First of Iran is in discussion with the IEAE and a report is due out next month on Iran's nuclear program. Second with peak oil having been reached or soon to come I think it is extremely responsible, and good business sense, for a oil production nation to start converting to nuclear energy in order to extend their reserve allowing more of it to be sold to foreign nations.
You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.
If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.
Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?
The propaganda is two layers deep. First they are hell bent on making nukes, and second they want to start firing them at everyone.
Perhaps to the first one and wrong to the second one.
It a lot more about this schoolyard in;t big enough for the both of us and we don't want to have to listen to you as viable race of people...shut up and give us your goods.
The US rewards counties for getting nukes, they also deal with them in a more civil manner. Foreign policy 101.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.
If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.
Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?
Um........because then they wouldn't be able to build their nukes...which everyone here seems to think would neeeever happen being that their government is so peace loving.
Um........because then they wouldn't be able to build their nukes...which everyone here seems to think would neeeever happen being that their government is so peace loving.
Holy hypocrisy...
Barf up some of that propaganda...you're poisoned...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The problem is that having the capacity to produce nuclear fuel, means that at the very least Iran could pass that fuel to a terrorist organization for a "dirty bomb". It also means that Iran is much, much more capable of producing a bomb in secret. No it wouldn't happen at a moments notice, but it could happen in a matter of months. That is too short! It's almost as good as having one, really. And furthermore, not being quite sure if Iran has a bomb or not is also nearly as good as them actually having one.
I love the "who are we to judge" attitude. It makes absolutely no sense when world leaders hang their homosexual citizens, or beat their women for not wearing a head scarf in public. Basically ruling by religious edit and not allowing free, open elections. Yea, who are we to say that's wrong... I wonder how you can sleep at night with kind of attitude.
Although you refer to our government as a "cluster-fuck" it's prettyfar from it.
I sleep very well at night, except for when my sleep apnea acts up. You are so quick to criticize Iran's treatment of their citizens but you seem to be at peace our association with Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, etc. These countries are just as bad if not worse that Iran as far as human rights abuse.
Also to clarify I do not equate civilian nuclear power to militarized nuclear power as you do. I tend to see a difference between the two. Iran would never use a nuclear weapon nor allow Hezbollah or Hamas to do so for the same reason the Soviet Union and the US never used them on each other. Mutual destruction. Ahmedenajad is an idiot but he is not that stupid. The Ayatollah, the true ruler of Iran, would never allow for that to happen. So all this fear mongering is simply just that. A way to drum up support for our continued presense in the region.
We would be better off engaging Iran instead of isolating them, but then again we don't want to work with them we want to over throw their government and install one who is open to US intervention instead of Russian or Chinese. How quickly we forgot how well that worked out the first time we did that.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.
If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.
Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?
Well maybe if we stopped threatening to invade them, we also have this nasty habit of overthrowing governments to install our own puppet Shah ring a bell, there wouldn't be a need to develope a weapons as a deterent. Secondly Iran has the right to build it's own reactors and enrich it's own uranium, for civilian purposes, as stated in the NPT. Why should they do otherwise. Just because we want it that way does not make it law. We have to start understanding that not every country on this planet is going to do things our way or to our approval. Unless they start developing a nuclear weapon, which they haven't as of the last IEAE report in August 2007, they are free to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes as stated by international law no matter how much we bitch about it.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I sleep very well at night, except for when my sleep apnea acts up. You are so quick to criticize Iran's treatment of their citizens but you seem to be at peace our association with Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, etc. These countries are just as bad if not worse that Iran as far as human rights abuse.
Also to clarify I do not equate civilian nuclear power to militarized nuclear power as you do. I tend to see a difference between the two. Iran would never use a nuclear weapon nor allow Hezbollah or Hamas to do so for the same reason the Soviet Union and the US never used them on each other. Mutual destruction. Ahmedenajad is an idiot but he is not that stupid. The Ayatollah, the true ruler of Iran, would never allow for that to happen. So all this fear mongering is simply just that. A way to drum up support for our continued presense in the region.
We would be better off engaging Iran instead of isolating them, but then again we don't want to work with them we want to over throw their government and install one who is open to US intervention instead of Russian or Chinese. How quickly we forgot how well that worked out the first time we did that.
You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.
Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.
I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.
You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.
Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.
I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.
the powers that be will NEVER let Iran have a nuclear weapon/bomb or whatever ... air strikes would be coming so fast it wouldn't be funny ...
all this BS is about building the case for war by which the apathetic people of the world will simply just ignore ... it is about whether or not this administration can boost military spending to astronomical levels before they lose control ... but at the very least - they can continue to fuck around in the middle east where they really have no business being ... keep it politically unstable ...
the worst thing that could happen to the US is a peaceful middle east ...
You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.
Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.
I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.
I understand that Iran having a nuclear weapon is a tremendous threat to security and stability in the Middle east and trust me I don't want that as much as you do, but Iran has broken no laws. Under the NPT, which Iran signed, they are allowed to to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and as I stated, as of the last IAEA report in August, that is exactly what they have been doing. If when the final report is published in December and if it states that Iran has not met the IEAE demands for free inspections, then I will change my stance, but until then I stand firmly that Iran has done nothing wrong. As for the continuation of their program they have to agree to the IEAE guidelines if they don't then we pressure them to do so. As long as they abide by international law we have no right to tell them what to do regardless of their government and how much we may hate it.
As for our relationship with the other countries I mentioned, in the past I could see the need to associate with them, but as of today I don't understand why we still do, specially Saudi Arabia. We knew back in the 1970's during the oil shortages that our dependence on Saudi oil would be problematic but we did nothing. We continued to suck on the Saudi teet ignoring all the warning signs and now it's too late. The center of the Islamic militant world has always been Saudi Arabia, and now it includes Pakistan, and because of our relationship with the two our efforts have been hampered.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Don't insult my intelligence with some half ass remark. You want to debate what I said I am more than happy to debate. If all you interested in doing is throwing around juvenile comments than find some moron to play with you because I have no time for the likes of you.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What the fuck? why do so many people dislike Iran but love america? america is the one who goes around invading shit,bombing shit, torture camps blah blah blah and whatever else.
all your anger should be towards america not iran. some of you are backwards.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Just a quick google search... I know what the IAEA has reported recently about Iran not having a covert program. But they have not been too cooperative with IAEA, and they have all but given the UN the finger with regards to suspending their Uranium enrichment... Why do you act as if we don't know what we're talking about or didn't pay attention in school or whatever.... it's all black and white
They've been more cooperative than ANY other country... EVER. Also, don't act as if the entire UN has tried to suspend it. Iran merely give it's finger to the US and it's puppets because it has every right to. it doesn't need to suspend uranium enrichment cause uh... its not harmful... at all.
Sorry but it's as though you are being blocked by something that won't let you understand that Iran CLEARLY has no ambition for a nuclear weapon.... and EVEN if they did... theyre "years away from developing one" according to the IAEA. (oh im gonna take this time to say mammason, it's IAEA not IEAE =P ) I don't think you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just full of propaganda or something. Intothewild on the other hand has no idea what he/she is talking about which is why they just quote you and say stupid remarks to act like they're part of the argument.
now do you see that the IAEA doesn't think they're doing anything wrong even if they don't have "unlimited access" to everything? the IAEA is fine with Iran enriching uranium right now, but the US, Israel, and the stupid puppet, France, have just "dismissed" the IAEA findings based on NOTHIGN. they don't even offer proof, but half ass remarks like "the only thing they are headed for is a nuclear weapon."
Also, please explain to me, why is it dangerous for iran to have a nuclear weapon but not Israel? US? France, even? Why are these countries ok to have weapons but not Iran? Can anyone answer that with a legitimate answer?
Well one has to wonder what goes through a persons mind when he calls fleeing from certain death during the holocaust "an invasion" by jews. I dunno, call me crazy but that sounds a little bit hateful.
That's what it was, an invasion, I'm not picking and choosing juicy or inflamatory language. I'm stating as a matter of fact, it was an invasion. When animals migrate from their typical habitat to one of another species that forces that species out, it's often called an invasion. As I've already stated the term invasion has a few slightly different meanings. They did not invade by force, they invaded by coercion and occupation. Would you not call a hundred million mexicans running across the border, an invasion?
The third reich fell in 1945, there was no holocaust to flee from in 1947 when the Belfour Declaration was written. The holocaust is all too often used as a model genocide and to garner unwarranted support for Israel and it's foreign policies. What about the 45 - 78 million that died under Mao Zedong in China? We can't use attempted genocide as an excuse to invade another's home. We can't use it as an excuse to displace and murder millions of more people.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
You have to be niave to believe that Iran doesn't want a bomb to deter the overthrow of their government. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. They are both right next door.
If Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon stabalizes it means severe repercussions for Iran from within.
Talk about business sense... why don't they just agree to store their spent fuel rods in Switzerland or Russia and avoid sanctions that are crippling their already troubled economy?
Perhaps to the first one and wrong to the second one.
It a lot more about this schoolyard in;t big enough for the both of us and we don't want to have to listen to you as viable race of people...shut up and give us your goods.
The US rewards counties for getting nukes, they also deal with them in a more civil manner. Foreign policy 101.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Um........because then they wouldn't be able to build their nukes...which everyone here seems to think would neeeever happen being that their government is so peace loving.
Holy hypocrisy...
Barf up some of that propaganda...you're poisoned...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I sleep very well at night, except for when my sleep apnea acts up. You are so quick to criticize Iran's treatment of their citizens but you seem to be at peace our association with Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, etc. These countries are just as bad if not worse that Iran as far as human rights abuse.
Also to clarify I do not equate civilian nuclear power to militarized nuclear power as you do. I tend to see a difference between the two. Iran would never use a nuclear weapon nor allow Hezbollah or Hamas to do so for the same reason the Soviet Union and the US never used them on each other. Mutual destruction. Ahmedenajad is an idiot but he is not that stupid. The Ayatollah, the true ruler of Iran, would never allow for that to happen. So all this fear mongering is simply just that. A way to drum up support for our continued presense in the region.
We would be better off engaging Iran instead of isolating them, but then again we don't want to work with them we want to over throw their government and install one who is open to US intervention instead of Russian or Chinese. How quickly we forgot how well that worked out the first time we did that.
Well maybe if we stopped threatening to invade them, we also have this nasty habit of overthrowing governments to install our own puppet Shah ring a bell, there wouldn't be a need to develope a weapons as a deterent. Secondly Iran has the right to build it's own reactors and enrich it's own uranium, for civilian purposes, as stated in the NPT. Why should they do otherwise. Just because we want it that way does not make it law. We have to start understanding that not every country on this planet is going to do things our way or to our approval. Unless they start developing a nuclear weapon, which they haven't as of the last IEAE report in August 2007, they are free to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes as stated by international law no matter how much we bitch about it.
You're not recognizing the problem. The worry isn't so much that Iran would use a nuclear bomb. It's the fact that if they have one, then other countries lose their ability and leveage to negotiate with a nuclear armed Iran.
Iran can tell the UN to kiss off, or the IAEA to kiss off and what will anybody do? Having a nuclear bomb pretty much makes Iran immune from a military attack. I have yet to see or hear a serious journalist or politician use fear-mongering as a tactic with regards to the Iranian situation.
I'm not at peace with how those other countires you mentioned treat their citizens. But I do understand our policies towards them and why those policies exist as they do.
Dont confuse em with the facts
all this BS is about building the case for war by which the apathetic people of the world will simply just ignore ... it is about whether or not this administration can boost military spending to astronomical levels before they lose control ... but at the very least - they can continue to fuck around in the middle east where they really have no business being ... keep it politically unstable ...
the worst thing that could happen to the US is a peaceful middle east ...
I understand that Iran having a nuclear weapon is a tremendous threat to security and stability in the Middle east and trust me I don't want that as much as you do, but Iran has broken no laws. Under the NPT, which Iran signed, they are allowed to to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and as I stated, as of the last IAEA report in August, that is exactly what they have been doing. If when the final report is published in December and if it states that Iran has not met the IEAE demands for free inspections, then I will change my stance, but until then I stand firmly that Iran has done nothing wrong. As for the continuation of their program they have to agree to the IEAE guidelines if they don't then we pressure them to do so. As long as they abide by international law we have no right to tell them what to do regardless of their government and how much we may hate it.
As for our relationship with the other countries I mentioned, in the past I could see the need to associate with them, but as of today I don't understand why we still do, specially Saudi Arabia. We knew back in the 1970's during the oil shortages that our dependence on Saudi oil would be problematic but we did nothing. We continued to suck on the Saudi teet ignoring all the warning signs and now it's too late. The center of the Islamic militant world has always been Saudi Arabia, and now it includes Pakistan, and because of our relationship with the two our efforts have been hampered.
Don't insult my intelligence with some half ass remark. You want to debate what I said I am more than happy to debate. If all you interested in doing is throwing around juvenile comments than find some moron to play with you because I have no time for the likes of you.
all your anger should be towards america not iran. some of you are backwards.
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/terrorism2.jpg
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/terrorism1.jpg
What happened in such a short period of time?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
They've been more cooperative than ANY other country... EVER. Also, don't act as if the entire UN has tried to suspend it. Iran merely give it's finger to the US and it's puppets because it has every right to. it doesn't need to suspend uranium enrichment cause uh... its not harmful... at all.
Sorry but it's as though you are being blocked by something that won't let you understand that Iran CLEARLY has no ambition for a nuclear weapon.... and EVEN if they did... theyre "years away from developing one" according to the IAEA. (oh im gonna take this time to say mammason, it's IAEA not IEAE =P ) I don't think you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just full of propaganda or something. Intothewild on the other hand has no idea what he/she is talking about which is why they just quote you and say stupid remarks to act like they're part of the argument.
uh huh. here's an article that isn't a year old. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7068478.stm
now do you see that the IAEA doesn't think they're doing anything wrong even if they don't have "unlimited access" to everything? the IAEA is fine with Iran enriching uranium right now, but the US, Israel, and the stupid puppet, France, have just "dismissed" the IAEA findings based on NOTHIGN. they don't even offer proof, but half ass remarks like "the only thing they are headed for is a nuclear weapon."
Also, please explain to me, why is it dangerous for iran to have a nuclear weapon but not Israel? US? France, even? Why are these countries ok to have weapons but not Iran? Can anyone answer that with a legitimate answer?
That's what it was, an invasion, I'm not picking and choosing juicy or inflamatory language. I'm stating as a matter of fact, it was an invasion. When animals migrate from their typical habitat to one of another species that forces that species out, it's often called an invasion. As I've already stated the term invasion has a few slightly different meanings. They did not invade by force, they invaded by coercion and occupation. Would you not call a hundred million mexicans running across the border, an invasion?
The third reich fell in 1945, there was no holocaust to flee from in 1947 when the Belfour Declaration was written. The holocaust is all too often used as a model genocide and to garner unwarranted support for Israel and it's foreign policies. What about the 45 - 78 million that died under Mao Zedong in China? We can't use attempted genocide as an excuse to invade another's home. We can't use it as an excuse to displace and murder millions of more people.