US to accept civilian nuke program in Iran

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Diablo1099:

KlLLUMINATI:

So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

Yo I'm gonna let you finish, but If he was working for someone else, who would it be?
Doesn't really get much higher then the Oval Office, I mean, Why work for a Nation when you own a bigger one?

I think it's obvious who Obama works for. The Majestic Twelve.

Luke Gomez:
This. It's a matter of science, not political science. The fact that American media has continued to push the "secret nuke" is less than exemplary of our journalistic standards.

Except it's quite possible to develop nuclear weapons from civilian facilities with a few adaptations. And who's to say if they have those? Iran doesn't let anyone inspect their facilities. That's why this move by Obama is so clever; if they don't want to build nukes, they have nothing to hide. If they've got stuff to hide, they look more guilty.

pyrate:
First of all Ahmadinejad is not a leader of Iran. He is pretty low on the ladder, like a dozen people before him low. The position of President in Iran is just a figurehead.

He has the loyalty of the revolutionary guard though, and those are completely separate from the army and considerably better trained and equipped, much like Khadaffi had an armed forces, and then a separate elite armed forces personally loyal to him.

Ironically, just a few hours ago, an Iranian official declared that Iran does, in fact, possesses the capability to enrich a nuclear bomb. However, he claims that Iran chooses not to implement its capability.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46982494/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/

Also from the article: "His views do not represent the Iranian government's policy." So they are capable of producing a bomb, wish to manufacture a bomb, and try to hide any evidence they're already building a bomb. Would you trust them not to manufacture it?

So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

Sense, reason, intellect? This is finally a move in the right direction ... although I still don't understand why in a sane world it should be any of the US' business whether Iran has nuclear weapons. I'm more worried sometimes about the US having them than Iran, truth be told.

Blablahb:

Luke Gomez:
This. It's a matter of science, not political science. The fact that American media has continued to push the "secret nuke" is less than exemplary of our journalistic standards.

Except it's quite possible to develop nuclear weapons from civilian facilities with a few adaptations. And who's to say if they have those? Iran doesn't let anyone inspect their facilities. That's why this move by Obama is so clever; if they don't want to build nukes, they have nothing to hide. If they've got stuff to hide, they look more guilty.

pyrate:
First of all Ahmadinejad is not a leader of Iran. He is pretty low on the ladder, like a dozen people before him low. The position of President in Iran is just a figurehead.

He has the loyalty of the revolutionary guard though, and those are completely separate from the army and considerably better trained and equipped, much like Khadaffi had an armed forces, and then a separate elite armed forces personally loyal to him.

You make it sound as a "few adaptations" is an easy task. Let's not forget that Iran could not even build their current NPP themselves, they had to get the Russians to do it. Hell, they can't even operate it without Russian specialists being there. Russia supplies the fuel and they take back all the spent fuel.

Iran cannot even build and operate a power plant by themselves, they are not going to have the ability to develop a nuclear bomb.

Seekster:

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out. Being nice isnt going to get us very far with Iran.

Google Operation Ajax/Boot and you will realise Iran has every right to be pissed of at the USA and her allies for causing quite alot of woe in the country.

You cant smack someone up the side of the head then cry foul when they develop the means to stop you smacking them up the side of the head.

Typical Imperialism, Typical American Foreign policy, Typical American Propoganda.

It puzzels me why Americans get confused over why other countires hate them. They have created their own enemies

pyrate:
You make it sound as a "few adaptations" is an easy task. Let's not forget that Iran could not even build their current NPP themselves, they had to get the Russians to do it. Hell, they can't even operate it without Russian specialists being there. Russia supplies the fuel and they take back all the spent fuel.
Iran cannot even build and operate a power plant by themselves, they are not going to have the ability to develop a nuclear bomb.

But that related mostly to manafacturing. Now that Iran has the relevant centrifuges, they have all the groundwork. All it takes to make weapons-grade uranium is a bit more powerfull centrifuges.

Duskwaith:
Google Operation Ajax/Boot and you will realise Iran has every right to be pissed of at the USA and her allies for causing quite alot of woe in the country.

That's over half of a century ago. Total nonsense to bring that in.

Seekster:
Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

The US made Iran their enemy, Iran did not make the US their enemy. Its worth pointing that out. You should learn history its important.

Blablahb:
That's over half of a century ago. Total nonsense to bring that in.

The US also tried a coup in 1979 and an the 1980s gave illegal chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran. It turns out that when you have a history of supporting coups to over through democratic governments then the people you oppressed don't trust you.

the only way to get anywhere near keeping a complete track on a countries "nuclear program" is to legitimise it.

the science involved in a "nuclear program" is not at all hard or clever by today standards and simply throwing a hard "no" at people undertaking one or trying to enforce that "no" via military means is never going to produce a better situation over the long term.

Shaoken:
Are people missing the key bit in Obama's statement? That he'll accept it if the Supreme Ruler of Iran himself can prove they won't use it for the purposes of WMDs?

In other words this won't go anywhere; Iran will be insulted that they're being asked to prove that they won't blow up things with Nukes, and Obama won't back down.

I know, right? This thread has has turned into a conversation about whether we should go to war with Iran for trying to get nuclear weapons.

But yeah, Obama isn't being nice or trying to accommodate Iran. Whether Iran actually tries to prove they won't make any nukes, Obama is still going to say no.

Who on earth appointed Obama and the US state as the world nuclear authority, anyway? That's what I'd like to know, first of all.

Seekster:

Stagnant:

Fisher321:
It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Actually in a geopolitical context (as opposed to an individual one), yes, any and all advantages you can gain over a potential enemy are in your interest to maintain. Iran doesn't have to become our friend by any means but if it wants to remain and enemy then we will treat Iran like an enemy.

This of course ignores the fact that the regime in Iran uses America's position on its nuclear program as a way of distracting the public from the regime's wrong-doing. Much of the Iranian public is far more moderate than most Americans know, and Ahmedinjad is in deep crap right now over his utter mishandling of the country. But most Iranians are also pretty patriotic by all accounts, and talk of the US and Israel taking military action against Iran has a very galvanizing effect on the public.

In other words, seeing geopolitics as nothing more than a game of power accumulation is short-sighted and self-destructive. Sometimes getting what you want requires letting other people get there on their own. Kind of like if I go to a bar to pick up chicks, I'm not going to have a lot of success by walking in and shouting, "I'M HERE TO PICK UP CHICKS! WHERE ARE THE CHICKS WHO WANT TO BE PICKED UP!"

Seekster:

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

By doing....what, exactly? What hostile action against the USA did Iran commit in order to make you their enemy?

PS: "Not shutting up and doing what we want them to" doesn't count.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Yeah there's no way wrecking a country's economy can come back to bite you in the ass...

The Iran Hostage crisis ring any bells? That and their constant support of groups like Hezbollah and harassment of Israel. More recently their support for Shiite militias in Iraq.

"Yeah there's no way wrecking a country's economy can come back to bite you in the ass..."

Thats a chance we are probably willing to take if that is what keeps them from getting a nuclear weapon should they choose to make one.

Didnt Israeli fund terrorist groups in Iran that has killed several nuclear scientists in the past month. And half a dozen in the past year. Im going with the guy who said this was a win/win. If you get inspection going on in there hostilities will cease. If you dont the US will have ammunition to use on the political stage internationally.

Hammartroll:
snip

When you post a video that is trying to convince me that Iran is a great place. Pick one that does not act like the "evil" and "despotic" Shah giving Women the right to vote and stopping the oppression of Zoroastrians was a bad thing.

Gentleman Adventurer:

Hammartroll:
snip

When you post a video that is trying to convince me that Iran is a great place. Pick one that does not act like the "evil" and "despotic" Shah giving Women the right to vote and stopping the oppression of Zoroastrians was a bad thing.

I haven't seen the video, but it's pretty widely accepted that while the Shah did introduce some social reforms, he was also a despot who had political opponents arrested and killed. And even if he was a perfect, wonderful leader, it still doesn't excuse the US and Britain forcing him onto the Iranian people.

Darknacht:
The US also tried a coup in 1979 and an the 1980s gave illegal chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran. It turns out that when you have a history of supporting coups to over through democratic governments then the people you oppressed don't trust you.

Uhm, the US never supressed the Iranian people. Note how Iran was never a part of the US. The Iranian regime does every day though.

Right now, Iran is the enemy of the US, and not the other way around. They openly threaten with war against a number of countries and get involved in other places in an imperialist way. For instance their aid in the occupation of Lebanon and their military involvement in Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts.

Also what you say about the coup is not true. Iran nationalised their entire oil business, seizing a lot of, mostly British, foreign assets. That tends to piss people off. In this case the countermove was taking part in bringing about the fall of the Mosaddegh regime. Shit happens. If Mossadegh didn't want that, he shouldn't have stolen other people's stuff.

You treat it like it just happened out of thin air, and that is never the case.

Blablahb:
That tends to piss people off. In this case the countermove was taking part in bringing about the fall of the Mosaddegh regime. Shit happens. If Mossadegh didn't want that, he shouldn't have stolen other people's stuff.

Of course he shouldn't have. After all, he was just a weak despot, not, say, vice president of the most powerful country on the planet with a lot of interest in oil business.

To be completely honest, I think one has to be really messed up to even want being a dictator of Genericstan-Arabivil these days.

Darknacht:

Seekster:
Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

The US made Iran their enemy, Iran did not make the US their enemy. Its worth pointing that out. You should learn history its important.

Yes it is worth learning history, I went to college and got a degree in history and I die a little inside when someone says something like you just said that demonstrates how few people really know their history.

Seekster:

Darknacht:

Seekster:
Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

The US made Iran their enemy, Iran did not make the US their enemy. Its worth pointing that out. You should learn history its important.

Yes it is worth learning history, I went to college and got a degree in history and I die a little inside when someone says something like you just said that demonstrates how few people really know their history.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh boy. Who the hell let you ever graduate- oh yeah american education, right.

I'd suppose the US removing the democratic chosen leader of Iran and replacing him with the despotic Shah, or giving chemical weapons to Sadam to use in his war against Iran, is not the act of an enemy... Sure.

Seekster gonna be seekster. Clueless and ignorant of anything he doesn't like. A true republican historian.

"OMG WHO IS OBAMA WORKING FOR?"

What the fuck kind of question is that? Because he makes a move that you don't like politically -- even though an actual war with Iran would make the Iraq debacle look like a Sunday picnic -- he's obviously in cahoots with "the enemy"? Give it a rest, Kill.

I don't respond to personal insults and similiar foolishness, I just ignore them. Iran is an enemy of the United States and has chosen to remain so. It would be best if they decided to not be an enemy of the United States and Israel and acted like a responsible member of the world community but that is up to them.

Iran should let the UN come and insect so that the United States can shut up about Iran's nuclear program. And also, Israel should get rid of its nuclear weapons. You can't really allow the left to have nukes when its enemy on the right doesn't have them.

Seekster:
I don't respond to personal insults and similiar foolishness, I just ignore them. Iran is an enemy of the United States and has chosen to remain so. It would be best if they decided to not be an enemy of the United States and Israel and acted like a responsible member of the world community but that is up to them.

Iran is not an enemy of the United States.

Possibly an argument can be made that the government of Iran is an enemy to the United States. As in all non-liberal societies, we cannot guarantee that the people are an enemy just because they are prohibited from voicing opposition to the government.

Of course, when the sabers start rattling, threatening the people of Iran is liable to make them become temporary sincere allies of the government of Iran. That's what's so frustrating about these discussions. If we didn't have so many policy makers suffering from testosterone poisoning and desperate to prove who has the biggest foreign policy cock, we would stand chance at getting what we want because the people seem to want at least something in the direction of what we want. But for some of our leaders, looking like they have an impressive cock is more important than getting results that build peace, prosperity, and stability.

It's the same mistake as Iraq, and no one has learned the lesson. If Bush hadn't been so insecure about his manhood we never would have gone to Iraq and we would have had the money to pay for our economic collapse multiple times over. But instead Osama Bin Laden's goal of financially crippling the US came true with an unnecessary war in a country that didn't attack us. The insecurity of Americans is what allowed the terrorists to win. And there are still Americans who want to repeat the same mistakes all over again. Christ. And Michelle Bachmann wants the liberals investigated as potential enemies of America.

pyrate:
Second of all, so what if you let them have a civilian nuclear industry. You cannot suddenly turn a civilian nuclear industry into a nuclear weapon. It does not work like that. The facilities for a civilian nuclear industry simply cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. You cannot get a nuclear bomb out of a nuclear power station or a nuclear medicinal facility. The scale of enrichment of nuclear fuel for civilian purposes compared to weapons purposes cannot be compared.

I was starting to wonder when someone was going to point this out.

PrinceOfShapeir:
I think it's obvious who Obama works for. The Majestic Twelve.

Really? I was hoping it would turn out to be the Magnificent Seven.

Blablahb:
Except it's quite possible to develop nuclear weapons from civilian facilities with a few adaptations.

This should be good. What are those adaptations? How easy are they to do? And do we know for certain that Iran has the rseources and personnel needed to do it? Spare me no details.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
I don't respond to personal insults and similiar foolishness, I just ignore them. Iran is an enemy of the United States and has chosen to remain so. It would be best if they decided to not be an enemy of the United States and Israel and acted like a responsible member of the world community but that is up to them.

Iran is not an enemy of the United States.

Possibly an argument can be made that the government of Iran is an enemy to the United States. As in all non-liberal societies, we cannot guarantee that the people are an enemy just because they are prohibited from voicing opposition to the government.

Of course, when the sabers start rattling, threatening the people of Iran is liable to make them become temporary sincere allies of the government of Iran. That's what's so frustrating about these discussions. If we didn't have so many policy makers suffering from testosterone poisoning and desperate to prove who has the biggest foreign policy cock, we would stand chance at getting what we want because the people seem to want at least something in the direction of what we want. But for some of our leaders, looking like they have an impressive cock is more important than getting results that build peace, prosperity, and stability.

It's the same mistake as Iraq, and no one has learned the lesson. If Bush hadn't been so insecure about his manhood we never would have gone to Iraq and we would have had the money to pay for our economic collapse multiple times over. But instead Osama Bin Laden's goal of financially crippling the US came true with an unnecessary war in a country that didn't attack us. The insecurity of Americans is what allowed the terrorists to win. And there are still Americans who want to repeat the same mistakes all over again. Christ. And Michelle Bachmann wants the liberals investigated as potential enemies of America.

Yes Iran is an enemy of the United States. We arent at war with them or anything but they are openly hostile towards us and we to them.

Ok when I say "Iran is an enemy of the United States" I mean the governments of those two countries though for what its worth there are plenty of Americans who see Iran as an enemy just as there are plenty of Iranians who see the United States as an enemy. In geopolitics its typical to refer to governments by the name of the country.

Um how about no. We went into Iraq because we were paranoid after 9-11 and Saddam wouldnt cooperate with weapons inspectors and acted like he had something to hide (what he had to hide was that he didnt have WMDs, he feared Iran more than the USA, big mistake). As for Al Qaeda's asinine master plan, it failed royally. Turns out the United States is far more resilient than overemphasizing the Vietnam War lets on. Furthermore if you torment the Iraqis eventually they will side with the occupiers against you.

I have to say you have a very very deluded view of the military and diplomatic affairs of the last decade which may explain why your views on Iran have little basis in reality. Little mind you, I have seen much crazier ones.

Seekster:

I have to say you have a very very deluded view of the military and diplomatic affairs of the last decade which may explain why your views on Iran have little basis in reality. Little mind you, I have seen much crazier ones.

I would take caution not to accuse others of "deluded views," Seekster.

The Iraq War had nothing to do with "paranoia after 9/11;" that was just some bullshit they sold to the idiotic American people, who of course lapped it up.

The Iraq War had to do with making a lot of people a lot of money. War is profitable.

I honestly can't tell what your views on Iran are.

Seekster:
I have to say you have a very very deluded view of the military and diplomatic affairs of the last decade which may explain why your views on Iran have little basis in reality. Little mind you, I have seen much crazier ones.

What an odd thing for someone who just threw a fit about being personally insulted to whip out.

Sorry, that's not going to cut it. I don't care if your degree was in history or not- sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "Nu-uh!" is not a convincing argument.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
I have to say you have a very very deluded view of the military and diplomatic affairs of the last decade which may explain why your views on Iran have little basis in reality. Little mind you, I have seen much crazier ones.

What an odd thing for someone who just threw a fit about being personally insulted to whip out.

Sorry, that's not going to cut it. I don't care if your degree was in history or not- sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "Nu-uh!" is not a convincing argument.

There is no argument to be had, I was just saying what happened. If you want to debate whether or not we should have gone into Iraq that is totally fair but you dont get to flat make up reasons for why we did.

Tyler Perry:
The Iraq War had nothing to do with "paranoia after 9/11;" that was just some bullshit they sold to the idiotic American people, who of course lapped it up.

Er...depends if you mean the government was paranoid or the people were.

The latter certainly makes sense.

Katatori-kun:
If we didn't have so many policy makers suffering from testosterone poisoning and desperate to prove who has the biggest foreign policy cock, we would stand chance at getting what we want because the people seem to want at least something in the direction of what we want. But for some of our leaders, looking like they have an impressive cock is more important than getting results that build peace, prosperity, and stability.

Well, yes. Showing you have a large phallus has long been an important part of international politics.

Secondly, it's very important for domestic politics. Saying you want to sit down with them brown people and discuss things peacefully loses you votes. Hell, would even if they were Christian American brown people.

Now, don't want to seem like I'm defending them, but only so much blame can be put on politicians for doing what huge slabs of the people want.

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
I have to say you have a very very deluded view of the military and diplomatic affairs of the last decade which may explain why your views on Iran have little basis in reality. Little mind you, I have seen much crazier ones.

What an odd thing for someone who just threw a fit about being personally insulted to whip out.

Sorry, that's not going to cut it. I don't care if your degree was in history or not- sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "Nu-uh!" is not a convincing argument.

There is no argument to be had, I was just saying what happened. If you want to debate whether or not we should have gone into Iraq that is totally fair but you dont get to flat make up reasons for why we did.

Why not? Worked for the Bush administration.

Seekster:

Darknacht:

Seekster:
Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

The US made Iran their enemy, Iran did not make the US their enemy. Its worth pointing that out. You should learn history its important.

Yes it is worth learning history, I went to college and got a degree in history and I die a little inside when someone says something like you just said that demonstrates how few people really know their history.

As far as I know Iran became an enemy by getting support from the Russians against Iraq who were on the US side of things. And the US made Communism their enemy, I dont recall Communists making capitalists their enemy (Although they did for various reasons hate eachothers guts) As such I can understand the standpoint that the US made themself into Irans enemies by, well.. Supplying Terrorists with weapons to fight Iran/Forcing a new leader onto Iran. If things were different we lived in the middle-east im quite sure we could have seen the whole nuclear-thing as standing up to -the man-

As for those who complain about the US being the -nuclear authority-. . . do you really want your country to waste money building the things? Building them costs money, and makes you a target. Doesnt really defend you aslong as we are on the side of someone with nukes, and best case scenario (The one where humans are smart) We wouldnt have to use them. Ever. Again.

As for whom Obama works for, its -obviously- "The Illuminati"

pyrate:
Somethings that need clearing up for our right wing forum peeps.

First of all Ahmadinejad is not a leader of Iran. He is pretty low on the ladder, like a dozen people before him low. The position of President in Iran is just a figurehead.

Second of all, so what if you let them have a civilian nuclear industry. You cannot suddenly turn a civilian nuclear industry into a nuclear weapon. It does not work like that. The facilities for a civilian nuclear industry simply cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. You cannot get a nuclear bomb out of a nuclear power station or a nuclear medicinal facility. The scale of enrichment of nuclear fuel for civilian purposes compared to weapons purposes cannot be compared.

In this day and age of spiffy spy satellites it is pretty much impossible to have a nuclear weapons program and not have it spotted. The size of the facilities, the resources required, you can spot them a mile away...well actually several hundred miles away.

It is not like anyone is going to just let Iran have a civilian nuclear industry and take their word for it, they would keep a pretty close eye on them.

wise words,

look the fact is that if Iran did go for nukes , everyone would know, everyone would hate them, and if they launch one at anyone , Israel would send 50 back.
Iran knows this , they arent stupid.

but they are also in the middle east , an arid wasteland. nuclear power is something a country like Iran needs to survive and modernize. they have oil yes , but that is pretty much their only life line . cant blame em for trying to improve life for themselves.

the Republicans need to hit puberty already and grow up. Such children bitching about everything that doesn't go their way like its god damn end of days .

If it would give us access to all of their nuclear material then it would be a good idea. When we know where all the stockpiles are and we are the ones facilitating the sale of nuclear material and DON'T LOSE IT we have them by the balls on how it's used in the country. We pretty much already know where all of their facilities are that can make rockets or hold nuclear material already and we can see inside majority of them with ours and the Israeli spy network but having complete control of the operation would be much better.

Considering the claim that Iran was making nuclear weapons was always false, why are you so upset about this? Even if the "Supreme Leader" is off his fucking rocker the Iranian people need energy too. And how is it any of our business anyway? The U.S doesn't own the world, contrary to what some Republicans claim.

It is unite funny how the recent people seems to have shed some new light with how they view nuclear stuff and all the things that go with it in a deeper sense of thought.

Well there has been on going nuclear warfare talks for a very long time already stretching to the era when they used some biological warfare to get the other group going down. Quite funny, right?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked