UN: No Clear Arms Evidence on Iran Nuclear Program

[HeroOfPellinor]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...pNews&section=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - United Nations inspectors have found no clear evidence of a nuclear arms program in Iran, according to an upcoming report by the International Atomic Energy Agency cited on Wednesday in The Washington Post.

The U.N. agency investigated some U.S. intelligence tips about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons, but turned up nothing conclusive, the Post said, citing unidentified diplomats who have been briefed on the report.

I guess the question "What is Bush doing about Iran?" is irrelevant.

 

[conjur]

But the intent is there, eh?

Next invasion, please!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: conjur
But the intent is there, eh?

Next invasion, please!

Next red herring please.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur
But the intent is there, eh?

Next invasion, please!

Next red herring please.

How is that a red herring?

Bush is now claiming Saddam had the intent (as opposed to actually possessing WMDs as was the original justification for the invasion of Iraq).

 

[Hugenstein]

So we are going to accept the U.N.'s opinion on arms in Iran at face value, but completely disagree on the U.N.'s opinion on weapons in Iraq? Sounds about right.

 

[tallest1]

They got some WMD "intent" in them there dunes!

(I agree with Hugenstein and conjur on the above)

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
So we are going to accept the U.N.'s opinion on arms in Iran at face value, but completely disagress on the U.N.'s opinion on weapons in Iraq? Sounds about right.

Giving more weight to the UN's opinion on arms in Iran would be very rational considering the WMD fiasco in Iraq. Learning from past mistakes would grant a lot more integrity than avoiding the appearance of hypocricy.

Not saying that the UN's opinion should be accepted uncritically, just saying that it would be prudent to reevaluate your own intelligence in light of this report.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tallest1
(I agree with Hugenstein and conjur on the above)

You don't say?!

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Hugenstein
So we are going to accept the U.N.'s opinion on arms in Iran at face value, but completely disagress on the U.N.'s opinion on weapons in Iraq? Sounds about right.

Giving more weight to the UN's opinion on arms in Iran would be very rational considering the WMD fiasco in Iraq. Learning from past mistakes would grant a lot more integrity than avoiding the appearance of hypocricy.

Not saying that the UN's opinion should be accepted uncritically, just saying that it would be prudent to reevaluate your own intelligence in light of this report.

You're giving Bush waay too much credit. You seem to forget that only yesterday they were bashing the UN on live television. They haven't learned from this fiasco 'cause hell, they hardly admit they made a single mistake in the region. Don't forget that Bush is a man who stands behind his decisions even if the facts go against him and thousands of lives and billions of dollars are lost as a result.

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tallest1
(I agree with Hugenstein and conjur on the above)

You don't say?!

Would you rather I post some sort of childish left-wing comparision between Bush and Hitler or something? I don't agree with conjur on everything but I'm expressing my view on the issue without nonchalantly (sp?) turning the thread into what you call a liberal circle jerk.

 

[maddogchen]

U.N.: Iran Readies Batch of Uranium for Enrichment


VIENNA (Reuters) - The United Nations (news - web sites) said on Wednesday Iran planned to convert a large amount of raw "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride, which one nuclear expert said would be enough to build five atomic bombs.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in the confidential report circulated to diplomats and obtained by Reuters that Iran planned a "larger test" of a uranium conversion facility "involving 37 tons of yellowcake."

David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and currently president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said this could theoretically result in 100 kg of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium.

Speaking purely hypothetically, Albright said: "It's roughly enough for about five crude nuclear weapons of the type Iran could conceivably build."

The U.N. agency said it had made much progress in understanding Iran's nuclear program, though its investigation is not yet complete.

"It is a work in progress," a senior Western diplomat said about the IAEA investigation, which has neither confirmed nor disproved U.S. allegations that Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program.

The agency praised Iran for providing it with access to sites inside the country and information, but chided it for being late with the provision of some information.

"In (some) cases, sufficiently detailed information has been so late that it has not been possible to include an assessment of its sufficiency and correctness in this report," the IAEA said.

Washington says Tehran's nuclear program is a front for a nuclear arms program. Tehran vehemently denies the charge, saying it is only interested in generating electricity.

Text

edit: oh wait i forgot to write what i wanted to say
So its not clear evidence they want to build nukes, its just interesting info.

 

[Todd33]

It said Iranian technicians had told IAEA inspectors they planned to convert 37 tons of "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride -- which one Western nuclear expert said could in theory be enough to build five atomic bombs.

Ya, nothing to worry about. So back to that evil Saddam...

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh I'm quite sure the administration will flail about trying to coalesce some sort of rational Iran policy. Yet, what can they do? With the UN and NATO and just about all of our European allies alienated? With the lost credibility that comes with the War in Iraq?

 

[Hugenstein]

yeah because uranium hexafluoride isn't what is used to fuel nuclear power plants....or is it...hmm...

37 tons that a lot too....or is it...hmm...


http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=181

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh I'm quite sure the administration will flail about trying to coalesce some sort of rational Iran policy. Yet, what can they do? With the UN and NATO and just about all of our European allies alienated? With the lost credibility that comes with the War in Iraq?

Exactly. We're spread out so thin now, we can't do sheetaki if and when a real threat reveals itself. We don't have any true allies anymore (maybe UK, but that's fleeting) and we don't have the support of the UN. I can just see another $250 billion flying out the window now.

 

[DealMonkey]

PS: What does the IAEA have to say?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Todd33

It said Iranian technicians had told IAEA inspectors they planned to convert 37 tons of "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride -- which one Western nuclear expert said could in theory be enough to build five atomic bombs.

Ya, nothing to worry about. So back to that evil Saddam...

Exactly. In theory, it could be used to build atomic bombs. We have absolutly NO reason to believe they'll actually do this. As we know from CNN and Michael Moore films, countries with radical Muslim leadeship just want to be left alone to their peaceful ways.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Exactly. In theory, it could be used to build atomic bombs. We have absolutly NO reason to believe they'll actually do this. As we know from CNN and Michael Moore films, countries with radical Muslim leadeship just want to be left alone to their peaceful ways.

Right, so please cut to the chase. You want to attack don't you? Otherwise, what are you proposing exactly?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Exactly. In theory, it could be used to build atomic bombs. We have absolutly NO reason to believe they'll actually do this. As we know from CNN and Michael Moore films, countries with radical Muslim leadeship just want to be left alone to their peaceful ways.

Right, so please cut to the chase. You want to attack don't you? Otherwise, what are you proposing exactly?

Well, I think we should and I think we shouldn't. It would take all day for me to articulate the many nuances of my position, so I'll sum it up by saying that I think we should do the right thing the best way possible.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, I think we should and I think we shouldn't. It would take all day for me to articulate the many nuances of my position, so I'll sum it up by saying that I think we should do the right thing the best way possible.

Your strategy is full of empty language. Surprise, just like the administration's "strategy" on Iran! Face it, you don't have a better alternative do you? I mean hell, this is your second Iran thread in two days, let's hear what you would do.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tallest1
You're giving Bush waay too much credit. You seem to forget that only yesterday they were bashing the UN on live television. They haven't learned from this fiasco 'cause hell, they hardly admit they made a single mistake in the region. Don't forget that Bush is a man who stands behind his decisions even if the facts go against him and thousands of lives and billions of dollars are lost as a result.

And you'd stand against him, even in the face of facts. He's screwed either way.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh I'm quite sure the administration will flail about trying to coalesce some sort of rational Iran policy. Yet, what can they do? With the UN and NATO and just about all of our European allies alienated? With the lost credibility that comes with the War in Iraq?

Yes, but your boy Kerry will fix all that instantly upon taking office. Give me a break.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Your strategy is full of empty language. Surprise, just like the administration's "strategy" on Iran! Face it, you don't have a better alternative do you? I mean hell, this is your second Iran thread in two days, let's hear what you would do.

Nor do you have any ideas, just like Kerry! Amazing. As I've said time and again, there is no good strategy for dealing with Iran - only those that are bad and worse. Same with NK.

 

[GoPackGo]

Here are some questions...

Should be give Iran a pass for now?

If by giving them a pass and taking their word and later they nuke us or one of our allies...what should we do?

 

[stnicralisk]

What about Syria and North Korea?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
What about Syria and North Korea?

NK has nukes. Syria is pissing itself over in the corner because we could roll in an armor division and take them out, like we nearly did after the fall of Iraq. They've been pretty well behaved since.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
What about Syria and North Korea?

Syria will probably be the next nation to be dealt with.

NK is under control...they are a puppet state of the chinese

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

The bottom line is that it's the liberals who've left themselves up sh!t creek without a paddle. They're the ones shrieking murder over our "unilateral" preemptive strike on Iraq. So they can't want that. So the only alternative is to take it up with the UN. And that's what Bush is doing.