Is the world coming around to what the U.S. "told ya' so?" ------- Europe Sets Deadline for Iran on Weapons link to story Europe's major powers have agreed to set a November deadline on Iran to meet demands meant to resolve concerns that it is secretly trying to make nuclear weapons, in a confidential document made available Saturday to The Associated Press. The draft resolution was prepared by France, Germany and Britain for Monday's start of a key meeting in Vienna, Austria, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The draft contains a so-called "trigger mechanism," warning of possible "further steps" which diplomats defined as shorthand for referral of Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose economic and political sanctions. The draft is likely to undergo changes before the three nations submit it at the board meeting of the IAEA. And it still has to be approved by two-thirds of the 35 board members. But it is significant because it puts the three European countries the closest they have formally been to the United States on what to do about Iran and activities that Washington insists show Tehran is trying build the nuclear bomb. Up to now, the European countries have resisted U.S. attempts to have Iran hauled before the Security Council or even hint on a date for such possible action. Iran says its nuclear program is solely for energy production. The draft says Iran must suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment including manufacturing of centrifuges and must meet all requirements posed by the IAEA in its probe into Iran's nuclear activities before IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports to the board again in November. On the basis of ElBaradei's report, the board will "probably" make a "definite determination on whether or not further steps are required," the draft said. "This is a 'trigger' that can be pulled if the November board deems it necessary," said one diplomat. While the last board meeting in June censured Iran for past cover-ups and warned it has little time left to disprove it has a nuclear weapons program, it didn't impose a deadline or even indirectly threaten sanctions. But since then, Iran's earlier commitments to stop some uranium enrichment and related activities have eroded alienating the three European nations. Enriched uranium can be used to generate electricity or make nuclear weapons. Iran last year agreed to freeze enrichment programs but has since resumed testing, assembling and making centrifuges, a key component of such activities. Last week, it confirmed an IAEA report that it planned to convert more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the gas put into centrifuges for enrichment. Iran's original suspension pledge came in a deal with Britain, Germany and France but fell short of European demands that Tehran scrap enrichment. Iran is not obliged to halt enrichment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but Tehran has been under international pressure for more than a year to fully renounce enrichment to counterbalance suspicions generated by nearly two decades of clandestine nuclear activities that came to light only two years ago. On Tuesday, it offered to re-impose a partial freeze on some of those activities, in an apparent move to deflect growing international exasperation ahead of Monday's meeting. But diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP they had not heard of a concrete agreement with the IAEA on that issue by Saturday. The text of the draft had no reference to any commitment by Tehran to re-impose its enrichment freeze. The draft has some positive language. It notes "the general positive ... Iranian cooperation" with the IAEA, while asserting that "the process of providing information needs, in certain instances, to be accelerated." But it notes "with serious concern ... that Iran has not heeded repeated calls from the board to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." It "deeply regrets" that Iran's partial freeze of enrichment and related programs falls "significantly short" of what the IAEA wants "and also that Iran has since reversed some of those decisions." The draft expresses concern about Iran's plans to convert its raw uranium into hexafluoride. And it "urges Iran to immediately and verifiably to suspend all enrichment-related activities, notably the manufacture of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and the production of feed material." It asks ElBaradei to present a comprehensive review of his two-year investigation into Iran's nuclear programs, a record of Tehran's cooperation and a judgment on Iran's willingness to fully suspend "all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
I think if Europe sets this deadline, then Europe oughtta do the dirty work this time. Let these guys get in to it, and see who they come crying to for help.
Not exactly. The EU aint looking for WMD like US did in Iraq, which could easily be destroyed or hidden away somewhere in the desert, and I don't mean to imply I strongly believed there was WMD in Iraq. This is about having the capability to produce nuclear products, even nuclear weapons. Imagine one your lunatic Muslim brother over there, not literally, got a hold of some of these stuffs. All hell will break loose. The same goes for the situations in Pakistan.
i hear if iran doesn't comply europe will give them a stern talking to and then give negotiations more time. but after that, watch out, because the next talking to could be nasty.
Yeah! It's ALL America's fault! I mean, sheesh, America sucks. Riiiiiight. Peace and LOVE, man. Pass the doobie. N'stuff. Sooo, back to reality: Someone posts something relating to other countries (maybe) finally waking up, and its STILL America's fault? Or is it just W's fault? I've lost count by now. Christ, I've been reading your crap for years now. When are you going to wake up and realize that these crazy zealots want to f*cking kill us and every other civilized nation who sits there and p***y-foots around and won't take a stand for fear of offending someone? Maybe we should be like Spain and prove that cowardly acts will lead to people bending over with a tube of lube in hand. Oh! Wait! My hand is up! Can we PLEASE beat the hell out of these nutty people who willingly kill not only innocent adults and civilians, but f*cking children as well??? Sounds like a great idea to me. Christ man, wake the f*ck up. Go ahead, America. Take a stand. And if you have to, f*ck some sh*t up.
France sent themselves into Afghanistan. The rest of the world has looked askance at Germany, as well as Japan, throwing their military around, outside their borders, since the end of WWII. I'm getting more than a bit tired of this knee-jerk bashing of both countries. They also have their own domestic political considerations to contend with. The great majority of their populations were, and are, opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They weren't opposed to the same thing in Afghanistan. Iran is a different situation. Unlike Iraq, they do possess an advanced nuclear program. Diplomacy will be attempted and, if it fails, other steps will be taken. Whether we have the means, in Iran and North Korea, to do something about it, because of our adventure in Iraq, is another topic altogether. Were it not for that adventure in Iraq, I suspect that we would be in close consultations with our Allies, which we would have far better relations with, about what to do with both countries. My opinion, naturally.
some would argue there already is one lunatic over there that has a hold of this stuff (Musharraf): "The possession of nuclear weapons by any state obviously implies they will be used under some circumstances." luckily, the US has been able to crack the whip and keep him in check.
Funny how different the motivation is when a government run by radical relgious leaders is aiming to get the bomb, and it is in Europe's backyard. DD
Interesting how they didn't have the same concern about the secular government of Saddam. I think it was more a lack of concern about him possessing nukes anytime in the next few years, and that he was having his country monitored very closely, than that his dictatorship was secular. The available intelligence just wasn't convincing regarding Saddam as a near-term threat. North Korea, of course, is Madman Across the Water. (hope someone got my Elton John reference ) Iran and North Korea, along with Afghanistan, should have been our focus. Bush chose a radically different course and, as a result, we face a far more difficult series of decisions. Not only that, but the countries of concern are keenly aware of just how tied down in Iraq we are. For the life of me, I can't understand the Right's love affair with Bush. He has made a whole raft of bad decisions, but he remains the darling of the Republican Right regardless.
I'd disagree. I think that many of the republicans on this board don't agree with George Bush on a lot of what he does. We just see him as the best choice in this election. Everyone has their opinions, not all of us follow him blindly because we are able to see shades of grey. He isn't 100% evil or 100% good, but he's got good points and bad ones. We just see his good points as being more of an advantage in the areas we think are important, thats all.
The French had supplied Saddam with a nuclear power plant, which Israel blew up. But now that a militant Radical Muslim theocracy is trying to get them, someone over there had a dose of uh-ohs... DD
Going by that post, I wouldn't describe you as Republican Right. The Republican Party I grew up watching was made up of a wide variety of views. The leadership of that party used to accommodate that diversity pretty well. You had very moderate Republicans, liberal Republicans, who felt strongly enough about certain social issues to describe themselves that way, but had a differing viewpoint from Democrats, in the main, about economic issues, and how government interacted with business. The Republican leadership of today wouldn't have a place for a Nelson Rockefeller or Everett Dirksen, for example. It's one of the things that bothers me at times about D&D. We seem to have Republicans of a more moderate nature frequently drowned out by the strident posts of the Far-Right variety, which is a damn shame. I'm sure some of those moderate Republicans would say that some of our liberal members do the same. Sometimes I might agree with that, but more often than not, I would say that it's more of a problem from the far-right members. You have to take consideration of my own political views when I say that. I've been called pretty much every derogatory name in the book by the people I'm mentioning, yet I have a more conservative view on matters like defense than that of many of our more liberal posters here. That fact doesn't seem to matter to most of them. We are all lumped into the same group. I try not to do that myself, regarding the conservative members here. mrpaige and MadMax come to mind very easily, as do some others that I respect very much and who are very "open minded" regarding different issues. In short, you can't neatly label people and put them into a box, yet that happens here over and over again.
yes because religion was clearly referenced as a reason to try to get them to stop with the nuke building great point!!!
He aint no lunatic, just another dictator who happens to be on our side. I dont even think he is a Muslim. No way he would try to blow himself up, 'cause there won't be 50 virgins waiting for him in heaven. The real danger is when someone else blows him up instead.
