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.

 

Obama - 'Irans energy concerns are legitimate'

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


hey tyranny, thanks for the respectful response (even tho i was kind of a dick)

since we have different interpretations of the word ignorance i will state it differently

america has no reason to interfere with what the iranians do. they have no negative intentions (at least to the US). if they wanted to start sh*t they would have already. if america stays NAIVE... and thinks that they know what iran is doing and what they have and attempt to mingle in their afairs... then thats when things can turn bad.

in short... iran has no beef, so US should back off and mind their own retarded business




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


Your reply still leads me to believe you meant America's "stupidity" and not "ignorance" in your previous post when referring to any involvement America may have with Iran. Anyway, your thoughts on the matter are clear, as well as our understanding of the usage of "Ignorance".

You continue to express sentiments that Iran has no ill will toward America and that anyone who thinks they know everything that is going on in Iran is naive.

Of course no one knows everything that goes on there. It's quite possible that they may have attained a nuclear weapon from a neighboring state, but as of right now there's no proof of that. More so, there's no proof that Iran has ever been capable of producing it's own nuclear weapons. The United Nations has had inspectors (just as they did with pre-invasion Iraq) touring Iran's facilities for years and all have claimed that Iran is no where near producing weapons-grade plutonium or uranium.

As far as a being naive ... you may want to take a closer look when you say that, "Iran has no beef" with America. Iran and it's population has plenty of reason to despise America. I suggest you read up on America's involvement with Iran and the political groups and leaders that have sprung up as a result thereof. Day to day, most people of Iran could care less about America. It's the government that has problems with the United States. So much, in fact, that until recently they've sponsored yearly festival harboring Anti-American sentiment where people gathered and ceremonially burn the American Flag.

With all that being said - I think America should do whatever it can to help Iran with it's energy crisis. It could only bolster our image in relations with Iran's population. If we continue to mind our own business the decades of anti-American sentiment will continue, being passed down from generation to generation ... like it's continued to be from the early 50's, thru the 70's, into the early 80's and, thanks to the Ayatollah, continues to this day.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


lol tyranny, please don't site wikipedia as a valid source anymore. and you pointed out relations from 1953? do you know how many regime changes there have been?

you say "it's quite possible that they may have attained a nuclear weapon from a neighboring state, but as of right now there's no proof of that." ... i don't know how much i have to stress that many people in other areas of the world knows for a fact that Iran has nuclear weapons. this is an example of america being ignorant/naive/stupid whatever you want to call it.

"The United Nations has had inspectors (just as they did with pre-invasion Iraq) touring Iran's facilities for years and all have claimed that Iran is no where near producing weapons-grade plutonium or uranium."

the UN inspectors? are you kidding me? first of all the weapons are cleverly hidden. the UN inspectors inspected the nuclear plants that are for energy. in iran once you graduate high school you are required to join the army for 2 years. meaning nearly everyone that i spoke to in iran knows the facts. of course their isn't gonan be a valid "source" on the internet saying that iran has nuclear weapons... the gov. controls their internet and they're not retarded enough to divulge that for no reason. i think talking to many sources in iran telling me exactly what the iranian army has is good enough (for me). what difference does it make if i work for washingtonpost.com or not to post it to make it a "valid source"?

I agree with you on this statement "It's the government that has problems with the United States. So much, in fact, that until recently they've sponsored yearly festival harboring Anti-American sentiment where people gathered and ceremonially burn the American Flag." But that doesn't mean america should keep poking around in iran's business. like i said if iran wanted to nuke us they would have already.

and to your last comment for america to help iran's energy crisis... letting iran expand their nuclear program is all that the US needs to do.. aka getting out of their way. aka stop pointing fingers at them. aka stop the UN inspections.

i am curious to hear what other ATS members have to say regarding us going back and forth... i don't think we'll agree on much Tyranny. but i respect your point of view. all you wanna do is help.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Well, many nations have valid reasons to have something against the US, as we have been involved in the destruction, degradation, rape murder and pillage of many countries around the globe. However, just because we give them reasons does not mean that any of them have designs out to "get us".

Vietnam has many reasons to have it in for the US, we went over there and fought to keep them from becoming independent, we systematically raped, murdered, and pillaged many entire villages from both sides (north and south), and we completely destroyed their country. Funny thing is....most vietnamese i meet are extremely forgiving and accepting. I find that despite historical tragedy, most countries do indeed live in a forgive and forget mindset, once the hostilities have ended and some time has passed....accepting the jews perhaps for their holocaust.

There has been no indication that iran has anything plotted against us, and indeed they have been trying to work with us for a long time. They entered into a treaty several years ago whereby they would suspend all nuclear production, and we would furnish all their nuclear energy needs. They stopped production for 4 years, and yet the US didnt send one shipment of the promised energy materiel, and so the iranians began their nuclear project again. They acted in good faith, and we, as we often do, ignored our committments. To date, as i stated before, Iran has never, NOT ONCE stated a single intention of theirs to launch an attack on another country, nor have they threatened an attack, not even after we instigated a coup and put our own despotic puppet in power, not even after we have kept them under grueling embargos and sanctions for decades. They have taken it all, and continued trying to do their best to provide for their people and their society with stoic dignity.

Many people look to the comments of their mahmoud ahmadinejad, and point out how volatile his statements are.....So what? he is not their supreme commander, and has no ability to order attacks. Further, if you pay attention to his speeches (the whole things, not the soundbytes) you will see he often has a reasoned, important, and valid point, coming off much more educated and intelligent than our last few presidents.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


well stated



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
It is not the UN inspectors that are in Iran but the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) whose DG is Mr ElBaradei, the same ElBaradei who was leading WMD searches in Irak for this same IAEA.
You know, those WMD that, after a large and documented investigation, ElBaradei and Hans Blix said Iraq had not but that the former US administration nonetheless used as an excuse to invade Iraq while outrageously dicrediting the chief inspectors. It appeared that to date no WMD were never found.
IAEA is, yes, a UN agency.

So ? Same story again ? IAEA investigates but they are foolished ? Iranians are hiding them, mean people. How are they hiding their infrastructures ? Spy satellites can spot me sunbathing naked in my backyard. Iran is nicely charted, no doubt about that. So how ? Underground bases ? They are so cleverely hiding their nukes that the random guy in the street has told you about them. Really ? It has convinced you. Very well. You are entitled to your opinion. For me, it is not convincing.

Uranium for power plants (LEU) is enriched 5%, uranium for bombs (HEU) is enriched 90%. Iran has enough LEU to produce HEU but it is a difficult process which requires another level of technology and mastery. It is not an experiment you do in a backyard's hut.
If the US government have any doubt in a location where Iran is secretly enriching uranium or hiding nukes, it should give the location to the IAEA for investigation. If Iran refuses, IAEA will tell it. Incidently, that is what is happening. US intelligence agencies are indicating the inspectors where to inspect. Realise how infuriating it must be for Iran. US spies are sending an independant and international agency to spy on them. Yet, IAEA cannot overlook those indications.
At the moment, IAEA is happy with the iranians cooperation, they are answering the questions. There still are issues and they are being clarified. Iran is still reluctant to open every door to his program and infrastructures because they feel hassled but IAEA is doing a good diplomatic job and has quietly forced Iran to release tons of documents and to let the sites inspected.

It looks very much like Iraq again to me. No proof despite intensive investigation but still the claim that they must be hiding them.

As a side note, I am quite surprised what you were told in Iran. The official attitude by the theocratic Iran towards nukes or WMD in general is that it is contrary to their belief. I won't take their word for it. It is mostly rhetorics. But I personally find doubtful many sources spoke to you openly.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Iran, unlike North Korea, Pakistan and Israel, has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, thus by law the US is OBLIGATED to assist Iran in it's nuclear power generation needs.

Iran does indeed have legitimate concerns for meeting the power needs of it's people today, and for the future. Iran is very progressive in utilizing all other methods of power generation. They are the only nation in the region producing wind turbines, and selling them to other nations while helping them to gear up wind power production. Iran also has Geothermal and Solar power plants in production. Nuclear power generation is quite logical for them. There is no law that prohibits it's use.

According to every US intelligence agency Iran does not currently have the capability to produce Weapons grade materials. Nuclear power does not always mean nuclear weapons. Iran has previously stated that Nuclear weapons are against Islam and prohibited. While it is wise to take this statement with a grain of salt, it is also unwise to immediately assume that Iran only wants to make nuclear weapons with their nuclear program.

Remember, Israel all ready has Nukes, has violated international law by trading US nuclear weapons technology to China, has already had attacked civilian populations, and is the nation that is promoting War against an imagined threat from Iran. Don't be fooled.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 


damn manouche, way to tear me a new asshole...

you made many good points. in fact the whole thing was pretty f*ckin brilliantly written. but from what i understand they have purchased the nukes. now i don't really care if iran has nukes or not because i have no control over whos making the shots. but you are correct... i am convinced that they have the weapons. your entitled to your opinion. can't blame you for wanting some kind of proof.

again... well written post, i will admit i didn't know all of those facts that you brought up.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dannyfal
 


I love it when people reject Wikipedia as a source of information - it's comical. Wikipedia an open source wealth of information that just about anyone can add too ... as long as you have proof of citation to back up what you're posting or it's the general consensus that it's fact. People love to reject the idea of open source libraries, but in fact Wikipedia is one of the more reliable sites for reference.

Yes, I do know how many regime changes there have been since the 50's and I know that the U.S. has played a major role in more than a couple of them - hence the anti-American sentiment that still exists today even among the younger generations.

I wasn't citing the U.N. inspectors as proof that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I was citing them as proof that they don't have the capabilities to build nuclear weapons. As I said, it could be that Iran has already acquired nuclear weapons, from either India, Pakistan or North Korea (though, I doubt it).

I think our general ideas towards Iran are within the same boundaries: We both think that Iran is not a threat to America. However, we do disagree on the smaller issues regarding what, if anything, the U.S. should do to help Iran - or whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons. On these subjects, we should agree to disagree and leave it at: "Iran is no threat to the United States." It seems the only common ground that can be reach and it's pointless to go round and round bickering about what said what when and how.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 


agreed... i'm not too stubborn to admit that i am not right. i think manouche said it well when he pointed out that i simply believe what i believe... and it doesn't make it true. i would also like to state that i hope that iran doesn't have nukes (even though i am convinced they do) because israel is talking too aggressivel.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
IRAN won't be cracking the free energy vault cause they sell
oil so the need the nukes.

They know what sells and what can ruin the status quo.

The Free Energy Front had its last fling with HHO gasoline
engine boost.

Like we should care about IRAN energy needs.
Care for ourselves.
No one else put car and energy technology in the red financial
region and on the non existent back burner but the Illuminati.

Crush them before crushing IRAN.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


amen brotherrrrrrr star and flag

i've always wanted to say that for some reason



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Whoa, whoa whoa! Maybe you missed the irony of the story as you got caught up in 'proliferation', 'annihilation', extremist exaggeration:

Barack Obama, the "Green President", touts the legitimacy of the nuclear power option for one of the biggest fossil-fuel producers in the world, but IGNORES the nuclear option in the U.S., the largest CONSUMER of fossil-fuels in the world!

What a hypocrite! And what hypocrites he makes the remainder of the environmentalists and conservationists who demand subsidies for "alternative" sources such as bio, wind and solar; but who either ignore or denigrate the nuclear power option.

France provides 80% of its electrical power needs with nuclear power. It sells excess from the grid to its neighbors.

Yet, here we are on the verge of 'cap and trade' legislation, new EPA regulation of emissions, and Obama's new CAFE standards and emissions limits, but we have done NOTHING to boost electrical generation from nuclear power.

Wake up.

Don't any of you see the real story here?

It's not about weaponization -- we can't ever and have never been able to control that absent direct military intervention.

The story is about POWER generation, and Obama's willingness to endorse someone else's development of this alternative, while neglecting it at home.

Raises real questions about his 'green agenda' and sincerity. Makes more believable the theory that ulterior motives drive US energy policy, instead of efficiency, environment and conservation.

Deny "ignorance" (noun: ig'-no-rance; fr. L.: ignorantia. the state of being ignorant; having no knowledge, or a lack of understanding, of a given matter).

jw

[edit on 3-6-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dannyfal
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


amen brotherrrrrrr star and flag

i've always wanted to say that for some reason


I know. Why waste time. Lets cut to the chase.
Chase Bank. No.
The chase to free energy that isn't free and might set us up for
a new set of rulers.
Such an industrial stimulus might make 100 different car makers
or home generators or a wealth of new inventions.
We can let the Illuminati have their UFOs and ET stories, we need
more than wind power and solar panels as non consumable energy.
That HHO gas boost was so much a waste.

Obama can patch up the holes of Bush administration but tapping the
Illuminati club of scientific knowledge will need a knock out punch.

Lord Kelvin, the great researcher of the conservation of energy also
proved himself wrong with the atomic gas ether interaction.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Barack Obama, the "Green President", touts the legitimacy of the nuclear power option for one of the biggest fossil-fuel producers in the world, but IGNORES the nuclear option in the U.S., the largest CONSUMER of fossil-fuels in the world!

What a hypocrite!
[edit on 3-6-2009 by jdub297]


Do you ever listen to anything Obama states...or just the right wing spin?

Going back to even the campaign ...his view has been consistent on Nuclear Power.
environment.about.com...

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.
Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join