04 Apr 06
Originally posted by abejnoodOK smarty .. you Iranians will have nuclear reactor with no uranium. Something like Noah and his boat with no water. Only difference is that God gave him the water. I guess Allah will drop off some uranium from heaven for you guys.
You have completely missed what is happening. Nobody is selling anything to Iran. Iran's own intelligence, which Americans do not respect, has allowed them to strat building plants themselves. Since America and the West don't like the idea of Iran being smart, they are trying to abuse and opress them but not allowing them to build these plants.
04 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999I'll help you since you obviously can't be bothered to do any research on your own:
OK smarty .. you Iranians will have nuclear reactor with no uranium. Something like Noah and his boat with no water. Only difference is that God gave him the water. I guess Allah will drop off some uranium from heaven for you guys.
1) Iran has uranium mines, so Allah already dropped off the uranium;
2) Iran has a functioning nuclear facility at Bushehr (spl?) which has been operating as a reactor since the Shah;
3) Iran has had numerous contracts with other countries since the 1990's to provide technical expertise and other aid to the Iranian civilian nuclear program. Perhaps you've never heard of the nations of Russia, China, France and Pakistan; buy a globe and take a look - they're there somewhere.
Anything else you would like to know??
EDIT: Since 1988, Iran has reportedly opened as many as 10 uranium mines, including the Saghand uranium mine in Yazd province, as well otherwise unspecified locations in Khorassan, Sistan va Baluchestan, and Hormozgan Provinces, and in Bandar-e-Abbas and Badar-e-Lengeh Provinces along the Gulf. The Director of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Reza Amrollahi, announced in 1989 that the expected reserves of these deposts was in excess of 5,000 tons.
Uranium resources of Iran are not considered rich. The results of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) exploration activities have shown proven reserves of about 3,000 tons of Uranium so far. According to the discovered indices (more than 350 anomalies) and the results of the field discoveries, the expected resources of Iran could be at the range of 20,000-30,000 tons of U3O8, throughout the country. Therefore Iran's domestic reserves might be sufficient enough to supply the raw material for needed nuclear power plants in future.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines.htm
Now don't you feel like a complete maroon??
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you saying they are self-sufficient in uranium and will not have to import from five major uranium producing countries: Canada, Niger, Namibia, South Africa, and Australia. .. these five countries have a virtual monopoly on raw uranium.
I'll help you since you obviously can't be bothered to do any research on your own:
1) Iran has uranium mines, so Allah already dropped off the uranium;
2) Iran has a functioning nuclear facility at Bushehr (spl?) which has been operating as a reactor since the Shah;
3) Iran has had numerous contracts with other countries since the 19 ...[text shortened]... security.org/wmd/world/iran/mines.htm
Now don't you feel like a complete maroon??
So they not as smart as originally alleged .. they need help. Yeah .. I have a special globe .. it says that those countries you listed are going to refuse to help sickening murderous countries like Iran get nukes.
04 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Please have somebody read this to you slowly:
Are you saying they are self-sufficient in uranium and will not have to import from five major uranium producing countries: Canada, Niger, Namibia, South Africa, and Australia. .. these five countries have a virtual monopoly on raw uranium.
So they not as smart as originally alleged .. they need help. Yeah .. I have a special globe .. it says that those c ...[text shortened]... ntries you listed are going to refuse to help sickening murderous countries like Iran get nukes.
Therefore Iran's domestic reserves might be sufficient enough to supply the raw material for needed nuclear power plants in future.
So I'm not saying it, globalsecurity.org is though.
If by "nukes" you mean nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't need anybody to help them get "nukes" since they say they don't want them. If by "nukes" you mean a civilian nuclear program for generating electricity, among other things, I think other countries' companies will assist them if there's money to be made (and there is).
EDIT: I must say that the extreme laziness of some right wingers here is astonishing; the article I cited is only a few paragraphs and answers Rajk99's question specifically. Is it tooooooooooo much trouble to read it, fella??
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by slimjimI despise the American/Western governments, lies, propoganda, and immoral politicals. I do not hate America the country. America is a fine country. Yet put in a government, give someone power, and they'll take advantage of it. Democracy, communism, lassaiz faire, monarcy, dictorship, they may be different labels, but what comes of it all? The same. America is best equipped to fight such evil, with their good "checks and balences" system, but it shall one day come to naught. Have you read Animal Farm, by George Orwell? It portrays us as what we are: just a bunch of pigs. The solution? A self-serving government with an agreement of peace. "Country" could simply define a place where people have common language, common customs, common life. But it shan't work. In the end, we're screwed. But why not let us be screwed with a little more love instead? Why divide people into countries, and hold prejudices against them? Why not make the world a little better by just standing by one another, if only in respect and acknowledgement, even with different opinions? I am my own spirt, an "American-Iranian", I may be labeled, but I stand as a part of humanity. Why not listen to me just a bit, try to take a little hate off both sides, maybe compromise? Maybe I know what I'm talking about. Double-standards only increase hate and resentment, and closemindedness will not improve anything. Put yourself in my shoes and my thoughts. Perhaps you would be able to see a different point of veiw, and understanding, a new light. Why refuse to budge, when doing so will only worsen matters? Just try, if you will. It can't possibly hurt anyone, so why not?
You forgot to mention in "spirit" also.
06 Apr 06
On the self-defence issue at Nuremberg, the appropriate references are Volume 17 of the Trial of Major War Criminals, pp. 461-469. Dr. Jahrreiss making the legal arguments for the defence starts this passage by discussing the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the collective security system and its ultimate breakdown. He reaches this conclusion on p. 469:
War in self-defense is permitted as an inalienable right to all states; without that right, sovereignty does not exist, and every state is sole judge of whether in a given case it is waging a war of self-defense.
The tribunal rejected the last postulate and accepted the traditional "Caroline" formulation of self-defense.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the self cannot be the judge of what is self-defense, then there are two choices; wrong or victim.
On the self-defence issue at Nuremberg, the appropriate references are Volume 17 of the Trial of Major War Criminals, pp. 461-469. Dr. Jahrreiss making the legal arguments for the defence starts this passage by discussing the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the collective security system and its ultimate breakdown. He reaches this conclusion on p. 469:
Wa ...[text shortened]... jected the last postulate and accepted the traditional "Caroline" formulation of self-defense.
The "Caroline" formulation is based on earlier works, you
might be interested in reading this...
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050724-101302-5685r.htm
...then again.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by xsWhatever the opinion of the Washington Times, the "Caroline" formulation was accepted by the Nuremberg Tribunal and remains the standard in international law. Those who try to adopt their own standards are doing the same thing as the Nazis.
If the self cannot be the judge of what is self-defense, then there are two choices; wrong or victim.
The "Caroline" formulation is based on earlier works, you
might be interested in reading this...
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050724-101302-5685r.htm
...then again.