Eyes on the Skies Over Bushehr Nuclear Reactor

reply to post by Dagar


Whoa whoa whoa there London UK.. Give the American people a minute to take back America before you toss around the Att.. word. I know the whole world pretty well hates America for their BS attacks and threats on everyone. But the majority of the US citizens are against it all. Give us a minute to have the revolution that's on its way. And if we fail or never get around to doing it `because were fat unmotivated Americans then maybe we should get a strong threat. And if it has to come down to some sort of violence leave the innocent citizens alone. If you could pass this message along to the Queen next time you see her that would be nice.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Ghrwilson]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Ghrwilson]

reply to post by Discotech


I agree with you! Also don't forget that if they attack Iran's nuclear sites, we will get the radiation too.

Why would we want war at all?

reply to post by MegaCurious


Oh great!

There it is the excuse to initiate another crappy war... way to go.

I have yet to hear one good reason from any side as to why Iran should not have a nuclear power plant. Really who cares? Why care? They don't have the capabilities to make weapons grade plutonium and even if they did I doubt they would be dumb enough to use it. If they did, it would spell the end for them.

I guess it's a 1st world Agenda to keep the 3rd world in the 3rd world (even though Iran is not a 3rd world country).

This is all because of Israel's little hissy fit and it is ridiculous. Iran, were they to attack Israel would not use nukes. As crazy as that regime is they are not suicidal.

Originally posted by brutalsun
[. Nukes can be made with 20%, it's called weapons usable. The weapon will be extremely low yield (think 10's of tons of TNT instead of thousands of tons).

Doesn`t that negate the whole raison d`etre of a nuclear bomb i.e its massive yield for one bomb .

I can understand the uses of smaller weapons but surely they are just an appendage to a much larger cache of weapons.

Running the gauntlet of International sanctions and the threat of war for a low yield weapons does not make any sense .... does it ? Not when conventional weapons could do the same job.


edit sp

[edit on 9-8-2010 by UmbraSumus]

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I like how Iran sits on the largest oil deposit in the world and can make power really cheap but wants to make a costly nuke plant...???

Maybe because burning oil to produce electricity is an incredibly wasteful use of a valuably diverse resource?

Oil is a key factor in the war-rhetorec though. Look at any regional map of the nations that border the very oil-rich Caspian Basin and then look at where the US military and diplomatic presence is...get it yet?

reply to post by UmbraSumus


With the time / money / effort / easy detection etc that would come with trying to build a nuclear weapon from a light water reactor, yeah, it doesn't make sense. If they wanted nuclear weapons, they would at least use a proper reactor that is somewhat hidden.

Of course, again, all of the fuel will be coming from and returned to Russia and I imagine would be accounted for.

Originally posted by minkey53

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by minkey53

 

The US and other Countries aren't going round blowing themselves up killing people, sponsoring and training terrorists to cause problems in Israel and other areas and aren't defying several sets of UN Sanctions.

LOL... the funniest post in this thread!

Who committed a coup in Iran in the late 70's? Who funded Iraq & Saddam and armed him in the first place? Who funded and trained the Bin Laden & the Mujaheddin (Taliban & Al-Quaeda precursors) to fight the Russians? THE US... Specifically THE CIA...

MOST OF ALL!!! Who has breached the most U.N. resolutions and has the most "condemnations"? More than all countries together??? DING DING DING oh! I know I know!!! ISRAEL...

Learn to read history... Learn to read about the truth, because you have been spoon fed the biggest BS story the world has ever known and have been asking for more...

Magnum


[edit on 10/8/9 by Magnum007]

[edit on 10/8/9 by Magnum007]

Iran’s oil consumption was approximately 1.7 million bbl/d in 2008. Iran has limited refinery capacity for the production of light fuels, and consequently imports a sizeable share of its gasoline supply

Source

This is common knowledge.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Wont happen until the complete conversion of the US combat role in Iraq.

Pupp... er, President Obama has made it clear that he expects the combat role in Iraq to end soon.

So, possibly by the end of August?

Maybe something, or nothing.. back in Feb dear leaders prosthetic regime denoted "9/1/1(0)" as the start of "Operation new dawn" in Iraq.. "new dawn" & "golden dawn" are so called illuminiti buzz word...the NWO rising into power = "new dawn".. the sun rising illuminates & enlightens ; "It just dawned on me" is a popular phrase... 'new dawn' is also a christian symbol for hope & new beginning.. I'm sure Muslims will appreciate that..lol

: www.rense.com...

27 minutes into this video, dude offers an explanation re: occult symbolism.. the meaning of changing from "IRAQI FREEDOM" to "NEW DAWN".

vimeo.com...

Originally posted by minkey53

Originally posted by Misoir

Iran is guilty of nothing in this argument, they are searching for medicine and electricity. Why must we punish a country whose only wish is to help their people?

Why do they need Nuclear Power when they have like, a 100 years of oil under their feet?

It would be like me paying for gas to fill up my company car when it's free (or should I say, my company pays).

It doesn't add up!

Why not let UN Inspectors in to check things, why ignore UN Sanctions?

Take a step back, this isn't for peaceful medicine and electric purposes!

couse they have no reffinerys...all there oil is reffined abroard

Originally posted by DaMod
I have yet to hear one good reason from any side as to why Iran should not have a nuclear power plant. Really who cares? Why care? They don't have the capabilities to make weapons grade plutonium

One can make weapons-suitable plutonium only by leaving the fuel in the reactor for less time than would be optimal for commercial reasons. It is true that graphite or deuterium moderated (vs light water reactors are superior for producing plutonium for weapons but not strictly necessary.

The issue is reprocessing of the partially spent nuclear fuel.

Also, significant sized nuclear reactors are necessary for producing the quantities of tritium necessary for boosted fission primaries. This is independent of plutonium production. This technology greatly reduces the mass and diameter of fission weapons (whether uranium or plutonium) and is, in practice (if you want any range), a necessary step for designing a warhead for a ballistic missile.

This, more than plutonium, is probably the most likely military application for this reactor if there is one. For this, it's not clear it is (so far, appears not), but once the reactor is in place it's easy to kick out IAEA.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by mbkennel]

Originally posted by Magnum007

Who committed a coup in Iran in the late 70's?

Ayatollah Khomeini.

Is this a trick question?

Who funded Iraq & Saddam and armed him in the first place?

Primarily, USSR and secondarily France.

Who funded and trained the Bin Laden & the Mujaheddin (Taliban & Al-Quaeda precursors) to fight the Russians? THE US... Specifically THE CIA...

Pakistan's ISI and CIA trained and funded mujaheddin but not Bin Laden or any precursors to such groups. The closest successors were the "Northern Alliance". The leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated by al-Qaeda a few days before 9/11/2001.

Actual facts are substantially more complicated than a reflexive "death to America death to israel" ideology.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by mbkennel]

reply to post by mbkennel

Ayatollah Khomeini. Is this a trick question?

I see you're good at answering questions:

Where exactly was Khomeini before he went to Iran? Who helped him get his tapes into Iran? Why were there foreign mercenaries dressed up in Iranian police/army uniforms shooting at Iranians? Who benefited from an unstable Iran? Why the need for an unstable Iran?

I think that America doens't even have to money any more to start a new war..

Today at the news I saw that they have to cut down their staff of generals and sack people...

reply to post by MegaCurious


This is not true. You could just send in troops, however that would repeat a little incident back in the 80s.

I find myself thinking more and more as the government as the British in 1750 and the people as the colonists. We all know the outcome.

Good for Iran wanting to produce more of their own electricity

Good for the news in whatever cock a hoo story will perpetuate the Iran chess piece further

Good for us because we get to read about words describing it all

It's almost yawnable

If someone crazy enough wants to use a nuclear weapon I'm pretty sure it doesn't need an entire country to go through the development of a nuclear weapons program for it then to say HA HA.....we have nuclear weapons now or any other WMD fear us or we will use them!

If this card ever should play I'm pretty sure our own governments probably a young vibrant team of analysts and field operatives under some cause within a government of a government shielded by the fact they don't exist, with lots of resources and funds that were never theirs etc could put in motion a plan to have some poor fool go carry a dirty nuclear weapon somewhere on earth and detonate it for them and blame it on someone else, the intricacies of that plan are boggling as they may be unfounded I'm sure but in this day and age...

The idea of "Countries" and who's bad and who's good depending on your view point is just a constant illusion. All there are, are land masses populated with human beings on Earth and we are simply told en masses that those are good those are bad and this is why their bad and why we must go quash them.

The biggest ignorance I think is how we in the West for the vast majority don't seem to see the irony of what we do and why we let the driver of the mini-cab of our society or country take us somewhere we never asked to go, care to go or want to go. (When I say we I mean as the collective voice of our own society but not "everyone" in it")

We are the ones with WMD's probably some of them we haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet

We are the ones invading other countries and in despite our misconception of our so called "civilised" ways in our "western" world, love to go spread it to other countries.

We are the ones who say that our ideals are better than anyone elses and so must go impose them

But then again "we" don't say that do we, someone is saying it but it's not me and I'm pretty sure it's not any of you as a person in your society just going about your daily bread.

But of course it's all a guise of terror of wmd's of religion or ideal, whatever smoke screen and slide of hand is played

If only we could just bring everyone home, look inwards as a country as society as human beings on some land on earth and look outwards together, not under a flag or gun or religion or race or under government rule or tyranny but as people together......yeah I know

Regards,

Panda

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Ayatollah Khomeini. Is this a trick question?

I see you're good at answering questions:

Where exactly was Khomeini before he went to Iran?

France.

Who helped him get his tapes into Iran? Why were there foreign mercenaries dressed up in Iranian police/army uniforms shooting at Iranians? Who benefited from an unstable Iran? Why the need for an unstable Iran?

Let's see: who benefits? Islamic fundamentalists and the USSR.

Given that Iran at the time was a strong US ally, the most likely external candidate is the USSR. As can be seen by the reaction in the USA at the time, it was definitely a catastrophe for its geopolitical position; something which has continued to this day.

reply to post by mbkennel

France


Let's see: who benefits? Islamic fundamentalists and the USSR. Given that Iran at the time was a strong US ally, the most likely external candidate is the USSR. As can be seen by the reaction in the USA at the time, it was definitely a catastrophe for its geopolitical position; something which has continued to this day.

So then, Khomeini didn´t do anything by himself at all. If anything he was just a puppet. Yes, the USSR benefited from the relationship with Iran but the USSR itsself was an ´occupying´ force in Iran after the second world war. As was America, as was England.

Although it seems you are saying the West didn´t profit at all.

How about a puppet regime that can send oil prices(or other raw materials) skyhigh by just uttering words(who profits)? This doesn't seem set up to you in any way? Lets see, I remember the Shah organizing OPEC then getting overthrown, maybe that's when the West stopped profitting and so a coupè was neccesary. I can tell you for a fact the majority of the people in the '79 revolution were being 'brainwashed' into doing whatever it was they did.

You argue that the geopolitical position was somehow damaged by the Islamic regime.

I will argue the opposite. Look at how much more in control governments are over free people since then, both in the US and in Iran. Remember that geopolitics are still POLITICS. They are meant to deceive you.