YET ANOTHER REASON TO BOMB THE HELL OUT OF IRAN AND PUT THEM IN THERE PLACE> Like they are going to use these power plants for power. NOT

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2007 2:35 PM GMT
    Iran seeks at least 50,000 centrifuges, says Ahmadinejad - Summary
    Ilam, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Islamic republic still seeks at least 50,000 uranium- enriching centrifuges in order to provide fuel for its nuclear power plants in the future. "We need at least 50,000 centrifuges in order to realize our aim of producing our own nuclear fuel," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Galavizan sports in the western provincial capital city of Ilam.

    In September, Ahmadinejad said Iran had reached a key point of its nuclear drive by installing 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges which were all operational.

    Experts say 3,000 centrifuges could make enough enriched uranium for an atomic bomb in about a year if they were operating properly for long periods at supersonic speeds.

    The United Nations Security Council has passed two resolutions calling on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

    While the West suspects Tehran of actively pursuing nuclear weapons, Tehran insists it is for peaceful purposes aiming at producing electricity.

    "We have not given in to any suspension of uranium enrichment and it was great work by Iranian nation to resist the big powers for a long time," Ahmadinejad said in defiance of world powers.

    Rejecting the UN demands, Iran calls the US and its Western allies to stop politicizing Iran's nuclear programme and allow the dossier to be returned from the UN Security Council to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    A US intelligence released a report on Monday verifying Iran had halted its atomic weapons programme in 2003 and seemed less determined to develop nuclear arms than George W Bush's administration previously believed.

    As of mid-2007, Iran had not resumed its nuclear weapons programme even as it was continuing uranium enrichment in defiance of the United Nations Security Council, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report said.

    Ahmadinejad earlier termed the report as a victory for Iranian nation in nuclear battle against the Washington and said "What's important is, we won the battle against the US for maintaining our grace and independence.

    He reiterated his country will not back down in its nuclear dispute with the West: "Following this (US intelligence) report, the enemies of Iran have realized that they can not intimidate our nation with threats."

    On Tuesday, President George W Bush stood by his tough Iran policy and said "I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous."

    "And I believe now is the time for the world to do the hard work necessary to convince the Iranians there is a better way forward," Bush said at a White House press conference.

    Washington has had comprehensive sanctions on Iran since the 1979- 1981 US embassy takeover, and Bush ordered the tightening of the sanctions in October to target Iranian banks and financial institutions believed to be supporting Tehran's nuclear work.

    Copyright, respective author or news agency
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16461

    Dec 08, 2007 2:11 PM GMT
    "Put them in their place"???? Thank god you aren't our President. What did the Iranian people do for us to "put them there"??

    And what the hell is their "place"??

    I would agree that since the embassy takeover in 1979 the Iranian regime has been anti American (and a mess),
    but does that entitle us to "put them in a subordinate
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Dec 10, 2007 6:25 PM GMT
    Iran's President Ahmedinejad remains ever the provocateur, drawing international spotlights by antagonizing the US. Thankfully, he, like President Bush, will be out of office in not too long. If the rumors are correct, the Ayatollah (the real power in the Iranian system; an Iranian president does not equal an American president) may soon work to replace him at the next election.

    There are probably at least some political factions in Iran that desire to be part of our world's nuclear club, particularly after Pakistan and India joined the club against international protests (it's also interesting to see whether the rumors of Brazil's intentions of joining it will materialize into something dramatic). I don't know whether Ahmedinejad is genuinely part of one of them and much of his politically tabloid speechifying seems to be along the lines of "look at me! Look at me!"

    Bush's "tough" policies...I'd call them poor, mismanaged, and misguided rather than "tough." I am concerned about how poor the policies of the next US President will be. I just hope that the next Iranian President will be more like the former, taking on the mantle of a political and civil reformer.

    As for the Iranian student seizure of the US embassy in Tehran following the '79 was a breach of diplomatic protocol and had an understandable effect on the US' relationship with Iran. However, the US' control of Iran prior to the Revolution through the corrupt Shah (who wasted much of Iran's oil funds into older US weaponry) should be part of any discussion of the embassy take-over; to not do so is to throw a blanket over a major factor in US-Iran relations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2007 1:09 AM GMT
    Iran is a small country with an ego.

    They are wasting their resources on nuclear technology at the cost of their citizens.

    They will not be able to support a nuclear program even if they did have the money.

    Billions are being spent on development. If they do develop a nuclear bomb there is a high chance that it will malfunction in some way, missing it's target.

    Starving Citizens = Revolution.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2007 1:16 AM GMT
    Preaching from behind the bar, are we?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2007 1:18 AM GMT
    Read this week's Time magazine or try talking to a few people from Iran... you'll see a totally different situation from what our government's been painting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2007 10:34 AM GMT
    The only country that was ever stupid enough (or dangerous enough) to use nukes was the USA, why should the be allowed te own nuclear weapons? MMHH Maybe the European union should bomb the hell out of the US and put them in there place. The US has "the Hague invasion act" a law that authorise to invade a friend state(the Netherlands) if an American must stand trial for the international court..... The US has a great debt to the UN due to not paid membershipfee's to the UN. In my opinion the US should be banned from the UN untill they are e compleet member of it.
    Tylerjock, can you explain why you don't pleed for bombing Israel while that country is in possesion of nukes, disregarding all international laws? Ever thought about the possibillity that a country wants te be able to deffend itselfs to the agression of the US and that they have the right to do that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2007 2:31 AM GMT
    yep that's it...bomb the crap out of one country that 'allegedly' has nuclear weapons...that's solves ridiculously hypocritical and naive.

    Tyler - you've sparked some great debate in the last few weeks, but can you really be like this, at only 18? Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but the 'cut and paste' mentality really has to stop. Trying writing an opinion on your own.

    How do you really feel about Iran? Have you ever been there? Do you have friends there? If your solution is to bomb them, how do you justify this as the proper and only reasonable course of action?

    Answer the questions above if you're serious. Otherwise, I'll claim your just interested in baiting people....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 14, 2007 3:13 AM GMT
    You also need to understand that the Iranian president has no power. He is merely a figurehead and head of the civil service (the government bureaucracy). His position is closer to the Chief of Staff or Secretary of Commerce than an American-style president. He has no power craft or pass legislation or mobilize troops. The real head of state in Iran is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Ahmadinejad's words are just words. The New York Times ran a story where Iranians wondered why Americans pay so much attention to him. Iranians think he's a hothead and have no more respect for him than most Americans do for Bush.

    The US is already running itself into bankruptcy funding the Iraq and Afghan War on top of already crippling government deficit. The dollar is falling like a rock against the Euro, Pound and Canadian dollar, which is going to hurt soon when the additional costs of commodities and imports finishes rippling through the economy. Many economists already say the US may slide into recession in 2008.

    Does the US really want to start another unpopular war when its own intelligence agencies have said that there is no imminent threat? Bombing it isn't going to do much good; their facilities are widespread and sophisticated and Iran is a bit too big and the regime too entrench to just walk in and conquer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2007 11:03 PM GMT