Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Hits Milestone in Nuclear Technology
AP - 48 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday. He insisted, however, that his country does not aim to develop nuclear weapons. In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment.


Shit, let me introduce you to fan. :hihi:

Yeah, Iran is up to something, no doubt.

Halliburton sold them key components for nuclear reactors in the 90's.

And continued to do business with them even after 9-11.

Now Bush wants to drop a nuke on them.

What a surprise.

So, what are you saying?

What are you reading?

Are you sure it was yellow cake?

(http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1104/1104_black_bush350x267.jpg)

Yes I'm sure BITCH!

Halliburton is pure evil.  I never heard about the components being sold by them though.  Do you have a link to a story?  I'd like to read about that.

They also sold to Libya as well which they were fined 3.8 million for. Chenney is/was waging war on the same people he was doing business with. Good news though: he can rebuild both countries after he bombs them.


Oh the irony...........



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752

http://www.iranexpert.com/2003/halliburtonsiran3december.htm

http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=919

I have a feeling this is going to get locked  :hihi:

SLC- You're right on the money btw.

Thanks.....

My "Volume" is about a 2.5 out of 10 right now, and that is where I will stay............

What you're posting.

considering that most western countries could have or have the ability to build or deploy nuclear weapons it would be foolish for one country to use them on another...and if iran had weapons it would be in the same situation...the country would be obliterated if it even attempted to use them...especially since there are american spy satellites in numerous orbits and would detect it almost immediately...china has had nuclear weapons for decades, and how many people trust pakistan with nukes....after all, people always complain these countries are backwards in development terms...so why deny iran a right to advance themselves...

Q.........always on point.

If I lived in a country that...
 - Belongs in some sort of Axis of evil according to George Bush
 - Has large quanities of certain hard-to-come-by natural resource
 - Has 2 of it's neighbouring countries invaded by US of A within last few years
 - Has back water-ish army
....I would be extremely goddamned pleased if we were busy as hell trying to aquire all nukes we can get aswell.

Nuclear weapons mean certain amount of diplomatic immunity.
Their role as a potential tool in actual war is extremely irrelevant side bonus ever since the start of cold war.

I would agree if they weren't religious nuts whose leader makes remarks about wiping other countries off the map.  Something tells me the theory of MAD was developed with out thinking about our fanatical muslims in the middle east.

Yeah, when one country, such as Iran, threatens to wipe another country off the map and have a general policy of intolerance and are controlled by a non elected religous leader.....how responsible will they be if they have nukes??

For a minute I thought you meant the USA...........

Have we ever stated we were going to wipe a country off the face of the Earth? NO

Do we allow freedom of religion? Womans Rights? YES

Do we have  elections in which the people chose their leaders? Yes

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Get off the USA bashing soapbox. I'm not even talking about partisan politics here.

Assuming we are ran by religious nuts, is that an argument to let more religious nuts have nukes?

Some people consider Bush a little nut. A man who proclaims that Jesus was his favorite philosopher yet pushes for war over peace, lies and generally is immoral.

Some people may find that statement rather hypocritical (original, not yours) in regard to nukes and who should have them. Once more, even more hypocritical since it was Chenney's Halliburton that sold them the components in the first place.

No USA bashing, just putting it out that the claims made against Iran (true or false) many hold to Bush as well.

Either way Iran should not have Nukes... they dont need it for the power since they have a shit ton of oil.... they know they are on thin ice since they are between Iraq and afqanistan... and george w is a little nuts....  I hope isreal takes em out.... let someone else do it... they have been fighting over there for hundreds of years and will continue to do so... might as well make sure that nukes stay out of thier hands for as long as possible..

someone tell me what a Nuke is? And i dont reckon Iran is up to anything. I think the inspectors are up to something, trying to frame iran. btw, dont you guys think it'll be a political thread and should be locked?

Berkleyriot is right.  The same rules don't apply to all countries/cultures.  We all know what happens in case of a nuclear war... we all get seriously damaged or destroyed and that is what keeps us (all countries) from using nukes.  Problem with certain muslim countries is that they don't care if they get wiped off the map.  They don't fear death, death makes them martyrs.  So what's stopping them from using nuclear weapons once they have them?

BEST QUOTE EVER !!

from africa !! the mother land !!!! ;)

No, I think Iran is up to something and I think they need to be stopped. Even thought most people say the're far away from devoloping nuculear weapons, I think we need to watch out for the guy who's running Iran. He said Israel "should be wiped off the map." I think when you put it together, Iran is a very dangerous country.

I just hope Bush finds a way to go about it without the use of war.

there are two things
iran's point of view being dangerous
and iran's will of mastering nuclear technology

it's a very hard subject. you cannot tell other people NOT to do, what you already do. and international laws / rules are tricky, cause there is no power above national's one .... in theory.

i dunno. and again. not to come back to any political debate, but the USA are again leading to a uni-lateral decision making system. this is gonna be trouble
the UN saying something is acceptable
the US saying the same thing in their uneducated way, is something else.

it's still a shame that Kiarostami's country can be run by such idiots ... oh wait, axl rose's country is run by idiots too :)

His record so far isn't too great............

man i was watchin CNN last night for about 1 hour and the words iran,nuclear and  weapons were poppin up several times every minute!

americans are about to get brainwashed once more.


haven't we seen this film several times already?its starting to get a really annoying :rant:


P.S.SLCPUNK  :beer:

What is a sign you have lost any concept of reality?

When you claim to be more concerned about George W. Bush than an Iran with nuclear capabilities....

that would be true if W wasn't the leader of the most powerful country in the world right now...

So, I see Bush has brainwashed you too.

pakistan is primarily muslim...there are plenty muslim fanatics in pakistan...

when it comes down to it, they wouldnt do it...because there would be noone to remember their martyrs, no country no martyrs...

so you think the leader of iran, living in luxury as he is, would attempt to launch a nuclear bomb on another country which would potentially leave his country obliterated and him dead?...naw i dont buy it at all...like all leaders, they play to their audience....and news programmes play to peoples paranoia and fears

That begs the question.

Pakistan, however, is currently ran by someone that is not a fanatical muslim and who has helped to battle fanatical muslims.  Iran seems inapposite to me.  Nevertheless, you make a good point about leaders wanting to stay in power.

In case anyone was wondering what the overall goal is of the radical islamists:

"Moussaoui told jurors Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower. "You have to be subdued. We have to be above you. Because Americans, you are the superpower, you want to eradicate us.""

Kind if extinguishes the argument that they simply want us out of the middle east.

They wanted us out of the middle east well before Iraq.

Now it is complete Jihad ala W.

Like I said about a 3 years ago: "Stick in the hornets nest" and all that..........

Actually, now it is complete Jihad ala the tenants of radical islam.  Read the quote; it doesn't say because we are in the middle east.

That is one quote from one person...........

Iraq has been a cattle call for jihadist to come out of the wood work, and they have.

Whatever you do, don't say they "hate us for our freedom".......

I heard that one at a cocktail party and I laughed  so hard my sashimi flew out of my mouth........I'll admit, the comment would have been better with a touch of wasabi and soy sauce though.




It's based on logic really........

Bush has already shown what he is capable of (or actually not capable of), so I have more to go on...........

You know, you can still recognize that Bush is an idiot and messed up, and at the same time realize that these people are evil and want more than just the US out of the middle east.  Those things are not inconsistent.

only one person in charge of pakistan? plenty of people in power you dont know of that would have access to their nukes...to quote spock, your thinking is 2 dimensional

i never made a point about leaders wanting to stay in power, lets face it, which leader doesnt?

Sorry, by referring to the leader I was referring to the people that were in charge.  Generally, the leader of a country determines who has their hands on the nukes.  Since radicals are trying to kill the leader of Pakistan, I wouldn't think those people would be part of his cabinet.  In contrast, I assume that since the leader of Iran is radical, his advisors are like-minded.

You did say this:

"so you think the leader of iran, living in luxury as he is, would attempt to launch a nuclear bomb on another country which would potentially leave his country obliterated and him dead?..."

By "living in luxury", I assumed you were stating that he didn't want to give up his power and luxury.  I guess I assumed that you were making a point that you weren't making.  But to get back to the above-mentioned question: perhaps, if he believed that he would be going to a more luxurious place.

I don't recall saying these people were not dangerous.

I do recall Bush's blunders so far, and with that experience feel more than adequate to make a judgment call. (History repeats itself yada yada yada.........)

Answering for Popmetal are you?

enough about nukes. i'm gonna go listen to some john lennon  :hihi:

I don't understand.

Did you see his (Iran's president's) latest statements about Israel being annihilated soon?  He's not actually saying he's the one that will do it, but the threat seems pretty obvious.  If I were in Israel, I'd certainly be expecting my government to do something to eliminate that threat, or I'd be packing up and moving. 

This is where your faulty views on all things middle east begin and end.  The problem is that there is a hornest's nest, whether we poke a stick in it or not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -

You could take every last bit of American and Israeli presence out of the middle east tomorrow and Islamo-fascist terrorism would continue.

Yes, but putting a stick in the hornets nest didn't do away with it. Now did it?

Now the nest is bigger then ever............

You and a lot of people seem to think if we all just pretend the problem isn't there, it will go away, or at least not get any bigger.

That's what got us 9/11.

Continuing with the hornet's nest analogy, yes, they are going to get mad and swarm if you poke a stick at it.  But that's not a reason to not deal with the problem in the first place.

The first two posts are to be ignored.........

The third: You are not dealing with the problem. You are creating a bigger one.

Politics... cool!