Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

How Much Longer?

84 posts in this topic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/06/iran-nuclear-talks-almaty-kazakhstan

Surprise, surprise, Iran isn't willing to accept any current offers. Russia says progress has been made - but they would, wouldn't they? So the question is how long before concrete steps are taken to impede this weapons program or WILL any steps be taken? If not, what do you see as the fallout (sorry, NPI) of a nuclear Iran on the region and the world? Is the Korean mess a picture of our future?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any second now ....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Iran is going to stop enriching uranium, they just want some or all of the sanctions lifted. What we can do about their nuclear aspirations isn't much outside of sanctions. Don't think anyone is interested in another war except for Israel.

Iran does have a science and tech agreement with North Korea.

Last year, Iran denied a UN panel report saying that North Korea and Iran appear to have been regularly exchanging ballistic missiles, components and technology in violation of UN sanctions.

North Korea and Iran sign tech agreement

The Russians are usually on anyone's side but the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

there is a lot of old cold war stockpiles unaccounted for by the 'Nuclear Powers' ... it is a common belief that most of it is stashed in the Kim's old back yard.

Little Kim can sell them and make big bucks without even a proper running enrichment facility, the banks are already rubbing greasy palms in glee

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian....maty-kazakhstan

Surprise, surprise, Iran isn't willing to accept any current offers. Russia says progress has been made - but they would, wouldn't they? So the question is how long before concrete steps are taken to impede this weapons program or WILL any steps be taken? If not, what do you see as the fallout (sorry, NPI) of a nuclear Iran on the region and the world? Is the Korean mess a picture of our future?

I personally think that All the countries stating Iran cannot have nuclear power, while those same countries have nuclear power, is hypocritical.......

IF Iran want's nuclear weapon's then it (in my opinion) would be just for defense and NOT to attack some other country, how many countries that have nuclear weapons have been attacked ? not many IF any

The countries I would worry about more is North Korea and Pakistan, they are the more volatile countries in my opinion

And silly as it sound's USA, as they are the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons so far

"Only two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both by the United States near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type fission bomb code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type fission bomb code-named "Fat Man" was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan. These two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 people—mostly civilians—from acute injuries sustained from the explosions."

Quote from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that All the countries stating Iran cannot have nuclear power, while those same countries have nuclear power, is hypocritical.......

IF Iran want's nuclear weapon's then it (in my opinion) would be just for defense and NOT to attack some other country, how many countries that have nuclear weapons have been attacked ? not many IF any

The countries I would worry about more is North Korea and Pakistan, they are the more volatile countries in my opinion

And silly as it sound's USA, as they are the ONLY country to ever use nuclear weapons so far

Quote from

http://en.wikipedia..../Nuclear_weapon

The use of the atomic bombs saved more lives by far than it cost. That was a war - a war started by the Japanese and they paid the price. Iran wants to dominate the M.E. and control access to most of the oil in the world. You okay with a religious nutjob telling you what your goods, services and food will cost? The ability to control the price of that energy affects EVERYTHING. But hey - as long as we keep everything fair, right? Unbelievable.... :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, I get the feeling that North Korea and Iran is planning some kind of simultaneously nuclear attack on the world,they have been in kahoots for a while with exchanging missles and nuke power, ect.Iran wanting to bring about this chaos that spoken about in their religion to have Islam dominate the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a war started by the Japanese and they paid the price.

That's actually debateable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of the atomic bombs saved more lives by far than it cost. That was a war - a war started by the Japanese and they paid the price. Iran wants to dominate the M.E. and control access to most of the oil in the world. You okay with a religious nutjob telling you what your goods, services and food will cost? The ability to control the price of that energy affects EVERYTHING. But hey - as long as we keep everything fair, right? Unbelievable.... :no:

The use of those Atomic Bombs saved lives by killing INNOCENT civilian's, including women and children, and in my opinion was done so as a test, to test the capabilities of the Atomic bomb (there is only so much You can learn from dropping the A bomb in the middle of nowhere)

As for having a nutjob telling me what goods, services and food will cost, I am sure there is more than one nutjob in the UK government that does that already.....

The last time Iran invaded another country was 214 years ago, can the same be said for other power hungry country's, including UK and US ?

It seems like when it come's to Iran You have already made Your mind up on the subject, (possibly due to them being an enemy of Israel ?) It might pay You to take those rose coloured glasses off and look at the issue with an open mind...

Pakistan is a volatile country with a lot of extremist's, they have nuclear power/weapon's, why are You not concerned about them ? as much as You are concerned about Iran ?

North Korea is volatile and they are also testing nuclear weapon's, why are You not concerned about them ? as much as You are concerned about Iran ?

Iran trying to make nuclear weapon's, is at this moment in time pure speculation, and possibly propaganda (for an excuse to attack them ?)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time Iran invaded another country was 214 years ago

That's the type of fact people don't want to hear, instead they would rather listen to the rhetoric that manipulates them into allowing invasion of other countries.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackoftrades qoute-

The use of those Atomic Bombs saved lives by killing INNOCENT civilian's, including women and children, and in my opinion was done so as a test, to test the capabilities of the Atomic bomb (there is only so much You can learn from dropping the A bomb in the middle of nowhere)

Your right,but the US didn`t know the devastating after affects those bombs would have on people, is why the US and Russia had a cold war, both knew there would be no winners in a nuclear war. So any of these small country with nukes should know better, but do they? It isnt defence when North Korea and Iran are sharing nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually debateable.

Which bit?

Because the Japanese did strike Pearl Harbour, declaring war scant moments before the first bombs dropped and all because they didn't want the Yanks getting involved in their "military adventurism".

America was well and truly in it's "if we ignore it, it's not happening" phase in 1941.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually debateable.

Anything is debatable. When a bias is so intransigent that the focus of it can do NO right, ever, then any debate becomes moot however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What business do we have with Iran besides sanctions. None. So why should they care what we think.

I like the Central Bank that isnt a Rothschilds bank. Same thing happened in Iraq and Libya. We all know what happened to them. Thats what we really care about. Not the nuke issue. Thats just the excuse to be asshats to them.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of those Atomic Bombs saved lives by killing INNOCENT civilian's, including women and children, and in my opinion was done so as a test, to test the capabilities of the Atomic bomb (there is only so much You can learn from dropping the A bomb in the middle of nowhere)

As for having a nutjob telling me what goods, services and food will cost, I am sure there is more than one nutjob in the UK government that does that already.....

The last time Iran invaded another country was 214 years ago, can the same be said for other power hungry country's, including UK and US ?

It seems like when it come's to Iran You have already made Your mind up on the subject, (possibly due to them being an enemy of Israel ?) It might pay You to take those rose coloured glasses off and look at the issue with an open mind...

Pakistan is a volatile country with a lot of extremist's, they have nuclear power/weapon's, why are You not concerned about them ? as much as You are concerned about Iran ?

North Korea is volatile and they are also testing nuclear weapon's, why are You not concerned about them ? as much as You are concerned about Iran ?

Iran trying to make nuclear weapon's, is at this moment in time pure speculation, and possibly propaganda (for an excuse to attack them ?)

The last statement is ridiculous, frankly. And if you really believe that then I have to wonder for your sanity but leaving that aside, Hezbollah is without dispute a creation of Iran so saying Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years is patently false and clearly subterfuge. Support the mullahs if you care to but let's keep the debate honest, shall we?

My opinion is that Iran has gone too far to be stopped and is just biding time until they assemble the fuel for their weapon. It will be no shock to anyone when they announce they have gone nuclear. In fact they will be cheered in these forums by "low information" types who are clueless of the dangers. But above all else, at least things will be fair(y). The one comfort I have is that those who cheer them on will suffer just like the rest of us when things go bad. THAT will be the only fairness you can reasonably expect from Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What business do we have with Iran besides sanctions. None. So why should they care what we think.

I like the Central Bank that isnt a Rothschilds bank. Same thing happened in Iraq and Libya. We all know what happened to them. Thats what we really care about. Not the nuke issue. Thats just the excuse to be asshats to them.

The business of keeping them from becoming another North Korea maybe? You can see what a nutty tinpot dictator can cause with even a few, crude devices. Imagine he had the capability (with conventional forces) to choke off 1/5 of the world's oil supply on a whim? Is that rally so hard to understand? Iran is an old and very proud nation with deep roots and culture and they clamor for a place on the world stage again. Unfortunately their mullahs are as crazy as can be and belong to a sect of Shia Islam that really believes it is their duty to bring the world into chaos so their version of a messiah can come back to save the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything is debatable. When a bias is so intransigent that the focus of it can do NO right, ever, then any debate becomes moot however.

A Bias against who? I have no Bias, unlike you.

Which bit?

Because the Japanese did strike Pearl Harbour, declaring war scant moments before the first bombs dropped and all because they didn't want the Yanks getting involved in their "military adventurism".

America was well and truly in it's "if we ignore it, it's not happening" phase in 1941.

You need to go back to the end of WW1 if you truly want to know why Japan attacked the US.

These things are enver as clear as most people think.

Also here's a good question... If the US's Aircraft carrier fleet etc where not at Pearl Harbour... Did the goverment know what was coming?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hezbollah is without dispute a creation of Iran so saying Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years is patently false and clearly subterfuge.

WRONG.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of the atomic bombs saved more lives by far than it cost. That was a war - a war started by the Japanese and they paid the price. Iran wants to dominate the M.E. and control access to most of the oil in the world. You okay with a religious nutjob telling you what your goods, services and food will cost? The ability to control the price of that energy affects EVERYTHING. But hey - as long as we keep everything fair, right? Unbelievable.... :no:

Natural Gas Exports from Iran

Released: October 9, 2012

This assessment of the natural gas sector in Iran, with a focus on Iran’s natural gas exports, was prepared pursuant to section 505 (a) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law No: 112-158). As requested, it includes: (1) an assessment of exports of natural gas from Iran; (2) an identification of the countries that purchase the most natural gas from Iran; (3) an assessment of alternative supplies of natural gas available to those countries; (4) an assessment of the impact a reduction in exports of natural gas from Iran would have on global natural gas supplies and the price of natural gas, especially in countries identified under number (2); and (5) such other information as the Administrator considers appropriate.

link
The prospect of the US changing into a net exporter of natural gas has prompted an increasingly sharp debate over whether the US should send its newfound energy bounty abroad where current prices exceed US prices (Fig. 1). The US Congress is unlikely to stay on the sidelines on this policy issue, as evinced by the introduction of legislative proposals to authorize greater gas exports and the Feb. 12, 2013, hearings on LNG exports by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
link

you need to catch up ... its no longer about the oil ...... as production manufacturing numbers falls in the near future ... you can drown an Iranian in crude and nobody would care ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that justification "the bomb saved more lives", I tend to lean more towards the fact the Russians had joined and the US didn't want the Japanese surrendering to them, the Potsdan declaration called for a complete surrender of which the Japanese were trying to negotiate, did the US think the Russians would accept a lesser surrender ?

too many factors exist to over simplify the justification with it saved more lives, the US used two they would have completely wiped out Japan to get what they wanted so don't be fooled this was a mercy mission, it was far from it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really contend that Iran did not start Hezbollah and even today act as it's chief banker and financial and weapons supporter? Really? As to your bias against all things American - I need no proof of that beyond your many, MANY anti American rants. And yes I am an admitted Zionist and am biased for the state of Israel - never said otherwise but I do not lie to support them and I call them wrong when I see them being wrong.

I hate that justification "the bomb saved more lives", I tend to lean more towards the fact the Russians had joined and the US didn't want the Japanese surrendering to them, the Potsdan declaration called for a complete surrender of which the Japanese were trying to negotiate, did the US think the Russians would accept a lesser surrender ?

too many factors exist to over simplify the justification with it saved more lives, the US used two they would have completely wiped out Japan to get what they wanted so don't be fooled this was a mercy mission, it was far from it.

We all have opinions now, don't we? If you had been in training to land on a beach in Operation Coronet your opinion may have been somewhat different. There is no account of history that I have read that there was any inclination of the Japanese generals to surrender to anyone. Even AFTER the SECOND BOMB. The generals did not want to stop - it had gotten to be a little personal for them what with Nuremberg and all. So cry for the Japanese if you like but I say your attitude would be different if it was your life that had been on the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really contend that Iran did not start Hezbollah and even today act as it's chief banker and financial and weapons supporter? Really? As to your bias against all things American - I need no proof of that beyond your many, MANY anti American rants. And yes I am an admitted Zionist and am biased for the state of Israel - never said otherwise but I do not lie to support them and I call them wrong when I see them being wrong.

So where do you get this opinion from about Hezbollah? Where does that information come from? Western media yes? Oh the same western media that does this:

You are syaing you trust the media when they tell you these things? Yet you cnanot view it from an outside of the media view and make your own decisions?! lol

Me biased to the US... NO.

Doe I hate the Federal reserve and their money/war machine and disregard for human life.... Hell yes.

Do I hate America... No way. I love American people and American culture. I jsut don't liek their corrupt leaders.

Do I liek any corrupt leaders? NO. I can't think of one Goverment I would trust.

So If I don't trust any goverments how cna I be biased nto trusting the US goverment? Exactly.

Why does it seem like I am constantly bashing the US goverment then? Oh because I'm actually not. If you actually asked my opinion on Irans goverment I woudl tell you how much I dislike them and how they should not keep the people suppressed liek they do. No youtube etc on the internet, they haven't got much freedom etc. I dilsike Irans goverment. I jsut see them as a lesser evil than the US goverment though. At least the Iranian goverment is honest. The US goverment has it's people living under a false freedom.

Spending your life as a slave to a corrupt system is not freedom. A few people owning the worlds wealth and controlling the goverment system is not liberty. It certianly is not "American".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last statement is ridiculous, frankly. And if you really believe that then I have to wonder for your sanity but leaving that aside, Hezbollah is without dispute a creation of Iran so saying Iran has not attacked anyone in 200 years is patently false and clearly subterfuge. Support the mullahs if you care to but let's keep the debate honest, shall we?

My opinion is that Iran has gone too far to be stopped and is just biding time until they assemble the fuel for their weapon. It will be no shock to anyone when they announce they have gone nuclear. In fact they will be cheered in these forums by "low information" types who are clueless of the dangers. But above all else, at least things will be fair(y). The one comfort I have is that those who cheer them on will suffer just like the rest of us when things go bad. THAT will be the only fairness you can reasonably expect from Iran.

My last statement is nothing of a sort... Iran trying to make nuclear weapon's, is at this moment in time pure speculation, plain and simple, there is NO evidence (that I know of) that states they are trying to create a nuclear weapon, and yes it could be pure propaganda by Israel US UK and the rest of the countries that are sanctioning Iran, just like the NONE EXISTANT, WMD's were for invading Iraq ?

You start off by questioning my sanity, trying to make people believe I am insane or the like, and then leave it aside ? what about my sanity ? Did my response to You, really P*** You off that much You have to try and belittle me ? isnt that what those paid internet shill's do ? (not saying You are one just that, that is the tactics they use)

How can we "keep the debate honest" when You yourself stated...

"I am an admitted Zionist and am biased for the state of Israel"

And Iran is an enemy of Israel, need I say more ?

Debates can NEVER be honest when one person or the other, that is debating is BIASED, in my opinion

The last time Iran invaded another country was 214 years ago - FACT, (maybe one that You may NOT like but it is fact all the same)

I think EVERYONE know's the danger's of Nuclear weapon's and what a nuclear war would cause, whether they are on these forum's or anywhere else, EVEN those "low information types" that You refer to

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have opinions now, don't we? If you had been in training to land on a beach in Operation Coronet your opinion may have been somewhat different. There is no account of history that I have read that there was any inclination of the Japanese generals to surrender to anyone. Even AFTER the SECOND BOMB. The generals did not want to stop - it had gotten to be a little personal for them what with Nuremberg and all. So cry for the Japanese if you like but I say your attitude would be different if it was your life that had been on the line.

Regardless, the fact is that Japan did surrender after the second, and that the US dropped two to force that surrender implies the US would have continued to drop until a Japanese surrender, in effect making this mission of mercy argument moot, and calm down no one is crying for the Japanese its an opinion that differs to yours, no need to go all butthurt about it.

I think the fact Marshall Togo deferred any decision being made on rejecting the surrender proposals until they had had chance to speak with the Russians had everything to do with the reason for the strikes, and it also implies that perhaps not all those at the top were hell bent on carrying on,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.