China turns against Iran

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


If you had to edit that line, you're way too relaxed...




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
And there you have it China tells Iran NO!.

But wait where are all the people saying Iran has the right to make them?

The US and the West say no and the haters come running but hey since it's China their word is law.

Meh



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
well we will see in the next very few weeks what Iran does or says for they will have by then full nuke power www.energytribune.com... from the link

Iran Says Nuclear Reactor Is Weeks From Operating
By CNN
Posted on Jan. 09, 2012

From CNN

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant is just weeks from operating at full capacity, the country's top nuclear official said Saturday.

Feireidoun Abbasi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, also said Tehran has shown its new Iranian-made centrifuges to a representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The Bushehr plant, located along the Persian Gulf coast, will reach its full capacity of 1,000 megawatts by February 1, Abbasi said, according to the country's official news agency, IRNA.
if they have 20% how long does it take to get too 90% enrichment?
edit on 19-1-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AsktheanimalsNote that it only says "the pursuit of nuclear weapons", not nuclear power. Given Iran's vast oil fields nuclear power isn't needed and can only be seen as Iran's intent to someday develop the bomb.


China should consider the ties between their militant Al-Q / Hezbbie linked Muslim population and the increasingly militant ones in their surrounding area.

Their Empire might be a long term one, but the Islamic Empire extends all around them. When it has power, it is hungry for more meat and frankly .... we are long swim away and they aren't.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 





Given Iran's vast oil fields nuclear power isn't needed and can only be seen as Iran's intent to someday develop the bomb.


I disagree with this statement. Oil isn't going to last forever, why can't a country take steps to lower its dependence on oil? A lot of countries are going the nuclear power route, why not Iran?


They are on an ocean of it. They have currents around them for good wave energy. They are near the equator, with plenty of good use for solar. They are warm, so don't have the same energy consumption of citizens of a colder nation.

They have no need of it. They want it for a different type of "power."



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

They are on an ocean of it. They have currents around them for good wave energy. They are near the equator, with plenty of good use for solar. They are warm, so don't have the same energy consumption of citizens of a colder nation.

They have no need of it. They want it for a different type of "power."

Canada has probably largest reserves of oil in the world, yet they have nuclear power.

Perhaps we show invade Canada.

Using your "logic"



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


diplomacy is mostly stalling for time.

if iran can have a sufficently capable conventional missile strike, through mad, it could provide it's security.

the most logical defence would be the capacity to damage the enemy so the attack doesn't take place.

it's up to the diplomats to create the time needed.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
And there you have it China tells Iran NO!.

But wait where are all the people saying Iran has the right to make them?

The US and the West say no and the haters come running but hey since it's China their word is law.

Meh

There is a bit of a Difference.
China is not parked on Iran's doorstep, threatening to attack any time soon.
Jeez dude, try to stay current, your ignorance of current affairs is amusing.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Aeons

They are on an ocean of it. They have currents around them for good wave energy. They are near the equator, with plenty of good use for solar. They are warm, so don't have the same energy consumption of citizens of a colder nation.

They have no need of it. They want it for a different type of "power."

Canada has probably largest reserves of oil in the world, yet they have nuclear power.

Perhaps we show invade Canada.

Using your "logic"


We do indeed have Nuclear. I'd like to see them put up a few more. They've been mothballing them, and the medical isotope business is sour because of it.

A "takeover" by the US would likely be like Rome taking over Eutrisia. Everything you think of as Roman was actually Eutrisian originally. Bureaucrats - the ultimate weapon of take over.

Canada has oil, but a harsh winter, a vast territory, a sparse wide spread population, and isolated industries. Not a security threat to neighbours. Not a geo-political hotspot. Not a major road of trade routes connecting regions of the World. There is no comparison.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen6511
if iran can have a sufficently capable conventional missile strike, through mad, it could provide it's security.

the most logical defence would be...


Building a missile defense shield?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
There is no comparison.

I like Canucks, so no invasion.

But using your criteria , Saudi Arabia, who fits most , if not all of them, will be nuclear within 10 years.

And omg, they are Arabs, must be the BOMB they are after.

Can we invade them first, the weather is nicer there this time of year.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


And I agree. The same escalation principle applies for the family of Saud.

Only the touchy feely diplomacy has a lot more tarted up whore to it.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Yawn

Another personal attack in yet another thread it's getting tiresome nay loathsome.

The topic is China not Neo.

I suggest reading ATS Terms and Conditions before posting.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Another personal attack in yet another thread it's getting tiresome nay loathsome.

The topic is China not Neo.

I suggest reading ATS Terms and Conditions before posting.

Well Neo asked a question, which I answered.
Then Neo side stepped my reply , using the ole, "Their picking on me"

I'm sorry if Neo's feeling were hurt.

I'll handle you with kid gloves from now on.

Freinds?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Given Iran's vast oil fields nuclear power isn't needed and can only be seen as Iran's intent to someday develop the bomb.


I have to disagree with this statement. I'm no supporter of either fossil or fission energy, but to tell a nation state that because they have too much of one energy producing technology or resource, they cannot pursue another perhaps cheaper solution, that plenty of other nations already have is hypocrisy.

Scotland's windy, do we ban everything but wind farms? Africa, solar panels?

After years of spectating this increasingly tense stand-off, I'm starting to think the world would be that bit safer if Iran did in fact have a nuclear weapon. It would make the USA and NATO think twice about provocation, just as North Korea proved when they shelled Yeonpyeong island, in disputed South Korean waters while the USA were on a joint exercise with South Korea and, aside a brief South Korean return fire, nothing was done. Nuclear deterrent. It sucks but it seems it's the only thing that will successfully prevent a strike. Could you imagine Iran getting away with shelling anyone without a US response? And the Korean relationship/disparity with the US is much deeper than the Iranian.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


I'm sorry, no offense but...

North Korea {A Nuclear armed outcast that threatens it's neighbors monthly} is your shinning example of how things could be if Iran got the bomb?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
North Korea - the state were most of the population is stunted from malnutrition, is a gigantic malevolent cult that would make Jim Jones wet his pants in ecstasy, and sits on a useless piece of coastline.

Their deterent is that if it weren't for their nuclear bomb, nobody would give a rat's rear end about North Korea.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
What about turning against highly nuclear, actively radiological USA?

I mean, dropping 200 tons of a depleted-enriched uranium cocktail equaling SEVERAL nuclear bomb drops, doesn't get worldwide boycotting of America, then nothing will until USA hits the button that blows up this God forsaken world


USA is already the Destroyer of Nations in our world, so of course its going to be most intimidated by any other country developing toward the same. Lets see in our lifetimes, who is behind world doomsday big bully USA or lil Iran? lol



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
So basically China didn't say anything new or relevant at all then....

Iran : We are not building nukes...

China : We absolutely oppose Iran building nukes..

Iran : We are not building nukes...

China : Well alright then...



Cosmic..



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 


Yeah. The Manhattan Project happened a long time ago. Let us deal with today shall we.

You can debate the merits of your mirror universe in another thread.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join