user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Damm, maybe I should do the same and they will give me a free reactor
by ABC on Wed May 17, 06 8:25am
[+]
Perhaps they may have been amenable if the offer came before the sabre rattling and threats.
The natural response for any state would be one of antagonism.
If America was told to do something by a belligerent power, would they be so quick to listen?
EU/UN: here you go Iran, free nuclear reactor, no questions asked. But if you could be so kind as to follow the terms of that treaty you signed?
Iran: No.
EU/UN: Oh well, nevermind then. No hard feelings, we'll let you get back to work.
Iran: Enough of your heathen sabre-rattling! We're building nukes now to crush the jews and the great satan! Er, I mean we're building reactors to generate electricity to crush the jews and the great satan. Whatever, do we even have to keep up this charade any more or do you all get it by now?
Wether Iran is building a bomb or not isnt the business of foriegn nations.
Everyone knows Iran is a theocracy and is a dangerous regime, how much provokation do you think it will take for them to strike back, and attack their nearest enemy, Israel?
Its time to rethink the 'do as we say or else' strategy, as it will only bring the sort of disaster, noone wants.
Cool test for real motive.
Guess that pretty well proves,now,
that they want more than just electrical generation abilities.
typical. the eu has tried every effort to reslove this looming conflict and iran just spits in their face.
US/Bush: You better stop your nuclear energy program.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: We're warning you.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: We're gonna round up a posse and come get you.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: Nobody talks to the US that way, towelhead.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: Look, we told ya'll once.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: You better not threaten Israel.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: We may just have to invade your ass.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: Are you gonna stop? Are you gonna stop?
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: We ain't scared of you.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: We'll teach you.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: We'll get the UN to put sanctions on you.
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: Did you hear me?
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue!
Iran: Bite me.
US/Bush: Okay, that's it. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Iran: Bite me.
And on and on and on and on.
^ ahh, bite me!
wait! on second thought, watch the teeth.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has got some serious balls.
I'm starting to like the guy.
(sigh)
So, herz, you're implying that the extent of the deal was 'the offer of a free nuclear reactor, no strings or conditions' right?
Now, you may be absolutely right -- me, I'd like to hear the details of the full 'offer' before reacting.
^ so then go read it. herzog is not stoping you. no one is. why not read about it and then comment? why comment first and complain that you want to read the whole story? huh? why? huh? tell us.
Kev -- Because I find the argument dishonest. It is presented so as to imply that a single-facted offer was arbitrarily refused, thus affirming the balloteer's biases. An honest ballot would have given all of the necessary info (or at least not cherry-picked so as to misrepresent reality).
Sorry, but this seems like a blatant attempt to spin and misrepresent an issue. No, I do not feel motivated to 'go search for the missing pieces of the story' -- the balloteer's credibility does not merit that extra effort, IMO.
The offer hasn't even been made yet.
And, you'll note, the intentions of BOTH the Iranians and the Americans become clearer by their mutual behavior.
* * * *
EU trio to offer Iran a light-water reactor
Reuters News Service (05/17/06)
BERLIN -- The EU's three biggest powers plan to offer Iran a light-water nuclear reactor as part of a package of incentives if Tehran agrees to freeze its uranium enrichment program, EU diplomats said yesterday.
They said they would be surprised if Iran accepted, but would take a rejection as confirmation that its nuclear program does not solely aim at generation for peaceful ends.
The United States and EU accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program, a charge Tehran denies.
A European Union diplomat said political directors from the "EU3" -- Britain, France and Germany -- and the office of EU foreign-policy chief Javier Solana would discuss the proposal with U.S., Russian and Chinese counterparts in London on Friday.
Nuclear experts say light-water reactors are more difficult to use for weapons purposes than heavy-water plants.
The EU trio first proposed offering Iran light-water technology in 2005, after two years of negotiations. At the time, the Iranians said the offer lacked specific incentives.
EU diplomats said the new offer would be more specific, partly because they were confident of full U.S. support. But they made clear they saw little prospect that Iran would accept, and were aiming above all to demonstrate to skeptics, such as Russia and China, that the West was not trying to deprive Iran of civilian nuclear energy.
"No one believes that this reactor will be built, because Iran will say 'No,' " an EU diplomat said, adding that a European reactor would be much more expensive for the Iranians than the $1-billion Russian plant currently under construction.
Even so, the United States, which has taken the toughest line against Iran, was at best grudging in its backing.
okay, then you need to freakin learn to read. both of you! clearly in the ballot description, herzog writes "proposal."
here it is again!!
"The Iranian government has solidly rejected a european proposal for the west to build Iran a light water nuclear reactor, capable of producing energy, but not weapons."
stop this crap of trying to paint the ballot maker as being dishonest. its all over ther freakin' news that iran has already said they will not accept the proposed offer from the ue.
see the key word here -- propose. repeat it with me --- propose. proposed. proposal. get it!!
here's a headline form todays associate press -
"Iran Rejects Potential European Incentives"
you guys are making asses out of yourself in your sick need to try and discredit the ballot maker. you've only succeeded in discrediting yourself and your reading comprehension skills.
It really doesn't matter how much info I give.
If that information leads readers to the conclusion that the US isn't the source of all evil in the world, that the UN may not be infallible, that socialism may not be the greatest system ever devised, etc it will be deemed a lie. No doubt at this point if I were to propose that americans were the first to land on the moon it would be criticized as 'misleading, false, or nationalistic' by certain users who refuse to acknowledge that maybe their pet projects aren't as perfect as they thought.
So I guess the best bet is to treat cath the same way I treat my other mindless trolls, ignore him until he regains his sanity.
^ yep. its as if some can't read, or are so programmed to try and debunk you for some reason, that they lash out. i watched the news this morning and they portrayed the story exactly as you have.
^ it wasn't foxnews was it? ; )
I'm going to strongly agree with kev24 on his comments regarding people not reading the ballot and attacking first. IF you bothered to read the news the last few days, you would know the details.
"Wether Iran is building a bomb or not isnt the business of foriegn nations."
That is quite frankly asinine. If anyone is breaking an international treaty, it is the business of all the other signatories. If a country has threatened the annihilation of another county (which Iran has), it is the business of other countries of the world. I could go on and on.
When a ballotmaker cites his sources, it makes it easy to check whether he is lying or distorting the facts. However, some ballotmakers seem to intensely dislike revealing their sources, seemingly because when their sources are revealed, it is clear they are lying and distorting the facts to further their dishonest neo-con agenda.
"IRAN TURNS DOWN EUROPEAN OFFER FOR FREE NUCLEAR REACTOR" is obviously not the same as "Iran Rejects Potential European Incentives."
Also, the article with that headline came from the New York Times, not the Associated Press.
And, nowhere does it say anything in the article about the reactor being "free."
And Cathexis isn't a troll just because he points out the lies and distortions of other posters.
If neo-cons want to spin yarns on the internet, unchallenged, perhaps they would have better luck on the Young Republicans website.
Iran Rejects European Nuclear Incentives By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president mocked a package of incentives to suspend uranium enrichment, saying Wednesday they were like giving up gold for chocolate — defiance that appeared certain to complicate U.S. efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
here is the earlier headline cranky. note the associated press please. did you stop to consider that the ny times picked it up from ap, which is common for newspapers?
Iran Rejects Potential European Incentives By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 17, 10:08 AM ET
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Wednesday that accepting European incentives to suspend uranium enrichment would be like trading gold for chocolate and mockingly offered the Europeans trade inducements of its own.
you guys can spin it, or try to all you want, but you've been proven wrong. you came on here with the usual attack mode and got caught with you pants down. herzog presented it exactly as it appeared in the news. should i continue to post the actual news headlines and the whole story?
clearly you can see that herzog said proposal and the ap (the associate press, cranky) said potential. and the difference is??
so, right now, each of you "experts" write word-for-word how herzog misrepresented anything? he did not. instead of getting your facts straight, you (plural) once again immediately moved to try and discredit herzog, yet you can't, can you? that's what really bothers you. it clear to everyone.
for doubters
news.search. yahoo.com/news/search? p=iran&c=yahoo_news
So we let them plod on trying to build their own for the next ten to twenty years, all the while quietly sending them pics of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the note, "We did this." Deters wise men from foolish actions.
yeah, ABC! Atomic-powered brewskis!
Who didn't know that?
Kind of a catch 22 for Iran and the EU. If Iran had accepted, then the right would have slammed the EU for helping a "terrorist state". Now that Iran is refusing the offer, the right is still slamming Iran and the EU...
Kev:
You can't reject a proposal until it's actually been made. Anything before that is typical pre-negotiation posturing. That takes place all the time, in all sorts of negotiations. Although, I will give you that, on this issue, Duke may have just been wrong, rather than lying.
And, nowhere, that I found, did the European Union offer the light water reactor for free.
Clearly, Duke has been caught distorting the truth, again (and again, and again, and again).
Well now we know they dont want a nuclear reactor for power. Obviously we need to nuke them!!
|
|
