|
Title: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: machioveli on October 22, 2007, 11:21:01 AM With its failer in recent years to keep track of N.koreas nuke program along with not even knowing about Iraqs program before being bombed by Israel, does the IAEA need a new over haul. Events even point recently to ignoring or not knowing about the facilities in Syria. Now, with Iran they are back tracking, saying Iran will take 3-8 years to build a nuke. Is this their way of saying "Yes" Iran has a secret weapons program? Yet, he says he still needs more time to come to a conclusion. With his buying the Iranians time he himself is creating a stage for a military conflict. The longer they stall on saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the closer they get to creating a nuke and certain countries will not let that happen. The point I am trying to make is that ElBaradei along with the IAEA needs to do thier job. Announcing now that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, which most countries already know, will push countries foward with creating more sanctions NOT WAR. But his failure to do his job is pushing countries to use the latter, as they could be using this vital time to stop the program with sanctions rather than Iran using it to get closer to its goal, an Atomic Bomb.
Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 23, 2007, 01:06:08 AM Just a suggestion... IAEA's budget in 2000 was $200 million. Tdoay is $200 million. See anything wrong?
Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: machioveli on October 23, 2007, 10:50:57 AM Just a suggestion... IAEA's budget in 2000 was $200 million. Tdoay is $200 million. See anything wrong? Yes they are being overpaid for talking alot.Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Ali* on October 24, 2007, 12:14:14 AM well we all know its not about ethics and world peace that IAEA works but they know syria doesnt have anything so they dont wanna waste their time.... so theyll just stay focused on iran in case sum1 acted stupidly :)
Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 24, 2007, 01:54:29 AM Just a suggestion... IAEA's budget in 2000 was $200 million. Tdoay is $200 million. See anything wrong? Yes they are being overpaid for talking alot.I guess IAEA's inspectors and all the people being inspected by IAEA would be glad to know your awareness on what IAEA does... ::) Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Peisithanatos on October 25, 2007, 09:23:55 AM Quote they are being overpaid for talking alot. they are being paid for not asking bad questions about good countries (Israel of course). Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Ali* on October 26, 2007, 10:13:35 AM Quote they are being overpaid for talking alot. they are being paid for not asking bad questions about good countries (Israel of course). you are being anti-semitic/anti-jewish in this post.... :( Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Fredledingue on October 29, 2007, 01:16:12 PM I agree with Mach' that it's preferable that the IAEA states once for all that Iran do have a nuke program rather than seeking the ultimate proof.
The West won't wait for a proof before acting militarily. Because it will be too late. We had proof of NKorea nuke program only after their first test. We won't wait Iran's first test. IF the UN stops playing with words and clearly expose the nuclear program, Iran will be almost forced to abandon and war will be averted. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Peisithanatos on October 29, 2007, 07:25:10 PM Quote it's preferable that the IAEA states once for all that Iran do have a nuke program ends justify means? They said so mnay time they have absolutely NO reasons to believe (and questionale reasons to suspect) the program. You "prefer" they say something which they themselves do not believe. How about putting IAEA to Guantanamo to make them confess about the nuclear program? Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Fredledingue on October 31, 2007, 03:02:24 PM That's where you are wrong Peis:
The IAEA guys all believe Iran is trying to build a bomb. That's the only reason they are inspecting in Iran. The only reason the IAEA exists is to prevent nuclear arms proliferation. The IAEA is not inspecting countries they believe have no could-be military nuclear program. What they said is that they don't have material proof that such program is currently under way. And that's very good news because, once such proof is established, there will be war almost immediately. Don't forget that if there are 10 steps for building an atom bomb, the first 9 steps are purely civilian ones. It's only when they will undertake the 10th step that a proof can materialy exist. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 31, 2007, 03:14:33 PM That's where you are wrong Peis: The IAEA guys all believe Iran is trying to build a bomb. That's the only reason they are inspecting in Iran. The only reason the IAEA exists is to prevent nuclear arms proliferation. The IAEA is not inspecting countries they believe have no could-be military nuclear program. Wrong, wrong, wrong. IAEA inspects ALL countries with nuclear technology. Which is perfectly rational. FAI, Spain does not have a military nuclear program, neither haves a domestic plutonium management program, but its nuclear reactors are watched by IAEA. Why? Because NOBODY wants that someone goes and steals plutonium from a Spanish reactor. So both Spain and the IAEA watch the fuel rods to make sure nobody steals plutonium, all the way since they're put to cool off in cooling pools to the moment they're transported to France for treatment. No neutral country in its mind would tolerate to be held as sole responsible for its plutonium if anything went wrong with it. So being watched by IAEA is standard procedure. Even the USA are watched by IAEA... in exchange for IAEA watch the same over all other members of nuclear club, of course. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Peisithanatos on October 31, 2007, 09:41:37 PM Quote The IAEA guys all believe Iran is trying to build a bomb. they believe even though they say there is no evidence? So they're working for Iran, basically. Iran controls IAEA, UN, UNESCO and World Bank. Quote The only reason the IAEA exists is to prevent nuclear arms proliferation. IAEA is pushed by Americans, and u know that. The issue would not even be in the UN SC at all if not for American coercion on IAEA members. US official Stephen Rademaker involved in the issue admitted, for instance, that India's vote against Iran was forced by the US: "The best illustration of this is the two votes India cast against Iran at the IAEA," he said, adding: "I am the first person to admit that the votes were coerced." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4851 Americans have a habit of squeezing what they want out of people, like they squeezed governments to send troops to Iraq despite 80-90% (in Spain, 92%) public opposition to that. If not for American pressure, IAEA would have handled Iran the "OK" ticket and dropped the issue. Whenever various countries voting somewhere against Iran, Syria, Palestine, let Rademaker's admission bell in your ears: "...the votes were coerced." Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Fredledingue on November 01, 2007, 02:22:11 PM Peisithanatos
India coerced in a vote inside the non-proliferation context? Ho! :P The irony of international politics is simply... halucinating. India was not moraly in a position to vote against Iran since they did exactely what Iran is doing now, 10 years ago. But civilian nuclear cooperation with the US helped them to overcome or forget this annoyance. Also don't forget that... Quote from: Your source The former Bush administration official claimed Iran was developing nuclear weapons and that the international community was going to have to take tougher measures to persuade Iran to change course. "Whether there will be more U.N. sanctions or more measures taken outside the U.N. context, we'll have to see." Russia, said Mr. Rademaker, was "not fully cooperating" with the U.S. "If the U.N. Security Council acts against Iran, this would make things easier for countries like India. But if things go in the direction of increasing economic pressure by a coalition of countries like the U.S, Europe and Japan, India will have to make a choice," he said. India would have to decide whether to join these countries in the economic measures they took. "It is India's prerogative to decide, but should it (not join), it would be a big mistake and a lost opportunity," he added. Zee, IAEA's inspectors in Spain are making routine controls of the atom fuel. They don't make inspection and investigations like in Iran. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Peisithanatos on November 01, 2007, 08:57:21 PM am not getting u, Freddie, - are you doubting India's unwillingness or making fun of it?
Americans pressure everyone (anyone they can) about such issues. From the same source: "Do you think other member states of the Governors' Board of the IAEA were also put under pressure by the US and its European allies to vote against Iran? If so what evidence is there for such coercion? SV: Undoubtedly. I recently had the occasion to meet a senior delegation from a European member country of the P5+1. Privately, these officials, who deal with Iran, were skeptical about the current US approach but said their government was unable to resist Washington's pressure. If this is the case with a major European power, you can imagine the fate of "lesser" IAEA Board members." Euros are shamelessly giving up to American pressures. Like they did with Iraq; difference now is that the last independent voice on the continent, France, is parrotting after Washington. Albeit, Spain has improved on the other hand. War with Iran will be the grave of this world order. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Fredledingue on November 02, 2007, 01:27:06 PM I wonder what kind of influence the americans can exerce on other countries.
Actualy Iran has much more pressure on certain countries like China, than the US does. Funny that there is no mention of how Iran influences poor UN members with their oil. Nevertheless, if Iran doesn't comply with UN demands, it will be very easy for the US to "coerce" other nations to vote for more sanction and even for war. Amazing, how easy it is, isn't it? It was not as easy with Iraq, as I remember. The fact is that the US is pushing hard for actiuons against Iran, but the circumstances make it very easy for other countries to agree on such actions. About India, it was awesome that they voted against Iran, while they were themselves in the same situation as that of Iran not a long time ago. A nation in breach of non-proliferation principles acting against another one. Admit that's funny. At this rate they could have asked North Korea to vote against Iran too. Quote from: DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Friday to move toward a third set of sanctions against Iran if the country does not answer key questions on its nuclear program, the British Foreign Office said. ADVERTISEMENT The Foreign Office said the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France agreed, along with Germany, to come up with a new sanctions resolution with the aim of voting on it if November reports by the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency did not show improved Iranian cooperation. Russia and China did not comment, but the agreement would mark a surprising turnaround in the two countries' strong resistance to fresh sanctions against Iran. IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the U.N. on Iran's nuclear activities in mid-November. EU chief negotiator Javier Solana is also due to submit a report on Iran's cooperation. The diplomats who met in London on Friday will hold talks again on Nov. 19 to assess the pending reports, a Foreign Office spokesman said. He said that the Security Council members and Germany had agreed to "finalize a text for a third U.N. Security Council Sanctions resolution with the intention of bringing it to a vote in the U.N. Security Council unless the November reports of Dr. Solana and Dr. ElBaradei show a positive outcome of the efforts." U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns had urged China and Russia to support harsher U.N. sanctions, saying the two nations were key to a diplomatic solution to the standoff. "The U.S. believes very strongly there is a need to accelerate the diplomacy, to strengthen the sanctions," Burns told The Associated Press. "We want a diplomatic solution, we do not want to give up on diplomacy, but we need the help of the P5 (permanent Security Council member) countries to do that, particularly the support of Russia and China." link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_talks_iran;_ylt=ApKAsidD0iZ45dFP4vaeEOpvaA8F) If China and Russia doesn't want Iran to be attacked, they will have to agree with the sanctions. A strong international consensus is the only way to avoid war. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: machioveli on November 14, 2007, 12:31:42 PM In an effort to show its cooperation ahead of IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report, which is expected Thursday, Iran handed over a long-withheld secret blueprint showing how to shape uranium metal into hemispheres for a nuclear warhead, dipIomats said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran15nov15,0,7182826.story?coll=la-home-world enough said Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Fredledingue on November 18, 2007, 11:45:26 AM Quote from: LA Times The Iranians have said it was given to them unsolicited by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, who secretly peddled nuclear technology to Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya. Iranian officials said they did not try to manufacture a weapon from the plans. So, Qadeer Kahn forced the Iranians to take the plans, eventhought they didn't want them? :-\ Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: machioveli on December 12, 2007, 09:21:21 AM Using pure espionage the US intel was able to answer a question in one month that the IAEA still has yet to answer after several years. Even with access to Iran's country and its nuclear sites these nuclear "experts" could not confirm what Iran itself has already admitted, It has a nuclear weapons program but halted its actions. Still today they are still "talking" while the world has been satisfied with the NIE report. Can you say useless?
Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: machioveli on February 28, 2008, 07:22:36 PM half a year later same old story "I don't know" says the IAEA. 4 years of this and Iran gets closer. I remember when it was predicted in 2003 that Iran was 8-10 years from producing a bomb. Well at that time it seemed that 10 years was a long time from then. Although they are still about 3-5 years from building a *successful nuclear weapon, I just wanted to point out how quickly 5 years have gone by.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/1492 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/02/24/2003099957 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD01Ak01.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/24/wiran24.xml * (with successful being able to develop a delivery vehicle for a nuclear warhead, but they are much closer to testing one) Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Terry Mathis on February 28, 2008, 09:24:56 PM The IAEA has recently confirmed that Iran is running more efficient centrifuges and is concerned now that they never stopped their nuclear program, and that based on this information alone will have enough plutonium to build a Nuke by 2010. Title: Re: Does IAEA need a new mission? Post by: Fredledingue on February 29, 2008, 04:12:58 PM Once the world finaly see how serious the Iranians are about their bomb, the US and Sarkozy won't be alone anymore to promote tougher sanctions.
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 |
SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |