Bookmark This: " UN HAILS IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT", July 13, 2007.

[The Cleaner]

Just in case they go to war with Iran, again, a complicit U.S. media NEVER NOT ONCE reported on this breakthrough.

Bookmark it, NOW!! While you still have the chance.

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency says it has reached a deal with Iran to allow new inspections and safeguards at key nuclear facilities.

Tehran will allow inspectors into Arak heavy water plant and agree safeguards at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant, the UN nuclear watchdog said.

The agency's deputy director described the deal as a framework for resolving a range of nuclear issues with Iran.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes, not bomb-making.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6897255.stm

[acmavm]

1. Why should this matter? Isn't the UN irrelevant anyway?

:sarcasm:

[bdamomma]

2. I heard about this, Tehran is going to let to inspectors in.

can someone tell cheney and bush please. we got to stop our lunatics in our own government.

[speakclearly]

3. This is NOTHING

This i merely an agreement to let UN inspectors visit some places that were previosly closed to them. Now that Iran has moved everything out to new underground facilities, it is willing to let UN inspectors in. That's pretty thin. This crisis is not over yet.

What should be hailed in the results of the new six-party talks in Korea. Korea has shut down its main reactor and is willing to turn over all nuclear capability to the UN inspectors. This was negotiated without the UN, and is a success for the region and the whole world! We can all hail this as remarkable since it is the first time a nuclear country has surrendered its capability!

Unfortunately, there are no six-party talks in Iran, which remains beligerant. This problem will escalate over the next several months (and probably years). We can all pray that it is resolved peacefully, but Iran seems to be in no mood to cooperate with the UN or anyone else! Israel has gien Iran (and the world) warning that something must be done in the next year, or they will take unilateral action. A crisis looms. Iran appears to be unwavering in its resolution to give militant Islam its first nuclear capability. Do they intend to attack anyone with it? Not at thise time. Would they give such a bomb to a terrorists, arm a terrorist group, or provide toxic materials to terrorists? That remains a possbility. A possibility that Israel is unwilling to be upon. They will likely take action, and then the world will be left with sorting things out afterwards. Isrrael will probably use conventional methods, so they world will "condemn" such a unilateral action, but is unlikely to do anything stronger (possibly some small resolutuion or limited economic action).Since such an attack may lead to radiological evidence of Iran's research into nuclear weponization, the Un would be much less likely to do more.

[1monster]

4. Haven't we heard this song and dance before? Besides, while I want to see

all nuclear weapons safely dismantled and all neclear weapons programs permanently done away with, I really fail to see why the US should have any right to say which countries can and cannot have nuclear weapons.

If Iran, Korea, Iraq, etc. should be banned from having nuclear weapons, then so should the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, etc. ad nauseum.

Any other way is hypocrisy,

[Summer93]

5. and Israel?

[daa]

6. And India? Pakistan? South Africa?

[1monster]

14. Please see the post #13. nt

[1monster]

13. If you note, I did put in "etc., ad nauseum" For those who don't know, etc. is an abbreviation for

etcetera, a latin word meaning and so on. And "ad nauseum" loosely translated from the latin is until one wants to throw up. (:evilgrin:)

Ergo, I did not list all of the countries that have nuclear weapons capabilities, just a few. Israel, Pakistan, India, and so on and so on and on....

[speakclearly]

15. Now there's a theory!.................

If the police have hancuffs, riot batons, and shotguns (not to mention pistols) why shouldn't we all? If they can wear bullet-proof vests, we should all be able to buy them! If the Army has tanks, why can't I? We should all be equal!

Except that is not the way it works! Do you want Mugabe to have nuclear weapons in Zimbabwe? Or how about Somalia. Or Sudan (that would solve Darfurfor sure!).

The reason is that a few nations developed nuclear weapons. They were very large nations. As the threat of nuclear proliferation raised its head. the Un met and developed a treaty to stop proliferation. Most nations on earth signed up to the treaty. It was believed that because the nations which had nuclear weapons where A) trustworthy, and B) philosophically opposed to each other, that a "balance' had been reached that would prevent any one nation or group of nations from dominating or enslaving the rest of the world. In order to protect all nations, it was believed (and is still believed by most world leaders and ethicists) it was better that other nations use their resources for internal developmetn rather than every nation spending large captial investments on developing nuclear weapons which they might then be tempted to use on political enemies or rival nations.

Imagine the outcome if Chad had nuclear weapons during the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis? Or if Cambodia had them and Pol Pot reigned supreme. Would El Salvador have used them against their insurgency? Would Argentina have used them during the conflict over the Falklands? Someday we may reach a period when all nations will give up nuclear weapons. We have not reached that point yet. Yet we do have a "balance" where nations who do have the technology are reluctant to use them. If Iran had nukes, would they be tempted to fulfil their prophecy of "wiping Israel off the map"? And if all nations had such weapons, would they exercise restraint if they thought a surgical strike was the only alternative that could be used to defend themselves? Would Lebanon hit Syria after they assassinated one of their senior political leaders? Would Serbia have hit Bosnia? Would Turkey use it against the Kurds in Iraq?

[1monster]

16. No. I don't. I stated that I didn't want anyone to have nuclear weapons. Period.

However, how is Mugabee so much different than *? Both are certifiably NUTS. Both are egomaniacal sociopathic psychopaths.

They question really should be Do you want any of them to have nuclear weapons on Earth?

Except that is not the way it works! Do you want Mugabe to have nuclear weapons in Zimbabwe? Or how about Somalia. Or Sudan (that would solve Darfurfor sure!).

[The Doctor.]

9. This is great news...

"Korea has shut down its main reactor and is willing to turn over all nuclear capability to the UN inspectors. This was negotiated without the UN, and is a success for the region and the whole world! We can all hail this as remarkable since it is the first time a nuclear country has surrendered its capability!"

That's excellent!

I take it the UN had nothing to do with it... right?

Somehow I think you might have forgotten the OP you were responding to when you wrote this though;
"but Iran seems to be in no mood to cooperate with the UN or anyone else!"

Ummm... perhaps you could explain just what body the IAEA is a party to. I must be missing something.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Enjoy your stay.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. oh shit! those sneaky Iranians done hid their WMDs in underground bunkers!

LMAO! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Would these be the same underground storage facilities that Saddam hid his WMDs in??

[LSK]

7. so thats why they are shifting the focus to Iran supporting the Insurgency

[HonorTheConstitution]

8. That can't be true! It was not reported on Faux News

[Disturbed]

11. The Busholini Regime and their Fascist Multi-Corp backers

would love to blow Iran's nuke facilities to smithereens and take over their Oil. It would be insane to do so but then look who is in power now. I don't think it will happen but am worried that it could.

[conspirator]

12. At some point Saddam also allowed the inspectors in n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Kick!!!!!

[Gloria]

18. Good analysis here at Asia Times Online.....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG18Ak02.html

Brave new world of Iranian nuclear cooperation
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Iran's objective of getting its nuclear dossier out of the hands of the United Nations Security Council and back to its "proper forum", the International Atomic Energy Agency, was leapfrogged last week by the IAEA's high-level visit to Iran that culminated in a "serious and substantial" agreement heralding a new level of Iran-IAEA cooperation.

Heinonen, said that Iran agreed on four or five steps. "If the cooperation continues like this, we hope that the problems will be solved, not now but in a reasonable future," Heinonen has been quoted as saying.

If all goes as planned, Iran and the IAEA will draw up a plan of action within the next 60 days to resolve all the "outstanding issues", which include "information relevant to the assembly of centrifuges, the manufacture of centrifuge components ... and research and development of centrifuges or enrichment techniques".

MORE