Bush warns Iran

Originally posted by DrLeary


I might be wrong on this one, but didn't Iran cooperate with the IAEA, inspections and all, up until the US brought the whole thing to the UN Security Council? I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere. Don't have the time to research it right now, but I believe things were pretty much under control before Bush entered the scene...

And as a slight digression, Brazil has a very similar nuclear program to Iran, they are a lot closer to the US, yet noone ever questioned their intentions. Oh I forgot! They're not muslims... silly me

I think you are right, but they might have had a couple of problems like some traces of 54% enrichment on some of the equipment they were using, which was normal because they were using equipment that they purchased as used, (That is part of the agreement being in the NPT sharing equipment and knowledge) which was later cleared up.

As far as Brazil goes , yes and not only that but they are also not in the vicinity of Israel which is perfectly happy with its Nuclear blackmail over the ME region. Its all about the power baby!! lol


Pie

Originally posted by Ox
And where are you getting a 20 year nuclear program from? I'm asking honestly.. cause I just dont know..

Note that the following is number 46 on a 30 page report, but it speaks to your question directly.

46. Iran has now acknowledged that it has been developing, for 18 years, a uranium centrifuge enrichment programme, and, for 12 years, a laser enrichment programme. In that context, Iran has admitted that it produced small amounts of LEU using both centrifuge and laser enrichment processes, and that it had failed to report a large number of conversion, fabrication and irradiation activities involving nuclear material, including the separation of a small amount of plutonium.
IAEA Excerpt Nov.10, 2003

Non-IAEA article
Additional IAEA reports

Originally posted by Ox
And I believe the reason that Iran is blocking inspectors is to just spite the hell out of Bush... Bush is throwing a hissy fit about it.. and thinks he's the Supreme Chancellor of the Globe set out to solve all the worlds problems, But doesnt realise.. he's creating more problems than he's solving..

This has been going on longer than Bush and Ahmadinejad is as equally guilty of creating problems.


mg

If you notice in Resolution 1696 it is only John Bolton who accuses Iran of wanting to possess Nuclear weapons. The rest all pretty much say its unclear. If you read further the Iranian response is that Iran had more than 2000 days of inspections over a period of 3 years.

JOHN BOLTON ( United States) said four months had passed since the Council had called on Iran to suspend its nuclear programme. Two months had passed since the EU-3 ( France, Germany, United Kingdom) + 3( China, Russian Federation, United States) had made its generous offer. That diplomatic effort had been preceded by more than three years of Iranian non-compliance with Non-Proliferation Treaty and its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. Sadly, Iran had defied the international community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the continued defiance of its leadership demanded a strong response from the Council. He was pleased that the Council had taken clear and firm action in passing the resolution. The pursuit of nuclear weapons constituted a direct threat to international peace and security, and demanded a clear statement by the Council in the form of a tough resolution. It sent an unambiguous message to Iran, namely to take the steps set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, including full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and suspend construction of its heavy-water reactor.

Iran should understand that the United States and others would ensure that financial transactions associated with proliferation activities would be impeded, he said. He expected Iran -- and all other Member States -- to immediately act in accordance with the resolution. It was the first Security Council resolution on Iran in response to its nuclear programme, reflecting the gravity of the situation and the Council’s determination. He hoped the resolution would demonstrate to Iran that the best way to end its international isolation was to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. He hoped Iran would make the strategic decision that pursuit of weapons of mass destruction made it less, and not more, secure. Members needed to be prepared, however, that Iran might chose a different path. That was why the United States expressed its intention to adopt measures under Article 41 of the Charter, if Iran did not comply with the resolution.

EMYR JONES PARRY ( United Kingdom) said that Iran’s nuclear activities and its history of concealment had raised pressing questions about whether that country’s programme was as it claimed –- solely for peaceful purposes. He was deeply concerned over Iran’s failure to cooperate fully with IAEA. After more than three years, the Agency was still unable to conclude that there was no undeclared nuclear material or related activities in Iran, including activities with a possible nuclear military dimension; that remained unanswered. The international community had shown great patience and given Iran many opportunities to show that it had no intentions to create nuclear weapons, but, unfortunately, Iran had not taken the necessary steps to build confidence.


Nevertheless, he said, his country remained committed to working towards a negotiated solution. On 6 June, Javier Solana had presented Iran with a new set of far-reaching and imaginative proposals for a comprehensive agreement, offering a way forward, one that would give Iran everything it needed to achieve its stated ambition of developing a modern civil nuclear-power industry. That included, among other things, support for building light-water power reactors, as well as legally binding assurances relating to the supply of nuclear power material, for which it would not have to depend on a single foreign supplier. The proposals would also offer Iran, among other benefits, significant trade benefits, including with the European Union. When Mr. Solana had presented the proposal, he had made it clear that it was essential for Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, namely, full suspension of all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency.

If Iran suspended enrichment, the United Kingdom would be prepared to suspend further activity in the Security Council, he said. Continuation of enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, would allow Iran to develop know-how to produce fissile material, which could be used for the production of nuclear weapons. The proposal had suggested a procedure to review the moratorium once confidence in Iran’s intention had been restored. He was deeply disappointed that Iran had given no indication that it was ready to seriously engage in that proposal or take the necessary steps signalling its readiness to begin. A full suspension was required to help build confidence and create the atmosphere of trust necessary for negotiations. Those talks could not succeed if Iran continued the activities, which were a main source of international concern.

A Security Council resolution, which made mandatory the IAEA required suspension, was significant. Should Iran refuse to comply, he would work towards the adoption of measures under the Charter’s Article 41. Should it implement the decision of the IAEA and the Council, and enter into negotiations, he would be ready to hold back from further action in the Council. He reaffirmed that the proposal conveyed to Iran by the six countries on 6 June remained valid. The choice was now Iran’s. He urged and encouraged it to implement the steps required by the IAEA Board and the Security Council.

VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said the resolution expressed the need for Iran to establish full cooperation with IAEA, to clarify outstanding questions and for restoring confidence in its nuclear programme. The main purpose of the text was to support IAEA’s efforts to resolve Iran’s nuclear problem. The Agency should continue to play a central role in resolving non-proliferation issues in the context of Iran’s nuclear programme. He hoped that, with the Council’s support, it would be easier for IAEA to do that job. By acting under Article 40 of the Charter, the Council had rendered mandatory suspension of all uranium-enrichment activities. If Iran did not comply, members had expressed the intention to take appropriate action under Article 41. It was crucial to note that, it followed from the resolution, any additional measures that could be required to implement the resolution ruled out the use of military force.

He said the resolution should help to clarify outstanding issues and restore trust in its nuclear programme. This measure should be viewed as an interim measure, for the period necessary for resolving the issue. If Iran complied with the resolution, members would be prepared to refrain from any further action. If negotiations yielded a positive solution to the problem, no additional steps against Iran would be taken in the Council. The resolution also established a provision for Tehran’s broad cooperation to meet Iran’s energy requirements. It also reaffirmed the proposals transmitted to Iran on 6 June. His delegation hoped that Tehran would seriously view the contents of the resolution and would take the necessary steps to redress the situation.


ZIU ZHENMIN ( China) said, since the beginning of the year, the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme had attracted more and more attention. IAEA had conveyed to the Council a number of reports and resolutions related to the issue. China had all along indicated that the purpose for the Council’s review of the issue was to safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism, strengthen IAEA’s authority and role, reinforce the endeavour of the Agency’s Director General to clarify outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, promote diplomatic efforts and commit to finding an appropriate solution to the issue through political and diplomatic means.

Source

Part of the Iranian response

He noted that, in order to dispel any doubt about its peaceful nuclear programme, Iran had enabled IAEA to carry out a series of inspections, which had amounted to the most robust inspection of any IAEA Member State, including more than 2,000 inspector days of scrutiny in the past three years; the signing of the Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003 and implementing it immediately, until 6 February 2006; the submission of more than 1,000 pages of declarations in accordance with the Additional Protocol; and permitting inspectors to investigate baseless allegations, by taking the unprecedented step of providing repeated access to military sites.

Consequently, he said, all IAEA reports since November 2003 had been indicative of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. In November of that year and in the wake of sensational media reports on the so-called 18 years of concealment by war, IAEA had confirmed that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities …were related to a nuclear weapons programme”. The same can be found in other IAEA reports, as recent as February 2006.

Much had been made, included in today’s resolution, of a statement by IAEA that it was not yet in a position to conclude that there were no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran, he said. The sponsors had ignored, however, the repeated acknowledgement by the IAEA Director General that the process of drawing such a conclusion was a time-consuming process. They had also ignored the addendum to the 2005 IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report, released in June 2006, which indicated that 45 other countries were in the same category as Iran, including 14 European

[edit on 6-9-2006 by ThePieMaN]

Bush can warn Iran until he's blue in the face, sadly. Iran has played its cards far more cleverly than many people think and is now once again back up to the status it was at during the Shah's time - the dominant force in the region.
The US armed forces are stuck in Iraq for the time being and do not have enough strength to fight in Iran as well. Iran's infrastructure has not been drained by sanctions, its armed forces have more than enough spare parts for their tanks and planes and while their leader may be unhinged on areas like the Hidden Imam, unlike Saddam Hussein he doesn't think that he's some sort of military genius.

Originally posted by Ox
Now when I was asked earlier on today "Why is this a Bush thing" I gave an answer.. and now I have another one...
Bearing the headline "Bush wont allow a nuclear-armed Iran" yahoo news posted the following story...

Yahoo News

"I am not going to allow this to happen," Bush said in a speech on terrorism. "And no future American president can allow it, either."

There you have it.. Bush wants to leade this crusade.. like he did the last one.. and we all see how thats going

I Don't think this is just a "Bush" thing.

news.scotsman.com...
"Germany warns Iran-
Germany said on Wednesday Iran could not be allowed to harm the United Nations by pursuing its nuclear programme"

edition.cnn.com...
" France: 'Now or never' for Iran-
It is "now or never" for Iran to assure the international community that it wants to play a role in stabilizing the region, France's foreign minister said Wednesday"

Source
"Downer condemns Iran's nuclear defiance-
Iran's refusal to freeze its nuclear program in defiance of a UN resolution is "deeply destabilising", [Australian] Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says."

That's about 3 minutes of searching, to be honest, it took 3 times as long for me to copy over the info and link it than it did for me to find it. There's more out there. Again, Bush is more outspoken than most world leaders, he doesn't hold his tongue as often as he should, so more barking can be expected from him, as opposed to some other world leaders who have a bit more restraint.

If he was alone in this, I wouldn't be posting, but it seems to me that this really isn't a "Bush" thing, but more than that.



Edit- Some html work



[edit on 6-9-2006 by Reality Hurts]

I think that was the point I was trying to make.. .

That he's trying to lead the crusade... And I believe he's going through the wrong channels... He's verbally warning Iran... when he shouldnt be... that's the UN's job..

And after Bush defied the U.N once before.. what's to say that he wont do it again?... I bet he's having trouble keeping his hands to himself.. Like a little kid that wants to touch everything in the store

It's amazing how the propaganda machine rolls on, and how some people can just deny reality. And while the focus is on Iran, people don't seem to be realising that the US is losing the war in Iraq.

I dont think people are forgetting about Iraq... I just think Americans would rather get sick of something.. and ignore it.. Than speak up and do something about it..
Seems to be the norm.... either that or complain about it and not do anything.. or speak up and do something

Originally posted by Ox
I think that was the point I was trying to make..

Ok, I'll see your point, and raise you a "mea culpa" for not understanding the gist of it.

On another note though...

Originally posted by Ox He's verbally warning Iran... when he shouldnt be... that's the UN's job..

While I agree in principal, I think that it would be fair to say that if the UN isn't doing an effective job, then it should come as no surprise.

Love Bush or hate him, you really can't fault the guy for circumventing the UN on this. Time and again, the UN has proved to be a bureaucracy so vast and with so many dissenting opinions, on every issue, that it is all but impotent. They have ignored or created or perpetuated more problems than they've solved.

Originally, the UN was a wonderful and brilliant concept. It, like all bureaucracies, occasionally needs to be purged and revamped.

Sometimes I am amazed by how easily the people of our nation forget how politicians became so involve and intent into changing the shape of the middle east nations.

Has anybody asked themselves what is the real aginda behind control and dominance of the middle eastern nations?

Originally posted by marg6043
Sometimes I am amazed by how easily the people of our nation forget how politicians became so involve and intent into changing the shape of the middle east nations.

I have a question, and I'm really not trying ot be contentious here, so I don't want anyone jumping all over me.

Are you referring to the UK & France? I mean, after WWI, they essentially carved up all of the territory between the Med and the Himalayas, drawing lines where ever they pleased. France took some N African territory plus Lebanon & Syria, the UK took the rest.

Heck, Winston Churchill and Gertrude Bell are the ones who picked the Kings for newly "created" territories of Iraq & Jordan, and turned a blind eye to the House of Saud consolidating the arabian penninsula.

Is that what you were referring to?

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Heck, Winston Churchill and Gertrude Bell are the ones who picked the Kings for newly "created" territories of Iraq & Jordan, and turned a blind eye to the House of Saud consolidating the arabian penninsula.

Is that what you were referring to?

How about 70 years to the present specially when US governemnt took a very good interest in the area.

I think you pretty much know what I am talking about.

Fair enough.

But, Sometimes I am amazed by how easily the people forget how other nations were so heavily involved in changing the shape of the middle east nations.

In general and without singling anyone out, I think that a little less "Bush Sucks!" and a little more education on the root causes would be a good thing.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Fair enough.

But, Sometimes I am amazed by how easily the people forget how other nations were so heavily involved in changing the shape of the middle east nations.

Good point, but remember that to get agendas going is better to keep the people in the present no in the past and the historical facts that could make any group of people turn into violence.

We call it terrorist, I call them political terrorist.

In general and without singling anyone out, I think that a little less "Bush Sucks!" and a little more education on the root causes would be a good thing.

I wish that could be achieved but many rather do the bashing and point fingering that getting into facts of how and why a region has done so bad and has turned so violent against the west and allies.

I REALLY HATE POLITICS, ITS ABOUT GETTING ELECTED AND WHERE THIER NEXT PAYCHECK COMES FROM. WHY CAINT WE FOCUS ON THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF POLITICIANS BASHING ONE ANOTHER ON T.V. NEWS,PAPERS, ECT. ALL THIS HYPE WHO IS GOOD WHO IS EVIL. LIKE WAS SAID EARLIER LETS FOCUS ON THE TRUTH. SO LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. IF I WERE THE PRESIDENT IT WOULD BE IN OUR COUNTRIES BEST INTEREST TO HAVE TALKS. IF IRAN AQUIRES NUKES I HOPE HE USES IT FOR PEACE, BUT I THINK HE IS A HITLER REINCARNATE MYSELF. THATS MY OPINION.WE ALL NEED THE TRUTH OF THE SITUATION, NOT BASHING ONE ANOTHER. OUR GOVERNMENTS POLITICS SUCK. THEY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT OUR WORLD FUTURE NOT THERE NEXT PAYCHECK BASHING OTHERS, OTHER COUNTRIES, TO GET ELECTED FOR POPULARITY VOTES. LETS CONCENTRATE ON THE ISSUES THAT MATTER, NOT MONEYS FOR OUR NEXT REELECTION. I WOULD HATE TO BE THE COUNTRY THAT GOT INTO A NUKLEAR WAR BECAUSE OF AN ELECTION GONE BAD. OUR COUNTRY NEEDS AN OVERHAUL. TO USE THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY SO WE HAVE NO NEED FOR OIL, FOCUS ON THAT. IF WE GO AT THE CURRENT RATE WE ARE, WE WILL NEED HELP FROM THOSE VERY PEOPLE WE GET ALOT OF OUR NATIONS OIL FROM AND THAT IS THE MIDDLE EAST. US TO BOMB IRAN, OK THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. NOW I CAN SEE IRAN AND THEIR FREINDS GANGING UP ON US AND CUTTING US OFF CAUSEING A WESTERN MELTDOWN OR REVOLUTION. NO OIL, NO TRANSPORTATION. NO TRANSPORTATION NO FOOD TO TRANSPORT OR ANYTHING. BINGO REVOLUTION. TAKE THAT POLITICS, NO COUNRY NO MONEY.

Originally posted by littlebird
I REALLY HATE POLITICS, ITS ABOUT GETTING ELECTED AND WHERE THIER NEXT PAYCHECK COMES FROM. WHY CAINT WE FOCUS ON THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF POLITICIANS BASHING ONE ANOTHER ON T.V. NEWS,PAPERS, ECT. ALL THIS HYPE WHO IS GOOD WHO IS EVIL. LIKE WAS SAID EARLIER LETS FOCUS ON THE TRUTH. SO LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The problem is the system itself needs to be repaired. The Consitution was a wonderful freedom but it is not perfect. If we become lazy and think the Constitution will do our work for us, than it is not going to help us. Thus, we have become lazy and spoiled and now look where we are?

I think the system needs repairing, as there will always be evil men - no matter what we do. Keeping them out is simply not possible. If an evil man were to rise to power, so what? The system should not be setup to stop evil men from ataining power, it should be set up to prevent the evil men in power from being able to do anything evil.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Fair enough.

But, Sometimes I am amazed by how easily the people forget how other nations were so heavily involved in changing the shape of the middle east nations.

Good point, but remember that to get agendas going is better to keep the people in the present no in the past and the historical facts that could make any group of people turn into violence.

We call it terrorist, I call them political terrorist.

In general and without singling anyone out, I think that a little less "Bush Sucks!" and a little more education on the root causes would be a good thing.

I wish that could be achieved but many rather do the bashing and point fingering that getting into facts of how and why a region has done so bad and has turned so violent against the west and allies.

Granted...

This was a mess before we threw it at the fan.
But the situation has turned highly dangerous for everyone on the planet because of what the current administration has done.

You dont blame the people, in todays world, for something yesterdays world created.

But you blame todays people, when they try to manipulate the current situation for there own benefits, resulting in a major increase in the severity of the initial problem.

Have you ever wondered why there's so many bush haters? are we all simply blinded from the truth of this man being a saint and doing the worlds bidding?

Not likely.
I find it close minded to label someone a bush hater, simply because they dont follow your views on the topic.

I personally think being labelleed a bush follower is a greater insult to anyones intellegence.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
This was a mess before we threw it at the fan.
But the situation has turned highly dangerous for everyone on the planet because of what the current administration has done.

The whole situation is dangerous for everyone because of about 100 years of meddling for national gain. The current situation is simply a continuation.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
You dont blame the people, in todays world, for something yesterdays world created.

I don't think anyone is "blaming", I think we were urging understanding of the long term effects of manipulating a culture. To understand what is happening today, you must understand what happened yesterday.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Have you ever wondered why there's so many bush haters?

To be honest, there are many reasons, many of which have nothing to do with Bush himself.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I find it close minded to label someone a bush hater, simply because they dont follow your views on the topic.

Nobody labelled anyone. I think the idea was to urge people to stop the rote recitation of politically charged buzz words and encourage them to self-educate more.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I personally think being labelleed a bush follower is a greater insult to anyones intellegence.

....and I think that you should look in the mirror before making subtle jabs at the intellect of others.





[edit on 7-9-2006 by Reality Hurts]

Even though Iran said it would enter into Nuclear talks and continue enrichment, the USA is still pouting that Iran hasnt done what it was ordered to do.

Iran has made it clear that it will continue to enrich uranium while entering into talks..

Yahoo News

Casey insisted there was no contradiction in the U.S. position. "Iran needs to suspend, and suspend in a verifiable way, and then discussions (with the six major powers) can begin. That's what the secretary said yesterday, and that's where we are," he said.