"Its like watching a tennis match, and one side is suprised the ball is coming back"

reply to post by neformore

We can get into history, but with all the recent history who needs to, well?, I am curious about some stuff ie:
Ok, tell me why, in 1971 Iran occupies some Iraqi islands in the Persian Gulf, Iraq brakes all diplomatic connections with Iran. and why in 1722, Afghan takes occupation of central parts of Iran? Wouldn't mind some history on why 1914-18: Persia remains neutral in World War 1?
____
neformore: "Then tell me one about the country that invaded a middle eastern state on the pretence of a lie, and explain to me why that one should be trusted with nuclear weapons?"
____
See: www.eretzyisroel.org...

Dallas

reply to post by princeofpeace


I have to get this one;

US to Iran: You have a secret nuclear program for over 20 years that was just disclosed in the recent years, yet it is supposedly "peaceful" yet you have not fully disclosed this program and yet you also threaten other countries

US to Israel: You have a secret nuclear program including secret nuclear submarines for over 20 years (we know because we gave it to you), that was NEVER disclosed while everybody knows it anyway, yet it is supposedly “peaceful” yet you have not fully disclosed this program and yet you also regularly bomb other countries?

(Israel-who is SURROUNDED by avaowed enemies and have been invaded numerous times). If you even think about it, we're gonna bomb you into submission.

Oh my God! I feel literally SURROUNDED by all the American Indian reservations! And we’ve been invaded by them devil red skins numerous times! Well if you even think about doing anything else but getting drunk and running casinos, we’re gonna bomb you into submission!

Deny Ignorance so say it all! LOL!

How about this one – “For the love of freedom, if you’ll refuse to be my slave, I’ll pound you into freedom loving submission anyway!”

Where do people get these ideas? Hypocrisy-R-US?

reply to post by Dallas


Here’s another gem;

And this Country should be trusted with nuclear materials?? Not a chance.

I take it the point here is that the only country that should be trusted with nuclear weapons is the one that actually know how to use one? And done so before?

I can picture a conversation on the gun store; “yes I’d like a .357 SIG please!” “It is a great choice! Have you shoot anybody before, it is a requirement for firearm ownership, otherwise we’re just not to sure you’ll know how to use one responsibly…” LOL!

reply to post by neformore


Neformore

Only my two cents, but everybody’s friend Newt Gingrich changed his “ I am running position” to “I am now not running” in a matter of a few days.

I am thinking that the Newt has been told to ‘hold off’. Talk about a surprised looks – too get a creature of his ‘stature’ to do this - after openly indicating he was coming in says something. If you start looking at the dots - the people on the court might be hitting the ball but they aren’t the real players.

I really like how so many are saying the war is "for Oil" please show me the link that proves this?

the war in Iraq and the possible war in Iran are NOT I repeat NOT about oil, they MAY be about the profit made from oil, but not about the oil itself, and it never has or will be..

Crude Oil takes approximately 90 days to become gasoline, yet when the price of oil ( per barrel of crude ) goes up, it goes up at the pump, it's the only commodity that does this, so you are paying more immediately even though the price of the gasoline has already been paid by time it reaches the pump.

this is how petroleum companies make such Huge profits, if you look it up, you will see they have made more profit in the last 6 years then any other time in History..................

the shrub is an oil friend, and the profits they have made reflect that, Good thing 9-11-01 happened, otherwise oil companies would be so poor /sarcasm

What other purpose does Iran have with Nuclear technology except weapons?

I do not know the numbers, However. Iran has one of the worlds largest supplies of oil. I would guess what would usually go along with that is a large natural gas reserve. That is a natural gas reserve that it is not easily profitable to ship somewhere else and sell.

I would guess Iran could easilly supply its own need for energy with natural gas for a long time.

What is there about this I do not get?

Originally posted by joyful

I would guess Iran could easilly supply its own need for energy with natural gas for a long time.

Iranians drive cars, watch TV, use electricity and have large cities too. Their power plants currently run on oil and gas. And the demand locally is growing, as is the demand externally. They won't be making much of a profit selling it locally. Getting a nuclear power plant would solve two problems -- internal electricity demand and more oil for export.

Even Malaysia is considering nuclear plants since we're not gonna have natural gas and coal forever. We sell our light crude on the markets and purchase cheap dirty middle eastern crude for local consumption, because the light crude is worth more than the dirty crude.

Edit: typo

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Beachcoma]

reply to post by neformore


Uhhhhh you forgot one IMPORTANT thing... The USA is the only country that can do the threatening, we dont like others to defend themselves or their culture. We like them to bend over for us. If they dont, that is a act of disrespect to the greatest nation in the history of the universe and you must be dealt with..... We have become quite pathetic and the text book definition of bully.

reply to post by joyful


Uhhhh why does the US not just use coal for all of its electricity, we have HUGE supplies of it and can get it cheap..... Your logic holds no water at all. Im tired of the US thinking we are the only ones responsible enough to have powerful weapons or nuclear power... WE are the only ones who have used nukes on people... and it was on CIVILIANS. WE should be the ones considered dangers WE are the ones attacking everyone. Plus you know, we cant keep track of ours apparently, anyone can just walk in and get some attach them to a plane and take off flying...

[edit on 30-9-2007 by shug7272]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Iranians drive cars, watch TV, use electricity and have large cities too. Their power plants currently run on oil and gas. And the demand locally is growing, as is the demand externally. They won't be making much of a profit selling it locally. Getting a nuclear power plant would solve two problems -- internal electricity demand and more oil for export.

All very true, but that doesn't explain why they turned down light water reactors that would almost be given to them in exchange to stop their heavy water production. These reactors are very efficient, but do not need the material that makes nukes, and so are the best thing going for power, but are useless in the production of bombs.

At least NK is doing it right now with their trade for superior nuclear energy in exchange for their bomb program, but then they also showed us what happens when a country like them does finally get the ability to make nukes with the latest Syria incident.

Okay. I havent posted on ATS in a while, but this thread and topic, has peeked my interest to share my perspective.

People talk about "iran took people hostage, and have made numerous threats to blow Isreal off the map."
Truth is, well have they done any of this?
In america you cant put someone on trial before the crime hasnt even been commited.They say it's for Power reasons, And by all mean's they have a right, if one country is aloud to use it for power then all countries should, why should the burn resources like oil and coal. Things are never gonna change in the middle east until we let these countries develop.
I truely dont believe going in there and taking over countries and telling them how to run their countries is gonna work.
My dad said to me the other day, "That leader of iran, is a piece of scum, and should burn in hell", And I answered by asking him what the leader of iran's name was and how there goverment is ran? He had no reply for me.
Soooo in conclusion, we shouldnt be sitting here looking for reasons to start another war, and you know it seems like alot of people want another war. Isnt anybody sick of turning on the news and hearing,
"five iraqi's and 3 american soldiers are dead after a suicide bombing in Iraq" How can we be worrying about a country that's trying to defends it's self when there's still other battles to be faught.
i know im probally gonna get a negative feedback,
but i know inside that going to war with iran wont solve anything,
and i know inside that going to war in genreal will never solve anything,
whether, god or evolution, gave us vocal chords, use them

Originally posted by Dallas
reply to post by neformore

 

"I mean, seriously, what ARE some people thinking?"

First of all the historical facts (Wik): The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and Iranian DEMANDS for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime following the Iranian Revolution.

Iran instigated that war by bullying it's neighbor. Fanatical Religious dictators put in charge, then: I can't remember if the was before or after Iran Officials decided to hold 50 or more US Citizens HOSTAGE for four or five years !!

And this Country should be trusted with nuclear materials?? Not a chance.

As far as ATS poster's posts of the above kind, get over it.

Dallas

So what you are saying is that we should not trust any country with fanatical religious dictators that wants regime change and the downfall of Saddam in Iraq?

Further more, on the subject of Iran supplying 'advanced' IEDs and insurgents in Iraq, I say where is the proof other than what the US governemnt have said? If this was true, why haven't they already taken action against Iran - It is not like the US military is averse to turning a bit more of the ME 'to glass'. This has not quite moved up to the burning Reichstag level but it is certainly good for a bit of spin and warmongering.

The US has a long history of supplying weapons and 'advisors' to 'freedom fighters / terrorists' just for a bit of geopolitical fun so are you saying the US has the right to do that and Iran doesn't? (if it is actually true and not just propaganda).

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at their neighbours

[edit on 30-9-2007 by EJHoover]

[edit on 30-9-2007 by EJHoover]

[edit on 30-9-2007 by EJHoover]

[edit on 1-10-2007 by EJHoover]

As an aside, I think people may be getting their light and heavy water reactors mixed up. Wikipedia says that heavy water reactors are considerd useful for developing countries as they do not need enriched uranium.

WWikipedia - Heavy water reactor

From what I remember it was the Germans concentration on heavy water moderated reactors that meant that they were behind the US in developing atomic weapons during WWII.

Originally posted by EJHoover
As an aside, I think people may be getting their light and heavy water reactors mixed up. Wikipedia says that heavy water reactors are considerd useful for developing countries as they do not need enriched uranium.

WWikipedia - Heavy water reactor

From what I remember it was the Germans concentration on heavy water moderated reactors that meant that they were behind the US in developing atomic weapons during WWII.

Somewhat true, light water is better and more importantly the 235 used in them can be monitored since part of the deal with Iran would be they would be given the 235 by France or other countries and the reactors would only need refueling once a year or more, so for Iran it would had been “here is your reactors and here is your fuel”.

reply to post by Xtrozero



Thanks for that. In fact, on that basis that it is effectively going to be a 'turnkey' set-up it does seem strange to be turned down by the Iranians. Perhaps to see it from another side they are just concerned about letting a foreign nation have a controlling interest in something vital like power generation. We cannot know what pre-conditions the French placed on that deal beyond abandonment of the heavy water reactors or what lingering control they will have by cutting off the fuel supply in the future. It seems like too good a deal and we all know their ain't no thing as a free lunch




[edit on 1-10-2007 by EJHoover]

"I mean, seriously, what ARE some people thinking?"

First of all the historical facts (Wik): The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and Iranian DEMANDS for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime following the Iranian Revolution.

Iran instigated that war by bullying it's neighbor. Fanatical Religious dictators put in charge, then: I can't remember if the was before or after Iran Officials decided to hold 50 or more US Citizens HOSTAGE for four or five years !!

And this Country should be trusted with nuclear materials?? Not a chance.

As far as ATS poster's posts of the above kind, get over it.

Wait wait wait.. hold up, pump the brakes.
You sayin to me that the Iranians back at least 30 years ago KNEW that saddaam was bad news, very oppressive, and delighted in personally torturing dissidents along, which he passed along to his sons? Not only that, but that he needed to be removed, and it took the US over 30 years to act on that? Of course we needed to use him until his time of usefulness ran out, but dang it looks like the Iranians are better at recognizing the haste at which bad leaders need to be removed?

In fact... it appears that Iraq was actually having a blast, with a rapidly growing and expanding economy and infrastructure until Saddaam came into power.

[edit on 10/1/2007 by DYepes]

Here is a novel idea. We ignore what countries have done to eachother in the past, and just stop attacking them.

The mechanisms behind the current USA wars are not even natural. They are created artificially in order to keep the population afraid in order to implement law changes, earn tons of money and create military bases in the middle east.

At some point in time, we will have to say "booooooring" and just stop fighting eachother. The greatest lie of all is that its impossible to coexist on the planet peacefully with other nations. If other civilizations can do it, why cant we? Are we really this dumb? Are we going to destroy the planet before we "get it" and start over again with sticks and stones, only to see people 10000 years in the future do the exact same thing again and again? There have been civilizations before us who went this way and choose to destroy earth instead of settling their differences. Why are we making the same mistakes again?

Just look at this beautiful blue planet from space. Do you really want it destroyed? Think about the future we could have. In space, on other planets, in other solar systems.


[edit on 1-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Hey worry not, I work my way towards that goal each and everyday I live my life. As long as everyone else does the same everyday of their life, it will happen.

Don't focus on how everyone else is doing or trying to change people, just live your life the way you want the goal to be, and that alone will change others for the better.

Self Defense is any person or collective people's right. We could never go to war with Iran nor will we ever. From 7-77 yrs of age all Iranians are willing to bare arms if they are ever attacked first, all willing to become Martyrs. Every single one if their land is attacked.

Originally posted by ArioK
Self Defense is any person or collective people's right. We could never go to war with Iran nor will we ever. From 7-77 yrs of age all Iranians are willing to bare arms if they are ever attacked first, all willing to become Martyrs. Every single one if their land is attacked.

As would americans, if their country was attacked. Is it that difficult to see? This is not about religion, its about wanting revenge as a human being.

But revenge gets us nowhere. Its time to stop fighting. Just stop, and start building the future instead.


[edit on 1-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
so for Iran it would had been “here is your reactors and here is your fuel”.

Well than the way I see it that's the problem. That's why Iran wouldn't accept it. They have uranium mines. Why buy from another party if they have the capability to do it themselves? Especially a proud and culturally rich people like them.

Hasn't anyone offered to enrich the uranium with them? Not for them but with them?