Iran's uranium

  • #1
Mental Gridlock
15
0

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,605
8,720
Mental Gridlock said:
Since this is not uranium enrichment, it's no big deal, right?
There are a lot of steps on the path to a nuclear bomb and this is one of them. While it isn't necessarily an indication that they are planning on developing nuclear weapons, the fact that they won't say they won't is discouraging (see: North Korea).
 
  • #3
Burnsys
60
0
russ_watters said:
There are a lot of steps on the path to a nuclear bomb and this is one of them. While it isn't necessarily an indication that they are planning on developing nuclear weapons, the fact that they won't say they won't is discouraging (see: North Korea).

I am much more afraid of united states nukes..... there is no doubt they already have enougth of them to wipe the entire earth, there is no doubt they have used it over civilians, they have invaded much much more countrys that iran. they are even planing to build micro nukes...
 
  • #4
stoned
82
0
russ_watters said:
.... the fact that they won't say they won't is discouraging (see: North Korea).


what do you suppose Iranians should do when they see two of their nearest neighbors attacked ?
 
  • #5
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
97
stoned said:
what do you suppose Iranians should do when they see two of their nearest neighbors attacked ?

Invite US to their country and donate their oil and gas sourses to them?
 
  • #6
Curious6
184
0
I find it fascinating how people always bring up the oil issue whenever a discussion arises about the Iraq war or the prospects of invading other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran. Prior to the invasion, it was considered a plausible (and very popular) hypothesis (that the US would invade for control of large oil supplies) but since the attack started, in 2003, I haven't yet heard of an instance where the US has tried to control or dominate the oil fields. Quite the contrary actually, they are supporting the distribution of oil resources among Iraqis. The contention right now among the three main Iraqi groups (Shia, Sunni and Kurds) which is blocking the promulgation of their constitution is on how to divide the oil resources.
 
  • #7
The Sphinx
14
0
Curious6 said:
I find it fascinating how people always bring up the oil issue whenever a discussion arises about the Iraq war or the prospects of invading other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran. Prior to the invasion, it was considered a plausible (and very popular) hypothesis (that the US would invade for control of large oil supplies) but since the attack started, in 2003, I haven't yet heard of an instance where the US has tried to control or dominate the oil fields.[/B] Quite the contrary actually, they are supporting the distribution of oil resources among Iraqis. The contention right now among the three main Iraqi groups (Shia, Sunni and Kurds) which is blocking the promulgation of their constitution is on how to divide the oil resources.


The fact that you haven't heard anything about the politics of controlling oil fields doesn't mean that US is doing nothing about that. ;)
 
  • #8
Smurf
369
3
Curious6 said:
I haven't yet heard of an instance where the US has tried to control or dominate the oil fields.
That's because the US already has control.... What, do you think the insurgents control them or something?

When was the last time you heard of an insurgent attack on an oil field with x marines dead? For me it was a couple days ago. You think they'd be attacking the oil field if it wasn't already controlled? You think the marines would even be there to be attacked if it wasn't?
 
  • #9
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
97
Curious6 said:
I find it fascinating how people always bring up the oil issue whenever a discussion arises about the Iraq war or the prospects of invading other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran. Prior to the invasion, it was considered a plausible (and very popular) hypothesis (that the US would invade for control of large oil supplies) but since the attack started, in 2003, I haven't yet heard of an instance where the US has tried to control or dominate the oil fields. Quite the contrary actually, they are supporting the distribution of oil resources among Iraqis. The contention right now among the three main Iraqi groups (Shia, Sunni and Kurds) which is blocking the promulgation of their constitution is on how to divide the oil resources.

Because there are other countries which have NUcks and they are more as dangerous as Iran(perhaps more), but they're not located in Middle-east. And I never hear any word about why the hell they have NUcks! Although everyone knows that they have then not just trying to have them 1 day!
 
  • #10
Curious6
184
0
Smurf said:
That's because the US already has control.... What, do you think the insurgents control them or something?

When was the last time you heard of an insurgent attack on an oil field with x marines dead? For me it was a couple days ago. You think they'd be attacking the oil field if it wasn't already controlled? You think the marines would even be there to be attacked if it wasn't?

Yes, but that is just a temporary measure before Iraq's new government is established. There is a necessity to control those oil fields because the (mostly Sunni Arab) insurgence is aiming to destroy them. Do you really think that Americans will continue to control those supplies after the Iraqi government can really start to wield some influence? I don't think so. The whole debate these days is on how to divide the oil supplies among the three different groups.
 
  • #11
Curious6
184
0
Lisa! said:
Because there are other countries which have NUcks and they are more as dangerous as Iran(perhaps more), but they're not located in Middle-east. And I never hear any word about why the hell they have NUcks! Although everyone knows that they have then not just trying to have them 1 day!


Which regime can you possibly think of right now which is more of a short-term menace to the US and to Europe than the increasingly anti-Western theocracy of Iran? Not only did they hide their nuclear development plans to UN inspectors until a dissident group disclosed it in 2002, but they constantly adopt an aggressive, provocative stance regarding the issue. Ahmadinejad, who recently was elected President is an ultra-conservative politician. Weapons in Iraq are believed to be smuggled from the frontiers with Iran. It has one of the largest oil supplies in the world but insists on carrying out with its nuclear enrichment process because of 'civilian' uses. Excuse me but I can't conceive of another regime that can pose a larger threat to the US and the West than Iran.
 
  • #12
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
97
Curious6 said:
Which regime can you possibly think of right now which is more of a short-term menace to the US and to Europe than the increasingly anti-Western theocracy of Iran? Not only did they hide their nuclear development plans to UN inspectors until a dissident group disclosed it in 2002, but they constantly adopt an aggressive, provocative stance regarding the issue. Ahmadinejad, who recently was elected President is an ultra-conservative politician. Weapons in Iraq are believed to be smuggled from the frontiers with Iran. It has one of the largest oil supplies in the world but insists on carrying out with its nuclear enrichment process because of 'civilian' uses. Excuse me but I can't conceive of another regime that can pose a larger threat to the US and the West than Iran.
And remmember what US and other western countries did when Iraq started a war against Iraq. I don't know what's the whole story about but I read an article in this site which was posted byThe Smoking Man. It was about Iranian's request that US is guilty in Iraq vs. Iran war. So there must be a story behind this claim.

I don't know what the inspectors found in Iran but I'm sure it couldn't be Nucks because they would be more careful about threatening Iran if they had found Nucks in Iran. Right now Pakistan has Nucks too but it seems that nobody have any problem with that!
and could you please explain more about "weapons in Iraq are believed to smugged from the frontiers with Iran"? what do you mean by saying that? I've never heard of it before!
 
  • #13
Burnsys
60
0
Curious6 said:
Which regime can you possibly think of right now which is more of a short-term menace to the US and to Europe than the increasingly anti-Western theocracy of Iran?
US Goverment...

Weapons in Iraq are believed to be smuggled from the frontiers with Iran.

You mean some of this weapons of mass destruction :

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85727

It has one of the largest oil supplies in the world
I am starting to see a patron here.. anyone else???

Excuse me but I can't conceive of another regime that can pose a larger threat to the US and the West than Iran.

I can't conceive of another regime that can pose a larger threat to the WORLD than US
 
  • #14
Curious6
184
0
Why is the US such a threat to the world according to you?
 
  • #15
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
97
You've not answered my question, Curious6!
 
  • #16
Burnsys
60
0
Curious6 said:
Why is the US such a threat to the world according to you?


uhhh thanks for asking....

Ok let's see, they are the only country wich used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, it has overtrown by violence lot's of democraticaly elected goverments, they killed 2.000.000 vietnamites, they are the number 1 weapons manufacturers in the world, they have weapons of mass destruction to wipe the entire heart, they suported and suport (Actively by giving them weapons, money, training and more) cruel dictatorships around the world, they trained osama bin laden, the mujaidin, they helped saddam hussein in the 80', they are 5% of the population and they consume 25% of the world oil, and past month they sent 14.000 marines to paraguay very very close to my country and asked it's goverment to give them Total Inmunity, so they wont be prosecuted if they commit any types of crimes... well, that is just a little... just to name a few

Take a look at this meanwhile..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Curious6
184
0
Lisa! said:
I don't know what the inspectors found in Iran but I'm sure it couldn't be Nucks because they would be more careful about threatening Iran if they had found Nucks in Iran. Right now Pakistan has Nucks too but it seems that nobody have any problem with that!
and could you please explain more about "weapons in Iraq are believed to smugged from the frontiers with Iran"? what do you mean by saying that? I've never heard of it before!


No, they have not found any nuclear weapons before, but they are suspicious because Iran has kept its nuclear development programme secret before it was disclosed by dissidents in 2002. Anyways, Western governments are usually careful about threatening other nations, not necessiraly because they fear possible repercussions, but because they usually take the path of diplomacy first.

What was meant by 'weapons in Iraq are believed to be smuggled from the frontiers with Iran' is that insurgents in Iraq are smuggling (smuggle: to import illegally) weapons from Iran.
 
  • #18
Curious6
184
0
Burnsys said:
uhhh thanks for asking....

Ok let's see, they are the only country wich used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, it has overtrown by violence lot's of democraticaly elected goverments, they killed 2.000.000 vietnamites, they are the number 1 weapons manufacturers in the world, they have weapons of mass destruction to wipe the entire heart, they suported and suport (Actively by giving them weapons, money, training and more) cruel dictatorships around the world, they trained osama bin laden, the mujaidin, they helped saddam hussein in the 80', they are 5% of the population and they consume 25% of the world oil, and past month they sent 14.000 marines to paraguay very very close to my country and asked it's goverment to give them Total Inmunity, so they wont be prosecuted if they commit any types of crimes... well, that is just a little... just to name a few

Take a look at this meanwhile..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

They are definitely interesting points to take into account, but still, if you compare that to the good they have done around the world, it becomes clear they have generally helped more than harmed. This has then got to be compared to the rogue regimes around the world, who have overwhelmingly done more bad than good.
 
  • #19
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
97
Curious6 said:
No, they have not found any nuclear weapons before, but they are suspicious because Iran has kept its nuclear development programme secret before it was disclosed by dissidents in 2002. Anyways, Western governments are usually careful about threatening other nations, not necessiraly because they fear possible repercussions, but because they usually take the path of diplomacy first.
Path of diplomacy! Interesting. I remmember most of countries askes US not to attack Iraq because they knew that was a terrible mistake but UD didn't care. US didn't let the inspectors to complete thier task in Iraq.

And about the new claim: so what the are American army is doing in Iraq?
 
  • #20
Burnsys
60
0
Curious6 said:
They are definitely interesting points to take into account, but still, if you compare that to the good they have done around the world, it becomes clear they have generally helped more than harmed. This has then got to be compared to the rogue regimes around the world, who have overwhelmingly done more bad than good.

Excusme,, have you seen the world lately?.. If saved a couple of live doesn't give me the right to kill others.... You are omiting a looots of things here....


Ok let me continue with what i was saying before....

The us has tested biological weapons on his own population, it had the intentions to blow civilian airlines from cuba and blame it on castro, they use torture, they have stolen land to mexico, they supported noriega, they are suporting dicator of ubekistan who boils his own people alive, They are the number 1 polluters in the world, they suported and helped a dictatorship in my country who killed 30.000 people, they invaded irak based on lies, they impose economic policies around the world. just to destroy entire countrys economicaly... they have no care for the enviroment.. They created countrys like panama, just to be able to control them more easy.

And all that is justified becouse?????....... they did a lot of good thinks???? like what?

edit: I don't remember any trial where the acused has been exonerated becouse they did a lot of "Good things", if a crime has been comited it has to be punished.....
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Smurf
369
3
Burnsys said:
edit: I don't remember any trial where the acused has been exonerated becouse they did a lot of "Good things", if a crime has been comited it has to be punished.....
It is a valid legal defence to say that, in committing a crime, you created a greater good or avoided a greater bad. However, that is only if it is a direct result, not a "well you made up for it, you can go free" sort of thing.
 
  • #22
stoned
82
0
Curious6 said:
No, they have not found any nuclear weapons before, but they are suspicious because Iran has kept its nuclear development programme secret before it was disclosed by dissidents in 2002.

Iraqi dissidents were also telling the World about Saddam's nuclear bomb and all that bull****.
 
  • #23
stoned
82
0
Curious6 said:
No, they have not found any nuclear weapons before, but they are suspicious because Iran has kept its nuclear development programme secret before it was disclosed by dissidents in 2002.
Iraqi dissidents were also telling the World about Saddam's nuclear bomb and all that bull****.
 
  • #24
Burnsys
60
0
Curious6 said:
No, they have not found any nuclear weapons before, but they are suspicious because Iran has kept its nuclear development programme secret before it was disclosed by dissidents in 2002.

I know it may has nothing to do with the subject, but anyway
Usbez disidents are saying they are being boiled alive, but us keep sending weapons, and money to usbek goverment....
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Smurf
369
3
Okay guys, you need to end quotes with a '/' in the box. Like this [/QUOTE] not just
 
  • #26
edward
85
166
The traces of enriched uranium found in Iranian centrifuges were contamination left from when the Pakistani's used them for enriching uranium.
The centrifuges were then sold to Iran on the nuke black market.

Tests by the UN nuclear watchdog appear to confirm that traces of weapons-grade uranium found in Iran came from abroad, reinforcing Iran's assertion it does not seek atomic weapons.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1437418.htm [Broken]

We should bomb them anyway because that is the American way. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Curious6
184
0
Burnsys said:
Excusme,, have you seen the world lately?.. If saved a couple of live doesn't give me the right to kill others.... You are omiting a looots of things here....


Ok let me continue with what i was saying before....

The us has tested biological weapons on his own population, it had the intentions to blow civilian airlines from cuba and blame it on castro, they use torture, they have stolen land to mexico, they supported noriega, they are suporting dicator of ubekistan who boils his own people alive, They are the number 1 polluters in the world, they suported and helped a dictatorship in my country who killed 30.000 people, they invaded irak based on lies, they impose economic policies around the world. just to destroy entire countrys economicaly... they have no care for the enviroment.. They created countrys like panama, just to be able to control them more easy.

And all that is justified becouse?????....... they did a lot of good thinks???? like what?

edit: I don't remember any trial where the acused has been exonerated becouse they did a lot of "Good things", if a crime has been comited it has to be punished.....

It's not my intention to exonerate the US. I do believe it has done harm as well, as I mentioned in my previous post. I understand your viewpoint and respect it, but I don't agree with all the arguments you gave. For one, I agree with the invasion of Iraq (I won't go into that now). Second, could you please specify a link which details how the US used biological weapons, as I have never heard of that. Third, to what torture in particular are you referring to? The Abu Ghraib scandal and accounts of torture in Guantanamo are definitely lamentable, but we should not act like the US is the sole nation to torture its prisoners. Finally, being the major pollutant in the world is an inevitable corrolary to being the world's leading supereconomic power.
 
  • #28
Smurf
369
3
sources please (edward)
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Curious6
184
0
Smurf, are you asking for my sources? I have said nothing that needed evidence.
 
  • #30
Burnsys
60
0
Curious6 said:
It's not my intention to exonerate the US. I do believe it has done harm as well, as I mentioned in my previous post. I understand your viewpoint and respect it, but I don't agree with all the arguments you gave. For one, I agree with the invasion of Iraq (I won't go into that now). Second, could you please specify a link which details how the US used biological weapons, as I have never heard of that. Third, to what torture in particular are you referring to? The Abu Ghraib scandal and accounts of torture in Guantanamo are definitely lamentable, but we should not act like the US is the sole nation to torture its prisoners. Finally, being the major pollutant in the world is an inevitable corrolary to being the world's leading supereconomic power

http://universitypress.info/USABiologicalTerror.pdf
Mustard gas was not the only biological weapon employed.
In 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, a government agent under contract
with the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, began
infecting men, women and children with cancer cells. Later, as head
of the U.S. Army Biological Weapons division,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/bw.htm
Cities were unwittingly used as laboratories to test aerosolization and dispersal methods; Aspergillus fumigatus, B. subtilis var. globigii, and Serratia marcescens were used as simulants and released during experiments in New York City, San Francisco, and other sites. Concerns regarding potential public health hazards of simulant studies were raised after an outbreak of nosocomial S. marcescens (formerly Chromobacterium prodigiosum) urinary tract infections at Stanford University Hospital between September 1950 and February 1951, following covert experiments using S. marcescens as a simulant in San Francisco.

http://www.vva.org/shad/citylink12_18.htm [Broken]
Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that in the 1950s, the Army sprayed Panama City and Key West with S. marcescens, the same bacteria that later spurred a San Francisco family to sue the government. In that case, retired pipe fitter Edward J. Nevin checked into a hospital with chills, fever and general malaise in 1950 and died three weeks later from what doctors said was pneumonia caused by exposure to the bacterium S. marcescens

James Druckemiller, a former junior medical corpsman aboard the Power, says his medical problems began that year, too. In 1965, he developed a lesion on the bottom of his right foot that had to be removed. A year later, he had another lesion removed from the back of his head and developed bacterial pneumonia and a 105-degree temperature. This was his first of several bouts with the disease.

According to Druckemiller, who lives in Topeka, Kan., many of the sailors aboard his ship developed sore throats and respiratory problems that continue to this day. Many developed a host of other ailments, ranging from skin conditions and cysts to heart problems, scarred lungs and cancer. During the time these sailors were getting sick, they were aboard ships involved in secret biological and chemical tests about which they didn’t learn until 40 years later.
-----------------------
When i say torture i mean torture in general, in gitmo, in egipt, in irak, and in us backed dictatorships.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Burnsys
60
0
Curious6 said:
Finally, being the major pollutant in the world is an inevitable corrolary to being the world's leading supereconomic power.

So, america model for the world is simply imposible, becouse economic growth (The only solution capitalism has to offer to solve the poverty problem) directly leads to the destruction of the enviroment thus making the world hostile to living beings. What can i do with a millon dolars if there is no air or water?

Anyway, i am from a country wich is not a "Supereconomic Power", why do i have to accept Usa pollution to the world?
 
Last edited:
  • #32
The Smoking Man
47
0
Curious6 said:
Finally, being the major pollutant in the world is an inevitable corrolary to being the world's leading supereconomic power.
The word you are looking for is polluter although I tend to agree more with your faux pas.

It naturally follows that the bill for the pollution should be paid BY the polluter.

After all, if two cars are zipping down the street and one tosses out a coke can, you certainly don't fine the guy in the other car. :rolleyes:
 

Suggested for: Iran's uranium

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
54
Views
10K
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
92
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Top