Iran lawmakers: No shipment of uranium abroad

Is this News Article for real? Or was there a poor AP journalist of which needed to write for his or her rent… and received an article to type away… Just personally want to know, if I am reading the news correctly…. An Iranian senior official rejected the idea to send uranium from its own country to Russia… when Russia built the Tehran Iran nuclear planet… has the ‘Government of Iran,’ made full payments for the Tehran Iran plant to Russia (whatever company) for Iranian senior officials to reject any ideas to Russia… so technically speaking if A did not fully pay for their article, due payment has to be made, and in full for the article, can be in small installment payments… but, it is not a sweater nor a house nor a jewelry piece… than as something does not make any sense at all… non at all… Russia as all know built the Iranian Nuclear Energy Plant in Tehran… than now seeking for the Uranium to be sent to Russia… than now 3 years later, an Iranian senior official rejecting to send anything… of any stockpile…

• Has Medvedev as the President agree to this brokered deal?
• Than where does Iran attain their Uranium? Is it from their own grounds as an abundance of a substance dug up, and than manufactured on their own grounds… or was it from Russia the Uranium? is it France, EU, UK, or did the great ole Bugs Bunny enrich them with Uranium?
• Is there a reason why the French always using some excuse to attain to Russia’s nerves… when I have just - enough of their British on my last ripped bloodied out nerve…

Why would any Iranian senior officials reject, and as not cooperate with Russia…analysis commenting, it would be a full utmost obliteration of themselves by their own selves…  (it is not of my personal decision nor any topic i care for, i have my own beef with someone…  )

(Yahoo News Article) By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer – Sat Nov 7, 6:18 am ET

TEHRAN, Iran – Senior Iranian lawmakers rejected on Saturday any possibility of Tehran shipping uranium abroad for further enrichment, intensifying pressures on the government to reject the U.N.-backed plan altogether.

Prominent conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Iran won’t ship its low enriched uranium abroad in a single batch or in several shipments, a compromise suggested by some government officials, under any circumstances.

“Nothing will be given of the 1,200 kilograms (of low enriched uranium) … to the other side in exchange for 20 percent enriched fuel, not in one batch nor in several. It is out of question,” the semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Boroujerdi as saying Saturday.

• The UN-brokered plan required Iran to send 1.2 tons (1,100 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium — around 70 percent of its stockpile — to Russia in one batch by the end of the year, easing concerns the material would be used for a bomb.

After further enrichment in Russia, France would convert the uranium into fuel rods that would be returned to Iran for use in a reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes. Fuel rods cannot be further enriched into weapons-grade material.

Earlier, Iran had indicated that it may agree to send only “part” of its stockpile in several shipments. Should the talks fail to help Iran obtain the fuel from abroad, Iran has threatened to enrich uranium to the higher level needed to power the research reactor itself domestically.

The Tehran research reactor needs uranium enriched to about 20 percent, higher than the 3.5 percent-enriched uranium Iran is producing for a nuclear power plant it plans to build in southwestern Iran. Enriching uranium to even higher levels can produce weapons-grade materials.

The United States and its allies are unlikely to accept anything substantially less than the original plan, which aimed to delay Iran’s potential ability of making nuclear weapons by at least a year by divesting Iran of most of its enriched uranium and returning it as research reactor fuel.

On Saturday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signaled that Moscow could back sanctions against Iran if it fails to take a constructive stance in international talks over its nuclear program.

He told the German magazine Der Spiegel that it would be better to avoid sanctions, but they can’t be excluded if there is no progress in the talks.

If 70 percent of Iran’s uranium is exported in one shipment — or at the most two shipments in quick succession — Tehran would need about a year to produce enough uranium to again have the stockpile it needs for a weapon.

While the Iranian government is still considering the U.N. plan, the hardening posture of Iranian lawmakers has raised strong doubts that Tehran will approve the deal.

Another conservative lawmaker, Hossein Naqvi Hosseini, said Iran had three options to procure fuel for its reactor; to buy the fuel from other countries; to accept the U.N.-brokered plan; or to enrich uranium to a higher level domestically and produce the required fuel itself.

“The countries proposing … are not trusted by the Islamic Republic of Iran because they didn’t carry out their obligations to us in the past. Therefore, the second option is out of question,” ISNA quoted Hosseini as saying.

“Exchange of uranium in return for fuel is out of question,” another conservative lawmaker Ali Aghazadeh was quoted by ISNA as saying. “We have reached this point ourselves and we need to continue the path ourselves. It is their (U.S. and its allies) obligations to give us fuel. If they fail to do so, we will supply it ourselves.”

Iran has not formally rejected the UN-backed plan outright and Boroujerdi says the Supreme National Security Council, the country’s top security decision-making body, is deliberating over the proposed deal.

Iran has officially asked for more talks on the issue and some hard-liners say they should receive the nuclear fuel first before shipping out the enriched uranium stocks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear;_ylt=Ag0JVlaWrwqXp1vh.3lJdRKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTMxNzAyY3VxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTA3L21sX2lyYW5fbnVjbGVhcgRjcG9zAzgEcG9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNpcmFubGF3bWFrZXI-

Mayor Bloomberg “WON!” Third Term

Thank you to New Yorkers…, as state of an address from me the Aerial Queen, for chosing one of the best… in line also for the White House…, if MIKE won the third he surely can say he won the fourth.

New Yorkers surely did not disagree with me, they agreed with me… by any 5 percent above a competitor…,  5 percent plus what he had were also as voted in with my state of an address in the 2008 year, and than so forth in 2009 year…,

Daily News that is a perfect pic of MIKE’… “EH!” oh well lose - I won… as all say in business one customer means 3 more customers… oh well my endorsment of Bloomberg won his election at least by 5 percent points (we did not count in the world  –  into the vote)… more than anyone can say… or have in their career goals.

These are the three terms, maybe he will make New York History as for a fourth Mayor term. Maybe in the next four years someone else will be also voting in…, “so makes it?” his vote makes it by a 6 not by a 5, due to the fact as said, i endorsed him by clearly making a state of a national address to New Yorkers… i want him for Mayor.

(Daily News) The most nagging question among Bill Thompson’s supporters on Wednesday is this: What if fellow Democrats had actually backed – rather than abandoned – him?

In the end, despite polls showing him trailing by 18 points in the final days of the campaign, Thompson lost to Mayor Bloomberg and his $100 million campaign by a mere 5 points.

So what if?

What if President Obama – instead of delivering a squishy, nonendorsement-endorsement of Thompson, after his press secretary couldn’t even come up with Thompson’s name – had stumped for the man?

“There are a number of people around Bill who felt that he was let down and that, yes, it could have helped if President Obama had campaigned with him,” one senior Thompson adviser said last night. “But that’s not who Bill Thompson is. He has not been bitter.”

Bitter or not, the question remains.

What if Vice President Biden, in town Monday to raise money for other Democrats, had taken 10 minutes to say something nice about the controller?

What if City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, instead of sitting on her hands for months, used the power of her purse strings to rustle up some support for Thompson?

What if the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was happy to stand onstage last night at Thompson’s concession speech, had stood a little closer during the campaign?

What if the more powerful city unions like the United Federation of Teachers and SEIU Local 1199, Democratic check writers or for-hire strategists had stayed true?

“A lot of Democratic donors who sat on their wallets are kicking themselves tonight,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner, who bowed out of the race for mayor early on, but did what he could for Thompson down the stretch.

One senior campaign official conceded no one thought “we could come that close.”

“Could we have gotten more support, from people who endorsed and the party itself? Yes,” said the official. “We won’t know what would [have] put us over the top, but it would have helped – extremely.”

Others were not sure anything could have saved Thompson, who never exuded the passion voters want in a mayor.

“It wouldn’t have done a thing, just like Bloomberg’s money didn’t make a difference,” said Hunter College’s political Prof. Ken Sherrill. “People who have lived in New York know what their lives are like and whether they are satisfied with Bloomberg.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election_2009/2009/11/04/2009-11-04_in_wake_of_5_loss_to_mayor_bloomberg_dems_left_asking_what_if_wed_done_more_for_.html#ixzz0VtdqgcTp