PDA

View Full Version : Iran Ready to Share Nuclear Technology



DrMaddVibe
09-15-2005, 09:54 PM
By EDITH M. LEDERER
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 15, 2005; 4:27 PM

UNITED NATIONS -- Iran is willing to provide nuclear technology to other Muslim states, Iran's hard-line president said Thursday, notching up his rhetoric as his regime rejects international pressure to cut back its atomic program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the comment after talking with Turkey's prime minister during a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations, Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the summit of world leaders Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2005 at the United Nations. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the summit of world leaders Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2005 at the United Nations.

Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, the report said. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."

Iran has said it is determined to continue processing uranium so its nuclear program can be self-sufficient in meeting its own reactor fuel needs. It insists the program is intended only to generate electricity and denies having any ambition to build atomic weapons.

The United States and others have accused Iran of trying to develop atomic arms in violation of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Europeans have been uneasy since it was revealed Iran kept parts of its nuclear program secret for years from U.N. inspectors.

Ahmadinejad's statement came just four days before the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is scheduled to discuss Iran's resumption of uranium conversion _ which produces material that can be used either for reactor fuel or for nuclear bombs.

His comments were likely raised during a Thursday afternoon meeting of the foreign ministers from the three European countries that have been negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue _ Britain, France and Germany _ and Iran's new foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and its top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani.

The European ministers met separately before they were joined about 15 minutes later by the Iranians in an office provided by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette, European diplomats involved in the talks said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Afterward, officials wouldn't say what was discussed.

Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said only that the session was a preparation for a meeting later in the day between Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Ahmadinejad. Pleuger said representatives of the three EU nations also would attend that meeting.

The United States and European countries warned last week that Iran was running out of time to freeze uranium processing or face referral to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of punitive sanctions.

However, diplomats and government officials in several European capitals said Thursday the U.S.-European push to take Iran before the council was meeting strong opposition and could be postponed. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hinted at that possibility Wednesday.

The officials in Europe, who agreed to discuss the delicate behind-the-scenes negotiations only if granted anonymity, said more than a dozen members of the IAEA's 35-nation board opposed making a decision about referral at their meeting Monday in Vienna, Austria.

Ahmadinejad has urged the United Nations not to bend to U.S. pressure to punish Iran.

"The raison d'etre of the United Nations is to promote global peace and tranquility," he told the General Assembly on Wednesday. "Therefore, any license for pre-emptive measures which are essentially based on gauging intentions rather than objective facts ... is a blatant contradiction to the very foundation of the United Nations and the letter and the spirit of its charter."

The European Union has taken the lead in trying to persuade Iran to halt uranium processing in exchange for economic help and a guaranteed supply of fuel for nuclear reactors.

Iran rejected that proposal, arguing the nonproliferation treaty gives it the right to run a peaceful nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is expected to announced new Iranian proposals at the U.N. summit aimed at defusing the faceoff over its atomic operations.




So...I want to hear from the Left on this one. What are you prepared to do about this issue?

Cathedral
09-15-2005, 10:05 PM
I say stand back, because Israel isn't going to let them just proceed on this course, and I'm not thrilled about it either.

This is going to be a threat to you and me, it will most certainly be a threat.

What doesn't make sense to me is if their persuit of nukes is only for energy, why share it? That just tells me that their program has a serious military component that should not be ignored.
In my mind, those actions will be acts of war and should be dealt with firmly and swiftly.

North Korea and their nukes don't even raise an eyebrow because though they talk tough, they aren't suicidal.

With Iran and the nature of the Islamic style of attack...yeah, we need to pay very close attention to what's happening with this and dare i say it....We should keep Pre-Emption on the table as far as Iran is concerned.

FORD
09-16-2005, 12:12 AM
As much as I hate to quote Reagan, the words "trust, but verify" seem to fit the situation here.

If the Iranian leaders are true to their Muslim faith, then they should be honest about their intentions. It should be easy enough to determine nuclear power facilities from nuclear weapons facilities even from satellite photos, let alone UN Inspections or even possibly US observers on the ground.

Diplomacy should be emphasized now. The Iranians have done nothing wrong YET. And though I'm not ready to give them 100% the benefit of the doubt, I'm also not giving the same to Israel/BCE/PNAC who have their own agendas, which as we saw in Iraq, don't neccessarily depend on the truth.

Bottom line. Talk to them. Watch them closely. And if they do nothing wrong, then let it go. While the Shiite mullahs have power on the Iraqi government, the people aren't neccessaruily stuck in the 12th century. They were westernized in the 50's and even after the Khomeni revolution in 1979, that genie wasn't about to go back in the bottle.

But another ill conceived PNAC war probably would.

Cathedral
09-16-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes, and watch them very very close at that.
I'm not buying their act of only wanting nuclear energy at all. they want a bomb and have wanted that bomb for a hell of a long time.

But i know as well as anyone else that if you want something like that, you have a target you want to use it on.

America seems to be everyone's target, so, I'm not willing to wait until they have a weapon to address the problem.

We need to be on top of this covertly so if by chance we do have to strike first, there won't be any doubt in anyone's mind.

North Korea managed to build theirs under our nose, but like i said, North Korea doesn't strike me as a threat, they just want more shit from us and go about it the only way they know how.
They would never try to wipe us out because without us they wouldn't be around very long either.

I don't trust a Muslim, and the funny part is that the few i know don't think i should either, lol.

DrMaddVibe
09-16-2005, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by FORD
As much as I hate to quote Reagan, the words "trust, but verify" seem to fit the situation here.

If the Iranian leaders are true to their Muslim faith, then they should be honest about their intentions. It should be easy enough to determine nuclear power facilities from nuclear weapons facilities even from satellite photos, let alone UN Inspections or even possibly US observers on the ground.

Diplomacy should be emphasized now. The Iranians have done nothing wrong YET. And though I'm not ready to give them 100% the benefit of the doubt, I'm also not giving the same to Israel/BCE/PNAC who have their own agendas, which as we saw in Iraq, don't neccessarily depend on the truth.

Bottom line. Talk to them. Watch them closely. And if they do nothing wrong, then let it go. While the Shiite mullahs have power on the Iraqi government, the people aren't neccessaruily stuck in the 12th century. They were westernized in the 50's and even after the Khomeni revolution in 1979, that genie wasn't about to go back in the bottle.

But another ill conceived PNAC war probably would.


Their intentions?

They want you dead.

They want your family dead.

They sponsor terrorism so they can kill you.

Muslims? I'm not falling for the "religion of peace" bullshit. I look at their religious leaders after 9-11...quiet. After Saddam fell...quiet. After any armed incursion facing the Western World...quiet. That tells me that they aren't against what others in their name do. They're more than happy to have them!

Make no mistake Ford, taking the fight to them and not here in America is the way to deal with them.

Who else is gonna lay a claim to this from the Left?

FORD
09-16-2005, 10:53 AM
The problem with you, AssVibe, is that you just repeat the same old PNAC propaganda and don't even realize that it's the same exact script they used for Iraq. Hell, all they had to do was change one letter.

I don't trust the Iranians.

I don't trust the Likud.

I don't trust the BCE.

None of the three have an ounce of credibility with me at the moment. But the Iranians haven't done anything to threaten my country in 25 years. Unlike the other two.

Where's the evidence of them "sponsoring" terrorism? If the word "Israel" is in your answer, don't bother. I'm no longer interested in saving the likes of Ariel Sharon and Bennie Nuttierthanayoohoo.

Does it not make more fucking sense than to actually TALK to these people, monitor their activities closely, and then if they ARE just making electricity, simply leave them the fuck alone??

And then, in that process, IF you catch them doing something they shouldn't be doing, THEN the strategy changes to one of a threat.

How about a foreign policy that makes some goddamn common sense, for a change?