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.

 

Study says Iran's Nuclear needs are genuine.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Bodrul the topic was Iran's WMDs but the article contained info related to the topic. You are also making assumptions about Iran's Nuclear program you are assuming that the government of Iran is telling the truth.

What dose Europe's political problems with Natural Gas have to do with the government of Iran rejecting aid that would go towards a peaceful Nuclear Power ?

The government of Iran could choose to invest in alternative energy sources rather then producing military displays and hatred of Israel.




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Xpert, while agree with most of what you say, I must say that there is a certain level of national pride that comes with creating your own technology and benifiting from it.

AAC



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Bodrul the topic was Iran's WMDs but the article contained info related to the topic. You are also making assumptions about Iran's Nuclear program you are assuming that the government of Iran is telling the truth.


im just saying what i see

if Iran truely were after nukes and so forth then there would be proof



Originally posted by xpert11
What dose Europe's political problems with Natural Gas have to do with the government of Iran rejecting aid that would go towards a peaceful Nuclear Power ?


it has alot to do with things
if Iran are relient on other nations for the fuel to power their reactors (which they have the resources for already but if they opt to import) in the long run if there is any problem poloiticaly their supply can be cut off just like the gas in europe.

so yea it does have alot in common


Originally posted by xpert11
The government of Iran could choose to invest in alternative energy sources rather then producing military displays and hatred of Israel.


thats why the US building india one and australia is on the verge of doing the same and other nations are wanting and building the nuclear powerstations.

Iran isnt any diffrent


i will say this again nuclear power is the most effictent source of power since you can generate alot of power from small little resource.

also every country has miliatry displays so dont know why that has got to do with things and last time i checked Israel and zionests are diffrent things. ones a country and so forth



[edit on 5-1-2007 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Well I never using Nuclear Power to generate electricity was a bad idea. As for the issue of nation pride I can understand that European aid would be a dent in Iran's pride. But surely nation pride would have been put aside in order to avoid sanctions if the government of Iran had peaceful intentions. Proof of Iran's Nuclear Weapons program is out its just that the likes of the CIA cant find it but thats a topic for another thread.

You cant compare the plans of the Australian government with that of Iran's government. The Australian government isn't an Islamic regime that is a threat to its Neighbors.


[edit on 5-1-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
You cant compare the plans of the Australian government with that of Iran's government. The Australian government isn't an Islamic regime that is a threat to its Neighbors.



ok now i see
its be because they are an islamic regieme and a threat to their neigbours.
last time i checked unlike their neigbours they never attacked a country directly (israel is a diffrent story since Iran supply arms to habullah and so forth like the US and nataions do to others)

you could come up with something better



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Iran government is a danger because they are an extremist Islamic regime who are fueled by hatred. There are plenty of threads that deal with the actions and statements I suggest you take a look at them before you play the old anti Islamic card.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Iran government is a danger because they are an extremist Islamic regime who are fueled by hatred. There are plenty of threads that deal with the actions and statements I suggest you take a look at them before you play the old anti Islamic card.


i have read them and have always replied to them and never used the anti islamic card.
funny though it always seems to be you guys that mention islamic

all i get from people here is Iran is a threat and how they will do this and so forth and thats only someones opinion. they may be an islamic regieme but unlike some they havent attacked anyone directly

unlike the US Iran hasnt invaded or attacked anyone so whos a bigger threat a country led by a islamic or a country led by a cowboy?

also

hows about this you stop using the islamic card and start using some facts?
and not derail from the points that i have made previously
is that to much to ask?




[edit on 6-1-2007 by bodrul]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
all i get from people here is Iran is a threat and how they will do this and so forth and thats only someones opinion. they may be an islamic regieme but unlike some they havent attacked anyone directly



Your missing the point its not that Iran is an Islamic government the problem is that they are extremists who spew hatred.




Not directly but they are fighting a proxy war with the US in Iraq but thats another topic.

unlike the US Iran hasnt invaded or attacked anyone so whos a bigger threat a country led by a islamic or a country led by a cowboy?


And you accused me of derailing the thread. I have reached my conclusions based on what is known. If you don't like US actions in the Middle East like a lot of us then post your thoughts on one of the countless threads.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Your missing the point its not that Iran is an Islamic government the problem is that they are extremists who spew hatred.


nope not missing the point.
they do alot of talking but never acted apon on them
and the only hate i have scene them spread is how the zioniest regieme in isreal should be wiped out not Israel *well thats for a diffrent topic*


Originally posted by xpert11
And you accused me of derailing the thread. I have reached my conclusions based on what is known. If you don't like US actions in the Middle East like a lot of us then post your thoughts on one of the countless threads.


read carefully that was a response to your reply saying how Iran is a threat to its neigbours


if you botherd to to respond to my points then maybe we wouldnt be going off topic with each one of my replys to your offtopic replyes



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Iran government is a danger because they are an extremist Islamic regime who are fueled by hatred.


If governments could run on hatred ( since it's now a fuel ) alone the current US administration could stop importing oil tomorrow.... What exactly did the Iranians ( i suppose you are referring to the mullah) do that deserve such special attention in a world filled with leaders who want to change other countries by force?



There are plenty of threads that deal with the actions and statements I suggest you take a look at them before you play the old anti Islamic card.


Been there done that and found the 'competition' quite ignorant of history.


Here is some education from a honest to god actual American senator! Miracle's still happen....

www.house.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

There are apparently still a few Americans in government that want a strong prosperous America that does not rely on destroying other countries to assure their standing in the world.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
As for Iran not being a threat to its Neighbors....
Iran hasn't directly attacked any of its Neighbors but Iran's role in aiding the insurgency has been dealt with in other threads so I wont comment hear.

Have you considered that the government of Iran is seeking methods to put there threats into action?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
As for Iran not being a threat to its Neighbors....
Iran hasn't directly attacked any of its Neighbors but Iran's role in aiding the insurgency has been dealt with in other threads so I wont comment hear.


Once again as i understand there is precious little evidence that Iran contributes much to the instability in Iran and if the US chose to close to border with Iran it could very easily do so.


Have you considered that the government of Iran is seeking methods to put there threats into action?


Which threats are we talking about here? Which can Iran not try to change the world by supporting 'liberation' or 'anti-communist' forces in the same way that the US and others have done it for a century? It's pretty obvious that this hypocrisy is only excusable due to the overwhelming firepower the US national security state can direct at anyone who too loudly proclaim this reality.

I would still like to see the actual 'evidence' for their 'support' of all that many supposed terrorist groups. The odd's that there are more known terrorist in Iran than it Florida ( US sponsored anti-Castro agents) is pretty low.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Once again as i understand there is precious little evidence that Iran contributes much to the instability in Iran and if the US chose to close to border with Iran it could very easily do so.


Proof reading is your friend but I got your meaning.



Link


To avoid dragging the thread further off topic I wont deal with Iran's role in the Iraq insurgency any longer in this thread. Feel free to quote me and raise issues on another thread. U2U me to alert me of the thread in question.



Which threats are we talking about here?


The ones made against Israel.




[edit on 8-1-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 8-1-2007 by xpert11]

I tried to add a link to a Google search but for some reason I couldn't post the link.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by StellarX
Which threats are we talking about here?


The ones made against Israel.
[edit on 8-1-2007 by xpert11]


which was taken out of contents where Iran threatend the zionest regieme not Israel.
it said Should not will unlike Israel which recently said it had nuking Iran on the table.

so in that sense Israel is a greater threat to Iran

and the other threats Iran seem to be saying are ones in self deffence
attack us and we will use all we have to fight back



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
just to add to my point i made earlier and how Iran having to trust others for euraniam and so forth




bbc
Russia has cut oil supplies to Poland, Germany and Ukraine amid a trade row with its neighbour Belarus.
The Russian state pipeline operator, Transneft, said it cut supplies on the Druzhba pipeline to prevent Belarus illegally siphoning off oil.

The European Commission said the cuts posed no immediate risk to European supplies but it was seeking an urgent explanation from Belarus and Russia.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
which was taken out of contents where Iran threatend the zionest regieme not Israel.


The word 'map' was never even used and even the worse type of translation you can make indicates that the comments were in reference to changing the current Zionist regime in Israel.


it said Should not will unlike Israel which recently said it had nuking Iran on the table.


When it comes to threats and such vulgar means of international discourse one only has to look at the leaders of the so called free world to see why this type of language has become acceptable.


so in that sense Israel is a greater threat to Iran


Which was the original intent of creating the state as far as my knowledge goes. Few people understand what small a fringe movement Zionism was at the turn of the last century.


and the other threats Iran seem to be saying are ones in self deffence
attack us and we will use all we have to fight back


Which is a right guaranteed in the UN charter last i checked.

Thanks for posting!

Stellar



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
The evidence is not in our hands, but Iran wants to build a bomb. I don't read NSA, CIA, State Departement, Defense Department reports, do any of you? The people that read the information collected through these agencies are the people who sit down and talk to the current administration.

Iran is not building nuclear plants for any other reason than to build a bomb. The US did it, France did, Russia did it, Britain did it, Pakistan did (#!!), India did it (#!!), and so why in the hell would the Persians be any different? Hell, the Israelis are doing it right now or have already done it.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
The evidence is not in our hands, but Iran wants to build a bomb.


If you want to make such statements provide the proof. There is NO evidence according to the IAEA and a good many others.


I don't read NSA, CIA, State Departement, Defense Department reports, do any of you?


Yes.


The people that read the information collected through these agencies are the people who sit down and talk to the current administration.


And they are not presenting any proof in support of their allegations.


Iran is not building nuclear plants for any other reason than to build a bomb.


Nuclear energy is not very expensive once your program are supported by others and you turn a far greater profit selling your oil/natural gas than actually using for for commercial energy production. Iran knows those prices will be manipulated by the US and others so they know it's best to change to Nuclear as soon as possible so that they may derive maximum benefit form the prices that will just keep rising.


The US did it,


If you want to terrorize the world you better bring the biggest stick...


France did,Russia did it, Britain did it,
Pakistan did , India did it, and so why in the hell would the Persians be any different? Hell, the Israelis are doing it right now or have already done it.


And in most of those instances they were helped by foreign powers and in many instances produce large amounts of nuclear energy. I certainly think Iran is interested in Nuclear weapons but in the absent of proof it's quite silly to point fingers when known sponsors for terror already have large arsenals of the stuff. There is no way in which Iran having nuclear weapons will make the world any more dangerous than it is today.

Just i just more fear mongering propaganda to ensure that a invasion of attack on Iran becomes possible in the next year or two.

Stellar

[edit on 9-1-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
Iran is not building nuclear plants for any other reason than to build a bomb. The US did it, France did, Russia did it, Britain did it, Pakistan did (#!!), India did it (#!!), and so why in the hell would the Persians be any different? Hell, the Israelis are doing it right now or have already done it.


The more the better. No one will take the risk of actually using a nuclear weapon, it would cause a nuclear counter-response and eventually total destruction for both parties. I agree with you that Iran is probably going to use the technology for military purposes - more likely though, is that they already possess nuclear weapons bought from former Soviet states or the black market, which is as factless as the claim that they are actually going to use the technology for military purposes.

In Iraq, the US government did not only lose the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but also that of the Americans and pretty much the entire world, the war was based on lies, not on facts. Saddam did not form a threat nor hadn't he been an aggressive factor for years. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but that's no reason for invading Iraq. After all, we don't care about Belarus, we don't care about Africa and the list of dictatorial regimes goes on and on.

If you so necessarily want to be the globe's police man, then act as one, a democratic one. Not one that allows South Korea and Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium and construct nuclear weapons while he doesn't allow Iran to do so, just because he doesn't like Iran.

Bottom line: nuclear weapons give you political influence, and it forms a defensive barrier (an enemy would think twice before starting a war).



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Ok, so this study in the article makes the case that Iran may need all it's fuel for internal usage in the near future, thereby limiting exports. But what I didn't see the article do is make a compelling case that as a function of the results in the study, that Iran has an imminent need for nuclear power.

What about wind and hydroelectric power development, for example? Why don't they pursue more of those types of developments?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join