WAR: Russia backs Iran in nuclear row

Thanks Seekerof for the comments and the post, coming from you into acknowledging my findings I see it as a tribute.

And yes I know how the deal goes, Also do you know nuclear scientist that worked for the Manhattan project were........................that will be for another thread.

I love ATS.

I don't see the humor in that you do, Marg.
When one produces "facts" as assertions, one must be sure that indeed they are facts and that they do factually enhance your position.

You mention:

Also do you know nuclear scientist that worked for the Manhattan project were....

Ugh....let me guess, to you, they were ALL of Jewish decent or Jews?




seekerof

[edit on 18-2-2005 by Seekerof]

So Seekerof can you take any of my links from this post and said that they are lies.?

Oh by the way the all were not.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]

Not lies, Marg, but simple contrieved half-truths.
Please carry on, but the topic was and still is:
Russia backs Iran in nuclear row




seekerof

Here's what the IAEA found not too long ago (2003), for a country trying to convince the world it's nuclear ambitions are peaceful, it has a strange way of going about it:

The report, which the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is due to unveil in September, says the IAEA has found material indicative of different phases of uranium enrichment in Iran, the officials told AFP.

The discovery will strengthen the case put forward by the United States and France, who suspect Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear arms.

IAEA Secretary General Mohamed ElBaradei this week told the press the discovery of "highly enriched uranium" in Iran was "very worrying".

The report says UN inspectors also found UF-4 (uranium tetrafluoride) and UF-6 (uranium hexafluoride), molecular compounds used in the enrichment process, in nuclear centrifuges in Iran.

El Baradei did not say to what extent the uranium had been enriched and nor does the report, which he will formally present to the IAEA's board of governors when they meet on September 8-11.

The governors could decide at that meeting to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, a step which carries the threat of sanctions.

The document has already been handed over to representatives of the IAEA board's 35 member countries and many say it belies Iran's claim that its only aim is to produce 6,000 megawatts of nuclear electricity by 2020.

"IAEA inspectors found two different types of highly enriched particles. You do not need that to make nuclear power," one Western diplomat told AFP.

Others said uranium reprocessing was too costly to enable Iran to reduce its energy bill and that it could use its facilities to produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb

www.spacewar.com...

Kriz_4 Read this.
Then, tell me its so mad....

news.bbc.co.uk...

now read this, and tell me that Iran does not want to destroy Israel....

www.keralanext.com...

"Stated goal to destroy the Jewish state".... hmm sounds like im right...hmmm??!!

Originally posted by marg6043

I can go on and on and on, yes I make a mistake but the truth is Israel owns the US.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]

People always seem to confuse the Puppet and the Puppet Master on this. Israel cant survive without the US but the US would do just fine without them.

The puppet master can survive without his puppet but can the puppet without its master?

Now going back to the thread, Russia should be given the time to take Iran offer on a tour of its facilities and see how much of a danger Iran pose to "the rest of the world and Israel"

We all know that Israel have enough nuclear power to take them and the middle east together, occurs they denied having the power.

Now who should we trust, Russia after its tour or Israel claims of the "danger"

US intelligence so far has been faulty on what they can see from the air, and much of the so call people that has come out and said that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or in the making of it, are also people against the rules in Iran.

We have to take this claims one day at a time, after all look at the mess that faulty intelligence made of Iraq.

I will be very cautious about it, and for onces may be Russia will come clean after its visit to Iran.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Most of Europe and the US is seeing a decline in nuclear power plants.

Yes, for the reasons stated above. The word Nuclear today is as bad as Communism was in the 1950s in the US, feared.

Recently the US approved 3 licenses for new reactors in the US, Finland approved one, and South Africa approved one. France also maintains a growing number of nuclear reactors.

I can see the arguement that they are not cost effective nuclear power some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400-$600 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.

Nuclear reactors are only so bloody expensive because of the limitations put on them by the Green parties and scare mongering, the actual operating costs are much lower than the total costs make out.

So whys Iran want them so bad again? So they can make more money selling oil? Hardly seems profitable. The other reason because there is going to be a oil shortage don't seem to fly as most of the world dont seem to worried about that and they arent sitting on oceans of oil.

Why shouldnt they want them? Seriously, what right does the US have in dictating what another country can or cant do. So far all thats happened is the US have screamed and shouted about Irans nuclear ambitions, without any proof at all, while other countries and sources have concluded that Iran is in no way breaching any agreements at all.

By converting their domestic production to nuclear, the oil they save is massively more lucrative on the open market, since the price of oil is high and looking to go higher.

Oh, and Iran have grown a pair of balls and signed up to Kyoto - another reason why they want to limit oil burning.

You can argue that they are worried about having there soft water reactor fuel supply cut off, but agian they sit on huge natural energy reserves. BTW how often do you have to refuel the things?

So far you havent given one good reason why Iran shouldnt have a nuclear reactor of their own design - all you have done so far is scaremongering. (Im not attacking you personally here - all the antiIranian Reactor arguements consist of 'they have oil and we dont want them to have a reactor')

Oh, and depending on the type of reactor, they need to be refueled once every 6 - 18 months, mainly because the fuel rods oxidise. These need to be reprocessed, again something the US doesnt want Iran to do.

Nice use of a 6 year old report BTW.

as posted by Marg
I will be very cautious about it, and for onces may be Russia will come clean after its visit to Iran.

Oh wait, you mean like the Russian's came clean after their extended visit to/with Saddam/Iraq prior to the 2nd Gulf War?

Not likely, Marg.
Nations are served by self-interests, and Russia, in this applied topic and case, is not excempt.




seekerof

ok, we do it ot so we are just as guilty, but give me a break. iran is in the desert, they can meet 100% of their energy needs with solar power. (in other words we do use nuclear and not solar)

i lived in the state of arizona, which could power the stae of california with solar power if it wanted to. the way a solar powered house works is it sends back the excess energy to the power plant in the day, and you take from the plant at night. solar powered houses dont exist in az becasue the power company mandated that it is 'unsafe' to sell the power back in the day. (even though there are solar powerd houses in maine that do exactly that and arent unsafe in the least)

yeah, it might be more unsafe than a nuclear power plant, get real. its coz theres too much money to be made off of the existant power sources.

also, solar cells only generate dc power and admittedly it is not as effective as other sources. howvwer, in the desert areas, you can use reflectors to turn a boil steam to turn a turbine and that produces as much electricity as a coal burning facility.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Why shouldnt they want them? Seriously, what right does the US have in dictating what another country can or cant do. So far all thats happened is the US have screamed and shouted about Irans nuclear ambitions, without any proof at all, while other countries and sources have concluded that Iran is in no way breaching any agreements at all.

Dont even try to make it seem like the US is the only one that wants Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions. The EU has been trying to get them to stop as well. Thats two of the worlds major power against and the a third Russia is making money off the deal. I wonder why they dont care?

What right do they have well alot under the NPT which Iran is a signing member.

Do you really think Iran couldn't get nuclear fuel from Russia Yeah the US and EU can really do a whole lot to stop Russia selling Nuclear tech to Iran right now. If they got the money Russia is selling dont matter what the US or EU thinks as we can all see today.

About the price I really doubt the lack of Greenpeace will allow Iran to produce nuclear energy at 10 times less then developed countries to make it cost effective vs natural sources of fuel. I would love for you to link to some information about how that will work and it can be 6yrs old.

So its likely not going to make them money and the argurement that Iran is worried about running out of oil is just plain weak.

Im sure people like you believe N Korea another member of the NPT just wanted those Reactors for energy needs

[edit on 18-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

jprophet420 makes a good point why dont they just use Solar energy if its all about peaceful energy production?

Iran would only have a supply for like 4 billion years

look, the u.s. has more nukes than everyone else in the whole world combined..... isreal has nukes, even russia has them and so do many other countries why cant iran have them??? i say let em have um

lol, probably ganna get slammed for this...

Hey for no trusting other nations is the reason we are in the mess we are in Iraq, not denial that US has is score of nasty dealings too in the middle east.

So you can not play a team game with only one player. Right?

Originally posted by firestarter666
look, the u.s. has more nukes than everyone else in the whole world combined..... isreal has nukes, even russia has them and so do many other countries why cant iran have them??? i say let em have um

lol, probably ganna get slammed for this...

Not to slam you but the US doesn't have more nukes then everyone eles combined, infact I think Russia has more then us.

There is also this little thing the world pretty much as a whole made the NPT. They decided everyone having nukes is a bad thing. Iran even signed this stating they would not develop or try to buy nuclear weapons.

They can leave the NPT anytime they want if they give the members notice.

Israel never signed the NPT so they are not breaking it

[edit on 18-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

oh, ok russia has more than us... but i didnt know about this agreement...so i guess that they shouldnt

but i kinda see why they would not blatently disobey the agreement, i they announced to everyone that they were makin nukes then the international community, mainly the us and isreal, would probably attack iran

but i do see ur point

yeah, you are.

the principal behind it is this.

Iran claims they NEED nuclear power.

They clearly do not.

If they are using it for weapons instead of energy that means they are LIEING about it and would certainly not mind lieing about nuking us, or any one.

in other words if "we need nuclear power" is a lie, then "we dont have nucllear weapons is a lie" and finally we wont shoot them at you...
you get the picture.

dont get me wrong, i dont want ANYONE to have nuclear energy or weapons.

thats how i know john titor is lying about time trave, if it had existed i would have already gone back to the 40's and killed everyone involved with nuclear development myself. including einstein. and you know what? he'd thank me in heaven no matter how bad i am gonna get flamed for saying that.

Talking about nukes we really don't know how nations like Russia and China and even Israel stand in their nuclear programs.

But not to worry US is reopening the Los Alamos facility this year for nuclear testing and building of bombs, and not only small bombs but big bombs.

So I have been following the story on when the bids are going to start so I am trying to keep on top of it.

Or anybody thinks that US will let the rest of the world be first.

Thanks Rumsfeld for it, he sure love bombs.

as posted by Marg
Thanks Rumsfeld for it, he sure love bombs.

As does any good military man/soldier should.
Rumsfeld is DoD head, right?





seekerof