• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

No. My point is: What if the Iranians are right and their sole intention is to have a nuclear reactor and nothing else?

Then their violation of IAEA rules would be strange indeed. And if that is all they want, then they should be willing to let Russia handle the fuel processing for those reactors (something that Russia has already offered).

I'm not advocating just bombing them right now, but their past and continuing behavior is a serious problem, they haven't earned anyone's trust regarding what their true intentions are, it would be a serious problem if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, and it may not be possible to prevent them from getting nukes with just diplomacy.
 
A comment:

If a country really wants nuclear energy, it makes sense to develop indigenous technology for nuclear fuel processing plants. Its economically sound to buy unprocessed U ore (or mine it) and enrich it at your own facilities. I guess also that potentially there would be less problems on the transportation of fuel rods inside a country than between countries. Not to mention that the country will not depend on foreign companies and nations.

According to this source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines.htm) Iran has enough uranium reserves to feed its planned power plants. For how long and the future expansion capabilities are open questions. So Iran can potentially accomplish the whole proccesses involved in nuclear power generation by itself, from ore extraction to power distribution.

Yes, they could accept Russia's offering, sending their ore to be processed there or buying fuel that was mined and processed at Russia. But they would still be relying on an external supply, subject to foreign political and economic interests.

It makes sense to obtain the technology to process uranium ore to the point of reaching the grade needed for nuclear generator power plants, regardless if we like it or not.

This put, the key questions, in my opinion, should be:
Is the current Iranian government being sincere when it says their nuclear program(s) is (are) for energy generation only?
Can the current Iranian government be trusted?

ETA:
Please note that when I say "energy generation" I am not talking about explosive devices, but electrical power generation...
 
Last edited:
Then their violation of IAEA rules would be strange indeed. And if that is all they want, then they should be willing to let Russia handle the fuel processing for those reactors (something that Russia has already offered).

They said that the plan was flawed and not clear enough.
It did not offer guarantees.
AFAIR.
Here is an interesting piece:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1167908,00.html

I'm not advocating just bombing them right now, but their past and continuing behavior is a serious problem, they haven't earned anyone's trust regarding what their true intentions are, it would be a serious problem if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, and it may not be possible to prevent them from getting nukes with just diplomacy.

Saeidi denies that Iran kept its facilities at Natanz secret, as claimed in 2003 by the Bush administration. He says there was no legal necessity to notify the IAEA before nuclear material had entered the plant. "Natanz is a very large factory. You cannot hide it. It wasn't secret."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1854628,00.html
 
Oh, was he a cabinet officer?
to me, a good right winger is a right winger who bows to left wingers.
No such thing. Thanks for playing, and please, clean up after your public, mental ion. You are making a mess of the place.

DR
Greenspan wasn't a cabinet officer.

This doesn't let you off the hook, no matter how hard you try:

if you want rose colors I give you rose colors, if you want green colors I give you green, if you want yellow I give you yellow, etc..

Each color is a different party in U.S., but from all colors it is pointed the same thing, the war was for oil.

Greenspan is only one color, your kin of Republican Libertarian who saw Bush at play.

To answer you excuse for cabinet officers and not let you off the hook with this excuse, Paul O'Neill was a cabinet officer -the only color that you pretend to accept here, but that's your attempt at cop out-.
O'Neill was the U.S. Treasurer from 2001 until 2003.
In The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, O'Neill was in a meeting in December 2000 where Bush and his cabinet talked about how -not why- to attack Iraq.
WMDs and 'liberation' came up as cover up.
January 2001, Cheney studied plans of oil wells in Iraq, showing his primary interest.
So Bush's link between 9/11 and Iraq is a cover up for Bush attacking Iraq.

For me, a right winger like you is good to lick toilets, Basement Girl.
 
Last edited:
I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls,
Where everything that creeps or crawls
Went wibble wobble up the walls.
 
Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.
 
Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.
Ever have one of those open sores that you know will go away sooner if you don't pick at it?

Oliver is my open sore.
 
Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.


No. There is no threat for the United States unless you argue that
Israel is the fifty-first state of the US. Period. Everything else is
"SaddamWMDMushroomcloudOMG!AlQaidaDoomsday"-Propaganda.

But you surely aren't so dumb to fall for this propaganda again,
are you?
 
No. There is no threat for the United States unless you argue that
Israel is the fifty-first state of the US. Period. Everything else is
"SaddamWMDMushroomcloudOMG!AlQaidaDoomsday"-Propaganda.

But you surely aren't so dumb to fall for this propaganda again,
are you?
What does this even mean?
 
Greenspan wasn't a cabinet officer.

*The usual rubbish follows*
That's OK, Ion, better men than you have killed people to ensure you can talk your crap. Wallow in it while you can.

One of the traditions of BBS discussions and internet forums is nitpicking to get the facts straight. I note that you are careless with facts, so you are a prime candidate for a fact based nitpick.

As you were.

DR
 
No technical argument here:
That's OK, Ion, better men than you have killed people to ensure you can talk your crap...Usual rubbish follows...
DR
But the Basement Girl has plenty of feelings, American feelings.

Of the 'caliber' of "...better men than you have killed people to ensure..." seen 'at work' in the U.S. lies for war in Iraq...
 
Last edited:
Pathetic try, Rat:
Greenspan is as coward as any American:

he gives a honest blow, then he takes two steps back with "Er, hmm, ugh, not really...".

Historically he will remain recorded as:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...881340375.html


"...The US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil, former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan says in a memoir to be released today.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he writes.
Mr Greenspan's book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World also criticises President George Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits..."


Greenspan's:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

must be out of context per Rat.
 
Last edited:
And loving one more than the other.


Blödsinn. If the Iranians were as radical as America - according
to both countries histories, I would be discussing in an Iranian
Forum right now. But since they are no threat anyway...
 
Blödsinn. If the Iranians were as radical as America - according to both countries histories, I would be discussing in an Iranian
Forum right now. But since they are no threat anyway...
?
  • No freedom of press.
  • No freedom of speech.
  • Limited redress.
  • Limited rights for women.
  • Oppression.
What are you talking about? What do you mean according to both contries histories? Iran never promised freedoms so who cares?
 
?
  • No freedom of press.
  • No freedom of speech.
  • Limited redress.
  • Limited rights for women.
  • Oppression.
What are you talking about? What do you mean according to both contries histories? Iran never promised freedoms so who cares?


  • Death row
  • Limited Freedom of Speech
  • Limited access to democratic decisions
  • Creationism
  • Prohibition of clothing
  • Prohibition of slogans on T-Shirts
  • Prohibition of Sexual Freedoms
  • and on and on and on ...

    What's your point? Where is the threat to you and fellow Americans?
    Right - you fail to name it... :boggled:
 

Back
Top Bottom