This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Iran Confirms Launch Of First Nuclear Power Plant In Bushehr, Russia To Supply Reactor Fuel
Some developments out of Iran, which after 35 years in delays is set to launch its first nuclear power plant, a fact confirmed by Ali Akbar Salehi, the country's atomic energy chief. This had been preannounced by Russia, which helped build the facility located next to the city of Bushehr. More surprisingly, Russia has formally announced that it would be the country supplying Iran with reactor fuel, effectively ignoring almost 4 decades of roadblocking by the West to bring the NPP project to a conclusion. Did Russia just (in)formally announce it is joining into a new axis with Iran?
From AFP:
Iran's atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi on Friday confirmed next
week's launch of the Islamic Republic's first nuclear power plant, as
announced by Russia which has helped build the facility."We are
preparing to transfer the fuel inside the plant next week [...] then we
will need seven to eight days to transfer it to the reactor," said
Salehi.Ending years of delays, a spokesperson for the Russian
atomic agency said on Friday that the plant in the southern Iranian city
of Bushehr will formally launch on August 21."The fuel will be
charged in the reactor on August 21. From this moment, Bushehr will be
considered a nuclear installation," Rosatom spokesperson Sergei Novikov
said. "This can be considered as the physical launch."
And a follow up from ABC.AU
After years of delays, Russia's atomic agency says it will begin loading fuel into Iran's first nuclear power plant next week.
Russia has been helping build the plant since the mid-1990s.
Loading fuel into the reactor will be a key step towards starting it up, but there is still no firm date when Bushehr will be fully operational.
Many Iranians will remain skeptical until it is finally working and generating electricity.
The reactor is being built and operated by the Russians, and many in Iran believe that the endless delays in the project are designed either to extract more money from them, or as a result of Western pressure.
The reactor has taken around 35 years to build, an indication of the project's troubled history.
»
- 6721 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
YAWN! So, I guess that means the Neo-Clown lobby in the Empire is going to go even more mouth foamingly ballistic. I think I'll invesat in spittle rag manufacturers...
first the report on "anchor babies" and now this...you're spot on...a lotta fodder for the demogauges in the US
what better way to take one's mind off the insanity than music and an all nighter!
sleep when you die (a playlist): http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC5C492890CABEE7
good playlist
History! Study your past!
Learn the story hidden behind the curtains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35KcYgMPiIM
George H.W. Bush was the top CIA section head in Dallas when the JFK COUP was pulled off.
Why pretend surprise by what is happening today?
The CIA deals huge shipments of cocaine with the profits supplying weapons to the right-wing activities of the Nicaraguan Contras.
Oliver North, willfully ignores the Constitution, masterminding weapons deals with Middle-Eastern governments.
This documentary raises many questions but few answers in the modern political climate where the general public has become almost totally desensitized to constant, Fascist scandals centered primarily in the century old 'Bush Mafia Family'.
.................................................................................
The last trick?
Any more "tricks" up the CIA puppet master's sleeves?
There is one more "trick" that is available and so grotesque. It is what humans have always fallen back on during hard times or when "elitist's power" was slipping away.
WAR!
The U.S. spent several months moving assets around the globe...
(including 47 warships to Costa Rica "to help fight the drug war" ... can you believe?)
... and now, troops and assets are in place for what could be a multi frontal attack. There has been speculation that Iran, North Korea and even Venezuela are in the cross hairs.
The markets don't forecast this right now... (who controls the markets??? and the News???)... a very good idea is to keep eyes open and whatever preparations made in the past up to snuff.
In other words be prepared!
Have you "eaten" into your preparations? This weekend is the time to top off any plans and all supplies.
Russia will be fueling Iran's nuclear plant on the 21st of this month which will not be acceptable to the U.S. and certainly not to Israel. This is a very dangerous time window.
Be prepared for anything...Washington is running around in panic mode, don't get caught sleeping!
Panic mode? Do you really think this news has taken the U.S. by surprise??
Someone get a leash on Israhole pronto
And somebody gag the Israel Firsters, the inevitable refrain of Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, becomes annoying rather quickly.
Our oil age is ending and you will need nuclear to survive as I see it. Wood to coal, coal to oil and oil to nuclear. Depriving a nation the ability to have nuclear power aint' right.
I'm still waiting for those SimCity 2000 nuclear FUSION power plants...
I'll have a satellite microwave plant :)
Seriously though, check out this guy building a fusion reactor in his garage (ok no power parity yet but still):
http://gizmodo.com/5570817/no-sleep-til-fusion
Agreed. The satellite microwave was the way to go. Not because the power was the cheapest but because the fires that it caused in your city when a problem occured were so devastating.
We need to reduce consumption in order to survive.
Individuals will increase production in order to prosper.
There's only enough nuclear fuel to sustain 2005 energy consumption for 10 years. That includes recycling of materials with the latest technology, etc.
I was listening to some radio show last night - and they were saying that in order to make nuclear work, we'd need to create a new nuke plant every day until 2050 to supply our needs. Also, I believe we don't have all that much uranium...
Definitely nuclear should be a part of energy plans, though.
The fact that Russia would provide the nuclear fuel was previously known, and have the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I agree (agreeing with Zina a first! :) ) , Russia can supply the fuel as long as they repatriate the spent fuel back to Russia.
There's always a first time.
I was about to answer the same.
It will be interesting to watch the situation unfold.
One stake of the situation was that Iran would prefer to control the process from zero to end.
This draws them blame as in a near future, this would mean they would compete over uranium directly with every other power able to control the process from zero to end.
Now with this developpment, they become one relying on others to provide them with uranium fuel and no longer compete with people who buys untreated uranium.
Similar situation with oil with countries providing crude oil, countries refining oil and countries consuming oil.
I wonder if Iran will still seek to be part of the club of countries which can bypass middlemen.
No, they should retain the fuel to produce nuclear weapons. It is the only way to ensure against further war in the middle east.
You notice how even the Hermit Kingdom, ruled by the certifiably insane, and incredibly aggressive, has none-the-less been war free?
Will someone please blow the Megaphone and get this over with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool
Regarding the actual article, I'll take the first barbs. As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, how exactly it is destabilizing to the middle east for anyone else to have them? Unless of course, destabilizing is meant to mean shifting power away from Israel and towards other terrorist nations besides Israel. I think that's a reasonably loaded question to ask.
"As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, how exactly it is destabilizing to the middle east for anyone else to have them?"
T'isn't...
"I think that's a reasonably loaded question to ask."
Loaded for bear, CogDis. Why don't we all just click on jim cramer ads instead?
Loaded for bear
I would forbear from loading but we all know that the coming assault will be as irrational as it is inevitable. If Cramer's taken out with some incidental fire along the way, that would be fine with me.
That being said, peace be with the griller of salmon and stuffer of mushrooms and all within his care.
Ok.
They should put your picture next to the dictionary entry for "reticent."
Well, it's just that, I wonder if I am the token Jew in your circle of friends, Crockett? And one other thing, your level of intelligence is high. All very conflicting - hence the reticence.
No disrespect implied.
I am not a collectivist so no danger of your being a token anything. But I do want some of those garlic mushrooms.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=2021949
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/08/07/1122065/us-vietnam-nuke-deal-li...
(Two sources)
I think nuclear fuel enrichment on Vietnam will destabilize Southeast Asia...
"Still in Saigon" can have many different meanings.
I thought Stills went out with prohibition. Did we send one to Saigon?
Look Cog, the real situation is that if Iran goes nuclear so will Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Egypt and a host of other ME countries. This will lead to an even more unstable ME, one that goes from a powder keg to an A-bomb. Everyone fears an arms race in an area that is not known to practice dentente. And the reality is, despite your belief that Israel is this lone pariah in a sea of homogenous Muslims, there are many Arab countries that are quietly, behind the scenes, encouraging Israel to attack Iran because they fear a nuclear Iran more than Israel does. In fact, in July, one of the ambassador's from UAE, Yousef Al Otaiba, had to be be called back home from Aspen because of his outburst saying that despite the $12 billion in trade his country does with Iran, they are willing to take the economic and political hit because "we cannot live with a nuclear Iran." What's interesting is that he doesn't have such a fear of a nuclear Israel.
The Saudis are also trying to push Israel to attack Iran. Why? According to them, Israel's ambitions are national whereas Iran's ambitions are international. Iran is a cultural threat with strategic ambitions that threaten the Saudi royals. A nuclear Iran would force the Saudi's to build a nuclear arsenal of their own. Then should the Saudi's be overthrown, you'd now have nuclear weapons in the hands of a restless population. (You don't have that kind of concern with Israel.) Also interesting to note is that Israeli nukes haven't forced Saudi Arabia to persue A-bombs of their own, but they swear an Iranian nuke will. This doesn't support the argument that Israel is a pariah, hated by its neighbors...but shows the real politics and fears of the region.
A nuclear Iran would also strengthen Syria and Hezbollah, which, in turn, would pull Jordan towards the Iranian sphere of influence. It's not that the balance of power would move away from Israel. Israel can barely defend it's own borders these day. The Arab countries fear a nuclear Iran because it would force them to kneel to Persian power unless they develop nukes of their own. If not, Iran would effectively become the super power of the ME and if Iran's support of Hezbollah is any indication, there's a lot to be concerned about. But a nuclear middle east is also a concern because all it takes is one wrong move and the whole area is thrust into nuclear war.
Now, while I do not want war or an attack on Iran, this argument that Israel with nuclear weapons is destabilizing has not been reiterated by those one would think to be Israel's enemies, namely Saudia Arabia and UAE. But those, one would think to be Iran's allies, are desperately fearing a nuclear Iran. That says a lot about what a nuclear Iran would mean to the region and the world. Take of that what you will but please know that there's more nuance in middle eastern politics than meets the eye. And a nuclear Israel is not the same as a nuclear Iran according to Iran's own Arab neighbors.
Look DocLogo,
Never said that, never implied that. Straw man argument on your part.
I'm sick and tired of the Israeli's painting themselves as pure and virtuous (they take lessons from we Americans) and the Muslims as evil. Everyone has blood on their hands. The Israeli's claim it's perfectly OK for them to deny having the nuclear weapons they have but it's terrible for anyone else to have them because that will "destabilize" the region. Double standards and hypocrisy galore from Israel, including plenty as well from the Muslims.
It's also clear you get your information from the mainstream weekly reader and you swallow fully and continously until full. Bottoms up Doc.
I think you missed the point which is that the argument that a nuclear Iran will be destablizing is not just coming from US-Israel or the MSM but also from Iran's Arab neighbors as well. And that doesn't appear to be in the mainstream news so far as I can tell. Maybe it is, I haven't really looked. But, I'm not painting the Israelis as pure, either... just pointing out that there seems to be some cognitive dissonance on your part when it comes to this issue as reality does not support your belief that Iran having nuclear weapons is the same as Israel having them. Not because the Israelis say so but because Iran's neighbors say so. Just ask the Saudis, Jordanians, Turks, Egyptians, etc...
Well done! You got junked for presenting a balanced argument.
All of these ME countries worried about Iran having nukes but yet it is Israel and the U.S. that are voicing all of the concern and making the threats.
Do you have any statements from these other ME governments to back up your assertion?
The House of Saud dropped their air defenses to let the IAF figure out the best passage to Iran, as reported by multiple EU and ME sources.
Your turn to show the support for Iran from it's ME brothers. Russia and China don't count.
So you are on the side of the Saudis -- those who crashed jets into the Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9/11?
Interesting.
Allowing the countries that butter your bread to pass through to bomb other nations is not really a statement of concern. Sounds more like a "wink and a nod" and a back door deal to allow an aggressive nation get their way with bribery and extortion.
Ok, I'll take on this silly comment!
Is it destabilizing when cops carry guns and the rest of population is prohibited from doing same? The answer is: it's ok for the good guys to carry guns but not so for the bad guys. Cognitive dissonance indeed.
Tool
"Is it destabilizing when cops carry guns and the rest of population is prohibited from doing same?"
Yeah, thats called authoritarianism and is why most states allow open carry. I know that's not the point you were making with Iran, I'm just sayin'...
Is it destabilizing when cops carry guns and the rest of population is prohibited from doing same? The answer is: it's ok for the good guys to carry guns but not so for the bad guys. Cognitive dissonance indeed.
Somebody should review the William Grigg Archive at LRC:
William Norman Grigg: Archives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-arch.html
So the assumption here is that Israel is pure as snow, the so called good guys, and everyone else is black as coal and the bad guys? How nice it must be to live in such a black and white world.
Anything done by Israel is OK because they are simply the poor oppressed huddled masses. So nothing done by Israel is beyond the limit because in effect there is no limit because they are good and thus can only do good things. And we just saw this theory applied when they dropped the good guys onto foreign ships in international waters and killed 9.
Yup, silly me, it's clear as day now. Thanks for the primer on good and evil and who is whom.
Edit: OK Tyler, I did my part to pump page views on Friday the 13th. :>)
Your refusal to accept the double standard of western media is really starting to irritate me. Not to mention, it's just plain bad for business.
LOL
I was a breach baby and thus contrary from the start. It's been all downhill (literally and figuratively) since then. :>)
We have drugs for that.. You'll feel much better.
Why can't you just let go of this idealistic, rebellious and humane approach to geopolitics and start hating brown people like the rest of us? Come on Dewy, everyone is doing it.
LOL, I'll have to tell that to my wife!
Thanks...
Lots of straw men. No one is pure as snow, but Israel doesn't threaten to wipe its neighbors out, deny the holoucaust, deny the existence of gays, stone people to death, etc. etc.
Taken to its' conclusion, your argument 'it isn't destabilizing for Iran to have nukes too' would be that it isn't destabilizing for all nations to have nukes. That is not the case.
So are you then saying it is okay to have undeclared nuclear stockpiles as long as you don't ever threaten anybody with them? Ever heard of mutually assured destruction? The existence/possession of nuclear arms is a threat in and of itself. No words needed.
RE: stoning people to death. That's fucked up, no doubt. But you seem to be suggesting that because they engage in this ancient barbaric practice, that the moment they get a nuke they'll blow up the first western state they look at.
RE: existence of gays and denial of the holoucaust. That is some crazy ass leader making an ignorant, uninformed statment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Israel certainly makes plenty of threats and many of which, can easily be interpreted as a threat to stability in the region.
I'm sure you are referring to the statement by Ahmadinejad that was mistranslated by (of course) western media.
I don't normally cite wiki but since some of you take it as the gospel, the denial of such statement is clear. If he had made the statement, he most certainly would not have denied it as that would defeat the purpose of making it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Zionism is a cancer. Our health would improve it it were gone.
Oops, your mask slipped!
No it didn't. The only thing slipping is the knee jerk labeling of people that oppose Israel/Zionism as racists.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
Reach back into the barrel and pull out the next label for me..
Thanks for the link. I had no idea about the mis-translation. How could the media distort the facts like that?
(shocked expression...)
"Zionism is a cancer"
Perhaps the modus operandi of a "tapeworm" describes better the political dynamics of Zionism. The tapeworm devours its way through the system up to the brain where it settles and causes the host to behave abnormally until its ultimate demise.
Well then, I am definitely anti-tapeworm.
Right, they don't say, they DO. They DO wipe their neighbors out (or try to), and creat an ongoing ghetto for their "Isluden", and punctuate it with periodic Holocausts.
Any gays that are found by Israeli religious zealots are beaten, as are women who are "immodestly dressed". Also, they just shoot children who are armed with rocks, and civilians who are in their own homes.
And yes, if EVERYONE had nukes, there would be no more war on Earth. Period. If a country ruled by lunatics like North Korea (or the USA for that matter) can go for as long as they have without lobbing a few nukes at someone, then I think we can be reasonably assured that they aren't going to be used aggressively by much of anyone. If they are rich enough to develop and maintain nukes, then they are stable enough to posses them.
What a warped view of history, reality, politics, and human nature.
If everything looks warped, the problem is likely with your own eye, rather than the world.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D - Tel Aviv) town hall meeting in a California Synagogue; he reminds a constituent that it is unpatriotic to question Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhUWJMBTSY&feature=player_embedded
thanks for that link Shylockracy. . . didn't Brad Sherman also say he was told there would be riots, and martial law, if the bank bail out didn't go through, back in Sept. 2008?
dejunk'd the anonymous mega-phoney. . .
One would not expect anything less from a good mishpocha man.
And thats why the good guys evicted Palestinian families the bad guys from their own homes and left them to live on the streets. The Jews make me want to puke.
What is that? So actually, if it is read well, you consider Israel as the cops carrying guns and Iran the rest of the population? Is it how you built your analogy?
In my book, the israeli population is not part of the Iranian population. By what standards could they be depicted as cops for the Iranian population?
A correct analogy would be to start on Israeli cops carry guns. Why should Iranian cops be prohibited from doing the same?
Because I dont see how you come to your analogy. Or maybe you do consider that Israel has to marshall this area of the world?
Did they just announce? No. They announced their alliance years ago. Things will not end good for Russia, China, North Korea and many smaller Islamic regions. The worrisome aspect of these rouge Nation alliances is the sheer size of their military when combined. Hiroshima II somewhere. Let's pray it doesn't happen on US soil.
Wait. So let me get this straight. The USA spends 49% of the world military budget. The USA is the main aggressor in the world. And you are worried that these nations may defend themselves? I know when I bully people I hate when they fight back to. There should be a law protecting bullies!
If the USA goes into an aggressive war with nuclear powers what do you expect. Tea and cupcakes?
Don't forget the US is the only country in the world wich perpetrated a nuclear attack on human history. Ask the Japanese, they will confirm.
Also don't forget that there has never been a serious invasion of a nuclear armed nation. Prior to nuclear arms, maps had to be redrawn something like once every year, as some nation invaded another and took some of its territory. Now, the only reason to redraw maps is when a nation breaks up (Serbia), or merges voluntarily (Germany).
It was well deserved too.
Surely all those little babies and old grandmas and other civilians on Hiroshima deserved to be cowardly crushed by a nuclear explosion.
Terrible things happen in war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
Some of them can rightly be called cowardly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
The civilians on Hiroshima didn't participated of the Nanking Massacre.
The little babies from Hiroshima had no responsibility on the Nanking Massacre.
The old grandmas from Hiroshima could never be punished by the crimes committed by the Japanese military on Nanking.
A nuclear weapon is the most coward weapon the human mind could conceive. It destroys a whole city, killing civilian people from all ages, without distinction, and without any previous warning, no chance for trying to escape.
You are correct, and the civilians of Nanking had done nothing to the people of Hiroshima, either.
I don't know if one weapon is more cowardly than another. is a nuclear bomb more cowardly than a bayonet? You seem to be an expert on such things.
Since you didn't grasp my point let me try to make it more local. Are you the decendant of Brazilian natives? Are you the descendent of slaves brought to Brazil? Or are you the descendant of colonists? Maybe even slave owners?
I'm descendant of indigenous natives, black african slaves and white Portuguese colonists. That's not my point. My point is that the US was the only country in the world wich perpetrated a nuclear attack. So, the US would be considered the real "threat to world peace", not Iran.
The massacre of Hiroshima can never be justified. And the nuclear bomb is much more cowardly than a bayonet. Nuclear bombs are dropped without warning. No chance for trying to escape. Little babies and old grandmas were killed while sleeping in bed. Nothing can be compared to this.
You are impervious to thought, I must withdraw. Good luck in your position of moral arbiter of history.
Moral arbiter of history? I never tried to demonstrate that other massacres on History were justifiable, or that Hiroshima was the only crime against humanity.
My point is a very practical one: the US has a record of attacking other countries with nuclear bombs in its past. It is the only country in the world with such a record. So, it would be considered the real "nuclear threat" to the world peace, not Iran.
Zina - your position makes you look foolish. Please give some thought to the responses people have been giving you. Answering the following question (seriously) will put things into proper focus:
Did the U.S. drop the atomic bombs on Japan as an agressor or as a defender? (That is, if WWII had never been started, would the bombs have been dropped?)
Did the U.S. drop the atomic bombs on Japan as an agressor or as a defender?
It doesn't matter.
The US had all the right to bomb military facilities on Japanese ground, using conventional weaponry. But had never the right to use NUCLEAR weapons against civilians, against a whole city, with more than 300 thousand inhabitants.
The fact that you think it doesn't matter is what makes you look foolish. It does matter whether one is an aggressor or a defender. And it does matter what one is defending.
What right did the U.S. have to let the war continue so that maybe millions more would die - when it had the means to end the war and save those other lives?
Your desire to kill people who are much better than you in every respect makes you look foolish, Dick.
.
.
Zina, the top of our government decided to drop the two nukes to end WWII sooner.
The plan to invade Japan a la Normandy would have meant an estimated 1,000,000 US casulaties. And who knows how many Japanese, likely many more than 1,000,000.
So, we dropped them, killed, what, +/- 100,000 people. Japan surrendered within 2 - 3 days. Instead of having some 2,000,000 die.
War is a terrible thing. Terrible decisions must be made.
And your children may die in nearly identical circumstances some day. It won't matter to anyone in the world, except you and some good souls like Zina.
Blaming the US of today for Hiroshima is like blaming today's Portuguese people for enslaving Africans. This (your/my) generation had nothing to do with it.
Let's not forget that all three sides were fighting total war. The US tried to fight a precision bombing war against Germany, but it required day-time raids. The British were bombing civilian populations at night, and lost significantly fewer planes. America learned that lesson, and realized that an atomic strike could bring the Japanese resolve to fight to the death to its knees. Remember that the Japanese started using suicide bombings as a military tactic when it became clear they were losing the war. How do you convince someone like that to give up? You have three options: you give up and let them trample all over you. You fight them and sustain enormous losses because they are willing to kill themselves to kill you. Or you nuke them.
How? If it is just a matter of time, just let time flow and every new generation will be able to say they have nothing to do with it.
Another stroke of duplicity as very often, people who say that benefits from the consequences created by the actions.
That is a package. You cant claim the 'good' actions of people of the past like your heritage and benefiting from them and discard the 'bad' actions people did because you were not part of it.
Yes, you can. That's the lovely thing about history. You get to learn from the past, even while benefitting from the bad things our forefathers did.
Should my money/resources be taken away because of a sequence of events I had nothing to do with lead up to me having it instead of you? The obvious answer is 'no'.
In the end, my position is untenable. It is too close to Pareto efficiency, which is physically impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics. The costs of ensuring that policy is Pareto efficient will outweigh the benefits of the policy. Always.
Life isn't fair. It's not my fault.
Should my money/resources be taken away because of a sequence of events I had nothing to do with lead up to me having it instead of you? The obvious answer is 'no'.
Is anybody asking for your money? An "Aw, gee, that was a real waste," would be sufficient.
I don't think today's American generation is responsible for Hiroshima.
BUT, if you start to JUSTIFY that crime against humanity, you become responsible.
Today's German young people don't try to justify the Holocaust or the other crimes of the Third Reich. Unfortunately, many of today's American young people try to justify the crime against humanity that was the Hiroshima massacre.
Anyway, as I said, my point is that the US poses a greater threat to world peace when we talk about nuclear weapons, than Iran. Iran never used nuclear weapons against another nation. The USA did.
How am I responsible? I didn't pull the trigger. I do, however, see why they pulled the trigger. That is the benefit of history. We can learn from it. We can understand the forces that lead up to it. How many millions of Americans would have died without the bombing? How many more millions of Japanese? "Only" 200,000 Japanese died. It is a tragedy that they were killed. Out of 60 million casualties, most of which were due to "conventional bombing". 58% of the deaths were from ALLIED CIVILIANS. Only 4% from Axis civilians.
It is a tragedy that their leadership let it happen. It is a tragedy that our leadership was immediately responsible for it. It is a tragedy that the world was put in that position by Germany, Italy, and Japan. It certainly wasn't America's fault that these countries were trying to reclaim imperial glory. And it certainly isn't my fault that America did what it took to stop them.
You can go around pretending to be morally superior to me, just because I've taken the time to understand why things happened, and why some are justifiable and some aren't. You are not morally superior. You evidently haven't, and seem to think that makes you better than me. You sound quite immature.
'Out of 60 million casualties, most of which were due to "conventional bombing". 58% of the deaths were from ALLIED CIVILIANS. Only 4% from Axis civilians.'
Can you give any reference that would substantiat this claim? I'd be very interested to see if these numbers could be verified.
Your lack of historical knowledge and context is truly staggering.
You really personify the spirit of American justice right there. Your statement makes it sound like you don't give a shit if the rest of the world goes up in flames so long as none of the rain falls on your head. Guess what, it's all connected. It might not seem like that, but it is. You should be praying that we never see WWIII. It doesn't seem like we'll be that lucky though, especially due to the fact that attitudes like yours pervade our society.
Looks like Russia is trying to force the issue. Not surprised Putin is not stupid, and an attack on Iran by the USA/Israel helps Russia. Nothing like getting the big bully on the bloc to further overextend himself and at the same time double the price of your main export.
There is no way the US is going to try to occupy Iran. Its as big as Iraq and Afghanistan put together. Of course our "leaders" are mostly insane, so nothing will surprise me.
"Of course our "leaders" are mostly insane, so nothing will surprise me."
You are getting warm; who do you think your leaders are, the sock-puppets in the White House? You'll find no US patriots there.
By observing the outcomes, US & western policy might as well be written on Wall Street & in Tel Aviv, and perhaps indeed it is.
Politics is 99% deception.
well said. . . scripted, paid actors, the lot of 'em. . .
Actors are way better looking.
40% of russians armed forces servicemen are muslim. if putin sides with israel or the us his army will turn on the state. he is just buying time in order to maximize profits for the russian mafia state. pretty much the same as the usa is doing.
He doesn't need to back a side. It's in his best interest to see Iran armed and then argue at the UN or other such worthless institutions that the fighting must be stopped but not engage militarily. As the world suffers from high oil prices Russia gets a windfall. And like in America that windfall goes into the pocket of oligarchs, but still a smart play.
ok, I got you. that makes sense. I had not thought of that. Which is why I am lousy at chess and the russians are so good, I guess.
But i think in the long run he will regret it because sooner or later iran will turn their sights on russia, too.
On Friday the Thirteenth, I LOVE IT
Did you know the Mayan Calendar begins on AUG 13?
;P bitchez
bring in the "shocked" monkey.
Edit: for visual purposes only - I love that face ;-)
I wonder what Israel will order us to do.
I think Israel is just another pawn in this. Sure, the Zionist regime makes great hay out of their hate mongering as does Mr. Imadinnerjacket. But an attack on Iran can really only benefit those fellows behind the curtain, whether you call them the military-industrial complex or TPTB or whatever.
I agree. The Zionists have been and always will be pawns.
If that were the case, they would be the most influential pawns on the planet.
Partners; yes. Pawns; absurd
If Zionism is destroyed, it will be due to their hubris, not ignorance.
Someone has to be the most influential pawn. Read the history of the Zionist plan for a national home in Palestine, and who helped bring this about.
http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-plot-Borge-Jensen/dp/B00072LWYO/ref=sr_1...
'Pawn' is not so absurd. The old European Aristocracy (and others, around the world), and their attitude that labor performed 1000 years ago entitles "family" to benefits, is the problem. Taking us off of the gold standard was one of the most democratic things America has done.
The value of already-performed labor decays with time, because the product of that labor decays via entropy.
No, no, no.
Gold is money and nothing else. How does paying today's working man in a deteriorating paper currency help him? Gold keeps it's value. Any man paid in gold, rich or poor, can save his wealth. That leads to investment. That leads to prosperity.
When the government prints more paper dollars, the dollars in the working man's wallet or bank account lose value. With a printing press the government can steal from everyone without ever leaving the press room.
There is no freedom without sound money.
deleted for irrelevance
lotta laughs here..anyone who supports a culture that stones women for adultery (rape) kills teen girls for dishonor of family..has a basic self destructive compulsion..so ya go give em nukes what's the harm?
sarc off.
http://www.wanted.org.il/ehud_barak_en.htm
You know, from their perspective, a lot of the things we do might seem just as awful or worse. Ever heard of 'toddlers in tierras'? Its soft-core pedophile porn. It's absolutely disgusting. UFC may be the most violent sport ever created where the participants are expected to survive. Hollywood, the drive behind much of our culture, takes young people with aspirations and turns them into demented crack addicts. Maybe you can think of some even better examples. Also, if you want to discuss self destruction, look no further than suicide rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
According to the WHO, the US is ranked 41st. Iran is 98th. I don't know how you get more self destructive than killing yourself.
I am in no way endorsing violence towards women, and I agree that the brutality of the human condition is appalling. They are wrong when they marginalize the rights of women. However, I think that comments like yours don't achieve anything other than to characterise them as the 'brutal savage enemy'. That's not going to achieve world peace, and it's ridiculous to think that all Iranians believe that these practices are acceptable, which seems to be what is implied. We're racing towards WWIII. If we don't put on the brakes soon, the suffering will be unfathomable. As a parting thought, someone mentioned it before as well, but the Iranians have never nuked anyone. We have. Who is more brutal?
http://halfpasthuman.com/wolf.html
" think that comments like yours don't achieve anything other than to characterise them as the 'brutal savage enemy'. That's not going to achieve world peace"
>>>>>>>>.............
if i had wanted to characterise them as a "brutal savage enemy".. I would have used those words..I am characterising them as
sociopath killers,,just as pol pot, Mao and Stalin were. World peace comes from eliminating mad dogs not ignoring them.
islam is a system that breeds mad dogs and the west is infected with apologist and" running dogs" or "useful idiots" if you please, for lack of a better term.
The "peace "you yearn for comes at too high a price for those of us who can comprehend the truth of islam.
You believe that the 'truth of islam' is apparent through its most violent and base elements? That's like saying Pat Robertson and Erik Prince represent the truth of Christianity. All of these sociopathic killers can be dealt with when you call them on their bullshit. When bush tells us that we must fight them there so we don't have to face them here, we have to call bullshit. When we're told that they want to kill us because they hate our freedoms, we must call bullshit.
I appreciate the 'useful idiot' moniker, even if I don't do it justice. Do you support WWIII? Are you a free thinker who believes that the CIA's hit list is good for freedom? Extrajudicial militaristic hegemony will not bring peace. It will replace one despot with another. Also, you're just as useful to TPTB in your own idiocy if you can't recognize where these lines of thinking originate.
And as long as we're making open-ended statements, the cost of constant warfare is infinitely more expensive than peace.
I am a viet nam vet..I have close friends in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan..I hate war.
I learned in nam that when corrupt pols start modern "Peace keeping" it usually means: generating income for the elites while the common man bears the pain of loss.
I am also looking at a world as it is not as I wish it to be..islam has shown the world it's cruel underbelly..from bali to NY and Spain.
from thialand to philapines across the globe..
have you educated your self on the Iraq - Iran war and what was done to children running them into mine fields?
please wake up- war cannot solve much unless we fight like Patton pointed out.
today the elites sacrifice the common man for filthy criminal cowardly power..
to beat the devel one needs a ruthless sob who does not stop until it is won..something we have not had since ww2
I wonder - what's the difference between your needed "ruthless sob" and the atrocities you mention from the Iraq - Iran war? is it just that you perceive them as "devels"? ever stop to consider they might have the same perspective of YOU?
maybe one day, when everything is blown to shit, people will recognise that wars happen for profiteering, and maybe, maybe they'll stop defending "nations" that are in place solely to create loyalties, and thus artificial sides, for wars.
hint: your "nation" isn't on YOUR side.
I hate war too. I thank you for your service to this country. I believe that war is a racket. We mutilate the poor in the meat grinder, and subsidize the wealthy war makers (who, by the way, have very little personal investment in these wars).
I've thought of signing up to serve in the military, and almost have on several occasions. However, I don't believe that this war is legal or just by any standards. I don't buy the bullshit that was used to start the war, and I can't understand why we're still fighting. Haven't we had our chance to assert our military dominance over these guerrillas? Didn't I hear awhile back that the Taliban only had 100 operatives in the whole country of Afghanistan? We can't do better than that. What I'm getting at is we can never win a war where the parameters for victory are left undefined. I don't believe in fighting in this war anymore. So I won't. And because I won't, I won't say it's okayfor people to go to war instead of me. It's bullshit, in my opinion, if you're going to say that you support the war effort from the safety of your armchair. It is the ultimate lame attempt at having your cake and eating it too (please note, i'm not directing any of this at you). I'm not afraid get both my legs blown off from an IED in the sandbox, I am afraid of having that happen to me for absolutely no reason at all.
I do not believe that Islam breeds terrorism. I believe that we have been brought to think that the most extreme elements of Islam represent the vast majority of it's followers. This is not the case. Terrorists are terrorists because they're dickheads, not because of their faith. Their faith may allow them to justify their actions, but that is no different from Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics.
Anyway, I think we essentially agree for the most part. Where we diverge is that I am not convinced that we can solve anything through warfare. You said that to beat the devil one must be a ruthless son of a bitch. I think that we can beat the devil by recognizing and integrating the devil that is in all of us.
BTW, I am a big fan of Patton. He had guts and grit and from what I can tell, he seemed to be on the side of 'right' (whatever that is). I believe he was a true patriot. However, I am still completely opposed to war.
Terrorists are terrorists because they're dickheads, not because of their faith.
Quote of the day.
So? We try 8 year olds as adults. How's that for barbarism?
Are you referring to the "tots in tierras" comment. If so, thats not quite where I was going with that. I was pointing out that we have to live in a sick fucked up culture in order to tolerate stuff like this.
If you're looking for somebody to charge with a crime, we should prosecute the studios who produce and release this garbage, the adult participants who make it possible, the parents who don't protect their children from it, the viewers who create the need for it, and the advertisers who provide the money to make it happen.
To say that we should prosecute the victim is utter nonsense. That type of thinking is akin to saying that rape victims should wear less revealing clothing. It's as sickening as it is backwards.
No, no, as in try them as adults and put them in prison for the rest of their life.
I had no idea what you were talking about with "Tots in Tierras" so I Googled it, and they corrected me to "Tots in Tiaras" which makes more sense.
Well, I'm not ashamed in the least to say that I cannot spell that word. Thx for the correction
i'm still confused though. who should we try as adults and put them in prision for the rest of their life? Who are you talking about?
He is, I believe, on your side. He is saying that US culture can be seen as being as barbaric as Islamic culture and the example he cites is that young children who commit crimes are put on trial as "adults."
There's an 11 year old boy in PA in that situation now.
Makes me wonder, if he is found innocent, will he be allowed to drive a car and hit the bars (not at the same time, of course).
I see. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.
Who's worse? The barbarians who savagely murder 100 thousand, or the 'civilized' who use technology and advanced tactics to murder 100 million? They're equally bad... each group did evil to the maximum of their ability.
Ah, so, Iran has given us an 8-day countdown so to speak.
That is cleverly done.
It appears to me the window is now effectively closed on the "bomb, bomb Iran" crowd. After all, if a functioning nuclear plant is bombed, a Chernobyl type disaster, capable of spreading radiation far and wide, could occur. Israel itself could, conceivably, be contaminated, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thus, those who advocate bombing Iran may now have only 8 days to do so. An attack against Iran by, say, year end, might have been feasible, but not one within the next 8 days, I don't think. That is too soon.
I don't think the stage has been properly set for an attack on Iran for the following reasons, among others:
1-- The propaganda base for doing so is not yet sufficient. We've been made to feel that Iran "wants to build a bomb" but that claim has not been adequately proven and there is no convenient, simple to understand "smoking gun" to hang our hats on. There is also insufficient provocation from Iran going on at present to justify a propaganda campaign. And, if there were, the dog days of August are, afterall, not the right time for campaigns of that nature, I've heard it said.
2--We've been given to understand that Israel will do this "on their own" but adequate preparation for the aftermath of any such attack by Israel hasn't been accomplished. I doubt Israel has a greenlight for such an attack within the next 8 days. Once again, the propaganda base for the aftermath of an attack by Israel hasn't been put into place. I also don't think President Obama is onboard for such an attack by Israel within an 8 day time frame, for whatever his objection might be worth.
3--I doubt the real TPTB feel confident enough in the survivability of the delicate world financial system, at present, to allow Israel to attack Iran right now. The 'blow back' factor poses too great a risk for an attack within the next 8 days amid too many uncertainties about possible consequences.
Accordingly, Iran appears to me to be 'home free.' One caveat remains: I hope this little post won't be considered a taunt by someone in the wrong place, thus creating an unintended "butterfly effect." :)
"the propaganda base for doing so is not yet sufficient."
Man, I remember the first half of 2002, when the talk of the US invading Iraq was just starting to be heard... At that time, I thought it would NEVER happen, I thought that was INSANE.
I was wrong that time... Bush Jr. was really that insane...
Now I feel exactly like in H1 2002... I can't believe they will attack Iran. It's completely insane... But Barack Warbama can prove he is more insane than Bush Jr. Maybe the "withdrawn" from Iraq this month is just a preparation for "reallocate" the troops to Iran.
There were UN weapons inspectors all over Iraq in 2002 but Saddam's palaces were off limits. In November, I believe, Saddam let the inspectors into those areas as well. I stupidly thought, well now the risk of war is over, how can Bush claim there are hidden WMD if inspectors can look anywhere and everywhere?
Zina you make smart points but there is not enough manpower to invade Iran. If the US and Israel attack Iran it will end in defeat for them. Iran will just distablize Saudi Arabia,Egypt,Jordan,Kuwait,Baharain,Lebanon,Iraq,Afghanistan. Attacking Iran will blowback big time against the US. All Iran has to do is send its special forcesand shia militias of Iraq to Kuwait to cut of American supplies. The have Iranian special forces,shiite militias,sunni insurgents to encircle and starve US forces. That is no doubt in my mind what Iran has planning. Some thing like this would be a very signifiacant defeat for the US. Israel will just be booged in Lebanon in a never ending bloody guerilla war. So ther ewill be no invasion. An attack will be the final blow to destroy the myth of US military invincibilityand will begin the decline and collapse of the USA.
That is no doubt in my mind what Iran has planning.
If you know this, do you suppose the U.S. and Israeli military planners might also know this? And plan for it? And circumvent it?
Speculain' on a hypothesis? Heavy stuff! Which raido bobble head do you prefer?
Iran really trying to p off Uncle Sam..
""We will do our trade in any currency possible"
That's great news! I am running a batch of Snidley currency and am ready to purchase several tankers of oil as soon as I can find crude carriers that will accept Snidely currency...or a letter of credit penned on my handy potty rental letterhead.
This investing stuff is easy...the Mogombo Guru is right!...
This (dropping the dollar) more than anything else, will be the straw that breaks the USA's back and thus the reason the US will give Israel the go ahead. Ya just can't mess with the reserve currency and live to brag about it. The Ponzi as it's known today revolves around the dollar. Once the rats begin to flee the sinking dollar ship, USA (world) national security will be used to justify ANYTHING.
Period. End of sentence and paragraph.
Makes me wonder if it is a trap being set up by the Iranians. They might already have nukes, and they want to use them to wipe out the US, but they can't project them, so they want to try to force them to invade, so they can use them as mines.
I seem to remember that there was precisely one point in GWI where the general leading the strike realized that, if Saddam had a nuke, he could use it to wipe out their entire advance at once. This was what kept him up at night, he said. They were lucky that they didn't have any, or the US armored division would have been wiped out, and Saddam could have rolled over the rest of the Middle East.
Any word on Iran's air defense missile system installed by the ruskies? Might be happy to shoot down a couple IAF planes.
The other issue is that jawboning at this juncture gains them goodwill in the face of our collapse. Effectively, by publicly withdrawing support for the dollar, they're throwing down the gauntlet... and, when we don't retaliate, everyone else is free to do the same. My guess is that it is not a trap so much as the recognition our pants are around our ankles. They're just on the horn trying to get as many people as possible to look at our shriveled up wiener. If they're already in a position where they think they will be invaded, they have nothing to lose with this strategy.
Pretty comprehensive analysis from the Atlantic; they conclude israel will go for it alone.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/
The israelis will have to deal with the iran special forces, not a pretty sight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crm1Gk8isbQ&feature=related
Oh yeah, brave little Israhole will bravely go it alone against Iran for the benefit of mankind. They wont drag the US into their shit again or anything. Nope they'd never even think of doing something treacherous like that to a big dumb friend. I know I'm relieved.
Evidently the best use of an Atlantic Monthly is on the bottom of a bird cage. But were that it was true: it would be interesting to see Israhole's assassins actually fight their own battles, against trained men with you know, guns and stuff. I mean we know how badass these murderous goons are when they bravely go up against unarmed civilians and all.
But even lightly armed Hezbollah figthters blew the shit out of Merkavas and kicked Israhole ass a couple of years ago, so it will be interesting to see what real men like the Iranian Special Forces do to these craven killers. Payback's gonna be a bitch bitches.
6 day war.
Agree on the Atlantic.
Hi Jason,
"Our oil age is ending and you will need nuclear to survive as I see it"
This month the cost per watt of solar energy crossed over with the cost per watt of nuclear energy meaning Solar is now cheaper than Nuclear.... An historic moment. Especially if you live somewhere sunny!
http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-chea...
Nuclear is dirty and dangerous and relies on a non stable (and mostly non-American) sources of fuel. All non-renewables have to be stopped being used sooner or later or the planet is going to be totally fooked, either by an accident, or by the depletion or pollution of the limited resources we have.
IMO Mr. Iran would be better off leading the way by plastering his country in solar panels and to not continue with the hugely expensive and frankly risky nuclear strategy that risks the total destruction of his nation, while trying to use old and dirty technology.
P.S did you see this yet??
http://www.solucar.es/corp/web/en/our_projects/solucar/ps10/index.html
....I would wager 100% of people in the world would prefer one of these 10 miles away than a new (or old!!) Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 10 miles away. This system will power the whole of Seville City when it gets upto full steam (pun intended) and requires no external fuel bought from dodgy places far away....
Cheers!
P.S That was a naughty headline TD....."Iran confirms launch of First Nuclear...." haha
George Carlin gets credit for this... we're witnessing the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy at work.
LOL
When it comes to anything to do with life, George Carlin should always be referenced first.
BTW, when talking about nuclear weapons, it should be renamed "The Ultimate Bigger Dick Foreign Policy" because one false move and all Dicks are Done, as in burnt-to-a-crisp well done.
The combination of Iran selling its oil in something besides US dollars has been coming for a while with the set up of a commodity exchange over a year ago to handle such transactions. Combine this with the power up on Bushehr which has long been thought of as a trigger for military action in the region and all of a sudden the future is so bright you gotta' wear your nuke shades. Also remember the last time a mid east leader went down the road of transacting oil in non US dollar terms he ended up with an invasion on his hands based on "confirmed" WMDs in his back yard. Not sure of the reason that will be given but Bushehr is the trigger and I think I just herd a shot.
there be no shelter here
Good post but I have heard many 'reasons' for why we invaded Iraq. The truth is probably a combination of them.
Iranian cleric threatens celebrating fans after iran loses to South korean at the 2010 football semifinals in south africa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOcTnDScts&playnext=1&videos=h2sD6RTrnxY
Those whacky clerics.
Did you watch the video? It's not an Iranian cleric, it's an American "comedian."
Oh those wacky anti-Persians.
Tutor boy! wacky terrorist, not persian. persians are cool; so, using Internet cafe tonight? How are things at the language school? Come to bed supper club saturday and we will give you a real wack. Ta ta, tutor boy.
Ha, ha.
Does Russia and Texas have the same flag? A snake with the words"don't tread on me" Just wondering-- Milestones
A snake with the words"don't tread on me"
I like that flag. It's the only non-collectivist flag I've seen. It's not about "Us" or "Them," it's about "Me."
Only the individual is sovereign.
Free printable Gadsden Flag:
http://printerprojects.com/flag/gadsden.html