|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Will if there is smoke, what are the odds that there is fire?
Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?
Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.
What does it all mean?  |
They've fucked this up, badly, Mojo, and now they want to bomb their way out of it. When you vote for folks who have a propaganda driven policy of aggressive war, reports like the ones in the following quote boxes are proabably an accurate measure of what is happening. If you can live with these clowns in a vacuum empty of ethics, candor, or a moral sense that it is wrong to kill masses of people unless all avenues....short of going to war....have been seriously and exhaustively pursues, it must be easier to support the Bush/Cheney administration.....than it is for me to.
It means that the U.S. has a clear record of avoiding a diplomatic solution to improving it's relationship with Iran. Our pre-emptive war president has one policy....pre-emption. Is that fact not yet clear to you?
Here's how it works, Mojo..... because of the past record of the Bush administration, (a record that has left Iran in a much stronger position than it was in three years ago, with a much less "agreeable" Iranian president in office now....)a "pretense" of diplomacy must be trotted out....before the bombing can begin:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/wo...f33ea2&ei=5070
For Bush, Talks With Iran Were a Last Resort
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 1, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 31 —
<b>.....The idea of engagement is hardly new.</b> When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, several members of his senior staff argued vociferously that the United States needed to test Iran's willingness to deal with the United States — especially in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
There was strong opposition from the White House, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, according to several former officials.
"Cheney was dead set against it," said one former official who sat in many of those meetings. "At its heart, this was an argument about whether you could isolate the Iranians enough to force some kind of regime change." But three officials who were involved in the most recent iteration of that debate said Mr. Cheney and others stepped aside — perhaps because they read Mr. Bush's body language, or perhaps because they believed Iran would scuttle the effort by insisting that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives it the right to develop nuclear fuel. The United States insists that Iran gave up that right by deceiving inspectors for 18 years.
<b>In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks......</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060201646.html
After Vienna, Both Sides Can Tally Their Gains
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 3, 2006; Page A08
VIENNA, June 2 -- Both Iran and the United States this week could claim significant gains, but the prospects for a solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse remain uncertain.
Iranian officials secretly approached White House officials in 2003, seeking a dialogue, but the offer was swiftly dismissed. Three years later, Iran finds itself in a much stronger position -- oil prices are at record highs, its nuclear program has made technological strides and the United States suddenly wants a seat at the negotiating table.....
|
Quote:
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfri...ew.ww?id=11539
Burnt Offering
How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity -- if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it.
By Gareth Porter
Issue Date: 06.06.06
Print Friendly | Email Article
Iran’s “mad mullahs” want nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and can only be stopped by the threat or use of military force. That’s what the Bush administration would have the public believe, as it pushes toward a confrontation with Iran over that country’s nuclear program. A key link in the argument is that Tehran has shown no interest in negotiating over the nuclear issue. As State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters last January, the administration didn’t then see “anything that indicates the Iranians are willing to engage in a serious diplomatic process” on the nuclear issue.
In the woeful history of falsehoods about the targets of potential U.S. force, however, this one is particularly egregious. In the spring of 2003, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only proposed to negotiate with the Bush administration on its nuclear program and its support for terrorists but also offered concrete concessions that went very far toward meeting U.S. concerns......
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/op...erland&emc=rss
January 24, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The Gulf Between Us
By FLYNT LEVERETT
Washington
AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.
In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.
Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.
Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. They can refer the issue to the Security Council, but, at a time of tight energy markets, no one is interested in restricting Iranian oil sales. Other measures under discussion - travel restrictions on Iranian officials, for example - are likely to be imposed only ad hoc, with Russia and China as probable holdouts. They are in any case unlikely to sway Iranian decision-making, because unlike his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disdains being feted in European capitals......
Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He is writing a book about the future of Saudi Arabia.
|
Last edited by host; 06-27-2006 at 11:09 AM..
|