Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Iran installs 328 centrifuges at atomic site
outfctrl
Member UncommonPosts: 3,619
If all goes according to plan, Iran will activate a total of 3,000 such centrifuges.
Reuters goes on to observe, “The Islamic Republic, the world’s No. 4 oil producer, says it wants solely civilian atomic energy from uranium enrichment.”
Right.
The world’s fourth largest producer of oil is developing a nuclear energy program at lightning speed solely for civilian purposes? While hurling hatred and threats at a neighboring country?
This has got me scared. I think Iran is going to be a big threat to the US and neighboring countries. We need to start reducing our dependence on foreign oil and stop enriching, empowering and emboldening nations like Iran. Now.
Comments
As far as I know America is in no way emboldening, empowering and enriching Iran in any way whatsoever.
Quite the opposite in fact. It is directly involved in repressing, impovishering and disempowering it and has been for decades.
Reducing dependance on any foreign goods is in everyway a good thing in my opinion. As would be destroying the ability of our rival powers like Iran to argue with us too.
You don't think it could be because it's more cost effective for them to sell their oil and rely on another source? It certainly makes no sense to make 30 cars and drive 20 of them yourself, why do this with oil?
You don't think they might be providing for their future when they run out of oil?
Perhaps they're providing for the country should America attack and they have to light the oil fields...
Perhaps they have a 'green' conscience (Ok ok, I'm pushing my luck with that one lol)...
Maybe they're trying to pull their country into the 21st century, and consider modernising power sources to be a vital step to this (certainly, if every country would do this it would make the world a better place).
There are a whole lot of reasons that they could be doing this, so stop jumping to push the big red 'launch' button... F*cking trigger happy Americans...
Either way though, I'd welcome an Iran with Nuclear capabilities (if they did take the programme military)... It would stabilise the Middle East, force Israel to stfu or gtfo, and put enormous restrictions on US imperialism... All are good points if you ask me.
I doubt Iran will be the next in doing so.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
Iran having nukes is an issue, but there may be some restraint on their part in the future. I am quite sure that they realize that once they have proven nuclear capability, any nuke that is used anywhere on the globe that cannot be directly tied to a specific nation will be linked to Iran. I doubt that even Ahmadinejad wants an ICBM landing in Tehran in retaliation.
at last maybe you’re starting to see my point (but i'm not hopeful) everything we have done over the last 6 years in the middle east has lead to this. When you play war games with death bots all you get is war. Now I fear it's way too late to talk with Iran
Iran has made some (all be it small) advances to talk with the US of A and Europe to reach a concession in its want to hold the bomb. It would be easy to blame bush’s state of the union address in 2002 but that’s only 1/2 the story.
The bullshit "war on terror" has bought the whole Middle East into madness and Iran see's this as an opportunity to make moves to drag power to Tehran. The way things are going in the Middle East it won’t be long before someone has to make a choice withdraw or invade the whole region.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but when intelligent people talk maybe the gun slingers should listen.
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If they get nuclear weapons, they wouldn't be able to attack as far as US mainland, they would look at targets in close range, and judging by their statements that would be Israel. You can say alot about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and oh boy he has some seriously twisted views, but he isn't stupid. No way he would attack, probably the most aggressive military power in the world. If Iran barely scratches Israels borders we would probably see a retaliation that would wipe out the entire middle east. Not even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to risk something like that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Let me count the years that the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union, had nuclear missiles capable of devastating the American heartland. And let me count the years that the Good Guys in the White Hats, that stood for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, had nuclear missiles capable of devastating the Soviet heartland. And we couldn't trust those unstable, lying, commie bastards, they were just raging for the opportunity to pour over the Berlin Wall and engulf Western Europe, like a big Red Tide.
And how many times during the Cold War were nuclear weapons used?
Nuclear weapons are mutually assured destruction. They are a political, not military, weapon used to bring the other side to the table for talks. They are security, had Saddam nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States and obliterating a dozen major US cities, do you think we would have invaded, or talked? And if we invaded, and he was going down, why not launch against the continental United States, use those nuclear weapons as that one last death throw of a desperate man.
Iran sees security in having the bomb. Pakistan see security in having the bomb, now that India has it. Have we invaded India, have we invaded Pakistan, have we invaded Israel, have we invaded South Africa, when all of them got the bomb? No, but each of them now has a voice at the table. That's what Iran wants, not to be talked at, but to be talked to.
Youre a perfect example of a simple minded human being, if theres a target thats easy to point at, it must be overcome. But if the target is something more complex, ignore it.
Youre a perfect example of a simple minded human being, if theres a target thats easy to point at, it must be overcome. But if the target is something more complex, ignore it.
Naw, he's a perfect example of a neo-conservative......
Youre a perfect example of a simple minded human being, if theres a target thats easy to point at, it must be overcome. But if the target is something more complex, ignore it.
Naw, he's a perfect example of a neo-conservative......
Yep...that I am and I am proud of it.
Wiki: There are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.
Youre a perfect example of a simple minded human being, if theres a target thats easy to point at, it must be overcome. But if the target is something more complex, ignore it.
Naw, he's a perfect example of a neo-conservative......
Yep...that I am and I am proud of it.
Wiki: There are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.
So tell me, do you consider the Saudis to be our friend, or our foe? Is Zionism in our national interests? Is our military presence in Iraq as strong as is necessary to resolve the situation? Would a hell of a lot more US troops ultimately get the job done a helluva lot faster and cheaper in the long run? Is Iran obtaining nuclear weapons so great a threat to US security that we would be unable to deal with them the same way we countered the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal? Is a five minute time on target from Ohio class submarines in the Indian Ocean an inadequate response to Iran's nuclear weapon usage potential?
Just a few liberal democrat above ground questions for you.
..bah, nevermind, it doesn't matter what I think.
Does it really MATTER what any of us think? Not in the big worldly picture.
I can go around thinking we are going to attack Iran tomorow, and that we SHOULD attack Iran tomorow, it won't make it happen.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.