CrackerJax
New Member
And ur media is sugar coating the truth for you. Where have you been? One need only follow the clear patterns of war. There will be war. The drums are beating.
Europe has their ear muffs firmly in place.... as usual.
Iran Update...
- Thread starter CrackerJax
- Start date
Europe has their ear muffs firmly in place.... as usual.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
So yet again, faced with hard facts you deflect, dodge and divert. War? Yes, if the conservative, paranoid Americans have there way there will be war, I dont believe that was/is ever in doubt. You asked previously why Iran needs nuclear energy; I gave you a factual unbiased report of why, which even differentiated between Iran and Ahmadinejad's Iran. Prior to that in arguing a point about Israel as an non-agressor I give you facts collated by the UN, but no, YOU dont accept UN research, yes YOU a world renowned expert on all things fed to you by the media. Get off your self appointed 'high horse' and accept that there are different views to yours, and just because they differ from yours doesnt mean they are invalid, weak, biased or incorrect. You still use the term Europe instead of France or Germany etc, if you knew anything about Europe you would understand how diverse each and every country is, and consequently views of the nationals within. Great Britain is under no illusion about Ahmedinejad and his anti-semitic views and his hatred of Western democracy, but we are also very aware of the movement that is against him and the possibility that things could change without any need for hostility.
CrackerJax
New Member
I can Article 51 you to death WOO... want me too? You actually want me to dig up all of the absolutely inane article 51 violations?
The UN is a JOKE sir. When you have dictators and mass murderers chairing human rights .. a JOKE!!!! a VERY BAD JOKE!!
Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the US pulled out. We pay far too much for it already.
The UN is a JOKE sir. When you have dictators and mass murderers chairing human rights .. a JOKE!!!! a VERY BAD JOKE!!
Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the US pulled out. We pay far too much for it already.
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
Obama made a deal:
We agreed not to place the missile defence shield over Europe, and in exchange, Russia must promises not to retaliate against Israel, when they take out Iran.
I think it's a mistake for Obama to trust Russia to keep their word, but we'll see...
We agreed not to place the missile defence shield over Europe, and in exchange, Russia must promises not to retaliate against Israel, when they take out Iran.
I think it's a mistake for Obama to trust Russia to keep their word, but we'll see...
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
Yes I quite agree, the UN is a joke in certain ways, but they do have think tanks and independent research mechanisms that are worthy of respect.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind, woomeister, you're talking to someone who once said "People in Europe pay 70% income tax" and stood by it!So yet again, faced with hard facts you deflect, dodge and divert. War? Yes, if the conservative, paranoid Americans have there way there will be war, I dont believe that was/is ever in doubt. You asked previously why Iran needs nuclear energy; I gave you a factual unbiased report of why, which even differentiated between Iran and Ahmadinejad's Iran. Prior to that in arguing a point about Israel as an non-agressor I give you facts collated by the UN, but no, YOU dont accept UN research, yes YOU a world renowned expert on all things fed to you by the media. Get off your self appointed 'high horse' and accept that there are different views to yours, and just because they differ from yours doesnt mean they are invalid, weak, biased or incorrect. You still use the term Europe instead of France or Germany etc, if you knew anything about Europe you would understand how diverse each and every country is, and consequently views of the nationals within. Great Britain is under no illusion about Ahmedinejad and his anti-semitic views and his hatred of Western democracy, but we are also very aware of the movement that is against him and the possibility that things could change without any need for hostility.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
hmm, not sure where you got that from, medvdev maybe?Obama made a deal:
We agreed not to place the missile defence shield over Europe, and in exchange, Russia must promises not to retaliate against Israel, when they take out Iran.
I think it's a mistake for Obama to trust Russia to keep their word, but we'll see...
CrackerJax
New Member
Well, everyone now thinks Iran is building a bomb... so besides everyone on the other siide of the Atlantic being OVERLY optomistic and late to the huddle... what do we do?
These inspectors knew something was up long ago. Heck, even I knew long ago. Politics sometimes gets ridiculously slow, and the UN is so cumbersome a body that it renders itself basically ineffective.
Now Iran is sitting on 270 YEARS worth of electricity with their massive reserves of NATURAL GAS. Not oil mind you, that they can sell every drop...... they have an unbelievable supply of natural gas....
So why WOO,, why nuclear energy? It simply doesn't make sense.... unless you other ideas.
I hope that all of you USA citizens who have been posting about how its okay for Iran to have a nuclear energy plant. I hope that all of you must then SURELY be PRO NUCLEAR in the USA.... right?
Think they can run a safer reactor than we can? A Russian designed reactor??
These inspectors knew something was up long ago. Heck, even I knew long ago. Politics sometimes gets ridiculously slow, and the UN is so cumbersome a body that it renders itself basically ineffective.
Now Iran is sitting on 270 YEARS worth of electricity with their massive reserves of NATURAL GAS. Not oil mind you, that they can sell every drop...... they have an unbelievable supply of natural gas....
So why WOO,, why nuclear energy? It simply doesn't make sense.... unless you other ideas.
I hope that all of you USA citizens who have been posting about how its okay for Iran to have a nuclear energy plant. I hope that all of you must then SURELY be PRO NUCLEAR in the USA.... right?
Think they can run a safer reactor than we can? A Russian designed reactor??
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Are you of the opinion that enemies should not communicate or vice versa?
...no I'm not implying anything, no I'm not saying the UN is an enemy... just answer the question as asked please. Should we talk to an enemy or not?
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
To CJ in answer to your Q.
Iran has been saying that it's pursuing a nuclear program 'for peaceful purposes.' There are reasons not to believe this. With the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran stands a chance of becoming a dominant military force in the region -- the Israeli Defense Force being the only military that could match it. For all intents and purposes, the iraqi military, like Iraq itself, has become almost entirely theoretical. When people from the Bush administration talk about Iraq, they almost always talk about what will be, not what is. There is no is in Iraq.
Other reasons to think Iran may be working toward weaponizing its nuclear program are noises made by iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel. But Ahmadinejad's actually nobody. Iran has a sham democracy. Only candidates approved by the ruling clerics are allowed to run and, once elected, these people can't really initiate anything. Ahmadinejad exists to throw red meat to the crowd -- both for home consumption and regionally. He's a PR tool and a propaganda outlet. It's best to think of Ahmadinejad as the horoscope in the newspaper. He exists for entertainment purposes only.
Another reason to disbelieve in a peaceful nuclear program is that Iran has oil. Other than weapons, the only remaining applied use of nuclear technology would be generating electricity. Nations tend to use their most abundant resource to generate energy -- Iceland, for example, relies on geothermal. Because it's a land of hot springs and geysers.
So, you'd expect a nation like Iran to use oil for energy. But it turns out that they've probably already experienced peak oil. Without oil, they may see nuclear as the only way to generate enough electricity. Personally, I'd go go solar -- desert nations close to the equator would be nearly perfect in the sunshine department. But nuclear's advanced. Iran scored a lot of points at home by successfully enriching uranium. It's the shiny, big sciencey step toward being a big player in the world. To a nation that remembers the glory of Persia, it's a re-entry into the world as a power. Nuclear power is sexy and, in a country obsessed with appearances, sexy is good.
On that peak oil point:
Not only could nuclear answer Iran's needs, but they could sell energy regionally. For all of nuclear's downsides -- it may be the most toxic of power sources -- it generates an incredible amount of energy per unit. Iran sells energy now and it needs to stay in that market. Or thinks it does, anyway.
So Iran may be doing exactly what she says she's doing, pursuing nuclear generating capacity. In fact, there's no reason to believe they're doing anything else.
Iran has been saying that it's pursuing a nuclear program 'for peaceful purposes.' There are reasons not to believe this. With the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Iran stands a chance of becoming a dominant military force in the region -- the Israeli Defense Force being the only military that could match it. For all intents and purposes, the iraqi military, like Iraq itself, has become almost entirely theoretical. When people from the Bush administration talk about Iraq, they almost always talk about what will be, not what is. There is no is in Iraq.
Other reasons to think Iran may be working toward weaponizing its nuclear program are noises made by iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel. But Ahmadinejad's actually nobody. Iran has a sham democracy. Only candidates approved by the ruling clerics are allowed to run and, once elected, these people can't really initiate anything. Ahmadinejad exists to throw red meat to the crowd -- both for home consumption and regionally. He's a PR tool and a propaganda outlet. It's best to think of Ahmadinejad as the horoscope in the newspaper. He exists for entertainment purposes only.
Another reason to disbelieve in a peaceful nuclear program is that Iran has oil. Other than weapons, the only remaining applied use of nuclear technology would be generating electricity. Nations tend to use their most abundant resource to generate energy -- Iceland, for example, relies on geothermal. Because it's a land of hot springs and geysers.
So, you'd expect a nation like Iran to use oil for energy. But it turns out that they've probably already experienced peak oil. Without oil, they may see nuclear as the only way to generate enough electricity. Personally, I'd go go solar -- desert nations close to the equator would be nearly perfect in the sunshine department. But nuclear's advanced. Iran scored a lot of points at home by successfully enriching uranium. It's the shiny, big sciencey step toward being a big player in the world. To a nation that remembers the glory of Persia, it's a re-entry into the world as a power. Nuclear power is sexy and, in a country obsessed with appearances, sexy is good.
On that peak oil point:
Associated Press:
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published Monday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.
Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published Monday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.
Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.
Not only could nuclear answer Iran's needs, but they could sell energy regionally. For all of nuclear's downsides -- it may be the most toxic of power sources -- it generates an incredible amount of energy per unit. Iran sells energy now and it needs to stay in that market. Or thinks it does, anyway.
So Iran may be doing exactly what she says she's doing, pursuing nuclear generating capacity. In fact, there's no reason to believe they're doing anything else.
CrackerJax
New Member
Are you familiar with Article 51?
Nations need not use the UN to communicate. It is the consensus type governing which is killing us all. The intention of the UN is to prevent war.... when has that ever happened since it's inception.
The UN is a complete mess and needs to be scrapped.
Nations need not use the UN to communicate. It is the consensus type governing which is killing us all. The intention of the UN is to prevent war.... when has that ever happened since it's inception.
The UN is a complete mess and needs to be scrapped.
CrackerJax
New Member
Woo, like I said... they have 270 years worth of natural gas.... they don't need nuclear energy.
it's a ruse. they cannot be trusted. They are not a grown up nation. Unstable nations should not be able to have nuclear energy..... it's simply too easy a process from there to build bombs.
Chavez is after nuclear technology.... think that's a-ok?
it's a ruse. they cannot be trusted. They are not a grown up nation. Unstable nations should not be able to have nuclear energy..... it's simply too easy a process from there to build bombs.
Chavez is after nuclear technology.... think that's a-ok?
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
My view is clear, as is yours. 'They' is a very misused word, you cannot umbrella all Iranians.
CrackerJax
New Member
I can umbrella their gas reserves. It makes no sense for them to pursue nuclear energy... none.
it's very expensive to setup and expensive and complicated to maintain. they are awash in gas for ALL their electrical needs.... the entire nation, the entire ppl.
it's very expensive to setup and expensive and complicated to maintain. they are awash in gas for ALL their electrical needs.... the entire nation, the entire ppl.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
Conflicting needs
Opponents to Iranian gas exports say that by 2010 domestic demand will be 42 bn cfpd. They say 20 bn cfpd will be needed for oil field injection; 10 bn cfpd for commercial, residential, and compressed natural gas-including a CNG program to replace 63,000 bpd of gasoline by 2008-09 --7 bn cfpd for electric power production; and 5 bn cfpd for industrial and petrochemical use.
The export opponents note that current production is 25 bn cfpd, including three phases of giant South Pars gas field. When South Pars is fully producing, they say, there is barely enough gas to supply domestic needs. Iran is losing 350,000 bpd/year of oil production capacity, Fesharaki said, and the decline rate could increase to 500,000 bpd/year by the end of the decade. Onshore decline rates have risen to 8 %/year from 7 %/year and offshore decline rates to 13 %/year.
"These numbers are alarming, particularly as they come at the same time as runaway demand," Fesharaki said. "It is now possible to see a future with little or no oil export revenues within 2 decades."
Production of Ahwaz Bangestan oil field, for example, has fallen to 160,000 bpd from 250,000 bpd and will fall to 60,000 bpd within 1-2 years. A gas injection program could increase production to 220,000 bpd and maintain it at that level.
Opponents to gas exports, led by Kamal Daneshyar, head of the Energy Committee of the Majlis (parliament), say Iran has 30 fields in need of gas injection totalling 12-14 bn cfpd. Only 3 bn cfpd currently is being injected. All of the 20 bn cfpd the opponents say will be needed for injection by 2010 to avert a massive decline in oil production would come from South Pars. Iran's fourth 5-year plan, covering the period ending Mar. 20, 2009, calls for an increase in production capacity to 5.4 mm bpd through measures that include injection of 5 bn cfpd of South Pars gas by the end of the period. To reach that level of oil production, Iran must add 1.5-1.6 mm bpd of capacity to compensate for declines plus 1.4 mm bpd more.
"Adding 3 mm bpd is virtually impossible given the revised buy-back system [of contracts with international oil companies] and the way the system is set up," Fesharaki said.
Each year, Iran reports large oil discoveries, but at yearend, its capacity remains at 4 mm bpd.
"We believe this is the realistic limit to Iran's capacity under the present system," Fesharaki said.
Opponents to Iranian gas exports say that by 2010 domestic demand will be 42 bn cfpd. They say 20 bn cfpd will be needed for oil field injection; 10 bn cfpd for commercial, residential, and compressed natural gas-including a CNG program to replace 63,000 bpd of gasoline by 2008-09 --7 bn cfpd for electric power production; and 5 bn cfpd for industrial and petrochemical use.
The export opponents note that current production is 25 bn cfpd, including three phases of giant South Pars gas field. When South Pars is fully producing, they say, there is barely enough gas to supply domestic needs. Iran is losing 350,000 bpd/year of oil production capacity, Fesharaki said, and the decline rate could increase to 500,000 bpd/year by the end of the decade. Onshore decline rates have risen to 8 %/year from 7 %/year and offshore decline rates to 13 %/year.
"These numbers are alarming, particularly as they come at the same time as runaway demand," Fesharaki said. "It is now possible to see a future with little or no oil export revenues within 2 decades."
Production of Ahwaz Bangestan oil field, for example, has fallen to 160,000 bpd from 250,000 bpd and will fall to 60,000 bpd within 1-2 years. A gas injection program could increase production to 220,000 bpd and maintain it at that level.
Opponents to gas exports, led by Kamal Daneshyar, head of the Energy Committee of the Majlis (parliament), say Iran has 30 fields in need of gas injection totalling 12-14 bn cfpd. Only 3 bn cfpd currently is being injected. All of the 20 bn cfpd the opponents say will be needed for injection by 2010 to avert a massive decline in oil production would come from South Pars. Iran's fourth 5-year plan, covering the period ending Mar. 20, 2009, calls for an increase in production capacity to 5.4 mm bpd through measures that include injection of 5 bn cfpd of South Pars gas by the end of the period. To reach that level of oil production, Iran must add 1.5-1.6 mm bpd of capacity to compensate for declines plus 1.4 mm bpd more.
"Adding 3 mm bpd is virtually impossible given the revised buy-back system [of contracts with international oil companies] and the way the system is set up," Fesharaki said.
Each year, Iran reports large oil discoveries, but at yearend, its capacity remains at 4 mm bpd.
"We believe this is the realistic limit to Iran's capacity under the present system," Fesharaki said.
CrackerJax
New Member
It doesn't occur to you that this is interference running so they can get their nuclear power? I would much rather hear from an objective source.
Like I said natural gas is very very cheap....... The reserves are not all over the country so they need only concentrate in one area.
Any monies already spent towards costly and dangerous nuclear power could have easily remedied their rig investments.
They's be selling excess gas already!!
It's not about energy concers.... they have TONS of energy. They want NUKES....
Besides, it's spilled milk. They wanted nukes, and now they are close to getting them.
You can DEFEND their right to have nuclear energy, but the facts show you to be a bit naive Woo. They used ppl like you to move them closer to their true goal, which NOW everyone admits.
So please, don't try and validate their ruse. their ruse is over.... everyone knows what they are after and it isn't cheap energy.
Like I said natural gas is very very cheap....... The reserves are not all over the country so they need only concentrate in one area.
Any monies already spent towards costly and dangerous nuclear power could have easily remedied their rig investments.
They's be selling excess gas already!!
It's not about energy concers.... they have TONS of energy. They want NUKES....
Besides, it's spilled milk. They wanted nukes, and now they are close to getting them.
You can DEFEND their right to have nuclear energy, but the facts show you to be a bit naive Woo. They used ppl like you to move them closer to their true goal, which NOW everyone admits.
So please, don't try and validate their ruse. their ruse is over.... everyone knows what they are after and it isn't cheap energy.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
'everyone'........hmmm........objective source......hmmmm......people like you cause wars. You must be an advocate of the saying 'war is peace'.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
So enough of all this bs already.
I want you to take the train of logic through to the end.
Take me step by step, will ya Cracker?
I'll start off.
1. Iran enriches enough uranium to develope a single nuclear warhead.
(...what comes next in this hypothetical scenario?)