Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/22/05 09:47 PM, Jimsween wrote: 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.

Nor should I, but considering your age, I don't really have a choice now do I. I did quote your claims (apparently you missed it), and you have yet to back them up. Considering you have yet to back up any of your claims, arguments, statements or whatever you choose to call them (cost, cleanliness, recycleability etc etc etc) they can and will be considered as hot air you blow from your ass. Now either back up your claims, arguments or statements (whichever you choose to call them) or drop it.

At 9/22/05 09:55 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: God, Russia will kiss anyones ass that they feel would help protect their intrests.

Doesn't sound much different than USA now does it? How long have you been kissing the ass of Saudi Arabia? Long enough to keep the oil flowing anyway.

At 9/22/05 09:40 PM, Wyrlum wrote:

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.

Thats right, we can only assume thier efforts are harmless because there are no facts to say any different.
And if it is found that there is an absolute danger, then the world does have a right to act.

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.

Fabo touched on this earlier when he mentioned Khan. Which only reinforces my argument about leaving countries that have nuclear technology off the radar. The people that have nukes don't want to relinquish them out of fear, fear they will lose the sence of power nukes bring. Those same countries don't want other countries to gain nukes out of the same fear. And as far as the terrorist theory goes, I totally agree, but in any country, Iran, Pakistan and even USA you will find someone who will give up supplies and technology for the right price.

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?

All that says is either we all should have nukes, or nobody should have them. That is my opinion.

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.

Saudi Arabia is full of terrorists aswell, hell the majority of 9/11 Ts were Saudi, and they are one of your (USA) best friends. Not to mentin they (Saudi Arabia) has apparently been trying to aquire nuclear weapons for 25 years. I'm trying to think of the last time Iran, as a "terrorist nation" did something terroristic. Maybe you can help me?

I know Iran has a shitload of oil and gas. But if analysts are correct, and the world is going to run out of oil in about 50 years, then all they are left with is natural gas energy for a major source of energy, which will run out eventually (even if Jimsween thinks it will last forever). And limiting yourself to one single energy source would be just silly. At least in my opinion.

Iran isn't much of a threat to the west. Russia has fuckloads of weapons that are far more accessible to anybody with money, and so far none of them have been used. In fact, if Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would be more cost-effective for them to just buy them on the black market than to openly build the plants and all. Maybe they're distracting our attention from the real objective! *gasp!*

why do they need one?

At 9/23/05 01:06 AM, bcdemon wrote: Doesn't sound much different than USA now does it? How long have you been kissing the ass of Saudi Arabia? Long enough to keep the oil flowing anyway.

I guess that is a good point.

I just think Russia is on a whole other level of ass kissing. They really have no problems kissing the ass of each and every country, now matter how shady what they are doing is.

: Thats right, we can only assume thier efforts are harmless because there are no facts to say any different.
And if it is found that there is an absolute danger, then the world does have a right to act.

Iran could prove its efforts are harmless, but they continue to cloak their nuclear program in violation of the IAEA treaty. Why? We didn't even know about what they are doing now until the MKO revealed it. Plus, the type of reactor they want produces material for constructing a nuclear bomb and maximizes the potential for unintentional proliferation. They could make a less dangerous reactor, but refuse. Again, why? We have already seen countries obtain the bomb by disgusing their program as a peaceful energy program.

You've stated yourself that they have a motive to obtain the bomb, namely fear of US, Israel, or some other country's action against them. Plus, they gain power. You've also conceded that even if Iran does have no intentions to use nuke technology to harm others, that it could still fall into the wrong hands. Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism only increases the risk.

I think this is enough for "reasonable concern." I never said the world should invade Iran. Our response should be appropriate for the situation, but you don't want to do anything about it at all.

: And as far as the terrorist theory goes, I totally agree, but in any country, Iran, Pakistan and even USA you will find someone who will give up supplies and technology for the right price.

In other words, the problem is bad.

: All that says is either we all should have nukes, or nobody should have them. That is my opinion.

So, we ought to make the problem worse.

: Saudi Arabia is full of terrorists aswell, hell the majority of 9/11 Ts were Saudi, and they are one of your (USA) best friends. Not to mentin they (Saudi Arabia) has apparently been trying to aquire nuclear weapons for 25 years. I'm trying to think of the last time Iran, as a "terrorist nation" did something terroristic. Maybe you can help me?

What is Saudi Arabia doing to acquire nuclear weapons that compares to the activities of Iran? And why is it even relevant to Iran?

In the 1970s Iran sponsored several terrorist organizations through aid and training. Iran continues to fund organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islam Jihad, and PFLP-GC; as well as providing "financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid" to Hizbullah and the Kurdistan Workers Party. (Wikipedia)

Not only that, but does Iraq ring a bell at all?

: I know Iran has a shitload of oil and gas. But if analysts are correct, and the world is going to run out of oil in about 50 years, then all they are left with is natural gas energy for a major source of energy, which will run out eventually (even if Jimsween thinks it will last forever). And limiting yourself to one single energy source would be just silly. At least in my opinion.

Fine, but Iran is going about it the wrong way if all they want is peaceful nuclear energy.

silly iran nukes are for euros

At 9/23/05 01:06 AM, bcdemon wrote: Nor should I, but considering your age, I don't really have a choice now do I. I did quote your claims (apparently you missed it), and you have yet to back them up. Considering you have yet to back up any of your claims, arguments, statements or whatever you choose to call them (cost, cleanliness, recycleability etc etc etc) they can and will be considered as hot air you blow from your ass. Now either back up your claims, arguments or statements (whichever you choose to call them) or drop it.

You didn't quote my claims at all. You did attempted to, but all of the 'claims' you quoted were already questioned and refuted. Your allegations of innacuracy were so outlandish that they didn't even need to be refuted with proof, a logic argument was more than enough. Now, if my logic argument is incorrect, quote it and prove it so.

I've already shown you where I did this twice. All of the claims mentioned are here, and the logic arguments. I won't accept them in any other format, because that would complete the purpose of your pathetic stall tactic.

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.

At 9/23/05 01:59 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Iran isn't much of a threat to the west. Russia has fuckloads of weapons that are far more accessible to anybody with money, and so far none of them have been used. In fact, if Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would be more cost-effective for them to just buy them on the black market than to openly build the plants and all. Maybe they're distracting our attention from the real objective! *gasp!*

It doesn't matter if they are a threat to anyone. To let anyone aquire nukes when you could do something is irresponsible. Your just adding another person to the list of people who can destroy the world.

And at that, what makes you so sure there are nukes on the black market? It would seem completely opposite to that, since no terrorist group has used or claimed to have a nuke yet.

At 9/23/05 01:56 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Iran could prove its efforts are harmless, but they continue to cloak their nuclear program in violation of the IAEA treaty. Why? We didn't even know about what they are doing now until the MKO revealed it. Plus, the type of reactor they want produces material for constructing a nuclear bomb and maximizes the potential for unintentional proliferation. They could make a less dangerous reactor, but refuse. Again, why? We have already seen countries obtain the bomb by disgusing their program as a peaceful energy program.

I can only assume why they would hide their nuclear program, because Israel does would be my guess. And as far as the type of reactor they want to build, I haven't read anything about which type of reactor they want, nor am I in a position to guess why they want the one they do.

You've stated yourself that they have a motive to obtain the bomb, namely fear of US, Israel, or some other country's action against them. Plus, they gain power. You've also conceded that even if Iran does have no intentions to use nuke technology to harm others, that it could still fall into the wrong hands. Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism only increases the risk.

Maybe you missed my overall opinion of Iran obtaining a nuke. I don't care if they do, they want and IMO deserve the protection from such a device. Until every nuclear warhead is dismantled there is that threat of one of the over 20,000 nukes worldwide falling into the wrong hands.

I think this is enough for "reasonable concern." I never said the world should invade Iran. Our response should be appropriate for the situation, but you don't want to do anything about it at all.

I never said don't do anything, all I said was they should be allowed to have nuclear power. And if at such a time it is proven that thier intentions are disasterous, then deal with them. How do we know Israel isn't planning to take over the entire Middle East once they reach a certain number of nukes? We don't, but the IAEA can't even get into Dimona for an inspection, yet nobody cares.

In other words, the problem is bad.

Damn right its bad. Its appauling to think between USA and Russia alone there are thousands of these devices.

So, we ought to make the problem worse.

Well, considering the amount of nukes the world has dismantled in the past 10 years, it isn't getting much better.

What is Saudi Arabia doing to acquire nuclear weapons that compares to the activities of Iran? And why is it even relevant to Iran?

Well, the Iraq-Saudi pact for one. Saudi Arabia was funding Saddams nuclear program and Saudi scientists were going to Baghdad for nuclear training (globalsecurity.com). And then there are the missiles that Saudi arabia is interested in obtaining from Pakistan which were designed to carry nuclear warheads. It's relevant in the fact that we don't hear anyone crying about Saudi nuclear intentions, like the USA for one. I would hate to think they are given a green light because they supply so much oil.

In the 1970s Iran sponsored several terrorist organizations through aid and training. Iran continues to fund organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islam Jihad, and PFLP-GC; as well as providing "financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid" to Hizbullah and the Kurdish Workers Party. (Wikipedia)

In the 80s USA sponsored and trained a certain group of terrorists, well, Reagan called them "freedom fighters", we all know who they are. School of America comes to mind.
So Iran isnt the only state that has sponsored terrorists.

Not only that, but does Iraq ring a bell at all?

Iraq? Yeah it's hard to get that name out of my head.

Fine, but Iran is going about it the wrong way if all they want is peaceful nuclear energy.

I agree with you, they should open thier doors, as should Israel to the IAEA and allow full inspections. But on the other hand, if the world is going to allow Israel to defy the IAEA inspections, then why should Iran open thier doors?

At 9/23/05 04:59 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 9/23/05 01:59 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Iran isn't much of a threat to the west. Russia has fuckloads of weapons that are far more accessible to anybody with money, and so far none of them have been used. In fact, if Iran wanted nuclear weapons, it would be more cost-effective for them to just buy them on the black market than to openly build the plants and all. Maybe they're distracting our attention from the real objective! *gasp!*

It doesn't matter if they are a threat to anyone. To let anyone aquire nukes when you could do something is irresponsible. Your just adding another person to the list of people who can destroy the world.

Yeah, I never said it was a good idea for Iran to have nukes. I just mean that we're getting all worked up over somebody trying to build plants that could theoretically allow them to build nuclear weapons, while as we speak there are thousands of WMDs in Russia.

And at that, what makes you so sure there are nukes on the black market? It would seem completely opposite to that, since no terrorist group has used or claimed to have a nuke yet.

Because you can buy anything on the black market in Russia. The mob is (or at least was) more powerful than the government. It has been a largely overlooked issue for over a decade that Russia has a ton of weapons that aren't as secure as they should be.

I think it is frightening that so many countries COULD have nuclear weapons hidden away, and more countries are adding themselves to the list of possibilities. Regardless of UN efforts, I think an extensive anti-nuke installation (like the Star Wars Project or some derivative thereof) is the only way to go for now :(

At 9/23/05 09:34 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Yeah, I never said it was a good idea for Iran to have nukes. I just mean that we're getting all worked up over somebody trying to build plants that could theoretically allow them to build nuclear weapons, while as we speak there are thousands of WMDs in Russia.

Russia having WMD's doesn't scare the fuck out of you? The only comfort I get out of that is that they probably forgot where most of them are. In all actuality, it's not just that we don't want them to have the nukes, it's that once they get the nukes they are untouchable, and a revolution is almost impossible.

Because you can buy anything on the black market in Russia. The mob is (or at least was) more powerful than the government. It has been a largely overlooked issue for over a decade that Russia has a ton of weapons that aren't as secure as they should be.

The mob makes so much money that they wouldn't bother risking selling a nuke. If they sold a nuke and we found out you could gaurantee they would be gone.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that a nuke was stolen from Russia. Maybe some smaller ones.....

At 9/23/05 11:55 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 9/23/05 09:34 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Yeah, I never said it was a good idea for Iran to have nukes. I just mean that we're getting all worked up over somebody trying to build plants that could theoretically allow them to build nuclear weapons, while as we speak there are thousands of WMDs in Russia.

Russia having WMD's doesn't scare the fuck out of you? The only comfort I get out of that is that they probably forgot where most of them are. In all actuality, it's not just that we don't want them to have the nukes, it's that once they get the nukes they are untouchable, and a revolution is almost impossible.

It's definately concerning, that's been my point exactly. Way more concerning than Iran possibly getting them. And I don't find it comforting that they don't know where all of them are because that means that there are undefended nuclear weapons just sitting out there that anybody motivated with money could get their hands on.

To Wyrlum

I am retracting my statements about israel and the lack of IAEA inspections. I had no idea (until just now) that they did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So they are not subject to IAEA inspections, or UN sanctions due to nuclear weapons programs.

Israel, Pakistan and India are the only countries that have yet to sign it, shouldn't this be cause for concern?

At 9/24/05 01:49 AM, Jerconjake wrote: It's definately concerning, that's been my point exactly. Way more concerning than Iran possibly getting them. And I don't find it comforting that they don't know where all of them are because that means that there are undefended nuclear weapons just sitting out there that anybody motivated with money could get their hands on.

Well, thats assuming there is a paper trail. There isn't most of the time. It's not as if the Russian government knowing where they are gives that huge of a disadvantage to anyone willing to steal it, really. It's alot easier to bribe a few soldiers then to go on a massive excavation.

However, this is off the point. Yes it is disturbing that Russia has nukes, but we can't do anything about it, because Russia has nukes. That doesn't mean we should just give up on trying to keep nukes out of the hands of everyone else, however.

At 9/24/05 12:30 PM, Kam-Ron wrote: 1. Would Iran have to buy the enriched uranium from other countries to get it? (I wouldn't think it'd be very cheap to import)

No. They want to make it themself. Im pretty sure this helps to show they are trying to scare the world. They sure as hell dont need to enrich it themself if they just want power.

2. What were some of the economic incentives that countries were offering?

I think it was just trade or contracts or something.

Israel, Pakistan and India are the only countries that have yet to sign it, shouldn't this be cause for concern?

They would sign in as NWS's (Nuclear Weapon States), which means, primarily, that they would not help other countries obtain nuclear weapons. Secondarily, they would have to reduce current stockpiles. Anything else?

The first one might be cause for concern. But there isn't any way to force them to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to them, the treaty's wording is ambiguous, and somone could twist it to declare them in illegal possession of nuclear weapons. Or something like that, they claim. Maybe the best idea would be to clarify/revise the treaty's writing so none of them would have excuses anymore.

As for the second reason, well, that's just a joke right there. Pretty much no one is doing much to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We can't hold them to that even if they do sign.

: 1. Would Iran have to buy the enriched uranium from other countries to get it? (I wouldn't think it'd be very cheap to import)

Yes, the EU has promised them a long-term supply of uranium for their reactors if they stop their enrichment program. As for the cost, it would definately cost a ton. But then making it yourself costs a ton too, plus Iran has to develop its own enrichment program from scratch. I suspect the price reasonable since the EU really wants Iran to agree.

: 2. What were some of the economic incentives that countries were offering?

Letting Iran join the WTO, letting them obtain airplane parts so they can build certain types of airplanes, and so on. Iran has rejected these offers claiming they should have all of them to begin with.

At 9/24/05 12:14 PM, Jimsween wrote: That doesn't mean we should just give up on trying to keep nukes out of the hands of everyone else, however.

Definately, completely agreed.

any country should be allowed to make it's own nuclear energy. The united states is the country i would least trust with any kind of fire arm, let alone nukes. Someone should get rid of Americas nukes, All of them for that matter, but America first.

At 9/26/05 03:40 PM, opposing_forces88 wrote: any country should be allowed to make it's own nuclear energy. The united states is the country i would least trust with any kind of fire arm, let alone nukes. Someone should get rid of Americas nukes, All of them for that matter, but America first.

Wow, just wow. Okay, so you think all countries should get rid of thier nukes, but your perfectly okay with another country getting nukes. Hmm...

And for some reason you think America can't be trusted with thier nukes. I'd really like to hear your explaination for this one, really. The US was repeatedly asked by other countries, ones who now have nukes, to use a nuke for them. France, for example, was begging us to drop two atomic bombs on the Vietnamese army at Diem Bien Phu. Yet we didn't, and even when we faces nearly the same situation at the Chosin reservoir (and Khe Sahn for that matter), we didn't drop a nuke.

We are pretty much the only country who could have dropped a nuke at one time or another and faced no retaliation, but didn't.