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

**Tribesman** · 05-17-2005, 00:48

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

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 ?

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-17-2005, 05:56

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.

**Tribesman** · 05-17-2005, 09:08

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

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 .

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

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-17-2005, 16:01

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.

Face reality Gawain

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

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.

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.

**English assassin** · 05-17-2005, 16:34

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.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-17-2005, 16:41

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.

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?

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?

**English assassin** · 05-17-2005, 18:29

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.

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.

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.

**Tribesman** · 05-17-2005, 18:49

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

**Steppe Merc** · 05-17-2005, 21:50

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.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-17-2005, 21:58

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

Iran is a stable state?

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.

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.

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.

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.