Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 80

Thread: " UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186

    " UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran"

    http://rawstory.com/news/afp/UN_nucl..._10282007.html

    UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.

    "We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.

    "Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons ... they are at least (a) few years away from having such weapon," he said, citing Washington's own intelligence assessments.

    "My fear (is) that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire."

    The White House Friday rejected any parallels between its Iran rhetoric and the run-up to the Iraq war, after fresh sanctions on Tehran and escalating US warnings fueled comparisons to the months before the 2003 invasion.

    "We are absolutely committed to a diplomatic process," spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters.

    "We would never take options off the table, but the diplomatic process is what we want to move forward with," he said, calling it "unwise" to rule out the use of force.

    His comments came as US President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been sharply ramping up their rhetoric about Iran, leading some critics to draw parallels with the late 2002 verbal escalation against Iraq.

    In recent months, Bush has predicted "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" if Tehran gets atomic weapons, while Cheney has warned of "serious consequences" for Iran if it defies global demands to freeze uranium enrichment -- echoing the UN resolution that Washington says authorized war in Iraq.

    Iran insists that it is enriching uranium only for nuclear energy and denies US charges that it is seeking the bomb.

    ElBaradei has been vindicated in his pre-war belief that Iraq was not resuming its own nuclear arms program, contrary to claims by Bush and Cheney.

    However, he said that in the current dispute, "we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

    "But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."

    Merely "exchanging rhetoric" would not resolve the Iranian nuclear case, the IAEA chief said, adding that "the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody."

    North Korea has already detonated a nuclear device. But under six-nation talks, the Stalinist state has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return for a broad package of economic and diplomatic incentives.

    ElBaradei said it is time "to stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue because that's an issue that could have a major conflagration, and not only regionally but globally."

    "It could even accelerate a drive by Iran, even if they are not working on a nuclear weapon today, to go for a nuclear weapon," the IAEA chief said.

    "So we can talk about use of force as and when we (have) exhausted diplomacy ... but we are far, far away from that stage."

    Foreign ministry officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States are preparing to hold new discussions about stronger UN sanctions against Iran, possibly as early as Friday in London.

    Meanwhile one of ElBaradei's deputies, Olli Heinonen, is due to hold fresh talks in Tehran on Monday.

    Heinonen clinched a deal in August for Iran to answer outstanding questions over its atomic program so that the IAEA can conclude a four-year investigation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    I trust zero from the UN

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,952
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I trust zero from the UN

    Even with zero trust you trust them more than I do

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    This isn't the same guy that Stole all the Food for the starving people is it??
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186
    ^^Kofi Annan's son?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I trust zero from the UN
    Well IAEA seems to be right most of the time? Blix sure was right about Iraq.

    Has anyone yet produced any hardcore evidence that Iran does indeed have a weapons program? Everyone can talk all day about what intentions they have, but without proof it is just talk.

    Irans nuclear program makes no sense to me from a weapons point of view. If they wanted weapons they could get them without all the time consuming enrichment hazzle. But the moronic insistance to keep on with the enrichment program is damn suspicious.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    I trust zero from the UN
    El Baradei has a much better track record than the people who are accusing Iran. Bush and co are the people who were talking about Iraq nuking us, that they had a fleet of UAV that could cross the Atlantic, etc and we no how well their predictions went. Why would you blindly believe those same people who are making the same accusations they made about Iraq?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    In the Gym, if i could
    Posts
    15,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Prada
    ^^Kofi Annan's son?
    yea that's him..
    The answer to your every question

    Rules

    A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
    to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially
    one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.


    If you get scammed by an UGL listed on this board or by another member here, it's all part of the game and learning experience for you,
    we do not approve nor support any sources that may be listed on this site.
    I will not do source checks for you, the peer review from other members should be enough to help you make a decision on your quest. Buyer beware.
    Don't Let the Police kick your ass

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    johan you know as well as I do no one really knows who was right about Iraq. They could have shipped those things out six months before or right as we were attacking.

    I dont think Iran could get its hands on a nuke...I think they have to build one and they are taking the steps to do so. We will just have to see what pans out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
    Well IAEA seems to be right most of the time? Blix sure was right about Iraq.

    Has anyone yet produced any hardcore evidence that Iran does indeed have a weapons program? Everyone can talk all day about what intentions they have, but without proof it is just talk.

    Irans nuclear program makes no sense to me from a weapons point of view. If they wanted weapons they could get them without all the time consuming enrichment hazzle. But the moronic insistance to keep on with the enrichment program is damn suspicious.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack
    johan you know as well as I do no one really knows who was right about Iraq. They could have shipped those things out six months before or right as we were attacking.

    I dont think Iran could get its hands on a nuke...I think they have to build one and they are taking the steps to do so. We will just have to see what pans out.
    But unless evidence is found the assumption that nothing was there is the most logical one. I mean we dont sentance people by suspicion alone, starting a war should take alot more than suspicion.

    I dont think Iran can buy a nuke either. What I meant was that enrichment isnt the easiest and best way in order to get weapons grade materials. Centrifuge enrichment is time consuming, complex and horribly expensive.

    The best, easiest and cheapest way to produce weapons grade material is to build a small crude graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural uranium and produced plutonium. It can be cooled as simply as blowing air through it, like the Windscale reactor that UK used to produce plutonium. Untill it catched fire. If safety isnt a big concern then it can be built increadibly simple. Let the fuel be in the reactor for a while and then dump it in some acid and extract the plutonium chemicaly. Much much simpler than enrichment.

    Offcourse building a bomb out of the plutonium is much more complex than building a bomb out of enrichened uranium. But if they want to build a bomb in secret the plutonium road is a much more logical road to take.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    I dont think its the most logical one because they had a history of using wmd's..(not nukes)

    To say they had them and now all of a sudden they are gone...umm dont know



    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
    But unless evidence is found the assumption that nothing was there is the most logical one. I mean we dont sentance people by suspicion alone, starting a war should take alot more than suspicion.

    I dont think Iran can buy a nuke either. What I meant was that enrichment isnt the easiest and best way in order to get weapons grade materials. Centrifuge enrichment is time consuming, complex and horribly expensive.

    The best, easiest and cheapest way to produce weapons grade material is to build a small crude graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural uranium and produced plutonium. It can be cooled as simply as blowing air through it, like the Windscale reactor that UK used to produce plutonium. Untill it catched fire. If safety isnt a big concern then it can be built increadibly simple. Let the fuel be in the reactor for a while and then dump it in some acid and extract the plutonium chemicaly. Much much simpler than enrichment.

    Offcourse building a bomb out of the plutonium is much more complex than building a bomb out of enrichened uranium. But if they want to build a bomb in secret the plutonium road is a much more logical road to take.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern
    But unless evidence is found the assumption that nothing was there is the most logical one.
    So do you think that the light in your refrigerator stays on all the time since you don't see it shut off? Or are you smart enough to know that it does indeed shut off when you close the door.........

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    So do you think that the light in your refrigerator stays on all the time since you don't see it shut off? Or are you smart enough to know that it does indeed shut off when you close the door.........
    Well when it comes to refrigerators I can check that there is a button that gets pushed when the door closes. But if I cant find any technical mechanism that would shut the light off I would not assume anything.

    Assumptions are useless, proof is everything.

    If you assume absence of proof means they are good at hiding it you can justify bombing any country anywhere in the world. Or better yet sentance anyone for any crime, because your suspicion is all that is needed right?

    Its impossible to prove innocence.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Well when it comes to refrigerators I can check that there is a button that gets pushed when the door closes. But if I cant find any technical mechanism that would shut the light off I would not assume anything.

    Assumptions are useless, proof is everything.

    If you assume absence of proof means they are good at hiding it you can justify bombing any country anywhere in the world. Or better yet sentance anyone for any crime, because your suspicion is all that is needed right?

    Its impossible to prove innocence.
    A qualified assumption, if it will indeed save more lives, is worthwhile.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    A qualified assumption, if it will indeed save more lives, is worthwhile.
    Well you wont know if bombing iran will save any life, the only thing that is sure is that doing so will claim lives.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Thats a bit short sighted bro. Iran=sponser of terrorism

    Iran+nukes=not good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Well you wont know if bombing iran will save any life, the only thing that is sure is that doing so will claim lives.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack View Post
    Thats a bit short sighted bro. Iran=sponser of terrorism

    Iran+nukes=not good.
    Well I dont want to se Iran with nuclear weapons anymore than you or logan.

    What I am saying is simply that Iran should not be bombed until there is proof that Iran has a weapons program. Bombings should not be done on suspicion alone. Bombing iran might very well increase the risk of Iran building a bomb.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack View Post
    Thats a bit short sighted bro. Iran=sponser of terrorism

    Iran+nukes=not good.
    One can argue that USA+nukes=not good. US has a track record of bombing foreign counties. At a global level there is much more evidence to be concerned about the US and its WMD than Iraq or Iran, particulary with the current "trigger happy" leader you have right now.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Well I dont want to se Iran with nuclear weapons anymore than you or logan.

    What I am saying is simply that Iran should not be bombed until there is proof that Iran has a weapons program. Bombings should not be done on suspicion alone. Bombing iran might very well increase the risk of Iran building a bomb.
    If a pedophile is roaming a Disney chat room, would you believe that he is doing so only to see pictures of Mickey Mouse?
    You may not want to see them with nukes, but are you willing to do anything about it regardless? We are not talking about bombing cities here. As you well know, missle guidance sytems are very accurate.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by xero View Post
    One can argue that USA+nukes=not good. US has a track record of bombing foreign counties. At a global level there is much more evidence to be concerned about the US and its WMD than Iraq or Iran, particulary with the current "trigger happy" leader you have right now.
    concentrate here. We are discussing Iran with nukes in this post. And it is everyone besides Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuella who are on board against Iran getting them. I guess we know which club you are in.........

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    If a pedophile is roaming a Disney chat room, would you believe that he is doing so only to see pictures of Mickey Mouse?
    You may not want to see them with nukes, but are you willing to do anything about it regardless? We are not talking about bombing cities here. As you well know, missle guidance sytems are very accurate.
    Well in this case we dont even know if the suspected pedophile is indeed a pedophile.

    I cant do anything since sweden hardly has a military. But if there was solid proof that Iran has a weapons program I would like to se the EU join NATO and crush that program. That would send a clear message to any other nation violating the NPT.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    concentrate here. We are discussing Iran with nukes in this post. And it is everyone besides Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuella who are on board against Iran getting them. I guess we know which club you are in.........
    Concentrate here. What we are actually talking about here is the old west vs. east.
    West believes that any country that is a potential threat to west cant have wmd. But its ok for us the west to have wmd because we say we are the "good guys".

    Tell that story to the east who have lost hundreds of thousands of woman & children under the bombs of the west. Just plain arrogant.

    And yet the west wonders why some lunatics decide to fly planes into western citizens.

    The US foreign policy sucks and is stimulating a breeding ground for these "terrorists".

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Well in this case we dont even know if the suspected pedophile is indeed a pedophile.

    I cant do anything since sweden hardly has a military. But if there was solid proof that Iran has a weapons program I would like to se the EU join NATO and crush that program. That would send a clear message to any other nation violating the NPT.
    If you do not believe that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, there is really nothing left to discuss with you...........

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by xero View Post
    And yet the west wonders why some lunatics decide to fly planes into western citizens.

    The US foreign policy sucks and is stimulating a breeding ground for these "terrorists".
    I suppose the same excuse to be used for pedophiles. It's not their fault that they want to have sex with little girls. These little girls wearing slightly more revealing clothing is creating a breeding ground for these "pedophiles...........

    very short-sighted.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    If you do not believe that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, there is really nothing left to discuss with you...........
    Completely irrelevant.

    If you want to bomb then because they support terrorist than just say so, dont use a nuclear weapons program that there is not a single shred of evidence for as a excuse. Untill there is proof I wont support bombing their nuclear installations and I hope the EU will aswell.

    If there is proof then bomb away and hopefully the EU will join in.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    How did Ahmadinejad get an account on here

    When is the last time we used a nuke and why? Maybe you should answer those questions before you make an assertion like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by xero View Post
    One can argue that USA+nukes=not good. US has a track record of bombing foreign counties. At a global level there is much more evidence to be concerned about the US and its WMD than Iraq or Iran, particulary with the current "trigger happy" leader you have right now.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    No one is advocating going in without any proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Completely irrelevant.

    If you want to bomb then because they support terrorist than just say so, dont use a nuclear weapons program that there is not a single shred of evidence for as a excuse. Untill there is proof I wont support bombing their nuclear installations and I hope the EU will aswell.

    If there is proof then bomb away and hopefully the EU will join in.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack View Post
    No one is advocating going in without any proof.
    Thats good to hear And thats all I have been saying all along. Proof is everything, assumptions is nothing.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by roidattack View Post
    How did Ahmadinejad get an account on here

    When is the last time we used a nuke and why? Maybe you should answer those questions before you make an assertion like that.
    At least 60000 Iraqi citizens killed in "collateral damage" since 2003. how many in the 1991 war? How many in Vietnam? How many in Korea? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

    Oh wait, I forgot we are the good guys, we can kill innocent woman & children. We didn't start it, they did.

    Ever stop and think why the US needs to keep killing so many people on their own soil one decade to the next?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Completely irrelevant.

    If you want to bomb then because they support terrorist than just say so, dont use a nuclear weapons program that there is not a single shred of evidence for as a excuse. Untill there is proof I wont support bombing their nuclear installations and I hope the EU will aswell.

    If there is proof then bomb away and hopefully the EU will join in.
    Irrevelant?
    The fact that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism is exactly why we can not allow them to have these weapons...........

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Irrevelant?
    The fact that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism is exactly why we can not allow them to have these weapons...........
    Its irrelevant simply because its a completely different topic. Their connection to terrorism isnt proof in anyway that they have a nuclear weapons program.

    We are talking about proof of a nuclear weapons program, what they would do with a nuke is pointless to discuss before we even know they are trying to build a nuke.

  32. #32
    The AMerican media often makes this statement, "Iran is a state sponsor or terrorism." But in fact Iran supports only 2 militant groups: Hamas-which is supported mostly ideologically as they do not need Iran to provide the crude weapons they usually use like homemade rockets..and Hezbollah..these are not militants that commit "terrorism" in the sense like BinLadens/alqueda group-which sometimes launches attacks against civilian targets in other countries(not Israel).. they also are probably helping arm anti-occupation militants in Iraq..none of these policies really reflect an "extreme" policy, or a policy so extreme that you would suspect that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to a crazy group that would use it against for example the US..so this whole 'terrorism' argument to prevent Iran from obtaining more nuclear facilities is just an excuse, when the real agenda is that the US wants to maintain a superior strategic position vis-nuclear weapons.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    ....the argument to prevent Iran from obtaining more nuclear facilities is just an excuse, when the real agenda is that the US wants to maintain a superior strategic position vis-nuclear weapons.
    Well put.

    From an ordinary US citizen perspective this is difficult to see objectively because of the deep sense of fear that 9/11 has created.......but if you look at it from an east perspective, the US attacked Iraq without a good reason (and you can argue that the US has a track record of unnecessary aggression on foreign soil) killing thousands of innocent citizens, so why wouldn't they want to try and strengthen themselves.

    If I put myself in the shoes of an average proud, patriotic Iranian, I would want my government to have some "muscle" to protect my sovereignty. Nuclear capablity has proven to a very effective deterrent in the past.....balance of power is a good thing.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Why is balance of power a good thing if one of the sides is a dictatorship? The cold war wasnt a good thing by any stretch of imagination.

    Nuclear weapons are definitely not good thing, especialy not in the hands of dictators.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Darkest Africa
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Why is balance of power a good thing if one of the sides is a dictatorship? The cold war wasnt a good thing by any stretch of imagination.

    Nuclear weapons are definitely not good thing, especialy not in the hands of dictators.
    Becuase unbalanced and unaccountable power corrupts, and unfortunatly that is the way I feel about the US right now. Currently the US can do pretty much as they see fit, unchecked, as the Iraqi invasion debacle has shown us. UN tried put couldn't stop it. US has too much practical power. The result is a tragic and uneccessry disaster (for both sides).

    Agree, wmd in the wrong hands is very worrying. The tremdous power of the US militiary in the hands of Goege Bush is worrying.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Its irrelevant simply because its a completely different topic. Their connection to terrorism isnt proof in anyway that they have a nuclear weapons program.

    We are talking about proof of a nuclear weapons program, what they would do with a nuke is pointless to discuss before we even know they are trying to build a nuke.
    go online and discover, for yourself, the reason that most of these nations do not want them to be a nuclear power. Quit being so obtuse Johan....

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    go online and discover, for yourself, the reason that most of these nations do not want them to be a nuclear power. Quit being so obtuse Johan....
    I dont even know what obtuse means

    You once again point to something irrelevant, NOBODY wants Iran to build nuclear weapons. That much is obvious and Im not disputing that. But no one has any evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. A war should not be started on a assumption.

    If there was proof I would be the first one to encourage EU and NATO to bomb the shit out of Iran's nuclear installations to send a clear message that the NPT should be respected.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    Bahrain: Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons

    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Its irrelevant simply because its a completely different topic. Their connection to terrorism isnt proof in anyway that they have a nuclear weapons program.

    We are talking about proof of a nuclear weapons program, what they would do with a nuke is pointless to discuss before we even know they are trying to build a nuke.

    Bahrain: Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

    Bahrain's Crown Prince, Sheik Salman bin Isa al-Khalifa, said Friday that Iran is striving to acquire nuclear weaponry, Israel Radio reported.

    Technicians work at the reactor building of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, some 750 miles south of Teheran.
    Photo: AP [file]
    Al Khalifa said that at the very least, Iran is attempting to gain the ability to produce nuclear weaponry.

    The statement would make Bahrain the first Arab nation in the Persian Gulf to claim that Iran is attempting to deceive world leaders in relation to its nuclear aspirations.

    Al Khalifa warned that the crisis could worsen and draw the region into military conflict. For this reason, he said, it must be resolved by diplomatic means.

    Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Thursday tried dispelling fears that Germany is reluctant to back new sanctions against Iran because of its strong commercial ties with Teheran. Steinmeier made it clear that Germany is in sync with other Western powers.

    Speaking at a news conference in Tel Aviv after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Steinmeier stressed that Germany would not stand in the way of tougher sanctions.

    "Germany's position does not differ from that of the United States or some other European countries. If Iran refuses to provide answers, we should think about the possibility of European sanctions," he said.

    Asked if Germany would support further sanctions, he said, "Yes, if what we are trying now is not successful, then we must not only think about sanctions, but also decide on them."

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    The oppinion of a dude doesnt count as evidence. Not even if he is a crown prince.

    Proof is to discover trace ammounts of weapons grade plutonium, to find that the enrichment facility is configured for high enrichment, to find a secluded plutonium breeding reactor ect.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tampa,Montreal,Paris
    Posts
    4,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post

    Bahrain: Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

    Bahrain's Crown Prince, Sheik Salman bin Isa al-Khalifa, said Friday that Iran is striving to acquire nuclear weaponry, Israel Radio reported.

    Technicians work at the reactor building of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, some 750 miles south of Teheran.
    Photo: AP [file]
    Al Khalifa said that at the very least, Iran is attempting to gain the ability to produce nuclear weaponry.

    The statement would make Bahrain the first Arab nation in the Persian Gulf to claim that Iran is attempting to deceive world leaders in relation to its nuclear aspirations.

    Al Khalifa warned that the crisis could worsen and draw the region into military conflict. For this reason, he said, it must be resolved by diplomatic means.

    Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Thursday tried dispelling fears that Germany is reluctant to back new sanctions against Iran because of its strong commercial ties with Teheran. Steinmeier made it clear that Germany is in sync with other Western powers.

    Speaking at a news conference in Tel Aviv after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Steinmeier stressed that Germany would not stand in the way of tougher sanctions.

    "Germany's position does not differ from that of the United States or some other European countries. If Iran refuses to provide answers, we should think about the possibility of European sanctions," he said.

    Asked if Germany would support further sanctions, he said, "Yes, if what we are trying now is not successful, then we must not only think about sanctions, but also decide on them."
    That is just mere speculation. It isn't like Bahrain has the greatest intelligence either, will all due respect.

    On the other hand, with all the inflammatory statements Ahmadinejad has made I dont think we should be completely oblivious to the fact that he would attempt to acquire Nukes. When the AQ Khan nuclear network was brought down, he admitted that Iran was one of his black market clients. One should be at the very least, be highly skeptical.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •