Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alarm Raised Over Quality of Uranium Found in Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alarm Raised Over Quality of Uranium Found in Iran

    SADDLE UP THEM BOYS AND RIDE 'EM HARD WITH GUNS BLAZING!

    Funny how when dealing with Iran, the US is perfectly content with relying on UN inspectors to provide them with this information, and with the strategy of applying international pressure on them, whereas when it came to dealing with Iraq, the UN inspectors found nothing and were kicked out of the country by the US, and the US decided to invade them instead of applying international pressure.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/internat...ast/11NUKE.html

    Alarm Raised Over Quality of Uranium Found in Iran
    By CRAIG S. SMITH

    Published: March 11, 2004


    IENNA, March 10 — United Nations nuclear inspectors have found traces of extremely highly enriched uranium in Iran, of a purity reserved for use in a nuclear bomb, European and American diplomats said Wednesday.

    Among traces that inspectors detected last year are some refined to 90 percent of the rare 235 isotope, the diplomats said. While the International Atomic Energy Agency has previously reported finding "weapons grade" traces, it has not revealed that some reached such a high degree of enrichment.

    The presence of such traces raises the stakes in the international debate over Iran's nuclear program and increases the urgency of determining the uranium's origin. If the enrichment took place in Iran, it means the country is much further along the road to becoming a nuclear weapons power than even the most aggressive intelligence estimates anticipated.

    Iran has said that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes, while the United States contends it has secretly tried to produce nuclear weapons. The atomic agency is expected to vote Friday on a resolution criticizing Iran for lack of candor about its nuclear efforts.

    Iran has said that all of the highly enriched uranium found on its nuclear facilities was contamination that occurred before imported equipment arrived in the country. Iranian officials said they could not identify the origin of the contamination because the equipment was imported through middlemen in five countries.

    I.A.E.A. officials said the contamination may have originated in Pakistan. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist, has admitted secretly supplying uranium enrichment equipment to Iran and other nations. The agency has asked Pakistan for permission to take environmental samples from its enrichment facilities to see if they match the weapons-grade traces in Iran. "Pakistan could let Iran off the I.A.E.A. hook," said a European diplomat here.

    American officials argue that traces of such highly enriched uranium, regardless of their origin, are another disturbing clue to what they believe are Iran's hidden ends.

    "What it shows is that they have a system that is capable of producing weapons grade uranium," said an American official speaking from Washington. "If it's an assembly that was removed from Pakistan or elsewhere, it's already battle tested," he said.

    On Wednesday, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, acknowledged for the first time that the Iranian military had produced centrifuges to enrich uranium, the Associated Press reported from Teheran. He said they were manufacturing unsophisticated models for civilian users. The admission came after the I.A.E.A. presented Iran with evidence that some of its nuclear activities were taking place on military bases.

    "It's rather strange, don't you think, that the military gets involved in the electric-power generating business?" asked one senior American official. "Or that they forgot to mention this before, when they were `fully disclosing' all details of their program?" American officials are lobbying hard to keep international pressure on Iran.

    An I.A.E.A. resolution on Libya, passed by the agency's board of governors on Wednesday, is part of that campaign. The resolution, negotiated by the United States, Britain and Libya in London last week, praises Libya for swiftly dismantling the nuclear weapons program discovered last year. But the resolution's key paragraph calls for the agency to report Libya's past breaches of the Nonproliferation Treaty to the United Nations Security Council.

    "The trap is sprung," said a senior American administration official speaking from Washington, saying that the Libyan resolution sets a precedent for future I.A.E.A. resolutions on Iran. "It makes it very hard not to at some point address Iran's breaches by referring them to the Security Council," he said.

    The United States has been lobbying since late last year to threaten Iran with Security Council scrutiny if it continued to withhold information on the scope of its nuclear program. Britain, France and Germany have resisted making an explicit threat for fear that it would anger Iran and hinder future cooperation.

    Iran warned Wednesday that American-led criticism could "complicate" its relations with the I.A.E.A. "America is taking advantage of any opportunity to put pressure on Iran," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said in Teheran, the Associated Press reported. "Unfortunately the I.A.E.A. is sometimes influenced in this regard."

    Mr. Kharrazi was quoted as saying that Iran would resume enriching uranium for peaceful purposes once its relations with the I.A.E.A. "return to normal."
    “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

    Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

  • #2
    So you advocate invading Iran?
    When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

    Comment


    • #3
      No, I dont. I am all for putting international pressure on them, and letting the UN handle things, including relying on their inspectors.

      It was working well in Iraq. Dubya decided to invade them regardless of that.
      “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

      Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

      Comment


      • #4
        Iranians...

        screw them...they are the ones who usurped power and brought in the ayatollahs...

        Reaping what they sowed...

        Frankly, there are 1,000,000 better reasons to invade Iran than Iraq...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Razzy@Mar 10 2004, 09:47 PM

          It was working well in Iraq. Dubya decided to invade them regardless of that.
          What was working well??

          How many times were the Inspectors kicked out?? Not allowed access to specific requested sites??

          Now..I dont condone invading Iraq..but, the inspections were not working well.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Indu WangZi+Mar 10 2004, 09:53 PM-->
            QUOTE (Indu WangZi @ Mar 10 2004, 09:53 PM)

          • #7
            Originally posted by Indu WangZi+Mar 10 2004, 09:53 PM-->
            QUOTE (Indu WangZi @ Mar 10 2004, 09:53 PM)

          • #8
            http://www.freep.com/news/nw/un17_20020917.htm

            Part of that column...

            Iraq to allow UN inspectors

            White House has little faith in unconditional offer
            September 17, 2002

            BY RON HUTCHESON
            FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

            WASHINGTON -- Iraq told the United Nations on Monday that it would accept the unconditional return of international weapons inspectors. But U.S. officials dismissed the offer as a ploy designed to derail a UN Security Council resolution that would force Iraq to abandon illicit weapons programs or face U.S.-led military action.

            Iraq made the offer in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell lobbied the world body to launch a new effort to force Iraq's disarmament. Annan said that Iraq agreed to "allow the return of inspectors without conditions." UN weapons inspections in Iraq ended in 1998.

            The Iraqi letter said Baghdad had based its decision "on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

            It said this was a first step toward a "comprehensive solution" that should include the lifting of UN sanctions imposed for Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

            Alluding to talk of a possible attack, Iraq called on the members of the Security Council, including the United States, to "respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq."

            But the White House called Iraq's offer a "tactical step" that will fail.

            "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions," a White House statement said. "It is time for the Security Council to act."

            The statement called for a "new, effective UN Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region and to the world."

            President George W. Bush has promised to seek "regime change" in Iraq and U.S. officials have refused to rule out military action regardless of whether inspections resume.
            “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

            Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

            Comment


            • #9
              Originally posted by Razzy@Mar 10 2004, 10:02 PM
              Iraq said several times leading up to the war that they would allow UN inspectors in to look for WMDs or evidence of a weapons program.
              Did they?
              When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

              Comment


              • #10
                Ketchup Kid - nuancing them to death:

                ************************

                Mar. 9, 2004
                America's three-candidate race
                By MARK STEYN


                Of all the many meaningless US election polls around at the moment, the one that tickled my fancy was an Associated Press thing from Friday. Here's the score: Bush 46%, Kerry 45%, Nader 6%.

                That's Nader, as in Ralph, the gadfly consumer advocate and declared "independent" presidential candidate. In the 2000 election, he got 3%, which embittered Democrats say was enough to throw the election to Bush. Well, some of the embittered Dems say that. The really embittered ones say Bush got his poppa's judges on the Supreme Court to throw the election to him.

                But the point is, if 3% for Ralph Nader was enough to throw a close election to Bush, 6% will be enough to throw him a landslide.

                That 6% ranking notwithstanding, Nader's a little short of visible supporters this time round, particularly when it comes to leftie celebrities. Horrified by the last four years, the big-time Nader backers of 2000 are now running cease-and-desist anti-Nader campaigns with names like "No, Ralph, No" – which sounds like a demure Democratic Party heroine squealing as the moustache-twirling Nader ties her to the tracks so that the Bush juggernaut can roll over her one more time.

                This year, the Democrats have a tough, forceful candidate with a strong message: as John Kerry is wont to say, often and slowly, "I'm on your side against the powerful special interests that control the Republican Party."

                And the Dems don't want this message getting all muddled up with Ralph's message: "I'm on your side against the powerful special interests that control the Democratic Party."

                Announcing his candidacy, Nader accused the Democrats of being "too indentured to corporations" and being a "corporate paymaster minion." Last time round, he dismissed governor Bush as "a corporation disguised as a human." This time round, John Kerry is a corporation disguised as an anti-corporate human.

                The senator is a mass of contradictions: He voted to support the war but against funding the troops. Which he says means he was against the war but does support the troops.

                To a certain type of Democrat, this is proof of how much more sophisticated Senator Kerry is: as The New York Times says approvingly, "he understands the nuances." But party chairman Terry McAuliffe and other operatives fret that his phony-baloney strictly-showbiz populism might look like thin gruel alongside the more or less genuine Nader version. They worry that Howard Dean's fired up a lot of young idealists who'll find demagogic equivocation too subtle a concept, but might be moved by the retro chic of the elderly crusader.

                He speaks to their youthful idealism. His entire foreign policy consists of a pledge to "support workers and peasants for a change instead of dictatorships."

                He's the only candidate still using the word "peasants" in a romantic Marxist-Leninist sense. Unlike Kerry, Nader's demagoguery has a certain epic quality (Europe has "eliminated poverty").

                AND, OF course, lurking in the Democrats' darkest nightmare is the spectre of November 2000: Nader angrily denies he's a spoiler, claiming that what he brings to the election are groups who wouldn't normally vote.

                That's true. In a normal election, the Supreme Court wouldn't have wound up voting, but, thanks to Ralph's showing in Florida, they did.
                The one-man third-rail of American politics insisted last time that at least a quarter of his supporters were Republican. On the face it, taxing every stock transaction and doubling the minimum wage don't seem very Republican positions.

                But I've spoken to one Republican and two Democrats about Nader, and the Republican is the only one who's voting for him. He's my New Hampshire neighbor, he's a conservative, and he's annoyed at excessive Homeland Security regulation of his maple-syrup business. Seriously.

                The Feds are concerned the sap lines could be poisoned by terrorists. He thinks the choice this fall is between unified government (ie, a Republican White House and Congress) and divided government, and he believes in the latter because nothing gets done, and the best way to shut Washington down would be to elect President Nader and a Republican Congress, and, even if he doesn't get elected, if enough small-government conservatives think as tactically as him, they'll throw the White House to President Kerry, which would work almost as well.

                The Democrat thesis goes like this: John Kerry surged when he had Howard Dean frothing alongside him and, by comparison, the Massachusetts droner looked like Mister Electable. Now the Vermonster's gone and the perception of Senator Kerry is in danger of reverting to the pompous thin-skinned weathervane trimmer of a year ago.

                What he needs is a Dean figure for the general election, so he can intone portentously, "I reject both the extreme right-wing politics of George W. Bush and the extreme left-wing politics of Ralph Nader. In this election, I am the moderate, mainstream, centrist candidate."

                This sounds reasonable as a general proposition, but a little more problematic once you get specific:

                "Mr. Bush supported the war in Iraq, Mr. Nader opposed it. I'm the only candidate who's shown the bold leadership to support and oppose it, in both cases ineffectually. Mr. Bush opposes gay marriage. Mr Nader supports it. I'm the only candidate with the courage to oppose it but not so much that I'll do anything about it. No, hang on, that's my position on Saddam. But the point is sometimes real leadership means having the courage not to have any courage."

                If I were the president, I'd call the Democrats' bluff on that one and demand Nader's presence in every debate.

                I'm with Ralph to that extent: More choice is good. And the minimum choice Americans are entitled to this November is a chance to vote for a pro-war candidate and an antiwar candidate.

                Bush is the pro-war guy. Kerry is attempting an artful straddle of those who are explicitly antiwar and those who are just weary of the whole thing and would like to go back to the fluffy cocoon of Clinton-era touchy-feely micro-politics.

                That doesn't seem fair. With Bush, Nader and Kerry on the ticket, the warmongers, peaceniks and somnabulants will all have a candidate.

                May the best man win, though by a wider margin than last time.

                The writer is senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc.
                And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                Comment


                • #11
                  The IAEA and the UN inspectors had reported several times in the years leading up to the war that it did not appear that Iraq had any WMDs left after the sanctions were enforced after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
                  Link?
                  Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Ralph Nader is a feckless puke...

                    I wish that azzwipe would just come out and say he's a communist and that wealth distribution should be based upon the tenets set out by Engles/Marx...

                    This guy is the biggest azzwipe in American politics...and that is saying something considering Dick Cheney is the VP...

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by WinstonSmith+Mar 10 2004, 10:06 PM-->
                      QUOTE (WinstonSmith @ Mar 10 2004, 10:06 PM)

                    • #14
                      Originally posted by lazydaze@Mar 10 2004, 10:11 PM
                      The IAEA and the UN inspectors had reported several times in the years leading up to the war that it did not appear that Iraq had any WMDs left after the sanctions were enforced after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
                      Link?
                      http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/375/fro0.htm

                      Unremitting sanctions
                      After a day-long meeting, the UN Security Council on Monday maintained UN sanctions against Iraq. The US, though acknowledging for the first time that Iraq had made progress in dismantling its banned nuclear weapons program, said it was too early to lift the seven-year old sanctions or to scale back wide-ranging nuclear inspections.
                      At its closed session, the Security Council concluded that there was no consensus among the 15 members to modify the sanctions regime. It adjourned an afternoon session to hear an unprecedented personal appeal from Iraqi Foreign Minister Said El-Sahhaf to lift the embargo. El Sahhaf reiterated that Baghdad no longer held any weapons of mass destruction. He also reassured the Council that Iraq would abide by the terms of the agreement signed with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in Baghdad last February. However, El Sahhaf's appeal was rejected.

                      The Security Council imposed sweeping sanctions in 1990 after Iraqi president Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

                      After a US-led forces drove the Iraqis from Kuwait, the council agreed to maintain the sanctions until UN inspectors certified that Iraq had destroyed all long-range missiles and chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.

                      A review to the sanctions is usually held every 60 days, but the process was suspended last June after Iraq obstructed weapons inspections.

                      Monday's review is the first since Iraq signed its deal with Annan to open all sites, including presidential compounds, to UN arms inspectors.

                      During a heated session, members of the Security Council questioned chief UN inspector Richard Butler on his latest six-month report. In his report, Butler stated that the standoff over presidential sites made it virtually impossible to determine if Iraq had complied with disarmament orders.

                      However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported that it has found no evidence that Iraq was still secretly constructing nuclear weapons.

                      Based on that finding, the US came under strong pressure from France, Russia and China who demanded that the council should acknowledge Iraq's cooperation and scale down nuclear inspections.

                      Russia circulated a draft resolution stating that Iraq has fully cooperated with UN inspectors on nuclear issues but would still be subject to inspections if the IAEA receives more information about its clandestine programme.

                      France said it was too early to lift sanctions but argued that the council should take stock of Iraq's progress in nuclear weapons.

                      Most outspoken was China's Deputy Ambassador Shen Guofang who argued that the weapons inspection programme should be closed down as soon as possible. He accused UNSCOM inspectors of behaving like "an army of occupation" and acting in an "arrogant and insolent manner".

                      Defending the US stance, White House spokesman Mike McCurry stated that "there is one narrow area involving the nuclear weapons programmes that have been reviewed carefully by the IAEA ... Aside from that area, we think that the conditions that would be necessary for broad-based sanctions relief don't present themselves because Saddam Hussein has not fully complied with the requirements the international community placed on them."

                      The US holds that more information are needed on nuclear enrichment, design and imports to Iraq in the past and that there is much that needs to be done on chemical and biological weapons as well as on human rights and accounting for prisoners taken from Kuwait in 1990.

                      Iraq has accused the US and Britain of manipulating the inspection programme to maintain sanctions indefinitely.

                      According to reports, US officials are concerned that effectively closing the book on Iraq's nuclear file might step up international pressure to end the sanctions prematurely. Nevertheless, Washington also fears an uncompromising stance will backfire and weaken international resolve to maintain the overall inspections and the sanctions programme.

                      Earlier, before the Security Council decision, Baghdad warned that if sanctions are not lifted it will no longer abide by the UN sanctions and will break the embargo.

                      In Baghdad, General Amer Saadi, an adviser to president Saddam Hussein, said that future ties with UNSCOM would be "determined in the light of the results of the Security Council debate". US Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson dismissed such threats as Iraqi "bluster".
                      “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

                      Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        In his report, Butler stated that the standoff over presidential sites made it virtually impossible to determine if Iraq had complied with disarmament orders.
                        From your article.


                        LONDON, England -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

                        UN Inspectors both of them. Head inspectors as a matter of fact. They don't seem as sure as you, razz.


                        As far as the new inspections. Here is the Feb 26th 2003 report.

                        United Nations — Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said February 26 that even with increased interaction between Iraq and the inspectors he has not seen any indication that Baghdad has made the fundamental decision to disarm.


                        How many times must we go through this.
                        Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                        Comment

                        • Working...
                          X