MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 TEHRAN, Iran - Iran will never scrap its nuclear program, and talks with Europeans are intended to protect the country's nuclear achievements, not negotiate an end to them, an Iranian official said Wednesday. AP Photo AP Photo Slideshow: Iran Nuclear Issues The remarks by Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, are the latest in a hardening of his country's stance amid ongoing talks with European negotiators. They also reflect Tehran's possible frustration at the lack of progress. Europe is pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program, which the United States claims is aimed at producing atomic weapons. In exchange for nuclear guarantees, the Europeans are offering Iran technological and financial support and talks on a trade deal. "We have the power to negotiate because we keep our (nuclear) achievements in our hands and we are negotiating to protect them," Mohammadi said Wednesday. "It's definite that we will protect our scientific achievements as a basic pillar, whether talks make progress or not." Mohammadi's comments came a day after Iran's vice president, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, called on the Europeans to speed up the talks, amid reports that negotiations are deadlocked. Aghazadeh, who also serves as head of Iran's atomic energy organization, suggested Iran was not happy with the progress of the talks, telling reporters: "We have to take the negotiations seriously and accelerate them." European officials acknowledged the complexity of the negotiations, but said talks were going at a good pace and a diplomatic solution remained on track. The talks have been carried out against a backdrop of U.S. warnings. In January, President Bush (news - web sites) reaffirmed his support for a diplomatic settlement, but said he would not take any option off the table, including a possible military strike. A summary of the negotiations that was leaked last week showed Europe had made little progress in convincing Iran to make permanent its temporary suspension of uranium enrichment activities, although negotiators said the atmosphere at the talks has improved recently. Uranium enriched to low grades is used for fuel in nuclear reactors, but further enrichment makes it suitable for atomic bombs. The United States and other countries fear Iran seeks to enrich uranium not to the low level needed to generate power, as it claims, but to a weapons-grade that could become the core for a nuclear warhead. While not prohibited from enrichment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran suspended uranium enrichment and all related activities in November to build trust, reduce international suspicions and avoid U.N. Security Council sanctions. Tehran has said it will decide within three months whether to continue its suspension, which is monitored by U.N. nuclear inspectors. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../iran_nuclear_3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 Something tells me they'll stop once we occupy them in 2006. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 So the talks have improved so much that Iran felt it was needed to come out and basically say, "F*ck you, we like our nukes!" What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted February 3, 2005 So the talks have improved so much that Iran felt it was needed to come out and basically say, "F*ck you, we like our nukes!" What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? Just some light hearted pranks and other good natured fun. I mean it's not like the negotiator ended up with no hea...... oh wait it did. Nevermind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 3, 2005 So the talks have improved so much that Iran felt it was needed to come out and basically say, "F*ck you, we like our nukes!" What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? But...but...the head of the IAEA said it wasn't a big deal. Man, HE'S done a bang-up job since he's been head of that agency. -=Mike ...India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran...yup, non-proliferation is definitely the IAEA's calling card Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted February 3, 2005 It's important to remember that it is not necessarily nuclear weapons they are developing, it's nuclear energy and fuel. Iran need to be open about the nuclear ambitions. I don't see how the US has a right to dictate to Iran what they can and can't develop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 It's important to remember that it is not necessarily nuclear weapons they are developing, it's nuclear energy and fuel. Iran need to be open about the nuclear ambitions. I don't see how the US has a right to dictate to Iran what they can and can't develop. ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted February 3, 2005 It's important to remember that it is not necessarily nuclear weapons they are developing, it's nuclear energy and fuel. Iran need to be open about the nuclear ambitions. I don't see how the US has a right to dictate to Iran what they can and can't develop. Yeah, you CAN tell a difference. Nuclear plants that create energy and plants that create weapons are different. Besides, Iran hasn't given out a whole lot of reason to trust them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted February 3, 2005 Ok, I have a question thought. Supposing Iran is using it's nuclear plans/programs or whatever to make nuclear plants for energy proficiency, well isn't that EXACTLY what Bush said America should do in the state of the union address, as part of a new energy policy? I am not sure Bush's stance as far a "nuclear" goes. Is Bush saying, abandon anything related to nuclear power, or is he just talking about nuclear weapons plans? Cause it seems kind of contradictory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted February 4, 2005 Let's not kid ourselves - Iran are getting invaded this year no matter what. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 Let's not kid ourselves - Iran are getting invaded this year no matter what. I choose to kid myself and predict early 2006. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lightning Flik 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 (edited) It'll be late 2006, because the Bush administation wish to make sure Iraq at least looks semi stable before warring with someone else. Edited February 4, 2005 by Lightning Flik Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? "We're sending in someone to negotiate!" *BLAM, BLAM* "Anybody else want to negotiate?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted February 4, 2005 I don't see how the US has a right to dictate to Iran what they can and can't develop. The remarks by Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, are the latest in a hardening of his country's stance amid ongoing talks with European negotiators. Europe is pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program In exchange for nuclear guarantees, the Europeans are offering Iran technological and financial support and talks on a trade deal. Europe had made little progress in convincing Iran to make permanent its temporary suspension of uranium enrichment activities Iran suspended uranium enrichment and all related activities in November to build trust, reduce international suspicions and avoid U.N. Security Council sanctions. Tehran has said it will decide within three months whether to continue its suspension, which is monitored by U.N. nuclear inspectors. Can you not read, or do you just filter out stuff at your own discretion? Let's not kid ourselves - Iran are getting invaded this year no matter what. Man, I want THAT crystal ball, I'd make a killing on the stock market with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? "We're sending in someone to negotiate!" *BLAM, BLAM* "Anybody else want to negotiate?" what is this a Clint Eastwood movie? If I had the technology, why would I stop it. I might be producing weapons, or new forms of power. (Probably weapons). It's like this. You win the lottery, a massive lottery, then a charity asks you to donate all of it, would you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? "We're sending in someone to negotiate!" *BLAM, BLAM* "Anybody else want to negotiate?" what is this a Clint Eastwood movie? If I had the technology, why would I stop it. I might be producing weapons, or new forms of power. (Probably weapons). It's like this. You win the lottery, a massive lottery, then a charity asks you to donate all of it, would you? No it's The Fifth Element, dumbass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 It's important to remember that it is not necessarily nuclear weapons they are developing, it's nuclear energy and fuel. Iran need to be open about the nuclear ambitions. I don't see how the US has a right to dictate to Iran what they can and can't develop. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'm willing to sell you. It's a great bargain. I'll even knock off an additional 10%, just for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Let's not kid ourselves - Iran are getting invaded this year no matter what. Man, I want THAT crystal ball, I'd make a killing on the stock market with it. *remembers INXS track record* No --- no, you probably wouldn't. -=Mike ...Who should never be surprised at the utter selfishness of the left, but who still is... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest adam_bomb Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Im sure the world is a lot more worried about nuclear weapons being in the hand of George.W than in the hands of Iran. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Well then the world is a fucking moron. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Im sure the world is a lot more worried about nuclear weapons being in the hand of George.W than in the hands of Iran. Well his name is Adam Bomb, so he can't be wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fk teale Report post Posted February 5, 2005 -=Mike ...Who should never be surprised at the utter selfishness of the left, but who still is... My flatmate says he isn't worried about nuclear terrorism, because we live in a small city in the midwest, and they'd probably target someplace like New York or LA. Then, after a pause, he says, "and besides, the threat's totally exaggerated, it'll probably never happen." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest adam_bomb Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Well actually as Bush is a racist idiot who most people wouldnt trust to run a newspaper stand, i dont think hes trusted to police the world and decide who is "good " and who is "evil". Has Iran ever used a nuclear weapon? How about the USA? Who is america to judge anyones human rights record Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Considering he's won a couple of elections- I think people do trust him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 What did the talks originally consist of? Killing the negotiator? "We're sending in someone to negotiate!" *BLAM, BLAM* "Anybody else want to negotiate?" what is this a Clint Eastwood movie? If I had the technology, why would I stop it. I might be producing weapons, or new forms of power. (Probably weapons). It's like this. You win the lottery, a massive lottery, then a charity asks you to donate all of it, would you? No it's The Fifth Element, dumbass. Harsh, especially considering that it's not like the movie is quality viewing material that everyone should be watching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest adam_bomb Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Considering he's won a couple of elections- I think people do trust him. No, americans trust him, theres a big difference between intelligent people trusting him and your average american who vote for him due to "important "issues like gay marriage and abortion. Believe me, the rest of the world does not trust him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 I know- but the people who are most affected by him trust him- as evidence by him winning in Texas twice and then winning the majority in the 2004 election. Just because people don't agree with your opinion and voted for W. doesn't automatically make them stupid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest adam_bomb Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Well its questionable whether he actually won the first one. Im just saying the world doesnt trust or believe in Bush and I believe he was voted back in on the back of the war vote, rather than on an strong political ideology or with any interest in what would be best for the US or the world Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Well I think he won the vote mainly due to how he feels about Gay marriage, abortion, and the "war on terror". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest adam_bomb Report post Posted February 5, 2005 Just wondering who gives a crap about gay marriage and abortion? Seriously, they are fringe issues which really arent that important in every day life. As for the war on Terror, its a nice story and all , but how americans can even vote regarding this issue when 90 % dont even own passports is amazing. I suppose if you throw in the words " freedom " and "liberty" enough times people will actually start thinking that you mean it Bush wants to leave his legacy by invading a few countries, however it will always be the ones who dont fight back. Have you noticed the distinct lack of coverage towards N.Korea, which has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, if bush was that bothered about protecting the world he would go there first Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
