PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues How Iran can have Nuclear Power and the World can have Peace


BucEyedPea
02-18-2012, 05:09 PM
I never heard of Thorium before. This claims it can give Iran all energy it needs without posing any threat to the West. Maybe our nuke expert, Donger can fill us in on more.

I thought this was a great article though. I still wouldn't be surprised if this wouldn't matter, even if true, to a certain faction in our govt because all this threat talk about Iran is really about regime change with this nuke threat a pretext. Aside from that, this sounds like a solution that could avert a major war.

Gerald Celente: Trend Forecasting and the Crisis of Western Civilization (http://lewrockwell.com/celente/celente94.1.html)

AustinChief
02-18-2012, 06:44 PM
http://www.american-buddha.com/astrangelove359d.jpg

The problem is that we may as well ask Iran to wait until we perfect cold fusion. Practical Thorium reactors are THEORY right now. AND even if we could fast forward ten years and say they are ready to go... they still will have a much higher start up cost.

OH and let's not forget... Iran doesn't need nuclear reactors for power, they need them as a source for weapons grade fissionable material. Iran would NEVER switch to a fuel that severely limits that end game.

Bewbies
02-18-2012, 07:52 PM
The problem with Iran having nukes is the USA. It's our fault, and we'd use their nukes to destroy the earth while they sat around in circles and sang kum ba ya.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2012, 09:36 PM
OH and let's not forget... Iran doesn't need nuclear reactors for power, they need them as a source for weapons grade fissionable material. Iran would NEVER switch to a fuel that severely limits that end game.

Oh you believe the propaganda then too. If that's what they want, perhaps it's to avoid being invaded. But that's another argument that's been exhausted already.

AustinChief
02-18-2012, 11:48 PM
Oh you believe the propaganda then too. If that's what they want, perhaps it's to avoid being invaded. But that's another argument that's been exhausted already.

It's not propaganda. You're delusional if you prefer to believe the Iranian party line over what Western society thinks. It's not like this is Sweden building a nuclear plant... it's fucking IRAN!

It's one thing to take a Ron Paul stance that says "it's not our place to police what they do in their country.. if they want nukes, who are we to say no".. I disagree with it, but it is a reasonable enough stance. It is totally different to stick your head in the sand and actually believe that they don't want nuclear weapons capabilities. Don't be a dipshit.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 12:06 AM
It's not propaganda. You're delusional if you prefer to believe the Iranian party line over what Western society thinks. It's not like this is Sweden building a nuclear plant... it's ****ing IRAN!

It's one thing to take a Ron Paul stance that says "it's not our place to police what they do in their country.. if they want nukes, who are we to say no".. I disagree with it, but it is a reasonable enough stance. It is totally different to stick your head in the sand and actually believe that they don't want nuclear weapons capabilities. Don't be a dipshit.

The same Iran who in the mid 70's we supported getting nuclear reactors? Or the nuclear engineers we educated at MIT?

Iran's electrical requirements have exceeded expectations and their oil production hasn't been able to reach what it was producing pre-American sanctions.

It's funny you don't fear the fucking Russians, Pakistani's who harbored Bin Laden, or the champions of humans rights China.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-19-2012, 12:11 AM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UaS2bRGS86c?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UaS2bRGS86c?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

scott free
02-19-2012, 12:13 AM
Oh you believe the propaganda then too. If that's what they want, perhaps it's to avoid being invaded.

Well they need to be invaded & if the Arab countries worry about them as much as they protest, let them lead the charge with troop levels behind a true, Gulf War-type coalition.

If the modern, rational 'green' element of that society controlled Iran there wouldnt anywhere near the hysteria about it, they would be granted all of the concessions major civilized societies get... but the fact remains that the current regime has made countless, steadfast proclamations of wiping another nation out entirely & they have the nearby proxies to make it happen.

Once this regime gets 'it', forget it... they're going to hang it over the worlds head 24/7.

ChiefsCountry
02-19-2012, 12:20 AM
It's funny you don't fear the ****ing Russians, Pakistani's who harbored Bin Laden, or the champions of humans rights China.

Don't be a dumb fuck. If US fought Russia or China, we would have WWIII on our hands. Thats totally different than a pissant nut job country like Iran.

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 12:22 AM
Well they need to be invaded & if the Arab countries worry about them as much as they protest, let them lead the charge with troop levels behind a true, Gulf War-type coalition.

If the modern, rational 'green' element of that society controlled Iran there wouldnt anywhere near the hysteria about it, they would be granted all of the concessions major civilized societies get... but the fact remains that the current regime has made countless, steadfast proclamations of wiping another nation out entirely & they have the nearby proxies to make it happen.

Once this regime gets 'it', forget it... they're going to hang it over the worlds head 24/7.


The current regime has not made countless, steadfast proclamations of wiping another nation out entirely. Turn off Fox news and look up what was actually said.
If Israel feels that they need to do something about Iran for their own national security, the United States needs to quit hand cuffing Israel and allow it to act as the sovereign nation it is. The fact is that Iran poses no threat to the United States, and our current policies towards Iran only increases their desire for a nuclear weapon.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 12:28 AM
The same Iran who in the mid 70's we supported getting nuclear reactors? Or the nuclear engineers we educated at MIT?

Iran's electrical requirements have exceeded expectations and their oil production hasn't been able to reach what it was producing pre-American sanctions.

It's funny you don't fear the fucking Russians, Pakistani's who harbored Bin Laden, or the champions of humans rights China.

So, you are saying that you HONESTLY think Iran only wants nuclear tech for peaceful power generation? You're a fucking loon if you do.

I have ZERO doubt that they want reactors to generate power... I also have zero doubt that they want those same reactors as a means to becoming a nuclear power.

If you want to argue that it's ok for them to become a nuclear power because it is only fair.. or because just having nukes doesn't really make you a "power" or whatever... that is fine. But don't try to pass off the idea that they are a bunch of passivist hippies. BTW, name me ONE country with an independent nuclear energy program that couldn't build a nuclear warhead TOMORROW if they chose to.

scott free
02-19-2012, 12:36 AM
The current regime has not made countless, steadfast proclamations of wiping another nation out entirely. Turn off Fox news and look up what was actually said.
If Israel feels that they need to do something about Iran for their own national security, the United States needs to quit hand cuffing Israel and allow it to act as the sovereign nation it is. The fact is that Iran poses no threat to the United States, and our current policies towards Iran only increases their desire for a nuclear weapon.

Your first sentence is simply not true.

The rest of the post i'm not sure what to make of... allow Israel to act but Iran poses no threat? Do you really, i mean really not support regime change in Iran?

I personally dont want two uncontrollable north korean crazy pawns in my world.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 12:45 AM
So, you are saying that you HONESTLY think Iran only wants nuclear tech for peaceful power generation? You're a ****ing loon if you do.

I have ZERO doubt that they want reactors to generate power... I also have zero doubt that they want those same reactors as a means to becoming a nuclear power.

If you want to argue that it's ok for them to become a nuclear power because it is only fair.. or because just having nukes doesn't really make you a "power" or whatever... that is fine. But don't try to pass off the idea that they are a bunch of passivist hippies. BTW, name me ONE country with an independent nuclear energy program that couldn't build a nuclear warhead TOMORROW if they chose to.

If you think Iran is going to nuke anyone you're a paranoid dipshit.

Name 1 country Iran has attacked. If Iran goes after Israel, Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth. This won't happen.

It's nice to use fear a prop up a country. We did this with Iraq and it worked out well. The truth here is we don't Iran (who we've ****ed with for years) to become an energy powerhouse.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 12:46 AM
Don't be a dumb ****. If US fought Russia or China, we would have WWIII on our hands. Thats totally different than a pissant nut job country like Iran.

And if we fight Iran we'll have suicide bombers and airliners taken down. There's no need to go to war with Iran.

BTW China and Russia are against sanctions. Pakistan says it sides with Iran.

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 12:53 AM
Your first sentence is simply not true.

The rest of the post i'm not sure what to make of... allow Israel to act but Iran poses no threat? Do you really, i mean really not support regime change in Iran?

I personally dont want two uncontrollable north korean crazy pawns in my world.

Since you want to make accusations, then prove them. Find me a quote where Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe out Israel entirely. I want the original quote, not a falsely translated one.

It's not our place to support regime change in Iran. It is the Iranian peoples'. Do you not realize that every time we meddle in other countries' affairs, all we do is make people hate us? We make people want to commit acts of terrorism against us. We oust one dictator to have another one take over, just to create more resentment among the people towards us.

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 12:58 AM
That doesn't even cover the topic of how do you plan on paying for for it?

How many American lives are worth replacing Ahmadinejad with another dictator who will hate us and pursue a nuclear weapon?

The military industrial complex is worse than the nanny state. At least people don't die for a false cause in the nanny state.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 01:04 AM
If you want to call me names you can take this website and stick it up your ass.

Name 1 country Iran has attacked. If Iran goes after Israel, Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth. This won't happen.

It's nice to use fear a prop up a country. We did this with Iraq and it worked out well. The truth here is we don't Iran (who we've fucked with for years) to become an energy powerhouse.

I'm not calling you names UNLESS you believe absolutely loony shit. Then you deserve to be called out on it. As I said, IF you HONESTLY think Iran doesn't want nuclear tech so that they can become a nuclear power... you are living in fucking crazy land. I would hope you could recognize that reality. As I said, I believe they ALSO want nuclear ENERGY... but building a few reactors (especially at the backwards tech level they will be starting out at) will NOT make some HUGE difference and cause them to become some energy powerhouse. Feel free to defend Iran's right to have nuclear energy, it's a valid point... but man, NO ONE is buying the idea of a peace loving Iran who won't use the tech to develop nukes. Hell, argue that it's ok for them to have a nuclear arsenal... but it's crazy talk to think that ANY nation would not take advantage of the tech for more than just peaceful projects.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 01:07 AM
I'm not calling you names UNLESS you believe absolutely loony shit. Then you deserve to be called out on it. As I said, IF you HONESTLY think Iran doesn't want nuclear tech so that they can become a nuclear power... you are living in ****ing crazy land. I would hope you could recognize that reality. As I said, I believe they ALSO want nuclear ENERGY... but building a few reactors (especially at the backwards tech level they will be starting out at) will NOT make some HUGE difference and cause them to become some energy powerhouse. Feel free to defend Iran's right to have nuclear energy, it's a valid point... but man, NO ONE is buying the idea of a peace loving Iran who won't use the tech to develop nukes. Hell, argue that it's ok for them to have a nuclear arsenal... but it's crazy talk to think that ANY nation would not take advantage of the tech for more than just peaceful projects.

I'm not saying they don't want nuclear weapons i'm sure all nations do to protect themselves but to pretend they'll bomb us with nukes is rather naive.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 01:09 AM
If you think Iran is going to nuke anyone you're a paranoid dipshit.

Name 1 country Iran has attacked. If Iran goes after Israel, Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth. This won't happen.

It's nice to use fear a prop up a country. We did this with Iraq and it worked out well. The truth here is we don't Iran (who we've ****ed with for years) to become an energy powerhouse.

well damn, I responded to your first post... now I'll respond to the edit...

I don't necessarily think Iran is going to nuke anyone. I'm only arguing that the debate should NEVER focus on some fairy tale idea that Iran wouldn't take advantage of their nuclear tech to develop weapons as well... it's insane to think that. Hell SWEDEN developed nukes.. they never built any (that I know of) but they did take the TINY steps needed to make them capable of building weapons if they chose to after they had a working nuclear energy program.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 01:11 AM
I'm not saying they don't want nuclear weapons i'm sure all nations do to protect themselves but to pretend they'll bomb us with nukes is rather naive.

Pretty sure I never said that.

I am responding to BEP saying that I was buying into "propaganda" because I believe that they wouldn't switch away from Uranium to another fuel source because then they couldn't use the program for a dual purpose. It's not propaganda.. it's common sense.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 01:18 AM
Pretty sure I never said that.

I am responding to BEP saying that I was buying into "propaganda" because I believe that they wouldn't switch away from Uranium to another fuel source because then they couldn't use the program for a dual purpose. It's not propaganda.. it's common sense.

Yes but the real propaganda part is that we're told Iran will use those nukes on Israel and the US. That simply won't happen they'll be used as a deterrent against war.

This isn't about national security it's a pissing contest over who's the big boy in the middle east.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 01:32 AM
Yes but the real propaganda part is that we're told Iran will use those nukes on Israel and the US. That simply won't happen they'll be used as a deterrent against war.

This isn't about national security it's a pissing contest over who's the big boy in the middle east.

That's a totally different debate for me. I don't want Iran to have nukes but I'm also not certain that bombing them is a valid way to prevent that from happening. And yes, it isn't really about our direct national security it is about regional security. You are correct, there definitely is a good deal of propaganda that tries to paint it otherwise.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 01:38 AM
That's a totally different debate for me. I don't want Iran to have nukes but I'm also not certain that bombing them is a valid way to prevent that from happening. And yes, it isn't really about our direct national security it is about regional security. You are correct, there definitely is a good deal of propaganda that tries to paint it otherwise.

What's there to debate about if Iran wants nuclear weapons or not then? Seems like a silly debate.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 01:48 AM
What's there to debate about if Iran wants nuclear weapons or not then? Seems like a silly debate.

Agreed but apparently BEP thinks I am misinformed and buying the "propaganda" because I stated that they wouldn't switch to Thorium regardless.

Donger
02-19-2012, 07:20 AM
I never heard of Thorium before. This claims it can give Iran all energy it needs without posing any threat to the West. Maybe our nuke expert, Donger can fill us in on more.

I thought this was a great article though. I still wouldn't be surprised if this wouldn't matter, even if true, to a certain faction in our govt because all this threat talk about Iran is really about regime change with this nuke threat a pretext. Aside from that, this sounds like a solution that could avert a major war.

Gerald Celente: Trend Forecasting and the Crisis of Western Civilization (http://lewrockwell.com/celente/celente94.1.html)

LMAO

Yes, and let's use it to power our warp reactors, too!

Donger
02-19-2012, 07:21 AM
This isn't about national security it's a pissing contest over who's the big boy in the middle east.

Do you think that our national security is tied directly to our need for crude that comes from the area?

BucEyedPea
02-19-2012, 09:25 AM
This isn't about national security it's a pissing contest over who's the big boy in the middle east.

Exactly. It's about American hegemony over there. Iran having a nuke creates a balance of power the western globalists lead by America do not want.

patteeu
02-19-2012, 09:28 AM
The same Iran who in the mid 70's we supported getting nuclear reactors? Or the nuclear engineers we educated at MIT?

Iran's electrical requirements have exceeded expectations and their oil production hasn't been able to reach what it was producing pre-American sanctions.

It's funny you don't fear the ****ing Russians, Pakistani's who harbored Bin Laden, or the champions of humans rights China.

How many Irans do you think there are?

patteeu
02-19-2012, 09:32 AM
AustinChief owned the ronpauls in this thread.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2012, 09:34 AM
Your first sentence is simply not true.

Actually, it is true. That statement by their president wiping Israel off the map was never said. It was a Farsi mistranslation. They haven't started a war in over 200 years. If anyone thinks Iran would want to send a nuke to Israel starting a war on themselves, resulting in their own nation being wiped out, is just not being logical. It's no different than Pakistan and India wanting a nuke—because they don't trust each other and it makes them more secure. Remember only one nation has ever used a nuclear weapon.

The rest of the post i'm not sure what to make of... allow Israel to act but Iran poses no threat? Do you really, i mean really not support regime change in Iran?

I personally dont want two uncontrollable north korean crazy pawns in my world.

If some members of Israeli security don't think Iran is an existential, conventional military threat with a nuke—then that's enough for me.
I don't understand why, you of all people here, are believing the same people who said the same things about Iraq.

BTW when has North Korea invaded anyone since their cease-fire agreement?

BucEyedPea
02-19-2012, 09:37 AM
LMAO

Yes, and let's use it to power our warp reactors, too!

Hey, troll, I asked for a sincere answer. I see all you want is a war then.

Donger
02-19-2012, 10:20 AM
Hey, troll, I asked for a sincere answer. I see all you want is a war then.

That was a sincere answer. Thorium reactors aren't ready for prime-time.

go bowe
02-19-2012, 10:52 AM
So, you are saying that you HONESTLY think Iran only wants nuclear tech for peaceful power generation? You're a fucking loon if you do.

I have ZERO doubt that they want reactors to generate power... I also have zero doubt that they want those same reactors as a means to becoming a nuclear power.

If you want to argue that it's ok for them to become a nuclear power because it is only fair.. or because just having nukes doesn't really make you a "power" or whatever... that is fine. But don't try to pass off the idea that they are a bunch of passivist hippies. BTW, name me ONE country with an independent nuclear energy program that couldn't build a nuclear warhead TOMORROW if they chose to.
japan?

isn't there a big difference between fuel rods and weapons grade material?

i thought it takes far greater technology and enrichment equipment to make a bomb over what it takes to produce fuel rods...

Donger
02-19-2012, 10:56 AM
japan?

isn't there a big difference between fuel rods and weapons grade material?

i thought it takes far greater technology and enrichment equipment to male a bomb over what it takes to produce fuel rods...

Japan could easily build a physics package if they so desired.

The only difference between fuel rods is the level of purity/enrichment of the uranium. Uranium is typically enriched through gaseous centrifuges. The more and faster centrifuges one has, the faster enrichment happens.

Uranium enriched to ~5% is suitable for a reactor. Weapons-grade uranium is ~90%.

alnorth
02-19-2012, 11:14 AM
I can't join in on this "Iran only wants nuclear power" argument. Maybe they do want nuclear power. Maybe a very big reason why they want nuclear power plants is to meet their growing energy need, I wouldn't doubt that.

However, this idea that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons is simply not believable. I believe they are, and they have a very good reason to want them. If I were the ruler of Iran, to hell with the sanctions, I'd want nukes too, to ensure the security of the nation if nothing else. I'd also go on TV and boldly lie about my intentions, to give my allies diplomatic cover to let me carry on with what I want.

Given our long, stupid, sorry history of interfering and screwing with Iran the last 100 years, the USA has no ethical or moral right to stop Iran from getting nukes.

go bowe
02-19-2012, 12:17 PM
Japan could easily build a physics package if they so desired.

The only difference between fuel rods is the level of purity/enrichment of the uranium. Uranium is typically enriched through gaseous centrifuges. The more and faster centrifuges one has, the faster enrichment happens.

Uranium enriched to ~5% is suitable for a reactor. Weapons-grade uranium is ~90%.

5%?

i think i read on al jazeera that iran had enriched some uranium to 20%...

if that's correct, isn't it pretty likely that they are building a bomb?

Donger
02-19-2012, 12:50 PM
5%?

i think i read on al jazeera that iran had enriched some uranium to 20%...

if that's correct, isn't it pretty likely that they are building a bomb?

Yes, they are enriching to 20%. They claim the more highly enriched uranium is being developed for creating isotopes to fight cancer, which does require a higher level of enrichment. However, they've apparently created more 20% than is required for that reactor.

That is why the decision to go beyond 3.5 to 5% was significant.

20% would also make a pretty messy "dirty" bomb.

Donger
02-19-2012, 12:52 PM
I can't join in on this "Iran only wants nuclear power" argument. Maybe they do want nuclear power. Maybe a very big reason why they want nuclear power plants is to meet their growing energy need, I wouldn't doubt that.

However, this idea that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons is simply not believable. I believe they are, and they have a very good reason to want them. If I were the ruler of Iran, to hell with the sanctions, I'd want nukes too, to ensure the security of the nation if nothing else. I'd also go on TV and boldly lie about my intentions, to give my allies diplomatic cover to let me carry on with what I want.

Given our long, stupid, sorry history of interfering and screwing with Iran the last 100 years, the USA has no ethical or moral right to stop Iran from getting nukes.

As a signatory of the NPT, Iran itself has the moral and ethical responsibility to not pursue a physics package.

go bowe
02-19-2012, 01:42 PM
As a signatory of the NPT, Iran itself has the moral and ethical responsibility to not pursue a physics package.

i don't know about moral and ethical responsibility, but there is a definite legal responsibility to not only not pursue a physics package but to prove that they are not...

of course that requires voluntary compliance which isn't likely to happen...

Donger
02-19-2012, 01:48 PM
i don't know about moral and ethical responsibility, but there is a definite legal responsibility to not only not pursue a physics package but to prove that they are not...

of course that requires voluntary compliance which isn't likely to happen...

I don't know if I agree. Is it really ethical to voluntarily go into a treaty that forbids the development of a weapon and then turn around and create one (if they end up doing so)?

go bowe
02-19-2012, 02:45 PM
I don't know if I agree. Is it really ethical to voluntarily go into a treaty that forbids the development of a weapon and then turn around and create one (if they end up doing so)?

well, it may not be ethical from our pov it is apparently ethical enough to suit them...

which is why voluntary compliance is the only route to make sure they don't get the bomb...

which they won't do...

another one of those problems that have no good solution...

typical of the me...

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 02:58 PM
Do you think that our national security is tied directly to our need for crude that comes from the area?

It wouldn't be if we'd start finding alternative sources for energy instead of depending on the middle east.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 03:00 PM
How many Irans do you think there are?

Pakistan is a worse situation and they have nukes.

Russia had enough nukes to wipe out America and they still do.


You're paranoid.

Donger
02-19-2012, 03:08 PM
It wouldn't be if we'd start finding alternative sources for energy instead of depending on the middle east.

Let's deal with the present situation/reality, shall we?

Is the supply of crude we get from the region in question vital to our national security or not?

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 03:10 PM
Let's deal with the present situation/reality, shall we?

Is the supply of crude we get from the region in question vital to our national security or not?

Sure.

Donger
02-19-2012, 03:13 PM
Sure.

Okay. Do you still think this is accurate?

"This isn't about national security it's a pissing contest over who's the big boy in the middle east."

patteeu
02-19-2012, 03:25 PM
Pakistan is a worse situation and they have nukes.

Russia had enough nukes to wipe out America and they still do.


You're paranoid.

I'm not paranoid. Pakistan and North Korea already have nukes. That's no reason to let the club of rogue nuclear states grow.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 03:29 PM
Okay. Do you still think this is accurate?

"This isn't about national security it's a pissing contest over who's the big boy in the middle east."

Yup it is an accurate statement.

I don't get where you're coming from because this isn't about crude oil.

Donger
02-19-2012, 03:32 PM
Yup it is an accurate statement.

I don't get where you're coming from because this isn't about crude oil.

No, it really isn't. You've acknowledged that we have a vital national security interest in the region. Since Iran is not only a vast exporter of crude and has the ability (and has threatened to close the Strait), I don't see how any rational person can claim that this is just about the biggest cock on the block (if that is what you think).

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 03:38 PM
No, it really isn't. You've acknowledged that we have a vital national security interest in the region. Since Iran is not only a vast exporter of crude and has the ability (and has threatened to close the Strait), I don't see how any rational person can claim that this is just about the biggest cock on the block (if that is what you think).

I also acknowledged that we should create our own alternative energies. Why do you think the Russians and Chinese are against actions towards Iran?

This isn't Iraq invading Kuwait threatening to shutout the rest of the world from oil. Iran threatened to close the strait because I don't know maybe we're putting sanctions on them and there's a possibility they'll be attacked? What would you expect them to do?

If you can't see there's a war on resources than you really aren't that bright.

If we were worried about a nuclear Iran post 9-11 we never would have toppled Saddams regime as Iraq never would have allowed Iran to get nukes and Iran never would have allowed Iraq to get nukes.

It's a chess game over energy.

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 03:40 PM
No, it really isn't. You've acknowledged that we have a vital national security interest in the region. Since Iran is not only a vast exporter of crude and has the ability (and has threatened to close the Strait), I don't see how any rational person can claim that this is just about the biggest cock on the block (if that is what you think).

Iran has threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if we conduct an act of war against their country (which we are currently doing). Iran hasn't threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if we try to use diplomacy to convince them not to pursue a nuclear weapon. No, this is not about national security. It would be different if Iran came out and said "Hey, we're going to try and get a nuclear weapon, and because we are trying to get a nuclear weapon, we are going to close the Straight of Hormuz." Them pursuing a nuclear weapon and closing the Straight of Hormuz are independent of eachother. They want to pursue a nuclear weapon to have the biggest cock on the block. They threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if we interfere with their sovereignty and perform an act of war against them to do so.

Donger
02-19-2012, 03:43 PM
I also acknowledged that we should create our own alternative energies. Why do you think the Russians and Chinese are against actions towards Iran?

This isn't Iraq invading Kuwait threatening to shutout the rest of the world from oil. Iran threatened to close the strait because I don't know maybe we're putting sanctions on them and there's a possibility they'll be attacked? What would you expect them to do?

If you can't see there's a war on resources than you really aren't that bright.

If we were worried about a nuclear Iran post 9-11 we never would have toppled Saddams regime as Iraq never would have allowed Iran to get nukes and Iran never would have allowed Iraq to get nukes.

It's a chess game over energy.

Yes, you wished for something that isn't reality. The reality is that we need that oil now and we are dealing with Iran now.

Do you think that a nuclear-armed Iran might be a little more potentially dangerous than a non-nuclear armed Iran? Do you think that a more brazen Iran might be more prone to carry out its threats under a nuclear umbrella?

I mean, this is really basic stuff.

So, to say that our policy with Iran has nothing to do with our national security is just, plain wrong.

Donger
02-19-2012, 03:45 PM
Iran has threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if we conduct an act of war against their country (which we are currently doing). Iran hasn't threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if we try to use diplomacy to convince them not to pursue a nuclear weapon. No, this is not about national security. It would be different if Iran came out and said "Hey, we're going to try and get a nuclear weapon, and because we are trying to get a nuclear weapon, we are going to close the Straight of Hormuz." Them pursuing a nuclear weapon and closing the Straight of Hormuz are independent of eachother. They want to pursue a nuclear weapon to have the biggest cock on the block. They threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if we interfere with their sovereignty and perform an act of war against them to do so.

No, Iran threatened to close the Strait if sanctions are imposed and "we" limit their ability to export crude.

But, always nice to see another Paul follower chime in with distorted reality.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 03:48 PM
Yes, you wished for something that isn't reality. The reality is that we need that oil now and we are dealing with Iran now.

Do you think that a nuclear-armed Iran might be a little more potentially dangerous than a non-nuclear armed Iran? Do you think that a more brazen Iran might be more prone to carry out its threats under a nuclear umbrella?

I mean, this is really basic stuff.

So, to say that our policy with Iran has nothing to do with our national security is just, plain wrong.

Honestly you aren't really bright and I imagine you've been saying we need oil now for the last 30 years instead of addressing the fact that we need to become less dependent on other countries.

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone this is just some fantasy you get off to. If they did they'd be wiped out in 10 minutes.

Not really. It has to do with energy explain why we did nothing to Pakistan or N.Korea.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 03:51 PM
No, Iran threatened to close the Strait if sanctions are imposed and "we" limit their ability to export crude.

But, always nice to see another Paul follower chime in with distorted reality.

Your arrogance is comical.

Speaking of being in touch with reality, tell us how we can afford another war and how the average American will be able to afford 5+ dollars a gallon gas if we go to war with Iran?

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:04 PM
Honestly you aren't really bright and I imagine you've been saying we need oil now for the last 30 years instead of addressing the fact that we need to become less dependent on other countries.

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone this is just some fantasy you get off to. If they did they'd be wiped out in 10 minutes.

Not really. It has to do with energy explain why we did nothing to Pakistan or N.Korea.

Interesting. I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address my point. That's odd.

vailpass
02-19-2012, 04:07 PM
Since you want to make accusations, then prove them. Find me a quote where Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe out Israel entirely. I want the original quote, not a falsely translated one.

It's not our place to support regime change in Iran. It is the Iranian peoples'. Do you not realize that every time we meddle in other countries' affairs, all we do is make people hate us? We make people want to commit acts of terrorism against us. We oust one dictator to have another one take over, just to create more resentment among the people towards us.

Are you serious or just stupid?

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:07 PM
Your arrogance is comical.

Speaking of being in touch with reality, tell us how we can afford another war and how the average American will be able to afford 5+ dollars a gallon gas if we go to war with Iran?

Stating facts is now considered arrogant?

I'd rather that Iran comply with the UN's demands that she stop enriching and to prove that her nuclear intentions are peaceful. I also believe that if she does not, we may have to use force to make it happen. But, a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable.

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:10 PM
Honestly you aren't really bright and I imagine you've been saying we need oil now for the last 30 years instead of addressing the fact that we need to become less dependent on other countries.

Actually, I'd welcome greatly expanding our domestic production. Were you under the impression I'm not?

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone this is just some fantasy you get off to. If they did they'd be wiped out in 10 minutes.

Do you realize that they don't have to actually use it to gain an advantage?

Not really. It has to do with energy explain why we did nothing to Pakistan or N.Korea.

Yes, I know it has to do with energy, which is vital to our national interest. We did nothing with Pakistan because they are tacit allies of ours. We did nothing with NK because they can't threaten something of vital national interest.

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:11 PM
Are you serious or just stupid?

Standard Paul follower response to the threat. He was mis-quoted.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 04:19 PM
Actually, I'd welcome greatly expanding our domestic production. Were you under the impression I'm not?



Do you realize that they don't have to actually use it to gain an advantage?



Yes, I know it has to do with energy, which is vital to our national interest. We did nothing with Pakistan because they are tacit allies of ours. We did nothing with NK because they can't threaten something of vital national interest.

1. By your tone yes I was under that impression.

2. What advantage do they gain? They'll have nukes to prevent themselves from getting attacked so what?

3. That isn't true at all. Pakistan harbored the guy who killed 3,000 American citizens and that government could get overthrown in place of Al Aqeada like people at anytime. N.Korea/S.Korea is a more volatile situation than Iran.

BWillie
02-19-2012, 04:21 PM
Since you want to make accusations, then prove them. Find me a quote where Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe out Israel entirely. I want the original quote, not a falsely translated one.

It's not our place to support regime change in Iran. It is the Iranian peoples'. Do you not realize that every time we meddle in other countries' affairs, all we do is make people:mad: hate us? We make people want to commit acts of terrorism against us. We oust one dictator to have another one take over, just to create more resentment among the people towards us.

No ur wrong. They hate us cuz we are free and better than them and majority white. Has nothing to do with us f***ing with them for years or giving money to isreal to make warheads. Nothing I tell u. Ldo

mlyonsd
02-19-2012, 04:22 PM
1. By your tone yes I was under that impression.

2. What advantage do they gain? They'll have nukes to prevent themselves from getting attacked so what?

3. That isn't true at all. Pakistan harbored the guy who killed 3,000 American citizens and that government could get overthrown in place of Al Aqeada like people at anytime. N.Korea/S.Korea is a more volatile situation than Iran.Dude. Just stop.

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:28 PM
1. By your tone yes I was under that impression.

Good. So we can dispense with that silliness. But, again, the reality is that the crude that flows through the Strait is vital to our national security (as you've acknowledged). Iran has the capability of closing the Strait and has threatened to do so.

2. What advantage do they gain? They'll have nukes to prevent themselves from getting attacked so what?

Yes, that's it. As I said, it's a nuclear-umbrella. We (or others) would be less likely to exercise either direct or indirect force against them with that umbrella. They would also, of course, also get to threaten our national interest with nuclear weapons instead of just conventional means. That's bad, FYI.

3. That isn't true at all. Pakistan harbored the guy who killed 3,000 American citizens and that government could get overthrown in place of Al Aqeada like people at anytime. N.Korea/S.Korea is a more volatile situation than Iran.

You have proof that Pakistan's government was harboring OBL? If so, present it.

I didn't say that NK/ROK wasn't volatile. Is said that NK doesn't threaten a vital part of our national security (as Iran does).

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 04:28 PM
Dude. Just stop.

You're right Iran will use a nuke we should fear them but it's ok Pakistan has nukes they only supported Bin Laden.


Dude. Just Stop.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 04:33 PM
Good. So we can dispense with that silliness. But, again, the reality is that the crude that flows through the Strait is vital to our national security (as you've acknowledged). Iran has the capability of closing the Strait and has threatened to do so.



Yes, that's it. As I said, it's a nuclear-umbrella. We (or others) would be less likely to exercise either direct or indirect force against them with that umbrella. They would also, of course, also get to threaten our national interest with nuclear weapons instead of just conventional means. That's bad, FYI.



You have proof that Pakistan's government was harboring OBL? If so, present it.

I didn't say that NK/ROK wasn't volatile. Is said that NK doesn't threaten a vital part of our national security (as Iran does).

1. Again they've only threatened to do so because we've placed sanctions on them that haven't even worked.

2. See #1.

3. Certainly you aren't this stupid. Bin Laden lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years. Why do you think they didn't inform Pakistan before the raid? North Korea nuking our allies South Korea which we have troops stationed in doesn't threaten our national security? Now you're just making stuff up.

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:38 PM
1. Again they've only threatened to do so because we've placed sanctions on them that haven't even worked.

2. See #1.

3. Certainly you aren't this stupid. Bin Laden lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years. North Korea nuking our allies South Korea which we have troops stationed in doesn't threaten our national security? Now you're just making stuff up.

The only reason we've placed sanctions on them is because the are defying the provisions of the NPT. A treaty that is designed to allow peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent its militarization. Iran refuses to comply with that. So, we either do nothing, place sanctions or attack to make them comply. For now, I agree with what we are doing.

Please provide some proof to your assertions that OBL "lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years."

As to Korea, yes, that scenario would be bad, but it wouldn't literally strangle our economy (as would closing the Strait).

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 04:40 PM
The only reason we've placed sanctions on them is because the are defying the provisions of the NPT. A treaty that is designed to allow peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent its militarization. Iran refuses to comply with that. So, we either do nothing, place sanctions or attack to make them comply. For now, I agree with what we are doing.

Please provide some proof to your assertions that OBL "lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years."

As to Korea, yes, that scenario would be bad, but it wouldn't literally strangle our economy (as would closing the Strait).




1) It's the Location, Stupid

Osama's outsized, $1 million fortress — surrounded by walls up to 18 feet tall, topped with barbed wire — loomed, ostentatiously, in the heart of the garrison town of Abbottabad, just a mile's drive from the Pakistan Military Academy, that nation's version of West Point.

But Abbottabad is not just a stronghold of the Pakistani military, home to three army regiments and myriad retired generals. “The Intelligence Bureau, Military Intelligence, the ISI — they all had a presence there,” the nation's former intelligence chief Hamid Gul told reporters.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/pakistan-harbored-osama-the-evidence-20110502#ixzz1msGGTQWG






The site of the bin Laden compound had previously been used by Pakistan's notorious, jihad-friendly intelligence service — the ISI — to shelter intelligence assets, according to the UAE-based newspaper Gulf News:

"This area had been used as ISI's safe house" ... a senior intelligence official confided to Gulf News... Another official cautiously said "it may not be the same house but the same compound or area used by the ISI."



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/pakistan-harbored-osama-the-evidence-20110502#ixzz1msG1elm7

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:46 PM
1) It's the Location, Stupid

Osama's outsized, $1 million fortress — surrounded by walls up to 18 feet tall, topped with barbed wire — loomed, ostentatiously, in the heart of the garrison town of Abbottabad, just a mile's drive from the Pakistan Military Academy, that nation's version of West Point.

But Abbottabad is not just a stronghold of the Pakistani military, home to three army regiments and myriad retired generals. “The Intelligence Bureau, Military Intelligence, the ISI — they all had a presence there,” the nation's former intelligence chief Hamid Gul told reporters.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/pakistan-harbored-osama-the-evidence-20110502#ixzz1msGGTQWG






The site of the bin Laden compound had previously been used by Pakistan's notorious, jihad-friendly intelligence service — the ISI — to shelter intelligence assets, according to the UAE-based newspaper Gulf News:

"This area had been used as ISI's safe house" ... a senior intelligence official confided to Gulf News... Another official cautiously said "it may not be the same house but the same compound or area used by the ISI."



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/pakistan-harbored-osama-the-evidence-20110502#ixzz1msG1elm7

You present that as proof of this?

"OBL lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years"

Really?

If so, that's like claiming the same for some dork who lives in Georgetown (close to the Pentagon and Langley) "lives in a military village with top military officials for 6 years."

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 04:49 PM
You present that as proof of this?

"OBL lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years"

Really?

If so, that's like claiming the same for some dork who lives in Georgetown (close to the Pentagon and Langley) "lives in a military village with top military officials for 6 years."

Your ignorance is truly amazing. You don't even acknowledge the fact that the US didn't notify the Pakistani government before the raid. Why is that?

Yeah Georgetown dorks live with the FBI.

Donger
02-19-2012, 04:52 PM
Your ignorance is truly amazing. You don't even acknowledge the fact that the US didn't notify the Pakistani government before the raid. Why is that?

Yeah Georgetown dorks live with the FBI.

Yes, I acknowledge that we didn't notify the Pakistanis before the raid. Because we can't entirely trust them.

You do realize that what you posted states nothing about OBL "lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years," do you not?

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2012, 04:56 PM
Yes, I acknowledge that we didn't notify the Pakistanis before the raid. Because we can't entirely trust them.

You do realize that what you posted states nothing about OBL "lived in a military village with top military officials for 6 years," do you not?

ROFL why don't we trust them?


http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/idINIndia-56840920110507

"Suspicions have deepened that Pakistan's pervasive Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, which has a long history of contacts with militant groups, may have had ties with bin Laden -- or that at least some of its agents did. The agency has been described as a state within a state."

JohnnyV13
02-19-2012, 05:07 PM
Pretty sure I never said that.

I am responding to BEP saying that I was buying into "propaganda" because I believe that they wouldn't switch away from Uranium to another fuel source because then they couldn't use the program for a dual purpose. It's not propaganda.. it's common sense.

You need more respect for BEP's religious beliefs.

1) The United States is Evil
2) Iran is populated by lovely, giving people who desire nothing but good things for America
3) Ron Paul can do no wrong

Remember these unquestioned truths, and you will be saved.

BCD
02-19-2012, 05:18 PM
I seriously doubt Iran wants to Nuke anyone.

They know we and Israel have Nukes.

Its a lose/lose for Iran.

BCD
02-19-2012, 05:23 PM
The same Iran who in the mid 70's we supported getting nuclear reactors? Or the nuclear engineers we educated at MIT?

Iran's electrical requirements have exceeded expectations and their oil production hasn't been able to reach what it was producing pre-American sanctions.

It's funny you don't fear the fucking Russians, Pakistani's who harbored Bin Laden, or the champions of humans rights China.

I don't fear China.

Why would they invade us?

No one buys more of their worthless crap than we do.

Donger
02-19-2012, 05:26 PM
ROFL why don't we trust them?


http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/idINIndia-56840920110507

"Suspicions have deepened that Pakistan's pervasive Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency, which has a long history of contacts with militant groups, may have had ties with bin Laden -- or that at least some of its agents did. The agency has been described as a state within a state."

That is why. And that is why I asked you for the proof for your assertion that the Pakistani government knew where OBL was hiding.

You've not presented that proof.

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 05:45 PM
Are you serious or just stupid?

Do you have a brain between your ears, or do you just let Fox news do all of your thinking? I'll do the leg work for you, since you are unable to compose an independent thought.

Here is the quote: “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.”
Here is the translation: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 05:47 PM
No, Iran threatened to close the Strait if sanctions are imposed and "we" limit their ability to export crude.

But, always nice to see another Paul follower chime in with distorted reality.

Sanctions are an act of war. If we don't threaten to commit an act of war against Iran, they won't try and close the Straight of Hormuz. Your oil argument is moot.

Donger
02-19-2012, 05:52 PM
Sanctions are an act of war. If we don't threaten to commit an act of war against Iran, they won't try and close the Straight of Hormuz. Your oil argument is moot.

No, sanctions aren't an act of war.

They are a diplomatic response to Iran not abiding to her obligations of the NPT, which she signed voluntarily and in allegedly in good faith.

Donger
02-19-2012, 05:54 PM
Do you have a brain between your ears, or do you just let Fox news do all of your thinking? I'll do the leg work for you, since you are unable to compose an independent thought.

Here is the quote: “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.”
Here is the translation: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”

Yes, that's much better.

LMAO

Please do remember that that "occupation regime" was also tried to be "vanished from the arena of time" once before. But, the language threatening it wasn't Farsi.

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 05:58 PM
No, sanctions aren't an act of war.

They are a diplomatic response to Iran not abiding to her obligations of the NPT, which she signed voluntarily and in allegedly in good faith.

So, you are telling me that if another country put ships outside of United States harbors and prevented goods from entering the country, you would not consider that an act of war?

Donger
02-19-2012, 06:17 PM
So, you are telling me that if another country put ships outside of United States harbors and prevented goods from entering the country, you would not consider that an act of war?

That is a blockade. Are you aware that we aren't blockading Iran?

DementedLogic
02-19-2012, 06:23 PM
That is a blockade. Are you aware that we aren't blockading Iran?

So if a country decides to violate the sanctions, and the United States learns of it, they are just going to let it happen?

Maybe you don't understand that sanctions have to be enforced for them to "work". The way you enforce sanctions, is through a blockade. If the UN, aka the United States, learns of a country attempting to violate sanctions, they will intercept the shipment. Therefore, they are blockading the sanctioned country.

patteeu
02-19-2012, 06:26 PM
So, you are telling me that if another country put ships outside of United States harbors and prevented goods from entering the country, you would not consider that an act of war?

Have you decided whose side you're on yet?

go bowe
02-19-2012, 06:30 PM
Yes, that's much better.

LMAO

Please do remember that that "occupation regime" was also tried to be "vanished from the arena of time" once before. But, the language threatening it wasn't Farsi.

once?

and isn't there a difference between the devil zionist regime and the jewish people?

that statement seems to call for regime change, not annihilation of the populace of israel...

is there a better example of his threats against israel?

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 06:34 PM
So, you are telling me that if another country put ships outside of United States harbors and prevented goods from entering the country, you would not consider that an act of war?

What the what?

A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions, which are legal barriers to trade, and is distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city.

My favorite is when idiots like Brian Becker try to redefine things. Instead of calling them sanctions (which is exactly what they are) he uses the term "economic blockade". "SEE IT'S A BLOCKADE AND THAT IS ILLEGAL!!!"

From now on I'm going to call sanctions on Iran... FINANCIAL GENOCIDE!!! (see that makes it even WORSERER!)

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 06:39 PM
So if a country decides to violate the sanctions, and the United States learns of it, they are just going to let it happen?

Maybe you don't understand that sanctions have to be enforced for them to "work". The way you enforce sanctions, is through a blockade. If the UN, aka the United States, learns of a country attempting to violate sanctions, they will intercept the shipment. Therefore, they are blockading the sanctioned country.

You need to do some research on this. The US is nowhere NEAR putting a blockade into effect. They are instead going to enforce sanctions by sanctioning countries that trade with Iran. (mostly by denying them access to American banks and markets) Regardless of what you CALL it.. it does NOT violate International Law.

Donger
02-19-2012, 06:40 PM
So if a country decides to violate the sanctions, and the United States learns of it, they are just going to let it happen?

Maybe you don't understand that sanctions have to be enforced for them to "work". The way you enforce sanctions, is through a blockade. If the UN, aka the United States, learns of a country attempting to violate sanctions, they will intercept the shipment. Therefore, they are blockading the sanctioned country.

No, I understand completely.

Right now, we are attempting sanctions. We aren't blockading.

If sanctions don't work, we may have to blockade or use force.

Are you new to this or something?

Donger
02-19-2012, 06:42 PM
once?

and isn't there a difference between the devil zionist regime and the jewish people?

that statement seems to call for regime change, not annihilation of the populace of israel...

is there a better example of his threats against israel?

I was referring to Jews in general, not specifically the State of Israel.

AustinChief
02-19-2012, 06:48 PM
No, I understand completely.

Right now, we are attempting sanctions. We aren't blockading.

If sanctions don't work, we may have to blockade or use force.

Are you new to this or something?

That would be a HUGE leap from where we are right now. Something I am not certain I'd be able to get behind without some serious convincing. Not that I don't want to keep Iran from having nukes... but I just don't see another armed conflict as a good decision at this time.

go bowe
02-19-2012, 06:49 PM
I was referring to Jews in general, not specifically the State of Israel.

i was referring to ahmanutjob's statement that was posted...

the "once?" referred to israel's having been threatened by annihilation and attacked a number of times by various groups of arabs rather than the one time you referred to...

i'm getting way to referred here, this is too much like work after a big family dinner and a little left-handed dessert...

obviously the mullahs in iran and elsewhere would love to see israel, the regime and the people, run out of the me...

but that's not going to happen, ever...

Donger
02-19-2012, 07:26 PM
That would be a HUGE leap from where we are right now. Something I am not certain I'd be able to get behind without some serious convincing. Not that I don't want to keep Iran from having nukes... but I just don't see another armed conflict as a good decision at this time.

Indeed. IT WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR!!!!1!!!!!!!

go bowe
02-19-2012, 07:31 PM
man the sheets!

roll out the cannon!

our blockade will not let the bastards eat!