Muenkel 0 #1 November 15, 2004 Let's hope this becomes permanent. Link and article below. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-11-14-iran-uranium_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno __________________________________________________ VIENNA (AP) — Iran notified the U.N. nuclear watchdog in writing Sunday that it would suspend uranium enrichment and related activities to dispel suspicions that it was trying to build nuclear arms. With its move, Iran appeared to have dropped demands to modify a tentative deal worked out on Nov. 7 with European negotiators, agreeing instead to continue freezing enrichment — the process to make either nuclear fuel or the core for nuclear weapons — and also to suspend related activities, diplomats told The Associated Press. "Basically it's a full suspension," said one of the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's what the Europeans were looking for." Shortly after diplomats revealed the Iranian move, Tehran's top nuclear negotiator, Hossein Mousavian, confirmed that his country was giving its "basic agreement" to a temporary suspension. "We accept suspension as a voluntary measure on the basis of agreement with the European Union," Mousavian said on Iranian state television, emphasizing that his country viewed the move as a concession for "confidence building" and not a "legal obligation." As part of the agreement, "Europe will support Iran's joining the international group of states possessing the ability to manufacture nuclear fuel" once the suspension ends, Mousavian said, signaling yet again that Iran viewed the freeze as temporary. State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan said Sunday: "We are awaiting a briefing by the EU three on Monday. We continue to believe that Iran has to abide by the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution." Washington has argued that Iran's enrichment activities are in violation of its international treaty obligations and part of a nuclear arms program. The United States has called for the indefinite suspension if not an outright scrapping of Iran's domestic enrichment program. Iran says it wants to master the technology only to generate power. The diplomat said Iran had also fulfilled a key part of the deal by formally informing the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency — the International Atomic Energy Agency — of its decision. That cleared the way for inclusion of Iranian intentions in a report prepared by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei. As negotiators for France, Germany and Britain struggled with Iranian counterparts to bridge differences on the weekend, the IAEA had delayed the report on Iran's nuclear activities scheduled for limited circulation to diplomats accredited to the agency. A diplomat close to the agency said the report would now be released Monday. The IAEA study on nearly two decades of clandestine activities that the United States asserts is a secret weapons program is being prepared for review by the agency's 35-nation board of governors when they meet Nov. 25. Based on the report, they will decide on actions that include possibly referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could lead to sanctions. After talks in Paris with Iranian envoys last weekend, European diplomats said Tehran had tentatively agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and all related activities. The suspension would last at least as long as it took the two sides to negotiate a deal on European technical and financial aid, including help in developing Iranian nuclear energy for power generation. But the diplomats told The Associated Press on Friday that Iranian officials had presented British, French and German envoys in Tehran with a version of the pact that was unacceptable to the three European powers — the main brokers of the deal — and the European Union as a whole. The key dispute concerned the conversion of uranium into gas, which when spun in centrifuges can be enriched to lower levels for producing electricity or processed into high-level, weapons grade uranium, the diplomats said on condition of anonymity. The diplomats — all of them briefed on the dispute and based in Europe — said Iran was insisting that the deal allowed it to process uranium into a precursor of uranium hexafluoride, the gas introduced into centrifuges for enrichment. The diplomats said the tentative deal reached in Paris disallowed this. With the Europeans determined to leave the Iranians little wiggle room, disputes also focused on more minor details. As an example, one diplomat said Sunday that the Europeans insisted that Tehran clean centrifuges of residues left by prior enrichment. That was meant to deprive the Iranians of the chance to claim that any traces found by IAEA inspectors past the formal start of suspension was from previous activities. Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year but had repeatedly refused to stop other related activities such as reprocessing uranium or building centrifuges. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 November 15, 2004 I predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #3 November 15, 2004 QuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. No evidence has been found of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Not by Blix, not by ElBaradei, not by Kay, not by Duelfer, despite plenty of searching.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. No evidence has been found of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Not by Blix, not by ElBaradei, not by Kay, not by Duelfer, despite plenty of searching. I made no such claim. I was speaking to the aforementioneds inability to abide by an agreement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #5 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. No evidence has been found of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Not by Blix, not by ElBaradei, not by Kay, not by Duelfer, despite plenty of searching. I made no such claim. I was speaking to the aforementioneds inability to abide by an agreement. One idea - one paragraph. Your paragraph started with a sentence about nuclear weapons. How were we to know you abruptly changed the topic by the time you got to the second sentence?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. No evidence has been found of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Not by Blix, not by ElBaradei, not by Kay, not by Duelfer, despite plenty of searching. I made no such claim. I was speaking to the aforementioneds inability to abide by an agreement. One idea - one paragraph. Your paragraph started with a sentence about nuclear weapons. How were we to know you abruptly changed the topic by the time you got to the second sentence? You could have asked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #7 November 15, 2004 QuoteI was speaking to the aforementioneds inability to abide by an agreement Does that apply to the Kyoto agreement, etc...? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI was speaking to the aforementioneds inability to abide by an agreement Does that apply to the Kyoto agreement, etc...? I wasn't aware we had signed it. Please point me to the news source you are using. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #9 November 15, 2004 Not sure it's a very reliable source, but try this one "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 November 15, 2004 QuoteNot sure it's a very reliable source, but try this one The question was about ones ability to abide by an agreement. The US has never ratified the Kyoto Agreement, therefore has no obligation to abide by it. If you want to rehash all the pros and cons, the I;d suggest you start another thread on its merits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #11 November 15, 2004 QuoteThe question was about ones ability to abide by an agreement. The US has never ratified the Kyoto Agreement, therefore has no obligation to abide by it. If you want to rehash all the pros and cons, the I;d suggest you start another thread on its merits Sorry, I just go stuck on the part that stated "The United States agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012." I thought you were complaining about countries renegading on agreements they had previously made. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe question was about ones ability to abide by an agreement. The US has never ratified the Kyoto Agreement, therefore has no obligation to abide by it. If you want to rehash all the pros and cons, the I;d suggest you start another thread on its merits Sorry, I just go stuck on the part that stated "The United States agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012." I thought you were complaining about countries renegading on agreements they had previously made. Define what you mean by "The United States agreed to reduce emmissions". To my rememberance, Clinton agreed to it but he didn't have the authority to ratify the agreement, therefore the "United States" never agreed to Kyoto, but may have agreed to reduce emmissions. The time frame this was agreed to, acording to the article was 2008-2012, so I don't follow your thinking here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #13 November 15, 2004 QuoteThe time frame this was agreed to, acording to the article was 2008-2012, so I don't follow your thinking here. Not sure what is confusing you about this part. As a general rule, people/countries agree to do things going forward, since the past is quite hard to alter. Whether the agreement was to cover the next 4 years, 20 years, or 100 years, does not change the fact that it was an agreement. Was it ratified by Congress? No! Then again, none of Saddam's (or Iran's) agreements have been ratified by any kind of elected body. What's your point? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe time frame this was agreed to, acording to the article was 2008-2012, so I don't follow your thinking here. Not sure what is confusing you about this part. As a general rule, people/countries agree to do things going forward, since the past is quite hard to alter. Whether the agreement was to cover the next 4 years, 20 years, or 100 years, does not change the fact that it was an agreement. Was it ratified by Congress? No! Then again, none of Saddam's (or Iran's) agreements have been ratified by any kind of elected body. What's your point? SH had the authority to ratify a cease fire agreement and also to agree to UN demands, so did KJI and Arafat. Clinton had no more authority to make a binding agreement that you or I do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe time frame this was agreed to, acording to the article was 2008-2012, so I don't follow your thinking here. Not sure what is confusing you about this part. As a general rule, people/countries agree to do things going forward, since the past is quite hard to alter. Whether the agreement was to cover the next 4 years, 20 years, or 100 years, does not change the fact that it was an agreement. Was it ratified by Congress? No! Then again, none of Saddam's (or Iran's) agreements have been ratified by any kind of elected body. What's your point? Your own link states the US agree to reduce emmissions by 7% between 2008 and 2012. So wheres the violation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #16 November 15, 2004 QuoteYour own link states the US agree to reduce emmissions by 7% between 2008 and 2012. So wheres the violation? You're right. No vilation has occured. But didn't the US renagade on its agreement? "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteYour own link states the US agree to reduce emmissions by 7% between 2008 and 2012. So wheres the violation? You're right. No vilation has occured. But didn't the US renagade on its agreement? For the last time there was no valid agreement. Geezus, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #18 November 15, 2004 QuoteFor the last time there was no valid agreement. Geezus, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Both of us are! Isn't that the rule in SC? Let's leave it at that. Good night. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #19 November 15, 2004 QuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. Well, hell. Let's just go bomb all of them now because you don't feel good about it. How about we wait and let the negotiations play out and see what happens in a years time._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. Well, hell. Let's just go bomb all of them now because you don't feel good about it. How about we wait and let the negotiations play out and see what happens in a years time. I've got a better idea, lets wait until they are ready to test a nuclear bomb because because of those who continue to forget about the past. I'm sure Iran has ignored the lessons of Kim Jong Il. I'm sure Iran is intimidated by UN threats of sanctions. I'm sure Iran won't use this issue for economic gain in the future. I'm sure Iran means well. I'm sure Iran isn't behind Hamas. I'm sure the world has nothing to fear from Iran, especially Israel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #21 November 15, 2004 QuoteOne idea - one paragraph. Your paragraph started with a sentence about nuclear weapons. How were we to know you abruptly changed the topic by the time you got to the second sentence? You're looking for something that's not there... QuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. The 1st sentance says he thinks IRAN will be found in violation and on its way to building a bomb... The second sentance seems to indicate that taking Iran's leadership at its word, that they will suspend their enrichment program, is following the path of believing other power hungry nut jobs... Nothing there about IRAQ having nukes, or even a nuke program... There is plenty of evidence that there was no reason to trust SH in his abandonment of banned weapons programs... a case in point were the long range missiles that he claimed he did not have, but were found, and only destroyed in the face of invasion... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #22 November 15, 2004 QuoteI predict that in less than 12 months, Iran will be found to have violated this agreement and will be further along in it's development of a nuclear bomb. I don't know how many times the world is going to allow itself to be fooled by the likes of Arafat, Saddam and Kim Jong Il. I agree completely. Iran's doctrine in its nuclear program is almost solely to reduce the US political and military influence in the region. Nuclear weapons are an amazing deterrent. Iran also views this as a balancing measure to Israel's nuclear arsenal (whose capacity we have no idea about). Also, remember that Iran has not completely recovered from its war with Iraq. Even with Saddam gone, Iran isn't warm to the idea of a freer Iraq. Nevermind their perception of our 100K+ troops right next door, with another 20K on the other side in Afghanistan.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #23 November 15, 2004 QuoteI've got a better idea, lets wait until they are ready to test a nuclear bomb because because of those who continue to forget about the past. I'm sure Iran has ignored the lessons of Kim Jong Il. I'm sure Iran is intimidated by UN threats of sanctions. I'm sure Iran won't use this issue for economic gain in the future. I'm sure Iran means well. I'm sure Iran isn't behind Hamas. I'm sure the world has nothing to fear from Iran, especially Israel. I thought Iran was the big success story. the invasion of Iraq and utter dominance from the US had shown nations in that areaq to better listen or else. Ghadaffi was hailed after his decision etc etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 November 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteI've got a better idea, lets wait until they are ready to test a nuclear bomb because because of those who continue to forget about the past. I'm sure Iran has ignored the lessons of Kim Jong Il. I'm sure Iran is intimidated by UN threats of sanctions. I'm sure Iran won't use this issue for economic gain in the future. I'm sure Iran means well. I'm sure Iran isn't behind Hamas. I'm sure the world has nothing to fear from Iran, especially Israel. I thought Iran was the big success story. the invasion of Iraq and utter dominance from the US had shown nations in that areaq to better listen or else. Ghadaffi was hailed after his decision etc etc. That was before Iran realized it could depend of the Left in the US to whine and do everything they could to prevent us from doing what needs to be done. Iran now takes comfort in the fact that the Lefts' opposition to a war is so extreme, that it can push development of Nukes. I'm sure it also realizes a few well placed billion dollars into the pockets of Koffi Annan and other dictators at the UN will go a long way in securing it's future success. So, lets assume for a second I am right and we discover a year from now that Iran has continued to develop its nukes in total violation of current agreements. What would you suggest the next step be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #25 November 15, 2004 QuoteI thought Iran was the big success story. the invasion of Iraq and utter dominance from the US had shown nations in that areaq to better listen or else. Ghadaffi was hailed after his decision etc etc. The difference with Libya is that they approached the UK, bypassing the UN completely, allowed the US into the secret negotiations and is completely dismantling its weapons programs. The UK, US and IAEA will all get their own verification. In exchange, Libya has requested that it be able to rejoin the global community (which is happening incrementally). Iran is simply saying they will no longer enrich uranium. How much have they processed already? Enough for what -- a 4KT, 20KT, 1MT device? Iran has literally put some of its infrastructure underground. Why does anyone hide anything from view ever? Concealment is rarely created with benevolent intentions.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
