It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Russia Helps IRAN with Uranium Enrichment

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   


news.bbc.co.uk...

"Iran has struck a basic deal to enrich uranium with Russia, Iranian state radio has reported."

"There have been some signs Iran now feels it is in a position of strength, having mastered basic nuclear technology and therefore might be more willing to consider a compromise.

But the question is whether the West is willing to bargain or insist Tehran capitulate in a way that looks humiliating to Iranians. "


I can't see GWB 'compromising'. After all, he's on a mission from GOD.

At least it gives the 'nuke Iran' nutters another potential target to drool over.




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Those russians! Looks like they want payback for Afganistan in the 1980's!



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Stirring the pot nicely aren't they??

That Mr Putin is a crafty old fellow. Perhaps he's betting that with Russia directly involved in Irans nuke programme, Ole' Dubya will not be quite as keen to go all military on the situation?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Stirring the pot nicely aren't they??

That Mr Putin is a crafty old fellow. Perhaps he's betting that with Russia directly involved in Irans nuke programme, Ole' Dubya will not be quite as keen to go all military on the situation?

Hmm, let me see here: Is this whole matter over your distaste or dislike for Bush or the fact that Russia, along with China, has long been aiding Iran in their quest for nuclear weapons?

It is apparent that you approve of Iran going for nuclear weapons. Having said that, am I to assume that if every nation on the face of this planet wanted to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons that you would have no problemo with that at all?





seekerof

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Time_is_now
Those russians! Looks like they want payback for Afganistan in the 1980's!


Hey you know the old saying don't you? 'What goes around, comes around'


Israel is one of our biggest customers for defense products, and we are looking out for her, so its only fair that Russia is going to look out for one of its customers and oil suppliers. They'd be stupid not to. The same for China. They aren't just riding bicycles anymore.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Three basic questions I would ask all Middle Easterners:

1) Do you support Russia?

2) Do you support the United States of America?

3) If you had to support Russia or the United States of America, which would you support?

Survey results?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Stirring the pot nicely aren't they??

That Mr Putin is a crafty old fellow. Perhaps he's betting that with Russia directly involved in Irans nuke programme, Ole' Dubya will not be quite as keen to go all military on the situation?


You seem rather happy about all of this, I have to ask you why? I trust that you don't live in the US or any other first world country then. The reason being you may be at war soon and the Russians are doing everything they can to ensure it happens.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Hmm, let me see here: Is this whole matter over your distaste or dislike for Bush or the fact that Russia, along with China, has long been aiding Iran in their quest for nuclear weapons?


What are you suggesting??? The matter is a BBC News report about Russia helping Iran with uranium enrichment. I don't see how my distaste and dislike of Bush has anything to do with that.


It is apparent that you approve of Iran going for nuclear weapons.


Explain please.....
I don't recall *EVER* saying that I approve of Iran going for nuclear weapons. And in any event it is by no means clear that they are trying to enrich Uranium to a weapons grade level.


Having said that, am I to assume that if every nation on the face of this planet wanted to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons that you would have no problemo with that at all?


You are free to assume what you like. And I am sure you will do that......assume. I prefer to look at things from the other end of the telescope. One that has a US nuclear arsenal that dwarfs anything else on the planet. One that has the US with a warmongering cowboy in charge who is prepared to stomp around the planet laying the law down as he see's fit and using threats of nuclear strikes to ensure that he gets his way.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

You seem rather happy about all of this, I have to ask you why?


I'm far from happy about it. Although it does add a new dimension to the issue doesn't it. My point, as you seem to want me to explain, was that if Russia is involved in helping Iran enrich uranium, does it not weaken the case for the US to attack Iran? And if Russia are helping Iran, what is GWB's position on those countries that "aid terrorism"?



I trust that you don't live in the US or any other first world country then. The reason being you may be at war soon and the Russians are doing everything they can to ensure it happens.



Oh, the old 'you're with us or against us' point. No, no, no. You did not understand what I was saying. I was speculating that the Russians were perhaps trying to do the exact opposite..In other words, by Russia becoming publicly involved in helping Iran to enrich uranium perhaps the US will spend more time plying the diplomatic route rather than steamroller right ahead into another military conflict.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
What are you suggesting??? The matter is a BBC News report about Russia helping Iran with uranium enrichment. I don't see how my distaste and dislike of Bush has anything to do with that.

You know exactly what I am talking about, your simply deflecting.
I did not quote the BBC article, I quoted and addressed you and your response.




Explain please.....
I don't recall *EVER* saying that I approve of Iran going for nuclear weapons. And in any event it is by no means clear that they are trying to enrich Uranium to a weapons grade level.

Then the question needs to be answered now?
Do you think that Iran should have the right to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons, no matter whether *you* or *others* think there is no proof that they are?





One that has a US nuclear arsenal that dwarfs anything else on the planet. One that has the US with a warmongering cowboy in charge who is prepared to stomp around the planet laying the law down as he see's fit and using threats of nuclear strikes to ensure that he gets his way.

Your reasoning may be sound to you, and others that believe in your logic, but you failed to mention the Russian nuclear arsenal, which currently "dwarfs anything else on this planet," but that of the US. You failed to mention that the "warmongering cowboy" is using diplomatic methods to handle this Iranian issue. The rest of the substance of your diatribe merely reinforces what I originally asked you:

Originally posted by seekerof
Is this whole matter over your distaste or dislike for Bush or the fact that Russia, along with China, has long been aiding Iran in their quest for nuclear weapons?









seekerof

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The point that is being missed here is that if the Iranians enrich uranium under Russian supervision, they wont be able to enrich it to weapons grade levels without it becoming known. While the Russians are not as panicky about it as the west, it's not in their interest to see a nuclear-armed Iran either.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The point that is being missed here is that if the Iranians enrich uranium under Russian supervision, they wont be able to enrich it to weapons grade levels without it becoming known.

Thats true, xmotex, but that is also assuming that Iran agrees to stop their own uranium enrichment. What if they do not?





seekerof



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by xmotex
The point that is being missed here is that if the Iranians enrich uranium under Russian supervision, they wont be able to enrich it to weapons grade levels without it becoming known.

Thats true, xmotex, but that is also assuming that Iran agrees to stop their own uranium enrichment. What if they do not?
seekerof


Russia is able to earn money, a lot of money. They'll continue to support in the form of weaponary, project investment and any other forms of support, do you really think they care about the nuclear weapons of Iran?

We should bear in mind that Russia has the possibility to become a superpower, not in the short term, but certainly in the long term. They have more resources available than most other countries, thight bands with the future superpower, China, and knowledge.

Hopefully this time they know what not to do wrong. Yes, I am an admirer of the USSR.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Did You read the article on the BBC Website with regards to Russia Selling Anti Aircraft Missles to Iran... doesnt this tell everyone that russia is more interested in getting a foothold in the middle-east rather than looking for a diplomatic resolution... it is very worrying indeed to the general public... link is below

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
What if Iran is telling the truth? Maybe they just want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. No chance of that, Iran wouldn't need the number of centrifuges they are talking about acquiring in a relatively short amount of time. And Russia says, "How about some frosting for that yellow cake?"



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Time_is_now
Those russians! Looks like they want payback for Afganistan in the 1980's!


well, That was actually payback for their interference in vietnam.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I wouldn't trust Russia with that.
Bush sure is on a mission from god, maybe if Clinton had been on one we wouldn't be in the mess the world is in now.
As for Bush being a cowboy and stompin his foot around, ole Bill Clinton must have been one too. He got us into Bosnia,Somolia and used to bomd Iraq on a regular basis.
How can you say Bush is a warmonger. He went into Afghanistan to get the talibon, And went into Iraq to rid it of Saddam.Which needed to be done.WMD'S or no WMD'S he had to go. But thats for another thread. Was Clinton a warmonger? He attacked more than Bush and without UN approval.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
You know exactly what I am talking about, your simply deflecting.
I did not quote the BBC article, I quoted and addressed you and your response.


My response is related to my original point about whether Russia has a vested interest in becoming involved in Iran's quest for uranium enrichment. It is *YOU* that seems to be 'deflecting' the issue to one of personalities vis a vis Bush.


Then the question needs to be answered now?
Do you think that Iran should have the right to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons, no matter whether *you* or *others* think there is no proof that they are?


What sort of question is that? No matter, I will try to answer it, confused though it is.....I do not think the US simply by having the biggest military arsenal should be able to dictate which particular technologies other countries develop unless they can demonstrate *beyond any reasonable doubt* that there is a threat to US national security. The "trust me I'm the president" line lost all credibility as far as I am concerned when Iraq was invaded based on lies, deception, misinformation and secrecy.



Your reasoning may be sound to you, and others that believe in your logic, but you failed to mention the Russian nuclear arsenal, which currently "dwarfs anything else on this planet," but that of the US.


What ARE you talking about? If you had bothered to read my original posts you would have noticed I had said, and I quote "That Mr Putin is a crafty old fellow. Perhaps he's betting that with Russia directly involved in Irans nuke programme, Ole' Dubya will not be quite as keen to go all military on the situation?"

Your point about Russia having the 'second' biggest nuclear arsenal is entirely consistent with what I was saying. IE: that perhaps with Putin getting involved, Bush will be a bit more reticent about using the military option. If you can't even be bothered to read the posts before you start blowing off, you really shouldn't bother interfering in this thread.


You failed to mention that the "warmongering cowboy" is using diplomatic methods to handle this Iranian issue.


Ah. I see. I touched a nerve there with my insult to your beloved leader. Well, of course I respect your right to differ with me, but I simply do not believe that Bush is seriously interested in diplomacy. If 'diplomatic methods' mean cranking up the rhetoric, making sweeping statements about Iran being bad and how the nuclear option is still on the table, I'd hate to see Mr Bush when he was in an aggressive frame of mind.


The rest of the substance of your diatribe merely reinforces what I originally asked you:


I believe it is you that began the 'diatribe'. [sigh] As I keep repeating, I merely wanted an adult debate on whether the article reporting Russian cooperation in Irans nuclear programme was likely to deter the US from taking military action. It was YOU that chose to ignore the subject of the thread and instead launch into a pointless defence of your president.

Please, either contribute to the discussion properly or keep your nose out. If you want to get involved in a debate about whether Bush is a good bloke or not, find another thread.





[edit on 22/4/2006 by 5ick8oy]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
What sort of question is that? No matter, I will try to answer it, confused though it is.....I do not think the US simply by having the biggest military arsenal should be able to dictate which particular technologies other countries develop unless they can demonstrate *beyond any reasonable doubt* that there is a threat to US national security. The "trust me I'm the president" line lost all credibility as far as I am concerned when Iraq was invaded based on lies, deception, misinformation and secrecy.

A 'yes' or 'no' would suffice, 5ick8oy.
Do you think that Iran should have the right to build and/or acquire nuclear weapons, no matter whether *you* or *others* think there is no proof that they are?




Ah. I see. I touched a nerve there with my insult to your beloved leader.

No, you simply went to running your mouth in spouting half-facts and truths.




Well, of course I respect your right to differ with me, but I simply do not believe that Bush is seriously interested in diplomacy. If 'diplomatic methods' mean cranking up the rhetoric, making sweeping statements about Iran being bad and how the nuclear option is still on the table, I'd hate to see Mr Bush when he was in an aggressive frame of mind.

"Rhetoric" and "sweeping statements" beget more rhetoric and sweeping statments. Again, you simply focus on "my beloved leader" but not on Iran's president and his numerous accounts of "cranking up the rhetoric" and "making sweeping statements," huh?




I believe it is you that began the 'diatribe'. [sigh] As I keep repeating, I merely wanted an adult debate on whether the article reporting Russian cooperation in Irans nuclear programme was likely to deter the US from taking military action. It was YOU that chose to ignore the subject of the thread and instead launch into a pointless defence of your president.

No, I chose to engage in "adult" debate with another adult, instead I got into a discussion with one who simply spouts half-facts and truths and then gets offended when questioned or countered. I ignored nothing in relation to your topic. All of my comments have been and concerning Iran. What is "pointless" is your continued play at deflection and obfuscation.




Please, either contribute to the discussion properly or keep your nose out. If you want to get involved in a debate about whether Bush is a good bloke or not, find another thread.

Here's a thought, file a complaint?
Always expect anything you say to be challenged, especially by me.







seekerof



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I really don't see this making any difference...

Firstly, this "deal" is very vague - and Iran said they had reached a basic agreement with Russia a couple of months ago, but Russia weren't interested because Iran still wanted to enrich uranium on their home soil as well. Have they said they're going to stop enrichment in Iran and do it all in Russia now? Nope - they've been saying they will not give up their right to enrich uranium every day for months.....they won't back down now.

Secondly, this move was hugely predictable and I think everybody with half a brain cell could see it coming a mile off. It's just classic stalling from Iran - give the Russians something to cling to and divide the UNSC.

I can't wait to see what happens in the UNSC now...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join