Comments for Iran 'installing new centrifuges' »
Posted By Bkumm 1 year, 8 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 448
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would engage them by talking to them and treating them like a sovereign nation. When we dictate to them what they may or may not do to defend themselves while we develop new and more advanced weapons it makes us look hypocritical.
I truly do not understand your "egg" comment.
Reply-
Neutral
earthlingerer1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think he was trying to get at the fact that ANY talk the US had to give to Iran to stop pursuing enrichment, whether for energy or weapons would leave "egg on the face" of washington, from a standpoint of sheer hypocrisy and double standard-bearing.
If I were Iran, with nukes on either side of me, and the "world police" kicking in my neighbors' doors, shooting everyone in the face, and then stealing all their valuables, you can bet I'd be looking to create some "back up".
It's funny how the current administration refuses to talk to Iran, after all the trouble that could have been avoided. It's almost like talking to Iran would spoil some plan long in the works.
If they do get nukes, it's a pretty good insurance plan against somebody trying to "shock and awe" away their oil. Iran has had excellent "poker face" for THOUSANDS of years.
Reply-
Neutral
m-simon1 year, 8 months ago
-
OnionHeadComment removed: Retracted by user15 Replies
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
M. Simon
>>How will they be able to keep hanging 16 yr old gays if the USA deposes their government?
And the more we threaten them, the more they turn to the fanatic hard-liners. Before W's famous "axis of evil" comments, they were actually electing moderates & heading away from the fanatic fringes. After W's bellicosity towards them, the people turned to who they thought could best protect them from us.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Brilliant, 'papa'!
It's all OUR fault! WE make the Iranians fanatical! WE turn them into nuke-building terrorists! WE got Ahmadinejad elected! WE did all these things!
If that is all true, then why aren't WE influential enough to REMOVE the ayatollahs from power?
I think your analysis of Ahmadinejad's election is a bit out of the mainstream of even LIBERAL thought on the subject. According to Robin Wright, writer for the LA Times, Ahmadinejad came to power NOT because he was a fanatic, but because he was seen as a REFORMER who ran a 'clean' government as mayor of Tehran, cracking down on corrupt officials. According to her, the people are sick of the ayatollahs, who are corrupt as well as fanatical, and the people chose Ahmadinejad as a jab in the eye of the ayatollahs: he's the first NON-AYATOLLAH to hold the office in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
svensun
It's said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Apparently, you haven't learned much history from that region.
1st, we, the US, overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED prime minister in Iran because he was going to nationalize his oil. Imagine that, wanting control of his own resources.
2nd, the rise of Khomeni was the result of this overthrow, the increasing brutality of the Shah, & our support of the Shah.
3rd, Iran WAS becoming more moderate. The reports during the early part of this century was that the ayatollahs were losing their power. Iran was even helping us in Afghanistan w/intel. It also requested direct communication & negotiation w/the US. Up to the point where Bush started calling it part of the axis of evil & threatening it.
Even if W can't remember more than a few minutes or hours of history doesn't mean the rest of the world can't.
So, yes. What's going on in Iran right now is a direct result of our interference.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...we, the US, overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED prime minister in Iran because he was going to nationalize his oil. Imagine that, wanting control of his own resources.
Of course! It were the American soldiers who did it (NOT the Iranians) and the Iranians were SO DUMB that it took them 35 years to replace the American(!) Shah with the "more moderate" Khomeini.
Any more revelations?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It was a CIA plot to overthrow the government. So what if it was the Iranians - a small fringe - that took power. Just like Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Peru, & dozens of other dictators we, the US, put into power around the world.
And it took 35 years. So what? How long did it take to throw off control of the Soviet Union? And how long before we threw off the British crown?
I never said Khomeni was "more moderate." But if you don't realize by now that brutal oppression drives the oppressed to radicalism, then you should really consider changing your name.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> It was a CIA plot to overthrow the government. So what if it was the Iranians - a small fringe - that took power.
Well, if it was the Iranians that took power it means that is was the Iranians that took power... not the Americans.
> And it took 35 years. So what? How long did it take to throw off control of the Soviet Union?
I do not recall the Russians blaming Germany for the Communism... despite the fact that it were Germans who secretly smuggled Lenin into Russia back in 1917. Do you?
> And how long before we threw off the British crown?
Did "we" (the US) blame Mexico, France, China, Russia or any other country for it?
> I never said Khomeni was "more moderate."
You did not? If so who did you refer to as "more moderate"?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Well, if it was the Iranians that took power it means that is was the Iranians that took power... not the Americans.
Aided, supported, armed & funded by the CIA. Last I looked, that was a US government organization.
>>Did "we" (the US) blame Mexico, France, China, Russia or any other country for it?
No. But Native Americans sure have / had a problem w/Britain, France, Spain & any other colonizing countries. Unfortunately for them, they never had the military might to throw off their oppressors.
>>You did not? If so who did you refer to as "more moderate"?
Go back and re-read what I said. I said BEFORE W's speeches, they were moving in a more moderate direction. The election of the hard-liner Ahmadinejad was AFTER W's speeches.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Aided, supported, armed & funded by the CIA. Last I looked, that was a US government organization.
As I've said it were the Iranians that took power from other Iranians. 55 years later their grandchildren and their supporters still continue to blame Americans for their own inability to replace the leaders they did not like with leaders they like better. During the last 25 years the Iranians have the leadership they like, from Khomeini to Ahmadinejad but somehow they still blame others even for that.
> Native Americans sure have / had a problem w/Britain, France, Spain & any other colonizing countries. Unfortunately for them, they never had the military might to throw off their oppressors.
I can assure you that almost every other groups of people on this planet (with very few exceptions) has similar problems. Very few (almost always Muslims) chose to seek solutions to their problems by mass murder of innocent people. Others somehow learned to live in peace.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A small fringe group overthrew a democratically elected government with the support & weapons of the US. When no other group in the country had weapons or intel equal to what we supplied, how could they retake their gov't?
And no, they're not blaming the US for their leaders. But Khomeni TOOK power from another who TOOK power prior to that. The general population was beginning to moderate with the leadership actually looking to direct talks w/the US until W threatened them. THEY selected a person who could match the rhetoric of the threats coming from DC.
And the few exceptions? Does that include N Ireland that took direct involvement of the Clinton admin to alleviate? Or Russian in Chechnia? Or maybe the Congo? or Serbia? Or the oppression by China? Darfur? How about India & Pakistan? And what about hate crimes in this country against Black, Hispanics, Muslims or Muslim-looking, gays, etc?
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> A small fringe group overthrew a democratically elected government with the support & weapons of the US. When no other group in the country had weapons or intel equal to what we supplied, how could they retake their gov't?
Pretty simple. You see, if the group that overthrew a democratically elected government was "small and fringe" than the large and mainstream remainder of the Iranian population would certainly find a way to get weapons or intel equal to what we supplied (from the Soviets, for example) and retake their gov't in a very short time.
Reply -
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> And the few exceptions? Does that include N Ireland that took direct involvement of the Clinton admin to alleviate? Or Russian in Chechnia? Or maybe the Congo? or Serbia? Or the oppression by China? Darfur? How about India & Pakistan? And what about hate crimes in this country against Black, Hispanics, Muslims or Muslim-looking, gays, etc?
No, it does not. At least, I do not recall all those you've listed running around killing innocent people all over the world trying to solve their problems.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>At least, I do not recall all those you've listed running around killing innocent people all over the world trying to solve their problems
So killing innocents at their homes or in their neighbors' homes is OK with you.
And if you believe that Iran is "running around killing innocent people all over the world" then you are beyond hope.
Most of your posts concerning the Middle East show a flagrant bigotry towards Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, and basically anyone not Israel or the US or its allies. Your blind hatred of us of ME origin is frightening, to say the least.
Since you can't think beyond your own bigotry, I'm done w/you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>> So according to you, the only bloody group is the Arab & Persian Muslim population.
>>No, it's according TO YOU. I've NEVER said nor implied anything like that.
OK. Here's where you show your true nature. Your words were:
"Very few (almost always Muslims) chose to seek solutions to their problems by mass murder of innocent people. Others somehow learned to live in peace."
That statement implies that Muslims are almost the only group in world that, and I quote YOUR WORDS, "seek solutions to their problems by mass murder of innocent people."
Now try to deny that you said it. Read through the thread - they're your own words, not mine.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I said BEFORE W's speeches, they were moving in a more moderate direction. The election of the hard-liner Ahmadinejad was AFTER W's speeches.
Yes, you did say that. You did not say, however, WHO those "they" were and you've refused to answer my question about it. I'm afraid that you simply DON'T KNOW who those "more moderate" were.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His name is Mohammad Khatami and this is his interview with Christiane Amanpour 10 years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/07/iran/interview...
>> we have declared our opposition to the Middle East peace process because we believe it will not succeed.
>> The Israeli intransigence in the course of the current peace process, and its failure to honor its own undertakings has enraged even U.S. allies in the region. In my view, peace can come to the Middle East when all Palestinians, Jews and Muslims alike, can determine the future of the land.
In other words, in his interview ADDRESSED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE this "moderate" Iranian President declared Iranian opposition to the peace process in the Middle East and called for destruction of Israel.
It seems that moderation is... well, relative and compared to Ahmadinejad or Hitler Khatami was "moderate" indeed.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Ahmadinejad came to power NOT because he was a fanatic, but because he was seen as a REFORMER
Are you nuts? Ahmadinejad was one of those who stormed the US embassy. I have a friend whose father was on the Shah's general staff, & I have it on the best authority that this man is NOT a "reformer" but a hard-liner. He was elected because he basically promised to protect Iran from the US & W's reckless actions.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right. So much for the Iranians moderating their government.
But, if you read & remember history, they reverted to the more hard-line Ahmadinejad AFTER Bush starting threatening them. And AFTER the Bush administration refused their request to open communications.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> ...they reverted to the more hard-line Ahmadinejad AFTER Bush starting threatening them. And AFTER the Bush administration refused their request to open communications.
Yes... and my neighbor died after eating some Greek salad. As a matter of fact, every person who ate Greek salad even once eventually died. It is possible to use this amazing fact as a proof of deadly harmfulness of the Greek salad in exactly the same way as you're using Bush's actions to explain the actions of the Iranians.
Would you agree that the name of the next American President will be decided by declarations of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or even Vladimir Putin? If not you'll have to agree that the same principle applies to the Iranians who elected THEIR President.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are definitely not living up to your name.
FYI, the MODERATE candidate was leading in the polls prior to W's threats. After he started w/his BS, the people started supporting the more hard-line, radical candidate. The reason, they said, was BECAUSE OF W's THREATS!
And, since you seem to have forgotten recent history, the only reason W stayed relatively high in the polls during the '04 campaign was because every time his popularity started slipping, either the threat level would be raised of some mysterious threat, or OBL would miraculously be aired.
So, yes, the name of the president was at least partially influenced by OBL & Al Queda.
Reply-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> FYI, the MODERATE candidate was leading in the polls prior to W's threats.
I've already shown you how "moderate" Khatami was. Just like his predecessor and successor he rejected the Middle East peace process and called for destruction of Israel.
> ...the only reason W stayed relatively high in the polls during the '04 campaign was because every time his popularity started slipping, either the threat level would be raised of some mysterious threat, or OBL would miraculously be aired.
If you believe that this was the ONLY reason for Bush' success and that his opponents DID NOT use any similar tactics you must be pretty naive. On the other hand, no one (including the American and, yes, Iranian voters) lives in a vacuum on this planet. Thinking people tend to adjust their votes to the actions they expect from those they vote for. This does not mean, however, that the results of the elections were FULLY determined by some declarations of a foreign leader.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, you need to argue with Robin Wright, not with me. She is a journalist who has covered the ME for many years for LA Times, etc, and has a new book out on Iran.
SHE said that Ahmadinejad's election was seen by the Iranian people as a slap at the clerics - Khatami is a CLERIC. The Iranians, according to HER, view the clerics as corrupt and insensitive to the needs of the people.
I am NO expert on Iran-argue with Robin Wright, or refute her with facts, citations, etc. The fact that Ahmadinejad might have been one of the US Embassy occupiers does NOT prove your point.
Regarding Ahmadinejad's 'promises' vis a vis the US, are you suggesting that Khatami did NOT promise to protect Iran from the US? Don't you think anti-Americanism is a staple of EVERY Iranian politician approved by the ruling council of clerics to run for office?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>I wish that Iran would treat Iraq like a sovereign nation instead of shipping arms there and infiltrating it with Revolutionary Guards. Talk about hypocrites.
Iran's Shi'ia gov't is supporting Iraq's Shi'ia gov't & Shi'ia militias.
The hypocrisy comes from the US supporting other Arab nations' Sunni gov'ts against radical Shi'ia & the Iraqi Shi'ia gov't against the radical Sunnis who, btw, are fighting to rid Iraq of the US AND Al Quaeda involvements in their country.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And what is the US doing? Making the world safe for a greater American Empire?
You can't have it both ways. If there were a powerful army in Mexico led by a nation that had called us part of the "Axis of Evil" don't you think we would be doing what we could to destabilize them?
We can keep saying we're the "good guys", but until our government starts acting like it, it's going to be awfully hard to sell that to the rest of the world.
Hence, the centrifuges...
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sure I can refute it. North America doesn't compare to the Middle East so the comparison is invalid. We actually are experiencing incursions by the Mexican military escorting drug shipments so I was being accurate in my description. The point is that we are having plenty of problems with our neighbor to the South and we aren't sending infiltrators there to arm religious militias.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your point is invalid. You are conflating the difference between an regular army and a militia. If the Mexican Military is escorting drug shipments across the US-Mexican border I would like more information on that, please.
If true, it is an outrage of epic proportions.
However, the comparison is valid in its hypothetical situation.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Department of Homeland Security documents and maps showing that Mexican military has crossed into the United States 216 times in the past nine years. In the documents U.S. officials claimed the incursions are being made to help foreign drug and human smugglers into the United States.
Many incidents have seen Mexican troops fire on U.S. border agents. "
http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2008/0603...
http://forums.ugo.com/archive/index.php/t-28839...
So, Bkumm, are you outraged yet?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If true it's outrageous, but I'm a little leery of your sources. Alex Jones believes that the members of the Branch Davidians were victims of the US government and peaceful people. He also believes that the US government (and Israel) were complicit in bringing down the WTC. So, I have some questions as to the reliability of your sources.
Also, if members of the Mexican military are invading the US to assist drug dealers that is an act of war. I can not imagine, with this Administration, that that would be allowed.
More information is needed.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's true. There are many examples of such incursions and you can find them yourself with a brief Google search. Don't take my word for it. President Bush is being that accomodating with the Mexican Government. The point is that we aren't reacting without restraint with respect to Mexico and Iran should do the same.
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bkumm, your point about Alex Jones is well-made, but HE is not the source of the stories; the source is Sara Carter, a reporter for a local newspaper in Ontario, CA, and the other source is a KFOX TV news crew that actually SAW the border incursion.
I don't think these incidents can be dismissed by simply dismissing the credibility of the sources.
What's more troubling is that these stories have NOT been more widely reported on by the MSM. You would think stories of border incursions by armed men into the US would merit front page coverage, but apparently not.
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm, check out this video from MSNBC last October:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4vMv9AaEAU
TJ Bonner, head of a group that represents BORDER PATROL AGENTS, CONFIRMS the figure of 216 incursions and says it is sounds LOW. He confirms that just last year, TWO Border Patrol agents were SHOT by Mexican military invaders across the border.
Are you outraged yet?
Reply -
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm, you also expressed surprise that THIS Administration would tolerate such incursions across our borders. I do not understand why you would be surprised.
Don't forget that this was the Administration that said we need illegal aliens because they 'do the jobs Americans won't do' such as dry-walling, driving trucks and working for LA County (yes, the County has been caught MANY illegal aliens), oh and lest I forget, working as consultants for the CA Republican Party. This is also the Administration that said building a wall was useless, because people would just dig under it or climb over it.
Tell that to the 500 Knights of Malta, who, with the help of WALLS, thick, high stone walls, held off some 40,000 invading Ottoman Turks in 1565.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a story on the corruption conviction of Mexico's "Drug Czar"
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/01/ameri...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course Iran has influence. It's part of the region. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, & the rest of the Middle East countries have influence in the Middle East.
That's like getting upset because Canada, the US & Mexico all have influence in the Americas.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Iran is undermining the Iraqi government by arming militias. They just want to make the world safe for a greater Persia!
Is that why Maliki has visited Iran a couple of times? And is that why many of the Shi'ia militia found their way into the Iraqi security forces?
And if you believe Arabs would tolerate a Persian occupation any more than they would tolerate a US occupation, you don't know much about the region.
Why do you think the Sunnis are now taking US money & weapons to drive out the Al Quaeda elements that followed us into Iraq after we invaded?
Why do you think Sunni & Shi'ia both are targeting US troops?
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the hell does that have to do w/this?
Hezbollah WAS a fringe group until it was thrust into prominence & popularity by holding off an Israeli invasion.
Thanks to Syrian, Israeli, Iranian & US involvement in Lebanon, it's an unstable country on the brink of self-destruction because no one will allow the Lebanese people to sort out their problems themselves.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
pc251 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned148 Replies
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They don't have the ability to make weapons' grade material...yet. "
Most intelligence reports put them out ten years from now before they have the capability to manufacture weapons grade material. As it stands they're not breaking any laws, treaties or agreements regarding nuclear materials. Frankly the only people making threats with nuclear weapons who possess nuclear weapons are Israel and by insinuation the US. Considering past actions, I'm much more concerned about Israel using a nuclear weapon than any other country.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Apparently neither does the US, having deposed a democratically elected leader by pre-emptive war and having required a democratically elected group (Hamas in Palestine) to give up power before any talks with the democracy in place would begin.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> Most intelligence reports put them out ten years from now before they have the capability to manufacture weapons grade material.
Do you recall how many years it took to the US to make actual bombs FROM SCRATCH back in 1945?
Do you have any reasons to believe that the Iranians are SO DUMB that it will take them ten years from now before they have the capability to manufacture weapons grade material TODAY, when they have all the knowledge and technology of the 21st Century?
Reply -
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned51 Replies
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned8 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see IRAN creating trouble. They already are. Not that WE aren't, but they are too. Careful who you vote for. Ron Paul is (far as I can tell) the ONLY one left standing who might actually do some good.
The "E" is to avoid capture by filter programs.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive12 Replies
-
avothComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
ThackerAgency1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Commodore11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes and what happened after the Yom Kippur War shows that Israel was right not to use it's nuclear weapons. The Israeli victory led directly to the Camp David Accords.
Israel was not in a position where nuclear weapons were needed. I guarentee you that rather than face defeat they would have certainly used them.
Reply-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BK - I suggest you re-read the history books of that conflict. At one stage they were indeed "facing defeat", YET DID NOT USE A NUKE..... Assuming they actually had them, that is ;-)
I've spoken to a couple of Israeli vets from that conflict, they WERE that close to defeat......
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, I recently read a book on the Yom Kippur War and the Isrealis had F-4s armed with nuclear bombs as well as nuclear armed Jerico Missiles ready to launch. The situation was desperate after the Egyptians crossed the Suez and the Syrians attacked across the Golan, but Isreal maintained control over the use of its aresenal. They had a couple of hundred nuclear devices then and could have majorly nuked the Egyptians and Syrians.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> The situation was desperate after the Egyptians crossed the Suez and the Syrians attacked across the Golan, but Isreal maintained control over the use of its aresenal.
As a matter of fact, the situation became desperate when the Israelis exhausted their military supplies (guns, bombs, ammunition, etc.) after about three weeks of intense fighting. Israel, however, never "faced defeat" during the 1973 war. Both the Egyptians and the Syrians were stopped and faced heavy casualties. Without urgent delivery of supplies, however, Israel faced a catastrophe. This is when Israeli leaders made it clear to the US that Israel would have no other choice but to use nuclear weapons to end the war. At this point the US organized an airlift with supplies that in some cases were stripped from US military units.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, they were close, but not close enough. Depends on who you ask or what books you read. They knew that if they could just buy time...
Anyway, it's moot. They didn't use nuclear weapons. So, to debate whether or not they "should" have or "were in a position to" is as pointless as arguing over what would have happened if the Wehrmacht had taken Moscow in '41.
Let's just say they stuck to their policy of not using nuclear weapons first. >>> And, oh yeah, they got 'em.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The point isn't moot. Isreal was tottering on defeat and didn't nuke anyone so they have demonstrated responsible restraint with respect to the use of nuclear weapons. The Isrealis were out of reserves and if they U.S. hadn't sent emergency tank and aircraft replacements, the Isrealis could have easily lost. They didn't know what was going to happen during those critical hours. They were close enough.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The point isn't moot. Isreal was tottering on defeat and didn't nuke anyone so they have demonstrated responsible restraint with respect to the use of nuclear weapons."
Well it's sort of moot since they used cluster bombs in recent attacks inside Palestine in civilian areas and were found to have used these WMDs against international law and treaties.
Are we going to invade Israel now?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, no. The point regarding Isreal's responsible possession of nuclear devices remains valid. Nice try at changing the subject. Is it legal under international law for Hezbollah to position rocket launchers in apartment buildings or fire on purely civilian targets? Is it legal for Hammas to strap bombs on women and send them into checkpoints and marketplaces. Yeah, you lost this debate.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
zimm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Israel has had nukes for years and NOT used them. And this despite countless efforts to destroy the country. I think Israeli restraint is a proven quantity when it come to its nuclear arsenal.
On the other hand, these fanatical "72 virgins for suicide bombers" and "there are no gays in Iran" folks are hardly the rational type you want carrying around nukes (or giving them to Hezbollah to do there dirty work for them).
Radical Islam and nukes is a VERY dangerous combination...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned11 Replies
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> 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
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
Thinker221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> 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
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned14 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
Neutral
Isoparm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sounds like 'procrastination for another generation' doesn't it?
our dependence on oil can't be helped so let's continue to not address the problem
the die is cast
nothing we can do
small wonder those in power have a take the money and run attitude, if we're all screwed anyway
its an ill wind that doesn't blow money someone's way
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Isoparm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not only exports oil, the US is the world's number three oil producer. We beat Canada and Venezuela (two largest suppliers) in actual production by a fair margin, they rank numbers 7 and 9 on the list. Of course we only produce enough to cover half of our consumption. Not even that, really.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll give a shout to a rare Hollywood commodity and a real American actor Charlton Heston.
Here is a great example of how being a decent man and representing freedom can change lives.
Too bad todays Hollyweird sleazeballs never learnt the lesson from a real man's example.
Denounce political correctness, avoid hedonistic alternative lifestyles and support America as it was founded.
As for Iran...Jiminy Carters gutless legacy lives on.
I suspect the worlds foremost terror sponsoring state will continue on with it's regime dogma of poverty, oppression of women, exportation of terror, acquisition of nukes and a host of other grand schemes.
Here's to all the appeasers and lovers of seventh century Muslim oppression...oh, the sheer irony of progressive $hite.
Reply -
loading ...
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.