RSS Feed
Loading ...
Iran Admits Keeping Nuclear Program Secret
Iran confirmed Sunday that it initially developed its nuclear program in secret, going to the black market for material, and blaming its discretion on the U.S. sanctions and European restrictions that denied Iran access to advanced civilian nuclear technology.
Iran now openly admits that it has already achieved proficiency in the full range of activities involved in enriching uranium — a technology that can be used to produce fuel for nuclear reactors or an atomic bomb.
Washington has accused Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build a nuclear bomb. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear program is merely geared towards generating electricity.
If their intentions were / are truly peaceful then why all the threats and secrecy? The IAEA needs to get in there - - immediately.
March 7, 2005 - 09:09 AM on March 7th, 2005
Screw the IAEA! Remember the head of this outfit is El Baredi, the Egyptian who helped the Iranians hide their bomb making plans from the world, and he is also the guy who tried to sabotage Bush’s reelection with his press release before the election.
What we need is some well placed explosives.
March 7, 2005 - 09:15 AM on March 7th, 2005
But wasn’t it nice of me to mention the IAEA like they still have some power?
March 7, 2005 - 09:40 AM on March 7th, 2005
I’m actually with PCD on this one. The IAEA isn’t going to accomplish anything in Iran.
It is too late! Iran is not going to give up their nuclear ambitions. Look at it from their point of view. They are going to do everything they can to acquire nuclear weapons.
March 7, 2005 - 09:49 AM on March 7th, 2005
I’m having a heart attack. Zelda and I agree.
For the record, I did not write #3 and sign Zelda’s name.
I’m doing a Redd Foxx as Fred Sanford imitation right now.
March 7, 2005 - 10:03 AM on March 7th, 2005
“I’m coming, Elizabeth, I’m coming… This
is the big one!”
March 7, 2005 - 10:10 AM on March 7th, 2005
The IAEA is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it can’t negotiate, only monitor. My question is, how long do the IAEA and Eu have to do this alone without the US?
March 7, 2005 - 10:22 AM on March 7th, 2005
Sandy, take your head out of the tundra of Calgary. The head of the IAEA actively hid Iran’s violations of the non-proliferatiion treaty and kept information from reaching the security council about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear activities. The IAEA is beyond compromised, but only a UN suckup like yourself keeps thinking it is the panacea for all the world’s ills.
March 7, 2005 - 10:30 AM on March 7th, 2005
7,
I didn’t say it was a panacea. In fact, what I really said was that the most important party in this issue, besides Iran, is not involved in it in any official capacity. Guess which country that is?
March 7, 2005 - 10:31 AM on March 7th, 2005
7,
The tundra of Calgary? is that a joke?
March 7, 2005 - 10:50 AM on March 7th, 2005
9, I’ve been to Calgary in winter. You may not have snow, and you don’t have sand, but you have “tundra”. Look at how the Calgary area is defined geographically.
Dandy, thank you for being a shining example of how the Liberal Teacher Unions have ruined public education. You are getting to be as uninformed as Da union Goon.
March 7, 2005 - 11:09 AM on March 7th, 2005
the question is, how much is china helping and where is china getting the money from, USA, Hey people are you so stupid you can’t see that fact?
March 7, 2005 - 11:28 AM on March 7th, 2005
9- I think it was. I admit I giggled. Who the hell thinks of the tundra? Let alone Calgary:razz::wink:
March 7, 2005 - 11:34 AM on March 7th, 2005
12,
Ouch.
10,
So you don’t think the US has a role to play in negotiations, then?
March 7, 2005 - 11:39 AM on March 7th, 2005
10,
Do you realize that you don’t actually discuss things, PCD? I’m really tired of your pointless tirades about my level of intelligence that are used solely to avoid having to address what I’ve asked or said.
March 7, 2005 - 12:23 PM on March 7th, 2005
14. I’m tired of you pontificating from your pinacle of arrogance and ignorance. You sit in your little room not buffeted by the world and dream up your little plattitudes and nostrums. You expect to bow down to the “superior intellect” as the followers of Khan used to say on Star Trek and marvel at you. Frankly, you can barely reason your way out of a wet paper bag, and to you discussion is only agreeing with your pontifications.
March 7, 2005 - 01:42 PM on March 7th, 2005
15,
Does the US have a role to play in the negotiations with Iran?
March 7, 2005 - 06:43 PM on March 7th, 2005
Seeing that PCD doesn’t find it fit to answer whether he thinks the US should be involved in the Iran nuclear issue, I’ll work toward what will be a topic tonight or tommorrow: the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
The man who once famously said ‘there is no UN’ being appointed to this post is a disaster. Not only will it be an insult to the EU and the UN, but he will just plain be bad at the job. Bolton is an alienating diplomat, a misnomer that leads me to believe that Bush’s appointment of him is a thumbing of the nose at the Europeans. In fact, Bolton is better known in Europe than the US. That says something.
I know that many of you hate the UN, but Bolton’s appointment is a sign that the US hates the UN and sees it as irrelevant. That is dangerous and stupid policy, especially in light of the US’s non-engagement with many important issues, including Iran.
March 7, 2005 - 07:02 PM on March 7th, 2005
Bolton, July 2003:
“It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States.”
I must ask: why reward a man who has failed so miserably as chief US negotiator with North Korea, who had to be withdrawn (before NK pulled out) because of his complete lack of diplomacy with North Korea. Why nominate a man who believes neither in the UN or international law to represent the US there? Why nominate the most offensive possibility who is reviled in much of the world’s diplomatic circles?
March 7, 2005 - 07:05 PM on March 7th, 2005
Sandy shows her imperiousness and stupidity in 15 and 16. Sandy, we don’t need to negotiate. Iran either gives up its nukes or pays a price, period. Only pinhead and appeasers like you don’t understand that point.
Bolton is perfect for the reasons you stated. The UN is dying and any more nails in that coffin I cheer.
March 7, 2005 - 07:06 PM on March 7th, 2005
i look forward to the Senate hearings on Mr. Bolton’s confirmation to the UN post.
sending a right-wing, conservative hawk to a diplomat’s chair might pose a problem for those who think diplomacy still has a place in international relations.
not that the administration appears to hold that theory in high regard.
March 7, 2005 - 07:25 PM on March 7th, 2005
20. Only left wing chickens are good diplomats?
March 7, 2005 - 07:51 PM on March 7th, 2005
if the only choices we have a left wing chickens or right wing hawks, we’re already too late to negotiate anything.
March 7, 2005 - 07:52 PM on March 7th, 2005
22. Point taken.
March 7, 2005 - 08:24 PM on March 7th, 2005
20-”sending a right-wing, conservative hawk to a diplomat’s chair might pose a problem for those who think diplomacy still has a place in international relations.” - So what would you send? A left wing appeaser?
March 7, 2005 - 08:28 PM on March 7th, 2005
17-” know that many of you hate the UN, but Bolton’s appointment is a sign that the US hates the UN and sees it as irrelevant. That is dangerous and stupid policy, especially in light of the US’s non-engagement with many important issues, including Iran.”- I believe that many in the US do see it as irrelevant. There is nothing dangerous or stupid about it. Is it your contention that we are not doing anything with regards to Iran? I think that ould be a false statement.
March 7, 2005 - 08:40 PM on March 7th, 2005
24
diplomacy, as i understand it,
is not about right/left wing, but rather a negotiation for the best solution to the problems presented.
i would send someone who had those qualities. someone who was far left or right would seem not to be the 1st option.
March 7, 2005 - 09:03 PM on March 7th, 2005
the UN is irrelevant. Ashhhhh,,,,,hooooles (meet the faukers)
March 7, 2005 - 09:26 PM on March 7th, 2005
27- saw it. Hated babs, actually liked Hoffman (not a big fan of his as an actor, but think he is a stitch to watch in interviews) but loved Stiller and DeNiro.
March 7, 2005 - 09:27 PM on March 7th, 2005
26- And there was no way for you to post that originally?
March 8, 2005 - 10:33 AM on March 8th, 2005
24,
I would send a diplomat. I think Kaplan’s opinion piece linked to in the post on this subject says it pretty well - there’s no harm in nominating a hardliner. But this is a radical, radical step.
19,
Thank you for insulting me once again, PCD, but no, my position is not stupid. Iran won’t give up its ambitions if it does not get a negotiating position from the US. If there is a war with Iran, these past 2 years of lost opportunity will be seen historically as Bush’s greatest diplomatic failure.
March 8, 2005 - 10:37 AM on March 8th, 2005
25,
The United Nations has systemic problems that the US can help solve. Or it can appoint someone like Bolton who will ensure a rocky and combatitive relationship, and the UN will continue to do work (flawed, but work nonetheless) in places the US does not have enough strategic interest to touch.
Lebanon is likely to become less stable if Syria leaves. Bolton does not have the diplomatic skill to handle such a situation.
March 8, 2005 - 10:38 AM on March 8th, 2005
sandy, when Iran turns over its nukes or gets them taken away from them, that will be Bush’s triumph and your failure and disgrace which comes to all appeasers like you. Because of people like you, the UN and EU are worthless, and you admit as much when you constantly whine for US intervention.
March 8, 2005 - 10:38 AM on March 8th, 2005
peejz,
The US is not doing nothing; but it is doing nothing in an official capacity to deal with Iran. In diplomatic relations, that can be worse.
March 8, 2005 - 10:40 AM on March 8th, 2005
31, sandy, the appeaser to dictators. So you are willing to deny freedom to Lebanon. What a pathetic and small person you are. You learned nothing from your family’s treatment at the hands of Hitler.
March 8, 2005 - 10:41 AM on March 8th, 2005
Go HAWKS! I thinketh it be time to tell the uNITED nATIONS to hiteth the road! After thinking this over, he is the right man for the job.
March 8, 2005 - 12:34 PM on March 8th, 2005
34,
What is the US doing to hinder Iran’s nuclear program right now, PCD? What is it doing?
March 8, 2005 - 12:35 PM on March 8th, 2005
34,
As fun as it is to see you call Bush an appeaser, you might need to explain yourself more fully.
March 8, 2005 - 12:37 PM on March 8th, 2005
34,
I said nothing about freedom in Lebanon. What I said was, Lebanese freedom and elections will bring major new international issues to play, and the US should try to deal with them diplomatically.
I am puzzled by the lack of an official Israeli comment on Lebanon. I think the spectre of Hezbollah coming to power has them very (and rightfully) wary.