search this site: search the web:
Welcome to our New Server! Stronger, faster, and now with Lutein!

DEFYING U.N., IRAN OPENS NUCLEAR REACTOR

user ballots

political :

DEFYING U.N., IRAN OPENS NUCLEAR REACTOR


[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Mon Aug 28, 06

KHONDAB, Iran (AP) - An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.

The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment - which also can be used to create nuclear weapons - or face economic and political sanctions. Tehran has called the U.N. Security Council resolution "illegal" and said it won't stop enrichment as a precondition to negotiations.

Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy water plant is "one of the biggest nuclear projects" in the country, state-run television reported. He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer.

- - - - - - - - -

Ok. So I think by now it's clear they're trying to get nuclear weapons. Agreed? Right, moving on.

Everytime I post an article about the latest move by Iran towards nuclear weapons the usual suspects chime in with 'well diplomacy is a process, give it time and it will work' or 'you can't say diplomacy has failed yet, they've only just started the negotiations' or other such nonsense.

So, right now, now that it's clear what their intents are, how long do you think we should give diplomacy before saying it has failed? Remember that time is an issue here, eventually they will have a nuclear arsenal, and at that point diplomacy ends because the mullahs have got what they needed from time consuming talks and they put an end to them.

So how long before you confess that maybe diplomacy didn't work this time round?

Now/a long time ago, the time for talk without action has passed
another few months, tops
another year
5 years
a decade or more
never, diplomacy never fails, even if they aquire nukes because of it
Register to submit choices


Ballot #101069 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
94338. Iran turns down european offer for free nuclear reactor
116111. Would you have wanted to hear about a spill at a nuclear reactor
127563. Will Israel Eventually Bomb Iran's Nuclear Reactor?
104199. Iran 'steps up nuclear programme'
111807. is it really such a bad thing if iran has nuclear weapons?
111539. N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing
54449. Iran says that it will accept John Kerry's nuclear proposal.
64904. Would you support the invasion of Iran if nuclear weapons are being developed?
101159. Will U.N. sanctions against Iran stop it from developing nuclear weapons?
102334. American Values: Pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran?


COMMENTS:
Voted : Now/a long time ago, the time for talk without action has passed
As I understand it, Iran will not have weapons grade plutonium for 4-5 years. So, maybe we have a bit of time before getting all dithered up. I do think the world will have to deal with this problem. No responsible state or person outside of the Islamic world can possibly not understand what is at stake here. Too many irresponsible nations now have nuclear weapons, but I think Iran is in a class by itself. It seems that they want apocalypse now. We need to hope and pray that the ill-advised policies of the Bush Administration hasn't so damaged our national psyche, our reputation in the world, and our will to act that we stand aside while the world slips into nuclear chaos.
by margaret123 on Mon Aug 28, 06 2:22am [+]

I agree. This situation warrants close monitoring. The United States along with Russia, China, et al agree.
Iran does not seem to want to talk, so we (the U.S. and other nations) need to sit down and discuss probable and possible outcomes to a very real threat.
by THX1138 on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:30am [+]

Russia and China don't agree with any UNSC resolutions for an embargo or any other kind of punishment of Iran. Both insist that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons
by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 28, 06 5:30am [+]

The neocon illogic on this issue is that the U.N. is obliged to parrot the attitudes of the Bushie Administration. This ignores, of course, that the other countries that make up the UN don't always think of themselves as the slaves of the Bushie Administration, especially his soulmate, Vladimir Putin, who is a primary obstacle to UN sanctions on Iran.

Although,

"Bush Insists Diplomacy First Option In Iran Crisis

U.S. President George W. Bush today said diplomacy is the first and most important option in resolving the crisis over Iran's nuclear program."

From this propaganda story from Radio Free Europe, it sounds like Bushie and the U.N. may be on the same page after all.

Imagine, the neocons and Bushie not being in agreement!

MAG_afro
by cranky on Mon Aug 28, 06 6:11am [+]

Voted : Now/a long time ago, the time for talk without action has passed
Hmmm, always interesting how cranky slips into the "neocon" thing when some of the HARSHEST criticism of Bush's inaction on Iran comes from Democrats. Democrats who think that Iraq has kept the US from being able to forcefully deal with Iran. Iran (the name means Aryan), who keeps testing the world at every step. Reminds me of another country not too long ago.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Mon Aug 28, 06 10:17am [+]

Trouble ahead
by elvislennon on Mon Aug 28, 06 12:04pm [+]

Of Course FFOL that argument could so easily be used on the US.

9/11 arguably a US government organised attack:
Suppression of opposition, if it had not happened then invasions would have been far less acceptable to international community.
Action against various countries with resources and a springboard for further attacks against neighbouring countries.
Leads to war against Iran and Syria?

Reichstag fire, likely a Nazi organised attack:
Suppression of opposition, domestic opposition blah blah ...
Action against areas and countries with resources and a springboard for further attacks on neighbouring country
Leading to WW2

I don't necessarily believe that argument, although it is plausible.

Anyway FFOL, I thought you said that coincidences were just a sign of conspiracy theories.

Therefore I must conclude that Iran's persuit of nuclear weapons is just a conspiracy theory and as such Iran's official story should not be questioned, you nutjob.
by England_Patriot on Tue Dec 12, 06 2:51pm [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |
© 2002-2009 BEST AND WORST dot com All Rights Reserved