Iran Wants to Defuse Crisis with West

reply to post by LadySkadi
What - develop the nuke and finally get left alone?

That DOES seem like one of the more obvious lessons to draw from the North Korea situation, given our belligerence and our response to NK.

this reminds me of the UK's 'peace in our time' agreement and we all know how that turned out!

First off, the UN as we all know are a bunch of tyrants that want to keep their control worldwide. Imagine being on the other side looking at them. I'd avoid inspections from those nazis as well if I was worried they'd try to keep me pinned down from advancing as far as they have to even the score.

Second, TPTB have their hand in every country's basket so its not like the media is going to tell us what they are up to. If there's going to be a war it will be for different reasons than the masses are told. Wont be for oil as they can easily buy and trade that, even with "enemies". It will be for the en-statement of new laws to hold their country's people down and for money to change hands from the masses to the elites. Wars are never fought over drugs, oil or any other resource not even land or the liberation of people. As the "enemies" are all on the same side, always have been. Wars are created as a means only to take away money and rights from the masses as they agree with it.

And last, It disgusts me to see how ignorant the masses are to think these things going on are for one reason or another just because that's what one county's media or another says. Any person saying "One country shouldn't have nukes because we cannot trust them, yet another can because of whatever" is seriously in need of a head check. I will say this really plainly, Nukes are not for humankind to have, period. They do way more destruction than are needed by any means. And who's to say that the UN or any country should be trusted with them? Any person brainwashed enough to think that one side is the good guys and the other the bad is in need of a gag and a padded room. Don't poison others with your childish opinions of right and wrong when you have not seen, and may never know the whole story-ever. But alas, all us Americans and anyone else in a "civilized" country will go on thinking they know whos right and whos wrong based off of the miniscule amount of "info" they are allowed to think is factual. This planet should hurry up and be bathed in fire, we have really become the virus we wanted to. It is quite disgusting to listen to people and their opinions anymore.

This world needs an enema!

Originally posted by miniatus

nobody forced them to kick out inspectors, build secret facilities, refine their own uranium .. they have blatantly done this in the face of the UN..

Says the man whos country is in the possession of tramendous number of nuclear war heads, ARMED to deploy, and stays alive.
HNY

reply to post by miniatus


What is the difference between Iran and the USA both having nuclear weapons?
Oh yes, the USA is worried that Iran "might" use one.
Oh yes, the USA has actually used 2 in anger (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Oh really now, then what the hell is this.

Iran says it has produced its first nuclear fuel rod

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by miniatus

 

What is the difference between Iran and the USA both having nuclear weapons?
Oh yes, the USA is worried that Iran "might" use one.
Oh yes, the USA has actually used 2 in anger (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

edit on 1-1-2012 by Sailor Sam because: spelling

You say this as if I actually approve of my country having Nuclear weapons =) or any country for that matter .. the fact is we do, as does Russia and other countries.. they exist now and there's a thing called mutually assured destruction that keeps them from being used further.. But all of these countries that have them also recognize the stupidity that the arms race created and the danger of having them proliferate further which is what brought about the non proliferation treaty.

I think most nuclear armed countries presently wish nobody had nuclear weapons but the problem we face currently is that nobody wants to drop their weapons first and get caught with their pants down.

In short, your comparison really isn't a very simple or fair comparison to make... The idea is no other country should be developing nuclear weapons, and all those that have them need to put more focus on removing them.. but with these countries like NK gaining them and Iran trying to gain them, as well as Pakistan having them and being unstable.. they are sort of needed as insurance .. it's a mess..

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Nuclear fuel rods are used in nuclear powerstations.
You worried now that General Electric is not in a position to sell similar fuel rods to other countries, now they have more competition?

reply to post by miniatus

Then, is it legitimate for one country to gain nuclear weapons, to be able to defend it self, when attacked from another country which is in the possession of nuclear weapons?
How do you know that your country isn't going to use nuclear weapons?

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Exactly. Thie closer they get the more they will want to "negotiate"...again, it's about stalling for time. Don't be fooled.

reply to post by Dorian9
Don't be fooled by what? The EXACT SAME kind of propaganda that led us all into the Iraq War? It sure seems like you're falling for it to me!

I would really hope that with all that's been going on (protests) if they announced we were starting a war (again), people would take to the streets.
American people don't want war, not anymore at least. Many Americans were at first ok with going to war with Iraq.They felt like taking 9/11 out on someone, but this Iran thing as it is now doesn't have the backing of the people. I'm not an idiot I know the powers do what they want and screw everyone else, but they haven't made Iran look like the bad guy enough yet for that to happen.

I think Irans gagging for a fight as much as Israel. They are just trying to confuse you

Oh really? Fascinating...lest we forget the men, women, and children chanting this...

reply to post by miniatus

If they truly just wanted nuclear power then they would have accepted the proposed idea years ago that they could have uranium sent to them for use in their reactors.. but no, they insisted on producing their own which in turn gives them the ability to produce weapons grade uranium..

Wouldn't you enjoy the ability to be self sufficient? Why is Iran any different? Why do they have to send them uranium for their reactors when they are technologically able to do it themselves? Plus, China has given them some anyways...let's bomb China too! While we are at it...let's bomb everyone that doesn't uphold the high standard that Americans place on themselves, nevermind the fact that America doesn't uphold the agreements that they signed. *sigh*

Edit: The only country that has used a bomb as soon as they had it was......drumroll please....USA.

reply to post by superman2012


Except, we used it because we had to. Big difference. If you put a nuclear weapon in the hands of an insane, totalitarian government, that supplies terrorists, and wants to wipe a country off the face of the earth. Well you get the picture. If we didnt use nukes in hiroshima or nagasaki millions would have died. More people died from the fire bombing of tokyo as well.

Originally posted by miniatus
Or it's Iran buying time.. they have no intention of shutting down their nuclear programs.. this is just them trying to look good by saying they want diplomacy while still continuing to defy the UN.

I look at it this way.. It's like a thief robbing a store and the cops asking them to knock it off.. but instead of stopping, the thief continues robbing the store in front of you all the while saying "look, we can talk this over without you arresting me" as they shove another item in their bag.

Iran is trying to position itself to say "Look, we at least TRIED to talk" ..

I recognize Iran's right to nuclear power, but when you kick out inspectors and act the way they have.. I don't trust them not to also make a weapon.. and a weapon in their hands would be a very bad thing.

edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

How can you make an analogy comparing Iran to a thief?

They aren't stealing anything, they aren't even doing anything wrong. There is zero proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Contrary to what the media would have you believe. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have quite different results.

If we are going to use analogies though, one that is more fair would be to say America is like that psychopath that killed your parents, and then gave legal guardianship over you to an abusive foster parent. Then after you rebel and get away from the abusive foster parent, America gives your worst enemy money and weapons to kill you.

That is what our government did to Iran.

Originally posted by isaac7777
reply to post by superman2012

 

Except, we used it because we had to. Big difference. If you put a nuclear weapon in the hands of an insane, totalitarian government, that supplies terrorists, and wants to wipe a country off the face of the earth. Well you get the picture. If we didnt use nukes in hiroshima or nagasaki millions would have died. More people died from the fire bombing of tokyo as well.

Had to? Or wanted a show of power to scare off the "bad guys"? After the Nazi's surrendered on May 8th, the US called for the surrender of Japan on July 26, threatening them with " prompt and utter destruction". Turns out there was a mis-translation of the Japanese Premier and instead of a "no comment", it was translated as "ignore".

The US was continually winning the battles but at a high loss of life. That, coupled with the fact that the Soviet Union was making the US worried because if they joined in the war against Japan and then the war ended, well, Japan would be communist and that would impede the US economic development. Plus, I have read that they wanted to test the valuation of the explosive power.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a U.S. estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizeable garrison.

So to sum it up:

1) Your "nuclear weapon in the hands of an insane, totalitarian government, that supplies terrorists, and wants to wipe a country off the face of the earth." perfectly describes the US gov't.

2) Tokyo firebombing casualties: 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 166,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki. Killed...no wounded.

How is Tokyo's count higher? Sorry I didn't do too well in math.

Also, the tokyo bombings didn't have effects that would later kill people like the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

reply to post by superman2012


Iran's president is a psychopath. He wants to bring on armaggeddon in the hopes to invoke Mahdi, the tweleth Imam. He's kookoo for coco puffs. That is why Iran should not have nuclear technology; to prevent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pyschopathic trip of worldwide destruction.

If the Shah was not removed in the 70's we may not be in this mess now. Just an opinon.

reply to post by Sailor Sam


Iran is just following what North Korea does all the time, saber rattling then ask for diplomacy. I doubt it'll work for Iran.

N. Korea test-fires short-range missiles: report