Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (130031)	4/25/2004 9:19:07 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 281500

'Complete story' offered to nuke inspectors TEHRAN (AP) — Iran said Saturday it has offered the "complete story" to the UN nuclear watchdog about traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium and documents pertaining to advanced centrifuges, in the expectation that the international body would clear Iran's nuclear programme off its investigative agenda. Mohammed Saeedi, a top Iranian nuclear official, told The Associated Press the information was submitted to five prominent International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who visited various nuclear and non-nuclear sites in Iran in a two-week visit. The inspectors, who arrived in Iran April 12, left Tehran Friday, he said. Another team of IAEA inspectors arrived Saturday for "routine inspections," Saeedi said, giving no further details. Saeedi, director of the International Affairs Department at the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, said the two-week visit "clarified the remaining ambiguities on Iran's nuclear programme." "We offered them the complete story about traces of highly enriched uranium, mainly all movements of contaminated equipment inside Iran," Saeedi said. "Iran also provided answers to all of their questions and cleared ambiguities related to the Iranian nuclear activities," he said. Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs. IAEA experts last year found traces of highly enriched uranium at two Iranian sites on equipment Iran says was "contaminated" before it was purchased from international nuclear black market dealers. Suspicions about Iran's programme heightened last year when the IAEA revealed that its inspectors found radioactive particles that had been enriched to weapons-grade level — higher than what Iran requires for fuel for a nuclear reactor. Earlier this year, inspectors also discovered an advanced P-2 centrifuge programme that Iran had not reported to the UN agency. Saeedi said Iran explained to the IAEA inspectors that it had conducted research on the advanced P-2 centrifuges but not produced them. "I think they were convinced with our explanations. We explained how far we had progressed in our research," he said. Saeedi said Iran has not yet decided whether to produce advanced P-2 centrifuges — equipment that could be used to enrich uranium for use in a weapon. Iran has confirmed that it has produced P-1 centrifuges, which are used for low-grade enrichment. The official said the five inspectors, who visited Natanz and other Iranian sites, also verified and confirmed that Iran has stopped building and assembling centrifuges, a device for uranium enrichment. "From our side, we have answered all questions. Nothing remains ambiguous now," Saeedi insisted. IAEA officials were not immediately available for comment Saturday. Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under strong international pressure over the aims and dimensions of its nuclear programme but it continued to build centrifuges. Finally, it said it has stopped building and assembling centrifuges earlier this month. The United States and other nations accuse Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons programme and are pushing the United Nations to impose sanctions. Tehran insists it has only a peaceful nuclear energy programme. IAEA chief Mohammed Baradei hopes to present an assessment of Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA board of governors in June. Iran wants the IAEA to remove Iran's nuclear dossier from its agenda at that meeting June. Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani said last week Iran will "definitely react" if its nuclear dossier is not closed by then, but said, "I don't think the reaction will be to withdraw from NPT." Sunday, April 25, 2004 posted in Jordan news.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (130031)	4/25/2004 9:24:56 AM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<The US has no coherent policy in Iraq. It was duped into attacking Iraq by Israel who wanted to eliminate the little bit of support to the Palestinian people. The US has no goals of its own in Iraq>> Let me guess Sarmad you are a Muslim and maybe of Arab descent as well?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (130031)	4/25/2004 11:26:03 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Le'ts ask the question this way, if the Iraqi army was occupying towns in the US, would it be proper and moral and patriotic for Americans to drive out the occupiers? If my intent was to resist the occupation in order to restore some previous un-democratic and corrupt regime to power, then certainly.. And if I had another agenda, such as installing a totalitarian Christian militant regime into power, certainly. But if I'm someone who never favored the oppression and corruption of the previous regime, and the Iraqi army represented both liberal political and economic values, I would probably welcome and support them. I just get sick of some of the conspiracy theories about "the US just wants our oil".. As if they really believed the oil belonged to them under Saddam Hussein. It certainly didn't belong to them under the oil for food program, as we're finding out from the scandal that is being revealed where upwards of 20% of the proceeds were embezzeled by French, Russian, Indonesian, and other accessories to this economic crime. I think you are forgetting that before anyone in Falluja attacked any occupation soldier, the US was dropping bombs on Falluja in the first days of the US attack on Iraq. And I would remind you that many of the Special Republican Guard forces came from Fallujah and Tikrit. They were hell-bent on organizing an armed resistance, which would facilitated by tribal chiefs and many in the population who sensed their priviledged lifestyle under Saddam was threatened. They WERE one of the hearts of the Baathist regime. So to claim that they were somehow "innocent" is ridiculous. They are a town where smuggling and organized crime were so prolific that even Saddam had difficulty controlling them. I wouldn't know. But from appearances Iraq's people are against the US occupation. And from what I've read in many Iraq related blogs, many Iraqis are definitely FOR maintaining a US presence, or at least averting the return of the thuggery that would deny them any chance of economic hope. messopotamian.blogspot.com healingiraq.blogspot.com iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com deeds.blogspot.com iraqthemodel.blogspot.com A brutal government that would be obsessed with security and retribution. It would keep Iraqis killing each other for a generation. Which I think is the basic motivator of US policy in this invasion of Iraq. That's just BS Sarmad.. We could have done that already, had we wanted to. After all, the UN certainly hasn't played a role in shaping the government there until recent months. The US has spent some $100 Billion in military and humanitarian aid on trying to recarve a democratic future in Iraq. Do you see any other nation willing to spend that much on a people that seemed to perceive them as occupiers? Give me a break.. We're doing it because its important, and because the American people understand that just leaving the Iraqi people to their fates would only lead to a similar situation that occurred in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew and no longer cared about them. But now it's different. We need Iraq to modernize, politically and economically, in order to represent itself as an example to the rest of the region that muslims ARE capable of democratic institutions. But if you think the Iraqi people are going to get a "better deal" from any other nation, I think you are simply naive. No one, BUT THE US, has a vested interest in stability in Iraq. Certainly not Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria. And they will likely continue to work against US aims until they no longer can resist the trend. There was no poverty in Iraq until the US imposed a siege of Iraq with daily bombing raids from 1991 to 2003, and when that was not deemed sufficiently Please quote sources.. The Iran-Iraq war was BLEEDING Iraq dry.. Iraqi GDP per capita continued to decline all through that period. And then Saddam invaded Kuwait (with the popular approval of the Iraqi people).. So who are they to blame for their condition? They should be blaming themselves, because they facilitated Saddam's aspirations. Iraqi governments had kept out foreign agents for the past 80 years. At what cost? Brutal repression.. hundreds of thousands executed... extensive poverty and corruption... economic stagnation, foreign aggression.. Is this what you're advocating occur again? So how with they do it now? Where's their army? Who will pay for it? Iraq is economically crippled and now vulnerable to being torn to pieces. Again, Sarmad... What about the foreign agents from Iraq's neighbors ALL hoping to meddle and dictate the future of Iraq? Where's the blame they should be receiving for the recent events in Iraq? But it doesn't make sense. he other thing that doesn't make sense, is why did Sadr seek refuge in the areas where Sistani has influnce (Najef and Karbala)? Because Sistani doesn't want to evoke a civil war within the shiite community that could be taken advantage of by the Sunnis, that's why... Sadr wanted Al-Hakim's position, and he resented his reconciliation with Al-Khoei.. It threatened his power base and that threat had to be removed and his rivals left leaderless. Both Al-Khoei and Al-Sadr come from powerful Shiite families, and both were rivals to the succession of Al-Sistani's position when he eventually dies. What's so difficult to understand about that? You need to stop thinking about all of these conspiracy theories. The US doesn't want to remain in Iraq. All we want is for their to be economic and political progress so that we're not threatened by Islamic militancy in the future. We need to eradicate the poverty and religious intolerance that facilitates this militancy. That's our agenda.. And it should be the same agenda that the majority of Iraqis should desire. Hawk

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (130031)	4/25/2004 12:30:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Le'ts ask the question this way, if the Iraqi army was occupying towns in the US, would it be proper and moral and patriotic for Americans to drive out the occupiers? Americans would consider it an option on the table. But if the occupiers had just deposed a brutal tyranny, and said they wanted to help restore democracy, Americans would look for the political advantage in a cooperative strategy, even if it meant helping fight the ex-dictator's policemen. But then Americans can organize themselves in politically sane ways to begin with, so the question wouldn't arise.