never punished.
You and many like you wish horrific consequences for governments around the world that practise the very things your government excells at.
The production and manufacture of WMD.
The sale of WMD to aggressive nations actively involved in war.
Abuse of human rights.
Supporting dictatorship and twarting democracy.
The murder of innocents on an alarming scale.
The use of WMD on civilian infrastructure.
STARTING WAR ON POOR COUNTRIES UNABLE TO ADEQUATELY DEFEND THEMSELVES.
You are unable to back your assertions with anything other than catchphrases and concepts sold to you, you are fueled up with nothing other than racist driven rhetoric, your arguements are baseless.
I defy you to back ANYTHING you adhere to regarding US foreign policy WITHOUT contradicting yourself. YOU CANT.
Mr. Ireland, can you prove all this in an American court of law? 'Cause if and you say that you can, I has to rush out and fetch me a real fine law-er.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Let us win glory for ourselves, or yield it to others.
If you cant deal with the issues that you yourself are bringing up in your arguements then dont bother bringing them up at all.
You can say without the slightest consideration that dropping nuclear bombs on Iran is an acceptable course of action. You believe the American war in Iraq is an acceptable course of action. Yet you have nothing of importance to offer to back up this assertion.
You are driven by blind nationalism, an obvious passion for war and a fundamentally racist view of the world. If i am wrong here by all means argue your logic and prove me wrong.
08-26-2005 09:36 PM
