So nucular fuel is okay for the United States but not for Iran.

Europe Offers Iran Civilian Nuke Support
San Francisco Chronicle, United States - Aug 5, 2005

Russia regrets Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment activities
Kuwait News Agency, Kuwait - Aug 9, 2005
... The sole power unit of the NPP being built in Bushehr is fully provided with fuel from Russia.

Halt nuclear work, Russia tells Tehran
Australian, Australia - 23 hours ago


I had seen an article were russia had offered to give free reactor fuel to iran, but can't seem to find it.....but theres what i did find ; )

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he say "U.N. nucular watchdog" not "US Nucular watchdog"?

And isn't it more correct to say in the thread topic "So nuclear fuel is okay for the US, Russia, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Canada, North Korea etc but not Iran"?

xxxotic...are you still planning on moving to Europe? I will find it interesting how your view of the States place in the world as the 'world police' changes (if at all) once you are in a place where you actually get world news without hunting for it.

yea maybe we should start watching al-jazeera instead

i already watch the bbc, seems a whole lot like U.S. news, only more graphic

Well Iran is full of scumbag terrorists. Maybe that's why they aren't allowed.

fair enough

yes I am, I have a lot of reasons for wanting to move. the US seriously has it's priorities out of whack. We're more concerned with giving old white men a hardon then helping people who actually need help, but that won't change my view on how people perceive the US in regards to bailing them out. I was raised to do things for myself, and I'm a firm believer in if you ask someone to HELP you, (not pay someone to do it for you) but ask for help then you have NO right bitching about how the person goes about helping you. Beggars can't be choosers and it doesnt matter where I live, whether it be rome, louisiana or guam... that will never change.

I personally think we should be less involved in policing the world, we do more for others then we do for ourselves. I don't mind helping people who need it, I really don't... but at what cost? Should I starve so YOU can eat? Should I die so YOU can live? America has enough problems of it's own and I've YET to see ANYONE step up and help us. EVER.

And I have like 440 TV channels, about 40 of which are news and a bunch of those are non-US owned, so I get plenty of "world" news without having to hunt much

Iran will have nukes. US can't stop it.

You bet your ass they can.

It can be stopped, but if it is with war, it will be end in more causalties than a nuke.

you are probably unaware of the way the US troops are scattered right now.

doesnt mean anything, it's not like we couldn't have 250,000 troops redeployed in 36 hours or anything..

hey don't sweat the little things..

there is one tiny issue: China is #1 purchaser of Iran's oil. you'll need a bit more than 250,000 troops and way more than 36 hrs to brainwash american people to justify the fact their kids, brothers, husbands will be dying again to liberate yet another islamic nation.

think about this. I do agree with the fact that Iran should be stopped from having nukes, but, face facts, their new president is pretty firm on his position. sadly enough he wouldn't be their president without US officially putting Iran in the "axis of evil" along with N.Korea & Iraq.

Espeically when it gets in the way of the US bashing agenda.

yeah, cause we have nukes already and learn how to fucking spell.

Another thing to keep in mind when thinking about the nuke production in Iran - and why it wont happen - the US already has a plan developed if the EU is unsucessful to let Israel do a first strike with support from the 6 US bases that surround Iran. They have gone as far as having prep exercises earlier this year, as well as recent incursions into Iran with special forces that dont get reported very widely to try to build a base insurgency against Irans current leadership.
Most watchers and "think tanks" have been surprised that it hasn't already happened, although the EU has been taking its time - most expected the attack to occur in June when the US would be at full capacity in its bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan as well as support from Turkmenistan which is a NATO partner in the partnership for peace program. Of course the final piece of the surrounding nations is Iraq - which we seem to have some "presence" in. Azerbaijan is a member of a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective of the plan is to "neutralize Iran".

since the war started al-jazeera went special subscription only on my digital service..capitalists afterall ;)

I get a lot more world news watching the BBC then say CBS news but then again this is a smaller place with less 'ground' to cover on the national news PLUS they have a huge expat population so people care more about what happens in other countries because they have family members there.

Because we've never given arms to a country and had it bite us in the ass before. Do you remember that WE were the ones that armed the Taliban forces in Afghanistan? And what was that little scandal in the 2nd of Reagan's terms? Something about trading arms.. oh, it must have been my imagination.

We're a bully state. We want to tell the rest of the world how to run itself. And we're the only one allowed to have bullets in our guns.

Is it hypocracy ? yes
Is hypocracy profitable ? yes

If you stood to lose millions of dollars, would you be a hypocrite ?

If you could make millions of dollars by being hypocritical , would you ?

What US considered wrong should be wrong for the rest; and what US say to be right should br right.

They may be scattered, but if a full out war occurred where they needed troops, they could pull 100k out of their ass just by leaving germany, japan, etc

those who can use it responsibly.... and those who cant....

As they say in Holland: Poncho? Nee, een Honcho !

can you prove your words?

Spoken like a true Texan

I was born and live in iran for a bit, trust me, you don't know want those crazy fuckers with anything that contains nuclear material. The country is run by monkies pretty much. They almost don't even classify as primates. But I am glad they are defying the world so hopefully it will be next on bush's list for ummm, whats that word? Liberation?

Well put

Not liberation-- Exorcism

Of course I remember the Iran/Contra affair, as well arming the afghani's (done under republican administrations) giving someone a rifle and giving someone enough enriched plutonium to vaporize 6 city blocks are 2 COMPLETELY different issues. I'm sorry, but arming the afghani's 20 or so years ago is HARDLY effecting us now, they *might* have a bullet or two left from way back then... but the fact that they tend to use RUSSIAN equiptment more then anything else (their tanks were russian, they tend to use kalashnikov rifles), I find it hard to idiotic to think us sending them a few rifles and mines 2 decades ago is effecting us.

but feel free to keep kidding yourself

it's been done daily in the biggest and stronguest army ....

there are some basic rules that should apply to any country wanting nuclear power:

1. if your country has 50 foot or taller murals of your president/leader painted on the side of more than 2 buildings you do not get nukes.

2. if your country has an airport named after a leader that is still in power you do not get nukes.

3. If your countries government controls all of the media within a country you do not get nukes.

4. If your countries children go to school and spend over 50% of their school day studying religon you do not get nukes.

5. If there are more than 2 big statues in your capital city of your current leader you do not get nukes

and last 6. If your country has ever declared a holy war on an author because he wrote a paragraph in a book that you found offensive you do not get nukes.


the main reason I worry about Iran having nuclear power is a simple one. I don't think they are stupid enough to develop a nuke and actually use it. But that part of the world is known for it's unrest and violence and so I think there is a decent chance that some hardcore radical group could "raid" a faciality and get their hands on a nuke. All they need is a little uranium and a scientist and then put that bomb aboard a ship that floats into a harbor in NY or LA and explode it. Millions could die.

also, this is not just the US opposing them it is much of the world. If there were action against Iran I would think that this time there actually would be a large coallition of people with us.

just my 2 cents.

USA should bomb them just like Israel bombed Ozirak in 1981

On several occasions, the US veto has prevented Israel being branded as a racist nation by the UN. When I lived in Israel, a country of which non-Jews can only become citizens in very limited circumstances and where ID cards display whether or not you are a Jew, I used to ask people why they even attempted to deny the obvious. Given the history of the Jewish people, I had no problem at all in defending the concept of a homeland for the Jews, and to h*ll with whether or not it was a politically correct concept.

The US has a similar problem, because both at home and abroad it continually attempts to claim the moral high ground. And sometimes there isn't any...

That may not be the case while something is still in the abstract. It was easy enough over a cup of coffee to find good reasons to want to stem the flow of communism, but could we ever have justified killing 2 million Vietnamese? Freeing the Iraqi people is another admirable aim, but who gave us the moral right to decide we could kill hundreds of thousands in the process?

Of course a country like Iran should not have nuclear capability (at least from the point of view of anyone who is not Iranian). And we are strong enough to destroy any such capability. End of story.

Well not quite.

The last time I checked, the US was still a democratic republic. By any definition I understand, that means our Congressmen, Senators and the President himself are our representatives, not our rulers. They not only abuse their roles if they act without the approval of their citizens, but also if they gain that approval by deception. And in most cases, characterising our military adventures abroad as the planet's white knight riding to the defense of the weak, is pure bullsh*t.

The Middle East is a classic example. For three-quarters of a century we quietly pursued a policy intended to sustain cheap oil supplies and only when pulling strings in the background was no longer viable, did that policy suddenly assume moral dimensions because Washington decided they would be easier to sell to the public. The problem is that when you manufacture a moral position where in reality none exists, it is all too easy to pick apart. Worse, when you convince your citizens they are supporting a moral cause, even those who go along with you will not be willing to pay a very high price. Hence we are already seeing the majority turning against the way we are dealing with Iraq.

US foreign policy towards the Middle East has been disastrous from day one, leading us to the no-win situation we now face over Iran. It is almost unimaginable that we would allow a country sitting on the world's fourth-largest oil reserves (and within spitting distance of the three larger) to become an independent nuclear power. Yet if we attack Iran, we deepen the enmity which already exists towards us throughout the region and probably hastening the demise of the only remaining "friendly" regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Also, while it is rarely discussed, it would be naive to imagine that other major oil users - China, Russia, Europe - will not be increasingly concerned as we build up our physical control of the region. We may not need to fear any military retaliation, but we do need their trade and it would be foolish to imagine they will sit back and do nothing while we assume control of the world's main oil supplies.

could it be any other way?...