IAEA Reports Iran to U.N. Security Council

[Professur]

Flav, evidently you don't know what enrichment of uranium entails. And while my research was done 20 years back, I do. I also have a pretty good idea about what waste a reactor produces. Or, more specifically, what waste each type of reactor produces. As of the last 5 years, there is no realistic study to encourage the building of nuclear plants for electicity, anywhere. In the middle of a damn desert, solar hydrothermal and wind generation are the recommended technologies. They've been functional, and efficient for over a decade. Any nuclear generation put forth by Iran would be first generation, development level with all it's inherent dangers and screwups, since noone's going to sell them any tech. Solar hydrothermal, and wind, however can be bought privately from any number of sources, legally. I don't know about you, but even if Iran wasn't in the mood to generate weapons, I don't know of any sane person who would willingly allow a three mile island or chyrnoble near 25% of the world's crude supply. How deep would a china-syndrome accident have to go to contaminate cubic miles of oil?

And what speculation are you referring to? I wasn't aware I'd speculated at all.

 

[flavio]

Flav, evidently you don't know what enrichment of uranium entails. And while my research was done 20 years back, I do. I also have a pretty good idea about what waste a reactor produces. Or, more specifically, what waste each type of reactor produces. As of the last 5 years, there is no realistic study to encourage the building of nuclear plants for electicity, anywhere. In the middle of a damn desert, solar hydrothermal and wind generation are the recommended technologies. They've been functional, and efficient for over a decade. Any nuclear generation put forth by Iran would be first generation, development level with all it's inherent dangers and screwups, since noone's going to sell them any tech. Solar hydrothermal, and wind, however can be bought privately from any number of sources, legally. I don't know about you, but even if Iran wasn't in the mood to generate weapons, I don't know of any sane person who would willingly allow a three mile island or chyrnoble near 25% of the world's crude supply. How deep would a china-syndrome accident have to go to contaminate cubic miles of oil?

You've already acknowledged that the US encouraged and assisted the nuclear program. Based on your info why would we do that? You tell me.

The last article does say

"Iran has significant uranium deposits that can be used for generating electricity. Its known uranium ore reserves can produce as much electricity as could 45 billion barrels of oil.

Since 1980, carbon emissions in Iran have risen by 240 per cent, contributing to air pollution which is blamed for causing 17,000 deaths every year in Tehran alone. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 reiterated that the safest way to combat carbon emission is the expansion of the share of nuclear energy generation globally."

And what speculation are you referring to? I wasn't aware I'd speculated at all.

Discussing mutually assured destruction in regards to an energy program, claiming Christians have long been over their fanaticism, ....and maybe it's not speculation but I googled for "Iran reward suicide" and "Iran reward terror" and found nothing from any major media source.

 

[Professur]

You've already acknowledged that the US encouraged and assisted the nuclear program. Based on your info why would we do that? You tell me.

didn't I say? Because the Shaw was the US ally (puppet). Every country wants to have an ally with millions of barrels of oil on tap.

The last article does say

"Iran has significant uranium deposits that can be used for generating electricity. Its known uranium ore reserves can produce as much electricity as could 45 billion barrels of oil.

Yes, so do many other places. That doesn't make it a good idea to to mess with it.

Since 1980, carbon emissions in Iran have risen by 240 per cent, contributing to air pollution which is blamed for causing 17,000 deaths every year in Tehran alone. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 reiterated that the safest way to combat carbon emission is the expansion of the share of nuclear energy generation globally."

and of course, they're totally unbiased. I would note the word "globally" snuck in there. I would also note that (if you read that carefully) the first sentence is a twisted load of horseshit. They sandwich two separate statistics into one sentence, and twist. Frankly, the stat of 17,000 deaths in one city from air pollution is comical at best.

Discussing mutually assured destruction in regards to an energy program, claiming Christians have long been over their fanaticism, ....and maybe it's not speculation but I googled for "Iran reward suicide" and "Iran reward terror" and found nothing from any major media source.

Did you look under Muslim reward suicide?

Flav, I know you love a good argument as well as I do, but you're not fooling me into thinking you actually believe what you've just posted. You're playing Devil's Advocate. Well, you're welcome to it, but you've already read, and understand what my point was, and you're not actually trying to make any point of your own, so thanks for the game time, but I've got to run.

 

[flavio]

didn't I say? Because the Shaw was the US ally (puppet). Every country wants to have an ally with millions of barrels of oil on tap.

To clarify why would the US encourage and assist developement of nuclear energy instead of solar hydrothermal and wind generation? I have heard experts not long ago saying it's not the best option. However, if the US thought it a completely reasonable energy solution at the time it was started it really doesn't make sense to consider it an obvious ploy to make weapons now.

and of course, they're totally unbiased. I would note the word "globally" snuck in there. I would also note that (if you read that carefully) the first sentence is a twisted load of horseshit. They sandwich two separate statistics into one sentence, and twist. Frankly, the stat of 17,000 deaths in one city from air pollution is comical at best.

They may be biased and the stats innaccurate, I don't know. There may be safer more efficient alternatives now. I think it still will generate lots of useful energy and could very well be very beneficial.

Did you look under Muslim reward suicide?

Ok search and went through first 3 pages....nothing about Iran rewarding terrorist. The I searched on "Iran terror". Found this article on BBC...

"President Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has reiterated American accusations of Iranian state involvement in terrorist activity against US targets....

In announcing the indictments, US Attorney-General John Ashcroft said factions within the Iranian regime had "inspired, supported and supervised" Saudi Islamic militants to carry out the attack."

No proof from Condoleeza...just some heresay. However there's an admission and offhand explanation for US terrorist type actions against Iranians...

"Rice's statements came the day after Iranian government officials, in a report on state television, accused US forces of attacking an Iranian-registered Saudi oil tanker in the Gulf. The report said two US frigates intercepted the ship and two of the tanker's crew were injured when US forces on speedboats "opened fire".

he television report quoted Swiss ambassador Tim Guldimann, whose country represents US interests in Iran, saying that the American troops had mistaken the tanker for an Iraqi vessel smuggling oil."

Then I see Bush saying things like....

"President Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on nations around the world Friday to join in opposition to Iran's nuclear activities."

"Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a grave threat to the security of the world,"
This implies their only goal is weapons. No mention of energy. No proof.

and...

Bush said their meeting was part of a "proactive" diplomatic effort to determine how best to confront Iran over its fledgling nuclear program and "lay the foundation for peace."
Fscking asshat is laying the foundation for another war with yet another unfounded accusation of WMDs being a threat to us. We gonna fall for this AGAIN?!? and...

"Sidestepping a question about whether he favored sanctions, Bush said, "I'm not going to prejudge what the U.N. Security Council should do. But I recognize that it's logical that a country which has rejected diplomatic entreaties be sent to the United Nations Security Council."
Iran HAS BEEN diplomatic more than they were required to be

and....

It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon,"
They heard!
Iran's president....

"Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights," The Associated Press quoted President Ahmadinejad as saying.
He's got a point

Flav, I know you love a good argument as well as I do, but you're not fooling me into thinking you actually believe what you've just posted. You're playing Devil's Advocate. Well, you're welcome to it, but you've already read, and understand what my point was, and you're not actually trying to make any point of your own, so thanks for the game time, but I've got to run.

I do play devil's advocate sometimes but I'm not here. My point is that after the Iraq WMD scandal I can't believe that anyone would fall for PNAC war marketing again so easily.

They used proof of WMD's in Iraq to convice people...which turned out to be bogus. Now there's not even any proof at all. I don't see anything showing they are pursuing nuclear weapons or support and reward terrorists. Becuase Bush said it people are going to treat it like a fact? The "fool me once" saying sure doesn't apply to the masses.

It may be that they want nukes and support terrorists. The US has nukes and supports terrorists sometimes. All we know now is that they are continuing a energy plan which the US helped to start and following treaties and mandates. Israel won't even sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The only thing that is justified is good diplomacy to encourage continued transparency.