|
Breaking News: Isreal and Lebanon at War? (pg. 105)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Ya i have a friend whos a Chemical Engineer & he was telling me on how in his line of work people feel bad for Iran. Because they are sitting on a ton of oil, but they dont have the refinerys to covert it to fuel. |
Yet they'd rather violate global sentiment and spend billions developing a nuclear infrastructure whereby they'd need to import uranium instead of simply building non-controversial infrastructure to capitalize on their massive reserves of oil, which they can use at no cost to themselves. And this is because they desperately need to provide more power to their people.
Something just doesn't smell right.
| quote: | | Who threatened whom first? Who started this? US.. Bush labelled three countries 'Axis of Evils' out of nowhere all of a sudden and said world should get rid of them... so by your logic; shoudn't we be stripping US of its nukes first? |
Purple--if you think this is new sentiment that originated with the Bush administration, you are sorely mistaken. I don't think logic suits you. Go read the friggin NNPT. I believe Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy sources for civilian use, but not when they openly claim they interested in it from the perspective of acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is a blatant violation of the treaty they signed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...feration_Treaty
| quote: | Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). These were the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to signature, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" technology to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.
The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". In January 2006, Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers. |
| quote: | Third pillar: the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
For some states, this third pillar of the NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major loophole. However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Peaceful uranium enrichment can arguably be considered a small step away from developing nuclear warheads, and this can be done by withdrawing from the NPT. No state is known to have successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to NPT inspection.
Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed. |
So it's more Iran's rhetoric that is the reason they are being deprived of this great energy source that will finally give them energy independence.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Bush labelled three countries 'Axis of Evils' |
Yes he did.
Hardly.
| quote: | | and said world should get rid of them. |
You made that up.
| quote: | | so by your logic; shoudn't we be stripping US of its nukes first? |
I dunno--is the U.S. actively trying to increase its nuclear arsenal? For non-peaceful purposes? |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I dunno--is the U.S. actively trying to increase its nuclear arsenal? For non-peaceful purposes? |
lol. They really dont need too!!
I cant provide a quote because i cant remember where i read it but the states have enough nuclear weaponery to blow the entire world up 4.5 times.. |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Who threatened whom first? Who started this? US.. Bush labelled three countries 'Axis of Evils' out of nowhere and said world should get rid of them... so by your logic; shoudn't we be stripping US of its nukes first? |
First of all.. There were four. Iran, Iraq, north Korea and Syria.
Second of all.. He didnt say that he planned on "getting rid of them"
Thirdly: Who would you rather with nukes.. USA or Iran.. And give an honest answer |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So it's more Iran's rhetoric that is the reason they are being deprived of this great energy source that will finally give them energy independence.:rolleyes: |
Seriously, it will. Nuke powered energy is the best any country can have.. life long source never ending stream of Power for its country's industry.
And it is nothing new that Iran is doing today, its called upgradation.. Iran has been importing, upgrading its nuclear powered stations technology since like decades... every country is doing it..and does it..you start with lower grade Uranium .. than migrate to better grade which is more effective.. than plutonium.. than hydrogen..and stuff like that.. every country has the right to research and import knowledge.. its life; always look for better things...
But suddenly after 9/11 all of Iran's research and development are now only directed towards destruction of Isreal and making nuclear bombs.. it has suddenly become there sole motive of existance and its country's aim.. according to Bush. Suddenly Iran exists and whole country only works to get one thing.. a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel.. how petite western mentality is.... they never look beyond there own lives.
| quote: | Originally posted by sasslife
Thirdly: Who would you rather with nukes.. USA or Iran.. And give an honest answer |
Racism at its best. If US can have it why cant Iran? Who is you and me to tell who has the right to it and who hasent.. and nobody can predict which country will use it first.. if Russia woudnt have intervened US would have nuked Cuba long time back.. it would have been the first than.. US is itching to use its nukes arsenal.. Bush even said one that US was thinking of using 'smaller' nuke bombs in Iran.. |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Racism at its best. If US can have it why cant Iran? Who is you and me to tell who has the right to it and who hasent.. and nobody cant predict which country will use it first.. if Russia woudnt have intervened US would have nuked Cuba long time back.. it would have been the first than.. US is itching to use its nukes arsenal.. Bush even said one that US was thinking of using 'smaller' nuke bombs in Iran.. |
Call it what you like.
Its a gamble.. Who can i trust more to do the right thing by me and the society in which i live..
USA (Probably Australas third largest ali) or a rag head with an attitude?? |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by sasslife
Second of all.. He didnt say that he planned on "getting rid of them"
|
But with the U.S's history of invading coutries, it makes it obvious its on thier To Do List.:p
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some things that things that are way outta line, but how much of that could have been taken outta context & used in a scare tactic by our govt & media.? Just like when Pres Bush made the comment about the war on terror & said the word Crusade. All the muslim biased news sources loved that. But again it was taken outta context.
But where does Irans President get the fuel to make these outrages statements.? Well since WWII the U.S. has been heavily trying to control Iran from having the CIA take out thier democratically elected leaders & then by force putting in U.S. friendly leaders & a military dictator so U.S. companies & allies can control all of Irans oil. Then after the people of Iran got fed up & had a revolution & took the country back as thier own, the U.S. runs to the U.N. & starts lobbying for sanctions to be put on the country. Then during the 80's the U.S. supplys WMD's to Irans enemy Iraq & Iraq uses those WMD's on Iran. So i wonder if a country did this or even ever attempted to do this to the U.S., what the U.S. would do about it.? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Racism at its best. If US can have it why cant Iran? Who is you and me to tell who has the right to it and who hasent.. and nobody can predict which country will use it first.. if Russia woudnt have intervened US would have nuked Cuba long time back.. it would have been the first than.. US is itching to use its nukes arsenal.. Bush even said one that US was thinking of using 'smaller' nuke bombs in Iran.. |
It's not racism. It's common sense. Sorry if it offends you. |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
But where does Irans President get the fuel to make these outrages statements.? Well since WWII the U.S. has been heavily trying to control Iran from having the CIA take out thier democratically elected leaders & then by force putting in U.S. friendly leaders & a military dictator so U.S. companies & allies can control all of Irans oil. Then after the people of Iran got fed up & had a revolution & took the country back as thier own, the U.S. runs to the U.N. & starts lobbying for sanctions to be put on the country. Then during the 80's the U.S. supplys WMD's to Irans enemy Iraq & Iraq uses those WMD's on Iran. So i wonder if a country did this or even ever attempted to do this to the U.S., what the U.S. would do about it.? |
Im not defending the decsions made by the west!!
But Irans president statements are a self full filling prophacy. The americans are coming so lets build weapons.
When the world has had enough the amercans will show up on your doorstep and the iranian people will pay with blood.. Diplomacy doesnt work with nut cases so there is little other that can be done.
Once all is said and done i would prefer Iran whiped off the map than live with an armed Allotolah!!
(keep in mind i am iranian by heritage so im not a biggot who hates all things persian) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by sasslife
(keep in mind i am iranian by heritage so im not a biggot who hates all things persian) |
With that said, one of my closest friends (best man at my wedding) is a farsi speaking Iranian. I have nothing against him or peaceful Iranians. But when he confirms to me that the President of Iran is certifiably off his rocker, I take comfort in the fact that this man is being deprived of his nuclear ambitions (at least hopefully). It's not about racism. |
|
|
| sasslife |
The racism card is an absolute load of bullsh*t..
Nobody has said that they cant have nuclear powered stations. There was an offer put on the table whereby Russia would supply them with the material but all the waste must be returned and accounted for.
Why was it knocked back?? THEY WANT WEAPONS.
And as purple said, it is the most efficent way to generate power for industry.. What industries could the iranian regime be trying to support?? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Who knows, but I bet you if someone offered them an unlimited supply of solar panels they wouldn't have the slightest interest. (Even if it is an absurd hypothetical, it makes the point). |
|
|
|
|
