Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

[M.Dancer]

so what you're trying to say is that iran was not collaborating with the nazis and they were a neutral country as they declared themselves to be.

then why have you been posting otherwise?

i don't know why you keep contradicting yourself. is there really a point having a discussion with a person like you?

No I think I'm saying you are confused, that you don't understand what neutrality meant and the obligation, what it means or implies.

I haven't contradicted myself, the problems lies with you limited grasp of history and understanding of the meaning of things.

Fact. Iran traded with the Nazis

Fact. Trading with the Nazis was not a violation of neutrality.

Fact. The Nazis were working hard to turn Iran.

Fact. The Nazis worked hard and persuaded Iraq to turn.

Fact. Britain issued Iran a firm ultimatum

Fact. Iran refused to cease trading and to expell the Nazi agents.

Fact. Britain prempted any turning in Iran

Fact. Iran declared war on Germany.

A happy ending for everyone except you it seems.

[M.Dancer]

you're not an honest person.

You're not very smart or honest.

[M.Dancer]

I think the problem is the suggestion was that Iran couldn't be trusted because they had ties to the nazis.

But as other posters have pointed out, I'm pretty sure Germany had ties to the nazis (not 100% sure, will try to find a link), but they are allowed nuclear energy.

The context sheds light on why Iran has an irrational hate of Jews....it seems to go back along time.....and with connections to a regime that actively tried to remove the Jews from the planet. Something to consider when one of their leaders hopes to erase the zionist regime from history and they strive to find just the right weapon to do it.

[dub]

No I think I'm saying you are confused, that you don't understand what neutrality meant and the obligation, what it means or implies.

I haven't contradicted myself, the problems lies with you limited grasp of history and understanding of the meaning of things.

Fact. Iran traded with the Nazis

Fact. Trading with the Nazis was not a violation of neutrality.

Fact. The Nazis were working hard to turn Iran.

Fact. The Nazis worked hard and persuaded Iraq to turn.

Fact. Britain issued Iran a firm ultimatum

Fact. Iran refused to cease trading and to expell the Nazi agents.

Fact. Britain prempted any turning in Iran

Fact. Iran declared war on Germany.

A happy ending for everyone except you it seems.

fact: iran was not pro-german or pro-nazi as you and dog on porch have tried to claim.

fact: england and the soviet union attacked iran because iran's neutrality in the war did not allow british supplies to go through it.

you can try to go against facts and use "preemptive" as justification for your "iran was pro nazi" comment, but i will keep reminding you that you're not being honest.

again, iran was neutral during world war 2.

[dub]

The context sheds light on why Iran has an irrational hate of Jews....it seems to go back along time.....and with connections to a regime that actively tried to remove the Jews from the planet.

how do you explain iran's second largest jewish population in the middle east after israel? how do you explain the 9+ synagogues in tehran? how do you explain the thousands of jews who have turned down large sums of money and other incentives by israel to move out of iran and to israel? how do you explain the iranian government even allowing iranian jews to travel to israel?

that doesn't sound like iran has an irrational hate of jews.

i know man... all these facts keep getting in the way of a fake world that you've been trying to create.

you're either very ignorant about the situation or you're not an honest person.

Something to consider when one of their leaders hopes to erase the zionist regime from history and they strive to find just the right weapon to do it.

what's the difference with ahmadinejad saying he wants the zionist regime removed when israel and US continue to say the same thing about the iranian regime?

[DogOnPorch]

When some posters replied in contest, evidence was provided. Is there a problem?

I think the problem is the suggestion was that Iran couldn't be trusted because they had ties to the nazis.

But as other posters have pointed out, I'm pretty sure Germany had ties to the nazis (not 100% sure, will try to find a link), but they are allowed nuclear energy.

Germany isn't seperating U-235 from U-238.

That's a brilliant observation. It's handy to have a nuclear physicist like yourself on hand here to point these things out to us.

Since the Candu reactors seperate the U-235 as well, it seems a no-brainer that the UN should impose sanctions on Canada, to quash Canadian nuclear weapon ambitions.

In actual fact, U-235 is far more stable, and is far more common in nuclear reactors than U-238.

Do some research, and hopefully this will cause you to question your source.

Ummm...U-235 is seperated from U-238 in gas centifuges (by spinning uranium hexafluoride)...not as a result of fission in a reactor. U-235 is fissile...not U-238. U-238 is far more common an isotope than U-235. U-235, if brought together into a critical mass produces an explosion...highly unstable. I suggest you also 'do some research'.

Well, there is a pretty big difference between:

a) Suggesting that the character and trustworthiness of a nation be judged on events eighty years ago.

Asking that land be restored to its previous owners based on events eighty years ago.

Surely, just because we disregard the characterizations and judgements of the people of Iran based on something that happened that long ago doesn't mean that we have to throw out all past events and history entirely.

WTF are you talking about?

------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[M.Dancer]

how do you explain iran's second largest jewish population in the middle east after israel?

How do you explain that in 1948 there were 150,000 jews amd now the population went to under 30,000?

how do you explain the 9+ synagogues in tehran?

11 actually servicing a community of 20,000

how do you explain the thousands of jews who have turned down large sums of money and other incentives by israel to move out of iran and to israel?

On March 16, 1979, Habib Elghanian, the honorary leader of the Jewish community, was arrested on charges of "corruption", "contacts with Israel and Zionism", "friendship with the enemies of God", "warring with God and his emissaries", and "economic imperialism".

At least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution, most of them for their connections to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kadkhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.

You have to be careful if you are a Jew accepting money to move to Israel.

how do you explain the iranian government even allowing iranian jews to travel to israel?

Rarely. Iranians are forbiddon to visit the Zionist entity

what's the difference with ahmadinejad saying he wants the zionist regime removed when israel and US continue to say the same thing about the iranian regime?

The difference is the US or Israel hasn't called for the regime to be erased from history.

[DogOnPorch]

you're not an honest person.

Iraq used WMDs at least 15 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction

-----------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[M.Dancer]

you can try to go against facts and use "preemptive" as justification for your "iran was pro nazi" comment, but i will keep reminding you that you're not being honest.

And I will remind you that you are clearly and demonstratably wrong.

[Oleg Bach]

Iraq used WMDs at least 15 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction

-----------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

So did Iran - and those weapons along with conventional arms in part were sold to BOTH parties by the same Canadian arms dealer that operated out of Canada unabated....we can look at Iran and Iraq and Israel - with hate for one and distrust of the other along with support of the latter - yet when it comes to buisness - it does not matter who is buying and who is selling ordinary weapons or the chemicals for WMD...money is money and ideology and religion plus politics play a second fiddle to profit - having said that - Israel is now in the beinging of a real crisis - combined with the loss of reputation internationally - with the fact that they have two leaders attempting to rule the roost is not a good sign of stability - TWO distinct ideolgys now clash - and a house devided can not stand and few are going to help...Perhaps the new administration in Washington might just say - so much for that problem...and walk the other way leaving Israel in the lurch...it's possible - America has never as a whole really cared about the safety and well being of Jews..they just parrot the usual stuff - and even the infamous Jewish lobby - with their backs up against the politcal wall will abandon there homeland brothers - Like I have always said - this problem is economic - and money talks - just like a weapon.

[DogOnPorch]

So did Iran - and those weapons along with conventional arms in part were sold to BOTH parties by the same Canadian arms dealer that operated out of Canada unabated....we can look at Iran and Iraq and Israel - with hate for one and distrust of the other along with support of the latter - yet when it comes to buisness - it does not matter who is buying and who is selling ordinary weapons or the chemicals for WMD...money is money and ideology and religion plus politics play a second fiddle to profit - having said that - Israel is now in the beinging of a real crisis - combined with the loss of reputation internationally - with the fact that they have two leaders attempting to rule the roost is not a good sign of stability - TWO distinct ideolgys now clash - and a house devided can not stand and few are going to help...Perhaps the new administration in Washington might just say - so much for that problem...and walk the other way leaving Israel in the lurch...it's possible - America has never as a whole really cared about the safety and well being of Jews..they just parrot the usual stuff - and even the infamous Jewish lobby - with their backs up against the politcal wall will abandon there homeland brothers - Like I have always said - this problem is economic - and money talks - just like a weapon.

I don't think Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Their chemical/biological program didn't get up to speed until well after the war ended. You can post a link to an attack if I'm mistaken.

---------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[scorpio]

False....it has everything to do with why the US/UK/AUS/POL attacked Iraq..going all the way back to original surrender instruments.

So U.S. invaded Iraq due to it being an imminent threat?

Edited February 12, 2009 by scorpio

[kactus]

Most oil producing nations don't so that is neither here no there

The point was and still is that kurdish region of Iraq with its vast oil is not as lucrative as saudi arabia or other persian gulf countries to the US, which are geo-politically and startegically more important to the US to counter the russian threat.

The US has been in Iraqi Kurdistan since day one of the occupation

Yes, again the point here was that the US has much less influence in the kurdish region than shiite or sunny regions in the south. The kurdish region is becoming more and more autonomous which Turkey fears will try to establish an independent kurdistan and would become a strong base for PKK attacks. US knows it and like said before does not want to piss off an important proxy ally.

You might want to look up the definition of profiteering

It is quite clear that morality in this case does not come into equation. It's all a matter of money, oil and greed and the western arms manufacturers are the BENEFICIARIES (I thought you might like the choice of word;)) for selling and arming these countries to the teeth.

Overpriced

Tut Tut! Shalom Shalom! My 50 shekels is still on! Oooops no! I have crossed the lborder line now of becoming a nazi lover!? The paranoia must be getting the better of me. LOL - Iran is a Nazi lover - Not!

I mean seriously, we have gotten so used to invading militarily and economically massively weaker countries that are not a threat to us directly or indirectly it's considered normal and we hardly discuss it. It's a 24/7 scaremongering tactics and the media, like the NY Times are always on board to sell a cowardly invasion in the beginning playing the fear card and then backing away a bit when the casualties come in (although always favoring continuing the war).

They've been trying to sell Iran as a threat to the US for decades even though Iran helped the US contain and defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda after 9/11 and is massive weaker than the US militarily and economically.

If one looks at the US from the outside, it's a bully nation that tortures in violation of international treaties and only attacks the weak.

Edited February 12, 2009 by kactus

[GostHacked]

No I think I'm saying you are confused, that you don't understand what neutrality meant and the obligation, what it means or implies.

I haven't contradicted myself, the problems lies with you limited grasp of history and understanding of the meaning of things.

Fact. Iran traded with the Nazis

In the US it was the Ford Motor Company!!! And Prescott Bush did some biz with them.

Fact. Trading with the Nazis was not a violation of neutrality.

I guess we can stop here since trading with the Nazi's did not voilate the neutrality. Iran probably did as much business with the UK as they did with Germany.

Fact. The Nazis were working hard to turn Iran.

Fact. The Nazis worked hard and persuaded Iraq to turn.

Fact. Britain issued Iran a firm ultimatum

Fact. Iran refused to cease trading and to expell the Nazi agents.

Fact. Britain prempted any turning in Iran

Fact. Iran declared war on Germany.

A happy ending for everyone except you it seems.

So it looks like others were meddling with Iran to force them into comming out of neutrality. I call that a set up. Your point should be that declaring war violates your neutrality. Trading with Germany did not violate their neutrality, because if you are neutral, you can trade with the UK and the US at the same time.

It'd only a problem for you because someone is trading with YOUR enemy.

[jbg]

Like the clanger of WMD's that Iraq supposedly possessed?

Saddam kept claiming he had WMD's until an invasion was knocking at his door. Sometimes a dictator's wing-flapping comes back to bite him.

[KeyStone]

Germany isn't seperating U-235 from U-238.

Bullsh!t. Any links? No.

Use Google. Research U-235 vs U-238 and pretty much every site will say that you need to separate out the U-235.

You're just putting a blatant lie out here.

Most reactors (and all new reactors) extract the U-235 from the U-238. It's standard practice.

So for you to suggest that we 'know' Iran is building nuclear weapons because they are separating the U-235 is simply absurd.

Ummm...U-235 is seperated from U-238 in gas centifuges (by spinning uranium hexafluoride)...not as a result of fission in a reactor. U-235 is fissile...not U-238. U-238 is far more common an isotope than U-235. U-235, if brought together into a critical mass produces an explosion...highly unstable. I suggest you also 'do some research'.

Yes U-235 creates an explosion. So does gasoline. WTF do you think nuclear energy is?

I simply can't perceive a way that you would get this wrong if you had done any research whatsoever.

Either you are as dishonest as Dub claims you are, or you are simply being lazy and copying inaccurate information from a biased source.

Which is it?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00108.htm

Here's a simple excerpt (directed to a 15 year old) for you to follow from the US Department of Energy.

"Since U238 is a stable isotope of uranium, it will not produce energy in a

nuclear reactor. For this we have to have U235, which is unstable."

Not sure if I can make it any easier to understand, without the use of puppets or an animated short film.

[KeyStone]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. It is an undeniable fact they had WMD. They used them against Iran and the Kurds. They had them in their stocks in the 1990s. These are facts that are not indispute.

The FACT is that the US justification for going into Iraq, was that they currently had WMD, not because they had WMD 10 years ago - which is not disputed since the US sold the fricking things to them in the first place.

The other fact not in dispute is we don't have an accounting for those weapons.

This is one of the most contrived, horseshit excuses I've ever heard.

So they invaded Iraq, killed tens of thousnands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people under the pretext that Iraq did not have a full accounting of all their WMD and weapons. Hmm...let's try to understand.

Ever have an audit done in your workplace? Ever seen Deloitte and Touche find some inconsistencies? It happens.

Now imagine that D&T might be planning a hostile takeover of your company. Are you inclined to be particularly forthcoming.

Now imagine that your workplace just got firebombed, and that the people have to sanitation or clean drinking water.

Do you think keeping the books in order is something of paramount importance at a time like this?

If they had WMD when they were invaded, why in the hell didn't they use them? What exactly are they saving them for?

It's just pathetic how you war apologists can't own up to being wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

Bullsh!t. Any links? No.

Use Google. Research U-235 vs U-238 and pretty much every site will say that you need to separate out the U-235.

You're just putting a blatant lie out here.

Most reactors (and all new reactors) extract the U-235 from the U-238. It's standard practice.

So for you to suggest that we 'know' Iran is building nuclear weapons because they are separating the U-235 is simply absurd.

Yes U-235 creates an explosion. So does gasoline. WTF do you think nuclear energy is?

I simply can't perceive a way that you would get this wrong if you had done any research whatsoever.

Either you are as dishonest as Dub claims you are, or you are simply being lazy and copying inaccurate information from a biased source.

Which is it?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00108.htm

Here's a simple excerpt (directed to a 15 year old) for you to follow from the US Department of Energy.

"Since U238 is a stable isotope of uranium, it will not produce energy in a

nuclear reactor. For this we have to have U235, which is unstable."

Not sure if I can make it any easier to understand, without the use of puppets or an animated short film.

How charming.

The Uranium used in reactors like our CANDU is SEU: around 2% U-235. Gas centrifuges allow uranium to become 'enriched' by separating out as much U-238 as possible. Enriched uranium is in the order of 90%+ U-235. This is the stuff used in atomic weapons. It's this process that has people a tad upset with Iran's nuclear program.

--------------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

Edited February 13, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

You're not very smart or honest.

[bush_cheney2004]

The FACT is that the US justification for going into Iraq, was that they currently had WMD, not because they had WMD 10 years ago - which is not disputed since the US sold the fricking things to them in the first place.

False...WMD was only one of the "justifications"....read the Congressional resolution authorizing force.

So they invaded Iraq, killed tens of thousnands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people under the pretext that Iraq did not have a full accounting of all their WMD and weapons. Hmm...let's try to understand.

Let's just say MILLIONS! As if that makes any difference.

If they had WMD when they were invaded, why in the hell didn't they use them? What exactly are they saving them for?

Israel

It's just pathetic how you war apologists can't own up to being wrong.

Who's apologizing? It's just pathetic how peacemongers would rather kill Iraqis softly with your song.

Edited February 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[scorpio]

False...WMD was only one of the "justifications"....read the Congressional resolution authorizing force.

Funny, the resolution also says "acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

The bad guys weren't in Iraq. Your own 911 Commission couldn't find a link.

[bush_cheney2004]

Funny, the resolution also says "acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

The bad guys weren't in Iraq. Your own 911 Commission couldn't find a link.

Whereas....you still don't get it. It was US policy and Public Law (Congress) to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein...before President Bush ever took office. The 911 Commission couldn't find their ass with a flashlight.

[scorpio]

The 911 Commission couldn't find their ass with a flashlight.

Argument over.

[DogOnPorch]

KeyStone: Either you are as dishonest as Dub claims you are, or you are simply being lazy and copying inaccurate information from a biased source.

I think "dub" was refering to M.Dancer's 'dishonesty' which obviously came from reading too many darn history books.

-----------------------------

Better than a poke in the eye with a pointed-stick.

[bush_cheney2004]

Argument over.

Of course...just ask The 911 Truthers.

Edited February 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004