Iran said willing to attack U.S. soil
jeff744 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:29 pm
martin14 martin14:
right, so the IAEA is just a tool of George Bush........
And you are wrong of course... nuclear help to Iran stopped in 1979.
are you a patsy, or are you being paid for this ?
No, I just don't tend to trust groups that only take an interest in Iran after the US does. They also have yet to actually confirm something, it is filled with "we believe" instead of actually confirming anything. Nuclear help stopped when Iran overthrew the Shah, so, basically the day Iran decided to have their own, legitimate government. Look into their history and basically everything negative since their democracy was overthrown can be linked to the US. Hell, before the US decided they knew best, Iran was on a path to becoming a socialist country.
Gunnair @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:35 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
jeff744 jeff744:
Funny how despite the fact Iran has never engaged in an actual hostile action against another country they are made to be the enemy.
And here I thought they had a fight with Iraq or something...
And yet they did not start it, nor did they use WMDs in response to the Iraqi use of them, in fact Iraq used almost all of their US supplied WMDs on Iran. Funny how that works out.
Not quite what you said.
jeff744 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:38 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Not quite what you said.
A technicality raised by me forgetting to add "aggressive" before hostile.
Thanos @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:44 pm
BRAH BRAH:
Iran's ruling Mullahs care more about survival than anything else and know they would be wiped off the face of the Earth so these threats of possible attacks will never happen..
Correct. In autocracies and other dictatorships it's essential for the rulers to portray themselves as much tougher and better armed than they actually are. If Saddam had allowed the UN inspectors full access to Iraq he'd probably still be alive and in charge right now. Local rules though said he had to make himself out to be far more dangerous than he turned out to be in reality. It's probably identical in Iran, where Mahmoud gets to play the tough guy while the imams in the background are there for the "good cop" role when the time comes.
The bigger problem is that the US and Israel probably haven't learned a thing since 2003. They'll combine their false intelligence, their own internal politics, and take the Iranian propaganda at face value. All in all it'll eventually result in a repeat of the Iraq invasion, another total bollocks that in hindsight will be seen as completely unjustifiable. "WMD's! OMG! OMG! OMG!" will rapidly turn "sandpaper to attract all the terrorist to the one location" and then into "nation building" and "giving democracy a chance to thrive". I can hardly believe that the odds are no less than 50-50 that we're going to see the same slo-mo disaster that happened in Iraq unfold again in Iran with the only difference being that it occurred a decade apart. Dick Cheney legacy with the "1% chance" nonsense he left behind him is going to haunt US foreign policy for the next thirty years like an uncurable case of herpes.
martin14 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:48 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
martin14 martin14:
right, so the IAEA is just a tool of George Bush........
And you are wrong of course... nuclear help to Iran stopped in 1979.
are you a patsy, or are you being paid for this ?
No, I just don't tend to trust groups that only take an interest in Iran after the US does. They also have yet to actually confirm something, it is filled with "we believe" instead of actually confirming anything. Nuclear help stopped when Iran overthrew the Shah, so, basically the day Iran decided to have their own, legitimate government. Look into their history and basically everything negative since their democracy was overthrown can be linked to the US. Hell, before the US decided they knew best, Iran was on a path to becoming a socialist country.
Again the straw with the US.. just cant help yourself I guess.
The IAEA has an entire section only on Iran, reports, resolutions, the lot.
And it started after the mullahs got it and started refusing inspections
from the IAEA.. nothing to do with the US.
Freakinoldguy @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:38 pm
It's really to bad to see one of the worlds great civilizations reduced to a giant gong show by a couple of freaky ayatollahs and the second most inbred man on the planet.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt that much to turn it into a giant pane of glass since that's what it's leaders seem to be aiming for.
DanSC @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:38 pm
GreenTiger GreenTiger:
It looks like His Excellency Ayatolah Ali Khamenei is in ahurry to meet his 72 virgins.
If only he was in a hurry instead of compelling others to hurry up.
jeff744 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:56 pm
martin14 martin14:
jeff744 jeff744:
martin14 martin14:
right, so the IAEA is just a tool of George Bush........
And you are wrong of course... nuclear help to Iran stopped in 1979.
are you a patsy, or are you being paid for this ?
No, I just don't tend to trust groups that only take an interest in Iran after the US does. They also have yet to actually confirm something, it is filled with "we believe" instead of actually confirming anything. Nuclear help stopped when Iran overthrew the Shah, so, basically the day Iran decided to have their own, legitimate government. Look into their history and basically everything negative since their democracy was overthrown can be linked to the US. Hell, before the US decided they knew best, Iran was on a path to becoming a socialist country.
Again the straw with the US.. just cant help yourself I guess.
The IAEA has an entire section only on Iran, reports, resolutions, the lot.
And it started after the mullahs got it and started refusing inspections
from the IAEA.. nothing to do with the US.
All wiki below
$1:
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement[dead link], on 14 November 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program (enrichment is not a violation of the NPT) and the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, after pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany acting on behalf of the European Union (EU, known in this context as the EU-3). The measure was said at the time to be a voluntary, confidence-building measure, to continue for some reasonable period of time (six months being mentioned as a reference) as negotiations with the EU-3 continued
$1:
In February 2005, Iran pressed the EU-3 to speed up talks, which the EU-3 refused to do so.[91] The talks made little progress because of the divergent positions of the two sides.[92] In early August 2005, after the June election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's President, Iran removed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan,[93] which UK officials termed a "breach of the Paris Agreement"[94] though a case can be made that the EU violated the terms of the Paris Agreement by demanding that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment.
$1:
Around 2005, Germany refused to export any more nuclear equipment or refund money paid by Iran for such equipment in the 1980s.[58] (See European reactions 1979–89.)
In August 2005, with the assistance of Pakistan[97] a group of US government experts and international scientists concluded that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran.[98] In September 2005, IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei reported that "most" highly enriched uranium traces found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components, validating Iran's claim that the traces were due to contamination. Sources in Vienna and the State Department reportedly stated that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue has been resolved.
In August 2005, with the assistance of Pakistan[97] a group of US government experts and international scientists concluded that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran.[98] In September 2005, IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei reported that "most" highly enriched uranium traces found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components, validating Iran's claim that the traces were due to contamination. Sources in Vienna and the State Department reportedly stated that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue has been resolved.
$1:
On 4 February 2006, the 35 member Board of Governors of the IAEA voted 27–3 (with five abstentions: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa) to report Iran to the UN Security Council. The measure was sponsored by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, and it was backed by the United States. Two permanent council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition that the council take no action before March. The three members who voted against referral were Venezuela, Syria and Cuba.[100][101] In response, on 6 February 2006, Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and all other voluntary and non-legally binding cooperation with the IAEA beyond what is required by its safeguards agreement.
$1:
In late February 2006, IAEA Director Mohammad El-Baradei raised the suggestion of a deal, whereby Iran would give up industrial-scale enrichment and instead limit its program to a small-scale pilot facility, and agree to import its nuclear fuel from Russia (see nuclear fuel bank). The Iranians indicated that while they would not be willing to give up their right to enrichment in principle, they were willing to[103] consider the compromise solution. However in March 2006, the Bush Administration made it clear that they would not accept any enrichment at all in Iran.
$1:
In Resolution 1696 July 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities.[111]
In UN Security Council Resolution 1737 of 26 December 2006, the Council imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution deciding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay.[112] These sanctions were primarily targeted against the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies[113] and, in response to concerns of China and Russia, were lighter than that sought by the United States.[114] This resolution followed a report from the IAEA that Iran had permitted inspections under its safeguards agreement but had not suspended its enrichment-related activities.
In UN Security Council Resolution 1737 of 26 December 2006, the Council imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution deciding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay.[112] These sanctions were primarily targeted against the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies[113] and, in response to concerns of China and Russia, were lighter than that sought by the United States.[114] This resolution followed a report from the IAEA that Iran had permitted inspections under its safeguards agreement but had not suspended its enrichment-related activities.
Actually, it looks like it all started going south after people decided that instead of allowing Iran some enrichment, they went with Bush's decision to get rid of it all.
martin14 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:18 pm
you dont know what enrichment is, or what it is used for....
jeff744 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:29 pm
martin14 martin14:
you dont know what enrichment is, or what it is used for....
Make the specific uranium isotope more concentrated by removing less wanted ones. I also know that unless you want a shitty bomb that probably won't work you better get around 80% enrichment, Iran is at 20% (just barely HEU) while up to about 50% is entirely acceptable for peaceful purposes.
martin14 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:35 pm
and how much enrichment do you need for an NPP ?
I'll give you time to look it up.........
And after, you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.
There is only one answer to that question.. but we know you will dodge it. 
jeff744 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:40 pm
martin14 martin14:
and how much enrichment do you need for an NPP ?
I'll give you time to look it up.........
And after, you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.
There is only one answer to that question.. but we know you will dodge it.
I'll give you time to look it up.........
And after, you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.
There is only one answer to that question.. but we know you will dodge it.
Once you have 20% you are legally a nuclear power, makes for great headlines when your people are pro-nuclear. Funny how they have proven entirely open to compromise but for some reason nobody is willing to talk to them about it, maybe actually letting them maintain an enrichment program for internal use would make some progress instead of simply saying "no" every time they ask to have their own legal; program. Iran hasn't broken any rules about notifying the IAEA about the facilities either (in fact, they do it long before they need to) but they regularly get accused of hiding them.
martin14 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:44 pm
dodge.
you fail.
answer the question please.
and how much enrichment do you need for an NPP ?
And after, you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.
jeff744 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:52 pm
martin14 martin14:
dodge.
you fail.
answer the question please.
and how much enrichment do you need for an NPP ?
And after, you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.
you fail.
answer the question please.
and how much enrichment do you need for an NPP ?
And after, you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.
Actually, I did answer, up to 50% can be used in a nuclear reactor (generally naval reactors), up to 30% is more common though (Fermi 1 used ~26%). Now you explain why no evidence has yet been found proving Iran has a nuclear program.
martin14 @ Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:57 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Actually, I did answer, up to 50% can be used in a nuclear reactor (generally naval reactors), up to 30% is more common though (Fermi 1 used ~26%). Now you explain why no evidence has yet been found proving Iran has a nuclear program.
quote me your source for that please.
On second thought, it isnt needed. A nuclear sub is an offensive weapon,
something the Iranians say they dont want, so how could they develop it ?
Jeff, wake up a bit.
A CIVILIAN nuclear power plant uses uranium enriched to between
3
to
5
%
not 20, not 30, not 50............................... maximum 5 %
so, now...
you can explain to me why the Iranians continue to enrich uranium
when they obviously dont need to.