PDA

View Full Version : AS I said all along- this is one of the countries we should have worried about first...


reeds
06-01-2004, 08:08 PM
Iran Admits Importing Parts for Uranium

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

KRAKOW, Poland - In a reversal, Iran has acknowledged importing parts for advanced centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium, the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Tuesday in a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press.

The report by the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency credited Iran with more nuclear openness but said questions remained about nearly two decades of covert activities first revealed nearly two years ago.

The dossier was issued for the June 14 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors that has wrestled for more than a year about what to do about what that the United States and its allies say is a weapons program.

Uranium enrichment is one way to make nuclear warheads, although the process can also be used to generate power, depending on the degree of enrichment.

In an interview with The Associated Press before the report was leaked, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton accused Tehran of engaging in "denial and deception."

"We are convinced that they are pursuing a clandestine program to acquire nuclear weapons," he said.

Bolton, who was at a review conference of the U.S.-launched Proliferation Security Initiative to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, said Washington was determined to have it answer to the U.N. Security Council.

While the report did not appear critical enough of Iran to marshal strong support at the board meeting for such a move, it also was far from the clean bill of health Tehran had hoped for in making a case that the books should be closed on its nuclear activities.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA chief, said earlier Tuesday his agency had not found proof to date of a concrete link between Iran's nuclear activities and its military program, but "it was premature to make a judgment."

Iran has rejected the U.S. allegations, saying its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity.

Concerns over Iran's nuclear program mounted after IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at two Iranian sites. Iran said the uranium was already on equipment imported from abroad.

But the report leaked Tuesday noted continued inconsistencies, including different levels of uranium enrichment and varying isotope "fingerprints" both casting doubt on Tehran's assertion that the traces of enriched uranium were already on equipment it bought second hand from abroad.

Without directly naming Pakistan, the source of the equipment, the report said that that the provider state disputes being the source of all the enriched uranium traces found in Iran potentially strengthening arguments that Tehran itself enriched uranium, something it denies.

Iran agreed last year, under international pressure, to suspend uranium enrichment and allow intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities, and the report suggested that pledge has been generally met.

But while, "the Agency continues to make progress in gaining a comprehensive understanding of Iran's nuclear program ... a number of issues remain outstanding," the report said. Besides the source of the enriched uranium samples, it said "important information" about Iran's advanced centrifuge program "has frequently required repeated requests, and in some cases continues to involve changing or contradictory information."

One example cited was the reversal of previous denials that it bought centrifuge parts from abroad.

Answering all outstanding questions "is of key importance to the agency's ability to provide the international community with the required assurances about Iran's nuclear activities," it said.


The United States has pushed for Security Council involvement for months, asserting that Iran is in breach of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Bolton said that the United States and its European allies were closing ranks on taking a harder line on Iran.

Bolton said outside the conference that the United States was convinced Iran wants to acquire nuclear arms. "We obviously haven't yet gotten to the bottom of the program."

Key European allies France, Germany and Britain, in particular, have advocated a softer line, arguing that persuasion was less risky than confrontation. But Vienna-based European diplomats have in recent days suggested that with key questions still unanswered patience with Iran was wearing thin.

Bolton acknowledged that the June 14 board meeting might still not agree to haul Iran before the Security Council, saying "exactly when and how we get there is still not agreed upon.

But "I think there's a realization that ... we should not allow the Iranians to divide us or divert us."

dude1394
06-01-2004, 08:29 PM
All in good time.

You wouldn't support doing anything about them either reeds, I don't know why you would bring them up?

Drbio
06-01-2004, 09:56 PM
reeds would bitch and whine if we had gone into Iran first. Bush will never get an ounce of credit (although deserved) from the pathologically closed minded.

reeds
06-01-2004, 09:57 PM
Why do u say that? If they are a threat to us I would support doing away with them...IRAQ was(is) WAY behind IRAN as far and WMD goes..that is why it is so messed up that we went after them anyway..

N.Korea is another huge question mark..we wont mess with them either- why? Probably because Seoul is a stonesthrow away with 9 million people that could be dead ducks..the US is picking its fights wisely in that regard- but the threat is still much much greater than IRAQ ever was

dude1394
06-01-2004, 10:09 PM
So reeds you are proposing a unilateral invasion of iran?

What do you care what order it goes since you are willing to do it anyway. Why wouldn't you pick off the easiest first, then Iran, then Syria, then N.Korea. By overthrowing sadaam we've already bagged libya without firing a shot.

However I expect you are just being argumentative.

FishForLunch
06-01-2004, 10:17 PM
The LEFT thinks the country the world should be most worried about is the US itself.

LRB
06-02-2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by: reeds
Why do u say that? If they are a threat to us I would support doing away with them...IRAQ was(is) WAY behind IRAN as far and WMD goes..that is why it is so messed up that we went after them anyway..



Reeds sometimes I wonder if the liberal left would recognize a threat if a country fired a nuke up their collective asses and detonated it. I could just see a call for diplomatic santions and offering to pay for the cost of the fired nuke to appease the poor "innocent" people who attacked us because the US is the most evil and vile nation to every "grace" the face of the earth in their collective and demented opinions. i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif

reeds
06-02-2004, 05:25 PM
"So reeds you are proposing a unilateral invasion of iran? "

Well, lets just say if we hadnt already spent billions in IRAQ, I would think the money and lives lost would be much better used on IRAN..a much deadlier, much more dangerous country to this world than IRAQ was...

Mavdog
06-02-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
So reeds you are proposing a unilateral invasion of iran?

Actually what I'd like to see is how anyone who supports the invasion of Iraq can fail to support a unilateral invasion of Iran, Pakistan, India, No. Korea, China, Russia and even Israel. They all have WMD, have elements who oppose the US within their borders who could be called "terrorists" who could then seize control of those weapons and threaten the US.
That was the rationale for invading Iraq wan't it, that there were people who were against the US, there were WMD that could threaten the US and thus a part of the war on terror?

Now it's human rights?
Well then, how can you oppose an invasion of all the countries in the world where human rights abuse, where torture exists and a person's life is threatened by the State?
Keep the same list and add a few dozen more.


What do you care what order it goes since you are willing to do it anyway. Why wouldn't you pick off the easiest first, then Iran, then Syria, then N.Korea. By overthrowing sadaam we've already bagged libya without firing a shot.

not so quick there to claim Libya's turn away from the dark side as a result of Iraq. That process with the British had been underway for years, was bearing fruit, and led to a peaceful resolution. There are ways other than armed aggression you know (although the Bush Admin has made that a forgotten art...)

dude1394
06-02-2004, 09:22 PM
Because it's a ridiculous argument md. It's like saying we should have invaded russia since we invaded grenada. It's a red herrign argument that's unrealisitic. You do what you can and don't limit yourself to responding to every situation the same way.

You don't do that in your own life, it makes no sense to do it in foreign affairs.

Iraq was ripe for a takeover. WMD's that had already been used, already under multiple internation resolutions and in violation of the first gulf war treaty, plus it was doable. North Korea makes some sense, of course with your course of action you would be willing to kill 500,000 or so S. Koreans. I think that's a little bit extreme, don't you?

dude1394
06-02-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
"So reeds you are proposing a unilateral invasion of iran? "

Well, lets just say if we hadnt already spent billions in IRAQ, I would think the money and lives lost would be much better used on IRAN..a much deadlier, much more dangerous country to this world than IRAQ was...

Sort of dodging the question there reeds. I would listen a little more if you would spend some energy defending or denying it.

u2sarajevo
06-02-2004, 11:13 PM
If Iran had invaded and taken over another country claiming the land was their own... plus gassed thousands of their own people.... plus laughed and mocked at UN resolutions for 12 years.... perhaps we would have reeds.

LRB
06-03-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
If Iran had invaded and taken over another country claiming the land was their own... plus gassed thousands of their own people.... plus laughed and mocked at UN resolutions for 12 years.... perhaps we would have reeds.


U2 you bring up excellent points not only to answer Reeds but Mavdog as well. All to often the liberal opponents of Iraq revert to gross generalizations in order to create as Dude would say "red herring" arguments. There are thousands of significant differences between Iraq and Iran. The decision to invade Iraq, and ultimately not to invade Iran so far, has been made using at least several thousand pieces of information. This is not a simple case of anyone who has WMD needs to be invaded nor even one of anyone who may have WMD and appears hostile to the US needs to be invaded. It is incredibly more complex than than. Only a complete simpleton or an argumentive jackass would try and press the argument that the cases are the same.

And as for the human rights argument that was not the reason that we invaded Iraq. It was a goal for us to improve this, but not a reason for the invasion. But for the people who would condone the action as unjust, it certainly is an argument that the Saddam regime was about as far from being innocent as possible. I can see no reasonable reason to defend Saddam and condemn the US led removal of his despotic ass.

reeds
06-03-2004, 09:07 PM
"If Iran had invaded and taken over another country claiming the land was their own... plus gassed thousands of their own people.... plus laughed and mocked at UN resolutions for 12 years.... perhaps we would have reeds. "

Are you getting the TWO WARS mixed up?? The Persian Gulf war was because of Iraq invading Kuwait- the present war has nothing to do with that... You dont "throw something in" that was done over ten years ago do u?

u2sarajevo
06-03-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
"If Iran had invaded and taken over another country claiming the land was their own... plus gassed thousands of their own people.... plus laughed and mocked at UN resolutions for 12 years.... perhaps we would have reeds. "

Are you getting the TWO WARS mixed up?? The Persian Gulf war was because of Iraq invading Kuwait- the present war has nothing to do with that... You dont "throw something in" that was done over ten years ago do u?The invasion of Kuwait culminated the UN resolutions that Saddam turned his nose at for 12 years. I certainly did not list that as the only point, just one of several.