Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iran nuclear talk travesty thread
YelliChink    10/21/2009 1:40:53 PM
This thread is dedicated for documenting the failing attempt to talk Iran out of nuclear weapons business. Today's news: Oct 21, 2009 news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8318258.stm Iran nuclear fuel deal 'agreed' [quote] The International Atomic Energy Agency, which proposed the plan after talks in Vienna, wants an answer by Friday. Details are yet to be confirmed, but the plan is believed to involve Iran exporting uranium to be enriched in France and Russia. Russian nuclear industry insiders told the BBC the process proposed would involve Iran sending its uranium to the IAEA, which would forward it to Russia for enriching. The enriched uranium would then be returned to the IAEA and sent to France, which has the technology to add the "cell elements" needed for Iran's reactor, they said. This process would enable Iran to obtain enough enriched uranium for its research reactor, but not enough to produce a weapon. Exporting uranium has been seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it needs, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons. Iranian chief negotiator Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh talked positively about a deal, but did not mention uranium export. [unquote] Allow me to briefly explain what's going on here. Iranians don't have the capacity, time and money to build good and enough centrifuges to produce weapons grade Uranium. So, like North Koreans, they are trying to produce enough Plutonium from their research reactor, which, unfortunately, was built with help of the US back in 1960s. The IAEA's proposal is aimed at easing tension by eliminating the possibility of plutonium bomb. Fuel rods processed by French will not be able to produce enough plutonium at time, which leaves Iranians the only option to build uranium bomb. That'll take them more time to accumulate weapon-grade uranium with higher concentration. Of course Iran will not accept this, but out right rejection will lead to sanction. They can play the book of obstruction on detail or some other irrelevant terms until time has come.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
YelliChink       10/23/2009 11:05:13 AM
France warns on Iran nuclear deal
 
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8322901.stm
 
[quote]

There has been no final official response from Iran, but a report on Iranian TV quoted a member of Iran's negotiating team saying: "Iran is interested in buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor within the framework of a clear proposal... we are waiting for the other party's constructive and trust-building response."

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said, according to the Lebanese National News Agency: "I cannot say that the situation regarding Iran is very positive.

"Now, meetings are being held in Vienna (the IAEA headquarters). But via the indications we are receiving, matters are not very positive."

Iran's rejection of the deal would come as a disappointment to the US, Russia and France, and it could make the wider negotiation with Iran much more difficult - and the threat of sanctions more likely, says the BBC's Bethany Bell in Vienna.

[unquote]
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Yelli   10/23/2009 4:45:50 PM
4 or 5 years ago I wrote here Iran will get the bomb. You see now today Iran "ignored" the dealine to respond (hopefully submit) to the new deal. There is no need to try and stop Iran (delay maybe). Fact is Iran needs the bomb and I consider it morally wrong to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. Are you shocked?
Let me leave this an exercise for you -
 
 Why do you think there exists a valid and legitimate reason for Iran to have a nuclear bomb? (hint its not really anything to do with Israel or US).
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/23/2009 6:34:40 PM

4 or 5 years ago I wrote here Iran will get the bomb. You see now today Iran "ignored" the dealine to respond (hopefully submit) to the new deal. There is no need to try and stop Iran (delay maybe). Fact is Iran needs the bomb and I consider it morally wrong to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. Are you shocked?

Let me leave this an exercise for you -

 Why do you think there exists a valid and legitimate reason for Iran to have a nuclear bomb? (hint its not really anything to do with Israel or US).


What makes you think the amount of subversion against Iran will reduce after Iran gets the bomb?
 
Chances are it's going to get intensified, and it is not funded by the US or Israel.
 
Farsi population is still in illusion that they have a great empire. They don't, and their country is so weak that they are not even third rate power. Their women are selling themselves in the streets of Dubai, and their greatest minds want to leave and seek fortune in Western Europe and North America. They have no right to anything unless they are willing to play the rule book, which Farsi power is not strong enough to malleate it whatsoever.
 
There are two kinds of small countries: the one that is willing to whore in order to get something in return; and the one that always bitch their way out of trouble (and usually get into more trouble). You figure which kind Iran belongs to.
 
The smartest thing that Farsi can do is to disintegrate their little empire and conduct necessary reform. That's not going to happen because they are empire building people. Although people consciously believe in this illusion, subconsciously, they know they are a failing cause. That explains why they fail to reproduce. Just like Europe, it's only a matter of time before Tehran and Isfahan will be Arab cities.
 
There is no such thing as "right" in international affair. There is only strength, power and wealth. Farsi leaders know that very well. It is the very same book that they've played since the time of Darius I. Only fool and puppets subject to propaganda control believe otherwise. Thus, you are wrong about Iran and nuke. They want the nuke and they need the nuke, as the last straw to reverse the pathetic situation of their nation and their race. They are on the way to national suicide. The nuke is merely the Y-junction that leads to the same destination. The smaller Arab countries and their main Arab rivalry are not going to submit to Farsi anymore, and they can get plenty help from almost everybody. So Iranians choose to die in a blaze, and that is their destiny. Before you think they might try, you will see mushroom cloud in San Fransicko.
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Yelli   10/23/2009 8:30:27 PM
Iran is not going to attack US- thats llaughable. Its the talebans Iran needs to worry about. Sunni extremism is an extreme threat to Iran. Just yesterday Talebans attacked around Pak nuke facilities. What if those guys(Talebans) got nukes and wiped of Teheran and US military base in AFPAK. COuld happen. Thats why Iran needs the bomb. Its NATOs incompetence in dealing with AFPAK that makes it imperitive for Iran to have nukes to use against the Talebans, and morally wrong for us to expect them not to have any. Its self defence- everybody has a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. And a right to an appropriate weapon system to keep it that way.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/27/2009 2:26:16 PM
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8327558.stm
 
Iran '(not really) to accept UN nuclear deal'
 
Page last updated at 17:46 GMT, Tuesday, 27 October 2009
[quote]

Al Alam TV quoted "informed" sources as saying Tehran would respond to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) deal within 48 hours.

Under the draft proposal, Iran would send its enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into fuel.

[unquote]
 
What does use to hide in the detail?
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       10/27/2009 8:27:14 PM
On what basis can "we" deny Iran the right to develop Nuclear technologies, including weapons?
 
Where do the current powers get off in this approach? A blind eye (and some closet assistance) brought the "bomb" to the Middle East, to a nation who in their limited history has invaded it's neighbours on numerous occassions, and repress a large portion of "their" population.
 
One nation has used atomic weapons in anger, but for over 60 years the rest of the world has been held under a umbrella of fear of the technology...
 
Let these "great" nations make the first steps and reduce (or eliminate) their arsenals before taking the "rightous" path...
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/27/2009 8:35:38 PM

On what basis can "we" deny Iran the right to develop Nuclear technologies, including weapons?

 

Where do the current powers get off in this approach? A blind eye (and some closet assistance) brought the "bomb" to the Middle East, to a nation who in their limited history has invaded it's neighbours on numerous occassions, and repress a large portion of "their" population.

 

One nation has used atomic weapons in anger, but for over 60 years the rest of the world has been held under a umbrella of fear of the technology...

 

Let these "great" nations make the first steps and reduce (or eliminate) their arsenals before taking the "rightous" path...


What a great moonbatish post you have done.
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       10/27/2009 9:02:19 PM




On what basis can "we" deny Iran the right to develop Nuclear technologies, including weapons?



 



Where do the current powers get off in this approach? A blind eye (and some closet assistance) brought the "bomb" to the Middle East, to a nation who in their limited history has invaded it's neighbours on numerous occassions, and repress a large portion of "their" population.



 



One nation has used atomic weapons in anger, but for over 60 years the rest of the world has been held under a umbrella of fear of the technology...



 



Let these "great" nations make the first steps and reduce (or eliminate) their arsenals before taking the "rightous" path...






What a great moonbatish post you have done.

What would you rather hear? Let Israel start a war that even the mighty US couldn't finish? Sorry but the Neo-Cons have had their time at the table, and look where that got us - into two sandy quagmires... with no sign of a safe exit...
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/27/2009 9:35:16 PM


What would you rather hear? Let Israel start a war that even the mighty US couldn't finish? Sorry but the Neo-Cons have had their time at the table, and look where that got us - into two sandy quagmires... with no sign of a safe exit...


Yet another demonstration of BDS. That only exemplifies your total brain power, and it's inability to think. Apparently you think you still live under Bush.
 
War with Iran is inevitable. Obama will start a war with Iran, after running out of option and another 6 million Jews murdered. However, I'm not sure whether DHS will be able to intercept nuke Jihad before they blow up your arse in one of the liberal metropolises of the US.
 
Probably you indeed want to see 6 million Jews murdered by nuclear attack, Israel wiped out of the map, and the West forced to live in Dhimitude and Sharia Law.
 
And, don't get me start on justification to use atom bombs on Japan. Anything that can end that bloody war with less people die on Allied side is justifiable. Tell the suffering Chinese that they should endure another two years of war, after 3.5 million soldiers lost and 24 million civilians killed, all major cities in rubble and no food to eat. Oh, wait, both my grandmoms lived through that and I grew up listening stories like that. Why don't you shut your mouth up on that and SHOVE IT?
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       10/27/2009 9:48:18 PM





What would you rather hear? Let Israel start a war that even the mighty US couldn't finish? Sorry but the Neo-Cons have had their time at the table, and look where that got us - into two sandy quagmires... with no sign of a safe exit...






Yet another demonstration of BDS. That only exemplifies your total brain power, and it's inability to think. Apparently you think you still live under Bush.


 

War with Iran is inevitable. Obama will start a war with Iran, after running out of option and another 6 million Jews murdered. However, I'm not sure whether DHS will be able to intercept nuke Jihad before they blow up your arse in one of the liberal metropolises of the US.


 

Probably you indeed want to see 6 million Jews murdered by nuclear attack, Israel wiped out of the map, and the West forced to live in Dhimitude and Sharia Law.


 

And, don't get me start on justification to use atom bombs on Japan. Anything that can end that bloody war with less people die on Allied side is justifiable. Tell the suffering Chinese that they should endure another two years of war, after 3.5 million soldiers lost and 24 million civilians killed, all major cities in rubble and no food to eat. Oh, wait, both my grandmoms lived through that and I grew up listening stories like that. Why don't you shut your mouth up on that and SHOVE IT?



You need to chill out before you change from your yellow colour to a bright face of red...
 
1) I never lived under Bush
2) I never made any comment on the justification for the US use of the bomb - you are quite correct that it can be justified on the potential lives it "saved".
3) what makes you link my comments to the Holocaust, this is highly insulting to those who perished, and to myself - you do not even know my hereditry, let alone my views of Israel.
4) do not accuse me of supporting supporting Sharia law - again, you do not even know my hereditry
5) I don't live in the US
6) if you don't want to hear alternative views, then don't dedicate a thread to the discussion on a open forum.
6) shut my mouth yourself, or you shove it you uninformed wannabe.
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics