Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 187

Thread: 'Obama signaled Khamenei that U.S. could accept civilian nuclear program in Iran'

  1. #151
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Well those nations won't impose sanctions based on the claim by the US administration that a NPT signatory should be discriminated from its basic rights as a NPT member.
    Not at all. There were 4 rounds of sanctions voted by the UNSC and I would expect a 5th one if these talks fail.

    My problem with the logic behind these "talks" is that we're are not witnessing nowhere near a responsible debate. We went from halting enrichment to verify its process and notify the IAEA to cease all enrichment (hardly logical if Iran has to have a national nuclear program) to now give up your peaceful nuclear program but of course don't get out of the NPT.

    I said it before, anyone who witnesses this as an impartial observer, simply has to ask if we're not going back in time circa 1938.
    After full clarifications on this issue will be made, banning Iran from ever enriching or retreating spent fuel is on the contrary very logical and is in no way discriminatory.
    Take the example of SK. Since her breaches of the NTP, SK is banned from enriching to any level and retreating spent fuel. The claims Iran is submitted to discriminatory treatment are baseless.

  2. #152
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    Not at all. There were 4 rounds of sanctions voted by the UNSC and I would expect a 5th one if these talks fail.



    After full clarifications on this issue will be made, banning Iran from ever enriching or retreating spent fuel is on the contrary very logical and is in no way discriminatory.
    Take the example of SK. Since her breaches of the NTP, SK is banned from enriching to any level and retreating spent fuel. The claims Iran is submitted to discriminatory treatment are baseless.
    How is it logical? It simply breaches Articles 1 and 2 of the NPT. Unless you have other sources.

    Camera I will give you the following advice.

    Please check the timeline of events. South Korea had a agreement with the US to not seek any Nuclear weapons in 1974. It joined the NPT in 1975. In 1992 it hold joint talks and issued a declaration with the DPRK regarding enrichment and reprocessing (Both Koreas banned the said processes voluntarily).

    Then in 2004 the IAEA set up an inquiry regarding the ROK, it found discrepancies but was compelled to call them in other terms such as not to raise a fuss at the UNSC.

    http://carnegieendowment.org/files/i...pro_regime.pdf read page 12.

    I'm not even going to deal further with you. Either check your facts either I desist from argueing.

    The situation with Iran is completely different. Time and again I see that your bias stop you from discussing this issue in an intelligent manner.

  3. #153
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    World powers, Iran convene for nuclear talks

    [*******#666666][FONT=Arial]
    Negotiations unlikely to yield major breakthrough in deadlock over Iran's nuclear program but diplomats hope Tehran ready to discuss key issues
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    [*******#646464][FONT=Arial]
    Reuter$

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...215749,00.html[/FONT][/COLOR]

  4. #154
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    How is it logical? It simply breaches Articles 1 and 2 of the NPT. Unless you have other sources.

    Camera I will give you the following advice.

    Please check the timeline of events. South Korea had a agreement with the US to not seek any Nuclear weapons in 1974. It joined the NPT in 1975. In 1992 it hold joint talks and issued a declaration with the DPRK regarding enrichment and reprocessing (Both Koreas banned the said processes voluntarily).

    Then in 2004 the IAEA set up an inquiry regarding the ROK, it found discrepancies but was compelled to call them in other terms such as not to raise a fuss at the UNSC.

    http://carnegieendowment.org/files/i...pro_regime.pdf read page 12.

    I'm not even going to deal further with you. Either check your facts either I desist from argueing.

    The situation with Iran is completely different. Time and again I see that your bias stop you from discussing this issue in an intelligent manner.
    I know the facts you are speaking about and I know the story is complex and different. Up to now, Iran was proven to breach Articles 1 and 2. But Iran is also suspected by the IAEA for breaching Article 3. The problem is the IAEA can not clarify the issue because Iran does not comply to the resolutions of the UNSC to cooperate with the IAEA in full transparency.

    That was the reason why I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    (…)

    After full clarifications on this issue will be made
    , banning Iran from ever enriching or retreating spent fuel is on the contrary very logical and is in no way discriminatory.

    (…)
    The problem with you are your hasty conclusions on an issue on which your knowledge is poor.

  5. #155
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    I know the facts you are speaking about and I know the story is complex and different. Up to now, Iran was proven to breach Articles 1 and 2. But Iran is also suspected by the IAEA for breaching Article 3. The problem is the IAEA can not clarify the issue because Iran does not comply to the resolutions of the UNSC to cooperate with the IAEA in full transparency.

    That was the reason why I said:



    The problem with you are your hasty conclusions on an issue on which your knowledge is poor.
    Iran in breach of article 1 and 2 of the NPT? When? Iran may have been in breach of Article 3. And furthermore this still invalidates your claim that the ROK was banned from enriching from the NPT. It agreed to ban itself from enriching in two different bilateral agreements that have nothing to do with the NPT. It also was absolved by the NPT while it had expressedly breached Article 2.

    BTW you know where it is showing that you clearly ignore your stuff? When you claim Iran has been in breach of article 1.
    I think this alone should discard you from any sensible discussion. Read article 1 and understand why Iran can't RIGHT NOW, be suspected of breaching it. Now please close the door when leaving.

  6. #156
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Iran in breach of article 1 and 2 of the NPT? When? Iran may have been in breach of Article 3. And furthermore this still invalidates your claim that the ROK was banned from enriching from the NPT. It agreed to ban itself from enriching in two different bilateral agreements that have nothing to do with the NPT. It also was absolved by the NPT while it had expressedly breached Article 2.
    You are putting words in my mouth, because I never said "SK was banned from enriching from the NPT".
    SK is banned from enriching to any level (and from retreating spent fuel) by a bilateral agreement it reached with the US and which allowed to settle her issues with the IAEA.

    BTW you know where it is showing that you clearly ignore your stuff? When you claim Iran has been in breach of article 1.
    I think this alone should discard you from any sensible discussion. Read article 1 and understand why Iran can't RIGHT NOW, be suspected of breaching it. Now please close the door when leaving.
    So what?
    Iran breached article 3 in the past. It is suspected of breaching article 2 (in 2003 and maybe even at the present). Iran does not comply to UNSCRs to cooperate with the IAEA in full transparency and refused the inspection of Parchin just few weeks ago…
    As I said, when all will be clarified, I won't be surprised if Iran was banned from enriching to any level, voluntarily or not.
    Last edited by Camera; 04-14-2012 at 10:11 AM. Reason: confusion/reversion between two articles of the NPT

  7. #157
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    Default

    You're an incorrigible liar. Article 1 is aimed at Nuclear-Weapon states. Iran isn't and has never been a Nuclear weapon state. It can't be in breach of Article 1. It can't. Period.

    What I want to show? That this peculiar case shows that the NPT is being blatantly used for political pressure. It has nothing to do with the goals of the NPT and that Iran would face a first. Being *****ped from its rights despite not being proven guilty of any breach (unlike ROK which despite clearly in breach wasn't hit by UNSC sanctions or any NPT ban).

    IE the NPT is not a fair treaty. Easy.

  8. #158
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    You're an incorrigible liar. Article 1 is aimed at Nuclear-Weapon states. Iran isn't and has never been a Nuclear weapon state. It can't be in breach of Article 1. It can't. Period.
    Do you suggest I believe Iran is one of the 5 nuclear-States under the NPT?
    So the confusion/reversion involved Article 2/Article 3 and not with Article 1!
    I reedit the post…

    What I want to show? That this peculiar case shows that the NPT is being blatantly used for political pressure. It has nothing to do with the goals of the NPT and that Iran would face a first. Being *****ped from its rights despite not being proven guilty of any breach (unlike ROK which despite clearly in breach wasn't hit by UNSC sanctions or any NPT ban).

    IE the NPT is not a fair treaty. Easy.
    What do you
    I reedit the posts again and correct it again.
    Unlike Iran, ROK voluntarily revealed its breaches to the NPT in 2004. (Like South Africa and Libya did). That's why she was not sanctioned for them.

  9. #159
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    Do you suggest I believe Iran is one of the 5 nuclear-States under the NPT?
    So the confusion/reversion involved Article 2/Article 3 and not with Article 1!
    I reedit the post…



    Unlike Iran, ROK voluntarily revealed its breaches to the NPT in 2004. (Like South Africa and Libya did). That's why she was not sanctioned for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    I know the facts you are speaking about and I know the story is complex and different. Up to now, Iran was proven to breach Articles 1 and 2. But Iran is also suspected by the IAEA for breaching Article 3. The problem is the IAEA can not clarify the issue because Iran does not comply to the resolutions of the UNSC to cooperate with the IAEA in full transparency.
    That was the reason why I said:

    The problem with you are your hasty conclusions on an issue on which your knowledge is poor.
    Too bad is still there.

    Your pants are on fire.

  10. #160
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Too bad is still there.

    Your pants are on fire.
    I said already I confused the numeration of the Articles. A confusion that makes no sense because Iran is not a nuclear-State under the NPT.
    But my intentions were clear, unlike yours who not only ignore the UNSC resolutions, but also mess apples and oranges, in order to prove your agenda that Iran is a victim.

  11. #161
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    551

  12. #162
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IRN34 View Post
    The news are good indeed.
    All the reports say that unlike the previous meeting the approach by the Iranian delegation was constructive this time.
    It seems that Khamenei decided "to drink some of the poison of the jar".
    Should be interesting to know more details.

  13. #163
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Curules Equi. I'm Happy.
    Posts
    12,937

    Default

    Iranians bargaining. Doesn't get more classic than this. But at the end Iran will simply reset the safeguards. Once that would be done, the IAEA will have a hard time trying to conceal the political character of this row. Not that it will matter much for Israel or the US. As said before, the Iranian nuclear program is not the issue. The Iranian regime is.

  14. #164
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,636

    Default

    Netanyahu: Istanbul talks gave Iran a gift

    [*******#8F8F8F][*******#8F8F8F]By HERB KEINON[/COLOR][/COLOR]
    [*******#8F8F8F]04/15/2012 17:05
    [/COLOR]
    PM decries fact that next talks on May 23: "Iran now has 5 weeks during which it can continue to enrich uranium without limit."



    http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=266114

  15. #165
    On Belay... Climb on Climber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires in body, the beautiful and green Sharon in my heart
    Age
    46
    Posts
    11,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Iranians bargaining. Doesn't get more classic than this. But at the end Iran will simply reset the safeguards. Once that would be done, the IAEA will have a hard time trying to conceal the political character of this row. Not that it will matter much for Israel or the US. As said before, the Iranian nuclear program is not the issue. The Iranian regime is.
    USA and Europe problem is the Iranian regime, Israel problem is the nuclear weapons. You were talking in a thread to make another trip to israel, go and talk to the common people, and listen what they have to say.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •