SalMUN 2009
Welcome to SalMUN 2009 Forum!
First time on the forum? please read the instructions!
In order to post, please login =)
If you already saw this message, you may cancel it.
SalMUN 2009

This forum is a lobbying place for MUN delegates to get prepared for the actual SalMUN 2009 Conference in Bahia!


You are not connected. Please login or register

Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 4]

76 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 5th 2009, 19:14

Delegate, what liar told you that the Shababs 3 and 4, No-Dong and the IRIS are nuclear facilities? They are long-ranged missiles and rocket launchers respectively, not much different than the ones Israel possesses... little toys granted by the United States if you may. Again, could you pinpoint exactly in what clause of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran is in defiance with? By the way, should I repeat myself in saying that being a country non-signatory to this treaty you have ZERO CREDIBILITY to speak on behalf of what my country fails to accomplish under its charter?

Russian delegate, though I am appreciative of the point you stressed, please elaborate on why you voted in favor of Security Council resolutions 1696 and 1737.

See you soon,
Delegation of Iran

View user profile

77 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 5th 2009, 19:33

Thank you delegate of Russia. Finally ther is someone who understands that Iran is not a threat.
The delegate of Israel has listed many researches facilities located in Iran but none of them has been proved to be a nuclear weapon storage facility or a nuclear weapon assembly facility. Israel's facilities have been proved to be nuclear assembly facility, such as Yodefat, and nuclear weapons storage facilities, such as Kfar Zekharia. All of Iran's facilities are for peaceful purposes only.
Anarak: A waste storage site.
Arak: This facility is suposed to replace the life-expired Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor which was involved in the production of radioisotopes for medical and agricultural purposes.
Ardakan: Nuclear fuel site.
Bonab: Used for research of nuclear technology in agriculture.
Bushehr: It is a pressurized water reactor built by the Russian company Atomstroiexport.
Chalus: In 1995, Europe claimed that Iran was building a secret facility for building nuclear weapons. In 2003, the director of the IAEA (Mohamed ElBaradei) stated "In terms of inspections, so far, we have been allowed to visit those sites to which we have requested access"
Darkovin: Domestically built nuclear power plant.
Isfahan: It is a nuclear research facility that operates four small nuclear research reactors.
Karaj: it is the Center for Agricultural Research and Nuclear Medicine.
Lashkar Abad: It is a pilot plant for isotope separation.
Lavizan: It was the Lavizan-Shian Technical Research Center. It was demolished between August 2003 and March 2004. Environmental samples taken by IAEA inspectors showed no sign of radiation.
Natanz: it is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP). It was visited by Mohamed ElBaradei.
Parchin: The Parchin Military Complex is not presently known to be a nuclear site. This was discovered on 1 November 2005, when the IAEA was given access to the site and environmental samples were taken. Inspectors did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material.
Qom: It is a Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant.
Saghand: Iran's uranium ore mines.
Tehran: It is a facility able to produce 600 g of Plutonium annualy spent in fuel. It would take 17 years to build one atomic bomb, however the waste is monitored by the IAEA and Plutonium has not been extracted since Iran signed the NPT.
Yazd: Yazd Radiation Processign Center is engaged in geophysical research to analyze the surrounding mineral deposits. It plays a great role in medicine and polymer industries.
So delegate, nobody has proved that Iran has nuclear bombs. Each of its facilities have their own PEACEFUL purpose unlike the ones in Israel as I mentioned before.

View user profile

78 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 5th 2009, 21:01

Of course no one has proved Iran has nuclear bombs. They don't have them yet. But they are trying. In order to fire a nuclear bomb, one must have the ballistic capabilities and the nuclear resources. If Iran was focusing exclusively on the nuclear power, the situater would be far simpler. Problem is, reports have shown that the country is developing Ballistic missile technology, which puts its nuclear program (supposedly for energy) in check. Situation must be re-evaluated before any decision is taken but it is of prime importance that Iran's ballistic technology be confiscated and its development of the same be terminated.

View user profile

79 russia on November 5th 2009, 21:22

Russian delegate:
Take Russia as an example? When Russian officials estimate that organized crime is connected to around 50% of Russia's economy. 40% of private buisinesses, 50%-85% of banks, and 60% of state enterprises are owned by criminals. Firms in Russia must pay 10% or more of their profits as protection money. Is this a good example for other countries to follow? The Israeli delegate wishes to know why the Russian delegate sees this as superior to the behavior of other countries such as the U.S.? Russia has given the FARC and ELN thousands of AK-47s. The Director of the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy, Barry McCaaffrey, 8%-13% of all cocaine shipped to Europe is shipped through criminal controlled Russian routes. An example? Of what?

View user profile

80 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 5th 2009, 23:09

Delegate from the United Kingdom, your country seems to have been granted by the Israeli delegation one of Israel's most popular technologies today: a crystal ball. Congratulations for the acquisition, the Iranian delegation didn't have the same luck of being conceded such a powerful and futuristic (in literal terms here) instrument. Nonetheless, it appears that you have also managed to develop the capability of, in simple terms, "entering one's mind" since you have expressed so vehemently an asserted presumption that, though we don't have nuclear weapons now, "[we] are trying" to. Plus, it seems like you have forgotten that "ballistic capabilities" are not directly linked with the possession of weapons of mass destruction, nor do they solely serve the purpose of launch sites and/or "nuclear" missiles, they are weapons. Much like the ones Israel currently holds in their underground facilities, and, actually, much like the ones you possess. Oh, the famous do as I say not as I do.

Interestingly enough, no one has even mentioned the fact that Israel currently deploys two nuclear capable ballistic missile systems: the Jericho I (range 660 km) and the Jericho II (range 1500 km). Iran will not tolerate any biased proposals that might put in question our inalienable right to pursue a safe nuclear energy program.

UK delegate, Iran doesn't feel even slightly intimidated by threats. Ironic, to say the least, how they come from a country that supported the US-led military invasion in Iraq while its government worked to produce false documents to present to its British citizens as proof of the existence of Saddam Hussein's nuclear arsenal. You say we aren't trustworthy, ok... Would you mind explaining how you have reached the conclusion that you are?

See you soon,
Delegation of Iran

View user profile

81 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 6th 2009, 12:40

Of course delegate of Iran, the UK cannot 'see' the future. What it can do, is look at the present and predict a trend. According to the information retrieved by the CIA in 2007 from a harddrive obtained in 2004, your government was well underway in its research of nuclear technology. Is going back to 2007 too much? Then the delegate need not worry for last month, a minuscule nuclear facility was discovered in your country. In fact it was too small to produce energy for civilian purposes, but not too small to develop the materials necessary for a bomb. Additionally, as if what has just been said does not suffice, the recent IAEA dossier, aptly named Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program, provides cohesive and reliable evidence that Iran has very recently started research on developing a 'two point implosion device', an extremely advanced kind of nuclear ogive technology.

So, recapping, agressive government desperately trying to assert itself as a regional powerhouse + suspicious facilities + history of developing nuclear weaponry+ worrying new information = ?
Delegate of Iran, I'll let you do the math.

Once again, the UK, as it had already said in its previous post, is willing to aid Iran in its quest for nuclear energy, as long as it obeys all necessary protocols and chooses to resort to second parties, most notably Russia, for the enrichment and preparation of the Uranium for civilian uses. Iran has shown that it is keen in cooperating with the USA, the EU and Russia. Let us keep the hopes of succesfully cooperating in the near future alive. Do not let us down.

Thank You,
Her Majesty's Humble Servant
The UK delegate.

View user profile

82 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 7th 2009, 19:54

Delegate of the UK, first things first: what makes you accredit the reliability of the CIA (the leading American sponsored intelligence network) as absolute? Perhaps these are the same measures of judgment you use to define your British government as trustworthy. Amid your persistence in citing how Iran hasn't been complying with the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the delegate must refute those claims under the rationale that Iran has agreed upon a number of clauses outside the NPT Charter to guarantee our commitment in cooperating. As a response to the dreadful listing of occurrences, biased and unrelated, (as was the fact concerning the allegedly discovered nuclear facility, when in reality the Iranian government had already pronounced the construction site of our second uranium enrichment plant south of Tehran more than a month ago), I will cite the following contributions of the Iranian government outlined in this latest report:

1.) The IAEA Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran
2.) Iran has cooperated with the Agency in improving safeguard measures at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (Natanz Enrichment Facility)
3.) Iran has granted access to the IR-40 (Heavy Water Research Reactor)
4.) Iran and the Agency have agreed on the requirements for timely access for unannounced inspections
5.) The Agency confirmed that both plants of FEP and PFEP have been operating as declared (less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment)
6.) A total of 29 unannounced inspections have been conducted since March 2007 and none has concluded Iran's intent on pursuing a nuclear weapons program
7.) The Agency concluded that the inventory of nuclear material at the Uranium Conversion Facility as declared by Iran is consistent
8.) There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities
9.) The Agency installed a containment and surveillance system at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant on August 2009
10.) The nuclear material at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant remain under containment and complete surveillance of the IAEA

What lacked in your argument was the fact that, accordingly, Iran stands in compliance with its obligation under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements, but there was no need to mention that right? Delegate, if you insist on playing cards solely from the United States' deck, I must warn that such biased layout of facts will not be tolerated -- neither in this forum nor in the actual SALMUN conference. Iran cannot understand why the United Kingdom feels like it must be involved with the domestic issues within the Iranian boundaries, much like it is impossible to figure out why your government deemed necessary to intervene in the Work Plan established between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran in 2007. It seems like it is not only our people that you don't trust, but the very international organization that ensures the fulfillment of obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Charter. The truth is that it looks like your country might have some reliability impairment. Rather interesting coming from a nation that stands devotedly behind the United States with arms tied and a blindfold.

So, recapping, biased and twisted information + trust complex disability = ?
Given that you had to ask me to answer out the math last time, I figured a 1 + 1 equation would be fairly easier for you to understand. Take your time.

See you soon,
Delegation of Iran

View user profile

83 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 9th 2009, 10:19

Well delegate, the liar who told me that the Shababs 3 and 4, No-Dong and the IRIS are nuclear facilities were the internet.. unfortunatly i could not find my source now to show, but when i find it again you'll see.. i researched in other site and it is actually not true.. sorry Wink
but... i need you delegate to answer me... why is Iran so interested in enriching uranium trhough these passed years, in a high range, when it says it does not have the puropose to crete nuclear weapons? tell me delegate... isnt just me who wants to know... its the whole world...but we want to hear the truth...
when Israel met with Iran in the secret meeting, this question was made: "does Iran has nuclear wepons?" and what did the rpresentant said? nothing, hw just looked and gave a suspicious laugh... what does this prove? it really looks like Iran is hiding somehting from the world, or it will start hiding in the future...
It is not only Israel who feels thretened by Iran, but Israel is today Irans major target. how can Israeli citizens live in peace now, when the president of Iran onced mentioned he is willing to wipe israel off the map. how can the delegate of Russia say that the only one who should feel threatened is the USA? dont you see delegate? would you like to live near a country that threatens your civilians delegate? please dont say such thing like that!

View user profile

84 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 10th 2009, 17:44

Thank you for showing that the delegate has no knowledge (very unlikely) or has deliberately ignored some of the things mentioned in the UK's previous post. Follows some basic counter arguments to what was presented by Iran.


First and foremost, Iran criticizes the credibility of the CIA and says that the UN will not under any circumstance take its word for certain events. Now, delegate, you seem to be forgetting that the CIA was consulted inumerous times by this orgainization in the past, specially in relation to the war on drugs and counter terrorism operations around the globe. Furthermore, perhaps because of lack of knowledge regarding the issue, the CIA has a Foreign Boradcast Information Service, which sends out classified information to government representatives of over 70 countries, including China, where it has a partnership with the PRC's own version of the FBIS, the Xinghua News Service. This is clear and undisputable evidence that most of the international community consider the CIA's information breakthroughs to be extremelly reliable. Furthermore, according to the Bundesnachrichtendienst, the German Intelligence service, the Iranian government under Ahmadinejad is suspected of developing nuclear bomb technology even after they allegedly stopped doing so in 2004. After all, even if the program was temporarily halted, the knowledge and the technology are still within Iranian hands. So essentially, due to the history of this organization and the international community, the CIA's information on Iran's nuclear program should be considered worthy of our trust and should definetely be considered by this organization. the fact that Iran is criticizing the USA and the UK for lack of credibility is ludicrous, just look at the recent elections that took place in your country, the clearest possible example of lack of transparency and credibility.


Perhaps most importantly to the debate is the fact that the delegate is obviously misinformed in regards to the discovery of Iran's last nuclear plant. The power plant near Qom was discolsed to the International community on the 21st of September, years after construction had already began, construction unauthorized by the IAEA. The UKs surprise and bewilderment at such deception was clearly made visible in the recent G20 summit where the UK joined voices with the USA and France to denounce such actions. Let this be a reminder that this is not the first time the Iranian government has concealed information, since somehting similar to this happened in 2002 in Natanz. Is the delegate of Iran still willing to stand by its word that it can be trusted? Of course it is, but evidence suggests otherwise.


Finally, the delegate of Iran seems to not know what dossier the UK is referring to. It is not the recent IAEA report, but a dossier released in October with information collected over the last decade. The most worrying information on such dossier is that Iran has been experimenting with a two-point implosion device, an extremely sophisticated form of nuclear warhead. Mohammed El-Baradei, a common acquaintance of ours, is one that has confirmed the information as being completely reliable and cohesive with data collected over an extended period of time. The development of this device is coherent with your governments information that it has carried out a series of high explosive detonations within a synchronisation of 30 micro seconds. Even though your government asserts that such explosions are used to develop civilian technology, this is obviously a lie. Nuclear experts from throughout the world have denied this and logic follows, why would Iran ever possibly need to develop such advanced nuclear warfare technology for civilian purposes? Let it be noted that even China and Russia, usual supporters of Iran's program have vehemently criticized Iran's deception regarding the facility at Qom. Up to this date, Iran has not provided the UN or the international community with any answers. The government has not even tried to defend itself, it has simply said nothing.

So, to conclude delegate, we see that unsubstantiated arguments + clear, irrefutable evidence that...
The UK feels no need to continue such a complex mathematical equation, for amidst all its inherent complexities, the essence of the equation's answer is simple, Iran cannot be allowed to develop its program unhindered, it must compromise, it must give in to some of the international community's demand. Javier Solano's proposal of a Freeze for Freeze (you freeze enrichment, we freeze sanctions) program should be considered. The party of Six will continue to negotiate but if things keep going the way they are, we will have to adopt a tougher stance. It is either cooperation or confrontation. We are ready for both.

Her Majesty's Servant, eager to engage in negotiations with the Iranian delegate,
The U.K delegate

View user profile

85 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 10th 2009, 20:49

After such a clarifying post by the delegate of the United Kingdom, the delegate of the United States does not have much to say. However, since the credibility of an agency that serves my government has been challenged, I have to put some facts on the table:

First of all, the United States will not have the CIA's credibility challenged, not by a nation (Iran) that threatened to blow another nation off the map, and ESPECIALLY not by a nation that repeated times refuses to comply with full IAEA inspections.

As the delegate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has already stated, the CIA possesses the FBIS (Foreign Broadcast Information System), which sends information to several governments, etc. However, one point to add, expecting future counter-arguments, is that the CIA answers to the United States government. Thus, calling the CIA's information biased is both insulting and hypocritical. It is insulting given that it means accusing the United States of manipulating information, and hypocritical given that the UN's basic information about countries is almost completely from the CIA. If one were to compare the information on the CIA World Factbook and the information from UN Sources, he would see that they are the same. Furthermore, as the delegate of the United Kingdom has already stated, the UN has referred to the CIA innumerous times for information, and thus, delegate of Iran, by challenging the capacity and the credibility of the CIA, you are challenging the UN itself.

Lastly, the delegate of the United States wishes to see Iran stop its uranium enrichment program and comply fully with IAEA inspections and requirements. Only when the IAEA says, "Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons," and not, "We have not found nuclear weapons in Iran," may sanctions be "frozen." Before that, the UN's sanctions will not stop.

View user profile

86 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 14th 2009, 23:50

Dearest Servant, your peremptory manners, masked by a thin veil of pomposity, reflects exactly the kind of attitude that will, in short, get you nowhere. No need to appreciate something untrue, the Iranian delegation is presumably aware of everything that was mentioned by the British delegate in the latter post -- you might deem "lack of knowledge" as a corollary to my disagreement with your statements, but then again, that's your artifice for countering rhetoricals.

I do not have the time or energy to criticize your preposterous approach to the Iranian nuclear dilemma; however, I do feel the need to explain a thing or two about your post:
The foundation for the entirety of your first paragraph lies upon your understanding that the Iranian delegate explicitly and directly pointed out that "the UN will not under any circumstance take its word for certain events." Would you please mind pin pointing exactly where was such idea was ever mentioned? What Iran explained was solely that our government will take no further consideration to an intelligence network founded upon Western principles, and yes, though it is true that the CIA has served as a catalyst to finding “out-of-record” information that does not ensure the righteousness of this American complex. You said the CIA provides research to some 70 countries, is Iran one of them? I didn’t think so.

Regardless, let me see if I got this straight: your response to the fact that your British government produced false documents as a pretext to favor the US-led incursion in Iraq is sustained by recent protests after the Iranian elections? Hmmm, what seems worse: lying to your country and sentencing innocents to death in a made-up war or having a few individuals question the results of a governmental election (which happens oh-so-very-often)? Should we draw a pros and cons list? I am safe to bet that more British soldiers have died during your so called War on Terror than have Iranian citizens been injured during the latest electoral dispute. Are you?

Mohammed El-Baradei, a common acquaintance of ours, is one that has confirmed the information as being completely reliable and cohesive with data collected over an extended period of time.
In regards to that, the Iranian delegate is much pleased to announce the following: The UN's chief weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, said today he had seen "no credible evidence" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, rejecting British intelligence allegations that a weapons programme has been going on for at least four years. So much for an acquaintance...

Delegate, as I said, your biased perspective will lead to no solution. Don’t you think it is a bit unfortunate that you seem only able to read what you want, not what is there? For instance, there was no mentioning of the list of compliances, the 2007 Work Plan, or any slightly positive information about Iran’s government – coincidence? Hardly. Incongruous is your expectation that Iran will compromise with a country as presumptuous and prejudiced as the United Kingdom, and if I hadn’t made myself clear last time, allow me to now: we won’t. And about the "cooperation or confrontation" standpoint, as mentioned in a previous comment of mine, your threats are my entertainment…

American delegate, according to the latest report by the NPT watchdog, it was mentioned by the chief IAEA inspector that there is "no credible evidence" of Iranian nuclear weapons. There, it's a relief that the sanctions can be "frozen" now. Thank you.

Iranian Delegation

View user profile

87 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 15th 2009, 00:36

Iran wrote:
Delegate of the UK, first things first: what makes you accredit the reliability of the CIA (the leading American sponsored intelligence network) as absolute? Delegate, if you insist on playing cards solely from the United States' deck, I must warn that such biased layout of facts will not be tolerated -- neither in this forum nor in the actual SALMUN conference.


At this point the delegate said that the UN would not trust cards being played solely from the US's deck, such as the classified laptop information.


"The dossier, titled "Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear
Program", is drawn in part from reports submitted to it by western
intelligence agencies.
Its
director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the evidence of Iranian
weaponisation "appears to have been derived from multiple sources over
different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is
sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed
by Iran"."



Information obtained from the Guardian Newspaper.
The information above was discoles to almost every single media outlet in the past week, the quote the delegate of Iran just posted here was definetely not said after this, thus diminishing the validity of Iran's argument. Just for the record, the quote above was disclosed to the public on the 5th of November. The delegate of Iran also failed to adress the issue of its concealment of the Qom nuclear plant. In fact, the artificies utilized by the delegate of Iran serve only to deviate the focus from what the UK has just said. In his last post, the delegate of Iran failed to address any of the points made by the UK. Which is to be no surprise really, since your government hasn't answered them either, and being a servant of your government, it is inconceivable for the delegate to come up with answers himself. The Iranian delegate simply attacked the UK's posture and failed to provide counter arguments to those brought forth by the UK, reminding the delegate of something said by one of our prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher, "I love it when they attack me personally, because that means they have no political arguments left". That definetely seems to be the case. The UK backed its claims with facts and figures, wheras Iran response failed to counter those with factual claims, using only its exhausted rhetorical arguments going back to 2002 to try to defend something that is happening now. If we are to go back in history, the delegate of the UK will gladly produce facts here to illustrate its claim that the Iranian government has been historically (at least since 1978) held us unreliable.

View user profile

88 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 15th 2009, 22:20

Delegate of Iran (all of you), (and delegates of Israel)

Did you know that polls in 2008 showed that the vast majority of Iranians want their
country to develop nuclear energy, and 90 percent of Iranians believe
it is essential for Iran "to have a full
fuel cycle nuclear program." Arab publics
in six countries also believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear
program and should not be pressured to stop that program.

This happened in 27/10/09:
Ahmadenijad's comment came during a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
"When an illegal regime possesses nuclear weapons, the other
countries' rights for peaceful nuclear energy cannot be denied," he
said.

Israel does not admit having nuclear weapons.
Four UN nuclear inspectors arrived in Iran on Sunday to inspect the
country's second uranium enrichment facility, currently under
construction.

Iran is under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.
"The Zionist regime is a threat to all nations and it wants the
region to be free of strong countries," Ahmadinejad reportedly told
Erdogan. "Today we see that applying force in Gaza was not enough for
them so they are attacking holy Jerusalem."

Israeli authorities on Tuesday demolished two Palestinian homes on the outskirts of Arab East Jerusalem.
The Islamic Republic has consistently denied it is seeking to make
nuclear weapons, but has insisted on its right to a peaceful program
aimed at generating electricity.

Iran does not recognize Israel as a sovereign country.

View user profile

89 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 15th 2009, 23:07

Saying a bunch of random information will get you no where. What the Israeli delegate understood was that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a sovereign country. In September 2009, Iran shot 'test' missles at Israel. Therefore, Iran with nuclear weapons would be disastrous. Also, saying that Israel does not admit having nuclear weapons just strengthens my case, because Israel is responsible and doesn't have nuclear weapons. But does the UAE delegate really believe that Iran is so innocent? That it isn't aiding Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda? Truely ask yourself, and maybe the delegate's eyes might open.

View user profile

90 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 16th 2009, 18:12

Israeli Delegate,

Once again Israel has shown to judge a book by its cover. Has Israel ever thought that one occurence where "TEST" missiles were shout OVER not AT Isreal might not be legitmate enough to go about stating that Iran possesing nuclear weapons is "disastrous"?

Another note, North Korea would like to view the proof that the Israeli Delegate has that states it does not possess nor has ever attempted to create nuclear technology.

Another thing, the North Korean Delegate wishes to know if Israel was claiming that Iran funds terrorist groups. If that is what the Delegate wishes to say, then say it. Unfortunately, North Korea believes this to be a false claim considering the obvious joint effort the Iranian government has shared with the United States. Such efforts would include but are not limited to; the recent attempts at a democratic election, increase in national police and the training of such forces.

Delegates, ask yourselves, does it really seem in Iran's best interest to fund terrorist groups when the largest anti-terrorist country is practically sitting on Iran?

North Korean Delegate,
Tyler Simpson

View user profile

91 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 16th 2009, 18:54

Delegate of the UK, your entire post was a critique to how the Iranian delegation supposedly failed, in your standards, to respond to your previous arguments given that we have countered them using rhetorics (none of which you have managed to answer). Servant, you will be exposed to many of these during this Model United Nations conference, so you might as well get used to answering them: they are called points of information. Regardless, don't you agree that it's a bit ironic that your whole "Iran-doesn't-answer-what-I-ask" speech was exactly what you just did?

Since you seem like such a big fan of ElBaradei, I will make use of his very words to explain about the Qom nuclear plant (dated November 5th):
"Iran’s Qom Facility ‘Nothing to Be Worried About’... It's a Hole in a Mountain," IAEA Chief Notes

Not to mention what he said during a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, when brought Israel under spotlight and mentioned that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30 years.
“Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses,”

Delegate, a representative of the Labour Party like yourself quoting England's most conservative prime minister to get a point across? Tsc. Please do us all a favor and look back at my previous posts (try to read them this time) and reveal if you have answered any of my questions. Again, I didn't think so. You seem to be very fond of the "do as I say, not as I do" pragmatism. Nonetheless, in your future post, instead of pointing fingers, perhaps you might deviate from the whole "Iran is not reliable" theory and discuss the following:

1.) British intervention in 2007 Work Plan between IAEA and Iran
2.) Iran's FULL compliance with the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement

An attempt to see the "other side of the coin" might do you some good.

See you soon,
Delegation of Iran

View user profile

92 Hahaha on November 16th 2009, 23:49

Mates,

I'd like to introduce myself to this debate. But, that is irrelevant. Who I am and what is my purpose in life might be discussed in future posts, but not this one because I'm kind of feeling sleepy right now. Just know that I was so bored reading these fruitless remarks and decided to add some of my humble points of view.

I'd like to look at Qom. True, as Iran has said, our friend ElBaradei classified the Qom as a "hole in the mountain" and all of that. However, as always, Iran must omit and twist the information in its favor. The truth, mates, is that Qom is a "hole in the mountain" because it was probably bombed by Iran's adversaries (as stated by ElBaradei himself). However, the fact that it had been kept secret by Iranian authorities for at least three years and the fact that it is literally a "HOLE IN THE MOUNTAIN" makes us wonder why? Why was it not a normal facility on a beautiful, flat, easy-to-construct plain? Why the heck go through all this trouble in making a facility on a mountain? In fact, it does not make us wonder at all. It simply affirms: Iran was doing something he did not want us to know.

As you sagacious delegates probably know, Qom was a secret until recently. Then, one lovely evening Iran says "Hey guys, I had a secret facility hidden in the mountains which you guys had no idea existed. Wanna check it out?" Of course we are going to find a hole in the freaking mountain. What did you expect? Did you expect Iran to disclose a hidden facility with nuclear weapons and just show it to us for no reason at all? The scariest part is why was it hidden for three years now and what ELSE is hidden? Remember that Iran revealed the existence of the Fordo enrichment facility, which is being built about 30km (20 miles) north of Qom, in September. If facilities are revealed at this pace, every two months, we'll find out about another one in January 2010. In fact, I believe our Iranian comrade might have, definitely not on purpose, forgotten to mention that IAEA's report also said Qom did "not contribute to the building of confidence" and "gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities not declared to the agency" or that Iran's delay in notification was "inconsistent with its obligations".

Iranian delegate, keep in mind that the IAEA is a respectable, civilized organization. It is not vulgar like your president. It speaks in subtleties. Those comments might not deliberately state Iran was hidding something in Qom, but you must understand they actually do. Take this analogy, for instance. If you are a manager of a bank and one beautiful day you arrive at work only to notice that the front door glass has been broken, the security cameras are malfunctioning, the safe door has been destroyed and all the money is missing, you could say a genetically-modified super-intelligent chimpanzee accidentally took all the money because he loved to play with green paper. But, that's probably not what happened. Iran could have hidden that facility from the rest of the world because it did not want the president of Eritrea to find out about its super-rare Pikachu pokemon card. But, I'm guessing that's not what happened either. What we must understand is that IAEA's comments leave space for other explanations because it is, first and foremost, a diplomatic agency which is not interested in conflict. However, we must perceive what is in the subtext of these reports: Iran must be dealt with...ASAP.

C-ya,
The Delegation drunken

View user profile

93 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 17th 2009, 12:09

israel_andrea wrote:Saying a bunch of random information will get you no where. What the Israeli delegate understood was that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a sovereign country. In September 2009, Iran shot 'test' missles at Israel. Therefore, Iran with nuclear weapons would be disastrous. Also, saying that Israel does not admit having nuclear weapons just strengthens my case, because Israel is responsible and doesn't have nuclear weapons. But does the UAE delegate really believe that Iran is so innocent? That it isn't aiding Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda? Truely ask yourself, and maybe the delegate's eyes might open.
The delegate apologizes for the random info, but the delegate believes that Iran is innocent because, although it is enriching uranium, Ahmadinejad has stated that the Nuclear Program is being used to create energy such that it has announced that it is working in a 360MWe nuclear power plant. About testing missiles, The UN has warheads, the USA has warheads and Russia has warheads (without naming others). Iran does not even have 1 nuke. It only has missiles, which it is testing. Doesn't the delegate agree that a country should have the right to guarantee that its own products DO work? Israel has tested various missiles over the years. WHY does it do that? Because it wants to be sure that in a future conflict it will be capable of using it! Don't act like a hypoocrite.

View user profile

94 Re: Iraq Supporting Iran's Nuclear Program on November 17th 2009, 17:25

Thank you, 'the delegation', whoever you are. knowing your identity will sure come in handy during the future debating. The information you brought up was definetely interesting.


Delegate of Iran, our debating here has been immensely enjoyable. It would be fruitless for us to continue it through these chanels as the conference is about to start. The UK believes both delegates have made their position very clear so that when we meet in the general assembly( it cannot be otherwise since if I am not mistaken, you are the Iranian delegate in the ME caucus and I'm in the SC) we can cut through the unnecessary exposition that seems to consume much of the debating time made available to us. Hope engage in 'fruitful' debating in the near future. This is my exit, for I will no longer comment on these forums (at least not as avidly).

See you all soon.
HMS, S for servant, not ship,
The UK delegate

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum