Iran: Nuclear Energy For Us

[Demosthenez]

Iran Proclaims Right to Nuclear Energy
By SAM F. GHATTAS, AP

UNITED NATIONS (Sept. 18) - Iran's president proclaimed his country's "inalienable right'' to produce nuclear fuel Saturday, defiantly rejecting a European offer of economic incentives if the Mideast nation would halt its uranium enrichment program.

In a fiery speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied his nation had any intention of producing nuclear weapons. To prove that, he offered foreign countries and companies a role in Iran's nuclear energy production.

The Iranian leader lashed out at the United States for its insistence on keeping its nuclear weapons even as it rejected Iran's efforts to build a peaceful energy program.

He said Iran has a right to produce nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and implicitly accused the Europeans and Americans of "misrepresenting'' Iran's desire for civilian nuclear energy "as the pursuit of nuclear weapons.''

"This is nothing more than a pure propaganda ploy,'' he said.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited,'' Ahmadinejad said.

The Europeans and Americans have argued that Iran doesn't need to enrich uranium because it can obtain it from other countries, but Ahmadinejad said "the peaceful use of nuclear energy without a fuel cycle is an empty proposition.''

To reassure the international community of Iran's peaceful intentions, Ahmadinejad said his government is prepared to take "the most far reaching step outside the requirements of the NPT... in keeping with Iran's inalienable right to have access to a nuclear fuel cycle.''

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has already installed cameras to monitor Iran's nuclear activities, he said.

As a further "confidence building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment programs in Iran,'' he said.

"We will work with public and private companies in the context of Iranian and agency laws,'' he told a news conference afterwards.

He noted that President Bush said recently he approves of Iran having a peaceful nuclear program.

"This is a step forward, but this means that others are to produce the fuel and sell it to us to use and for us to be always dependent on others - this is outside the NPT and this is not acceptable to my nation,'' Ahmadinejad told reporters.

"We will work with public and private companies in the context of Iranian and agency laws,'' he told reporters later.

Ahmadinejad said "Iran is presenting in good faith its proposal for constructive interaction and a just dialogue.''

"However, if some try to impose their will on the Iranian people through resort to a language of force and threat with Iran, we will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear issue,'' he warned.

Washington has been a key force in trying to marshal enough support at Monday's board meeting of the Vienna-based IAEA for referring Iran to the Security Council, which could consider sanctions. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested this week that the U.S. might accept a delay.

Momentum for Security Council action grew after Tehran last month rejected incentives offered by Britain, France and Germany - negotiating on behalf of the EU - and resumed uranium conversion. The Europeans say Tehran broke its word by unilaterally restarting that activity while still discussing ways to reduce international suspicions about its nuclear agenda.

But the U.S.-European effort for Security Council involvement has run into trouble due to stubborn resistance from council members Russia and China, as well as by India, Pakistan and other key nations.

Asked at the news conference about the possibility of sanctions, Ahmadinejad said, "We believe that we should not give up to bullying in international relations.''
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

Is this legit? Or is it a power play? Your thoughts.

[MortifiedPenguins]

i'm not sure can your really trust iran that much

[bcdemon]

I myself am going to side with Iran, at this moment. And I have to agree with Irans prez that they do have an inalienable right to have nuclear energy. I find it unacceptable that countries like Israel keep thier nuclear abilitis under lock and key yet Iran is supposed to open its doors just because the US 'thinks' they are trying to build a bomb. Besides, aren't they allowed to be protected under the umbrella of M.A.D? Especially when the leading superpower has lebelled them part of an "axis of evil".

[madzakk]

Iran sits on more oil and gas than you can shake a stick at and they want a nuke plant. WTF for? So they can have a meltdown so their citizens can meet Allah?

[Altarus]

I myself am going to side with Iran, at this moment. And I have to agree with Irans prez that they do have an inalienable right to have nuclear energy. I find it unacceptable that countries like Israel keep thier nuclear abilitis under lock and key yet Iran is supposed to open its doors just because the US 'thinks' they are trying to build a bomb. Besides, aren't they allowed to be protected under the umbrella of M.A.D? Especially when the leading superpower has lebelled them part of an "axis of evil".

Yeah, they do have that right. They can purchase uranium from other countries to do it though.

What's your point about Israel? They already have nuclear weapons. Nobody cares what a country does when they already have the bomb.

I don't think we can chance them getting a bomb. Are you trying to say they won't seek a bomb? It's suspicious that they are so intent on getting uranium-production facilities. Plus, won't we have to let other crackpot countries start producing their own uranium if we decide to let Iran do it?

[Demosthenez]

I think Im fine with them having nuclear reactors but I am unsure if thats the extent it would stay at.

I just dont trust a fundamentalist goverment that much. I think someone would "accidentally" let some fundamentalist get ahold of nuclear material.

Thats the real thing that scares me. Once more 2nd world nations start getting ahold of nuclear material, we are pretty much fucked.

[Blackhawkdown]

I am not to fond of the idea of Iran obtaining the materials it needs to create a nuclear bomb. If they do there's a very good chance we could end up with another North Korea on our hands.

[bcdemon]

At 9/18/05 11:42 PM, Wyrlum wrote:

I myself am going to side with Iran, at this moment. And I have to agree with Irans prez that they do have an inalienable right to have nuclear energy. I find it unacceptable that countries like Israel keep thier nuclear abilitis under lock and key yet Iran is supposed to open its doors just because the US 'thinks' they are trying to build a bomb. Besides, aren't they allowed to be protected under the umbrella of M.A.D? Especially when the leading superpower has lebelled them part of an "axis of evil".

Yeah, they do have that right. They can purchase uranium from other countries to do it though.

So you feel someone should dictate as to what other sovereign nations can and can't do?
I was under the impression we as a world were trying to get rid of dictatorships, I guess that depends on who is doing the dictating huh?

What's your point about Israel? They already have nuclear weapons. Nobody cares what a country does when they already have the bomb.

Well, Israels arsenal is quite secretive, nobody outside of Israel has a clue as to how many bombs they may have. And when they were trying to aquire nuclear weapons thier actions to avoid complete inspections were very questionable. But then again they weren't part of the "axis of evil", they were just trying to protect themselves...

I don't think we can chance them getting a bomb. Are you trying to say they won't seek a bomb? It's suspicious that they are so intent on getting uranium-production facilities. Plus, won't we have to let other crackpot countries start producing their own uranium if we decide to let Iran do it?

For one, USA is more of a "crackpot" country than most, you can take literally or not. And anyone that says "they want to produce uranium so they can make a bomb" is speculating. And I for one can't say wether they will build a bomb or not. I wouldn't be upset if they did, hell I think we all should live under the umbrella of MAD. Let me ask you this, what purpose would it serve Iran to fight so hard to build a bomb and then use it, only to be completely decimated a second afterwards?

[Demosthenez]

At 9/19/05 03:59 AM, bcdemon wrote: I wouldn't be upset if they did, hell I think we all should live under the umbrella of MAD. Let me ask you this, what purpose would it serve Iran to fight so hard to build a bomb and then use it, only to be completely decimated a second afterwards?

It doesnt work for countries like that in my opinion. As more and more 2nd world nations get their hands on the bomb, the more accesible it becomes and the easier it will be for fringe groups to acquire the infentismal amount it takes to make a bomb go critical.

A.Q. Khan is a wonderful example of what I fear. I dont fear the nations themselves using it, what I fear is who some fanatics with resourcs in the goverment may leak it to. Hell, I think I even read somewhere sometime Israel stole our nuclear secrets. I dont think they are the safest nation to have that knowledge, but I at least think they wont leak the information to any fringe terrorist groups to kill Muslims. I am not as sure with countries like Iran and Pakistan and N. Korea.

But then again that could be just personal bias. But A.Q. Khan and some of the terrorist Muslim groups vows to get nuclear weapons somehow make me doubt that.

[Elfer]

You know, they are really offering everyone every opportunity to show that this is a legitimate energy production plan.

I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Jimsween]

Come on, seriously, what are you guys five?

Oil - proved reserves: 130.8 billion bbl (2004 est.)

Natural gas - proved reserves: 26.7 trillion cu m (2004)

Economic aid - recipient: $408 million (2002 est.)

There is one question everyone who supports Iran has failed to answer. WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY WANT NUCLEAR POWER????????????????????

You don't have to be even the slightest bit smart to figure this out. Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, and incredibly dangerous, and incredily hard to do. Why would Iran be so desperate to get it? They has one of the largest oil reserves of any country, one of the largest natural gas reserves of any country, and they are one of the poorest countries. Why do we have to give them aid if they are able to waste billions of nuclear power?

BECAUSE THEY NEED IT TO MAKE NUKES!

There is no other logical reason for Iran to want to build nuclear power plants. Iran can not be trusted.

At 9/18/05 10:29 PM, bcdemon wrote: I myself am going to side with Iran, at this moment. And I have to agree with Irans prez that they do have an inalienable right to have nuclear energy.

That is incredibly dumb. Nobody has an inalienable right to anything, thats retarded. Who gave you that inalienable right? Hmmm? Obviously whoever did doesnt care enough to make sure it's yours because anyone can take it away at any time.

And beyond that its dumb on several other levels. Why would anyone have an inalienable right to nuclear power? What makes nuclear power different from, oh, say an SUV. I'm sure you don't believe the US has an inalienable right to pollute the ozone.

Also, IT'S NUCLEAR FREAKING POWER. This isn't something you fuck around with, you can't just give it to everyone because of your ideals, you can destroy the world with it. You have to be careful/

I find it unacceptable that countries like Israel keep thier nuclear abilitis under lock

and key yet Iran is supposed to open its doors just because the US 'thinks' they are trying to build a bomb.

So your solution is to give everyone the bomb. Wow, your fucking retarded.

When Israel was building it's first nuclear power plant, the US threw a fit. If you would have took even one second to check and see if the crap you were spewing was true you would have saw that. WE DONT WANT ANYONE TO HAVE NUKES! It's not like we want some people to and some not to. The more people with a nuke the greater the chance of a doomsday, but when they already have nukes there is nothing you can do about it, so you just ignore them.

Besides, aren't they allowed to be protected under the umbrella of M.A.D? Especially when the leading superpower has lebelled them part of an "axis of evil".

Hey, by that logic I deserve a nuke too. Wow your smart.

[Jimsween]

At 9/19/05 04:28 PM, Elfer wrote: You know, they are really offering everyone every opportunity to show that this is a legitimate energy production plan.

I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Once it's built they can make a nuke in no time. The trick is getting the plant built. Just ask North Korea.

[bcdemon]

At 9/19/05 05:29 PM, Jimsween wrote: There is one question everyone who supports Iran has failed to answer. WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY WANT NUCLEAR POWER????????????????????

The rapidly rising cost of oil and gas production, and the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels maybe? I do believe nuclear power is cleaner than coal, of which Iran uses about 1.3 million tons a year.

...Wow, your fucking retarded....Wow your smart.

Wow, you're confused.

[Jimsween]

At 9/19/05 06:03 PM, bcdemon wrote: The rapidly rising cost of oil and gas production, and the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels maybe? I do believe nuclear power is cleaner than coal, of which Iran uses about 1.3 million tons a year.

Nuclear power isn't cleaner than Natural Gas, of which Iran has enough of to last itself for oh... about forever.

And at that, Nuclear power isn't clean, you have lots of radioactive waste you have to get rid of.

AND AT THAT, Nuclear power is so expensive you could easily outwiegh the polution caused by an oil plant by spending the extra money you saved on cleanup and prevention.

AND AT THAT, 1.3 million tons of coal is nothing, the US alone uses 1,100 million tons.

You know what, theres just too mcuh I could say, I could go on and on, highlighting the fact that Iran has more than enough fossil fuel to power itself forever, and could go on exporting for years and still continue to have enough to power itself forever in many different ways. And highlighting how expensive nuclear power is and that under Iranian hands it's more likely to cause a pollution problem much worse than any coal burning causes. And highlighting how countries with much less fossil fuels and much more skill don't even use nuclear power. Ect. Ect.

Wow, you're confused.

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you really not understand sarcasm? This is like the third time in the past week you haven't understood something obviously sarcastic. Either your very very dull, or your trying to make a joke at my sarcasm and just failing miserably, either way you suck.

[bcdemon]

At 9/19/05 06:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: Nuclear power isn't cleaner than Natural Gas,

I never said it was did I?
But since you mentioned it, nuclear is cleaner than natural gas.

of which Iran has enough of to last itself for oh... about forever.

Actually about 335 years, providing they don't export any of it.

And at that, Nuclear power isn't clean, you have lots of radioactive waste you have to get rid of.

Nuclear waste can be recycled.

AND AT THAT, Nuclear power is so expensive you could easily outwiegh the polution caused by an oil plant by spending the extra money you saved on cleanup and prevention.

According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.

AND AT THAT, 1.3 million tons of coal is nothing, the US alone uses 1,100 million tons.

US coal plants collectively emit over 85 percent of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the nation's entire electric power industry. Good enough reason to stop using coal I would say.

You know what, theres just too mcuh I could say, I could go on and on...Ect. Ect.

You can speculate all you want on how Iran only wants nuclear power to build a bomb, but at the end of the day, it is still just speculation.

[Jimsween]

At 9/20/05 12:32 AM, bcdemon wrote: I never said it was did I?
But since you mentioned it, nuclear is cleaner than natural gas.

Woah wacky, who would have guessed that the IAEA would downplay the problems with nuclear power.

And no, thats not any cleaner. The sulfur produced in natural gas sweetening can handled, but radioactive waste can't. Your comparing apples and oranges.

Actually about 335 years, providing they don't export any of it.

355 years with thier proven reserves. Nevertheless, I don't see what your getting at, you just reinforced my point.

Nuclear waste can be recycled.

No, it can't. That is a complete lie and I'm offended that you would think I would fall for it.

According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.

Thats for America genius. And not even correct. Nuclear costs more than 2 cents, and thats just to run the plant not to build it. The government pays more than 1.8 cents per kilowatt to subsidize nuclear power. Find a study that actually exists next time.

US coal plants collectively emit over 85 percent of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the nation's entire electric power industry. Good enough reason to stop using coal I would say.

Iran doesn't use coal. Thats the point. DUH

You can speculate all you want on how Iran only wants nuclear power to build a bomb, but at the end of the day, it is still just speculation.

Youre a fucking moron. It's not just speculation, it's speculations with FACTS and EVIDENCE to back it up. According to you it's just speculation that Hitler killed the jews, none of us really saw it.

You never cease to impress me with your boundless idiocy.

[bcdemon]

LMAO, you're hilarious Lil Jimmy. Recycling nuclear waste is a lie, ROFL. You have yet to give up any facts or evidence to back up your claims. So either put up, or shut up.

[Jimsween]

At 9/20/05 07:18 PM, bcdemon wrote: LMAO, you're hilarious Lil Jimmy. Recycling nuclear waste is a lie, ROFL. You have yet to give up any facts or evidence to back up your claims. So either put up, or shut up.

You are an idiot. You can't recycle nuclear waste, all your thinking about is reusing the uranium which doesnt reduce the amount of radioactive waste at all. Don't talk big when youre talking out of your ass.

Seriously, you have to be like 5 years old. You don't need to cite a source unless you make a claim, I didn't make any claims I gave arguments, you tried to make claims to rebut those arguments but I proved that all your sources were either innapplicable or false. Unlike you, I don't cite statistics that aren't even applicable and other statistics that aren't even true. And since you have not rebutted my arguments, I take that as a sign that you conceed the point.

[bcdemon]

At 9/20/05 09:08 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 9/20/05 07:18 PM, bcdemon wrote: LMAO, you're hilarious Lil Jimmy. Recycling nuclear waste is a lie, ROFL. You have yet to give up any facts or evidence to back up your claims. So either put up, or shut up.

You are an idiot. You can't recycle nuclear waste, all your thinking about is reusing the uranium which doesnt reduce the amount of radioactive waste at all. Don't talk big when youre talking out of your ass.

Maybe you should read up on how Israel plans to "recycle" Chernobyls nuclear waste.

Seriously, you have to be like 5 years old. You don't need to cite a source unless you make a claim, I didn't make any claims I gave arguments, you tried to make claims to rebut those arguments but I proved that all your sources were either innapplicable or false. Unlike you, I don't cite statistics that aren't even applicable and other statistics that aren't even true. And since you have not rebutted my arguments, I take that as a sign that you conceed the point.

Ahhh, so you don't have to back up arguements with facts or evidence?
Hhere, let me rebut your arguements with your approach, nuclear power is not more expensive than oil/gas or coal power. Nuclear power is not dirtier than oil/gas or coal power.

[Jimsween]

At 9/20/05 10:47 PM, bcdemon wrote: Maybe you should read up on how Israel plans to "recycle" Chernobyls nuclear waste.

Maybe YOU should read up on it. Your not getting rid of any waste, your just concentrating it and taking out the things you want. Your not changing the amount of radioactivity at all.

You do a pretty damn good job of making an ass of yourself, next time someone gives you advice take it.

Ahhh, so you don't have to back up arguements with facts or evidence?

No you don't, you have to back up claims with facts or evidence. An argument doesn't have to contain any facts of evidence, ever take geometry?

Hhere, let me rebut your arguements with your approach, nuclear power is not more expensive than oil/gas or coal power. Nuclear power is not dirtier than oil/gas or coal power.

Thats funny, because thats not what I said at all. Those are claims, not arguments, which is what I gave. In fact, you have still yet to rebut the arguments I gave. If there is a specific claim please show me where exactly I said it and then ask for a source, but you still have to rebut my arguments.

[bcdemon]

At 9/20/05 11:11 PM, Jimsween wrote: Maybe YOU should read up on it. Your not getting rid of any waste, your just concentrating it and taking out the things you want. Your not changing the amount of radioactivity at all.

For one, I never said anything about "getting rid of waste", all I did was give you a link about "recycling" nuclear waste. But apparently Argonne CAN reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal.
"In a single step, commercial fuel, which is a ceramic, can be converted to a metallic form for processing with Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology. This technology can greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal in a repository."

No you don't, you have to back up claims with facts or evidence. An argument doesn't have to contain any facts of evidence, ever take geometry?

Yep, many times, you ever take linguistics?. Better yet, you ever read a fucking dictionary?

ar·gu·ment:
1.
1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed
2. A quarrel
3. Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention
2.
1. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood
2. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence
3. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
3.
1. A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
2. A topic; a subject
4. Logic. The minor premise in a syllogism.
5. Mathematics.
1. The independent variable of a function.
2. The angle of a complex number measured from the positive horizontal axis.
6. Computer Science. A value used to evaluate a procedure or subroutine.
7. Linguistics. In generative grammar, any of various positions occupied by a noun phrase in a sentence.

Thats funny, because thats not what I said at all. Those are claims, not arguments, which is what I gave. In fact, you have still yet to rebut the arguments I gave. If there is a specific claim please show me where exactly I said it and then ask for a source, but you still have to rebut my arguments.

In your original post you made this claim "Nuclear power is incredibly expensive" which I showed it is not when compared to oil, gas and coal power. Then in another post you made this claim "Nuclear power isn't cleaner than Natural Gas" which again, I showed it was, although you did denounce the source as bias. Then this claim "Iran has more than enough fossil fuel to power itself forever", which I showed you that their supply (of NG) would not last "forever", it (NG) would only last about 335 years, thats at current consumption rates and no exports.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/18/05 09:33 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Is this legit? Or is it a power play? Your thoughts.

I go with the latter. Iran is testing the waters, seeing how far they can go with the rhetoric. Yes, the end result is nuclear weapons -- or at least the fear of them. I don't believe any sane government -- giving the current Iranian one the benefit of the doubt here -- would use them aggressively (talking full-on nukes here). But I would assume Iran wants nuclear weapons as a safeguard, a precaution against US invasion, or the ilk.

[HerenIstarion]

bcdemon, good show and good backing up, thanks for the links too - it was enlightening

Allow me to shift perspective a bit to ethics:

A) What moral right there is for one nation to prohibit another nation to have anything another nation finds in its interest to have?

B) Who has the right/obligation to decide what level of 'crackpotness' any given nation has?

Rhetoric, of course - in both cases answer being noone

Good point about dictatorships above

Hence - even if Iran does want to have nuclear bomb, there is no moral right for U.S. to prohibit it. If there is force and guts enough, nice and proper, but I doubt there is. In fact, in attacking countries which do not have the bomb and wooing those who have, U.S. actually promotes the desire to obtain such. Indeed, message is simple: Get the bomb, and you'll be safe from U.S.

[Jimsween]

At 9/21/05 03:03 AM, bcdemon wrote: For one, I never said anything about "getting rid of waste", all I did was give you a link about "recycling" nuclear waste.

Uhhuh, yeah exactly. Hey wait a tic, if you didn't think it was actually getting rid of any waste, why would you bring it up in response to an argument that you have lots of waste to get rid of. Hmm?

But apparently Argonne CAN reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal.

It doesn't reduce anything but the mass, which doesn't help anyone. It just con

"In a single step, commercial fuel, which is a ceramic, can be converted to a metallic form for processing with Argonne?s pyroprocessing technology. This technology can greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal in a repository."

But the radioactivity remains the same. You reduce the mass, but in the process create an even more hazardous thing in a smaller space.

Yep, many times, you ever take linguistics?. Better yet, you ever read a fucking dictionary?

Hey, read the second number three dumbass.

In your original post you made this claim "Nuclear power is incredibly expensive" which I showed it is not when compared to oil, gas and coal power. Then in another post you made this claim "Nuclear power isn't cleaner than Natural Gas" which again, I showed it was, although you did denounce the source as bias. Then this claim "Iran has more than enough fossil fuel to power itself forever", which I showed you that their supply (of NG) would not last "forever", it (NG) would only last about 335 years, thats at current consumption rates and no exports.

Thats so funny, I posted thinking I would get a response to the arguments I put fourth previously, nope. Not at all. Wierd how that worked. If my arguments are incorrect, don't summarize them innacurately while in the process ignoring key parts. Go back to them and quote them as if you were actually continuing the debate. Don't try to pretend the last few posts you made were anything more than a stall tactic. So in case you forgot, we left off here:

At 9/20/05 12:32 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I never said it was did I?
But since you mentioned it, nuclear is cleaner than natural gas.

Woah wacky, who would have guessed that the IAEA would downplay the problems with nuclear power.

And no, thats not any cleaner. The sulfur produced in natural gas sweetening can handled, but radioactive waste can't. Your comparing apples and oranges.

Actually about 335 years, providing they don't export any of it.

355 years with thier proven reserves. Nevertheless, I don't see what your getting at, you just reinforced my point.

Nuclear waste can be recycled.

No, it can't. That is a complete lie and I'm offended that you would think I would fall for it.

According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.

Thats for America genius. And not even correct. Nuclear costs more than 2 cents, and thats just to run the plant not to build it. The government pays more than 1.8 cents per kilowatt to subsidize nuclear power. Find a study that actually exists next time.

US coal plants collectively emit over 85 percent of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the nation's entire electric power industry. Good enough reason to stop using coal I would say.

Iran doesn't use coal. Thats the point. DUH

You can speculate all you want on how Iran only wants nuclear power to build a bomb, but at the end of the day, it is still just speculation.

Youre a fucking moron. It's not just speculation, it's speculations with FACTS and EVIDENCE to back it up. According to you it's just speculation that Hitler killed the jews, none of us really saw it.

You never cease to impress me with your boundless idiocy.

[bcdemon]

Still no proof or sources to your claima huh? Ok I'll wait a bit longer, but don't expect me to respond to your silly circle-jerk anymore unless you have something concrete worth responding to, oki?

[bcdemon]

And in other news. Russia and China are backing Iran. Due to this the EU is now postponing its request to have Iran put before the UN SC. The US says they want Iran to face the SC immediately.

The Iranian prez has asked for its defences to be on the ready. And has requested an increase in the defence industry, as well as utilizing latest technologies.

[Altarus]

: So you feel someone should dictate as to what other sovereign nations can and can't do?
I was under the impression we as a world were trying to get rid of dictatorships, I guess that depends on who is doing the dictating huh?

Eh? The argument assumes Iran's efforts are harmless. If there is a danger, the world has every right to act.

: Well, Israels arsenal is quite secretive, nobody outside of Israel has a clue as to how many bombs they may have. And when they were trying to aquire nuclear weapons thier actions to avoid complete inspections were very questionable. But then again they weren't part of the "axis of evil", they were just trying to protect themselves...

That doesn't matter. I was just explaining why we don't get on their case like we do with Iran. They already have the nuclear technology.

: And anyone that says "they want to produce uranium so they can make a bomb" is speculating.

Well, again, it is rather suspicious that they want nuclear technology. Iran can buy nuclear fuel. But fine, nobody knows for sure what they'll do with it. It's a risk. All terrorists need is enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb. That is the *only* reason they do not possess a nuclear bomb right now. Once terrorists have the right amount and a few scientists and engineers, which aren't hard to find, they *will* construct a nuclear bomb.

: And I for one can't say wether they will build a bomb or not. I wouldn't be upset if they did, hell I think we all should live under the umbrella of MAD.

Doesn't that say it all?

: Let me ask you this, what purpose would it serve Iran to fight so hard to build a bomb and then use it, only to be completely decimated a second afterwards?

They would not use it right out. Look, Iran is full of terrorists. The country is a terrorist nation. Why do you want enriched uranium floating around in that country? It's a recipe for disaster, if not immediately, then a few decades down the road.

: A) What moral right there is for one nation to prohibit another nation to have anything another nation finds in its interest to have?

We aren't prohibiting them from having a nuclear reactor. Just from making their own highly enriched uranium/plutonium which is not far from having the bomb itself. Iran wants to build the type of reactor that will give them highly enriched plutonium, which can then be used to build a bomb. In any case, nuclear material would be floating around the country, and terrorists would have their eyes on it.

: B) Who has the right/obligation to decide what level of 'crackpotness' any given nation has?

Some nations are obviously crackpot, North Korea for one. The issue here is terrorism though. Iran is especially friendly to terrorists. That doesn't make them completely crackpot, but it's enough to raise concern.

: Hence - even if Iran does want to have nuclear bomb, there is no moral right for U.S. to prohibit it. If there is force and guts enough, nice and proper, but I doubt there is. In fact, in attacking countries which do not have the bomb and wooing those who have, U.S. actually promotes the desire to obtain such. Indeed, message is simple: Get the bomb, and you'll be safe from U.S.

I would dispute that the world has no moral right to stop them. We would be irresponsible if we let Iran get ahold of nuke technology. Too much of a risk.

[Jimsween]

At 9/22/05 09:25 AM, bcdemon wrote: Still no proof or sources to your claima huh? Ok I'll wait a bit longer, but don't expect me to respond to your silly circle-jerk anymore unless you have something concrete worth responding to, oki?

Hey, can ya read? I shouldn't have to repeat myself just because youre childish. If you question the validity of a claim I made, quote my claim, and ask for a source on it.

You can't go from direct rebuttals, then blanket accusations, then indirect rebuttals. Thats just fucking dumb. Respond to the direct quote, doing anything other than that makes it obvious your not trying to debate and just stalling.

[Jimsween]

At 9/22/05 01:39 PM, bcdemon wrote: And in other news. Russia and China are backing Iran. Due to this the EU is now postponing its request to have Iran put before the UN SC. The US says they want Iran to face the SC immediately.

Russia and China, thank god. Finally we have some people we can trust. :-/

[Demosthenez]

At 9/22/05 01:39 PM, bcdemon wrote: And in other news. Russia and China are backing Iran.

God, Russia will kiss anyones ass that they feel would help protect their intrests.

Russia is led by a bunch of fuckin goons. Putin is an idiot. He might as well do away with the formalities and resseruct the Politburo.