Talk:Nuclear programme of Iran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Created Archive
I created the second archive of the discussion as it was greatly needed. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 16:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Titles
It seems that the title 2000-2006 was no good, because the next section was entitled August 31 2006 - 2007 I believe. In any case, I changed it to 2000-August 2006 However, the first entry there is 2002, so we should change it to 2002-August 2006 perhaps? Why can't we just put everything from 2006 in the same section? that would be cleaner. This is minor, I know, but it is bugging me ;-) N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disturbing pro-Iran bias on this page
I am shocked at the heavy pro-Iran bias in this discussion. There is no hint that Iran persistently violated its safeguards agreement with the IAEA for nearly two decadees, as the IAEA reported to the Board of Governors in November 2003 [1], which the Board of Governors recognized as noncompliance in September 2005 [2] and asked that it be reported to the UN Security Council in February 2006 [3]. The nuclear activities that Iran deliberately concealed from the IAEA -- in violation of the safeguards agreement it undertook pursuant to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- are those most directly related to the development of a nuclear weapons capability, namely uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing.
It is unfortunately true that IAEA Director General ElBaradei said that there was no "evidence" that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Such a statement is both ouside the IAEA's responsibility (to detect and report diversions and noncompliance) and was based on a tortured reading of the word "evidence" as tantamount to "proof." There is ample circumstantial evidence that Iran was pursuing the development of a nuclear weapons capability -- perhaps not weapons themselves but the key capability to produce material that can be used in weapons. This evidence comes both from the fact that Iran pursued enrichment and reprocessing capabilities in violation of its NPT safeguards obligations and from the fact that it lacks a plausible economic justification for an enrichment program. In general, a country would need a large number of operating nuclear power plants for investment in an enrichment capability to make economic sense, where Iran lacks even a single operating nuclear power plant.
Indeed, Dr. ElBaradei has noted that Iran's actions have created a "confidence deficit," and that it is up to Iran to take action to restore confidence. Iran has been offered assistance in nuclear power and an assured supply of nuclear fuel, if it takes the but only if Iran suspendes its enrichment program. These offers would provide a much more rapid and reliable means for Iran to meet its future energy needs than its current course. The fact that Iran continues to reject these offers further erodes international confidence in its intent.
The UN Security Council is the competent international authority responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council has the authority to demand action by a UN Member State if necessary to maintain international peace and security. Acting under that authority, the Council has demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment program [4]. Iran's refusal to do so is a violation of international law and compounds concerns over Iran's intentions. NPguy 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline of Nuclear programme of Iran
Because this article was too long(102 kb) I moved Timeline which was 32kb to a new article:Timeline of Nuclear programme of Iran--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Substitution of the template
I substitute the template of government of Iran with Nuclear programme of Iran. I think it's more relevant and useful.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] British English?
An anon changed all spellings of "program" to British English in May 2006[5]. Nobody seems to have asked why. It was previously in American English before this. WP:MOS says that you stick with one and don't switch it around much — it should have been reverted at the time, there is no reason to prefer British English here, and up until one unilateral and anonymous change it was in American English. I'm changing it back now. --Fastfission 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why has this been converted to BRITISH? The aticle was written in American English. Why should this article be converted to BRITISH english. This is something that needs to be discussed and not drive-by converted. Bl4h 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't. I don't know about the history of this article, but two wrongs don't make one right. --SLi 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)