Why is Iran's nuclear energy program Ilegal...

1235

Comments

  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    unofficial record holder for the most ridiculous glasses ever to be worn by a gay man...

    http://electricityandlust.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/elton-john.jpg
    http://www.musictimes.com.au/images/elton-john-flamboyant.jpg
    http://blogs.argusleadermedia.com/uploads/2007/09/elton_john_70s.jpg
    :D:D:D (!)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    They might seek to have them if other countries that have them keep on slapping them around.
    that didnt really answer my question... by the way, have we attacked Iran? from what i can tell we/europe/ and the rest of the friggin world just dont want them to develop nuclear weapons, thats all. and now Iran and some far left fringe folks are running around as if Iran is a victim, like htey have been invaded? the last thing this world needs is another nuclear armed country... especially a country controlled by a non democratic religious theocracy located in the middle east.... and NO that doesnt mean you invade them or do it by force pre-emptively, aka the Bush Doctrine... by the way do you know anything about South Africa and their past WMD program? there is nothing wrong with the world intervening and stopping new countries from developing nuclear weapons and spreading the plague farther
    A nuclear armed anything is bad,
    right
    however if they are going to have them they will have them with or without the US bombing them, one situation will be amicable, the other will definitely not.
    why jump to the conclusion that america is going to invade Iran? Diplomacy has worked in the past... see, this is the importance of Obama being elected comes into play... he is the candidate actually endorsing negotiations with Iran... as opposed to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike and non-existent diplomacy



    here is a 3rd question... what do you think of ther Israeli Air Strikes on Iraq's Nuclear Reactor? i have no problem with it at all. nort sure how you feel about it but maybe you would be comfortable with a Nuclear armed Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq the last 25 years?
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    angelica wrote:
    Beautiful song..

    And I love love LOVE this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSiRSvXBu00

    Absolutely! great song!

    Thanks, I hadn't got around to that one, yet. I had to go pull out my Don't Shoot Me I'm Only The Piano Player LP and give it a spin on the turntable. Which of course will require a repeat spin...all the way through:D

    angelica wrote:

    btw, when did this thread turn into 'ode to Elton'?? :D

    :D Since I high-jacked this thread, I suppose:D

    Gotta' admit it's a nice change of pace from the usual political debating/bickering:)
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    my2hands wrote:
    that didnt really answer my question... by the way, have we attacked Iran? from what i can tell we/europe/ and the rest of the friggin world just dont want them to develop nuclear weapons, thats all. and now Iran and some far left fringe folks are running around as if Iran is a victim, like htey have been invaded? the last thing this world needs is another nuclear armed country... especially a country controlled by a non democratic religious theocracy located in the middle east.... and NO that doesnt mean you invade them or do it by force pre-emptively, aka the Bush Doctrine... by the way do you know anything about South Africa and their past WMD program? there is nothing wrong with the world intervening and stopping new countries from developing nuclear weapons and spreading the plague farther

    right why jump to the conclusion that america is going to invade Iran? Diplomacy has worked in the past... see, this is the importance of Obama being elected comes into play... he is the candidate actually endorsing negotiations with Iran... as opposed to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strike and non-existent diplomacy



    here is a 3rd question... what do you think of ther Israeli Air Strikes on Iraq's Nuclear Reactor? i have no problem with it at all. nort sure how you feel about it but maybe you would be comfortable with a Nuclear armed Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq the last 25 years?


    You should look into US intervention in Iran over the past 50 years, (and realize the people directly affected are very much alive today...and remember).

    If you want to maintain empirical hegemony over the resources in this area you drop bombs on them, if you want to recognise them as human beings just like everyone else... you don't.

    It's quite simple really.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    unofficial record holder for the most ridiculous glasses ever to be worn by a gay man...

    http://electricityandlust.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/elton-john.jpg
    http://www.musictimes.com.au/images/elton-john-flamboyant.jpg
    http://blogs.argusleadermedia.com/uploads/2007/09/elton_john_70s.jpg


    Elton wouldn't be Elton without them:D
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    _outlaw wrote:
    They signed the NPT and have the right to find nuclear energy on their own. They don't need/don't want to be dependent on foreign help for their own nuclear research. They want to do it on their own, and they have every right to do so.
    I completely agree with this. The help that was "offered" was proposed to Iran in exchange for a complete overview of their nuclear program. Because all in all the real problem is that Iran is not completely honest with their program. That's their right but I also understand if some countries don't trust their government. As another poster said, the last thing this world needs is another country with the capacity to use nuclear bombs.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    You can hide literally anything underneath a Burka these days, perhaps even some Mexicans pretending they are Muslim women just to get work.
    ...
    Someone needs to inform Lou Dobbs of this.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Kann wrote:
    As another poster said, the last thing this world needs is another country with the capacity to use nuclear bombs.

    Or to make more even stronger enemies that are going to hate you even more than they do already, who are most likely going to get them eventually anyways despite (or because) of your "best" efforts...

    Looks to me like the tough love approach has backfired for the empire. More of same?

    obviously...super size it, with extra fries!
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    You should look into US intervention in Iran over the past 50 years, (and realize the people directly affected are very much alive today...and remember).
    i know all about it... again, have we invaded and laid the country to waste? our meddling with the Iran govt 50 years ago and installing a puppet regime has what to do with them obtaining nuclear weapons? not to mention puppet regimes and colonial control of countries was quite the Zeitgeist of the era and not unusual... that does not excuse it, just sayin
    If you want to maintain empirical hegemony over the resources in this area you drop bombs on them, if you want to recognise them as human beings just like everyone else... you don't.

    It's quite simple really.

    no, as has been shown in the past ther military is not neccesary to divert a country away from nuclear weapons... that does mean you take the stick off the table though, which has been done for centuries befroe you or i arrived on the scene... again, look into Sout Africa, Libya, North Korea.... all have been succesful campaigns to have them abort nuclear programs


    and seriously dude, this shit isnt that "simple really"... and if you think it is then how come the State Department isnt banging down your door
  • rocketman
    rocketman Posts: 68
    Kann wrote:
    So because they have more oil than they can spend they're denied the right to have nuclear energy?



    add :
    3 - If Iran truly has no interest in nuclear weapons why have they repeatedly refused to go under the AIEA regulations and/or recieve technological help and surveillance from Europe and the US?
    Because they have so much fucking oil they dont NEED nuclear power. And if this is just nuclear power why build them underground and surround them with SAM missiles. And why not let anyone inspect? Are you really in that much denial?
  • rocketman
    rocketman Posts: 68
    NMyTree wrote:
    Elton, is that you?

    Can you play Tiny Dancer and Midnight Creeper for me, please? Thanks.
    LOL. Sorry. Only chopsticks
  • rocketman
    rocketman Posts: 68
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Who and what gives you the right to deny anyone of anything that hasn't lifted a finger towards you, but rather quite the opposite has happened the other way around?

    ...and then tell me you're not being a hypocrite afterwards.

    ...and you just lumped all those people together? Did your brown person alarm go off or something?
    Because only a complete moron would try to argue that what Iran is doing is meant for peaceful purposes. All they gotta do is open the door to inspectors. Done deal. But they won't. If all they want is energy just abide by the IAEA's directive and they got energy. So if you aren't following the rules, a logical person would think you are breaking them. And no, its not a brown person thing. Besides I think Persians are more Olive. I know this because we have many Persian friends.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    rocketman wrote:
    Because only a complete moron would try to argue that what Iran is doing is meant for peaceful purposes. All they gotta do is open the door to inspectors. Done deal. But they won't. If all they want is energy just abide by the IAEA's directive and they got energy. So if you aren't following the rules, a logical person would think you are breaking them. And no, its not a brown person thing. Besides I think Persians are more Olive. I know this because we have many Persian friends.


    Maybe check in with the IAEA

    They seem to be satisfied.

    didn't you catch this fact on O'reilly already?
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Maybe check in with the IAEA

    They seem to be satisfied.

    didn't you catch this fact on O'reilly already?

    What is your opinion of the Israeli Pre-Emptive strike against the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor and capabilities in the 80's?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    my2hands wrote:
    What is your opinion of the Israeli Pre-Emptive strike against the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor and capabilities in the 80's?


    Yeah well look at Iraq now eh?

    I'd say it was a success, shall we dig up all the people and ask them?
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • rocketman
    rocketman Posts: 68
    my2hands wrote:
    What is your opinion of the Israeli Pre-Emptive strike against the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor and capabilities in the 80's?
    Why ask this guy? Dont you already know the answer?
  • raszputini
    raszputini Posts: 119
    Again, folks....you can't believe what mainstream media tells you about ANYTHING.

    The issue is uranium-enrichment. Regular old, run of the mill uranium 238 is usable for nuclear energy, but in a very inefficent way. We're OK with them using that. Isotope reduction converts it into uranium 235 which is what you REALLY need for nuclear energy. It is also the first step to weapons grade uranium, but DOES NOT make it weapons grade. 3-5% uranium 235 is for civilian reactors, 90% uranium 235 is weapons-grade. Iran has not produced weapons grade anything. The administraion and the news would have you believe otherwise.

    Iran is in violation of NOTHING. They have had countless IAEA inspections, (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml) and in 2006, the IAEA suspected they had "undeclared nuclear material". At that point it was bumped up to the UN Security Council (+Germany): The US, Russia, the UK, China and France and Germany - all nucelar weapons states who unanimously condemned Iran because we don't wany anyone else to enrich uranium (that is unless its Israel), so a number of resolutions have been passed to try and force Iran to stop enrichment.

    They'd have you believe that enrichment is tantamount to developing weapons, and that's just a lie (http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4016).
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Yeah well look at Iraq now eh?

    I'd say it was a success, shall we dig up all the people and ask them?


    serriously... what did/do you think of it? The Israeli strike against Iraq's Nuclear reactor

    i tell you right now i have/had no problem with it at all...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    rocketman wrote:
    Because they have so much fucking oil they dont NEED nuclear power. And if this is just nuclear power why build them underground and surround them with SAM missiles. And why not let anyone inspect? Are you really in that much denial?
    That's called planning in advance and not wanting to rely on a ressource as scarce as oil. It's actually a good strategic move. And I'm not that much in denial, I'm not a fan of having another country, especially a theocracy, have nuclear power. But they're not there yet, and according to the AIEA they are far from being there. So there is actually no need to get all touchy - there a far worse problems than this right now.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    my2hands wrote:
    serriously... what did/do you think of it? The Israeli strike against Iraq's Nuclear reactor

    i tell you right now i have/had no problem with it at all...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
    since you seem to love to ask questions, here is one for you:

    If Iraq were to have done a pre-emptive strike on Israel's nuclear program, would you have a problem with that?

Categories