This is a question that has been bothering me... since weapons grade needs to be enriched to 90% and iran is only asking for 20%.... why cant the world cut a deal?? its not like they could create a powerfull nuke with 20% anyway so what am i missing?? or does the world just not want them to have nuclear technology all together and its really nothing to do with weapons at all....

Iran is asking for 20% enriched.... while the world threatens them, why not just give um the deal??? somebody please explain

There are a few aspects to this that you have left out. However, I would like to preface my comments with the fact that much of what is REALLY going on, isn't being conveyed to the general public. So, from here we begin speculating and reiterating the "facts" as they have been reported.

1. "The World" (I think it's more like the US + a few allies) wants Iran to ship their uranium abroad to be further enriched. This is the crux (at least one of the them) of the problem. Iran wants to be able to enrich it on their own soil and the rest of the world wants it shipped out of there as fast as possible. Important to note: Iran has so far REFUSED to ship their uranium abroad.

2. Iran continues to claim that their nuclear power advancements are strictly for peaceful reasons -- such as generating power -- however the rest of the world deems this a lie based on several factors. One of which is that the plant Iran was building is LARGE enough for WEAPONS, but not nearly large enough to actually produce POWER.

3. The majority of this stalemate, in my opinion, boils down to a very simple power struggle. The US wants Iran to bend and show compromise -- also known as giving the US what it wants in full -- versus Iran saying we are either going to work together on my terms or not at all. Further, Iran has had no problem progressing and continues to forge ahead despite the threats from the western powers.

Both sides are asking for concessions and neither side is willing to concede anything so far.

That is a good point, we should probably cut a deal and end the violence. But I'm sure there is a way to extract all of the pure out of it and make a strong enough nuke. which is probably the reason we wont deal with them

[edit on 9-2-2010 by theflamingswan92]

Question : -

If Iran has so much OIL, why do they need nuclear power stations?

The other countries have offered to do the enrichment for them at their cost but Iran has refused the offer and wants to pay for it themselves, strange eh!

I know when I had a company car that had free fuel for me to go anywhere, the Wife & I used that instead of hers because it was free etc.

Something isn't right here, Iran refusing inspectors, having secret underground Nuke places and playing their silly games.

I would say "Come on, we're not stupid".

But obviously somebody in the West / Israel is because we haven't done anything to stop them producing more Nuke material by the day. It's not hard to go from 20% to the 90%, a matter of a couple of weeks!

How do we know they haven't already done it?

Originally posted by lpowell0627
There are a few aspects to this that you have left out. However, I would like to preface my comments with the fact that much of what is REALLY going on, isn't being conveyed to the general public. So, from here we begin speculating and reiterating the "facts" as they have been reported.

1. "The World" (I think it's more like the US + a few allies) wants Iran to ship their uranium abroad to be further enriched. This is the crux (at least one of the them) of the problem. Iran wants to be able to enrich it on their own soil and the rest of the world wants it shipped out of there as fast as possible. Important to note: Iran has so far REFUSED to ship their uranium abroad.

2. Iran continues to claim that their nuclear power advancements are strictly for peaceful reasons -- such as generating power -- however the rest of the world deems this a lie based on several factors. One of which is that the plant Iran was building is LARGE enough for WEAPONS, but not nearly large enough to actually produce POWER.

3. The majority of this stalemate, in my opinion, boils down to a very simple power struggle. The US wants Iran to bend and show compromise -- also known as giving the US what it wants in full -- versus Iran saying we are either going to work together on my terms or not at all. Further, Iran has had no problem progressing and continues to forge ahead despite the threats from the western powers.

Both sides are asking for concessions and neither side is willing to concede anything so far.

I will comment on your comments... please feel free to comment mine

1, Iran has only refused it because it has not been the 20% which they need for their Research reactorfor manufacturing medical radioisotopes.... this sounds completely litimet and for a very good cause.... why not believe them, they have not attacked anyone before and they are a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2, like i say in comment 1... they have stated that they need the 20% for the medical research reactor, i dont see any reason not to believe the,.

3, Iran have a right to create this %20 enriched for a good medical cause, they have constantly said they do not want a nuke, again... they have allways let in inspectors and allways kept diologue open, they are playing fair, there is no right of america to do this to a country that seems to want it for a very good cause.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

2. Iran continues to claim that their nuclear power advancements are strictly for peaceful reasons -- such as generating power -- however the rest of the world deems this a lie based on several factors. One of which is that the plant Iran was building is LARGE enough for WEAPONS, but not nearly large enough to actually produce POWER.

Do you have a source for this? Tucked nicely in between #1 and #3, this claim is the most important. I'd be interested in more information on these "several factors" as well as what you've claimed in the last sentence in the above quoted text.

If you can honestly trust Iran to only do the 20% you are way way too trusting. They have never given the world reason to believe their promises so why would a sain world believe them now? We allow them to use the technology so they can enrich the 20%, they in secret will go all the way and we will wake up one morning with a nuclear armed Iran...

I think it is as simple as the elite of both sides have peeved populations and need an external enemy to blame for their troubles..

A quick and dirty way of uniting nations is patriotism.. for that to work you need an event of some kind.. thus far everyone appears to be hinting at one..

Tho it would be nice if someone told them to stop digging themselves in deeper.. but I think they might be so far gone that they can not hear any more.

*shrugs*

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
If you can honestly trust Iran to only do the 20% you are way way too trusting. They have never given the world reason to believe their promises so why would a sain world believe them now? We allow them to use the technology so they can enrich the 20%, they in secret will go all the way and we will wake up one morning with a nuclear armed Iran...

So you rather trust a country that dropped 2 nukes on japan and murdered... YES MURDERED... 300,000+ inocent people including chidren... ????

All this sounds rich comming from a country that has so much blood on its hands.... sorry but in my opinion the media have brainwashed people like yourself in to thinking Iran is the ultimate threat.


If the U.S.A and other countrys want Iran to stop enriching uranium i think they should too.... what gives the USA the right to decide who can and cant have nuclear technology? its none of their business if they have nukes themselves....

old saying (what is good for the goose is good for the gander)


[edit on 9-2-2010 by Itop1]

The way I understand it is that Iran CAN and has the machinery to make the 20% enriched uranium and is close to make the 90 % variant. The only thing is that they need more machinery of the same type to make volume and one special 'ingredient'.

Now that Iran is so close to manufacturing uranium for warheads 'the world' is getting a little jumpy. Especially with aleader who says to whipeout Israel......

The international nuclear facility controlers keep a sharp eye on Iran....more intensive as an other nation that produces enriched uranium or other simular materials.....

And it is officially not for 'the world' to decide if Iran will produce enriched uranium. Iran says it is still interested to import the 20% nuclear material and not to produce it themselves.

This is negotiating with a forked tongue because they are installing and working on making the stuff with and in overtime. And that creeps everybody out.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by zatara]

Originally posted by Itop1
So you rather trust a country that dropped 2 nukes on japan and murdered... YES MURDERED... 300,000+ inocent people including chidren... ????

This was to end war, and quite effective I might add. Personally I think the firebombing of Tokyo was worse, but then again we probably saved more lives than we extinguished using the very method you seem to disdain.

All this sounds rich comming from a country that has so much blood on its hands.... sorry but in my opinion the media have brainwashed people like yourself in to thinking Iran is the ultimate threat.

Is Iran a threat to the US? Probably not, but they are a threat to others. This is, however, no excuse for war.

If the U.S.A and other countrys want Iran to stop enriching uranium i think they should too.... what gives the USA the right to decide who can and cant have nuclear technology? its none of their business if they have nukes themselves....

old saying (what is good for the goose is good for the gander)


[edit on 9-2-2010 by Itop1]

I think it's because we would like to reduce, not increase, the amount of nuclear weapons in the world.

While this may or may not be happening, that's the theory. I personally don't care if they do have the bomb as we could flatten their entire nation without skipping a beat.

This was to end war, and quite effective I might add. Personally I think the firebombing of Tokyo was worse, but then again we probably saved more lives than we extinguished using the very method you seem to disdain.

This is such a crock. Nuking Japan had nothing at all to do with ending World War II. There was nothing altruistic about nuking Japan. It did not "save lives." I'm sure there are plenty of threads/books around for you to find out what really happened....

As for Iran, until they use a nuke, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Do you really suppose they are stupid enough to nuke Israel? The whole Arabian Peninsula world would vanish overnight. They just want a seat at the big kids table.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by austra]

Originally posted by Itop1
This is a question that has been bothering me... since weapons grade needs to be enriched to 90% and iran is only asking for 20%.... why cant the world cut a deal?? its not like they could create a powerfull nuke with 20% anyway so what am i missing?? or does the world just not want them to have nuclear technology all together and its really nothing to do with weapons at all....

Iran is asking for 20% enriched.... while the world threatens them, why not just give um the deal??? somebody please explain

Very, very simple. Iran can't be trusted. They are a bunch of religous idiots, who want the whole world to march arm in arm back to the dark ages. What you are missing is a lack of understanding of history. Give them the deal, that vile bunch of bastards? Please, get an understanding of what these sob's have done over the last 31 years. The mullahs and revolutionary guards are the embodiment of evil. They have no place in the 21'st century. None. They torture and murder their own people by the thousands. They want to spread their filthy revolution accross the world. In the end one side will win. Us or them. Which will you want?

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II


You had the Dark Ages reference right. Just pegged the wrong country.

I personally have problem with Iran enriching to 20%.

What really is the big deal?

This:

As long as the U.S. political circus is allowed to dictate foreign policy (along with the help of their Middle Eastern buddy) there will be problems.

The foreign policy reminds me of a bully.

Makes mere comments to Russia and China, but when it comes to the "little guys", it's their way or the highway.

Iran doesn't want the U.S. deal to ship uranium because once it leaves Iran, it's never coming back and Iran knows it.

I think the question of the day is to ask:

The U.S. and Iran have been at odds for a ver long time. What started it all? And WHO started it?

Originally posted by austra
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II


You had the Dark Ages reference right. Just pegged the wrong country.

The sad truth is most Americans have a sh*** concept of history, if they have any concept at all. I teach 20'th century history, with an emphasis on military history in the 20'th century. You don't seem to have any concept of what was going on in the latter part of WW-2. Allow me to enlighten you. By the time we used the first A-Bomb on Japan, Curtis LaMay had been fire bombing Japanese cities almost nonstop for over 5 months. If it was up to me, I never would have approved such a thing. We thought, and found out after the war, it was redundant. By the time we started to fire bomb their cities, their industry was destroyed. The only thing it did was it killed a lot of people.

Many times during all this, the Japanese were ordered to surrender. Time and again, they refused. We all knew what would come next. We anticipated it would cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 US casualities to invade and occupy Japan. They would not be as is called in the trade, an "easy kill". Truman was asked by several members of his cabinet how he would respond to the impeachment board when asked why he cost the lives of so many Americans in an invasion, when he could have ended the war with one fell swoop?

We only had two finished bombs at the time they were used. It would have taken us several months to make more if Japan did not surrender after Nagasaki. We would have had to invade. Then again, Japan was not going any where. The truth many people with a shocking lack of historical knowledge, like this guy above does not know is just how vile, cruel and ugly conventional weapons are. The fire bombing of cities is perhaps the most cruel. You can be in a deep underground shelter, and the fire storm above ground can in effect suck the air right out of your lungs.

The last thing I want to point out is the real reason I think we have not had WW-3 up to now. In my view is because we have those terrible pictures of the people of Hiroshima. Burned, their skin peeling off, and shadows on walls. I really think that if the powers that be did not have that in their mind when given a choice to nuke or not, most of us would not be he right now. And our collective world would be very, very different.