Europe warns Iran... well sort of...

http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...R-IRAN-DC.html

In typical European fashion, they warn a regime of murderers and thugs that if the they keep misbehaving they are going to go to Kofi and his oil for food scandal buddies and tattle. LOL!!! I could see Great Britain actually putting action to words but France and Germany? Riiiight... Anyway, I guess when the Europeans are done ####ing this one up the good old US will have to finish the job AGAIN while every Eurowheenie and limp wristed liberal girly men out there will whine and moan about the big bad US of A... God bless America!!!! Oh, I forgot, Iran has oil. Good. The hippies out there won't have to change there "No War for Oil" signs. Wouldn't want the hippies to have to spend their weed money you know... ~D

So lets think of some good signs...

"Don't be an Asshola, don't bomb the Ayatollah"
"Make Berkas, not Bombs"

Any suggestions?

Quote:

---

France, Britain and Germany have warned Iran they will break off talks and join Washington in seeking U.N. Security Council action

---

USA is already "going ... to Kofi and his oil for food scandal buddies and tattle. LOL!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

USA is already "going ... to Kofi and his oil for food scandal buddies and tattle. LOL!!!"

---

Its called a rubber stamp. If the UN's security council votes yes, good. If not, we don't really care. LOL ~D

Still first in line to whine to the teacher is a nark! neh neh nah nah! While we are waiting in line at the UN pull my finger! ~:eek: ~D :charge:

You mean, "Na na-a boo boo" ~D

i love how the BBC reported it

Europe warns Iran of "consequences" to continued unlawful nuclear activity

con·se·quence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1-Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.
2-The relation of a result to its cause.
3-A logical conclusion or inference


you mean that something will happen after you do something?
no way

a "consequence" of pursued nuclear activity could be a fully functional nuclear program

or maybe even widespread media coverage

a "consequence" isnt a threat

it is simply a fact

Im surprised Europe is even cooperating with the US. I expected them to follow the French and bail on the great satin to join up with Russia or China... It wont be long until Europe turns on us though.. The question is: Will it cost us, and how much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I expected them to follow the French and bail on the great satin

---

Hmmm smooth silky satin is so seductive...

We are all being a bit paranoid about the whole Iran situation. It's not our fault, it's the neocons and their cleverly disguised antics! :sneaky:

First of all Iran is a theocracy which means it has to abide to it's religious laws, correct? How then are they gonna develop nuclear weapons when the Shia School of Thought prohibits any mass destruction weapons?

I think this is a valid argument.

Second, who besides Saddam's Iraq has been hostile toward Iran? The US. So, they have done nothing wrong. They never invaded anyone. The reason we are so critical is that we want their oil. The same with Iraq although Saddam was much worse. If are gonna talk about badasses though why don't we mention the US's major partners in the area, like the Uzbeki gov/ment that burns dissidents. And the dictatorship of Pakistan, and the Kingdom or Saudi Arabia that basically controls all the oil in the country living it's citizens starving. Why not threaten them? Well for one thing they are not as easy a target as Iran who is falsely rumored to having a nuclear arsenal much the same way that Iraq was rumored to having a nuclear arsenal. But then again so does Pakistan, right? Oh but wait Pakistan doesn't have any damn oil!

This shouldn't be too hard to understand I hope. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

(..) the good old US will have to finish the job AGAIN while every Eurowheenie and limp wristed liberal girly men out there will whine and moan about the big bad US of A...

---

Yes, we're solooking forward to your invasions of Pakistan (nuclear armed), Saudi Arabia (hotbed of terrorism) and so on. One more for the Gipper, guys, we love ya! ~D

Meanwhile, even Iraq has now signed up for the International Criminal Court. I had the best laugh in days when I heard that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Im surprised Europe is even cooperating with the US. I expected them to follow the French and bail on the great satin to join up with Russia or China... It wont be long until Europe turns on us though.. The question is: Will it cost us, and how much?

---

I don't understand the middle bit, but I hope that Europe will soon turn on the US. Of course we will do it the only way we know: Tell you to mend your wicked ways, or suffer the diplomatic language of our leaders, who may resort to such strong words as "concern" and "disapprove". If you want a war, I'm afraid you'll have to start it yourselves.

Ah the USA is finally learning how annoying it is when countries won't commit to military action.....

*cough* 1914 *cough*
*cough* 1939 *cough*

Good post BP.

I shan't repeat my views on Iran here, only to say that if I was Iranian rather than just married to one I too would want nuclear weapons. I would observe that there was a hostile nuclear armed power with a history of flouting international law to the west (thats Israel not the US forces in Iraq), a profoundly unstable nuclear armed power to the east, (Pakistan, and don't imagine for a moment that the Iranians like the taliban style of government, they gave considerable assistance against afghanistan when the taliban were in power) and a member of a nuclear armed military alliance with powerful conventional forces to the north east (yeah, you and I know Turkey isn't a threat but the Iranians are genuinely scared of them. Not sure why but suspect Kurds will be involved.)

I'd also observe that even genuinely very dangerous members of the axis of evil are left alone once then demonstrate they have nukes.

Its a no-brainer.

Honestly, Team America, Iran is NOT what you have to worry about. They are a functioning state under central control, they are not stupid, and they may be theocratic but not in a back to the dark ages way. They have too much to lose every to use a nuke.

Pakistan, on the other hand...

I wouldn't call Iran a real theocracy, it has been crumbling for some years now.
Pakistan is indeed a lot more dangerous, I don't see any prospect of Iranian conflict, why would they. Pakistan on the other hand have issues with India and vica versa

I would have said that the way the Israelis are going a strike on their facilities - not an all out conflict for obvious reasons - is inevitable.

Quote:

---

First of all Iran is a theocracy which means it has to abide to it's religious laws, correct? How then are they gonna develop nuclear weapons when the Shia School of Thought prohibits any mass destruction weapons?

---

:dizzy2:
If they actually abided by the laws, they wouldn't kill anyone. The people making the nukes don't really care about the religon, it's a means of controling the people.

Step Merc you're not as smart as I thought. Do you really think they need nukes to control people?

As for the 'if they knew religion they wouldn't kill anyone', that's completely false. They can easily kill in the name of religion if someone breaks the rules, although I doubt they do. The one woman who was killed was killed because the perpetrators went way to far.

Of course they don't need nukes. I meant they used Islam, not the nukes to keep people in line.

And my point is is that no where in the Koran does it say to stone women when they get raped. If Christianity, Judiasm and Islam were stricly followed, no one would be killed. Of course people are killed. Just as people will still use nukes, even thoguh their religion wouldn't really allow. Chrisitanity doesn't allow killing a whole lot of people, but the Americans still dropped it. Religion is followed by governments only as long as it serves their purposes.

Yes but in this case the church IS the government and the leaders have said numerous times that making nuclear weapons is against their law. And yes stoning women to death for being raped sometimes is law in some places.

Have you ever heard of different schools of thought? Not one Islamic country is religious in the same way and usually there are even more divisions within the country itself.

In this case though[Iran] it's impossible for them to even consider having nukes.

Quote:

---

Yes but in this case the church IS the government and the leaders have said numerous times that making nuclear weapons is against their law.

---

You just dont get it do you. There are also laws in Islam against killing yourself. But the suicide bombers managed to find a way around it to not only not disobey the law but be seen as martyrs and get there 72 virgins. You really believe these guys? Hitler said he just wanted some breathing room.

Quote:

---

In this case though[Iran] it's impossible for them to even consider having nukes.

---

You really are a pip . Can you tell me why a country with all that oil needs nuclear electrical generators ?

Quote:

---

In this case though[Iran] it's impossible for them to even consider having nukes.

---

Care to offer even the tiniest bit of proof? And please make it something that wouldn't get blown away by the mild sneeze of a small librarian.

And saying "They follow Islam, and so of course won't make nuclear arms" is stupid. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, for crying out loud. And was there any fundamentalist outcry in the middle east? I don't think so.

The fact is, I do not believe Islam deserves the label 'Religion of Peace'. I'm sure there are many Muslims who just want to live peaceful lives, but the widespread support for terrorists, the way the Koran is used to justify terrorism, and considering the violent ways of the founder of Islam, Muhammed, it is laughable to suggest that these hard core, American hating Ayatollahs would not make nukes because of Islam. Even if the Koran ahd a quote somehow predicting, and then explicitly banning nukes, they'd get around it by saying they needed them to protect themselves from the 'infidels'.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

I would have said that the way the Israelis are going a strike on their facilities - not an all out conflict for obvious reasons - is inevitable.

---

That may of course be what the hard liners want. "SEE, I told you the Jews and their American allies were against us..." (repeat and copy to entire Islamic word, being sure to add as a PS that Israel has many nuclear warheads and America doesn't care.)

Hmm, yes, if I was a fundamentalist nutter that scenario might work quite nicely for me...

Thank you, Gawain and Rabbit. That's what I was trying to say: they only care about religous laws when it helps them.

Will it cost us, and how much?

I love the way you use ''us'' in that line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Thank you, Gawain and Rabbit. That's what I was trying to say: they only care about religous laws when it helps them.

---

Who doesn't? How many religious laws say 'don't murder', how often is that respected?

Exactly. I know that know one listens to their religious laws, otherwise their would never be any wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Exactly. I know that know one listens to their religious laws, otherwise their would never be any wars.

---

no one listens to their religious laws?
how can you come to that conclusion?

do you mean "many" choose to ignore "some" of their religious laws "at certain times"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Exactly. I know that know one listens to their religious laws, otherwise their would never be any wars.

---

What? Do you know any religious laws. Mohamed(you know the guy who wrote the religious law) actually started wars with places. Ever since the beggining of Islam they have invaded places and forced population to become muslim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

What? Do you know any religious laws. Mohamed(you know the guy who wrote the religious law) actually started wars with places. Ever since the beggining of Islam they have invaded places and forced population to become muslim.

---

Uh oh, you are going to get your liberal member's card revoked. You are only allowed to bash Christians and Jews, you are not allowed to bash the religion of "peace". ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Will it cost us, and how much?

---

A few missiles, maybe 1,000 men, and a destroyer or two, maybe a squadron of planes.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

What? Do you know any religious laws. Mohamed(you know the guy who wrote the religious law) actually started wars with places. Ever since the beggining of Islam they have invaded places and forced population to become muslim.

---

You just undermined your own argument their BP, since all muslims (including shias) consider muhammed their prophet, whats stopping them from developing nukes if he did the so called mass massacres and force conversions of the neighbouring tribes in the peninsula?

No I didn't. I didn't say Islamic countries can have nuclear weapons, I said they can go to war if they have to. Shia is very different form of Islam and it does not tolerate weapons of mass destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

No I didn't. I didn't say Islamic countries can have nuclear weapons, I said they can go to war if they have to. Shia is very different form of Islam and it does not tolerate weapons of mass destruction.

---

Where is your evidence of that?

I watched an interview with the minsiter of exterior of Iran and that's what he said. Quite clearly might I add.

That says nothing about the Shia form of Islam. It should be documented, otherwise its not true, then again, Iran did seize the 3 islands that belonged to the UAE in 73, what does that tell you?

Quote:

---

I watched an interview with the minsiter of exterior of Iran and that's what he said. Quite clearly might I add.

---

Well I think I can speak for us all , that now that you have confinced us that our fears were ill concieved and that you have now put to rest any trebidation we may have had on the matter . Bye the way I have a bridge you can buy for a real nice price. ~;)

Ill sleep better tonight knowing the Iranian Minister of the interior said that.

~D

Quote:

---

no one listens to their religious laws?
how can you come to that conclusion?

do you mean "many" choose to ignore "some" of their religious laws "at certain times"?

---

Um, yeah. That's what I meant... I tried saying that, but I got frustrated, and tried to make it more simpler since BP was ignoring me.

Quote:

---

I watched an interview with the minsiter of exterior of Iran and that's what he said. Quite clearly might I add.

---

Like he'll actually say that he has nukes.

Quote:

---

Uh oh, you are going to get your liberal member's card revoked. You are only allowed to bash Christians and Jews, you are not allowed to bash the religion of "peace". ~D

---

Any claim to him being liberal, if he ever had any, was lost when he advocated the purging of millions of innocents.

And BP, where in the Koran does it say you can't have weapons of mass destruction? I really don't understand your argument... you claim that Mohammed was a war like person, but then say that their religion doesn't allow nukes? What about missiles? They almost certiantly have those, what's the difference between that and nukes?

And BP, it's incorrect to say that "Ever since the beggining of Islam they have invaded places and forced population to become muslim", since a few hundred years after Mohammed, they most certiantly allowed others to worship their own faiths.

Quote:

---

And BP, where in the Koran does it say you can't have weapons of mass destruction? I really don't understand your argument... you claim that Mohammed was a war like person, but then say that their religion doesn't allow nukes? What about missiles? They almost certiantly have those, what's the difference between that and nukes?

---

Nukes are most certainly designed to kill innocents which is not allowed in Islam. Missiles are designed to hit military targets which is not against their laws.

Quote:

---

Nukes are most certainly designed to kill innocents which is not allowed in Islam.

---

So the Israeli children killed by the homocide bombers arent innocents hum? How about the child bombers themselves are they innocents? And of course we know that the 3000 who died on 911 were Nazis and far from innocent.

I don't know I'm not Muslim. Many Muslims though will tell you that killing yourself is against their laws and that Israel citizens are astually innocent people.

It all depends on your point of view. I bet you in the eyes of those terrorists the people in the two towers were no innocent because they had been taught that way. It's all subjective.

Today

Quote:

---

Iran Passes Pro-Uranium Enrichment Bill
Sunday, May 15, 2005

•
Iran Confirms It Took Key Nuclear Step
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's (search) conservative-dominated parliament on Sunday approved a bill pressuring the government to pursue "peaceful use" of nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment (search).

The bill doesn't force the government to immediately resume uranium enrichment, but it brings greater pressure on it not to give up its controversial nuclear program.

The legislation comes at a delicate time, with Iran announcing that it's planning to resume uranium reprocessing activities and the European Union threatening to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council (search) for possible sanctions if it does.

"The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is required to pursue, within the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ... to enable the country to make peaceful use of nuclear energy, including the cycle of nuclear fuel," the legislation said.

The legislation was approved by 188 out of 205 deputies who attended Sunday's parliamentary session.

---

Now most countries who have only a few nuclear plants but their fuel from other nations as its far less expensive than producing your own. There is no reason iin the world that Iran needs to make its own fuel and it would be far less expensive to buy it elsewhere. The same plant that makes this fuel can also make the needed material for a bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The same plant that makes this fuel can also make the needed material for a bomb.

---

You mean they use it to make a bomb? Nah!... They already have one if you ask me. Courtesy of Mr Khan from Pakistan, no doubt.

Quote:

---

You mean they use it to make a bomb? Nah!... They already have one if you ask me. Courtesy of Mr Khan from Pakistan, no doubt.

---

I doubt they have the material yet. But I agree they probably have everything else. Thats why this is so important. But them dont worry BP informs us the Iranian minister of the interior assured him that nukes are against their religion and they could never even make them nevermind use them. So relax.

Any country that is pursuing uranium is almost certaintly pursuing nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

The reason we are so critical is that we want their oil.

---

Not quite; The US doesn't want Iran to sell it's oil in EURO's. IRAN is planning to start this in March 2006. This may set a precedent that may be followed by other countries and will ultimately cost the US a lot more money than any military action they may plan.

I think Iraq and Saudi Arabia were considering selling there oil in Euro's some time back. If the US dollar continues it's slide against the EURO, this may become more of an issue.

This is why the rhetoric against IRAN is picking up pace by the US.

BTW: If the US is not interested in Oil why is it's head of Foreign Affairs (i.e. Secretary of State) an ex-oil excutive. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Any country that is pursuing uranium is almost certaintly pursuing nukes.

---

Does that include Japan, Germany etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Not quite; The US doesn't want Iran to sell it's oil in EURO's. IRAN is planning to start this in March 2006. This may set a precedent that may be followed by other countries and will ultimately cost the US a lot more money than any military action they may plan.

I think Iraq and Saudi Arabia were considering selling there oil in Euro's some time back. If the US dollar continues it's slide against the EURO, this may become more of an issue.

This is why the rhetoric against IRAN is picking up pace by the US.

BTW: If the US is not interested in Oil why is it's head of Foreign Affairs (i.e. Secretary of State) an ex-oil excutive. :dizzy2:

---

Ahhhh, thanks kiwitt. I never thought of it that way, it makes sense now. ~:)

Quote:

---

Does that include Japan, Germany etc.

---

Probably, though not sure if those countries have any sort of embargo implaced on them after WW2, and if it still applies today...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I doubt they have the material yet. But I agree they probably have everything else. Thats why this is so important. But them dont worry BP informs us the Iranian minister of the interior assured him that nukes are against their religion and they could never even make them nevermind use them. So relax.

---

I'm cool. This afternoon I called the Iranian embassy in The Hague to inform them of BP's fatwa on nuclear weapons and they were duly impressed. My prediction is we've heard the last of them for several decades.

Adrian Chamberlain

I wonder what the so sensitive US gov. about radio active weapons, has to say about the contamination they caused to the ground of yugoslavia with the uranium elements conventional missile heads. Also what they think about the spreading of contamination due to the floods in all central europe 2 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idomeneas

I wonder what the so sensitive US gov. about radio active weapons, has to say about the contamination they caused to the ground of yugoslavia with the uranium elements conventional missile heads. Also what they think about the spreading of contamination due to the floods in all central europe 2 years ago.

---

They don't give a hoot, and neither would I. I think the issue is completely overblown. Nato whupped Milosevic good, albeit illegally, and then 'we' bought him from Belgrade for a nice price and put him in the Queen's hospitable Scheveningen Prison, where he is being served by well-mannered young men in impeccable uniforms who carry huge guns on their belts to protect him from any possible harm. And for the next hunded years if need be!
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

Does that include Japan, Germany etc.

---

As long as we keep electing the green party, certainly not. They want to get rid of all nuclear plants here, I guess they want to create new jobs by making people cycle for our energy-needs or something like this. If we have our 5 million unemployed cycle to keep the generators going maybe we can keep the lights on at night. ~;) ~D

Can you tell me why a country with all that oil needs nuclear electrical generators ?
Thats a good question Gawain , and a very important one :bow:

Ask Congress ~;) You know , little answers about the sale by America of a research reactor in 1959 , the plans to have 23 nuclear generating plants on line by the 1990s . A little something to do with reducing Irans domestic energy reliance on oil and gas to free up more resources for export and increase their generation of export income .
Which report would you like to read for the answers to your question ? Your Governments or the International Atomic Agencies ? ~D

Hi Tribesman, havent seen you here in a little while. ~:wave:

Hi Panzer , yep , I've been out of the country for a couple of weeks .
Back again now , so in typical European fashion I will ask Dave a little question concerning his first post ~D
In typical European fashion, they warn a regime of murderers and thugs that if the they keep misbehaving they are going to go to Kofi and his oil for food scandal buddies and tattle.
Could you inform me as to which country has released a report that confirms its citizens and businessess account for more of this Oil For Food bribes scandal than the rest of the world put together (52%) and also had its government actively involved in breaking sanctions and assisting others to break them ? ~;)

Quote:

---

Ask Congress You know , little answers about the sale by America of a research reactor in 1959 , the plans to have 23 nuclear generating plants on line by the 1990s . A little something to do with reducing Irans domestic energy reliance on oil and gas to free up more resources for export and increase their generation of export income .
Which report would you like to read for the answers to your question ? Your Governments or the International Atomic Agencies ?

---

What has this got to do with reality? Iran has 6 plants scheduled and thats it. Its not economically feasible to produce fuel yourself for so few reactors. PS we dont get our oil from Iran.

Can you tell me why a country with all that oil needs nuclear electrical generators ?
That was your question Gawain , don't you like the answer ?

What has this got to do with reality?
Face reality Gawain ~:cheers:

PS we dont get our oil from Iran.
So it was all fine and dandy for Iran to have Nuclear power when you were buying their oil , but now you don't they can't . :dizzy2:

Its not economically feasible to produce fuel yourself for so few reactors.
Which is why they have the fuel deal with Russia .

Quote:

---

That was your question Gawain , don't you like the answer ?

---

You faiied to answer it. You told me why the US wanted it to have nuclear power back in the 50s.

Quote:

---

Face reality Gawain

---

I do. The reality is this aint the 50s .

Quote:

---

So it was all fine and dandy for Iran to have Nuclear power when you were buying their oil , but now you don't they can't .

---

Iran wasnt controlled by Islamic fundementalists in the 50s. Your camparing oranges and apples. If the UK were taken over by communists do you think we woulds still share our technologies with them. Iran has gone from our friend to our enemy. And you tell me to face reality.

Quote:

---

Which is why they have the fuel deal with Russia .

---

Did they cancel it ? Did Russia refuse to provide it? If not then again why do they need to build this plant. This is one of the weakest arguments ive ever seen you put forth.

Possibly OT but I am really not sure the world is a more dangerous place if Iran has a nuclear weapon or two. Its time we woke up to the fact that the nuclear genie is well and truly out of the bottle and started asking ourselves not how countries we don't like should be prevented from building a bomb or two, (but countries we do like can have lots) but rather (1) how we can make sure no one ever uses one and (2) how we can reduce the "pull" factor that persuades these countries that they need nukes.

For what its worth I would deal with (1) by announcing a doctine of total nuclear annihilation of any country that actually uses a nuke and to hell with war crimes, and (2) by stopping invading people.

Think about it. America can't seriously be challenged in conventional forces, but a couple of warheads are the modern equivalent of HMS Dreadnaught: at a stroke the preponderance of other forces is rendered irrelevant. No wonder everyone wants them.

Quote:

---

Possibly OT but I am really not sure the world is a more dangerous place if Iran has a nuclear weapon or two.

---

Yes their a bunch of good old boys. What they hay let them have thier fun. Mybe we should just give away some of our excess nukes to countries who cannot affird to develope their own and make eveyone equal.

Quote:

---

For what its worth I would deal with (1) by announcing a doctine of total nuclear annihilation of any country that actually uses a nuke and to hell with war crimes, and (2) by stopping invading people.

---

So how are you going to stop the US from using a nuke start WW3? How would this stop war crimes or nations invading eachother?

Quote:

---

Think about it. America can't seriously be challenged in conventional forces, but a couple of warheads are the modern equivalent of HMS Dreadnaught: at a stroke the preponderance of other forces is rendered irrelevant. No wonder everyone wants them.

---

Do you think there would be even an ant alive in Iran if they attacked the US with nukes?

Quote:

---

Yes their a bunch of good old boys. What they hay let them have thier fun. Mybe we should just give away some of our excess nukes to countries who cannot affird to develope their own and make eveyone equal

---

Well that might be a step too far and besides Isreal needs them (oops, silly me, that was France wasn't it) but what I am asking you to consider is why they think they need the nukes and whether they are REALLY any sort of threat to the US, or indeed anyone much else. Nukes in the hands of stable state don't much worry me. Pakistani nukes worry me a fair bit.

Quote:

---

So how are you going to stop the US from using a nuke start WW3? How would this stop war crimes or nations invading eachother?

---

I'm not actually too worried about the USA going nuclear unilaterally, unless you know something I don't. But in principle, yes.

Quote:

---

Do you think there would be even an ant alive in Iran if they attacked the US with nukes?

---

Hurrah, thats one convert to the Assassin doctrine of total annihiliation already. And I reckon Dev Dave's in the bag for this one too. And you know I think the Iranians know this too.

You faiied to answer it. You told me why the US wanted it to have nuclear power back in the 50s.
No your question was why a country with all that oil wants Nuclear power ?
That was your question was it not ? Besides which the plan was progressive planning for future needs as far as the mid '90s .
I do. The reality is this aint the 50s .
Yes they needed less electricity generation in the 50s therfore the need is now much greater , which is why the development plan spanned decades .
Iran wasnt controlled by Islamic fundementalists in the 50s.
Whats that got to do with the price of cheese ?
Did they cancel it ? Did Russia refuse to provide it?
If not then again why do they need to build this plant.
Keep up Gawain , the fuel deal was for Russia to provide Nuclear fuel for the reactors , no they havn't cancelled it , no they havn't refused to provide it , they only recently signed it :book:

Any and all countries that are still making nukes is stupid. They have no true military purpose that I'm aware of, is mad expensive that could be spent on real military things (or god forbid, improving the people of that country's lives), and to try and play the game of chicken that nukes are is nuts. Admittedly, it's gone down since USSR disbanded, but isn't the whole concept of nukes is that if I have enough, everyone will be too scared to attack me with their own? Or am I missing something?
I have no problem with the US getting pissed at Iran for trying to make nukes. Of course, we ought to get rid of our own, but it is never bad to discourage further nuke devolpment made by anyone.
Unless of course, Iran wants to use nuclear power to actually power something, and try and save oil.

Quote:

---

Nukes in the hands of stable state don't much worry me.

---

Iran is a stable state? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

No your question was why a country with all that oil wants Nuclear power ?
That was your question was it not ? Besides which the plan was progressive planning for future needs as far as the mid '90s .

---

You showed a US plan to get more oil out of Iran in the 50s . It once more has no relevance to the issue at hand here. Its kind of funny that we didnt even go along with our own plans for nuclear power. Please discuss the matter as it applies today.

Quote:

---

Yes they needed less electricity generation in the 50s therfore the need is now much greater , which is why the development plan spanned decades .

---

They can get this electricity far cheaper with oil burning plants. Its like the US importing wheat from Russia.

Quote:

---

Whats that got to do with the price of cheese ?

---

We dont worry about our friends having nuclear power. Besides no where was it mentioned that Iran would build a plant to make fuel in this 1950s scenario you speak of.

Quote:

---

Keep up Gawain , the fuel deal was for Russia to provide Nuclear fuel for the reactors , no they havn't cancelled it , no they havn't refused to provide it , they only recently signed it

---

Oh I shall you can bet on it. So they dont need the fuel plant after all. Thanks for proving my point.

So they dont need the fuel plant after all. Thanks for proving my point.
What point Gawain ? your question was about generating energy not Uranium enrichment . Or did you forget ?
We dont worry about our friends having nuclear power.
Yes we know , your government doesn't even push the issue with dictatorships who give nuclear technology to nasty people does it . ~;)

Quote:

---

What point Gawain ? your question was about generating energy not Uranium enrichment . Or did you forget ?

---

The point is the only reason they need this plant is for nukes. You never showed they had any need for nuclear power only a plan by the US to give the this power so that the US could get more energy from them. They had no need of it then and they have no need of it today.

Quote:

---

Yes we know , your government doesn't even push the issue with dictatorships who give nuclear technology to nasty people does it

---

For instance? Man you are a great dancer ~:)

For instance?
Has your government had any luck with getting a cetain friendly dictatorship to give it access to Dr. Khan ? It has been requested many times by yours and other governments and other international bodies at the highest levels. But Mr. nice Dictator says NO .
They had no need of it then and they have no need of it today.
Really , so a program to let a country have 23 Nuclear power plants was completely unneccesary was it ?
Maybe you could tell all the other countries in the world that generate electricity that way that they should stop as they don't really need it .

Quote:

---

Really , so a program to let a country have 23 Nuclear power plants was completely unneccesary was it ?

---

Economically yes it was. Again the Iranians only plan 6 or 7 not 23. They have no need for a plant to produce fuel. Stop stepping on my toes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Iran is a stable state? ~:confused:

---

I think it is. It hasn't invaded another country since it's revolution. It had defended itself from a US supplied Iraq for nearly a decade.

I concur that some of the initial participants would have been quite radical, but what revolution doesn't have it's radicals.

The current goverment has not been overthrown in nearly 25 years. I would call that stable.

Stop stepping on my toes.
Learn to dance properly then ~:cheers:
Again the Iranians only plan 6 or 7 not 23.
Would that have anything to do with advances in technology ? ~;)
So do you have a problem with them having Nuclear energy plants , or is it just the Enrichment program you have a problem with ?
They are two seperate issues , though the time limit the Russians have set for return of spent fuel under the recent deal does raise serious questions , which most countries are trying to address .

Quote:

---

I think it is. It hasn't invaded another country since it's revolution. It had defended itself from a US supplied Iraq for nearly a decade.

---

So then you wouldnt have had any problem selling Hitler nukes. Germany certainly was stable in 1936. Anfd the thought that they may provide terrorists with nujes isnt even in your playbook I suppose.

Quote:

---

The current goverment has not been overthrown in nearly 25 years. I would call that stable.

---

I dont give it much longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

...selling Hitler nukes.

---

I don't think we need to bring him into this discussion about IRAN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I dont give it much longer.

---

I think a few student protests do not make a country unstable. Look at South Korea, they had plenty and are still around. Can you please justify ?

Ok we should have sold them to Stalin then and shared all our technology with him. After all he was our ally was he not? By your criteria N Korea is a stable country. What you not taking into account is that the leaders of these nations are UNSTABLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

... Stalin ... N Korea ...

---

Again you are bringing other countries into the equation.

I think Iran's leaders have been resolute in it's current policy and it's current program is aimed at generating power not pursuing nukes. This indicates stability.

As I said previously, this is about "oil" denomination in US Dollars. Iran is planning to sell it's oil in Euro's in March 2006 and this rhetoric is just a "smokescreen" for trying to prevent this. The Euro is more stable than the US dollar currently, so moving to Euro will help it remain stable.

Quote:

---

I think Iran's leaders have been resolute in it's current policy and it's current program is aimed at generating power not pursuing nukes. This indicates stability.

---

On what do you base this? BPs post that Irans minister of the interior says its against thewir religion? How does this indicate stability. Do you even know whats going on in Iran with the younger people?

Basing a form of government on religion or god is unstable ? How ?

Quote:

---

Basing a form of government on religion or god is unstable ? How

---

Once more and Ill try to type slowly so you understand me ~:) What is it that makes you so sure they only want it for nuclear power when Ive shown you it would be better for them economicly and certainly politically to use oil generators?

Well burning "fossil fuels" is environmentally unfriendly and using nuclear power is "cleaner"

from this article

"In Paris last week, U.S. Ambassador Constance Morella told conferees that nuclear energy was "clean" and "reliable" and necessary in order for the world to have a "secure energy supply."

Mohammad Saeidi, a vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, delivered more or less the same message to the conferees.

Oil and natural gas "are limited and belong to all subsequent generations" and "unrestrained use of this source of energy is not prudent," he said.

Iran's goal, Saeidi added, is nothing less than "self-sufficiency in all aspects of the peaceful use of nuclear energy."

So even the US supports the use of nuclear power. Iran is simply doing what the US supports

Quote:

---

Well burning "fossil fuels" is environmentally unfriendly and using nuclear power is "cleaner"

---

:laugh: Thats the funniest post ive ever seen here . Now Irans concerned with protecting the enviorment. Some one please pick me up off the floor.