Iran 'installing new centrifuges' »
Posted By Bkumm 1 year, 2 months ago in NewsIran has begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its main nuclear site in Natanz, state media quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying.
Read Full Story at news.bbc.co.uk »
350 Views Share Story 47 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Bkumm
Ex-Navy, degrees in History and Marketing and Management.
Socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Just following my own brand of atheistic spiritualism.
" [T]he only purpose for ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 446 of 448 Comments (view all)
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
I'm not sure this is as bad as it sounds, but it certainly shows that NOT engaging them is not working.
Reply-
0%
jimdoze1 year, 2 months ago
How would you "engage" and to what end? I'd recommend you crack an egg on your face to start the "engagement" and save us all the pretend suspense waiting for Iran to do it.
Reply -
0%
m-simon1 year, 2 months ago
Diplomacy works. They are keeping their agreements.
What is not to like?
More diplomacy can only make it better when dealing with such an honorable government.
Reply -
0%
pc251 year, 2 months ago
Some additional info
Russia starts nuclear deliveries to Iran
http://news.propeller.com/story/2007/12/17/-rus...
Exiles: Iran Resumed Nuke Program In '04/Powell Says
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2007/12/12/...
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/4489/152/
Mike McConnell: I Would Change Iran Nuke Report
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/02/08/...
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
Democracy doesn't seem to be working with Ahmadinejad.
The sad thing is so many Iranians are for peace and democracy while the President just ******es off the rest of the world.
What do we do when continued sanctions just aren't working?
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
I think maybe we should try talking to them like they are a sovereign nation with the right to do pretty much as they see fit.
Do you know why the US has not attacked North Korea? They have the bomb. How about China? They treat their people like crap. Oh, that's right, massive economic interests. How about Darfur? Well, we don't want to hack off the Chinese and who really cares, the people there are Black anyway.
If we're really going to say and do things like we are with Iran we need to do it with everybody or it makes us look foolish to the rest of the world.
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
"Well, we don't want to hack off the Chinese and who really cares, the people there are Black anyway."
You were making some sense until here. Bush is one of the most popular cadnidates ever to Africans, get a clue and quit with the race baiting:
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_p...
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) will have expended over $18.8 billion by the end of September, at the close of its first five year phase, will have put close to 2 million persons on life-sustaining therapies. Some 65 to 70 percent of resources and persons reached are in Africa.
Reply
-
-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 2 months ago
Why are a few scribbled lines news worthy? Iran has the right to do this, they don't have the ability to make weapons grad material so why the big fuss? And again I ask why should one country who has nuclear weapons have any say about whether another country obtains them? Move on to real issues people.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
They don't have the ability to make weapons' grade material...yet.
But, even if they do, as you say, they have the right to do so if they think it will improve their national security. Heck, we handed over our rights on a platter to improve our security, why can not Iran develop nuclear weapons?
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
"And again I ask why should one country who has nuclear weapons have any say about whether another country obtains them?"
There's a big difference between a country that has and has used nukes to end a World War and a country who's leadership would like nothing more then to obtain nukes and use them against Israel.
Reply
-
-
0%
jimdoze1 year, 2 months ago
The preceding conversation, particularly the "if we can have it why can't they" logic, is a perfect example of why having the left in charge of foreign policy is dangerous beyond imagination.
Reply-
0%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
I don't think it's "if we can have it why can't they" so much as why do we think we have the right to tell a nation what they can or can not do if we ourselves are heavily engaged in the action we're telling someone else they cannot engage in?
It's called morality. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work too well with children, adults, or.. other nations.
Besides which, they're not breaking any international laws, treaties or agreements. Which means we're just telling them what they should do because we feel like it. That's called being a bully.
Reply -
0%
Jaydee401 year, 2 months ago
Do you want to live in the world or rule the world? A smart person understand it's impossible to rule the world but a republican keeps on trying no matter how much damage it does to the country until it all collapses around them, that crunching sound you hear is the walls falling in around you. America spends as much on it's military as the rest of the world spends collectively, doesn't that ring some bells for you?
Reply -
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
Really? So, engaging other countries and treating them like sovereign nations is dangerous? How would we know? We haven't tried it in over 75 years.
It's called hypocrisy. Think of it this way. Let's say that you and I are neighbors, but I have a much bigger house, more money and wayyy more stuff. You want a lot of the things that I have so you work to get them, but the whole time you're trying to work to get them, I'm constantly telling you that you can't get that stuff AND I'm doing everything in my power to make sure you can't get that stuff.
How would you react to that situation? I know how I would.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 year, 2 months ago
Well, if the cops can carry guns so should the criminals... :)
Reply
-
-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 2 months ago
I think I would have a different view of this if I had any confidence that Iran was being run by a sane government. It certainly SEEMS as though MockMood is nuts. They are (supposedly) governed by a group of people who think their invisible friend informs their every move. How in the world can an outfit like that be permitted to possess nuclear weapons. Hell, I'm not sure WE should be allowed to have them, and we've been pretty restrained with them. Only used twice in all of history. Do you think Iran would exercise that sort of restraint. I'm afraid I do not. Oh.. and if they are allowed to continue with their enrichment program, that "10 years" will go by pretty fast. I'd rather not leave THAT particular threat for my children and grandchildren to deal with. The financial mess is QUITE enough, thank you very much.
Reply -
wasntmeComment removed: User banned.12 Replies
-
-
0%
ThackerAgency1 year, 2 months ago
It's hilarious that the left don't care whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons that could threaten the whole world. BUT THEY DO CARE that homosexuals are executed there merely for being homosexual.
The logic doesn't pass the laugh test, but it's fun to watch such an argument. Nuclear weapons to threaten the world. . . no big deal. Execute gays? THE HORROR!
Of course since they hate Bush so much they are willing to let Iran slide on the whole gay rights issue (like Rosie). Only America can be in violation of global rights according to them. . . and how America treats gays is abominable what with not letting them get married and raise kids and all. America bad, Iran good. . . right lefties?
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.6 Replies
-
-
0%
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
Look, if the Right wants a drum beat for war, why don't they hire Neil Peart or Carl Palmer!
Tarkus anyone?
Reply -
0%
Commodore11 year, 2 months ago
Well this guy doesn't exactly induce trust when he says he wants to nuke Israel off the map. If he does it to Israel will he stop there? Perhaps in his arrogance he could learn to show some trust and do things to acquire it from other nations. Defiance & arrogance don't help his situation at all.
Reply-
0%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
But Israel is somehow more trustworthy when they've actually made plans on exactly where their tactical nuclear strikes will take place within Iran? Huh.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 year, 2 months ago
> If he does it to Israel will he stop there.
He sure will. He and those following his orders will be too dead to continue.
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
That saddest thing about JD is his pathetic attempts at putting words into people mouth in order to make himself feel better and try to prove a point, examples:
"So you start physical confrontation with everyone you hate?"
Never said that and I don't hate anybody.
"Years of history don't mean anything to you do they?"
Never said that and they do.
"Not one thing you just posted has an iota to do with Iran or the article we are commenting on"
Like everything he posts does.
It's little man complex. He knows his country means nothing to the world and is jealous of Americas superiority.
I loved South Park last week with the Canadian WGA (World Candaian Beauru) going on strike and the entire world not giving a crap, oh so real.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 2 months ago
Obviously a question mark is beyond your comprehension, most people respond to question or at least try to defend their position but that must be hard to do when you have no position other than to insult others and rant about things you have no knowledge of. As for your comedic attempt to insult Canada go ahead and give it your best shot, others have and fail miserably. We are simply put better than the US and we know it, years of having higher standards of living, education, healthcare, and so on kind of give you that feeling of being better. And of course not pi$$ing off the rest of the world helps as well. Any time Canada feels bad about it's self we could always shut of the Oil, water, electricity and food we ship to the US and watch the result for fun but we are to nice to do that aren't we.
Reply
-
-
0%
Poulenc1 year, 2 months ago
Ah, the old loyalty (righties, and to America) versus fairness (lefties, to all) debate!
I think one issue is vulnerability, which America measures low in. Hard to side with those who hold all the cards, and also, on top of that, reserve the right to deal all hands.
Reply -
0%
simonsez1 year, 2 months ago
I'm not concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon. Like Ron Paul said " Russia has 40,000 and can't account for 10% of them and we worry about Iran having one".
Iran has a legitimate need for nuclear power plants. They have only one refinery for fuel, so they have severe shortage of gas at the pump. Nuclear power would be clean for the region.
I know they would understand if they make a weapon and use it, either the USA or Israel could/would destroy their country. We will have a base on their border for many years to come, so they will know we could move quickly.
I was impressed by how easily Israel destroyed that facility under construction in Syria while there was no mention of what they were up to either before or after.
I personally believe the chain rattling is all talk anyway.
Reply-
0%
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 2 months ago
Words of wisdom simonsez.....
As I've mentioned several times, Israel WILL act, IF it thinks the threat is real.... It hasn't hit Iran, yet.....
Reply -
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
"They have only one refinery for fuel, so they have severe shortage of gas at the pump. Nuclear power would be clean for the region."
Let's see, they have shortage of gas and only one refinery and they:
1. Build more refineries
2. Build nuclear centrifgues
Mind you, last I checked cars don't run on nuclear power. While I understand nuclear power would cut the countries dependence on oil, wouldn't it make more sense to at least do BOTH?
Reply -
-
0%
ChefEOD1 year, 2 months ago
I wonder how many refineries they could have built and how much quicker they would have been built if they had taken the $ they have put into their nuclear program and built refineries? After all, they already own their own oil.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 year, 2 months ago
> Iran has a legitimate need for nuclear power plants. They have only one refinery for fuel, so they have severe shortage of gas at the pump. Nuclear power would be clean for the region.
To me having only one refinery for fuel and spending billions on nuclear enrichment sounds... well, illogical. I would rather spend these billions on oil refineries ending once and for all the severe shortage of gas at the pump... which will remain there even if Iran WILL build a couple of nuclear power stations.
> I know they would understand if they make a weapon and use it, either the USA or Israel could/would destroy their country.
Unfortunately, some (or many) of them do not care about their own country being destroyed in exchange of destroying Israel (Gaza is a perfect example of such mindset). Even less fortunate is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis who will die as a result of an Iranian attack will not be resurrected.
Reply
-
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
Let's think about this more clearly. Why is the US involved in the Middle East? There are only two reasons:
1. Israel
2. Oil
The Arab/Muslim sword rattling over the state of Israel isn't in touch with reality and they know it. Iran doesn't want a bomb to protect itself from Israel, they want a bomb to protect themselves from the US. However, if the Israelis sense that there is a threat from Iran they WILL attack. They did it recently against Syria and they did it against Iraq as well. They may have told the US they were going to attack, but they didn't ask permission. So, the US agreement to back Israel against all comers is a bit dicey because the Israelis will do what they see as in the best interests of their country knowing that the US will back them no matter what. Essentially, it holds US foreign policy hostage to the needs of the security of the state of Israel.
cont
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
Secondly, if the US did not have a national addiction to oil this would all be moot. The US does not get a large amount of oil from Iran, but we have to keep the region relatively stable to continue to get oil from our "friends" the House of Saud.
If we were spending a portion of the vast resources we are spending in Iraq on different sources of energy instead of oil we might be able to look at this rationally. Until then, we will continue to stabilize and destabilize as much as possible to keep getting the lifeblood of our economy out of the region.
This really isn't about Iran, Israel and nuclear weapons at all. It's about SUV's, Malls of America and money. That's it.
Reply -
0%
Thinker221 year, 2 months ago
> Israelis will do what they see as in the best interests of their country knowing that the US will back them no matter what.
Let it be known that the Israelis will defend themselves EVEN if the US will not back them. On the other hand, it's in the US best interests to prevent Iran or the Arabs from attacking Israel as such attack will, probably, trigger a global nuclear conflict.
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
"Let's think about this more clearly. Why is the US involved in the Middle East?"
Why were we involved in Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Laos & Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia....
Here's a more complete list-notice all the countries that don't have oil. Also note all the countries before Israel even existed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Sta...
Our President's have always had the responsibilty to protect our country from trheats both foreign and domestic.
Does oil factor in? I'm sure
Does our ALLY Israel? I'm sure
I'm also sure that stabalizing the ME and preventing further attacks against Americans was pretty high up on the list as well.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
Well, you bring up nations that are outside of the Middle East and since I specifically didn't say, "Why is the US involved all over the world", then I guess those other places don't really answer the question, do they?
If you'll look at the list closely you will notice that the vast majority of those conflicts were fought for economic interests. If we take just the first three on the list:
American Revolution -- "No taxation without representation". More about economics than freedom.
Whiskey Rebellion -- President Washington called out the militia to put down a bunch of farmers who refused to pay taxes on whiskey. Economics again.
The Quasi-War with France -- economic issues in the long war between England and France.
You see, economics drives everything and the fact that our economy is driven by oil counts for a LOT.
Reply -
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 2 months ago
''I'm also sure that stabalizing the ME and preventing further attacks against Americans was pretty high up on the list as well.''
still buying that defense and democracy stuff proffered for US foreign policy?
the question was about our involvement in the ME
as for those other countries not in the ME you cite, how many of those were about a threat to US security?
Stabilizing the ME? These guys never thought invading Iraq would bring stability to the ME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
at least one guy understood what would happen in Iraq, and it wasn't stability
[its the 1994 Cheney clip so you don't have to bother clicking if you've seen it]
They knew EXACTLY what would happen. It ain't stability
so what was their real motivation, if the 'threat' of Iraq has been thoroughly debunked and they knew that the ME would be destabilized by invasion?
I'm afraid I'm with Bkumm
It's all about the D.O.E, G
Reply
-
-
0%
newbie04201 year, 2 months ago
"Secondly, if the US did not have a national addiction to oil this would all be moo"
Most of the civilized WORLD has an addiction to oil, not just the big bad US....
I'm all for cutting our dependency on foreign oil but quit blaming the US for the WORLDS oil problems.
Reply-
0%
simonsez1 year, 2 months ago
The ONLY thing oil is good for is to run our machines.
This word "addiction" is a liberal word, like we are hooked on it, but could get off. We can't and won't get off in your lifetime or mine. Even if we went full blast in a different direction, you or I would not have enough money to pay for it.
Reply -
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
How much of global oil production goes to the US or to feed the consumer economy of the US? The US uses more than a quarter of the oil produced in the world with only 5% of the population. Do you see how the US is certainly a large portion of the problem?
Further, no other nation on Earth has either the capacity or the will to protect its economic interests like the US. The US "defense" budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined. Think about it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
Crappy. I wish Summer would get here or at least some semblance of Spring.
Reply
-
-
0%
THOMNH621 year, 2 months ago
hey simon I hate to break it to you but as a chemist I can tell you that the hydrocarbon molecules found in crude are used to make everything from the plastic water bottle you drink from to the tubing used in hospitals to polymers which keep you town waste treatment plant running. Getting of oil does not simply mean driving an electric car. The list of Hydrocarbon based materials is endless and to long to list but the next time you touch something ask what is it made from.
Reply -
0%
THOMNH621 year, 2 months ago
here is a short list
Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician's tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing nets, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring,
Reply -
0%
THOMNH621 year, 2 months ago
need more
hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, nylons, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers,
Reply -
-
0%
simonsez1 year, 2 months ago
The surprise is when you quit oil, then wood has to replace everything we use today and we begin cutting the rain forests and then global warming wipes out all the species we eat and crops won't grow and then all the metal rusts and rots out and the bridges start falling .but we have no tools to repair them and we don't have enough horses or elephants to fill the gap and then the insects invade and we all die.
Have a nice day ...
Reply -
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
Only because the Conservatives and their allies in the oil, automobile and money industries won't put the resources into becoming truly oil independent.
It's a lot like the Liberals and their allies in the environmental movement and unions not being interested in going to space.
Of course I'm a Liberal and would be happy to use facts as long as Conservatives do the same.
Reply -
0%
Isoparm1 year, 2 months ago
Isn't the vast majority of hydrocarbon production still used not as chemical feedstock, but as fuel?. If we could reduce consumption for fuel usage, and increase shale oil production (especially as crude is approx. $100), this would go a ways toward energy dependence. Doesn't our reserves of shale-oil dwarf the crude reserves in the ME? Using HC's as fuels is not the best utilization of this important resource.
Silicon is also a material that I think has vast potential in replacing carbon in many products, as they have similar chemical properties, and there is a bit more of it, something like approx. 28% of earth's mass. If we are smart, things don't have to come crashing to a shuddering halt.
If we are smart.
Reply -
OnionHeadComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 2 months ago
so if I understand simon and thomnh right, we have no choice but to use oil, and since if I understand right oil is a finite resource, then we have no choice but to use it all until its gone and let our children's children's children worry about the consequence, the insects invading and the depleted rain forests etc.
so all conservation is just a pipedream and we are like sailors on the sea in a permanent doldrum, doomed to eat all our rations and turn to cannibalism [like preying on weaker peoples and taking their 'resources' contained in their flesh?]
so any 'involvement' in the ME is merely an example of 'why put off till tomorrow those you can kill today?'
and liberals are just too stupid and namby-pamby to understand this inevitable Darwinian pretext we live under, tho they trumpet Darwin over Divinity on a regular basis?
That about sum it up?
Reply -
-
0%
THOMNH621 year, 2 months ago
BKUMM
How do you suggest we make all the things listed, Simon wants us to stop using oil, the facts are that we don't just burn oil in our cars, it is used to make everything that makes your life possible, those are facts, I am open minded but just how do you intend on existing without all those things, and that was just a short list.
Reply-
0%
Isoparm1 year, 2 months ago
This where we have to think smart. All that carbon that is being consumed as fuels and products hasn't gone anywhere. It's accumulating in the environment. We need to figure out how to convert it back into forms that we can use. As this takes energy, this is where solar power comes in. Clean energy resource (or nuclear). This where we need to put more emphasis on research on carbon and its compounds, and the synthesis there of.
I think that there is still great potential for silicon, and silicon/carbon compounds to replace many of those things that we currently rely exclusively on HC's for.
In a changing world, we have to start being creative about these things. We all should become as knowledgeable about this stuff as we can, as the more people you have thinking about this, the more likely that someone will have that light-bulb moment, and shout to the world "Urethra"! and then we'll be another step along.
Reply -
-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 2 months ago
I can think of at least a dozen different things to use rather than hydrocarbons for those purposes mentioned. But, as Isoparm points out, the majority of the fossil fuel used is for either power generation or fuel for vehicles. Eliminating that would go a long way towards reducing the oil dependence of the US.
You do realize the US still exports oil, right?
Reply -
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.