Iran declares victory over the USA

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Usa
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
45 replies · 9K views
Poop-Loops said:
Never mind. If you can't figure that out, I think it's safe to ignore what you have to say on the issue. Thanks for clearing that up. :smile:
The OP made simple, straightforward claims of fact that are straightforwardly wrong. But they make implications that depending on what you think is implied may or may not be true (which is soooo useful :rolleyes:). But it is tough to know since that requires some guesswork. Though if you like inuendo, that's a great post. But in any case, claims require evidence. For example, if someone claims that "Iran declares victory over the USA", the claim should include the direct quote where the Iranian leader made that declaration. This should be so obvious as to not require explanation. But sometimes...

Glad to be of service. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
lisab said:
I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking.
I did also note that. There was so much wrong with the OP I wasn't sure how far we could get with a real discussion of the subject though.
 
fourier jr said:
from the Australian:
If you have anything that directly supports your point, please do highlight it. For example, unless I missed it, the word "bankruptcy" does not appear in that article.
 
russ_watters said:
The OP made simple, straightforward claims of fact that are straightforwardly wrong. But they make implications that depending on what you think is implied may or may not be true (which is soooo useful :rolleyes:). But it is tough to know since that requires some guesswork. Though if you like inuendo, that's a great post. But in any case, claims require evidence. For example, if someone claims that "Iran declares victory over the USA", the claim should include the direct quote where the Iranian leader made that declaration. This should be so obvious as to not require explanation. But sometimes...

Glad to be of service. Good luck.

See? This is what I meant.

The OP said:

"The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq"

You said:

"Neither of those are true."

So I asked you to explain those things, since it seems we are going bankrupt and we are losing in Iraq. You apparently had no clue what I was talking about, so I concluded it's best to ignore you. Now you're trying to I don't even know what, since nothing I said ever pertained to the title of this thread, only a single sentence you replied to, which you still haven't addressed.
 
mheslep said:
The US National Intelligence Estimate stated (best guest) Iran was working on a weapon until '03. If someone knows they (the NIE) actually had 'no idea' I'd like to know how. Iran http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf", somewhat unusual in that body.

Er no, any country is allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT, provided it is for non weaponry purposes. Iran is the only country that is exempt from this, it has it's own NPT, and this is not because it is enriching, it's more to do with political maneuvering.

Now I say Iran should be open about it's enrichment thus ending the need for it to be sanctioned. But to be frank with the politics that is around now, only non-enrichment would ensure this, despite this not being a part of the NPT treaty, albeit a sticking point. Obviously at one point, when German et al engineers and technicians gave them the technology to enrich Uranium, it was ok for them to do so, now for some reason I'm not quite sure about, it isn't. If they were working towards nukes, it seems that the US has gone an arse about face way of achieving sanctions, albeit deserved but for the wrong reasons.

It is fairly sanctioned but not for breaches of the NPT as regards enrichment, it is sanctioned because of it's desire to do so in a less than open manner. That is its only breach of said treaty, if you don't believe me I suggest you read the terms of the treaty to which Iran was a signatory.

It's a little bit more than just it's lack of opacity. But the effect is much the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iran & Iraq's joint statement after Ahmadinejad's visit:
Iran, Iraq issue joint statement at end of Ahmadinejad's visit
Tehran, March 3, IRNA
Iran-Iraq-Statement

Iran and Iraq issued a joint statement at the end of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's two-day Iraq visit.

The statement calls for strengthening mutual cooperation in oil, and gas sectors and expediting implementation of mutual accords as well as operationing joint oil and gas fields based on the international laws and regulations.

It also urges expansion of bilateral banking cooperation in line with mutual economic and commercial cooperation.

In the statement the Iraqi side has appreciated Iran for extension of a loan of one billion dollars for reconstruction of its infrastructures.

The two sides also voiced support for talks on encouragement of mutual investment, underlining use of all means to guarantee security on their borders as borders of peace and friendship.

Iran and Iraq in the statement condemned Gazans' massacre by the Zionist regime of Israel and urged extension of any kind of help to the Palestinian people and ending siege of Gaza.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0803037576201511.htm

Iran is increasing its influence in the region, this can't be good!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fourier jr said:
Iran & Iraq's joint statement after Ahmadinejad's visit:

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0803037576201511.htm

Iran is increasing its influence in the region, this can't be good!

You're right, peaceful and mutually beneficial trade agreements are the last thing Iraq needs now, and loaning them a billion dollars, sheez that is disgusting how to neighbouring countries can work together to put aside their former differences. And achieve a mutually beneficial system of exploiting their own resources, its beyond me? Maybe we should invade Iran to put a stop to this insidious free trade nonsense. It's a slippery slope, next thing you know Iraq will be able to finance its way out of a corner, Iran will prosperous, and horror of horror, we all know what happens when countries become prosperous?! Is anyone thinking about the children? I tell you what there is nothing worse than seeing two countries benefiting from trade. Nothing. It's shocking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Schrödinger's Dog said:
Er no, any country is allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT, provided it is for non weaponry purposes. Iran is the only country that is exempt from this, it has it's own NPT, and this is not because it is enriching, it's more to do with political maneuvering.

Now I say Iran should be open about it's enrichment thus ending the need for it to be sanctioned. But to be frank with the politics that is around now, only non-enrichment would ensure this, despite this not being a part of the NPT treaty, albeit a sticking point. Obviously at one point, when German et al engineers and technicians gave them the technology to enrich Uranium, it was ok for them to do so, now for some reason I'm not quite sure about, it isn't. If they were working towards nukes, it seems that the US has gone an arse about face way of achieving sanctions, albeit deserved but for the wrong reasons.

It is fairly sanctioned but not for breaches of the NPT as regards enrichment, it is sanctioned because of it's desire to do so in a less than open manner. That is its only breach of said treaty, if you don't believe me I suggest you read the terms of the treaty to which Iran was a signatory.

It's a little bit more than just it's lack of opacity. But the effect is much the same.

There is only one NPT and http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm" and it has not withdrawn. There is no other 'private' NPT. Many NPT nations, including Iran, have safeguards agreements in place as is required by NPT A. III for all nuclear activity:
Article III: Each non-NWS[non weapon state] party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
So again, if a nation signed the NPT and wishes to undertake nuke activity it is obligated to reach a safeguards agreement first. Absent such an agreement NWS NPT signatories have no right to enrich. Iran first signed a safeguards agreement in '92 and an http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html" which principally specifies the inspections regime used by the IAEA. The IAEA found Iran in violation of the its safeguards agreement in '05(not the NPT but none the less required by the NPT), the exact findings of which are linked in my prior post. In turn the IAEA referred the matter to the UN security council which required Iran to cease all enrichment activities and imposed some sanctions. Though Iran has cooperated in some regards, it still continues to enrich and hence the latest UN round of sanctions past this week. Its hardly plausible to say this was a unilateral US - Iran action when the vote was 14-0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well since we're pretty much saying the same thing. I don't see the point of really going into it. I was simply saying that they way the US set about objecting to the Iranians was about face, first of all it said it had nukes, then it was working towards them, then we found out it was not transparent.

To be frank at one point I remember people saying to me that if I wasn't convinced that Iran was building nukes or working towards them at the very least then I was somewhat naive, stupid, touched, and all I said was well let's see. And what do you know, cart before the horse, they weren't. Do people not get what Bush does yet, are they not picking up on the general methodology? Seems to me that at one point people were keen to believe only what they wanted to believe. Not what was actually provable.

All I'm saying is there are games being played, and people seem all to keen to jump on board and condemn Iran, without having all the facts at hand. Yes it deserves sanctions for not being transparent. But to be frank, I don't think the US is that interested in it being transparent, it wants it to stop enrichment, to accept foreign enrichment only. What it's rights are is beside the point.
 
Last edited:
USA, Canada and everyone would declare a victory over all the arab states, Halburton, BP and gang if we just did a major shift to hydrogen power. The States dramatically shifted its economic and production capabilities at the start of their involvement in the 2WW. Why can't this happen again, now? This would leave dependence on "rogue states" in the dust. It would also put us ahead of China and India and we would become the major (if not only) suppliers to these markets, as was the case some many years ago with automobiles etc.
Dear America, please regain your position as a true leader among nations. Get innovative and by-pass Oil for the Fuel Cell. If you can get it done in a year that would be nice!
 
baywax said:
USA, Canada and everyone would declare a victory over all the arab states, Halburton, BP and gang if we just did a major shift to hydrogen power. The States dramatically shifted its economic and production capabilities at the start of their involvement in the 2WW. Why can't this happen again, now? This would leave dependence on "rogue states" in the dust. It would also put us ahead of China and India and we would become the major (if not only) suppliers to these markets, as was the case some many years ago with automobiles etc.
Dear America, please regain your position as a true leader among nations. Get innovative and by-pass Oil for the Fuel Cell. If you can get it done in a year that would be nice!

PF to the rescue
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29373" -365 posts
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars


BTW hydrogen as a fuel is loser IMO. :-p Biofuels or otherwise renewably generated hydrocarbons are the way to go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
BTW hydrogen as a fuel is loser IMO. :-p Biofuels or otherwise renewably generated hydrocarbons are the way to go.

I disagree. But I don't know what this has to do with Iran kicking our butts.
Ok. I do.

Anyways, I have family working on the H2 problems. I for one believe in hydrogen.



btw, has anyone figured out how to hook me up with a Farsi speaker?
 
mheslep said:
Biofuels or otherwise renewably generated hydrocarbons are the way to go.

My taco shells just went up another 14 bucks for a box. Dinner for 4 in Mexico was 180 bucks. Really don't love that biofuel idea. It just another reason for Brazil to burn the rainforest. Also, the energy expended extracting oil and tar sands oil exceeds anything you've demonstrated in that chart.

As for Iran. It can declare victory all it wants. Everyone else seems to be doing it.
 
baywax said:
My taco shells just went up another 14 bucks for a box. Dinner for 4 in Mexico was 180 bucks. Really don't love that biofuel idea. It just another reason for Brazil to burn the rainforest. Also, the energy expended extracting oil and tar sands oil exceeds anything you've demonstrated in that chart.
Reply is over https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1636581&postcount=49" on an appropriate thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
Reply is over https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1636581&postcount=49" on an appropriate thread.

My apologies.

I think a crash course in cross-cultural negotiations would be in order for every diplomat on the face of the earth. Also add electrodes, that spark every time the diplomats use the lessons inappropriately, planted in their fancy suits.
 
Last edited by a moderator: