It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: Russia backs Iran in nuclear row

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:33 PM
Russia is completely within its rights to sell this technology to Iran. The USA exported this kind of technology to Israel which was a destabilising move in and of itself. With the USA having 2 sets of rules when it comes to nuclear weapons it undermines its own international credibility.

I conceed that Irans stated reasons for wanting these reactors are misleading. Building a nuclear reactor in a region prone to massive earthquakes is kinda insane.

But the same arguments for Israel's "right" to have nuclear weapons can be applied to Iran.

Iran has Israel pointing nuclear weapons at it and it has had the USA breathing down its neck for the past 30 years. I'd constitute that as a dire threat to Irans national security.

I really am not convinced Iran has intentions of using nuclear weapons for anything more than a mutually assured destruction scenario, for which they are to be forgiven for wanting.

Iran wouldnt even think about initiating a nuclear strike on Jerusalem as the Dome of the Rock would be vapourised. That would be unacceptable to muslims across the globe.

Basically my point is the USA is wrong for "allowing" Israel to have nuclear weapons and trying to prevent Iran from doing the same. Just because Israel didnt sign the NPT doesnt change the fact that they have nuclear weapons which Washington should deem as unwarranted as Irans/N.Koreas/India and Pakistans.

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

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?

The US is the only one throwing accusations around. The EU is trying to avoid a military confrontation in the area. Oh, and you think the EU isnt trying to make money out of this?! You think Iran wont be paying for that fuel the EU wants them to have?!

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

The NPT only pertains to nuclear weapons, we are talking about nuclear power. Note how the Nuclear power club includes a lot of people who developed reactors after signing the NPT.

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.

Does it matter? The threat of being left without fuel at all is very real, and one that no western country would agree to (do you see Israel agreeing to source all its fuel from the EU or whatever?). Why should Iran agree to it because the US is twitchy?

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.

Ok, I will post some links. Wont be until at least tomorrow tho as I did all the research for my earlier posts at work

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]

Why is the 'aguement' that Iran will run out of oil weak? Its not infinite you know, it doesnt just flow from the ground forever. What happens when it runs out? What happens when the oil consuming nations switch to a cleaner fuel? Iran is looking to its future, just as every other nation must.

North Korea is a different ballgame. They have acted threateningly, and made demands. Iran isnt in the same league.

As for 'why cant Iran produce electricity using solar or wind power' - neither are at all reliable, and cant be guaranteed to produce power.

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM
Even when you are right is something more that miss the relation to US and its involvement in the middle east Region.

We can argue that is to "save Israel or war on terror and the latest war on tyranny" something that I don't believe, Israel can take care of itself and is many other tyrants around anyway.

But more of the destabilization of the area for US benefits. As you can see after Iraq, and Afghanistan the target was Syria and Iran.

Now Syria is having problems and destabilization of his own with "minimal" intervention is in the making.

So now is only Iran, sorry to said Iran is a target and not matter that it has nuclear power or weapons is going to be targeted anyway.

Is part of the middle east destabilization has been in the table for many years..........

Perhaps as far as the 70s..............

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM
i swear some of you need to print out the npt and tape it to your face, this child like "you have nukes so why cant they have it too" argument is very ignorant of the npt, if you read the npt you might know why they cant have nukes, but i guess thats too difficult to do?

should i make a thread about the npt so you people stop asking that?

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM
yeah, as i mentioned solar cells are less reliable than generators but it is 100% feasable and possible as it is already been proven, and all solar power does not run on solar cells, they run on conventional steam generators which ARE proven to consistantly produce energy.

the only reason not to use solar power is becasue more money can be made the sorces we currently exploit.

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:05 PM
Yes they sign the NPT, but Iran has said that they are not using the power for nuclear weapons, and is not prof of it either.

Get it, is just assumptions.

I posted the link in a previous post,

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by RichardPrice

North Korea is a different ballgame. They have acted threateningly, and made demands. Iran isnt in the same league.

As for 'why cant Iran produce electricity using solar or wind power' - neither are at all reliable, and cant be guaranteed to produce power.

Iran hasn't acted threateningly?

Iranian Leader Khamenai
(2 October 2000, Radio Tehran)

"“In principle, Israel has a plundering character. Real peace can only be implemented if no side has imperialistic desires and only the real owners of Palestine will rule it, Jews, Moslems or Christians. The recent events have proven that this regime (Israel) conquered the territories by a campaign of murders…. A regime based on force might last a certain period, but it will fail in the end… the Palestinians struggle and the Moslems's support for them will bring us good results and we will eliminate the enemy.”

Iranian President Khatemi

In a conference on the subject of the Koran in Iran,
(24 October 2000, Khabar TV )

"“In the Koran God commanded to kill the wicked and those who do not see the rights of the oppressed and murder them, and today we must all hear the sound of the cries of our oppressed brethren in Palestine and mobilize to protect them… refraining from making an effort to save the Palestinian people will be a mark on the foreheads of those who not only did not make an effort, but even helped and help the enemies of Islam. If we abide by real legal laws,we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime... if we abide by the Koran,all of us should mobilize to kill..”

I could fill books with their threats of destruction

Heres a nice pic of their “SHIHAB-3” MISSILE. Its just happens to have "“ISRAEL MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY” written on the side of it

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:31 PM

And did they used it yet? or is just like everything a bluff, so how many of the Israeli nuclear weapons, "they are not supposed to have any" have the name of each Islamic country in them printed.

We can not tell because Israel does not let anybody see them

Don't you get it is a game of wills.

US used to print the names of their favorite characters in missiles too with a twist we used them we did not bluff.

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:09 PM

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)

Only part of Iran is deserts, the part that I am living has been snowing straight for the last two weeks.

And some of you keep saying that Iran is going to destroy Israel as soon as they get a nuclear bomb. These are just propaganda that you guys see on your TVs. Iran may not have nuclear bomb yet but we certainly got chemical and biochemical weapons for the last 15 years or so and if we really wanted to bomb Israel as bad as you guys see and hear, don’t you think we would have done it by now? Plus Mullahs may be crazy but they are not stupid, they know that Israel got 200+ nukes and if they fire a single missile at them, they would file hundred more.

And yes Iran got the second largest know oil and natural gas recourses in the world but why some of you believe Iran need a permission form US or another country to build anything?

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:15 PM
I didnt say they used the missile or anything just trying to prove they have acted just as threateningly as N Korea.

Publicly calling for the destruction of one of your neighbors I would think is acting a tad threateningly.

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 05:35 AM
ShadowXIX, whats that prove though? China threatens Taiwan frequently yet we dont stop them buying missiles from France and Russia.

The USA is the most agressive nation on the planet, it treatens war to any country that doesnt behave how it wants.

Just what exactly does proving Iran has threatend Israel prove? That it shouldnt have a nuclear power plant? That it shouldnt hae nuclear weapons? Why should Iran be so special as to warrant the threat of invasion because people "suspect" them of having aims to acquire nuclear weapons?

Where was the invasion of India or Pakistan? Oh wait, Israeli lobbyists didnt strong-arm the US government over it.

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:53 AM
click here to watch it

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:54 AM
click here to watch it now

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:13 AM

You have voted RichardPrice for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

From the first page - IMO - one of the best posts on this thread.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Ok lets say this reactor in Iran is for "peaceful purposes" (energy production) and forget that they happen to sit on on of the worlds largest oil fields and dont need nuclear energy one bit.

Then why will Iran not switch to a soft water reactor like the EU suggested. The EU even offered to help with the tech of it if Iran agreed. The soft water reactor is just as good for 'energy production' buts its harder to make nuclear weapons then hard water one.

Yet Iran gave the EU and big
on the offer why?

Here are answers to both your points:

1. Oil wont last forever. Infact, there are a lot of estimates in that it wont last the next 50 years. Who wouldnt be completely idiotic if they didnt investigate alternatives to oil for their domestic power production? Plus if they could satisfy their domestic power production through alternative means, they have more oil to export - which has a twofold effect: it brings in foreign currancy, which isnt linked to Irans internal economy and thus is worth a lot more to them than money they can change, and it also frees up a lot of oil for export, which at current oil prices is a lot more lucrative than selling it internally for power production.

2. A light water reactor doesnt allow them to produce their own fuel for the reactor (the type of reactor they are building allows them to produce more fuel and thus become self reliant) - which leaves Iran reliant on other countries fopr fuel sources. Again, who in their right minds would cripple their country with such a dependancy? With the current stresses in the region, its quite believable that the US could force Irans supplier to cease deliveries, crippling the country.

There has so far been no evidence at all presented to the world that backs up any of the US`s claims - the IAEAs investigations concluded that there was no military project in place. The US is just looking for an excuse for military action, its bleeding obvious thats whats going on.

Also - Way to go marg!

Ever notice how these guys accuse you of making assertions, but post maybe one editorial propaganda link to support their own assertions?


[edit on 19-2-2005 by soficrow]

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:27 AM
USA should leave all these poor countries. Do you really think they can organaize something terrible? Why do you consider them to be agressive nations? They are just people as we are. And they have such values. Only your unjustified actions and foolish suspicions lead your country to new wars. Your people die. Why? For what? For whom?..

From Russia with true

[edit on 19-2-2005 by Yuran]

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Yuran

Only your unjustified actions and foolish suspicions lead your country to new wars. Your people die. Why?

To support the corporate NWO.

For what?

The almighty dollar. Gold.

For whom?..

The guys behind Carlyle, Enron, Halliburton. The guys who want things back the way they were before the US revolution.


posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:37 AM
I respect you point of view on this but I do have a something to say on it.
Yes the people of the country are good respctable people. No one has ever said differently. The problem lies with the goverments that lead / control the people.
Question, a person that steals from you is a bad / evil person correct?
How about when the person is in a position of powere over you and is stealling / destroying your property, your family etc.?
Now is it not also bad to just stand and watch this happening to others or should you or anyone else step in and try to assist.
If you saw a woman's purse being taken, should you just watch or should you help catch the theif? How about if you know that the purse has an automatic weapon it thus making the thief even more dangerous to yourself and everyone else?
That is the problem here. The goverments of both Iran and Iraq are both corrupt and have abused murdered their people. Should the world stand aside and watch this go on?
I detest that American are being killed in these countries. But I respect what they are trying to do. I am hopeful that in the end, what is happeing there today, will lead to a better tomorrow!

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:47 AM
this has been foreseen.
Apparently, according to a bible code, Russia is mean to back Iran when America/Israel attacks. This is like one of the few codes which has been studied before it came true.


posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 08:10 AM
I want it to be true, but your country always chooses war
way to correct situation as there aren't any others methods.
I cant agree that people in these countries are so oppressed
by their leaders. Their society has another order, another rules and mentality.
It's their historic way of developing. It's culture. Yes, sometimes
it's hard, but why do you consider your order will be better for them?..
Democracy is something alien for them. How much time will they need to
get accustomed for it?.. Or may be it will never happen and people will
be doomed to live outside of their historical way, their values. Moreover,
they will begin to serve for western countries.

Do you want this way come true?..
I dont think we should interfere.

From Russia with true

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 08:31 AM

Also - Way to go marg!

Ever notice how these guys accuse you of making assertions, but post maybe one editorial propaganda link to support their own assertions?

Thanks sofi, that is one of the reason I have to be into research so I can find good links to back my "assumptions"

And again I am with Richard, also here, but with a twist, I am not nuclear reactor expert but don't you knee water for a water nuclear reactor to make it work? and how much does Iran has. I think water in the region is a valuable thing also.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by marg6043]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in