FACT; Iran has the LEGAL RIGHT to nuclear research & energy.

[LynnTheDem]

And that is, indeed, a fact.

Has Iran broken any nuke laws? NO.

Has Iran violated any nuke sanctions? NO. Any nuke resolutions? NO.

Condi; "Those tubes really aren't suitable for anything other than nuclear centrifuges." Gee, Condiliar, the DoE, the foremost nuke experts in the US, said you were fulla shit.

Turned out you were fulla shit.

Condi; "There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment," Gee Condiliar, you're either a deeply stupid & ignorant woman, or you're a big fat lair fulla shit again. Which is it?

Well gee let's ask DONALD RUMSFELD and DICK the CHENEY; in 1975 they agreed that Iran required nuclear energy as oil extraction in Iran was near peak.

You really are just fulla shit, like the entire bush cabal, aren't ya, Condiliar.

[meganmonkey]

1. C'mon Lynn, get real!

Condi may be a lot of things, but 'fat' isn't one of them! :P

Thanks for posting this.

I think you should post it about 10 times a day and drill it into people's heads to counter the propaganda that even DUers seem to be falling for.

PEACE!

[oscar111]

4. man is not wise enough to handle uranium

All uranium back in the ground

should be the motto.

einstein regretted "letting the genie out of the bottle"

Ninety percent of usa uranium miners get lung cancer.. just imagine the conditions in third world
Uranium mines, smelters, fuel rod plants, transport, and spent rod storage. Ugh. Let Iran use wind and solar.. plenty of solar there, my friends.

[meganmonkey]

8. Question:

Do you think that the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world, and a lot of nuclear energy, has the right to start a war with another country over this?

AND - Do you think that if the US does start a war with Iran, it will actually have anything to do with nuclear energy or nuclear weapons?

Because ultimately that is what this thread is about - debunking the fake justification our 'leaders' are using to provoke another disastrous war.

[SidDithers]

24. 90%? Really?...

Is that a guess, or is that a real number?

Sid

[EFerrari]

10. That's right. Post it every effen' day until it sinks in.

:kick:

[Boojatta]

15. "Timothy McVeigh had the legal right to purchase fertilizer."

Are you going to post that every day also? Surely the mere fact that fertilizer can be used to make a bomb does not mean that McVeigh didn't have the legal right to purchase it, does it?

[doublethink]

2. I second that. n.t.

Good statement Lynn. Short and to the point. (Still no mention of the Iranian Oil Bourse going into existence March 20th in the MSM either) Peace. :)

[Spazito]

3. Well said! n/t

[mdmc]

5. truth

makes me uncomfortable...

[BushOut06]

6. Facts? We don't need no stinking facts

Facts are just minor details that get in the way, and should be ignored.

[mmonk]

7. It's a fight between facts and legal rights vs political

perceptions. Many countries have acted on political perceptions.

[htuttle]

9. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are specifically allowed to do so

The NPT prohibits signers from passing on nuclear technology, and in return, guarantees their right to develop nuclear power. BTW, nuclear powers India, Pakistan and Israel have refused to sign the NPT. The worst case of nuclear proliferation in recent times, the case of AQ Khan, occurred in Pakistan with the Pakistani government's full knowledge and consent.

So, you're right.

[Caution]

14. They are allowed to develop nuclear technology but they are NOT

allowed to enrich uranium beyond a certain point and the enforcement agency for this provision is the IAEA, an independent group (whose independence was proven during the build up to the Iraq debacle). The IAEA has determined that Iran may be in breach and has referred the matter to the security council.

This is a real world problem, not something cooked up by the Bush gang. We absolutely SHOULD be concerned about Iran's enrichment activities.

[htuttle]

16. What about Pakistan and India's programs? What about Israel's?

...And, need I add, North Korea's enrichment programs?

Sure, there are issues with Iran's responsiveness to the appropriate international regulatory agency, but it's hardly a unique situation in the world, and definitely NOT something worth starting another devastating war over (given that Rumsfeld stated that they're examining the military options again this week).

It IS a real world problem. But it has ALSO been blown out of proportion by the Bush administration.

[Caution]

17. So basically we should just let every nation go ahead and develop

nuclear weapons? Because mistakes were made in the past (and they WERE and ARE huge mistakes) that does not mean mistakes should be made in the future.

I don't think a war is a necessary worthwhile, but to say that Iran has a right to do what it is doing is untrue and I think that we as Democrats and opponents of the Bush administration have a tendency to go for the polar opposite view on anything they do regardless of whether or not those maniacs (BushCo) are correct.

Iran and North Korea should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and India, Pakistan and Israel (along with the US, the UK, France, Russia, etc) should be encouraged to dismantle the ones currently in existence.

[htuttle]

18. I think we will need to let every nation develop nuclear power

Before you know it, nuclear power will have to take the place of oil-fired power plants in many places. If a country can develop nuclear power, it will be fairly easy for it to develop nuclear weapons. We need to come up with a better plan than simply threatening any country we don't want to have them.

[Caution]

19. I agree with this absolutely.

Developing nuclear power and enriching uranium in the manner that Iran is currently atetmpting to do have practically nothing to do with one another

[htuttle]

21. What is your source on that?

So far, everything I've read seemed to indicate that Iran's actions, other than being obstinant and 'disobedient', are entirely in line with developing nuclear power.

Where and what have you read that indicates otherwise?

I just went over to iaea.org, and even their conclusions seem to indicate the main issues are about process, not about Iran building a bomb:

"We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis situation. It is about confidence building and it is not about an imminent threat... Whether the Board´s outcome will be to report to the Security Council or not, everybody agrees that the only way to move forward is through diplomacy, through negotiation and there is still a window of opportunity for all concerned parties to find a way forward."

[LynnTheDem]

20. Just an "either or" situation to you?

FACT; Iran has the LEGAL RIGHT to persue nuclear research & energy.

And that is, indeed, a FACT.

Let the IAEA take it from there. War is NOT the anwer and all war with Iran will do is kill one fuck of a lot of Americans (and others but of course Americans don't give a shit about others and barely give a shit about Americans...ask the families of the 2300 dead and 50,000 wounded US troops about that.

[heidler1]

11. When a segment of people are pissed because they are

being dealt out of the game of progress and those who are guarding their higher level of scientific progress set up barriers to stop progress of the have nots. Then those who construct the barriers will naturally increase the justification for the have nots to be even more pissed off. And thereby increase the risk of terrorism.

[Double T]

12. bushco needs to maintain enemies belonging to the 'axis of evil'..........

so that they can justify their ridiculous, insane pentagon budget expenditures. The US needs more nuclear power to generate electricity; why not other nations of the world.

[Caution]

13. I don't want to go to war with Iran either but...

The issue is not nearly that simple.

Uranium is enriched to different levels. Highly enriched uranium is for military purposes only (either nuclear weapons or fuel in some submarine-based nuclear reactors of which Iran has none and is not capable of currently producing (these are much more complex than a nuclear weapon)).

Mid-level uranium enrichment can be used in certain types of reactors for use in generating energy, however, by treaty and thus in terms of nuclear law, the IAEA has oversight on this type of activity.

When the IAEA refers enrichment activity to the UN Security Council it is because that activity is taking a form that can be considered in potential violation of treaties (ie weapons grade enrichment).

This is a VERY serious matter. Anyone who has paid any attention at all to the current regime in Iran absolutely should be concerned and if the UN security council determines that action should be taken to stop enrichment activities, anyone who concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons should support the actions determined by the security council. This is a large part of why the UN exists.

If anything the current activity in Iran is all the more frightening because an actual threat exists. Iran is in fact attempting to enrich uranium which will give them the fuel for a nuclear weapon. Weapon designs are rampant and easily accessed by pretty much anyone with an internet connection but the tough part is the fuel and the fissile material. Any current government military can get the fissile material, nuclear fuel of weapons grade is the really tough part. Well Iran is actively now making the stuff. This is very very bad news.

It is also just another example of why the war in Iraq is so bad for the US. Our military is committed. There is no threat to Iran to enforce the will of the UN in regards to the US. This is of course the same problem with North Korea. Bush had to chase the Hussein bugaboo rather than concentrate on the very real threats of nuclear proliferation in Iran.

How's this for a frightening scenario? Iran creates a nuclear device. They are not currently capable of delivering that device any real distance due to lack of inter-continental ballistic technology, however they can load the thing into a truck, drive it over the border into Iraq and into Baghdad and incinerate most of the US's combat-ready operational force. Is it really all that implausible? Could Iran get away with it and blame Al-Qaeda?

I don't like these fuckers any more than anyone else but I'm not going to make the assumption that literally everything they say or do is contrary to the best interests of the United States or that somehow just because some other government doesn't like the Bush government that they then become the friends of peace and democracy. Take a look at some of the things the Iranian government is doing right now to see if we should believe them anymore than we should believe Bush and his cronies.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Imagine a nation that has used nukes in the past and has the largest

arsenal of nukes; it not only has invaded & occupied and slaughtered 100,000s innocent people but threatens to continue doing so!

Imagine THAT frightening scenario!

Iran has the legal right to persue nuclear research and energy. The IAEA will determine if violations are happening.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is one successful assassination attempt away from nuking all of us. But hey don't worry about that, they ain't got oil.

[lostexpectation]

23. they have a right but still shouldn't do it on environmental grounds

it a finite resource and very messy

[Igel]

25. In 1975 they were right:

Iran's production's fallen. It happened as the result of the Islamic Revolution, and reserves have increased--as has production after a precipitous decline in '78 and '79. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html

And Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. They also have a right to energy independence; they can produce their own yellowcake from ore on their territory. The two, however, are separate demands.

They have no right to nuclear weapons, regardless of what they've also implied or said. But implication's about the best you'll get these days. So it comes down to a matter of trust: production of the fuel needed for a reactor gets you most of the way to bomb-grade uranium. It's hard to trust the establishment when its leader says another country should be wiped out; this goes beyond mere 'regime change'.

One way out would be for Iran to accept foreign enriched uranium for their reactors and establish a baseline of nuclear responsibility; while this would, alas, also provide a Pu source, it would also give all concerned a cooling off period, and assure the West that nuclear energy, used in a controlled, long-term manner, is the Iranian goal--and that nuclear energy concentrated in short, uncontrolled bursts is not the goal. This was also rejected, in vehement terms, with primarily religious ill-will imputed to the West. This mollified no one.