It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by TinfoilTP
Lol, their navy consists of speedboats. Do you propose they are making nuclear powered speedboats?
Please. If you are going to engage in adult discussion/debate, at least read the article.
Here you go, so you don't have to use that silly mouse to click that link:
Nuclear submarine program surfaces in Iran
That was the title of the first link.
They don't need centrifuges for a medical reactor. They could make an agreement through the UN to have the material supplied to them, or simply skip making them and procure the medical isotopes directly. The UN would easily fall head over heels to give them all the isotopes they want for free in return for dismantling their centrifuges.
So no country should be able to make anything for themselves? Don't you think that is why the US is in the economic hole it finds itself in? Why exactly can't a country be self-reliant? Because it doesn't jive with your beliefs? What happens if the UN decides that they don't have any to spare for Iran, because they might make a "dirty bomb" out of it?
So not only do you want them to have nuclear weapons capability,
ou also want them to have nuclear powered submarines?
What kind of "medical" reason could they have for having those?
Nuclear powered submarines are the ultimate delivery system of nuclear weapons. Even a child could put those two and two together.
A nuclear submarine is a submarine powered by a nuclear reactor (see also Nuclear marine propulsion). The performance advantages of nuclear submarines over "conventional" (typically diesel-electric) submarines are considerable: nuclear propulsion, being completely independent of air, frees the submarine from the need to surface frequently, as is necessary for conventional submarines; the large amount of power generated by a nuclear reactor allows nuclear submarines to operate at high speed for long durations; and the long interval between refuellings grants a range limited only by consumables such as food.
Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by TinfoilTP
So not only do you want them to have nuclear weapons capability,
I just don't like hypocrites, the pot (US) shouldn't, in my opinion, tell the kettle (Iran) that they shouldn't be pursuing this.
ou also want them to have nuclear powered submarines?
Sure why not?
What kind of "medical" reason could they have for having those?
Who said that? If you want to believe that, go right ahead. That was never my position, as I know submarines will not ever shrink down to go into your bloodstream.
Nuclear powered submarines are the ultimate delivery system of nuclear weapons. Even a child could put those two and two together.
Yes, unless the "child" hasn't heard about negative integers(other factors). Here let me help you learn:
A nuclear submarine is a submarine powered by a nuclear reactor (see also Nuclear marine propulsion). The performance advantages of nuclear submarines over "conventional" (typically diesel-electric) submarines are considerable: nuclear propulsion, being completely independent of air, frees the submarine from the need to surface frequently, as is necessary for conventional submarines; the large amount of power generated by a nuclear reactor allows nuclear submarines to operate at high speed for long durations; and the long interval between refuellings grants a range limited only by consumables such as food.
Your "position" is for proliferation.
Your posting the virtues of nuclear submarines proliferated zero learning on this end, you wasted your effort posting irrelevant copy paste data.
Unless they develop stealth under the waves all that submarine tech would end up as expensive seabed decorations.
They would be no match for US or Russian tech in that field and never will be.
Complete waste of GDP which only translates into more starving Iranians.
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Originally posted by maes9
reply to post by glasshouse
homosexuality is not and will never be practiced as a kind of marriage here in Iran. you can be glad that it is going to be considered as a marriage in some western countries. that it will lead their societies to even breaks down more.
Khomeini's letter to Gorbachev::
“Mr. Gorbachev!
It’s necessary to accept the truth; your country’s main problem is not possessorship, economy and freedom. Your problem is lack of real devote to God, the same as that led West to meanness or will lead. Your great problem is the long and useless struggle with God.”
Since you are from Iran and have internet access....what do you think would happen to you were you to speak out negatively towards the ruling regime?
Originally posted by maes9
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Originally posted by maes9
reply to post by glasshouse
homosexuality is not and will never be practiced as a kind of marriage here in Iran. you can be glad that it is going to be considered as a marriage in some western countries. that it will lead their societies to even breaks down more.
Khomeini's letter to Gorbachev::
“Mr. Gorbachev!
It’s necessary to accept the truth; your country’s main problem is not possessorship, economy and freedom. Your problem is lack of real devote to God, the same as that led West to meanness or will lead. Your great problem is the long and useless struggle with God.”
Since you are from Iran and have internet access....what do you think would happen to you were you to speak out negatively towards the ruling regime?
it depends on what you mean by speaking against the ruling regime !
overthrowing is something and objection and complaining is something else. even if you speak about overthrowing they have not a good reason to punish you. but if one acts of overthrowing then what will happen is the same as when you act against the Capitalism or Communism systems !
When Pinhas Rozen, who became Israel's first Israeli Justice, demanded that Israel's Declaration of Independence should cite the COUNTRY'S BORDERS, Ben-Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following points:
ROZEN: "There's the question of the borders, and it CANNOT BE IGNORED."
BEN-GURION: "Anything is possible. If we decide here that there's to be no mention of borders, then we won't mention them. Nothing is a priori [imperative]."
ROZEN: "It's not a priori, but it is a legal issue."
BEN-GURION: "The law is whatever people determine it to be." (1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii)
Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:
"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
So say you do a copy of a peaceful Occupy Movement scenario, crowd the city centers protesting for the ruling Ayatollahs to step down? Would you or any of your buddies in the streets ever be heard from again?
I am willing to bet there would be a drastic difference in the way it was handled here in the US and over there in Iran.
Given, moreover, the suspicion in which Jews are generally held because of actual or perceived connections to Israel, the level of intimidation, especially regarding anyone who could be thought to speak for the community in general is extreme. Iranian Jewish leaders in the United States who have been brave enough to speak out have repeatedly been threatened by Iranian agents that their life and the life of their loved ones are in danger because of their decision to speak out and that they should stay silent.
The threat of retaliation against the entire community is an ever present factor in the minds of Iranian Jews and all community leaders. The Islamic Republic reminds Iranian Jews of their uncertain fate and future from time to time in speeches that are delivered by the leaders of the regime.
On May 18, 2001, in a televised speech, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, directly attacked the Jews, calling Jews the enemies of the prophet Mohammad and threatened the Jews with expulsion and expropriation of their property, citing a similar action taken by the prophet Mohammad against the three Jewish tribes in Medina in which they were annihilated. This attack, placed in the context in which the Jews of Iran were still feeling shock of the Shiraz show trials reveals the true feelings of the Islamic Regime toward the Jews of Iran.
Secondly, since Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians are only free to perform their religion “within the limits of the law”, the authorities have imposed in practice important limits to their right to exercise their religion, a right that is being continuously restricted and interfered with. Conversion from Islam to one of the three recognized religions (apostasy) may still be punishable by death. The government has been particularly vigilant in recent years in curbing proselytising activities by evangelical Christians, whose services are conducted in Persian. Moreover, all three minorities complain of discrimination in the field of employment, report clear limitations imposed upon their upward mobility and complain of being treated like “second-class citizens”.
Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians can only run for the specific seats allocated to these minorities by Article 64 of the Constitution: one seat for Zoroastrians, one seat for Jews, one seat for Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, one seat for Armenian Christians in the North and one seat for Armenian Christian in the South. However, these minorities are unable to play a role in mainstream politics.
Of particular concern is the status of religious minorities who are not able to freely exercise their religion, are treated like second-class citizens, and are being discriminated against both in law and in practice.