Iran 'rejects Western pressure'

DuH2 · #1 (**permalink**) 06-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

The UN has agreed new plans to try to halt Iran's nuclear work
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will not abandon its right to nuclear technology under Western pressure, local media say.
His statement comes a day after six world powers agreed proposals in Vienna to persuade Iran to halt its research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5042592.stm

He's pissing off the Russians and Chinese and thats all he has left...or had left.

SenaxFlatulus · #2 (**permalink**) 06-02-2006, 04:17 PM

Mahmoud Ahmawackjob is willing to risk everything to protect an innocent peaceful nuclear program. It makes one wonder why doesn't it?

noetsi · #3 (**permalink**) 06-02-2006, 10:02 PM

He knows he is not risking anything he cares about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our fine young men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units, but I know them all, every one. I have seen them in a thousand streets, of a hundred towns, in every State in this Union--working and laughing and building, and filled with hope and life. I think I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their families sorrow.

This is the most agonizing and the most painful duty of your President.

What Bush should have said about Iraq.

Kate25 · #4 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 06:54 AM

If they turn down this offer we might be looking at sanctions somewhere down the road.

I sure hope the Iranians take this offer. Of course I don't really think they will, but who knows? The important thing is that the U.S. isn't alone in this. The three EU countries, Russia, and China are on board too.

So it's not just Bush!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ran/index.html

Quote:

(CNN) -- Europe's foreign policy chief is ready to head to Tehran to present new international incentive offers to persuade Iran to curb halt uranium enrichment, even as the country's president says it is not prepared to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

The EU's Javier Solana is expected to leave Brussels on Sunday for a Middle East tour which could accommodate a detour to the Iranian capital, but the date of any visit could not be confirmed his assistant Christina Gallach told CNN.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his country was not prepared to stop its nuclear activities, however Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Saturday that a breakthrough was possible and welcomed unconditional talks with all parties, including the United States. (Watch as Iran's president refuses to back down -- 2:03)

"We think that if there is a good will, a breakthrough to get out of a situation they (the EU and the United States) have created for themselves... is possible," Mottaki said, according to AP.

On Thursday, six world powers meeting in Vienna agreed to "substantive" incentives in an attempt to coax Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment.

The six powers, the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, along with Germany, agreed on a "set of far-reaching proposals" on Thursday.

While details will be kept secret until Iran has seen them, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the suggestions will form the foundation for resuming talks with Iran.

The package still hinges on Iran halting its nuclear enrichment program. (Watch what will happen next if Iran does not agree -- 2:0

"We believe that (the proposals) offer Iran the chance to reach a negotiated agreement based on cooperation," Beckett said.

In an interview with CNN, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran needs "to make a choice and the international community needs to know whether negotiation is a real option or not."

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday that the package is a "clear choice" for Iran.

"This is a real and sincere effort at diplomacy," he said. "It is about giving Iran that kind of clear choice that we've been talking about. And we'll see what Iran does."

The incentive proposal follows Rice's meeting with foreign ministers from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia in Vienna, Austria, the headquarters of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.(Watch the U.S. strategy on Iran -- 2:23)

Rice said Iran must respond in "a matter of weeks."

If Iran agrees to suspend its nuclear reprocessing and enrichment activities, potential Security Council actions against Tehran will be suspended, Beckett said. If Iran refuses, "further steps would have to be taken in the Security Council," she said without elaborating.

The announcement appears to mark the first time China and Russia have been on the same page as Washington regarding the issue.

Though the consequences of Iran refusing to halt enrichment weren't laid out, China and Russia's agreement to the deal is key.

The two countries have hesitated to call for sanctions on Iran in the past, and both could veto any Security Council resolution punishing Iran for refusing to stop its enrichment and reprocessing activities. Despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, the United States and its European allies fear the nation is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran ended its voluntary cooperation with the IAEA in February, which included ending surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Iran said in April that it used 164 centrifuges to produce energy-grade uranium. Experts say thousands of centrifuges are needed to produce the necessary concentrations for a nuclear bomb.

Teddy-Ruxpin · #5 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 08:25 AM

What is the big deal here? Even the hawkish and neocon dominated CIA asserted that it takes Iran at least 10-15 years to come up with 1 single weapon.

Lots can change in 10-15 yaers. For starters: regime change.

hobo · #6 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teddy-Ruxpin";p=&quot

What is the big deal here? Even the hawkish and neocon dominated CIA asserted that it takes Iran at least 10-15 years to come up with 1 single weapon.

I agree - I read this statement that nobody seems to dispute:
"Iran resumed enrichment of uranium this year but remains a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintains that its activities are aimed only at energy production.

Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran had co-operated and would continue to co-operate with UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He said that at issue was the right to advanced technology, not nuclear weapons."

Through the eyes of the Western diplomats and Western media, we all assume that Iraq has some evil intentions. But on the nightly news all we see is a nuclear power plant being built - the same kind that are built all over the world.

Before I can get myself all worked up about nuclear weapons in Iran, it would be nice to have some proof. After all, with a neighbor like Pakistan and India who have nukes, and other countries like Russia, China, and North Korea already producing nukes, something is not ringing true.

Methinks oil is the unspoken agenda here - just like Iraq. I'll ask a simple question, "If Iran's intention is really to develop nuclear energy to supply power, would you still oppose Iran dabbling with uranium?" If your answer is yes, they you pre-suppose Iran is fundamentally evil, right?

noetsi · #7 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 10:32 AM

Given that most believe that Iranian nuclear devices are at least a decade off it can be pretty bemusing to read neo-cons argue we should bomb something that does not exist....But then neo-cons never really need much of a justification for mindless violence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our fine young men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units, but I know them all, every one. I have seen them in a thousand streets, of a hundred towns, in every State in this Union--working and laughing and building, and filled with hope and life. I think I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their families sorrow.
This is the most agonizing and the most painful duty of your President.

What Bush should have said about Iraq.

SenaxFlatulus · #8 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teddy-Ruxpin";p=&quot

Even the hawkish and neocon dominated CIA asserted that it takes Iran at least 10-15 years to come up with 1 single weapon.

Is this the same CIA who told us that Iraq had WMD's? The same CIA that told President Bush to go ahead with the invasion because it was a slam dunk?

noetsi · #9 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Except of course they did not say that. Bush totally distorted what they told him, by cherry picking which evidence he presented the public (only presenting that which supported the existence of WMD and tossing out that which did not) and ignoring entirely the concerns they raised about the validity of the information. What the CIA told the president and what the president told the US public about Iraqi WMD were fundamentally different, as I have shown in the past.

The CIA did tell the president that Iraqi WMD was a minimal threat to the US, unless we went to war. Somehow that did not get into his public statements....

SenaxFlatulus · #10 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobo";p=&quot

I agree - I read this statement that nobody seems to dispute:
"Iran resumed enrichment of uranium this year but remains a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintains that its activities are aimed only at energy production.

Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran had co-operated and would continue to co-operate with UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He said that at issue was the right to advanced technology, not nuclear weapons."

Through the eyes of the Western diplomats and Western media, we all assume that Iraq has some evil intentions. But on the nightly news all we see is a nuclear power plant being built - the same kind that are built all over the world.

Before I can get myself all worked up about nuclear weapons in Iran, it would be nice to have some proof. After all, with a neighbor like Pakistan and India who have nukes, and other countries like Russia, China, and North Korea already producing nukes, something is not ringing true.

So, you're eager to believe the Iranian President's claims at face value. Meanwhile the fact that he's not cooperating with the UN, not just the Western Diplomats, is lost on you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobo";p=&quot

Methinks oil is the unspoken agenda here - just like Iraq. I'll ask a simple question, "If Iran's intention is really to develop nuclear energy to supply power, would you still oppose Iran dabbling with uranium?" If your answer is yes, they you pre-suppose Iran is fundamentally evil, right?

Got any proof of this "unspoken agenda?" If not, then you're not only choosing to believe what you're told by Ahamadidawackjob, but you're making up stuff out of thin air to justify your placement of "evil" only on us. Your self-loathing should indeed be contained to yourself.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode