It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Ah ha! Iran: Not about the Nukes, its about the Rods!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:27 AM
I'm PISSED! I wish our military would band together and REFUSE to KILL for their personal agendas! This is beyond wrong and I bet the mass majority of American's know it too. # OUR GOVERNMENT!! I'm retired military and I know asking our military to stand down may have dire consequences but this is wrong! Not another Iraq - Actually it won't be because if the powers that be have been telling our troops that Iran is like Iraq they are in for a nasty surprise. Iran is the only nation that kicked Israel's ass! That's why we are there too. Fight your own agenda Israel. I never understood why people did not like Jewish people - I know why now ...And my uncle is Jewish! But I love him and really don't hate anyone but I do recent Israel and Obama is beyond resent. This is WRONG. IRAN has never threatened us except with words of defense. Rightfully so. Guess I'll be shipped to camp Fema. I'm sure they have an Timmy bake oven waiting for me.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:39 AM
Great thread! I new there had to be a profit angle to this, there always is.

From what I understand the whole point of nuclear power plants in the first place was nothing to do with providing energy, but for nuclear weapons manufacturing. Using them to provide power was a genius way to hide what their real purpose was. Nuclear power plants produce plutonium as a by-product, it is the only way they can produce plutonium for weapons on a large scale.

This is why alternative energy production has not been encouraged. More money can be made from weapons manufacturing. Encouraging war also helps weapons sales. The cold war with Russia was nothing but a way to make money from weapons manufacturing. Our nice friendly capitalists creating the possible destruction of the Human race for profit. We pay for the energy it takes to produce the plutonium for our own destruction.

The cycle of debt often starts with selling weapons. Governments go in debt to buy weapons. The weapons manufacturers make money on the sale and the bankers make a financial "killing" on the interest from the weapons-generated debt. The weapon sales accelerate if a government is faced with a perceived or real threat. False reports are produced, often by the hidden hand of war profiteers, to trick the citizens of a country to support the call for war. The country in the world that buys the most weapons is the U.S. To understand how debt is driven up by war today, see the documentary Iraq for Sale.27

War is all about making money, period, the rest is BS. Control and manipulation of the economy by a minority group of 'private owners/capitalists', is the driving force behind the wars in the ME. 'Terrorism' is just how they sell the war to the people, in order to garner support.

War is a racket, always had been, more profitable than almost anything. As long as we have the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism, there will always be war. Peace makes no profit for the arms manufacturers.

edit on 1/19/2012 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:54 AM
So the Iranians are good people who just want to sell a few nuclear fuel
rods. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for being so pessimistic.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:54 AM
@Anok, so how close is porn to war in terms of making money ?

I thought porn was a huge money spinner as well.

Just shows how screwed up the world is when human nature devises ways to kill ourselves quicker but yet does not have a cure for diseases or cannot even eradicate famine !

There is enough food in the world for everyone.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:11 AM

Originally posted by star in a jar
Follow the money indeed!

Great post... We mustn't forget that everything has to be made... And nobody likes competition unless you're the customer...

Also... In response to some other posts... Nuclear power IS safe... Especially in this day and age with advances in computer technology- The problem is unsafe construction, lax safety standards, lack of emergency containment, and inappropriate reactor locations.

Either that or release secret energy technologies as long as it's safer than the alternative.

you REALLY need to research more into Nuclear Energy. IT IS NOT SAFE LOOK UP FUKUSHIMA. I will lay it out as simple as i can to you.

before fukushima pro nuclear said earthquakes will not cause meltdown or meltdowns (plural)

Now they are saying that "now that it did happen and we have no fix for fukushima, its ok... it wont happen again"? BS.

Major earthquake = meltdowns
Major Dams breaking upsteam from Nuclear reactors = meltdown
Power Grid Outage = meltdown
CME = Meltdowns (plural)
Major flooding (rainfall) = meltdown

So do you feel safe now, maybe you should live next to a nuclear power plant and see what happens when a earthquake hits, who says it wont? who says a idiot overnight employee screws up, human error = meltdown (3 mile island, and chenobal.

dude, change your stance on nuclear power, now.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:18 AM
one more thing that I just remembered before bed...

there is a nuclear power plant in the US that just had major cracks repaired within the power plant. the official report says that the cracks were fixed and the plant is due to be cleared for restart.

here is the kicker... THEY ADMIT that they don't know why the cracks occurred in the first place!

no earthquakes, no major events, just normal operation... sigh...

Why the hell would they allow the plant to restart if they fix a major problem without finding out the cause.

i apologize that i cannot recall off hand the specific plant within the USA, but I will leave that to you to find, I already read the reports, and I employe you to do your own research. PM me if needed. its late, and im going to bed.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
During the Bush administration a very scary thing happened. Which one, you ask, there were so many?

They privatized nuclear weapons production.

A few months later there was a huge general strike about working conditions for engineers and security guards who complained of very long shifts and lax security standards -- what else would you expect when all these are COSTS?

>> Now, surprise, surprise, this "insane to even be legal" corporation behind nuclear weapons is lobbying to influence government.

There isn't anything I fear more right now, than corporations that can legally have tanks and nuclear weapons and are profit motivated.

This! "Profit motivated" being the key phrase. We need to start shaming this type of behavior. We all have to have resources to live, but there are individuals out there with SO much money and power it is out of control. At LEAST the U.S. government still PRETENDS it has 3 branches that keeps itself in check (though it is royally corrupt and unwieldy now). Corporations have CEOs that can walk away whenever they want, and take no hit for their mistakes (the shareholders bear any loss). It's the ultimate power with no responsibility whatsoever. These guys with their own military...yeah, no thanks.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by FoosM

Excellent Post!

btw, anyone recall who got Iran started in their nuclear program?

Hint...same country who overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed the puppet Shah.

The same country who sold arms & WMD to Saddam to fight Iran while they sold arms to Iran under the table.

The same country who overthrew Saddam, first claiming his nukes would spawn mushroom clouds around the world, then claimed he still had other WMD, that they sold them.

Same country that wants to start bombing Iran as we speak.

The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran. Nuclear program of Iran

edit on 1/19/2012 by maddog99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:53 AM
Good thread, you can't put the Genie back in the bottle as it were. This information will make it's way around the 'NEWS' services, quickly now. I expect 'Coast to Coast' to run this next, and then 'Prison Planet' and the like. You may have set yourself up for trouble posting this, and all of us responding with posts, the Government would surely erase all this info and make this thread disappear......just saying...

On the other hand......... if this is an exquisite dis-information scheme....... who knows what TPTB would try?

Good thread, thanks, now I'm going into hiding....

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by maddog99
reply to post by FoosM

Excellent Post!

btw, anyone recall who got Iran started in their nuclear program?

Hint...same country who overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed the puppet Shah.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:18 AM
a VERY god post. thank you for brining this up.
I wonder why most countries are Stopping using nuc reactors?
and it seems to me Japan had their nuc reactors sabotaged.

I would say we are being forced to use dirty OIL.
to make THEM lots of money.
and the nuc power would take countries away from OIL.

so I would say its controlling the power needs of the world.
and Iran will break their monopoly on power.
in this age we can easily make safe nuclear reactors.

what happened in Japan was a warning to the world.
that is saying nuc power is Very unsafe.
THEY want ever one to use OIL...

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by FoosM

Dear FoosM,
Star and Flag for a very interesting take on things and well put together post


posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by FoosM

1. You can qoute a wall of text to twist the truths or embellish lies with half truths, but the fact remained - IAEA had not be allowed free access to inspect the nuke activities of Iran, while other nations had complied with each NEW facility built.

You know what, why hasn't the IAEA investigated Israel?
They have nukes, and they have actually threatened to attack IRAN.
They are the ones who are dangerous.

And the religious leadership of Iran extolling their people to chant "Death to America! Death to Israel!", is NOT a threat? This is not just the brainwashed masses chanting, their leaders actively encourage this.

And yes, Israel does not allow inspectors in, but we also all know they have nukes. What is it Iran is hiding? Would it not be so very easy to rid the world of suspicion by allowing in these inspectors? And say what you want about Israel being the real threat, but they have been attacked time and time again by their neighbours, and at one time almost fell, yet never have they used a single bomb.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 09:10 AM
Buddha....a VERY god post. thank you for brining this up.
I wonder why most countries are Stopping using nuc reactors?
and it seems to me Japan had their nuc reactors sabotaged.

I'm wondering how you would think that? I mean there was a huge quake and Tsunami??
Where would the sabotage come in....? and why?

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by buddha
a VERY god post. thank you for brining this up.
I wonder why most countries are Stopping using nuc reactors?
and it seems to me Japan had their nuc reactors sabotaged.

Thanks! And thanks everyone else
for your support of this thread.

If you, buddha, are suggesting that the Petrochemical Concerns have a bone in this fight,
I would say, it wouldn't be far fetched. If Iran is forced to close the SoH.
Oil prices go up. Who makes money from that? OPEC?

But what about industry vs industry?

Oil vs Coal vs Nuclear vs Renewables like (Biomass, Geothermal, Sunlight, Hydro, etc)

I dont think Iran can do much with renewables at this point due to the sanctions, their large population, and possible lack of resources in the short term. Like I dont even know if they could use Hydro, or extend it, if they wanted to.

Their biggest resource is Oil. Their other big option is Nuclear.
So, is the Oil industry as fearful of a nuclear Iran as the Nuclear industry?

Well nobody controls IRAN's nuclear power. It's state owned.
So once online, once in production, they can do what they want.

The last time they wanted to take THEIR resource, OIL, out of foreign hands,
well... we all know what happened. We ended up with a radical regime.

So we can see why this is a direct threat to the Nuclear industry, but I can also see
in the long term, that it may threaten the Oil industry. Because:

“Nuclear Programmes in the Middle East: In the Shadow of Iran” found that between February, 2006 and January, 2007, at least 13 countries in the Middle East had announced new or revived plans to develop nuclear programmes, the purpose of which was, ostensibly, was to meet their future civilian energy needs.

If Iran goes nuclear, so might its neighbors. If the Middle East goes nuclear, well so might more countries.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:26 PM
I agree with the whole nuke business angle. Money is what makes the world go round.

People often forget how not so long ago, the US and the UK went in and overthrew the Iranian democracy and installed in its place a corrupt totalitarian govt that would let the British Petroluem Co (BP OIL) proceed with raping the oil supply of Iran unhindered.

As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.

Here we go again, this time its not about oil anymore. Its about the nukes.

Sorry Iran, if your a civvy I'd suggest getting out now before your whole country becomes glow in the dark.
edit on 19-1-2012 by WhiteDevil013 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Plotus
Buddha....a VERY god post. thank you for brining this up.
I wonder why most countries are Stopping using nuc reactors?
and it seems to me Japan had their nuc reactors sabotaged.

I'm wondering how you would think that? I mean there was a huge quake and Tsunami??
Where would the sabotage come in....? and why?

well it was days after the reactors started to breack down and blow up.
if is was the earth quake. then would have blown up within 24 hours or more.
how long did it take for the last one? and Six of them?

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by nightbringr

Iran have signed the Arms treaty.
Israel haven`t.
Iran have allowed weapons inspectors in.
Israel haven`t.
Iran have never attacked another country in over 100 years.
Israel have.
Iran don`t have nuclear weapons.
Israel have lots of nuclear weapons.

Which one of these countries poses the biggest threat to world peace ?

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:10 PM
Even with all these other countries in the market, the U.S. is going to war to keep 1 more country from joining? I doubt it.

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

1. If it iranian enrichment was solely for economic reasons, why the refusal for IAEA safety inspections on site freely and regularly? Iran hiding something else other than 'economic reasons' you portray?

Frankly, Iran is probably sketching the *snip* out, sure they could let the rest of the world force their hand, let the inspectors in, blah blah. I think the reason they haven't, is because they are aware that the west has lied to get into wars previously, so why is it beyond reason to think that the IAEA could be corrupted into backing a western approach to Iran's nuclear program, claim things that may be false - to demonize, and destroy it.

Not saying this would happen, but if I were as cautious of the west as Iranian leaders are, it would certainly be on my mind

2. You are purely attempting to mislead.
Nuclear fuel rods for engery needs only 3.5% enrichment grade. So why the 20% grade? The medical market is relatively small, almost to insignificance for such 20% 'medical grade' enrichment.

At 20% grade, those rods poses a danger to mankind for they can be use to create 'dirty bombs' capable of widespread damage. And you dare claim that Iran is exporting it? Further cause of alarm!

This is trickier to answer, humour my questions on the matter please people - the Iranians supposedly are using research reactors, which require the enrichment grade of 20% right? Could they be attempting to increase the efficacy of the technology, to produce energy output in greater amount?

3. The Iranian regime are well knowned to be funding and supporting the Hizbollah terrorist group. This is a Jihadist group that is hell-bent on extinction of mankind. It cares not regardless if muslims or non-muslims innocents get blown to bits in order to help Iran's leader's ambitions. You dare trust the iranian regime with this?

Iran's support of Hezbollah is not something I can deny, Hezbollah was after all created to help the Khomeini regime in the earliest days following the revolution. Their aim seems to be the promotion of #e Islam, and the return of Palestine's 1948 borders. Israel is the closest you can get to an illegal state, the region and its people were colonized by Britain, and then given to the would-be Israelis. How is that right? I don't see how anybody can actually justify that action, force them both to sit down, talk it out, and come to an conclusion, otherwise - KICK THEM ALL OUT. If one group cannot have their right to statehood in the area, neither should. that is easy, and that is all that needs to be done.

If we look at the whole picture of the conflict in Iraq, we can see that one of the major factors for aggression, perhaps not publicly, was the fact Saddam wanted to sell his oil in Euro's, dumping the dollar, you don't think the other OPEC nations wouldn't have followed? We could even look at Libya, and determine that their wish to return to a GOLD/SILVER standard for currency, would have put them at odds the World Banking cartel, and that means they have lost control, other countries in the region, and further globally, would no doubt have followed suit. Warfare and Economics go hand in hand, especially for the United States of America (and Israel too for that matter).

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in