[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
No, it makes perfect sense for Iran to have nuclear reactors in order to sustain their energy needs. After all they sit atop one of the worlds largest oil reserves
[/QUOTE]
that oil is enough of a reason to liberate them...
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**No, it makes perfect sense for Iran to have nuclear reactors in order to sustain their energy needs. After all they sit atop one of the worlds largest oil reserves
[/QUOTE]
*
Iran has already allowed the IAEA access to its country - what more can anyone want?
...Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, said the US was not competent to judge his country's nuclear work. "The IAEA is the only competent body to supervise activities of member states on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons," Mr Kharrazi said. The IAEA inspected the country in February and is due to issue a report next month.
Nadia, come on you really think Iran is building these things for energy production? It makes no sense...by the time they run out of oil there will be energy technologies that surpass nuclear energy technology by leaps and bounds. The argument that they are creating these reactors for peaceful purposes is bunk and would be laughable if it were in a movie.
Why should US prove anything, they will show some satellite imagery, claim it to be irrefutable evidence of Iran producing nuclear weapons, invade the country kill thousands of innocent people and then declare that their actual aim was to liberate Iran, as evidenced by 500 people dancing in Tehran square while the US tanks pull down a statute. After all in democracy 500 matters more than the other 35 million, why? because they are pro American. 
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**Nadia, come on you really think Iran is building these things for energy production? It makes no sense...by the time they run out of oil there will be energy technologies that surpass nuclear energy technology by leaps and bounds. The argument that they are creating these reactors for peaceful purposes is bunk and would be laughable if it were in a movie.
[/QUOTE]
*
To be honest i have no idea what Iran is producing this for - it could be for more sinister purposes than they publically acknowledge.
Then again, i would imagine that since they perceive themselves to be situated within a regional neighbourhood that is armed to the teeth - some with nuclear arsenals of their own - some Iranians might perceive this as fully within their sovereign rights to protect themselves. i would want them to allow IAEA access to the country - which so far they have done.
So what if Iran is producing arsenal for military purposes!
I just hope thay build it in time to defend their nation against the US.
It's Iran next then Algeria, then Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros Islands, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait , Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia,Sudan,Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Yemen!
Get the picture and pattern?
How about following the rules the IAEA setups and Iran agreed to? Asking to much?
…
Iran Didn’t Comply with UN Nuclear Obligations
VIENNA (Reuters) - A report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency says Iran failed to comply with its nuclear safeguards agreement, though the agency also said Tehran was taking steps to rectify this, a diplomat said on Friday.
A diplomat from an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) member country, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, quoted from the report as saying:
“Iran has failed to meet its obligations under its safeguards agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities where that material was stored and processed.”
The diplomat said the report also explained that the quantities were not large and that steps were being taken to bring Iran into compliance with its safeguards agreement.
Safeguards agreements with the IAEA are to ensure that nuclear materials and facilities in nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) member countries cannot be diverted to secret nuclear weapons programs.
Last month, Reuters reported that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei would tell the agency’s Board of Governors on June 16 that Iran had committed minor violations of the NPT.
Washington has accused Iran of violating the NPT and believes it has ambitions of developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies this and says that its nuclear program is solely for the peaceful generation of electricity.
The IAEA declined to comment on the quote from the report when contacted by Reuters
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2889751
**
Interesting quote.
It’s also a bit strange that, when it comes to Iran, the IAEA assumes all-powerful importance. Yet when Blix and the IAEA were dismissing claims that Iraq possessed significant quantities of WMD, the IAEA was given secondary importance. i wonder why 
Is the US going to liberate Iran now? Just like they did in 1979?
They're trying to hard to show people they care about the average Irani. They had the chance back then, but they were too busy supporting the opressor, Shah of Iran. Same old story eh?
About Iran having nukes kenny and supporting terror groups, pay attention.
yeah, well its obvious where this is gonna lead to. Just getting to the point.
So.. what of this deal with Russia?? It will still stand even if Iran doesn't play by the rules? This announcement came how many hours after W declared Putin a friend (but not Schröder or Chirac) and signed some kinda paper with him that talked bout nukes?
Yes, Nadia, it is interesting that the UN's atomic agency has suddenly reclaimed its "relevance". Give them a few inspections yielding good news and they will soon return to the dust bin.
On the matter of it being "laughable" to conceive that Iran may have peaceful intentions in developing nuclear technology, perhaps. But then again, would "peaceful" refer to offensive or defensive measures? Iran has a strategic interest to pursue such technology given their setting. We may have a strategic interest to counter their moves, but that in itself does not make their motives false or dangerous.
Iran Nuclear Program & Russia](http://www.cdi.org/russia/260-9.cfm)
“I believe that in order to reconcile George W. Bush of the United States after Russia’s nasty behavior regarding Iraq, and in order to get Congress[ional] approval to remove [the] Jackson-Vanik amendment, now Russia shows its constructive attitude toward Iran. But later on, it can change by saying that there is no evidence about Iran’s [nuclear] military ambitions,” Mr. Volk said. …
Aside from the value of Russia’s nuclear deals with Iran, another factor limiting President Putin’s ability get tough, as President Bush would like, is support for Iran in the Russian political and military establishment.
More:
Confounding US and Britain, Russia says nuclear link with Iran still on
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
About Iran having nukes kenny and supporting terror groups, pay attention.
[/QUOTE]
No proof.
But we know the US has nukes, and is now supporting terrorist groups against Iran, that previously Saddam supported.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
is now supporting terrorist groups against Iran, that previously Saddam supported.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. No one is supporting MEK.
The US is going to share nukes with Iraqi-based terrorists!
Report: Iran Nuke Experts Visited N.Korea This Year](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42761-2003Jun11.html)
– …