# Obama: Iran has a "right" to nuclear energy



## DavidS

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

 LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful. 
  In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor. 
 Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons. 
 "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race. 
 The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington. 
 "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said. 
  Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad. 
 "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."


----------



## WillowTree

Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???


----------



## jillian

What he really said... got lost in there, eh?

*"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race. *

I don't think anyone would say there aren't competing interests... and perhaps the fact that he knows that will enable him to see when Ahmadinejhad is full of it.... 

or maybe the ratcheted down rhetoric will enable him to enlist the more moderate Arab countries who are Sunni and have an interest in seeing the Shi'a in Iran kept at bay

just sayin'


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Ah, yes, the Carter Doctrine.  He worked those moderate states to prevail over the extremists like a master.


----------



## sealybobo

DavidS said:


> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."



If they can't/won't stop N. Korea, how we gonna stop Iran?  

Fuck Israel.  Let them deal with Iran.  None of our business.

And fuck Americans fighting these bullshit wars.  I saw a documentary on Mohamad Ali last night.  He was sooo right.  Why should a black man go to another country to kill brown men for the white man?

All wars are about rich people making a power grab.  If Dick Cheney wants to go die for his cause, we can strap a fucking suicide bomb on his fat ass and let him blow himself up.  That's what he asks our kids to do.  Fuck the GOP and yes, Iran can have a nuke too.  How many other countries have them?  Fuck it!!!!  They can't reach the USA.


----------



## WillowTree

you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??


----------



## Shogun

Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.


That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Ah, yes, the Carter Doctrine.  He worked those moderate states to prevail over the extremists like a master.





That was 30 fucking years ago.. what were WE doing at the very same period in time THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO?







get the fuck over it and find common ground, stupid.


----------



## Shogun

WillowTree said:


> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??



uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?


----------



## elvis

DavidS said:


> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."



starting to waiver on supporting Obama, there David?


----------



## WillowTree

Shogun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
Click to expand...




when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?


----------



## Newby

WillowTree said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
Click to expand...



I was thinking the same thing after reading his post, the same applies to oil refineries as well.


----------



## sealybobo

Shogun said:


> Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.
> 
> 
> That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.



Who said Iran was the enemy?  Cheney?  Israel?  

I don't care about either.

Of course I don't want Israel to be nuked, but that would be death to Iran, so it aint going to happen.  

Don't believe Cheney when he says Iran doesn't care.  Yes they do.  They are just like us.  

Right wingers have just been swallowing Cheney's bullshit.

Look at how they lied about the threat Iraq was to us.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???



More jibberish from lamebrain. _No one _has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.


----------



## elvis

sealybobo said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.
> 
> 
> That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Iran was the enemy?  Cheney?  Israel?
> 
> I don't care about either.
> 
> Of course I don't want Israel to be nuked, but that would be death to Iran, so it aint going to happen.
> 
> Don't believe Cheney when he says Iran doesn't care.  Yes they do.  They are just like us.
> 
> Right wingers have just been swallowing Cheney's bullshit.
> 
> Look at how they lied about the threat Iraq was to us.
Click to expand...


If Ahmadinejad gets his way, Iran will nuke Israel.  You see, he believes armageddon will bring about the 12th imam of Islam.  The Mullahs control the military, but ahmadinejad's rhetoric is dangerous.


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??



Now where did you get that idea, honey?


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More jibberish from lamebrain. _No one _has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.
Click to expand...


can you spell development? try it sometime before you address me as "lamebrain" it helps make yer case! cupcake!


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
Click to expand...


All of your dumb questions are easily answered with a few clicks. Try it sometime instead of posting your silly blather, proving you don't actually KNOW a goddamned thing.


----------



## auditor0007

sealybobo said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't/won't stop N. Korea, how we gonna stop Iran?
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Let them deal with Iran.  None of our business.
> 
> And fuck Americans fighting these bullshit wars.  I saw a documentary on Mohamad Ali last night.  He was sooo right.  Why should a black man go to another country to kill brown men for the white man?
> 
> All wars are about rich people making a power grab.  If Dick Cheney wants to go die for his cause, we can strap a fucking suicide bomb on his fat ass and let him blow himself up.  That's what he asks our kids to do.  Fuck the GOP and yes, Iran can have a nuke too.  How many other countries have them?  Fuck it!!!!  They can't reach the USA.
Click to expand...


If they can develop a nuclear warhead, they will certainly be capable of developing a missile that can reach the US.  Maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough.  The problem is that even if we keep them from developing these weapons now, eventually they will have them.  And it won't just be Iran and N. Korea, because more and more countries will develop them over time.


----------



## auditor0007

Shogun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
Click to expand...


No ban; just no development of new reactors in how many years?  30 or more?


----------



## MaggieMae

Newby said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing after reading his post, the same applies to oil refineries as well.
Click to expand...


Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your dumb questions are easily answered with a few clicks. Try it sometime instead of posting your silly blather, proving you don't actually KNOW a goddamned thing.
Click to expand...





I'm waiting.. why haven't we built some???? why can't we drill our own gas and natural gas?? why doyathink?? tell me without googling..


----------



## del

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now where did you get that idea, honey?
Click to expand...


probably from obama, sweetie.

"To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy  solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"

i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
probably a typo.

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing after reading his post, the same applies to oil refineries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?
Click to expand...






you gonna fly yer airplane on a fart?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

MaggieMae said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing after reading his post, the same applies to oil refineries as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?
Click to expand...


I have many in my backyard.  And the nimby factor is alive and well when it comes to locating "green energy."


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More jibberish from lamebrain. _No one _has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you spell development? try it sometime before you address me as "lamebrain" it helps make yer case! cupcake!
Click to expand...


Ohhhhh, nanner nanner nanner, from the schoolgirl bully.


----------



## MaggieMae

auditor0007 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't/won't stop N. Korea, how we gonna stop Iran?
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Let them deal with Iran.  None of our business.
> 
> And fuck Americans fighting these bullshit wars.  I saw a documentary on Mohamad Ali last night.  He was sooo right.  Why should a black man go to another country to kill brown men for the white man?
> 
> All wars are about rich people making a power grab.  If Dick Cheney wants to go die for his cause, we can strap a fucking suicide bomb on his fat ass and let him blow himself up.  That's what he asks our kids to do.  Fuck the GOP and yes, Iran can have a nuke too.  How many other countries have them?  Fuck it!!!!  They can't reach the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they can develop a nuclear warhead, they will certainly be capable of developing a missile that can reach the US.  Maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough.  The problem is that even if we keep them from developing these weapons now, eventually they will have them.  And it won't just be Iran and N. Korea, because more and more countries will develop them over time.
Click to expand...


All it takes is one. We're entering a new phase of detente, but  the REAL worry is that a terrorist group will get its hands on the technology, or be provided with one already packaged and ready to fire by some rogue country like North Korea.


----------



## Shogun

WillowTree said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
Click to expand...


You dumb bitch...  Ameren UE here in Missouri was two cunthairs away from building ANOTHER nuke plant but folded the idea after they couldn't get the state voters to PAY FOR IT.  Google it, you fucking dingleberry.

They HAD permits to build.  They DIDNT have the cash to build it without fleecing the very fucking customers that decided not to vote to pay for a fucking new plant.

Your tired fucking rhetoric is old.

UPDATE: AmerenUE suspends plans for new mid-Missouri nuclear reactor - Columbia Missourian


----------



## DavidS

jillian said:


> What he really said... got lost in there, eh?
> 
> *"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race. *
> 
> I don't think anyone would say there aren't competing interests... and perhaps the fact that he knows that will enable him to see when Ahmadinejhad is full of it....
> 
> or maybe the ratcheted down rhetoric will enable him to enlist the more moderate Arab countries who are Sunni and have an interest in seeing the Shi'a in Iran kept at bay
> 
> just sayin'



No, Jillian. No.

Obama said "President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some *right to nuclear energy* _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."

Iran has as much right to nuclear energy as Shogun does to be Angas' love slave.


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?



I guess you'd have to be smart enough to see through that bullshit purposeful mistranslation that works so well from the loudest voices against, ironically, propaganda.  


Maybe if israel were not so hellbent on the kind of racist zionism that would make David Duke pop a boner muslim nations would be a lot more accepting of Palisrael.


----------



## elvis

DavidS said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he really said... got lost in there, eh?
> 
> *"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race. *
> 
> I don't think anyone would say there aren't competing interests... and perhaps the fact that he knows that will enable him to see when Ahmadinejhad is full of it....
> 
> or maybe the ratcheted down rhetoric will enable him to enlist the more moderate Arab countries who are Sunni and have an interest in seeing the Shi'a in Iran kept at bay
> 
> just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jillian. No.
> 
> Obama said "President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some *right to nuclear energy* _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
> 
> Iran has as much right to nuclear energy as Shogun does to be Angas' love slave.
Click to expand...


you voting for Romney in 2012, then?


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> More jibberish from lamebrain. _No one _has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you spell development? try it sometime before you address me as "lamebrain" it helps make yer case! cupcake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, nanner nanner nanner, from the schoolgirl bully.
Click to expand...





poor little lefty,, being bullied by a right winger.. oh boo fucking hoo!


----------



## Shogun

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More jibberish from lamebrain. _No one _has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.
Click to expand...


Clearly, you don't read the Jpost.


----------



## Newby

Fraulein Hilda said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing after reading his post, the same applies to oil refineries as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have many in my backyard.  And the nimby factor is alive and well when it comes to locating "green energy."
Click to expand...



The complete denial is very apparent.  What is also apparent is the complete lack of education in how oil is used in our society, and that there is NOTHING that we currently have that will replace it and result in the same quality of life that we now appreciate.   Again, reality takes a back seat.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.
> 
> 
> That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said Iran was the enemy?  Cheney?  Israel?
> 
> I don't care about either.
> 
> Of course I don't want Israel to be nuked, but that would be death to Iran, so it aint going to happen.
> 
> Don't believe Cheney when he says Iran doesn't care.  Yes they do.  They are just like us.
> 
> Right wingers have just been swallowing Cheney's bullshit.
> 
> Look at how they lied about the threat Iraq was to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Ahmadinejad gets his way, Iran will nuke Israel.  You see, he believes armageddon will bring about the 12th imam of Islam.  The Mullahs control the military, but ahmadinejad's rhetoric is dangerous.
Click to expand...


I'd bet otherwise.  But, please, bring up ARMAGHEDEON with all of your "yes man" Hagee support from christian america.  please.  His rhetoric is no more dangerous as what you'l find every day at the Jpost.


----------



## Shogun

auditor0007 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No ban; just no development of new reactors in how many years?  30 or more?
Click to expand...


google is your friend.  I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but...  I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.


----------



## Newby

elvis3577 said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he really said... got lost in there, eh?
> 
> *"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race. *
> 
> I don't think anyone would say there aren't competing interests... and perhaps the fact that he knows that will enable him to see when Ahmadinejhad is full of it....
> 
> or maybe the ratcheted down rhetoric will enable him to enlist the more moderate Arab countries who are Sunni and have an interest in seeing the Shi'a in Iran kept at bay
> 
> just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jillian. No.
> 
> Obama said "President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some *right to nuclear energy* _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
> 
> Iran has as much right to nuclear energy as Shogun does to be Angas' love slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you voting for Romney in 2012, then?
Click to expand...


I hope like hell that Romney is the candidate in 2012, if not, then hopefully someone even better came along in the meantime.


----------



## Gurdari

Fraulein Hilda said:


> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?



Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership? 

And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your dumb questions are easily answered with a few clicks. Try it sometime instead of posting your silly blather, proving you don't actually KNOW a goddamned thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting.. why haven't we built some???? why can't we drill our own gas and natural gas?? why doyathink?? tell me without googling..
Click to expand...


I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's _MY_ answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government


----------



## Shogun

DavidS said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What he really said... got lost in there, eh?
> 
> *"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race. *
> 
> I don't think anyone would say there aren't competing interests... and perhaps the fact that he knows that will enable him to see when Ahmadinejhad is full of it....
> 
> or maybe the ratcheted down rhetoric will enable him to enlist the more moderate Arab countries who are Sunni and have an interest in seeing the Shi'a in Iran kept at bay
> 
> just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jillian. No.
> 
> Obama said "President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some *right to nuclear energy* _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
> 
> Iran has as much right to nuclear energy as Shogun does to be Angas' love slave.
Click to expand...


Do you really want to throw stones after commenting that the only USMB poster you are brave enough to punch is Amanda, pussy?  You don't get to dictate who has a right to what.  Just because we let YOUR pussy ass pet nation fly under the radar doesn't mean that you are calling the shots.  Sit down and shut the fuck up while big nations talk at the big table.


----------



## elvis

Newby said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jillian. No.
> 
> Obama said "President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some *right to nuclear energy* _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."
> 
> Iran has as much right to nuclear energy as Shogun does to be Angas' love slave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you voting for Romney in 2012, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope like hell that Romney is the candidate in 2012, if not, then hopefully someone even better came along in the meantime.
Click to expand...


It won't be Palin.  I guarantee that.


----------



## Red Dawn

Bush said Iran had a right to civilian nuclear energy in his speech to the UN a few years ago. 

Who's shocked by this?  Its universally acknowleged that sovereign nations have a right to any kind of energy they want to use.   That's not the issue.  The issue is making sure they don't weaponize it.


----------



## elvis

Gurdari said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
Click to expand...


The Mullahs have the authority over the military, but a-jad has said he wants to bring about Armageddon.  not Hagee's words, his.


----------



## Shogun

Gurdari said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
Click to expand...


Of course he is.  It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days.  It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.


----------



## elvis

Red Dawn said:


> Bush said Iran had a right to civilian nuclear energy in his speech to the UN a few years ago.
> 
> Who's shocked by this?  Its universally acknowleged that sovereign nations have a right to any kind of energy they want to use.   That's not the issue.  The issue is making sure they don't weaponize it.



What's to stop them from weaponizing once they have that energy?  The energy they want puts them extremely close to weapons capability.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mullahs have the authority over the military, but a-jad has said he wants to bring about Armageddon.  not Hagee's words, his.
Click to expand...


Are you really stupid enough to suggest that end of days christians arent basing their support of isreal on the SOLE impression that such is an indication of the LAST DAYS?  For real, dude.  Your willingness to disregard reality only proves how similar zionism is to nazi'ism.


----------



## Gurdari

Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush said Iran had a right to civilian nuclear energy in his speech to the UN a few years ago.
> 
> Who's shocked by this?  Its universally acknowleged that sovereign nations have a right to any kind of energy they want to use.   That's not the issue.  The issue is making sure they don't weaponize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to stop them from weaponizing once they have that energy?  The energy they want puts them extremely close to weapons capability.
Click to expand...


the same thing that kept the US and USSR from nuking the planet.  Mutually assured destruction.  say, jew, how often do you think israel will rattle a sabre after it knows it's ass can get nuked on par with the threats it sends out?  Works both ways.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mullahs have the authority over the military, but a-jad has said he wants to bring about Armageddon.  not Hagee's words, his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really stupid enough to suggest that end of days christians arent basing their support of isreal on the SOLE impression that such is an indication of the LAST DAYS?  For real, dude.  Your willingness to disregard reality only proves how similar zionism is to nazi'ism.
Click to expand...


Of course they are, which has nothing to do with what a-jad said.


----------



## Shogun

gurdari said:


> seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... *unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by*?



ha!

Rimshot!


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush said Iran had a right to civilian nuclear energy in his speech to the UN a few years ago.
> 
> Who's shocked by this?  Its universally acknowleged that sovereign nations have a right to any kind of energy they want to use.   That's not the issue.  The issue is making sure they don't weaponize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to stop them from weaponizing once they have that energy?  The energy they want puts them extremely close to weapons capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same thing that kept the US and USSR from nuking the planet.  Mutually assured destruction.  say, jew, how often do you think israel will rattle a sabre after it knows it's ass can get nuked on par with the threats it sends out?  Works both ways.
Click to expand...


1.  I'm not Jewish.
2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad.  It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he is.  It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days.  It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.
Click to expand...


Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.


----------



## Gurdari

elvis3577 said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush said Iran had a right to civilian nuclear energy in his speech to the UN a few years ago.
> 
> Who's shocked by this?  Its universally acknowleged that sovereign nations have a right to any kind of energy they want to use.   That's not the issue.  The issue is making sure they don't weaponize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to stop them from weaponizing once they have that energy?  The energy they want puts them extremely close to weapons capability.
Click to expand...


I suppose the same thing that stops other nations from weaponizing - NOTHING. 
The only nations pointing the finger have nuclear weapons it seems, and really they end up making a strong case against their stated wishes.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your dumb questions are easily answered with a few clicks. Try it sometime instead of posting your silly blather, proving you don't actually KNOW a goddamned thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting.. why haven't we built some???? why can't we drill our own gas and natural gas?? why doyathink?? tell me without googling..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's _MY_ answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
Click to expand...




what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mullahs have the authority over the military, but a-jad has said he wants to bring about Armageddon.  not Hagee's words, his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really stupid enough to suggest that end of days christians arent basing their support of isreal on the SOLE impression that such is an indication of the LAST DAYS?  For real, dude.  Your willingness to disregard reality only proves how similar zionism is to nazi'ism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are, which has nothing to do with what a-jad said.
Click to expand...


It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen.  I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.


----------



## MaggieMae

del said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now where did you get that idea, honey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> probably from obama, sweetie.
> 
> "To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy  solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"
> 
> i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
> probably a typo.
> 
> Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy
Click to expand...


Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

*"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems. 

Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing after reading his post, the same applies to oil refineries as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you gonna fly yer airplane on a fart?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Are you drunk today on top of being just stupid in general?


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is.  It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days.  It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.
Click to expand...


Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen?  I look forward to your evidence.

what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda.  Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now where did you get that idea, honey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> probably from obama, sweetie.
> 
> "To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy  solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"
> 
> i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
> probably a typo.
> 
> Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
Click to expand...





What he means is,, and I'll say this slowly cause you are a libtard after all.. " It ain't never gonna happen" is what he means..


----------



## del

MaggieMae said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now where did you get that idea, honey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> probably from obama, sweetie.
> 
> "To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy  solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"
> 
> i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
> probably a typo.
> 
> Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.*
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
Click to expand...


yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from *his* web site.
 i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really stupid enough to suggest that end of days christians arent basing their support of isreal on the SOLE impression that such is an indication of the LAST DAYS?  For real, dude.  Your willingness to disregard reality only proves how similar zionism is to nazi'ism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are, which has nothing to do with what a-jad said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen.  I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.
Click to expand...


1. just started a hagee thread.
2. I didn't get the A-jad from a christian site.  I got it from one of the top terrorism experts in the nation, one who is scared to death of having Netanyahou and A-jad on the stage at the same time.  He says BOTH of them are dangerous.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's to stop them from weaponizing once they have that energy?  The energy they want puts them extremely close to weapons capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same thing that kept the US and USSR from nuking the planet.  Mutually assured destruction.  say, jew, how often do you think israel will rattle a sabre after it knows it's ass can get nuked on par with the threats it sends out?  Works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I'm not Jewish.
> 2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
> 3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad.  It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.
Click to expand...


1. you act like a zionist jew.
2. Indeed, we SEE israel wiping a nation of palis off the fucking map as we speak.  And, you can't refresh the Jpost daily without reading an article about a military strike in iran so I don't know what the fuck you are even trying to stand on.
3. Your opinion is noted and added to the rest of the TP that will wipe my ass this afternoon.  You don't know that man OR his culture beyond looking for any reason to attack.  Ironically.  Hell, I could say the exact same thing about nukes in isrea, or JUKES if you will, and you'd fall on your knees defending jews.. DESPITE every article EVERY DAY calling to attack iran in the Jpost.


----------



## Gurdari

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is.  It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days.  It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.
Click to expand...


Well, denying the holocaust may be offensive, but it is far from launching WW3... plus, it seems ahmadinejad has said 'if it happened, why should Palestinians pay the price, why not people in Europe' or things like 'if it happened, let's study it more and see what really happened' or whatever - which may be quite offensive to some people, and more of a quest for more information to others. Really though, he seems pre-disposed to caustic sound bites, but regardless - that shouldn't let others let their analytical guard down just because HE may be offensive. If he wants to invite people to discuss the holocaust, and he phrases it in offensive terms - don't like him. Most people don't.

There are plenty of offensive words that come out of leaders mouths, and making a reference to 'taking out' locations in another country, or threatening to nuke them is ILLEGAL - and offensive, and literally about visiting violence and destruction on someone. I'd say that is worse.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he is.  It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days.  It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen?  I look forward to your evidence.
> 
> what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda.  Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.
Click to expand...


"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." 

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same thing that kept the US and USSR from nuking the planet.  Mutually assured destruction.  say, jew, how often do you think israel will rattle a sabre after it knows it's ass can get nuked on par with the threats it sends out?  Works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I'm not Jewish.
> 2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
> 3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad.  It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. you act like a zionist jew.
> 2. Indeed, we SEE israel wiping a nation of palis off the fucking map as we speak.  And, you can't refresh the Jpost daily without reading an article about a military strike in iran so I don't know what the fuck you are even trying to stand on.
> 3. Your opinion is noted and added to the rest of the TP that will wipe my ass this afternoon.  You don't know that man OR his culture beyond looking for any reason to attack.  Ironically.  Hell, I could say the exact same thing about nukes in isrea, or JUKES if you will, and you'd fall on your knees defending jews.. DESPITE every article EVERY DAY calling to attack iran in the Jpost.
Click to expand...


What exactly is the Jew post?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are, which has nothing to do with what a-jad said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen.  I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. just started a hagee thread.
> 2. I didn't get the A-jad from a christian site.  I got it from one of the top terrorism experts in the nation, one who is scared to death of having Netanyahou and A-jad on the stage at the same time.  He says BOTH of them are dangerous.
Click to expand...


HA! Oliver fucking NORTH?  Any other talking head "terrorism expert"?  Give me a fucking break.  These same assholes had your type convinced that Saddam was minutes away from launching too.

But, I do find it funny how you only seem to call for demonizing iran and not bibi.. telling.  quite.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen.  I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. just started a hagee thread.
> 2. I didn't get the A-jad from a christian site.  I got it from one of the top terrorism experts in the nation, one who is scared to death of having Netanyahou and A-jad on the stage at the same time.  He says BOTH of them are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HA! Oliver fucking NORTH?  Any other talking head "terrorism expert"?  Give me a fucking break.  These same assholes had your type convinced that Saddam was minutes away from launching too.
> 
> But, I do find it funny how you only seem to call for demonizing iran and not bibi.. telling.  quite.
Click to expand...


Wasn't Ollie north, good try, though.  and this guy was against the Iraq War from DAY ONE.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No ban; just no development of new reactors in how many years?  30 or more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> google is your friend.  I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but...  I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.
Click to expand...


Nuclear power




> New Nuclear Construction
> 
> Nuclear powers future share in electricity generation will decline if there are no new orders. The nuclear power industry presently has no commitments to build new reactors. The TVA has announced that by 2007 it hopes to bring Browns Ferry-1 back into operation. That reactor has been closed since 1985. The TVA also has three partially completed reactors for which construction licenses are either active or for which extended licenses are being sought. Three firms also plan to apply for early site permits, though such permits are not commitments to build. Nonetheless the business environment has not encouraged power plant construction of any type by any firm during 2002-03. Nuclear plants are no exception.
> 
> There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.
> 
> A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.
> 
> The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.
> 
> The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlooks conclusion under this advanced nuclear cost case is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.
> 
> Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plants life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear powers task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks.


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you spell development? try it sometime before you address me as "lamebrain" it helps make yer case! cupcake!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, nanner nanner nanner, from the schoolgirl bully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor little lefty,, being bullied by a right winger.. oh boo fucking hoo!
Click to expand...


Your bullying is an unfortunate trait only YOU should be worried about--not who you direct it at. I couldn't care less. My concern is that illiterates like you exist and actually believe you contribute something worthy to a conversation.


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen?  I look forward to your evidence.
> 
> what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda.  Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
Click to expand...


Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...

Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation.  If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...


but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I'm not Jewish.
> 2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
> 3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad.  It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. you act like a zionist jew.
> 2. Indeed, we SEE israel wiping a nation of palis off the fucking map as we speak.  And, you can't refresh the Jpost daily without reading an article about a military strike in iran so I don't know what the fuck you are even trying to stand on.
> 3. Your opinion is noted and added to the rest of the TP that will wipe my ass this afternoon.  You don't know that man OR his culture beyond looking for any reason to attack.  Ironically.  Hell, I could say the exact same thing about nukes in isrea, or JUKES if you will, and you'd fall on your knees defending jews.. DESPITE every article EVERY DAY calling to attack iran in the Jpost.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly is the Jew post?
Click to expand...


Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World


----------



## DavidS

Shogun said:


> Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.
> 
> That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.



Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)

Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.

In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity. 

Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity. 

Iran's GDP is $842 billion. 

Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.

Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.

Iran? 1.648 million sq km.

That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses. 

In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy. 

Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.

If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.

There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.


----------



## MaggieMae

Shogun said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More jibberish from lamebrain. _No one _has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, you don't read the Jpost.
Click to expand...


Huh? What is a "Jpost"?? I'm responding to her absurd claim that Obama has said Iran can develop nuclear energy, but the U.S. cannot. He said no such thing.

The Associated Press: Obama says Iran&#39;s energy concerns legitimate


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ban; just no development of new reactors in how many years?  30 or more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> google is your friend.  I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but...  I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Nuclear Construction
> 
> Nuclear powers future share in electricity generation will decline if there are no new orders. The nuclear power industry presently has no commitments to build new reactors. The TVA has announced that by 2007 it hopes to bring Browns Ferry-1 back into operation. That reactor has been closed since 1985. The TVA also has three partially completed reactors for which construction licenses are either active or for which extended licenses are being sought. Three firms also plan to apply for early site permits, though such permits are not commitments to build. Nonetheless the business environment has not encouraged power plant construction of any type by any firm during 2002-03. Nuclear plants are no exception.
> 
> There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.
> 
> A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.
> 
> The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.
> 
> The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlooks conclusion under this advanced nuclear cost case is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.
> 
> Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plants life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear powers task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I posted my evidence.  If you think The Tribune is lying about what you found in wiki then go ahead and shoot Ameren UE and email.


----------



## DavidS

elvis3577 said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starting to waiver on supporting Obama, there David?
Click to expand...


On foreign policy?

Yes.

On domestic?

No.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen?  I look forward to your evidence.
> 
> what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda.  Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...
> 
> Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation.  If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...
> 
> 
> but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?
Click to expand...


"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."


----------



## Shogun

DavidS said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.
> 
> That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)
> 
> Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.
> 
> In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Iran's GDP is $842 billion.
> 
> Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.
> 
> Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.
> 
> Iran? 1.648 million sq km.
> 
> That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.
> 
> In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.
> 
> Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.
> 
> If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.
> 
> There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.
Click to expand...


So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.


----------



## Gurdari

Fraulein Hilda said:


> "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."



The first quote seems pretty clear to me that he is saying the holocaust was a myth... unless, in translation he means they embellished or added myth-making (as in grandiose, not 'untruth') to the actual facts? I really don't know. I'd have to see more of this in context.

The second quote as for asking the 'West' (hey - I'm from there) to remove what they created - what exactly does he mean? The didn't create people, or land... just borders and a political entity (a nation). If my goal is a ONE state solution with everyone living in sweet loving peace and sharing and caring under a nation named 'Home' in Aramaic - well, technically that also means 'wiping Israel off the map' just like East Germany was wiped off the map - and Czechoslovakia...


----------



## rhodescholar

Fraulein Hilda said:


> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?



The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing.  You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.

Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?  

Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.

That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered  in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.


----------



## MaggieMae

Newby said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... WE ARE DRILLING!!!! For both oil AND natural gas. The reason refineries aren't being built is because it's too expensive to build these monstrosities when investment in green energy is becoming more popular. Of course there's always the nimby factor, too. Want one in your backyard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have many in my backyard.  And the nimby factor is alive and well when it comes to locating "green energy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The complete denial is very apparent.  What is also apparent is the complete lack of education in how oil is used in our society, and that there is NOTHING that we currently have that will replace it and result in the same quality of life that we now appreciate.   Again, reality takes a back seat.
Click to expand...


Nobody is disputing that, either. Oil will always be a necessary commodity. We just don't NEED to depend ENTIRELY on oil for our *E.N.E.R.G.Y* supplies. It's not my fault that Big Oil doesn't want to spend anymore money on new refineries when the day will come in the not too distant future that OIL is NOT the main source.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.



Um, Obama is doing just that here.


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...
> 
> Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation.  If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...
> 
> 
> but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
Click to expand...


Indeed, again, we made similar statements trying to pressure South Africa away from Aparthied too.  Kinda makes one wonder why israel would rather sink on a JEWISH ONLY ship than deflate criticism by becoming a pluralistic nation like the very US theyhide behind, eh?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

MaggieMae said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have many in my backyard.  And the nimby factor is alive and well when it comes to locating "green energy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The complete denial is very apparent.  What is also apparent is the complete lack of education in how oil is used in our society, and that there is NOTHING that we currently have that will replace it and result in the same quality of life that we now appreciate.   Again, reality takes a back seat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is disputing that, either. Oil will always be a necessary commodity. We just don't NEED to depend ENTIRELY on oil for our *E.N.E.R.G.Y* supplies. It's not my fault that Big Oil doesn't want to spend anymore money on new refineries when the day will come in the not too distant future that OIL is NOT the main source.
Click to expand...


The only way alternative sources of energy will be cost effective is if government fucks with the oil market and makes it cost prohibitive.  Government decides the winners and losers


----------



## Newby

Gurdari said:


> Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?



So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands?  Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...
> 
> Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation.  If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...
> 
> 
> but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, again, we made similar statements trying to pressure South Africa away from Aparthied too.  Kinda makes one wonder why israel would rather sink on a JEWISH ONLY ship than deflate criticism by becoming a pluralistic nation like the very US theyhide behind, eh?
Click to expand...


The US is a pluralistic nation?  How?


----------



## Gurdari

DavidS said:


> Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)
> 
> Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.
> 
> In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Iran's GDP is $842 billion.
> 
> Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.
> 
> Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.
> 
> Iran? 1.648 million sq km.
> 
> That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.
> 
> In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.
> 
> Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.
> 
> If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.
> 
> There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.



Well, they don't need a reason - neither does any other nation. If they want to, they can.
As for using Oil, well I agree it CAN be cheap, but really that would be a pretty backwards energy policy choosing Oil as the energy source for your future.

Sounds like the US needs more nuclear energy too? I'm sure there are quite a few places that could use more energy, nuclear or other non-fossil fuel based.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?
> 
> And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mullahs have the authority over the military, but a-jad has said he wants to bring about Armageddon.  not Hagee's words, his.
Click to expand...


Achmedinejad has no authority to do anything except stand at a podium and shout. It's also a very real possibility he won't be reelected next month. Anyone seriously interested in Iran should try to find copy of last week's Newsweek, which devoted its top stories on everything you ever wanted to know about Iran, past, present and future. You can still find most of it online by Goggling NEWSWEEK - IRAN.


----------



## DavidS

rhodescholar said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing.  You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.
> 
> Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?
> 
> Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.
> 
> That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered  in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.
Click to expand...


Oh my God. THANK YOU! Finally someone on this board says something about WHO is directly responsible for several thousands of our troops' deaths! IRAN! Not fucking Al Queda! Not Bush! Not Cheney! Not Obama! IRAN!!!


----------



## Avatar4321

I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.

Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.

Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?


----------



## Gurdari

Newby said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands?  Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?
Click to expand...


I think under law - all actors should be equal. As for the rest of your question, I was not eactly sure what you were asking. But, yeah - one standard is ideal, instead of 'our rules' and 'their rules'.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.



Asshole, do you ever actually address someone's points in their post, or do you think racist bluster will win you brownie points?  You should be banned just for being an idiot who has yet to provide the slightest crumb of intelligence in any post, in any thread.


----------



## DavidS

Shogun said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation...  holy SHIT!  It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.
> 
> That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)
> 
> Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.
> 
> In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Iran's GDP is $842 billion.
> 
> Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.
> 
> Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.
> 
> Iran? 1.648 million sq km.
> 
> That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.
> 
> In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.
> 
> Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.
> 
> If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.
> 
> There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about using up resources? Why would a poor country that doesn't have a great deal of money develop nuclear fuel when it already has an extremely cheap fuel that is exceeding the needs of its local population?

I know Iran is not a capitalistic democracy, but there is always a supply and demand thing. If there is ample supply that is very cheap and abundant why would they create the availability of a new product for which there is no demand for with very limited supply and costs a hell of a lot of money?


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.



Who said they must use it up? I think what's been pointed out is their so called legitimate concern is a smoke screen because they have an insane amount of oil. They arent in an energy crisis. We are.

Yet we cant drill. We cant use nuclear energy. Heck, the environmentalists are starting to oppose solar energy because it "causes global warming" and wind and water power because the fish and birds could be hurt. We are supposed to go back into the dark ages while giving a homicidal regime the keys to killing millions of people.

How is this possibly a good policy?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Avatar4321 said:


> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?



The only thing more insane is that we are sitting on large oil reserves, as well, and won't use them, OR expand nuclear energy.


----------



## elvis

Avatar4321 said:


> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?



We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing.  You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.
> 
> Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?
> 
> Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.
> 
> That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered  in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.
Click to expand...


Some nations get a pass when they break international law - some nations get a pass when they kill people in other countries. I think that is undesirable, do you?


Also, it sounds like you think a nation has no right to interfere militarily within another nation's borders?

And as for terror bombings in the 1980s... 1985 had a bad one too. 
Does it matter who is responsible - or is it wrong no matter who does it?


----------



## del

DavidS said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing.  You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.
> 
> Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?
> 
> Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.
> 
> That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered  in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my God. THANK YOU! Finally someone on this board says something about WHO is directly responsible for several thousands of our troops' deaths! IRAN! Not fucking Al Queda! Not Bush! Not Cheney! Not Obama! IRAN!!!
Click to expand...


of course it was, but that's only because you know the idea of trying to hang it on the palistinians is laughable on its face. 

sail on, oh proud zionist chickenhawk, sail on.


----------



## Sinatra

This is an absurd concession by Obama.

These Chicago kids are clueless.

If Iran is given the ok to pursue nuclear energy - they will have nuclear weapons.  Period.

And once that happens, there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Imagine if you are Israel and you hear the American president come out and state nuclear power is ok for Iran - a nation who to this day does not recognize Israel as a nation...that has got to just stun those people.

And yet, does the media take Obama to task for such stupidity?  No.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> google is your friend.  I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but...  I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Nuclear Construction
> 
> Nuclear powers future share in electricity generation will decline if there are no new orders. The nuclear power industry presently has no commitments to build new reactors. The TVA has announced that by 2007 it hopes to bring Browns Ferry-1 back into operation. That reactor has been closed since 1985. The TVA also has three partially completed reactors for which construction licenses are either active or for which extended licenses are being sought. Three firms also plan to apply for early site permits, though such permits are not commitments to build. Nonetheless the business environment has not encouraged power plant construction of any type by any firm during 2002-03. Nuclear plants are no exception.
> 
> There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.
> 
> A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.
> 
> The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.
> 
> The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlooks conclusion under this advanced nuclear cost case is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.
> 
> Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plants life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear powers task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted my evidence.  If you think The Tribune is lying about what you found in wiki then go ahead and shoot Ameren UE and email.
Click to expand...



That wasn't from Wiki, it was from the Energy Information Administration.

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government


----------



## DavidS

Dear President Obama:

Appeasement of our enemies works just fine!

Signed,

Czeckeslovakia


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh, nanner nanner nanner, from the schoolgirl bully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor little lefty,, being bullied by a right winger.. oh boo fucking hoo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bullying is an unfortunate trait only YOU should be worried about--not who you direct it at. I couldn't care less. My concern is that illiterates like you exist and actually believe you contribute something worthy to a conversation.
Click to expand...


poor wittle wefty somebowdy pickin on her! boo hoo hoo,, cannot dispute my points so you resort to calling me a bully,, don't think anyone can see that? doya??


----------



## Newby

Gurdari said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands?  Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think under law - all actors should be equal. As for the rest of your question, I was not eactly sure what you were asking. But, yeah - one standard is ideal, instead of 'our rules' and 'their rules'.
Click to expand...


If you don't understand the 'rest of my question', then you aren't capable of addressing the issue as it needs to be addressed.


----------



## DavidS

Think about this, liberals:

Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?


----------



## elvis

DavidS said:


> Dear President Obama:
> 
> Appeasement of our enemies works just fine!
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Czeckeslovakia



Barack Chamberlain promised change.   You're getting it.


----------



## WillowTree

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they must use it up? I think what's been pointed out is their so called legitimate concern is a smoke screen because they have an insane amount of oil. They arent in an energy crisis. We are.
> 
> Yet we cant drill. We cant use nuclear energy. Heck, the environmentalists are starting to oppose solar energy because it "causes global warming" and wind and water power because the fish and birds could be hurt. We are supposed to go back into the dark ages while giving a homicidal regime the keys to killing millions of people.
> 
> How is this possibly a good policy?
Click to expand...





Leave them damn dumb democwats in charge and you ain't never gonna have nuttin but $40/gal gasoline.. ignorant libtards..


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting.. why haven't we built some???? why can't we drill our own gas and natural gas?? why doyathink?? tell me without googling..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's _MY_ answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion
Click to expand...


I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.

Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy. 

Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.


----------



## Newby

DavidS said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)
> 
> Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.
> 
> In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Iran's GDP is $842 billion.
> 
> Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.
> 
> Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.
> 
> Iran? 1.648 million sq km.
> 
> That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.
> 
> In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.
> 
> Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.
> 
> If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.
> 
> There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about using up resources? Why would a poor country that doesn't have a great deal of money develop nuclear fuel when it already has an extremely cheap fuel that is exceeding the needs of its local population?
> 
> I know Iran is not a capitalistic democracy, but there is always a supply and demand thing. If there is ample supply that is very cheap and abundant why would they create the availability of a new product for which there is no demand for with very limited supply and costs a hell of a lot of money?
Click to expand...



You make an excellent point.  If you read what I posted about nuclear plant construction in the U.S., it can take up to 20 years to construct and the costs are astronomical, which is why the EIA has said why there isn't any new development on the horizon here, and we're supposedly a 'rich' nation.


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> probably from obama, sweetie.
> 
> "To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy  solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"
> 
> i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
> probably a typo.
> 
> Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he means is,, and I'll say this slowly cause you are a libtard after all.. " It ain't never gonna happen" is what he means..
Click to expand...


Sure... Whatever you say, genius.


----------



## WillowTree

Shogun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb bitch...  Ameren UE here in Missouri was two cunthairs away from building ANOTHER nuke plant but folded the idea after they couldn't get the state voters to PAY FOR IT.  Google it, you fucking dingleberry.
> 
> They HAD permits to build.  They DIDNT have the cash to build it without fleecing the very fucking customers that decided not to vote to pay for a fucking new plant.
> 
> Your tired fucking rhetoric is old.
> 
> UPDATE: AmerenUE suspends plans for new mid-Missouri nuclear reactor - Columbia Missourian
Click to expand...


oh do go on! you cite me one little example,, and call me the idiot?? idiot!


----------



## MaggieMae

del said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> probably from obama, sweetie.
> 
> "To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy  solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"
> 
> i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
> probably a typo.
> 
> Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.*
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from *his* web site.
> i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.
Click to expand...


Look, O clueless one, just Google _*Obama on Nuclear Energy *_and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he means is,, and I'll say this slowly cause you are a libtard after all.. " It ain't never gonna happen" is what he means..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure... Whatever you say, genius.
Click to expand...





and so? when in the year of our lord do you think we will build the nuclear plants we need?? genius?


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.*
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from *his* web site.
> i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, O clueless one, just Google _*Obama on Nuclear Energy *_and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...
Click to expand...




Face it. You are just one big fat *FAIL*


----------



## Newby

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's _MY_ answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.
> 
> Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.
Click to expand...


Where did you get your information on the construction of nuclear facilities from?  Whenever I looked it up on the EIA website, that's not what I found:




> Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well. Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980. Additionally and in contrast to oil and gas, nuclear fuel costs are low and relatively stable. Fuel costs now average less than one half cent per kilowatthour. This is well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels. Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant.
> 
> Despite all of this relatively attractive news regarding nuclear power,* there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996.* A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.



They may not have finished until the 90's because it takes over 20 years to complete one.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's _MY_ answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.
> *
> Your rant is simply an OPINION*, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.
Click to expand...



Oh so Pelosi isn't gonna move to preserve her desert from solar panels,, isn"t???  and Ted Kennedy didn't move to preserve his backyard from wind mills??? didn't????   shit girl you slay me.


----------



## Sinatra

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's _MY_ answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. *There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island *and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.
> 
> Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.
Click to expand...


Over 100 plants built since Three Mile Island?  Please link to your source regarding that.

It is my understanding that NO new plants have been commissioned in the United States since Three Mile Island - roughly 30 years.  In fact, plans for 96 new nuclear facilities were shelved after the Three Mile Island incident.

Currently the United States has 104 nuclear reactors up and running - but they are getting old.  Nuclear energy is the only viable, proven technology for producing base load energy that produces minimal greenhouse emissions. (not that I care so much about that - but you would think the enviros would, but they despise nuclear energy. Go figure...)

Instead of 20% of power produced by nuclear, it is entirely reasonable to set a goal of 50% of all power coming from nuclear within a ten year period.  This would not only create many high paying jobs, but also greatly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

The fact so many environmentalists in this country are unwilling to concede the logic of nuclear power as a quite viable alternative source of energy to coal and oil, is indicative of their complete lack of logic and reason on the subject.

Time for America to go nuclear - all the way baby.


----------



## WillowTree

Newby said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.
> 
> Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get your information on the construction of nuclear facilities from?  Whenever I looked it up on the EIA website, that's not what I found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well. Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980. Additionally and in contrast to oil and gas, nuclear fuel costs are low and relatively stable. Fuel costs now average less than one half cent per kilowatthour. This is well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels. Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant.
> 
> Despite all of this relatively attractive news regarding nuclear power,* there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996.* A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may not have finished until the 90's because it takes over 20 years to complete one.
Click to expand...





Yes,, that's what I read too.


----------



## del

MaggieMae said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.*
> 
> *"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming. *
> 
> "Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, I dont think that nuclear power is a panacea for Americas energy problems.
> 
> Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity, Obama says in his energy plan. *It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. *
> 
> Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
> 
> It's been Obama's position all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from *his* web site.
> i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, O clueless one, just Google _*Obama on Nuclear Energy *_and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...
Click to expand...


and yet i pick one from his own web site and there's nary a mention of nukes. 
go figure, huh?
truly, a man for all seasons.


----------



## MaggieMae

Avatar4321 said:


> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?



It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.


----------



## WillowTree

*2003 anything changed since 2003??*


The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. *No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction;* the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 1 reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs. 

High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s have ranged from $2-$6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than half that amount if many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.









Nuclear Energy in the United States


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
Click to expand...




we are still waiting for your wiki link cupcake!


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
Click to expand...


I guess you skipped right over the published analysis on the difficulties inherent with starting up new nuclear plants posted by Newby. Just blame it on Gore. Figures.


----------



## MaggieMae

DavidS said:


> Think about this, liberals:
> 
> Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?



The IAEA still monitors Iran's nuclear activities, but not North Korea.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you skipped right over the published analysis on the difficulties inherent with starting up new nuclear plants posted by Newby. Just blame it on Gore. Figures.
Click to expand...






moving the goalposts..


----------



## MaggieMae

del said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from *his* web site.
> i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, O clueless one, just Google _*Obama on Nuclear Energy *_and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet i pick one from his own web site and there's nary a mention of nukes.
> go figure, huh?
> truly, a man for all seasons.
Click to expand...


Er, I assumed since you SAID it came from his website, that it actually did. I'll know better than to assume anything coming from you from now on. The need to double and often triple check facts for the lazy fact-free herd gets rather tedius, however.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Iran does have a right to pursue nuclear energy.  The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and constantly trying to force them to prove a negative is ridiculous.


----------



## Avatar4321

MaggieMae said:


> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.



According to who? We have a right to take guns from felons. Yet we cant keep regimes who want to kill us from getting weapons of mass destruction. Fabulous policy there.


----------



## Newby

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you skipped right over the published analysis on the difficulties inherent with starting up new nuclear plants posted by Newby. Just blame it on Gore. Figures.
Click to expand...


I think that is a realistic POV posted on their website.  However, Three Mile Island did give nuclear energy a bad name for a very long time, which I think is also part of the reason.  Our entire nuclear infrastructure does need updated, expanded and modernized however.  So, we'll see where that goes over the next several years.


----------



## Avatar4321

Newby said:


> I think that is a realistic POV posted on their website.  However, Three Mile Island did give nuclear energy a bad name for a very long time, which I think is also part of the reason.  Our entire nuclear infrastructure does need updated, expanded and modernized however.  So, we'll see where that goes over the next several years.



Stinkin Mutants...


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we are still waiting for your wiki link cupcake!
Click to expand...


"We"??? Everyone but you seems to be able to find answers quite easily. But here, I'll give you something that I _KNOW_ you won't read. It's got big words.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Avatar4321 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to who? We have a right to take guns from felons. Yet we cant keep regimes who want to kill us from getting weapons of mass destruction. Fabulous policy there.
Click to expand...


They're a sovereign nation that we have no authority over.


----------



## Sinatra

WillowTree said:


> *2003 anything changed since 2003??*
> 
> 
> The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. *No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction;* the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 1 reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs.
> 
> High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s have ranged from $2-$6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than half that amount if many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear Energy in the United States



This looks about right.

So what was Maggie talking about when she said there were a ton of plants that had been built after Three Mile Island?

Is she simply misinformed, or intentionally misleading?


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we are still waiting for your wiki link cupcake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We"??? Everyone but you seems to be able to find answers quite easily. But here, I'll give you something that I _KNOW_ you won't read. It's got big words.
> 
> The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
Click to expand...


 we wanna know the link to the 100 nuke plants that have been built since what was it? Three mile island"? I believe that was what we were waiting for.. cupcake!


----------



## Sinatra

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are still waiting for your wiki link cupcake!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We"??? Everyone but you seems to be able to find answers quite easily. But here, I'll give you something that I _KNOW_ you won't read. It's got big words.
> 
> The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we wanna know the link to the 100 nuke plants that have been built since what was it? Three mile island"? I believe that was what we were waiting for.. cupcake!
Click to expand...


Yes -  I would very much like to see that as well...


----------



## WillowTree

Sinatra said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *2003 anything changed since 2003??*
> 
> 
> The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. *No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction;* the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 1 reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs.
> 
> High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s have ranged from $2-$6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than half that amount if many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear Energy in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This looks about right.
> 
> So what was Maggie talking about when she said there were a ton of plants that had been built after Three Mile Island?
> 
> Is she simply misinformed, or intentionally misleading?
Click to expand...





I don't know. She won't tell us.. she's busy on the feetball field..


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
Click to expand...


You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...


I assume you mean after WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles?  Technically it wasn't Nazi Germany at that point, it became the Weimar Republic.  The harsh conditions imposed on Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles certainly helped the Nazi's gain power, however.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you mean after WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles?  Technically it wasn't Nazi Germany at that point, it became the Weimar Republic.  The harsh conditions imposed on Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles certainly helped the Nazi's gain power, however.
Click to expand...


No, it was Nazi Germany in 1936 when the Germans first broke the treaty by entering the Rheinland.  Had France/Britain  gone into the Rheinland, Hitler would have had to withdraw troops.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you mean after WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles?  Technically it wasn't Nazi Germany at that point, it became the Weimar Republic.  The harsh conditions imposed on Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles certainly helped the Nazi's gain power, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it was Nazi Germany in 1936 when the Germans first broke the treaty by entering the Rheinland.  Had France/Britain  gone into the Rheinland, Hitler would have had to withdraw troops.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it was the Treaty of Versailles that was supposed to force Germany to maintain only a small army.  The Weimar Republic is what emerged in Germany after WW1 and before the Nazis took over.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, do you ever actually address someone's points in their post, or do you think racist bluster will win you brownie points?  You should be banned just for being an idiot who has yet to provide the slightest crumb of intelligence in any post, in any thread.
Click to expand...


HA!  I'll tell you what, noobtoast.. stick around longer than it took for you to grow a pair of testicles and then MAYBE someone will give a fuck about who you think should get banned.

Go cry to the I-mossad, bitch.

Neither Dave OR your jewish ass has authority to tell anyone what resrouces they must use before choosing to go nuclear.  Put that on your yarmulke and smoke it, motherfucker.


----------



## Shogun

DavidS said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)
> 
> Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.
> 
> In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.
> 
> Iran's GDP is $842 billion.
> 
> Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.
> 
> Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.
> 
> Iran? 1.648 million sq km.
> 
> That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.
> 
> In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.
> 
> Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.
> 
> If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.
> 
> There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about using up resources? Why would a poor country that doesn't have a great deal of money develop nuclear fuel when it already has an extremely cheap fuel that is exceeding the needs of its local population?
> 
> I know Iran is not a capitalistic democracy, but there is always a supply and demand thing. If there is ample supply that is very cheap and abundant why would they create the availability of a new product for which there is no demand for with very limited supply and costs a hell of a lot of money?
Click to expand...


For the same reason WE don't burn through OUR oil, stupid: the preservation of a national fucking resource.  AND, to develop ties to nations that want to sell nuclear tech.. like Russia.

No, you don't know that Iran isn't capable, fatass.  You just want to talk shit on non-jews while hiding behind the protection of the United States.  Feel free to enjoy your new home in israel.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you mean after WW1 with the Treaty of Versailles?  Technically it wasn't Nazi Germany at that point, it became the Weimar Republic.  The harsh conditions imposed on Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles certainly helped the Nazi's gain power, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was Nazi Germany in 1936 when the Germans first broke the treaty by entering the Rheinland.  Had France/Britain  gone into the Rheinland, Hitler would have had to withdraw troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but it was the Treaty of Versailles that was supposed to force Germany to maintain only a small army.  The Weimar Republic is what emerged in Germany after WW1 and before the Nazis took over.
Click to expand...


yes until reichstag fire


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they must use it up? I think what's been pointed out is their so called legitimate concern is a smoke screen because they have an insane amount of oil. They arent in an energy crisis. We are.
> 
> Yet we cant drill. We cant use nuclear energy. Heck, the environmentalists are starting to oppose solar energy because it "causes global warming" and wind and water power because the fish and birds could be hurt. We are supposed to go back into the dark ages while giving a homicidal regime the keys to killing millions of people.
> 
> How is this possibly a good policy?
Click to expand...


See above.  Iran is under no requirement to use oil just because YOU think they should tap as much of their resources as YOU think is necessary.  Funny, you bring up how the US can't, apparently, drill.. validating the same strategy in America..  yet you bitch about Iran conserving their resources.  hilarious.

and, I posted earlier in this thread where the local Nuke plant had every green light to build another plant but THEY could not afford it.  If you want to continue with the crybaby "we cant build nuclear" shit then be my guest.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
Click to expand...


For real.. you people are three shades of fucking retarded.


*Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri

Published:23-April-2009 *

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is suspending plans to construct a new nuclear plant in Missouri *due to legislation which would prevent the company from recovering costs.* The Missouri law prevents utilities from increasing electric rates to pay for new power plants until the plants are operational. The company had planned to construct a 1,600 megawatt second reactor at its Callaway nuclear plant in central Missouri. The plant provides power to Saint Louis and surrounding areas.

Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri - Nuclear : News


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing.  You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT -* don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.*
> 
> Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?
> 
> Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.
> 
> That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered  in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.
Click to expand...






please, nutter, call someone ELSE a name!


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Obama is doing just that here.
Click to expand...


Funny, I dont see Obama telling Iran that they must use oil and burn up the trees in their forrsts for energy before opting for nuclear..  Maybe you can provide a better quote than you did the last time I asked for one..


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For real.. you people are three shades of fucking retarded.
> 
> 
> *Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri
> 
> Published:23-April-2009 *
> 
> Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is suspending plans to construct a new nuclear plant in Missouri *due to legislation which would prevent the company from recovering costs.* *The Missouri law prevents utilities from increasing electric rates to pay for new power plants until the plants are operational. *The company had planned to construct a 1,600 megawatt second reactor at its Callaway nuclear plant in central Missouri. The plant provides power to Saint Louis and surrounding areas.
> 
> Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri - Nuclear : News
Click to expand...


Environmentalists are very good at using legislation and government to curtail projects such as this.  I'm not saying this is the case here, but they have done it in the past.  Research would have to be done as to who was behind enacting the legislation that would have prevented the company from recovering some of it's costs.  Why was such a law enacted, what was the logic, etc... There's a ton of politics and money behind a lot of these decisions.


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, again, we made similar statements trying to pressure South Africa away from Aparthied too.  Kinda makes one wonder why israel would rather sink on a JEWISH ONLY ship than deflate criticism by becoming a pluralistic nation like the very US theyhide behind, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US is a pluralistic nation?  How?
Click to expand...


Ask a zionist jew who is allowed to enjoy the same equality as white anglo saxon protistants all about it, dipshit.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Obama is doing just that here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I dont see Obama telling Iran that they must use oil and burn up the trees in their forrsts for energy before opting for nuclear..  Maybe you can provide a better quote than you did the last time I asked for one..
Click to expand...


No, she means Obama is telling us what energy we can and cannot use.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, again, we made similar statements trying to pressure South Africa away from Aparthied too.  Kinda makes one wonder why israel would rather sink on a JEWISH ONLY ship than deflate criticism by becoming a pluralistic nation like the very US theyhide behind, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US is a pluralistic nation?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask a zionist jew who is allowed to enjoy the same equality as white anglo saxon protistants all about it, dipshit.
Click to expand...


There are no Christians or Moslems in Israel?


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted my evidence.  If you think The Tribune is lying about what you found in wiki then go ahead and shoot Ameren UE and email.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't from Wiki, it was from the Energy Information Administration.
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
Click to expand...


Well here, baby puss.. you go ahead and enjoy proof that your facts aren't in as strait of a line as you originally thought...


Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri
Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri - Associated Content

AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
Saint Louis Beacon - AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant

New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri
New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri | Midwest Voices

City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
KSMU - City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal

AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor
Breaking News: AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor : News : KRCG

Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
KMOX - Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant


----------



## Shogun

DavidS said:


> Dear President Obama:
> 
> Appeasement of our enemies works just fine!
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Czeckeslovakia



dear jew.

GET THE FUCK OUT.

Love, 

American Goyim


----------



## Shogun

DavidS said:


> Think about this, liberals:
> 
> Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?



well, we ALREADY have an israel acting like 1945 germany so why not?


----------



## Shogun

WillowTree said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what.  Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy?  OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US.  silly me.
> 
> Your jewish racism is showing, dave.  Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they must use it up? I think what's been pointed out is their so called legitimate concern is a smoke screen because they have an insane amount of oil. They arent in an energy crisis. We are.
> 
> Yet we cant drill. We cant use nuclear energy. Heck, the environmentalists are starting to oppose solar energy because it "causes global warming" and wind and water power because the fish and birds could be hurt. We are supposed to go back into the dark ages while giving a homicidal regime the keys to killing millions of people.
> 
> How is this possibly a good policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave them damn dumb democwats in charge and you ain't never gonna have nuttin but $40/gal gasoline.. ignorant libtards..
Click to expand...


I've posted MY evidence, bitch.. where is yours?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about this, liberals:
> 
> Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, we ALREADY have an israel acting like 1945 germany so why not?
Click to expand...


how so?  I haven't seen them cleaning up any rubble.


----------



## Shogun

WillowTree said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dumb bitch...  Ameren UE here in Missouri was two cunthairs away from building ANOTHER nuke plant but folded the idea after they couldn't get the state voters to PAY FOR IT.  Google it, you fucking dingleberry.
> 
> They HAD permits to build.  They DIDNT have the cash to build it without fleecing the very fucking customers that decided not to vote to pay for a fucking new plant.
> 
> Your tired fucking rhetoric is old.
> 
> UPDATE: AmerenUE suspends plans for new mid-Missouri nuclear reactor - Columbia Missourian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh do go on! you cite me one little example,, and call me the idiot?? idiot!
Click to expand...




Are you fucking KIDDING ME?  Tell me you are stupid enough to believe im making this shit up.. PLEASE tell me you are THAT fucking retarded.


----------



## Agnapostate

Two things:

1. Iran *does* have a right to nuclear energy development per the conditions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2. I've long since grown very sick and tired of seeing the "wiped off the map" statement from Ahmadinejad. Please obtain an accurate translation of the statement before making false assertions.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Agnapostate said:


> Two things:
> 2. I've long since grown very sick and tired of seeing the "wiped off the map" statement from Ahmadinejad. Please obtain an accurate translation of the statement before making false assertions.



Has he publicly refuted it?  That would be a start.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted my evidence.  If you think The Tribune is lying about what you found in wiki then go ahead and shoot Ameren UE and email.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't from Wiki, it was from the Energy Information Administration.
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well here, baby puss.. you go ahead and enjoy proof that your facts aren't in as strait of a line as you originally thought...
> 
> 
> Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri
> Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri - Associated Content
> 
> AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
> Saint Louis Beacon - AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
> 
> New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri
> New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri | Midwest Voices
> 
> City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
> KSMU - City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
> 
> AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor
> Breaking News: AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor : News : KRCG
> 
> Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
> KMOX - Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
Click to expand...


Have you even read what I posted from the EIA website?   I don't think you would disagree with it if you had.  It did not say anything about environmentalist causes as being the impetus behind the lack of nuclear facility construction.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to who? We have a right to take guns from felons. Yet we cant keep regimes who want to kill us from getting weapons of mass destruction. Fabulous policy there.
Click to expand...


Show me the laws that define who is a "GLOBAL FELON".  You dumb bastards are why the lure of phantom WMDs worked hook line and sinker.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to who? We have a right to take guns from felons. Yet we cant keep regimes who want to kill us from getting weapons of mass destruction. Fabulous policy there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the laws that define who is a "GLOBAL FELON".  You dumb bastards are why the lure of phantom WMDs worked hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...


At what point did Hitler become a global felon?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.
> 
> Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...


Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?


----------



## Agnapostate

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Has he publicly refuted it?  That would be a start.



I don't recall, but a high-ranking government official has and the Supreme Leader clarified that there was a lack of Iranian interest in war.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?
Click to expand...


you really don't think Iran will develop a nuke?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Is that like Robert Gibbs saying, "What Biden meant to say was..." or, "Sonia Sotomayor would want to say that differently...?"


----------



## Agnapostate

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Is that like Robert Gibbs saying, "What Biden meant to say was..." or, "Sonia Sotomayor would want to say that differently...?"



No. That would have implied accurate translation.


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For real.. you people are three shades of fucking retarded.
> 
> 
> *Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri
> 
> Published:23-April-2009 *
> 
> Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is suspending plans to construct a new nuclear plant in Missouri *due to legislation which would prevent the company from recovering costs.* *The Missouri law prevents utilities from increasing electric rates to pay for new power plants until the plants are operational. *The company had planned to construct a 1,600 megawatt second reactor at its Callaway nuclear plant in central Missouri. The plant provides power to Saint Louis and surrounding areas.
> 
> Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri - Nuclear : News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Environmentalists are very good at using legislation and government to curtail projects such as this.  I'm not saying this is the case here, but they have done it in the past.  Research would have to be done as to who was behind enacting the legislation that would have prevented the company from recovering some of it's costs.  Why was such a law enacted, what was the logic, etc... There's a ton of politics and money behind a lot of these decisions.
Click to expand...



Motherfucker, THIS had nothing to do with environmentalists.  Nothing at all.  Not one goddamn iota of this had to do with tree huggers.  THIS was the direct failure of Ameren UE as a company to fund it's own venture.  I don't give a fuck what "they" have done in the past.  IM telling you that Missouri almost had another Nuke plant despite the bullshit rhetorical nonsense you dumb bitches keep quoting.  END of fucking story.


And, for real, dude.. your retarded fucking boogeyman paranoia doesn't float in the Show Me State.  No one wants to pay for a fucking nuke plant that is ONLY an investment for Ameren EU.  Rates would have gone up AND we'd enjoy a nice tax to boot.  I guess if you need to see gremelins then so be it.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Obama is doing just that here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I dont see Obama telling Iran that they must use oil and burn up the trees in their forrsts for energy before opting for nuclear..  Maybe you can provide a better quote than you did the last time I asked for one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she means Obama is telling us what energy we can and cannot use.
Click to expand...


uh yea.. he's OUR president.  Are you even awake today?  sheesh.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I dont see Obama telling Iran that they must use oil and burn up the trees in their forrsts for energy before opting for nuclear..  Maybe you can provide a better quote than you did the last time I asked for one..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she means Obama is telling us what energy we can and cannot use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh yea.. he's OUR president.  Are you even awake today?  sheesh.
Click to expand...


It's what she meant.


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is a pluralistic nation?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a zionist jew who is allowed to enjoy the same equality as white anglo saxon protistants all about it, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no Christians or Moslems in Israel?
Click to expand...


none that enjoy the same equality that jews do HERE.  That's the byproduct of the zionist approach to a JEWISH nation.  Hell, read any good Lieberman election strategies lately?  Do I need to quote some of his choice campaign promises about purging israel of non-jews?

for fucks sake, people.  If you are going to play at least be alittle bit informed, ok?


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> For real.. you people are three shades of fucking retarded.
> 
> 
> *Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri
> 
> Published:23-April-2009 *
> 
> Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is suspending plans to construct a new nuclear plant in Missouri *due to legislation which would prevent the company from recovering costs.* *The Missouri law prevents utilities from increasing electric rates to pay for new power plants until the plants are operational. *The company had planned to construct a 1,600 megawatt second reactor at its Callaway nuclear plant in central Missouri. The plant provides power to Saint Louis and surrounding areas.
> 
> Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri - Nuclear : News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmentalists are very good at using legislation and government to curtail projects such as this.  I'm not saying this is the case here, but they have done it in the past.  Research would have to be done as to who was behind enacting the legislation that would have prevented the company from recovering some of it's costs.  Why was such a law enacted, what was the logic, etc... There's a ton of politics and money behind a lot of these decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Motherfucker, THIS had nothing to do with environmentalists.  Nothing at all.  Not one goddamn iota of this had to do with tree huggers.  THIS was the direct failure of Ameren UE as a company to fund it's own venture.  I don't give a fuck what "they" have done in the past.  IM telling you that Missouri almost had another Nuke plant despite the bullshit rhetorical nonsense you dumb bitches keep quoting.  END of fucking story.
> 
> 
> And, for real, dude.. your retarded fucking boogeyman paranoia doesn't float in the Show Me State.  No one wants to pay for a fucking nuke plant that is ONLY an investment for Ameren EU.  Rates would have gone up AND we'd enjoy a nice tax to boot.  I guess if you need to see gremelins then so be it.
Click to expand...



Oh c'mon now, play nice.    I agree with you for the most part.  But, you can't deny that there is a lot of money and campaign funding going on by environmentalist groups in this country to get legislation passed that helps to curtail industry that they would like to see stopped.  I said that research would have to go into what was behind the decision that was made.  Do you know why the legislation was changed at the last minute?  Did you read the article and how it talked about the 6 BILLION dollar cost to build a nuclear facility?  Do you have any of the answers for that?  That's all I asked. I hear what you're saying about taxes, but with cap and trade coming down the pike and the demonization of coal, do you really think that's going to be any cheaper when they're done with that??

And dude, I'm not a dude, I'm a dudette....


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about this, liberals:
> 
> Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, we ALREADY have an israel acting like 1945 germany so why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how so?  I haven't seen them cleaning up any rubble.
Click to expand...


you must have been napping during operation: two dead palis with one pregnant shot.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, we ALREADY have an israel acting like 1945 germany so why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how so?  I haven't seen them cleaning up any rubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you must have been napping during operation: two dead palis with one pregnant shot.
Click to expand...


which means how much rubble?


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't from Wiki, it was from the Energy Information Administration.
> 
> Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well here, baby puss.. you go ahead and enjoy proof that your facts aren't in as strait of a line as you originally thought...
> 
> 
> Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri
> Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri - Associated Content
> 
> AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
> Saint Louis Beacon - AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
> 
> New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri
> New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri | Midwest Voices
> 
> City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
> KSMU - City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
> 
> AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor
> Breaking News: AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor : News : KRCG
> 
> Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
> KMOX - Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted from the EIA website?   I don't think you would disagree with it if you had.  It did not say anything about environmentalist causes as being the impetus behind the lack of nuclear facility construction.
Click to expand...


and yet that is exactly what has been brought up by dittoheads ready to cry about liberals.

facts, motherfucker.  it's whats for dinner.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to who? We have a right to take guns from felons. Yet we cant keep regimes who want to kill us from getting weapons of mass destruction. Fabulous policy there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the laws that define who is a "GLOBAL FELON".  You dumb bastards are why the lure of phantom WMDs worked hook line and sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At what point did Hitler become a global felon?
Click to expand...


he didn't become a felon of any global jurisdiction.  Show me one primary source calling Hitler a felon.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the laws that define who is a "GLOBAL FELON".  You dumb bastards are why the lure of phantom WMDs worked hook line and sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point did Hitler become a global felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he didn't become a felon of any global jurisdiction.  Show me one primary source calling Hitler a felon.
Click to expand...


So he was never a global felon?


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here, baby puss.. you go ahead and enjoy proof that your facts aren't in as strait of a line as you originally thought...
> 
> 
> Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri
> Ameren UE Decides Not to Build Second Nuclear Power Plant in Missouri - Associated Content
> 
> AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
> Saint Louis Beacon - AmerenUE drops plan to build second nuclear plant
> 
> New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri
> New nuclear reactor fizzles out in Missouri | Midwest Voices
> 
> City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
> KSMU - City Utilities Officials Discuss Mid-Missouri Nuclear Plant Proposal
> 
> AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor
> Breaking News: AmerenUE halts plans for second nuclear reactor : News : KRCG
> 
> Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
> KMOX - Missouri House Panel Approves Bill for Nuclear Plant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you even read what I posted from the EIA website?   I don't think you would disagree with it if you had.  It did not say anything about environmentalist causes as being the impetus behind the lack of nuclear facility construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet that is exactly what has been brought up by dittoheads ready to cry about liberals.
> 
> facts, motherfucker.  it's whats for dinner.
Click to expand...


And what I posted from the EIA website several pages back supported your opinion.  But, you keep acting like it didn't.  I don't think you read it.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how England and France had no right to force Nazi Germany to keep their army below a certain level?  Is that what you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really don't think Iran will develop a nuke?
Click to expand...


I think Iran will have less of a reason to if we deflated conflict in the mid east instead of sat by while israel decides to use Hagee type american support to act like a moder nazi germany.  If we prove to Iranians that we are NOT the zionist puppets that we currently are and promote the kind of plurality in palisrael that we find HERE then we have a lot more to sell to the next iranian generation than the constant daily jpost threat of (ironic) attack.  

there is a reason why iranian jews won't migrate back to israel and it has nothing to do with crying antisemite at every corner.


----------



## jillian

sealybobo said:


> Fuck Israel.  Let them deal with Iran.  None of our business.



But that wouldn't "fuck Israel"... Israel would simply get rid of the nuclear capability... the only thing keeping them from doing it is the US.

And no... Iran can't have a nuke when they have no intention of using it for defensive or MAD purposes.


----------



## jillian

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really don't think Iran will develop a nuke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Iran will have less of a reason to if we deflated conflict in the mid east instead of sat by while israel decides to use Hagee type american support to act like a moder nazi germany.  If we prove to Iranians that we are NOT the zionist puppets that we currently are and promote the kind of plurality in palisrael that we find HERE then we have a lot more to sell to the next iranian generation than the constant daily jpost threat of (ironic) attack.
> 
> there is a reason why iranian jews won't migrate back to israel and it has nothing to do with crying antisemite at every corner.
Click to expand...


once again... you're butt backwards about who the aggressors are.

you really need to learn history and get over your hatred of Israel because it isn't one of the double digit number of Arab States.

Get over it.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she means Obama is telling us what energy we can and cannot use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh yea.. he's OUR president.  Are you even awake today?  sheesh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's what she meant.
Click to expand...


regardless.  that is the prerogative of the elected President.  in THIS country.


----------



## DavidS

MaggieMae said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about this, liberals:
> 
> Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IAEA still monitors Iran's nuclear activities, but not North Korea.
Click to expand...


A whole lotta luck that's giving us.

IAEA Chief: Iran Not Cooperating


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Environmentalists are very good at using legislation and government to curtail projects such as this.  I'm not saying this is the case here, but they have done it in the past.  Research would have to be done as to who was behind enacting the legislation that would have prevented the company from recovering some of it's costs.  Why was such a law enacted, what was the logic, etc... There's a ton of politics and money behind a lot of these decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Motherfucker, THIS had nothing to do with environmentalists.  Nothing at all.  Not one goddamn iota of this had to do with tree huggers.  THIS was the direct failure of Ameren UE as a company to fund it's own venture.  I don't give a fuck what "they" have done in the past.  IM telling you that Missouri almost had another Nuke plant despite the bullshit rhetorical nonsense you dumb bitches keep quoting.  END of fucking story.
> 
> 
> And, for real, dude.. your retarded fucking boogeyman paranoia doesn't float in the Show Me State.  No one wants to pay for a fucking nuke plant that is ONLY an investment for Ameren EU.  Rates would have gone up AND we'd enjoy a nice tax to boot.  I guess if you need to see gremelins then so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh c'mon now, play nice.    I agree with you for the most part.  But, you can't deny that there is a lot of money and campaign funding going on by environmentalist groups in this country to get legislation passed that helps to curtail industry that they would like to see stopped.  I said that research would have to go into what was behind the decision that was made.  Do you know why the legislation was changed at the last minute?  Did you read the article and how it talked about the 6 BILLION dollar cost to build a nuclear facility?  Do you have any of the answers for that?  That's all I asked. I hear what you're saying about taxes, but with cap and trade coming down the pike and the demonization of coal, do you really think that's going to be any cheaper when they're done with that??
> 
> And dude, I'm not a dude, I'm a dudette....
Click to expand...



Yes.  the short answer is that MISSOURI doesn't want the very consumers who must pay in a natural monopoly to have to ALSO pay for AMERENS investment.  It's pretty simple, really.  This is the Show Me state.. Not the Hey, Lets All Get Fucked In The Ass By A Utility Company state.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how so?  I haven't seen them cleaning up any rubble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must have been napping during operation: two dead palis with one pregnant shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which means how much rubble?
Click to expand...


Lots.  You need to see Cast "dead pali" lead images?  Just say the word.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what point did Hitler become a global felon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he didn't become a felon of any global jurisdiction.  Show me one primary source calling Hitler a felon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he was never a global felon?
Click to expand...


Is there a global jurisdiction and laws you can quote infering such?  By all means, post a link.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Motherfucker, THIS had nothing to do with environmentalists.  Nothing at all.  Not one goddamn iota of this had to do with tree huggers.  THIS was the direct failure of Ameren UE as a company to fund it's own venture.  I don't give a fuck what "they" have done in the past.  IM telling you that Missouri almost had another Nuke plant despite the bullshit rhetorical nonsense you dumb bitches keep quoting.  END of fucking story.
> 
> 
> And, for real, dude.. your retarded fucking boogeyman paranoia doesn't float in the Show Me State.  No one wants to pay for a fucking nuke plant that is ONLY an investment for Ameren EU.  Rates would have gone up AND we'd enjoy a nice tax to boot.  I guess if you need to see gremelins then so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh c'mon now, play nice.    I agree with you for the most part.  But, you can't deny that there is a lot of money and campaign funding going on by environmentalist groups in this country to get legislation passed that helps to curtail industry that they would like to see stopped.  I said that research would have to go into what was behind the decision that was made.  Do you know why the legislation was changed at the last minute?  Did you read the article and how it talked about the 6 BILLION dollar cost to build a nuclear facility?  Do you have any of the answers for that?  That's all I asked. I hear what you're saying about taxes, but with cap and trade coming down the pike and the demonization of coal, do you really think that's going to be any cheaper when they're done with that??
> 
> And dude, I'm not a dude, I'm a dudette....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  the short answer is that MISSOURI doesn't want the very consumers who must pay in a natural monopoly to have to ALSO pay for AMERENS investment.  It's pretty simple, really.  This is the Show Me state.. Not the Hey, Lets All Get Fucked In The Ass By A Utility Company state.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.  But, like I said, if Obama's cap and trade scheme goes thru, they're probably going to wish they had the nuclear facility at some point.


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really don't think Iran will develop a nuke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Iran will have less of a reason to if we deflated conflict in the mid east instead of sat by while israel decides to use Hagee type american support to act like a moder nazi germany.  If we prove to Iranians that we are NOT the zionist puppets that we currently are and promote the kind of plurality in palisrael that we find HERE then we have a lot more to sell to the next iranian generation than the constant daily jpost threat of (ironic) attack.
> 
> there is a reason why iranian jews won't migrate back to israel and it has nothing to do with crying antisemite at every corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> once again... you're butt backwards about who the aggressors are.
> 
> you really need to learn history and get over your hatred of Israel because it isn't one of the double digit number of Arab States.
> 
> Get over it.
Click to expand...



yea jill.. the DAILY call for military strikes in iran from the JEWPOST sure doesn't indicate who the agressors are.  The CONSTANT warped use of propaganda quotes sure doesn't tell us who feels like they need to twist reality.  

I know I know.. crying antisemite works better than quoting A-jad's actual quote or admitting which is the ONLY nation to call for war, by proxy or otherwise, during the last 5 years... I know I know..  while enjoying more euqlity here in the US than she'll require for her pet zion nation, no less.  


*yawn*


a zionist jew calls someone an antisemite to deflect attention from israel.  news at 10.


----------



## jillian

Shogun said:


> Lots.  You need to see Cast "dead pali" lead images?  Just say the word.



depends on whether you're going to show blown up Jewish school kids and babies in carriages along with that, doesn't it? 

oh wait... we're talking about you.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Iran will have less of a reason to if we deflated conflict in the mid east instead of sat by while israel decides to use Hagee type american support to act like a moder nazi germany.  If we prove to Iranians that we are NOT the zionist puppets that we currently are and promote the kind of plurality in palisrael that we find HERE then we have a lot more to sell to the next iranian generation than the constant daily jpost threat of (ironic) attack.
> 
> there is a reason why iranian jews won't migrate back to israel and it has nothing to do with crying antisemite at every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> once again... you're butt backwards about who the aggressors are.
> 
> you really need to learn history and get over your hatred of Israel because it isn't one of the double digit number of Arab States.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yea jill.. the DAILY call for military strikes in iran from the JEWPOST sure doesn't indicate who the agressors are.  The CONSTANT warped use of propaganda quotes sure doesn't tell us who feels like they need to twist reality.
> 
> I know I know.. crying antisemite works better than quoting A-jad's actual quote or admitting which is the ONLY nation to call for war, by proxy or otherwise, during the last 5 years... I know I know..  while enjoying more euqlity here in the US than she'll require for her pet zion nation, no less.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> 
> a zionist jew calls someone an antisemite to deflect attention from israel.  news at 10.
Click to expand...


So, what concern is it of A-jad's what Israel does or what the Palestinians do?  Why does he care to begin with?  Shouldn't he just mind his own business?


----------



## Yurt

i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from



national sovereignty


Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
Click to expand...


We don't need another nation telling the US what it can't have.  The current POTUS has it covered.


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again... you're butt backwards about who the aggressors are.
> 
> you really need to learn history and get over your hatred of Israel because it isn't one of the double digit number of Arab States.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea jill.. the DAILY call for military strikes in iran from the JEWPOST sure doesn't indicate who the agressors are.  The CONSTANT warped use of propaganda quotes sure doesn't tell us who feels like they need to twist reality.
> 
> I know I know.. crying antisemite works better than quoting A-jad's actual quote or admitting which is the ONLY nation to call for war, by proxy or otherwise, during the last 5 years... I know I know..  while enjoying more euqlity here in the US than she'll require for her pet zion nation, no less.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> 
> a zionist jew calls someone an antisemite to deflect attention from israel.  news at 10.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what concern is it of A-jad's what Israel does or what the Palestinians do?  Why does he care to begin with?  Shouldn't he just mind his own business?
Click to expand...


gosh, noob, can you say that with a strat face after telling me what  jews and christians in AMERICA should care about jews and christians in the mid east?  Why does John Hagee, or DaveS for that matter, CARE about a bunch of jews in isreal?  Shouldn't THEY just mind their own business?  Are muslims too inhuman to be concerned with the treatment of other muslims and the precedence set by the creation of a little third riech of zionism?


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots.  You need to see Cast "dead pali" lead images?  Just say the word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depends on whether you're going to show blown up Jewish school kids and babies in carriages along with that, doesn't it?
> 
> oh wait... we're talking about you.
Click to expand...


Oh you mean all SEVEN of them which, apparently, came to a retail price of not less than 1 THOUSAND PLUS dead palis?


thats quite a bargain you snagged there!


----------



## Shogun

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need another nation telling the US what it can't have.  The current POTUS has it covered.
Click to expand...


well then I guess the question is answered regarding the right of Iran to pursue nuclear energy then.


----------



## Yurt

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
Click to expand...


national sovereignty is not a right


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> national sovereignty is not a right
Click to expand...


I never said it was; rather, it's what gives Iran the RIGHT to persue nuclear energy.  You asked where the right came from.  The answer is National Sovereignty.  And, i'll ask again, what nation or global authority are ready to allow jurisdiction over the USA?  Feel free to answer without some half assed sidestep.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> See above.  Iran is under no requirement to use oil just because YOU think they should tap as much of their resources as YOU think is necessary.  Funny, you bring up how the US can't, apparently, drill.. validating the same strategy in America..  yet you bitch about Iran conserving their resources.  hilarious.
> 
> and, I posted earlier in this thread where the local Nuke plant had every green light to build another plant but THEY could not afford it.  If you want to continue with the crybaby "we cant build nuclear" shit then be my guest.



Not a surprise that you completely ignored the point.

The fact is they dont have a legitimate need for it. You cant deny it. You can try to change the subject all you want. But they still dont have a need for it.

And we arent arent constrained with any sort of stragety not to drill for oil. The only reason we cant drill for oil is because crazy leftists like yourself bitch and moan about phoney environmental concerns. For some reason, you guys think its a better idea for old people to freeze and starve then for us to drill for oil.

How about this, Ill consider allowing Iran to develop nuclear reactors when you allow Americans to drill for oil in our own backyard.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea jill.. the DAILY call for military strikes in iran from the JEWPOST sure doesn't indicate who the agressors are.  The CONSTANT warped use of propaganda quotes sure doesn't tell us who feels like they need to twist reality.
> 
> I know I know.. crying antisemite works better than quoting A-jad's actual quote or admitting which is the ONLY nation to call for war, by proxy or otherwise, during the last 5 years... I know I know..  while enjoying more euqlity here in the US than she'll require for her pet zion nation, no less.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> 
> a zionist jew calls someone an antisemite to deflect attention from israel.  news at 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what concern is it of A-jad's what Israel does or what the Palestinians do?  Why does he care to begin with?  Shouldn't he just mind his own business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gosh, noob, can you say that with a strat face after telling me what  jews and christians in AMERICA should care about jews and christians in the mid east?  Why does John Hagee, or DaveS for that matter, CARE about a bunch of jews in isreal?  Shouldn't THEY just mind their own business?  Are muslims too inhuman to be concerned with the treatment of other muslims and the precedence set by the creation of a little third riech of zionism?
Click to expand...



I'm just trying to understand where your position stems from?  Is the root cause the fact that they were granted that land by the U.N. in 1948, is that what you have issue with?  I've seen you make comments regarding Israeli/Palistinian conflict and it's apparent who's side you're on, just wondering where your stance find its origins?


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> Show me the laws that define who is a "GLOBAL FELON".  You dumb bastards are why the lure of phantom WMDs worked hook line and sinker.



And you are why 911 happened.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?



When they invaded Sovereign American territory and held American citizens for ransom.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> See above.  Iran is under no requirement to use oil just because YOU think they should tap as much of their resources as YOU think is necessary.  Funny, you bring up how the US can't, apparently, drill.. validating the same strategy in America..  yet you bitch about Iran conserving their resources.  hilarious.
> 
> and, I posted earlier in this thread where the local Nuke plant had every green light to build another plant but THEY could not afford it.  If you want to continue with the crybaby "we cant build nuclear" shit then be my guest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a surprise that you completely ignored the point.
> 
> The fact is they dont have a legitimate need for it. You cant deny it. You can try to change the subject all you want. But they still dont have a need for it.
> 
> And we arent arent constrained with any sort of stragety not to drill for oil. The only reason we cant drill for oil is because crazy leftists like yourself bitch and moan about phoney environmental concerns. For some reason, you guys think its a better idea for old people to freeze and starve then for us to drill for oil.
> 
> How about this, Ill consider allowing Iran to develop nuclear reactors when you allow Americans to drill for oil in our own backyard.
Click to expand...


Your opinion about what is legitimate means two things: jack and shit.  Yes, they have a legitimate desire to use nuclear energy just like most of you ironic fucking conservatives.  If they have other resources is neither here nor there.  Your opinion of if they need it doesn't matter to them or to me.

yea I know.. the exxon valdez zcreamed phony.  Hey, suck a dick, bitch.  I've already posted about my own state narrowly getting another reactor.  if your state is too fucking lame to follow suit then go cry to your state legislators and tke your bleeding pussy with you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Yurt said:


> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from



I think I need to exercise my right to nuclear power. Ill save on electricity and make some money by providing power to my neighbors.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?



The US isnt planning genocide now is it?


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what concern is it of A-jad's what Israel does or what the Palestinians do?  Why does he care to begin with?  Shouldn't he just mind his own business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, noob, can you say that with a strat face after telling me what  jews and christians in AMERICA should care about jews and christians in the mid east?  Why does John Hagee, or DaveS for that matter, CARE about a bunch of jews in isreal?  Shouldn't THEY just mind their own business?  Are muslims too inhuman to be concerned with the treatment of other muslims and the precedence set by the creation of a little third riech of zionism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to understand where your position stems from?  Is the root cause the fact that they were granted that land by the U.N. in 1948, is that what you have issue with?  I've seen you make comments regarding Israeli/Palistinian conflict and it's apparent who's side you're on, just wondering where your stance find its origins?
Click to expand...


I have no stomach for racists of any color or creed.  I'm a big fan of democracy and equality.  The likes of which you'll find here in the US but not on our little baby sister bastion of zionism.  If Palisrael declared today that it wanted peace more than a racist haven for only jews and proved as much by declaring total equality between all ethnic populations, just like we see in the US, then I would stop railing against israel today.  But we wont see that.  Instead of removing the constant issue brought up time and again by muslim nations (palis and the creation of israel) the only thing zionists want to do is act like David Duke about a land that CLEARLY is historically important to jews and muslimis and christians alike.  Appealing to the next generation of Iran with peace and equality instead of damning them to the post traumatic stress disorder of zionist jews is what fuels my take on the issue.  This is why the usual zionist suspects shut right the fuck up when they are challenged to validate the exact same equality there than they enjoy HERE.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> I never said it was; rather, it's what gives Iran the RIGHT to persue nuclear energy.  You asked where the right came from.  The answer is National Sovereignty.  And, i'll ask again, what nation or global authority are ready to allow jurisdiction over the USA?  Feel free to answer without some half assed sidestep.



And our national sovereignty allows us to act in our best interest against foreign threats.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US isnt planning genocide now is it?
Click to expand...


perhaps you should ask a dead "they have weapons of mass destruction" civilian iraqi that question, tex.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, noob, can you say that with a strat face after telling me what  jews and christians in AMERICA should care about jews and christians in the mid east?  Why does John Hagee, or DaveS for that matter, CARE about a bunch of jews in isreal?  Shouldn't THEY just mind their own business?  Are muslims too inhuman to be concerned with the treatment of other muslims and the precedence set by the creation of a little third riech of zionism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to understand where your position stems from?  Is the root cause the fact that they were granted that land by the U.N. in 1948, is that what you have issue with?  I've seen you make comments regarding Israeli/Palistinian conflict and it's apparent who's side you're on, just wondering where your stance find its origins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no stomach for racists of any color or creed.  I'm a big fan of democracy and equality.  The likes of which you'll find here in the US but not on our little baby sister bastion of zionism.  If Palisrael declared today that it wanted peace more than a racist haven for only jews and proved as much by declaring total equality between all ethnic populations, just like we see in the US, then I would stop railing against israel today.  But we wont see that.  Instead of removing the constant issue brought up time and again by muslim nations (palis and the creation of israel) the only thing zionists want to do is act like David Duke about a land that CLEARLY is historically important to jews and muslimis and christians alike.  Appealing to the next generation of Iran with peace and equality instead of damning them to the post traumatic stress disorder of zionist jews is what fuels my take on the issue.  This is why the usual zionist suspects shut right the fuck up when they are challenged to validate the exact same equality there than they enjoy HERE.
Click to expand...


Sounds like something a little more close to home than racism tho.  Just an observation.  So, from your point of view, you think that the Arab/muslim hatred of the Jews stems from the same origins then?  They are only reciprocating what treatment they have received from the Jews?  Do you fault them for their feelings/racism/whatever you want to label it?  I see it going both ways.  It's like trying to figure out which happened first, the chicken or the egg.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they invaded Sovereign American territory and held American citizens for ransom.
Click to expand...






had to reach back to the 80s, eh?


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the laws that define who is a "GLOBAL FELON".  You dumb bastards are why the lure of phantom WMDs worked hook line and sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are why 911 happened.
Click to expand...


not really since i'm not the kind of guy to validate the shit Rummy and the CIA were doing in the MID EAST during your favorite Reagan decade..


poor intellectual snail...  I bet you feel pretty fucking stupid this side of the Iraq war, dont you.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was; rather, it's what gives Iran the RIGHT to persue nuclear energy.  You asked where the right came from.  The answer is National Sovereignty.  And, i'll ask again, what nation or global authority are ready to allow jurisdiction over the USA?  Feel free to answer without some half assed sidestep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our national sovereignty allows us to act in our best interest against foreign threats.
Click to expand...


and, so too does theirs.  For real, are you on some kind of meds, Rush?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Iran does have a right to pursue nuclear energy.  The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and constantly trying to force them to prove a negative is ridiculous.



It is just so fucking amazing that no matter what forum I participate in, it could be a general poli forum like this one, a fanatic muslim site, an asian one discussing world political issues, a person with no clue like this will drop in like the parachutist at the Holyfield-Bowe fight and spit out this idiotic line on cue.  It might be for all i know, the same person paid by iran to scour the web and fire off the same stupid line.

The person's goal is to try to wind the thread all the way back, or just derail it.  Their horseshit lines always include: "iran is innocent, they've never attacked another nation is 7 billion years, they're a democracy," etc.

"Kevin" or whatever your name is, this is the only response I will give here, iran is VERY MUCH in violation of the NPT, did not declare numerous sites, and continues to block inspections at many sites it is required to allow. 

If you want to pollute a thread with your BS, go elsewhere, hopefully far away.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran does have a right to pursue nuclear energy.  The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and constantly trying to force them to prove a negative is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just so fucking amazing that no matter what forum I participate in, it could be a general poli forum like this one, a fanatic muslim site, an asian one discussing world political issues, a person with no clue like this will drop in like the parachutist at the Holyfield-Bowe fight and spit out this idiotic line on cue.  It might be for all i know, the same person paid by iran to scour the web and fire off the same stupid line.
> 
> The person's goal is to try to wind the thread all the way back, or just derail it.  Their horseshit lines always include: "iran is innocent, they've never attacked another nation is 7 billion years, they're a democracy," etc.
> 
> "Kevin" or whatever your name is, this is the only response I will give here, iran is VERY MUCH in violation of the NPT, did not declare numerous sites, and continues to block inspections at many sites it is required to allow.
> 
> If you want to pollute a thread with your BS, go elsewhere, hopefully far away.
Click to expand...


You are in no position to make any demands of me in regards to what I post.  If you disagree with me then that's your choice, however, throwing a temper tantrum does not constitute an intelligent response.


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to understand where your position stems from?  Is the root cause the fact that they were granted that land by the U.N. in 1948, is that what you have issue with?  I've seen you make comments regarding Israeli/Palistinian conflict and it's apparent who's side you're on, just wondering where your stance find its origins?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no stomach for racists of any color or creed.  I'm a big fan of democracy and equality.  The likes of which you'll find here in the US but not on our little baby sister bastion of zionism.  If Palisrael declared today that it wanted peace more than a racist haven for only jews and proved as much by declaring total equality between all ethnic populations, just like we see in the US, then I would stop railing against israel today.  But we wont see that.  Instead of removing the constant issue brought up time and again by muslim nations (palis and the creation of israel) the only thing zionists want to do is act like David Duke about a land that CLEARLY is historically important to jews and muslimis and christians alike.  Appealing to the next generation of Iran with peace and equality instead of damning them to the post traumatic stress disorder of zionist jews is what fuels my take on the issue.  This is why the usual zionist suspects shut right the fuck up when they are challenged to validate the exact same equality there than they enjoy HERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like something a little more close to home than racism tho.  Just an observation.  So, from your point of view, you think that the Arab/muslim hatred of the Jews stems from the same origins then?  They are only reciprocating what treatment they have received from the Jews?  Do you fault them for their feelings/racism/whatever you want to label it?  I see it going both ways.  It's like trying to figure out which happened first, the chicken or the egg.
Click to expand...



First, I dont think either group AUTOMATICALLY hates one another.  This is why you see BOTH sides play propaganda games.  Suggesting that THEY (as in arabs) hate jews just for hating jews totally ignores the fact of the creation of israel.  I hate to break it to you but natives hated white men, too.  And, it wasn't just because of their religion or ethnicity.  

Like the example of our won civil rights era, You'll find that palis and muslims in general will come to stop violent reactions the closer they are connected with the nation at large.  when was the last black march you've seen against segregated culture in THIS nation?  I'm not really interested in convincing you of who threw the first rock (although, I bet I know how you'd feel if me and my ethnicity came to confiscate your land) but I can tell you that the path to peace doesn't lie in a pair of segregated nations OR the blank check support of jews despite muslims.  It will be the product of democracy and EQUALITY by example of the US via Palisrael.


----------



## Xenophon

Iran sits on a sea of oil and one of teh world's largest natural gas supplies.

They do not 'need' nuclear power at all.


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no stomach for racists of any color or creed.  I'm a big fan of democracy and equality.  The likes of which you'll find here in the US but not on our little baby sister bastion of zionism.  If Palisrael declared today that it wanted peace more than a racist haven for only jews and proved as much by declaring total equality between all ethnic populations, just like we see in the US, then I would stop railing against israel today.  But we wont see that.  Instead of removing the constant issue brought up time and again by muslim nations (palis and the creation of israel) the only thing zionists want to do is act like David Duke about a land that CLEARLY is historically important to jews and muslimis and christians alike.  Appealing to the next generation of Iran with peace and equality instead of damning them to the post traumatic stress disorder of zionist jews is what fuels my take on the issue.  This is why the usual zionist suspects shut right the fuck up when they are challenged to validate the exact same equality there than they enjoy HERE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something a little more close to home than racism tho.  Just an observation.  So, from your point of view, you think that the Arab/muslim hatred of the Jews stems from the same origins then?  They are only reciprocating what treatment they have received from the Jews?  Do you fault them for their feelings/racism/whatever you want to label it?  I see it going both ways.  It's like trying to figure out which happened first, the chicken or the egg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, I dont think either group AUTOMATICALLY hates one another.  This is why you see BOTH sides play propaganda games.  Suggesting that THEY (as in arabs) hate jews just for hating jews totally ignores the fact of the creation of israel.  I hate to break it to you but natives hated white men, too.  And, it wasn't just because of their religion or ethnicity.
> 
> Like the example of our won civil rights era, You'll find that palis and muslims in general will come to stop violent reactions the closer they are connected with the nation at large.  when was the last black march you've seen against segregated culture in THIS nation?  I'm not really interested in convincing you of who threw the first rock (although, I bet I know how you'd feel if me and my ethnicity came to confiscate your land) but I can tell you that the path to peace doesn't lie in a pair of segregated nations OR the blank check support of jews despite muslims.  It will be the product of democracy and EQUALITY by example of the US via Palisrael.
Click to expand...



I think the children now are raised to hate each other tho.  I've seen documentaries on the topic.  And why, as a nation, wouldn't you move past the fact that Israel now occupies that land and they're not going to get it back?  The people who were on it are long gone, what is the point in continuing the hate?  Move forward, build your own nation and try to do what's right for your people and forget about Israel.  Let me ask you this.  The Palestinians were granted pretty much everything they wanted at some point (I can't remember the date), and it was turned down.  Just like you were pointing out in the abortion debate, don't you think it's more realistic to compromise?  Israel is never going to give up and go away.  I think if they found a peace that they could both live with then the situation could be resolved.  I don't think it's about peace for the Palestinians tho.  I think they are being used by the rest of the muslim world as a thorn in Israel's side for political purposes.  I'm not saying that Israel is blameless, but I think if the muslim world would stop attacking them, then they would stop as well. I don't think the reciprocal of that is true. Do you think if Israel vowed to stop all violence completely that the violence would stop on the part of the Palestinans?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You are in no position to make any demands of me in regards to what I post.  If you disagree with me then that's your choice, however, throwing a temper tantrum does not constitute an intelligent response.



Oh yes i am, i absolutely can demand and expect - just like every other poster in this thread - that when you claim something, you bring facts to support it, which you obviously don't and can't.

Claiming that iran is not in violation of the NPT is like saying Pol Pot never hurt a fly, it's just a pure lie that denigrates the thread and offers nothing of intelligence.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in no position to make any demands of me in regards to what I post.  If you disagree with me then that's your choice, however, throwing a temper tantrum does not constitute an intelligent response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes i am, i absolutely can demand and expect - just like every other poster in this thread - that when you claim something, you bring facts to support it, which you obviously don't and can't.
> 
> Claiming that iran is not in violation of the NPT is like saying Pol Pot never hurt a fly, it's just a pure lie that denigrates the thread and offers nothing of intelligence.
Click to expand...


If there was any evidence, real or fabricated, that Iran was in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was attempting to build a nuclear weapon you can be sure we'd have intervened already.  The fact is that there's not enough evidence that they've violated the treaty.

Now you may make demands and insult me, but don't expect those attractive incentives to encourage me to bother entering into any serious discussion with you.


----------



## Shogun

Xenophon said:


> Iran sits on a sea of oil and one of teh world's largest natural gas supplies.
> 
> They do not 'need' nuclear power at all.



such is not for you to decide.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *2003 anything changed since 2003??*
> 
> 
> The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. *No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction;* the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 1 reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs.
> 
> High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s have ranged from $2-$6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than half that amount if many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear Energy in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This looks about right.
> 
> So what was Maggie talking about when she said there were a ton of plants that had been built after Three Mile Island?
> 
> Is she simply misinformed, or intentionally misleading?
Click to expand...


I said there were "a ton"?? As of December 31, 2007, there are 104 commercial nuclear generating units that are fully licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. Of these 104 reactors, 69 are categorized a pressurized water reactors (PWRs) totaling 65,100 net megawatts (electric) and 35 units are boiling water reactors (BWR) totaling 32,300 net megawatts (electric). In 1973, the number was 69.

U.S. Nuclear Reactors


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are still waiting for your wiki link cupcake!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We"??? Everyone but you seems to be able to find answers quite easily. But here, I'll give you something that I _KNOW_ you won't read. It's got big words.
> 
> The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we wanna know the link to the 100 nuke plants that have been built since what was it? Three mile island"? I believe that was what we were waiting for.. cupcake!
Click to expand...


Still don't know how to do your own homework. Amazing. It's so fucking simple, you could do it blindfolded. I've posted link after link. Now I'm thinking you can't even fucking read, let alone use a mouse.


----------



## DavidS

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
Click to expand...


Ah, so then you support Israel having nuclear power then, yes?


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We"??? Everyone but you seems to be able to find answers quite easily. But here, I'll give you something that I _KNOW_ you won't read. It's got big words.
> 
> The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we wanna know the link to the 100 nuke plants that have been built since what was it? Three mile island"? I believe that was what we were waiting for.. cupcake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still don't know how to do your own homework. Amazing. It's so fucking simple, you could do it blindfolded. I've posted link after link. Now I'm thinking you can't even fucking read, let alone use a mouse.
Click to expand...





got those goal posts moved yet cupcake??


----------



## Shogun

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like something a little more close to home than racism tho.  Just an observation.  So, from your point of view, you think that the Arab/muslim hatred of the Jews stems from the same origins then?  They are only reciprocating what treatment they have received from the Jews?  Do you fault them for their feelings/racism/whatever you want to label it?  I see it going both ways.  It's like trying to figure out which happened first, the chicken or the egg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I dont think either group AUTOMATICALLY hates one another.  This is why you see BOTH sides play propaganda games.  Suggesting that THEY (as in arabs) hate jews just for hating jews totally ignores the fact of the creation of israel.  I hate to break it to you but natives hated white men, too.  And, it wasn't just because of their religion or ethnicity.
> 
> Like the example of our won civil rights era, You'll find that palis and muslims in general will come to stop violent reactions the closer they are connected with the nation at large.  when was the last black march you've seen against segregated culture in THIS nation?  I'm not really interested in convincing you of who threw the first rock (although, I bet I know how you'd feel if me and my ethnicity came to confiscate your land) but I can tell you that the path to peace doesn't lie in a pair of segregated nations OR the blank check support of jews despite muslims.  It will be the product of democracy and EQUALITY by example of the US via Palisrael.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think the children now are raised to hate each other tho.  I've seen documentaries on the topic.  And why, as a nation, wouldn't you move past the fact that Israel now occupies that land and they're not going to get it back?  The people who were on it are long gone, what is the point in continuing the hate?  Move forward, build your own nation and try to do what's right for your people and forget about Israel.  Let me ask you this.  The Palestinians were granted pretty much everything they wanted at some point (I can't remember the date), and it was turned down.  Just like you were pointing out in the abortion debate, don't you think it's more realistic to compromise?  Israel is never going to give up and go away.  I think if they found a peace that they could both live with then the situation could be resolved.  I don't think it's about peace for the Palestinians tho.  I think they are being used by the rest of the muslim world as a thorn in Israel's side for political purposes.  I'm not saying that Israel is blameless, but I think if the muslim world would stop attacking them, then they would stop as well. I don't think the reciprocal of that is true. Do you think if Israel vowed to stop all violence completely that the violence would stop on the part of the Palestinans?
Click to expand...


For the same reason blacks didn't just all migrate back to Africa.  I don't think palis, or even iran, imagines that israel will go anywhere.  Notice, i say israel and not ZIONISM.  Again, you'll see the same thing happen there that you saw happen here if we allow as much equality THERE as we do HERE.  The people who WERE there are not long gone.  They are pali refugees that, were they jewish instead of muslim, we'd have demanded been accommodated.  Unfortunately, they are not jewish enough to count.

And no, they were not granted everything they wanted.  The stipulation was that they recognize israel as a JEWISH state.  Tell me, how many jews in the US are ready to acknowledge this nation as a CHRISTIAN nation?  Ask Jill or Dave how soon they will be admitting as much.  Would you?  Neither would they.  Which, really, illustrates the racism embedded in zionism.

I think that the only thing that will stop the orhcestrated violence of israel and palestine is the complete validation of all people in a single state of Palisrael.  by validating the Us vs Them approach the only thing that will continue is the constant marginalization of one group over the other; which sends waves of hatred to muslim nations and to ours.  It's like a pair of children fighting over one toy.  Do you favor one over the other or make them both behave toward each other and share the toy?  Are you shocked when the unfavored child gets resentful and reacts to clear and obvious favoritism?  The violence will not stop if israel decides to startor stop another cast lead barrel of death.  Nor will it stop if palis are granted some fucked up land-locked island of a "nation".  Nor will it stop when jews conveniently allow individual criminal behaviour to be generalized as an excuse to marginalize their ****** class.  Nor will it stop when both hypothetical nations vie for resources while we allknow which is the favored child.  This is why I rail against the likes of Dave and Jill who seem to think that the only human beings that matter are jews; why I don't hesitate to call for the extraction of INDIVIDUAL pali rocket launching terrorists (rather than the generalize cast leading masscre of the entire population).  If any of this sounds like I'm a big bad jooo hater then feel free to avoid criticism of israel with the big bad scarlet A.  However, you just might find that peace removes a convenient excuse which zionists don't want to give up....  After all, who do you think is the BIGGEST, LOUDEST voice against total equality in israel which puts palis on par with jews?  Just take a guess.


----------



## Yurt

DavidS said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so then you support Israel having nuclear power then, yes?
Click to expand...


i don't support or not support...i really fail to see how stopping iran from having nuclear energy for peaceful means is somehow going to stop them from getting a nuke for violent means.  the US looked like idiots dealing with imadejihadinmypants over the nuke thing...imadejihadinmypants made total fools of the US


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are in no position to make any demands of me in regards to what I post.  If you disagree with me then that's your choice, however, throwing a temper tantrum does not constitute an intelligent response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes i am, i absolutely can demand and expect - just like every other poster in this thread - that when you claim something, you bring facts to support it, which you obviously don't and can't.
> 
> Claiming that iran is not in violation of the NPT is like saying Pol Pot never hurt a fly, it's just a pure lie that denigrates the thread and offers nothing of intelligence.
Click to expand...


myawwww.. is widdle guy not getting his widdle way?


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We"??? Everyone but you seems to be able to find answers quite easily. But here, I'll give you something that I _KNOW_ you won't read. It's got big words.
> 
> The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we wanna know the link to the 100 nuke plants that have been built since what was it? Three mile island"? I believe that was what we were waiting for.. cupcake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes -  I would very much like to see that as well...
Click to expand...


*Todays lesson:* 
HOW TO GOOGLE

1.  Guess at keywords that will force you to search until you're too frustrated and give up, *OR*

2.  Use the common word or phrase and thee shall find page after page instantaneously.

TO-WIT:

*"How many nuclear reactors are there in the United States?"*

VOILA!!!
Page 1 of over 2 million:
1

WebHide optionsShow options... *Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800,000 *for how many nuclear reactors are in the united states?. (0.21 seconds) 

Search ResultsList of nuclear reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
67.2 Plutonium production reactors; 67.3 Army Nuclear Power Program; 67.4 United States Naval reactors; 67.5 Research reactors ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors - 292k - Cached - Similar pagesNuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Nuclear power by country and List of nuclear reactors ... This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power - 246k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from en.wikipedia.org »Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003
list of nuclear reactors and some data. ... Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor. ... of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6500, Rev 1; Capacity, Operator: EIA, Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, ...
Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003 - 13k - Cached - Similar pagesU.S. Nuclear Reactors
Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction ... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. ...
U.S. Nuclear Reactors - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government »WikiAnswers - How many nuclear power plants are there in the ...
Nuclear Energy question: How many nuclear power plants are there in the United States? On the NRC website, 104 operating reactors.
wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_nuclear_power_plants_are_there_in_the_United_States - 47k - Cached - Similar pagesList of nuclear power plants in America
Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States ... In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for ...... the only high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) power reactor in the United States. ...
List of nuclear power plants in America - 748k - Cached - Similar pagesRadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities
Feb 11, 2009 ... There are currently approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States, with a total output of some 100000 megawatts ...
RadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities - 66k - Cached - Similar pagesUS Nuclear Power Plant Information
Jan 25, 2006 ... Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors; Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by ...
US Nuclear Power Plant Information - 24k - Cached - Similar pagesINSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES
Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors: UNITED STATES ... Links to main power reactor maps (world map, continent maps, large area maps): World Map, North America, ...
INSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES - 76k - Cached - Similar pagesNRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary ... U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation ...
NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites - 15k - Cached - Similar pagesSearches related to: how many nuclear reactors are in the united states? boiling water reactor breeder reactor turkey point reactors nuclear fission reactors 
how many nuclear power plants are there in the world 


 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next


----------



## Yurt

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty is not a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it was; rather, it's what gives Iran the RIGHT to persue nuclear energy.  You asked where the right came from.  The answer is National Sovereignty.  And, i'll ask again, what nation or global authority are ready to allow jurisdiction over the USA?  Feel free to answer without some half assed sidestep.
Click to expand...


if iran can be persuaded by bribes or whatever "assistance" nations offer....to give up nuclear power, that is their "right" (since i really don't want to delve into a what is a right discussion) and it is other nations rights to blockade or have trade embargos against iran if iran won't accept "assistance".....

and you're stupid if you don't think other countries dictate to the US....see *CHINA*


----------



## MaggieMae

WillowTree said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *2003 anything changed since 2003??*
> 
> 
> The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. *No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction;* the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 1 reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs.
> 
> High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s have ranged from $2-$6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than half that amount if many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear Energy in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This looks about right.
> 
> So what was Maggie talking about when she said there were a ton of plants that had been built after Three Mile Island?
> 
> Is she simply misinformed, or intentionally misleading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. She won't tell us.. she's busy on the feetball field..
Click to expand...


Ah shaddap. I don't sit at my computer screen arguing with fools like you 24/7 with a hide-a-potty and a bag of Cheetos as my only detraction. I have a life. Try it sometime.


----------



## WillowTree

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> This looks about right.
> 
> So what was Maggie talking about when she said there were a ton of plants that had been built after Three Mile Island?
> 
> Is she simply misinformed, or intentionally misleading?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. She won't tell us.. she's busy on the feetball field..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah shaddap. I don't sit at my computer screen arguing with fools like you 24/7 with a hide-a-potty and a bag of Cheetos as my only detraction. I have a life. Try it sometime.
Click to expand...




goldfish.. I like goldfish!


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran does have a right to pursue nuclear energy.  The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and constantly trying to force them to prove a negative is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just so fucking amazing that no matter what forum I participate in, it could be a general poli forum like this one, a fanatic muslim site, an asian one discussing world political issues, a person with no clue like this will drop in like the parachutist at the Holyfield-Bowe fight and spit out this idiotic line on cue.  It might be for all i know, the same person paid by iran to scour the web and fire off the same stupid line.
> 
> The person's goal is to try to wind the thread all the way back, or just derail it.  Their horseshit lines always include: "iran is innocent, they've never attacked another nation is 7 billion years, they're a democracy," etc.
> 
> "Kevin" or whatever your name is, this is the only response I will give here, iran is VERY MUCH in violation of the NPT, did not declare numerous sites, and continues to block inspections at many sites it is required to allow.
> 
> If you want to pollute a thread with your BS, go elsewhere, hopefully far away.
Click to expand...


oh hey.. since YOU insist then it must be true!



fucking death hungry asshole


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty is not a right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was; rather, it's what gives Iran the RIGHT to persue nuclear energy.  You asked where the right came from.  The answer is National Sovereignty.  And, i'll ask again, what nation or global authority are ready to allow jurisdiction over the USA?  Feel free to answer without some half assed sidestep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if iran can be persuaded by bribes or whatever "assistance" nations offer....to give up nuclear power, that is their "right" (since i really don't want to delve into a what is a right discussion) and it is other nations rights to blockade or have trade embargos against iran if iran won't accept "assistance".....
> 
> and you're stupid if you don't think other countries dictate to the US....see *CHINA*
Click to expand...


Why don't you provide evcidence, instead of rhetorical bullshit, of the last instruction given by china that banned the US from persuing ANYTHING on par with nuclear energy.


*yawn*


----------



## Newby

Shogun said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I dont think either group AUTOMATICALLY hates one another.  This is why you see BOTH sides play propaganda games.  Suggesting that THEY (as in arabs) hate jews just for hating jews totally ignores the fact of the creation of israel.  I hate to break it to you but natives hated white men, too.  And, it wasn't just because of their religion or ethnicity.
> 
> Like the example of our won civil rights era, You'll find that palis and muslims in general will come to stop violent reactions the closer they are connected with the nation at large.  when was the last black march you've seen against segregated culture in THIS nation?  I'm not really interested in convincing you of who threw the first rock (although, I bet I know how you'd feel if me and my ethnicity came to confiscate your land) but I can tell you that the path to peace doesn't lie in a pair of segregated nations OR the blank check support of jews despite muslims.  It will be the product of democracy and EQUALITY by example of the US via Palisrael.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the children now are raised to hate each other tho.  I've seen documentaries on the topic.  And why, as a nation, wouldn't you move past the fact that Israel now occupies that land and they're not going to get it back?  The people who were on it are long gone, what is the point in continuing the hate?  Move forward, build your own nation and try to do what's right for your people and forget about Israel.  Let me ask you this.  The Palestinians were granted pretty much everything they wanted at some point (I can't remember the date), and it was turned down.  Just like you were pointing out in the abortion debate, don't you think it's more realistic to compromise?  Israel is never going to give up and go away.  I think if they found a peace that they could both live with then the situation could be resolved.  I don't think it's about peace for the Palestinians tho.  I think they are being used by the rest of the muslim world as a thorn in Israel's side for political purposes.  I'm not saying that Israel is blameless, but I think if the muslim world would stop attacking them, then they would stop as well. I don't think the reciprocal of that is true. Do you think if Israel vowed to stop all violence completely that the violence would stop on the part of the Palestinans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the same reason blacks didn't just all migrate back to Africa.  I don't think palis, or even iran, imagines that israel will go anywhere.  Notice, i say israel and not ZIONISM.  Again, you'll see the same thing happen there that you saw happen here if we allow as much equality THERE as we do HERE.  The people who WERE there are not long gone.  They are pali refugees that, were they jewish instead of muslim, we'd have demanded been accommodated.  Unfortunately, they are not jewish enough to count.
> 
> And no, they were not granted everything they wanted.  The stipulation was that they recognize israel as a JEWISH state.  Tell me, how many jews in the US are ready to acknowledge this nation as a CHRISTIAN nation?  Ask Jill or Dave how soon they will be admitting as much.  Would you?  Neither would they.  Which, really, illustrates the racism embedded in zionism.
> 
> I think that the only thing that will stop the orhcestrated violence of israel and palestine is the complete validation of all people in a single state of Palisrael.  by validating the Us vs Them approach the only thing that will continue is the constant marginalization of one group over the other; which sends waves of hatred to muslim nations and to ours.  It's like a pair of children fighting over one toy.  Do you favor one over the other or make them both behave toward each other and share the toy?  Are you shocked when the unfavored child gets resentful and reacts to clear and obvious favoritism?  The violence will not stop if israel decides to startor stop another cast lead barrel of death.  Nor will it stop if palis are granted some fucked up land-locked island of a "nation".  Nor will it stop when jews conveniently allow individual criminal behaviour to be generalized as an excuse to marginalize their ****** class.  Nor will it stop when both hypothetical nations vie for resources while we allknow which is the favored child.  This is why I rail against the likes of Dave and Jill who seem to think that the only human beings that matter are jews; why I don't hesitate to call for the extraction of INDIVIDUAL pali rocket launching terrorists (rather than the generalize cast leading masscre of the entire population).  If any of this sounds like I'm a big bad jooo hater then feel free to avoid criticism of israel with the big bad scarlet A.  However, you just might find that peace removes a convenient excuse which zionists don't want to give up....  After all, who do you think is the BIGGEST, LOUDEST voice against total equality in israel which puts palis on par with jews?  Just take a guess.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't want to hi-jack the thread.  Maybe sometime we can talk more in depth about this?  I know I don't know everything there is to know about the situation and I have a sketchy knowledge of the history there.   I'm always looking for a different point of view to see if there is something I'm missing.  I would have several questions with regards to some of the comments that you've made and you seem to be knowledgable of the issue, so I appreciate you putting your viewpoint out there. I have no stake in either side and I think it's a fascinating, altho sad, scenario.  Usually the motivation for both sides is not as it would seem and there is a lot going on that the average observer would not know.  I guess that's what I'd like to learn more about.


----------



## Yurt

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was; rather, it's what gives Iran the RIGHT to persue nuclear energy.  You asked where the right came from.  The answer is National Sovereignty.  And, i'll ask again, what nation or global authority are ready to allow jurisdiction over the USA?  Feel free to answer without some half assed sidestep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if iran can be persuaded by bribes or whatever "assistance" nations offer....to give up nuclear power, that is their "right" (since i really don't want to delve into a what is a right discussion) and it is other nations rights to blockade or have trade embargos against iran if iran won't accept "assistance".....
> 
> and you're stupid if you don't think other countries dictate to the US....see *CHINA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide evcidence, instead of rhetorical bullshit, of the last instruction given by china that banned the US from persuing ANYTHING on par with nuclear energy.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
Click to expand...


you're a whiny little bitch ainchya....

now you're back peddling and claiming it has to somehow be on "par" with nuclear energy....WTF is on "par" with nuclear energy for peaceful means?  face it, countries dictate to other countries all the time, he with the power makes the rules...china virtually owns us, the US kowtows to china over things that are far more important than whether iran gets a peaceful nuclear generator, like the economy...

the europe missile shield....russia has threatened us over that, another example

go get a clue then come back and debate this....


----------



## MaggieMae

Newby said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't allowed to have nuclear energy because of the Environuts in this country like Al Whore.  i really hope everyone knows that Iran isn't going to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For real.. you people are three shades of fucking retarded.
> 
> 
> *Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri
> 
> Published:23-April-2009 *
> 
> Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is suspending plans to construct a new nuclear plant in Missouri *due to legislation which would prevent the company from recovering costs.* *The Missouri law prevents utilities from increasing electric rates to pay for new power plants until the plants are operational. *The company had planned to construct a 1,600 megawatt second reactor at its Callaway nuclear plant in central Missouri. The plant provides power to Saint Louis and surrounding areas.
> 
> Ameren Suspends Its Plan To Construct Nuclear Plant In Missouri - Nuclear : News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Environmentalists are very good at using legislation and government to curtail projects such as this.  I'm not saying this is the case here, but they have done it in the past.  Research would have to be done as to who was behind enacting the legislation that would have prevented the company from recovering some of it's costs.  Why was such a law enacted, what was the logic, etc... There's a ton of politics and money behind a lot of these decisions.
Click to expand...


I know it varies from state to state, but in mine, it's a very looooooong process any utility needs to endure before it can even raise its rates, let alone a new facility built. There are all sorts of means tests, only one of which is environmental, and along each step of the way, public hearings must be held first. And that's even before it reaches the state legislature for debate. We desperately need new power lines across private land, but invariably there is one small piece that some property owner will refuse to relinquish, thereby quashing the entire project. As a result, our existing power lines are constantly in need of repair and upgrade where possible, and a lot of Hail Mary's said during fierce winter storms that they will hold. It's ridiculous.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, Obama is doing just that here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I dont see Obama telling Iran that they must use oil and burn up the trees in their forrsts for energy before opting for nuclear..  Maybe you can provide a better quote than you did the last time I asked for one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she means Obama is telling us what energy we can and cannot use.
Click to expand...


No, he is *NOT*.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> if iran can be persuaded by bribes or whatever "assistance" nations offer....to give up nuclear power, that is their "right" (since i really don't want to delve into a what is a right discussion) and it is other nations rights to blockade or have trade embargos against iran if iran won't accept "assistance".....
> 
> and you're stupid if you don't think other countries dictate to the US....see *CHINA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide evcidence, instead of rhetorical bullshit, of the last instruction given by china that banned the US from persuing ANYTHING on par with nuclear energy.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a whiny little bitch ainchya....
> 
> now you're back peddling and claiming it has to somehow be on "par" with nuclear energy....WTF is on "par" with nuclear energy for peaceful means?  face it, countries dictate to other countries all the time, he with the power makes the rules...china virtually owns us, the US kowtows to china over things that are far more important than whether iran gets a peaceful nuclear generator, like the economy...
> 
> the europe missile shield....russia has threatened us over that, another example
> 
> go get a clue then come back and debate this....
Click to expand...


What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.


----------



## Yurt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide evcidence, instead of rhetorical bullshit, of the last instruction given by china that banned the US from persuing ANYTHING on par with nuclear energy.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're a whiny little bitch ainchya....
> 
> now you're back peddling and claiming it has to somehow be on "par" with nuclear energy....WTF is on "par" with nuclear energy for peaceful means?  face it, countries dictate to other countries all the time, he with the power makes the rules...china virtually owns us, the US kowtows to china over things that are far more important than whether iran gets a peaceful nuclear generator, like the economy...
> 
> the europe missile shield....russia has threatened us over that, another example
> 
> go get a clue then come back and debate this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.
Click to expand...


Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light


----------



## Citizen

Shogun said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, who is banning nukes here in the US?  I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor.  Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor!  Why must you say dumb shit?
Click to expand...


Maybe it is just me, but I do not remember any nuclear plants being built in the last decade even though we could use them to offline some coal fired ones.


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> if iran can be persuaded by bribes or whatever "assistance" nations offer....to give up nuclear power, that is their "right" (since i really don't want to delve into a what is a right discussion) and it is other nations rights to blockade or have trade embargos against iran if iran won't accept "assistance".....
> 
> and you're stupid if you don't think other countries dictate to the US....see *CHINA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you provide evcidence, instead of rhetorical bullshit, of the last instruction given by china that banned the US from persuing ANYTHING on par with nuclear energy.
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a whiny little bitch ainchya....
> 
> now you're back peddling and claiming it has to somehow be on "par" with nuclear energy....WTF is on "par" with nuclear energy for peaceful means?  face it, countries dictate to other countries all the time, he with the power makes the rules...china virtually owns us, the US kowtows to china over things that are far more important than whether iran gets a peaceful nuclear generator, like the economy...
> 
> the europe missile shield....russia has threatened us over that, another example
> 
> go get a clue then come back and debate this....
Click to expand...


Not at all.  YOU just insisted that CHINA has told the US what it can or cannot do ON PAR with the US telling Iran that it cant have nukes.  so, by all means, show me exactly what the fuck you are talking about.

Again, Im not interested in your rhetorical bullshit.  put up or shut the fuck up. it really is that simple.



ps, russia's reaction to the missile shield sure as FUCK hasn't kept the US from leaning on poland to build it, has it?  no, of course not.  Now, did you want to provide evidence or sit there and look up with a quivering lip after I've given you my pimp ring treatment?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're a whiny little bitch ainchya....
> 
> now you're back peddling and claiming it has to somehow be on "par" with nuclear energy....WTF is on "par" with nuclear energy for peaceful means?  face it, countries dictate to other countries all the time, he with the power makes the rules...china virtually owns us, the US kowtows to china over things that are far more important than whether iran gets a peaceful nuclear generator, like the economy...
> 
> the europe missile shield....russia has threatened us over that, another example
> 
> go get a clue then come back and debate this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
Click to expand...


Sounds like he was simply trying to convince China that they should continue to buy our debt to me.


----------



## MaggieMae

Shogun said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask a zionist jew who is allowed to enjoy the same equality as white anglo saxon protistants all about it, dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no Christians or Moslems in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> none that enjoy the same equality that jews do HERE.  That's the byproduct of the zionist approach to a JEWISH nation.  Hell, read any good Lieberman election strategies lately?  Do I need to quote some of his choice campaign promises about purging israel of non-jews?
> 
> for fucks sake, people.  If you are going to play at least be alittle bit informed, ok?
Click to expand...


Actually, I'd like to know why this thread turned into a debate over Jews. It's really rather an interesting debate on nuclear capabilities, at least among those interested in the facts instead of ignorant political allegations.


----------



## Sinatra

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> we wanna know the link to the 100 nuke plants that have been built since what was it? Three mile island"? I believe that was what we were waiting for.. cupcake!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes -  I would very much like to see that as well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Todays lesson:*
> HOW TO GOOGLE
> 
> 1.  Guess at keywords that will force you to search until you're too frustrated and give up, *OR*
> 
> 2.  Use the common word or phrase and thee shall find page after page instantaneously.
> 
> TO-WIT:
> 
> *"How many nuclear reactors are there in the United States?"*
> 
> VOILA!!!
> Page 1 of over 2 million:
> 1
> 
> WebHide optionsShow options... *Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800,000 *for how many nuclear reactors are in the united states?. (0.21 seconds)
> 
> Search ResultsList of nuclear reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 67.2 Plutonium production reactors; 67.3 Army Nuclear Power Program; 67.4 United States Naval reactors; 67.5 Research reactors ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors - 292k - Cached - Similar pagesNuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> See also: Nuclear power by country and List of nuclear reactors ... This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power - 246k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from en.wikipedia.org »Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003
> list of nuclear reactors and some data. ... Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor. ... of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6500, Rev 1; Capacity, Operator: EIA, Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, ...
> Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003 - 13k - Cached - Similar pagesU.S. Nuclear Reactors
> Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction ... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. ...
> U.S. Nuclear Reactors - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government »WikiAnswers - How many nuclear power plants are there in the ...
> Nuclear Energy question: How many nuclear power plants are there in the United States? On the NRC website, 104 operating reactors.
> wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_nuclear_power_plants_are_there_in_the_United_States - 47k - Cached - Similar pagesList of nuclear power plants in America
> Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States ... In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for ...... &#8220;the only high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) power reactor in the United States. ...
> List of nuclear power plants in America - 748k - Cached - Similar pagesRadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities
> Feb 11, 2009 ... There are currently approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States, with a total output of some 100000 megawatts ...
> RadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities - 66k - Cached - Similar pagesUS Nuclear Power Plant Information
> Jan 25, 2006 ... Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors; Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by ...
> US Nuclear Power Plant Information - 24k - Cached - Similar pagesINSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES
> Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors: UNITED STATES ... Links to main power reactor maps (world map, continent maps, large area maps): World Map, North America, ...
> INSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES - 76k - Cached - Similar pagesNRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
> Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary ... U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation ...
> NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites - 15k - Cached - Similar pagesSearches related to: how many nuclear reactors are in the united states? boiling water reactor breeder reactor turkey point reactors nuclear fission reactors
> how many nuclear power plants are there in the world
> 
> 
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Click to expand...


Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.

That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.

So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?

Thank you!


----------



## MaggieMae

Yurt said:


> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from



Sovereign nations have a "right" to use their own science and technology to develop anything they want. WTF?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If there was any evidence, real or fabricated, that Iran was in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was attempting to build a nuclear weapon you can be sure we'd have intervened already.  The fact is that there's not enough evidence that they've violated the treaty.Now you may make demands and insult me, but don't expect those attractive incentives to encourage me to bother entering into any serious discussion with you.



Ugh, so fucking wrong, so wrong - on both points.

You can't deny access to sites all over the country, and then exclaim "you have no evidence."  Of course fucking not, they're blocking the inspections.

The only reasons the US hasn't attacked is that iran will create even more instability in iraq, and the potential terrorist attacks that is iran's reason for existence by the cells they have established in Europe and the middle east.

Friend, we are so way, way, past the point they are in violation, the issue is how much longer will they  be able to avoid a military strike.


----------



## MaggieMae

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> national sovereignty is not a right
Click to expand...


What ARE you talking about? Do you think the United States is supreme? Got news, bud.


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes -  I would very much like to see that as well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Todays lesson:*
> HOW TO GOOGLE
> 
> 1.  Guess at keywords that will force you to search until you're too frustrated and give up, *OR*
> 
> 2.  Use the common word or phrase and thee shall find page after page instantaneously.
> 
> TO-WIT:
> 
> *"How many nuclear reactors are there in the United States?"*
> 
> VOILA!!!
> Page 1 of over 2 million:
> 1
> 
> WebHide optionsShow options... *Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800,000 *for how many nuclear reactors are in the united states?. (0.21 seconds)
> 
> Search ResultsList of nuclear reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 67.2 Plutonium production reactors; 67.3 Army Nuclear Power Program; 67.4 United States Naval reactors; 67.5 Research reactors ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors - 292k - Cached - Similar pagesNuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> See also: Nuclear power by country and List of nuclear reactors ... This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power - 246k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from en.wikipedia.org »Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003
> list of nuclear reactors and some data. ... Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor. ... of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6500, Rev 1; Capacity, Operator: EIA, Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, ...
> Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003 - 13k - Cached - Similar pagesU.S. Nuclear Reactors
> Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction ... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. ...
> U.S. Nuclear Reactors - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government »WikiAnswers - How many nuclear power plants are there in the ...
> Nuclear Energy question: How many nuclear power plants are there in the United States? On the NRC website, 104 operating reactors.
> wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_nuclear_power_plants_are_there_in_the_United_States - 47k - Cached - Similar pagesList of nuclear power plants in America
> Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States ... In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for ...... the only high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) power reactor in the United States. ...
> List of nuclear power plants in America - 748k - Cached - Similar pagesRadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities
> Feb 11, 2009 ... There are currently approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States, with a total output of some 100000 megawatts ...
> RadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities - 66k - Cached - Similar pagesUS Nuclear Power Plant Information
> Jan 25, 2006 ... Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors; Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by ...
> US Nuclear Power Plant Information - 24k - Cached - Similar pagesINSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES
> Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors: UNITED STATES ... Links to main power reactor maps (world map, continent maps, large area maps): World Map, North America, ...
> INSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES - 76k - Cached - Similar pagesNRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
> Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary ... U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation ...
> NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites - 15k - Cached - Similar pagesSearches related to: how many nuclear reactors are in the united states? boiling water reactor breeder reactor turkey point reactors nuclear fission reactors
> how many nuclear power plants are there in the world
> 
> 
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...


C'mon Maggie - were you in error, being misleading, or do you actually have the information to support your original claim?


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> For the same reason blacks didn't just all migrate back to Africa.  I don't think palis, or even iran, imagines that israel will go anywhere.  Notice, i say israel and not ZIONISM.  Again, you'll see the same thing happen there that you saw happen here if we allow as much equality THERE as we do HERE.  The people who WERE there are not long gone.  They are pali refugees that, were they jewish instead of muslim, we'd have demanded been accommodated.  Unfortunately, they are not jewish enough to count.
> 
> And no, they were not granted everything they wanted.  The stipulation was that they recognize israel as a JEWISH state.  Tell me, how many jews in the US are ready to acknowledge this nation as a CHRISTIAN nation?  Ask Jill or Dave how soon they will be admitting as much.  Would you?  Neither would they.  Which, really, illustrates the racism embedded in zionism.
> 
> I think that the only thing that will stop the orhcestrated violence of israel and palestine is the complete validation of all people in a single state of Palisrael.  by validating the Us vs Them approach the only thing that will continue is the constant marginalization of one group over the other; which sends waves of hatred to muslim nations and to ours.  It's like a pair of children fighting over one toy.  Do you favor one over the other or make them both behave toward each other and share the toy?  Are you shocked when the unfavored child gets resentful and reacts to clear and obvious favoritism?  The violence will not stop if israel decides to startor stop another cast lead barrel of death.  Nor will it stop if palis are granted some fucked up land-locked island of a "nation".  Nor will it stop when jews conveniently allow individual criminal behaviour to be generalized as an excuse to marginalize their ****** class.  Nor will it stop when both hypothetical nations vie for resources while we allknow which is the favored child.  This is why I rail against the likes of Dave and Jill who seem to think that the only human beings that matter are jews; why I don't hesitate to call for the extraction of INDIVIDUAL pali rocket launching terrorists (rather than the generalize cast leading masscre of the entire population).  If any of this sounds like I'm a big bad jooo hater then feel free to avoid criticism of israel with the big bad scarlet A.  However, you just might find that peace removes a convenient excuse which zionists don't want to give up....  After all, who do you think is the BIGGEST, LOUDEST voice against total equality in israel which puts palis on par with jews?  Just take a guess.



You just lack the brain power to understand, you fucking moron, that the jewish state is a unique situation.  Since it was supposedly secular and/or christian or muslim nations that have systematically slaughtered/persecuted jews for 2,000 years, they need a safe harbor.  The same argument could also be made for kurds, gypsies, etc., but then again, conversing with you is a waste of time, you're just not bright - I am posting for the benfit of others who can think.


----------



## MaggieMae

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> See above.  Iran is under no requirement to use oil just because YOU think they should tap as much of their resources as YOU think is necessary.  Funny, you bring up how the US can't, apparently, drill.. validating the same strategy in America..  yet you bitch about Iran conserving their resources.  hilarious.
> 
> and, I posted earlier in this thread where the local Nuke plant had every green light to build another plant but THEY could not afford it.  If you want to continue with the crybaby "we cant build nuclear" shit then be my guest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a surprise that you completely ignored the point.
> 
> The fact is they dont have a legitimate need for it. You cant deny it. You can try to change the subject all you want. But they still dont have a need for it.
> 
> And we arent arent constrained with any sort of stragety not to drill for oil. The only reason we cant drill for oil is because crazy leftists like yourself bitch and moan about phoney environmental concerns. For some reason, you guys think its a better idea for old people to freeze and starve then for us to drill for oil.
> 
> How about this, Ill consider allowing Iran to develop nuclear reactors when you allow Americans to drill for oil in our own backyard.
Click to expand...


Oh gawd...now I've seen it all. WHAAAAT????? You mean because there was a moratorium on drilling offshore, lots of old people froze and starved? Please, get real, and quit using classic Malkin-esque talking points.


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Todays lesson:*
> HOW TO GOOGLE
> 
> 1.  Guess at keywords that will force you to search until you're too frustrated and give up, *OR*
> 
> 2.  Use the common word or phrase and thee shall find page after page instantaneously.
> 
> TO-WIT:
> 
> *"How many nuclear reactors are there in the United States?"*
> 
> VOILA!!!
> Page 1 of over 2 million:
> 1
> 
> WebHide optionsShow options... *Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800,000 *for how many nuclear reactors are in the united states?. (0.21 seconds)
> 
> Search ResultsList of nuclear reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 67.2 Plutonium production reactors; 67.3 Army Nuclear Power Program; 67.4 United States Naval reactors; 67.5 Research reactors ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors - 292k - Cached - Similar pagesNuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> See also: Nuclear power by country and List of nuclear reactors ... This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power - 246k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from en.wikipedia.org »Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003
> list of nuclear reactors and some data. ... Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor. ... of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6500, Rev 1; Capacity, Operator: EIA, Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, ...
> Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003 - 13k - Cached - Similar pagesU.S. Nuclear Reactors
> Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction ... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. ...
> U.S. Nuclear Reactors - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government »WikiAnswers - How many nuclear power plants are there in the ...
> Nuclear Energy question: How many nuclear power plants are there in the United States? On the NRC website, 104 operating reactors.
> wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_nuclear_power_plants_are_there_in_the_United_States - 47k - Cached - Similar pagesList of nuclear power plants in America
> Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States ... In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for ...... the only high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) power reactor in the United States. ...
> List of nuclear power plants in America - 748k - Cached - Similar pagesRadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities
> Feb 11, 2009 ... There are currently approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States, with a total output of some 100000 megawatts ...
> RadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities - 66k - Cached - Similar pagesUS Nuclear Power Plant Information
> Jan 25, 2006 ... Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors; Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by ...
> US Nuclear Power Plant Information - 24k - Cached - Similar pagesINSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES
> Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors: UNITED STATES ... Links to main power reactor maps (world map, continent maps, large area maps): World Map, North America, ...
> INSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES - 76k - Cached - Similar pagesNRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
> Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary ... U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation ...
> NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites - 15k - Cached - Similar pagesSearches related to: how many nuclear reactors are in the united states? boiling water reactor breeder reactor turkey point reactors nuclear fission reactors
> how many nuclear power plants are there in the world
> 
> 
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon Maggie - were you in error, being misleading, or do you actually have the information to support your original claim?
Click to expand...


----------



## MaggieMae

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean AFTER a war in which germany declared war on both of those nations?  Tell me, when did Iran declare war on the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they invaded Sovereign American territory and held American citizens for ransom.
Click to expand...


Oh but Ronnie made sure they were released the day of his inauguration, and thereafter Iran became a good customer for arms. Wow. How to treat the enemy: Sell them $30 million worth of weapons to use against, um, the United States maybe someday?


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're a whiny little bitch ainchya....
> 
> now you're back peddling and claiming it has to somehow be on "par" with nuclear energy....WTF is on "par" with nuclear energy for peaceful means?  face it, countries dictate to other countries all the time, he with the power makes the rules...china virtually owns us, the US kowtows to china over things that are far more important than whether iran gets a peaceful nuclear generator, like the economy...
> 
> the europe missile shield....russia has threatened us over that, another example
> 
> go get a clue then come back and debate this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
Click to expand...



A BLOG!?!?!





try again, homo.


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *C'mon Maggie - were you in error, being misleading, or do you actually have the information to support your original claim?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason blacks didn't just all migrate back to Africa.  I don't think palis, or even iran, imagines that israel will go anywhere.  Notice, i say israel and not ZIONISM.  Again, you'll see the same thing happen there that you saw happen here if we allow as much equality THERE as we do HERE.  The people who WERE there are not long gone.  They are pali refugees that, were they jewish instead of muslim, we'd have demanded been accommodated.  Unfortunately, they are not jewish enough to count.
> 
> And no, they were not granted everything they wanted.  The stipulation was that they recognize israel as a JEWISH state.  Tell me, how many jews in the US are ready to acknowledge this nation as a CHRISTIAN nation?  Ask Jill or Dave how soon they will be admitting as much.  Would you?  Neither would they.  Which, really, illustrates the racism embedded in zionism.
> 
> I think that the only thing that will stop the orhcestrated violence of israel and palestine is the complete validation of all people in a single state of Palisrael.  by validating the Us vs Them approach the only thing that will continue is the constant marginalization of one group over the other; which sends waves of hatred to muslim nations and to ours.  It's like a pair of children fighting over one toy.  Do you favor one over the other or make them both behave toward each other and share the toy?  Are you shocked when the unfavored child gets resentful and reacts to clear and obvious favoritism?  The violence will not stop if israel decides to startor stop another cast lead barrel of death.  Nor will it stop if palis are granted some fucked up land-locked island of a "nation".  Nor will it stop when jews conveniently allow individual criminal behaviour to be generalized as an excuse to marginalize their ****** class.  Nor will it stop when both hypothetical nations vie for resources while we allknow which is the favored child.  This is why I rail against the likes of Dave and Jill who seem to think that the only human beings that matter are jews; why I don't hesitate to call for the extraction of INDIVIDUAL pali rocket launching terrorists (rather than the generalize cast leading masscre of the entire population).  If any of this sounds like I'm a big bad jooo hater then feel free to avoid criticism of israel with the big bad scarlet A.  However, you just might find that peace removes a convenient excuse which zionists don't want to give up....  After all, who do you think is the BIGGEST, LOUDEST voice against total equality in israel which puts palis on par with jews?  Just take a guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just lack the brain power to understand, you fucking moron, that the jewish state is a unique situation.  Since it was supposedly secular and/or christian or muslim nations that have systematically slaughtered/persecuted jews for 2,000 years, they need a safe harbor.  The same argument could also be made for kurds, gypsies, etc., but then again, conversing with you is a waste of time, you're just not bright - I am posting for the benfit of others who can think.
Click to expand...




HAHAHAHA!

 SUUUUURE, dude.. SURE.  Of COURSE jews are UNIQUE!  that IS the name of the bank on that BLANK CHECK, isn't it?






Just like the Aryan nation was UNIQUE, motherfucker.   You don't HAVE anything further to say, bitch.  Clearly, equality that benefits jews HERE doesn't sound as fun when they enjoy primary status THERE.  And, life a fucking dog and pony show, here are stupid fucks like you making all the excuses in the world for the jewish version of Archie Bunkers White America.   Typical, but not altogether surprising, you big pussy.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any evidence, real or fabricated, that Iran was in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was attempting to build a nuclear weapon you can be sure we'd have intervened already.  The fact is that there's not enough evidence that they've violated the treaty.Now you may make demands and insult me, but don't expect those attractive incentives to encourage me to bother entering into any serious discussion with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, so fucking wrong, so wrong - on both points.
> 
> You can't deny access to sites all over the country, and then exclaim "you have no evidence."  Of course fucking not, they're blocking the inspections.
> 
> The only reasons the US hasn't attacked is that iran will create even more instability in iraq, and the potential terrorist attacks that is iran's reason for existence by the cells they have established in Europe and the middle east.
> 
> Friend, we are so way, way, past the point they are in violation, the issue is how much longer will they  be able to avoid a military strike.
Click to expand...


shouldnt you be out trying to find a muslim to murder, blood drinker?  We all know israel is too big of a pussy to actually do more than THREATEN to strike militarily..  Espeicially, thankfully, now that Obama has made it clear that  israel can't hide behind the pant leg of America...


but, please.. keep posting big brave words you big bad cyber zohan.. you are real scary in a 1945 black and white Dracula sorta way!


----------



## Yurt

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
Click to expand...


the blog sums up the facts dumbass....i didn't feel like doing your home work, if you have a problem with the facts in the blog say so, don't be an ignorant ass....


----------



## WillowTree

hmmm.. goal post moving time again.. Think I'll go out for more goldfish..


----------



## Yurt

MaggieMae said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereign nations have a "right" to use their own science and technology to develop anything they want. WTF?
Click to expand...


sweet, maybe they can develop the world's most deadliest poison and sell it to whomever they want.  why stop at science though, let's give them the right to kill anyone within their borders, afterall, its sovereignty


----------



## Sinatra

WillowTree said:


> hmmm.. goal post moving time again.. Think I'll go out for more goldfish..




Maggie keeps avoiding the question!

Is she so uncertain of herself she cannot simply type out,

"I was wrong."


C'mon Maggie - you're losing major cred with this silly avoidance!


----------



## MaggieMae

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like he was simply trying to convince China that they should continue to buy our debt to me.
Click to expand...


China needs the U.S. consumer to start buying its trinkets again. China depends hugely on the success of our economy.


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the blog sums up the facts dumbass....i didn't feel like doing your home work, if you have a problem with the facts in the blog say so, don't be an ignorant ass....
Click to expand...


nope. sorry.  a blog is just as usless as a personal youtube commentary.  No, what you didn't feel like doing was providing evidence of your assertion which means, clearly, that you are full of rhetorical shit and have been served a nice knee-deep mudhole by your friendly neighborhood Shogun.


And, for future reference, remember that blogs are not news sources.  They are not evidence.  They have ZERO place in the realm of evidence.   Now, go dig up an article from a NEWS SOURCE that proves the US has been ordered by china to belay ANYTHING.  I fucking DARE you.


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereign nations have a "right" to use their own science and technology to develop anything they want. WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sweet, maybe they can develop the world's most deadliest poison and sell it to whomever they want.  why stop at science though, let's give them the right to kill anyone within their borders, afterall, its sovereignty
Click to expand...


Well that IS exactly what the US has done by ARMING ISRAEL WITH SECRET *wink wink* NUKES, eh?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

MaggieMae said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like he was simply trying to convince China that they should continue to buy our debt to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China needs the U.S. consumer to start buying its trinkets again. China depends hugely on the success of our economy.
Click to expand...


The U.S. needs China more than China needs the U.S.  If they'd stop buying our debt they'd be better off in the long run because there is absolutely no way we're ever paying them back.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> AHAHAHA!
> 
> Just like the Aryan nation was UNIQUE, motherfucker.   You don't HAVE anything further to say, bitch.  Clearly, equality that benefits jews HERE doesn't sound as fun when they enjoy primary status THERE.  And, life a fucking dog and pony show, here are stupid fucks like you making all the excuses in the world for the jewish version of Archie Bunkers White America.   Typical, but not altogether surprising, you big pussy.



You're as smart as that other idiot who screams "iran doesn't have nuclear weapons" while accepting that they deny IAEA inspections all over the country.

It was YOUR people fuckbrain that have persecuted and murdered jews for centuries, then can't understand why they might want to have a safe haven should the US do what you are threatening - expulsion.  You're just fucking stupid if you cannot grasp this point, which seems to be the issue - either that, or you just hate jews, which is also likely.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

DavidS said:


> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate.




Of course they do, I don't even see how that's a topic of debate.


----------



## Yurt

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the blog sums up the facts dumbass....i didn't feel like doing your home work, if you have a problem with the facts in the blog say so, don't be an ignorant ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope. sorry.  a blog is just as usless as a personal youtube commentary.  No, what you didn't feel like doing was providing evidence of your assertion which means, clearly, that you are full of rhetorical shit and have been served a nice knee-deep mudhole by your friendly neighborhood Shogun.
> 
> 
> And, for future reference, remember that blogs are not news sources.  They are not evidence.  They have ZERO place in the realm of evidence.   Now, go dig up an article from a NEWS SOURCE that proves the US has been ordered by china to belay ANYTHING.  I fucking DARE you.
Click to expand...


you're such a dumbfuck....if you weren't so stupid you would have clicked on the link and seen that the article from reuters is posted in its entirety, so i was not merely posting a blog

if you don't think china tells the US what to do, ever, you're bigger tool that you've led me to believe, additionally, i have also referenced russia demanding we stop our missile shield....but no surprise you ignore that


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> AHAHAHA!
> 
> Just like the Aryan nation was UNIQUE, motherfucker.   You don't HAVE anything further to say, bitch.  Clearly, equality that benefits jews HERE doesn't sound as fun when they enjoy primary status THERE.  And, life a fucking dog and pony show, here are stupid fucks like you making all the excuses in the world for the jewish version of Archie Bunkers White America.   Typical, but not altogether surprising, you big pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as smart as that other idiot who screams "iran doesn't have nuclear weapons" while accepting that they deny IAEA inspections all over the country.
> 
> It was YOUR people fuckbrain that have persecuted and murdered jews for centuries, then can't understand why they might want to have a safe haven should the US do what you are threatening - expulsion.  You're just fucking stupid if you cannot grasp this point, which seems to be the issue - either that, or you just hate jews, which is also likely.
Click to expand...


I assume I'm the "idiot" you're referring to, and I can assure you I haven't been screaming anything.


----------



## rhodescholar

Yurt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the blog sums up the facts dumbass....i didn't feel like doing your home work, if you have a problem with the facts in the blog say so, don't be an ignorant ass....
Click to expand...


I do say I really like this forum and its hands off-moderation style, but the admins do need to apply some and get this jackass troll off the board.  He/it has no interest in an intelligent debate, and is just polluting the threads he enters.  Can the mods stop it?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the blog sums up the facts dumbass....i didn't feel like doing your home work, if you have a problem with the facts in the blog say so, don't be an ignorant ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do say I really like this forum and its hands off-moderation style, but the admins do need to apply some and get this jackass troll off the board.  He/it has no interest in an intelligent debate, and is just polluting the threads he enters.  Can the mods stop it?
Click to expand...


You've got quite a bit of nerve objecting to somebody else being rude.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> Well that IS exactly what the US has done by ARMING ISRAEL WITH SECRET *wink wink* NUKES, eh?



Idiot asshole, israel got its nuke tech from France.  Thats the problem with racists, to be that  stupid about people, its not as if they will get the facts correct about other things, like...history.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes -  I would very much like to see that as well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Todays lesson:*
> HOW TO GOOGLE
> 
> 1.  Guess at keywords that will force you to search until you're too frustrated and give up, *OR*
> 
> 2.  Use the common word or phrase and thee shall find page after page instantaneously.
> 
> TO-WIT:
> 
> *"How many nuclear reactors are there in the United States?"*
> 
> VOILA!!!
> Page 1 of over 2 million:
> 1
> 
> WebHide optionsShow options... *Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800,000 *for how many nuclear reactors are in the united states?. (0.21 seconds)
> 
> Search ResultsList of nuclear reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 67.2 Plutonium production reactors; 67.3 Army Nuclear Power Program; 67.4 United States Naval reactors; 67.5 Research reactors ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors - 292k - Cached - Similar pagesNuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> See also: Nuclear power by country and List of nuclear reactors ... This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power - 246k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from en.wikipedia.org »Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003
> list of nuclear reactors and some data. ... Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor. ... of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6500, Rev 1; Capacity, Operator: EIA, Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, ...
> Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003 - 13k - Cached - Similar pagesU.S. Nuclear Reactors
> Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction ... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. ...
> U.S. Nuclear Reactors - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government »WikiAnswers - How many nuclear power plants are there in the ...
> Nuclear Energy question: How many nuclear power plants are there in the United States? On the NRC website, 104 operating reactors.
> wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_nuclear_power_plants_are_there_in_the_United_States - 47k - Cached - Similar pagesList of nuclear power plants in America
> Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States ... In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for ...... the only high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) power reactor in the United States. ...
> List of nuclear power plants in America - 748k - Cached - Similar pagesRadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities
> Feb 11, 2009 ... There are currently approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States, with a total output of some 100000 megawatts ...
> RadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities - 66k - Cached - Similar pagesUS Nuclear Power Plant Information
> Jan 25, 2006 ... Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors; Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by ...
> US Nuclear Power Plant Information - 24k - Cached - Similar pagesINSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES
> Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors: UNITED STATES ... Links to main power reactor maps (world map, continent maps, large area maps): World Map, North America, ...
> INSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES - 76k - Cached - Similar pagesNRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
> Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary ... U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation ...
> NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites - 15k - Cached - Similar pagesSearches related to: how many nuclear reactors are in the united states? boiling water reactor breeder reactor turkey point reactors nuclear fission reactors
> how many nuclear power plants are there in the world
> 
> 
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...


I assume most of them had at least been ordered and/or under construction at the time of the Three Mile Island incident. Better?  I am never intentionally misleading. *EVER.* If you misunderstood because of my choice of words, I apologize. 

That said, if in 30 years an additional 35 reactors have gone online, and using the 10-year timeframe as the average amount of time it takes to go through the regulatory and construction processes, frankly I'm surprised it's that many.


----------



## Yurt

since shogun is a lazy poop....

China tells US to stop 'illegal' naval activities

china tells us to stop 'illegal' naval activities - Google Search

tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....

china taiwan us relations - Google Search

tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....

i really can't believe you stuck to your guns like this over something so easy to school you on....


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You've got quite a bit of nerve objecting to somebody else being rude.



You are correct, I apologize for calling you an idiot, and was out of order to do so.

As for the troll here, you need to look at how he has cursed at me and insulted me and other posters in the most vile ways for days, so you are entering this game at a very late stage.  In a traditionally modded forum, he would have been loooooooong gone.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> since shogun is a lazy poop....
> 
> China tells US to stop 'illegal' naval activities
> 
> china tells us to stop 'illegal' naval activities - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> china taiwan us relations - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> i really can't believe you stuck to your guns like this over something so easy to school you on....



I'm sure we'd have a similar response if China sent naval ships into our waters, in fact we'd probably just sink them.  Though I think Shogun was speaking of domestic policy, not necessarily foreign policy.


----------



## MaggieMae

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was any evidence, real or fabricated, that Iran was in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and was attempting to build a nuclear weapon you can be sure we'd have intervened already.  The fact is that there's not enough evidence that they've violated the treaty.Now you may make demands and insult me, but don't expect those attractive incentives to encourage me to bother entering into any serious discussion with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh, so fucking wrong, so wrong - on both points.
> 
> You can't deny access to sites all over the country, and then exclaim "you have no evidence."  Of course fucking not, they're blocking the inspections.
> 
> The only reasons the US hasn't attacked is that iran will create even more instability in iraq, and the potential terrorist attacks that is iran's reason for existence by the cells they have established in Europe and the middle east.
> 
> Friend, we are so way, way, past the point they are in violation, the issue is how much longer will they  be able to avoid a military strike.
Click to expand...


You speak as though such a "strike" would be by conventional means. What if Iran DOES have nuclear bombs hidden below ground and just hasn't figured out a way to deploy them? By bombing every rise in the sand, we're apt to set off a nuclear holocaust anyway. Then what? 

There are all sorts of considerations that smarter guys in the room have considered, that being only one. Another is Iran's ability to shut off the Strait of Hormuz to ingress and egress for tankers from all over the world causing a huge global shortage of oil. There are major geopolitical considerations we well. We can't keep going around invading countries just because they piss us off by not playing by our rules.


----------



## Article 15

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've got quite a bit of nerve objecting to somebody else being rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, I apologize for calling you an idiot, and was out of order to do so.
> 
> As for the troll here, you need to look at how he has cursed at me and insulted me and other posters in the most vile ways for days, so you are entering this game at a very late stage.  In a traditionally modded forum, he would have been loooooooong gone.
Click to expand...

*
Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
*


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon Maggie - were you in error, being misleading, or do you actually have the information to support your original claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


PATIENCE!!! I eventually answered you. I was offline for several hours and had a lot to read before I got to yours. Geesh...


----------



## MaggieMae

Yurt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think anyone has a "right" to nuclear energy....if it is a right...where did the right come from
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereign nations have a "right" to use their own science and technology to develop anything they want. WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sweet, maybe they can develop the world's most deadliest poison and sell it to whomever they want.  why stop at science though, let's give them the right to kill anyone within their borders, afterall, its sovereignty
Click to expand...


How do you propose to stop it? Try *THINKING* before you answer.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Todays lesson:*
> HOW TO GOOGLE
> 
> 1.  Guess at keywords that will force you to search until you're too frustrated and give up, *OR*
> 
> 2.  Use the common word or phrase and thee shall find page after page instantaneously.
> 
> TO-WIT:
> 
> *"How many nuclear reactors are there in the United States?"*
> 
> VOILA!!!
> Page 1 of over 2 million:
> 1
> 
> WebHide optionsShow options... *Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800,000 *for how many nuclear reactors are in the united states?. (0.21 seconds)
> 
> Search ResultsList of nuclear reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 67.2 Plutonium production reactors; 67.3 Army Nuclear Power Program; 67.4 United States Naval reactors; 67.5 Research reactors ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors - 292k - Cached - Similar pagesNuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> See also: Nuclear power by country and List of nuclear reactors ... This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power - 246k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from en.wikipedia.org »Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003
> list of nuclear reactors and some data. ... Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor. ... of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6500, Rev 1; Capacity, Operator: EIA, Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, ...
> Nuclear Plants Operating in the United States, 2003 - 13k - Cached - Similar pagesU.S. Nuclear Reactors
> Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction ... U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. ...
> U.S. Nuclear Reactors - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
> More results from Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government »WikiAnswers - How many nuclear power plants are there in the ...
> Nuclear Energy question: How many nuclear power plants are there in the United States? On the NRC website, 104 operating reactors.
> wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_nuclear_power_plants_are_there_in_the_United_States - 47k - Cached - Similar pagesList of nuclear power plants in America
> Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States ... In fact, RIGHT NOW they are relicensing many of these reactors for ...... the only high temperature gas-cooled (HTGR) power reactor in the United States. ...
> List of nuclear power plants in America - 748k - Cached - Similar pagesRadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities
> Feb 11, 2009 ... There are currently approximately 110 nuclear power reactors in operation in the United States, with a total output of some 100000 megawatts ...
> RadWaste.org - US nuclear power plants & utilities - 66k - Cached - Similar pagesUS Nuclear Power Plant Information
> Jan 25, 2006 ... Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors; Alphabetical List of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by ...
> US Nuclear Power Plant Information - 24k - Cached - Similar pagesINSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES
> Maps of Nuclear Power Reactors: UNITED STATES ... Links to main power reactor maps (world map, continent maps, large area maps): World Map, North America, ...
> INSCDB: Maps: UNITED STATES - 76k - Cached - Similar pagesNRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
> Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION secondary ... U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors - Years of Operation ...
> NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites - 15k - Cached - Similar pagesSearches related to: how many nuclear reactors are in the united states? boiling water reactor breeder reactor turkey point reactors nuclear fission reactors
> how many nuclear power plants are there in the world
> 
> 
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume most of them had at least been ordered and/or under construction at the time of the Three Mile Island incident. Better?  I am never intentionally misleading. *EVER.* If you misunderstood because of my choice of words, I apologize.
> 
> That said, if in 30 years an additional 35 reactors have gone online, and using the 10-year timeframe as the average amount of time it takes to go through the regulatory and construction processes, frankly I'm surprised it's that many.
Click to expand...


I don't know MM, seems pretty big assumption on your part:

Washingtonpost.com: Three Mile Island



> Live Discussion
> Nuclear Power Since Three Mile Island
> 
> Tuesday, March 30, 1999
> 
> The nuclear power industry has built no new plants in the United States since the partial meltdown at one of two reactors on Three Mile Island 20 years ago. Washington Post business reporter Martha M. Hamilton joined us live online today to discuss changes in the nuclear energy industry since the 1979 accident.
> 
> washingtonpost.com: Welcome, Martha. To start, how did the accident at Three Mile Island change the nuclear power business in the United States?
> 
> Martha M. Hamilton: It drove a stake through the heart of any new construction. No new nuclear plants have been built since then in the United States. GPU, which owned Three Mile Island, had $425 million invested in construction of what was to be a new plant at the time and canceled it. ...


----------



## Yurt

MaggieMae said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereign nations have a "right" to use their own science and technology to develop anything they want. WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sweet, maybe they can develop the world's most deadliest poison and sell it to whomever they want.  why stop at science though, let's give them the right to kill anyone within their borders, afterall, its sovereignty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you propose to stop it? Try *THINKING* before you answer.
Click to expand...


don't change your story, you claimed it was a right, you mentioned nothing about stopping anything, but you don't like the full implications of your unreasoned response so you attack and change your stance


----------



## Yurt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> since shogun is a lazy poop....
> 
> China tells US to stop 'illegal' naval activities
> 
> china tells us to stop 'illegal' naval activities - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> china taiwan us relations - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> i really can't believe you stuck to your guns like this over something so easy to school you on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we'd have a similar response if China sent naval ships into our waters, in fact we'd probably just sink them.  Though I think Shogun was speaking of domestic policy, not necessarily foreign policy.
Click to expand...


taiwan....china demands we don't sell arms to taiwan...it doesn't matter if it is foreign or domestic, his claim was that NO country tells the US what to do...that is a false statement and if you really think it through, the reason many in the US don't want iran to have nuclear power is not that we want to tell them what to do with domestic policy, it is that they do not want iran to have nuclear weapons would as you know, is more about foreign policy.


----------



## rhodescholar

MaggieMae said:


> You speak as though such a "strike" would be by conventional means. What if Iran DOES have nuclear bombs hidden below ground and just hasn't figured out a way to deploy them? By bombing every rise in the sand, we're apt to set off a nuclear holocaust anyway. Then what?
> 
> There are all sorts of considerations that smarter guys in the room have considered, that being only one. Another is Iran's ability to shut off the Strait of Hormuz to ingress and egress for tankers from all over the world causing a huge global shortage of oil. There are major geopolitical considerations we well. We can't keep going around invading countries just because they piss us off by not playing by our rules.



First off, bombing the nukes in the ground wouldn't set off a nuclear explosion, only the nuclear triggers themselves can do that.  However, bombing the reactors like Natanz and Bashir would release clouds of radiation, and would need to be avoided.

But on your other point, you are absolutely correct, that there are things going on and facts unavailable to the public that I cannot access, that would explain why the US hasn't already taken iran out.  The iraq terrorism should have been enough to crush and destroy iran's heinous government, and for a long time I have wondered why the US allowed them to get away with it.


----------



## Yurt

rhodescholar said:


> *Idiot asshole*, israel got its nuke tech from France.  Thats the problem with racists, to be that  stupid about people, its not as if they will get the facts correct about other things, like...history.





rhodescholar said:


> You are correct, I apologize for calling you an idiot, and was out of order to do so.
> 
> *As for the troll here, you need to look at how he has cursed at me and insulted me and other posters* in the most vile ways for days, so you are entering this game at a very late stage.  In a traditionally modded forum, he would have been loooooooong gone.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the issue is your assertion that a hundred nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident.
> 
> That is the information I was seeking, for I had never heard such a claim before, and it has been widely understood by even those with little knowledge of the subject, that no new plants have been commissioned in America in about 30 years.
> 
> So did you make an error - or were you being intentionally misleading, or do you have a link to support your statement regarding those 100 post-Three Mile Island nuclear facilities?
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume most of them had at least been ordered and/or under construction at the time of the Three Mile Island incident. Better?  I am never intentionally misleading. *EVER.* If you misunderstood because of my choice of words, I apologize.
> 
> That said, if in 30 years an additional 35 reactors have gone online, and using the 10-year timeframe as the average amount of time it takes to go through the regulatory and construction processes, frankly I'm surprised it's that many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know MM, seems pretty big assumption on your part:
> 
> Washingtonpost.com: Three Mile Island
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Live Discussion
> Nuclear Power Since Three Mile Island
> 
> Tuesday, March 30, 1999
> 
> The nuclear power industry has built no new plants in the United States since the partial meltdown at one of two reactors on Three Mile Island 20 years ago. Washington Post business reporter Martha M. Hamilton joined us live online today to discuss changes in the nuclear energy industry since the 1979 accident.
> 
> washingtonpost.com: Welcome, Martha. To start, how did the accident at Three Mile Island change the nuclear power business in the United States?
> 
> Martha M. Hamilton: It drove a stake through the heart of any new construction. No new nuclear plants have been built since then in the United States. GPU, which owned Three Mile Island, had $425 million invested in construction of what was to be a new plant at the time and canceled it. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What can I say? I posted the NRC website which gave the numbers of 104 oprational reactors, up from 69 thirty years ago. Why would I lie? Why would the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lie? Maybe the 35 additional reactors were already built but sat idle for x-number of years. I haven't really studied the site, but I think if anyone cares to, the answers can easily be found.

I'm not arguing _against_ nuclear energy, by the way. But I do understand both sides of the issue--on the one hand it's clean and reliable, and on the other there remains the problem of the spent rods. But I think that problem is going to be quickly resolved by the latest European technology of recycling those rods. Problem solved. GO NUKE!!


----------



## Annie

Shogun said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have we kowtowed to China on economically?  I was under the impression that we were trying to convince them to buy more of our debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
Click to expand...


A 'blog' that is commenting on a Reuters article. Respond to the response or don't. Straw man.


----------



## rhodescholar

> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.



WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?

I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.


----------



## Yurt

> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.


[/QUOTE]


> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Xenophon

Shogun said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran sits on a sea of oil and one of teh world's largest natural gas supplies.
> 
> They do not 'need' nuclear power at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such is not for you to decide.
Click to expand...

My opinion counts as much as yours.


----------



## MaggieMae

Yurt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> sweet, maybe they can develop the world's most deadliest poison and sell it to whomever they want.  why stop at science though, let's give them the right to kill anyone within their borders, afterall, its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to stop it? Try *THINKING* before you answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't change your story, you claimed it was a right, you mentioned nothing about stopping anything, but you don't like the full implications of your unreasoned response so you attack and change your stance
Click to expand...


You're not making any sense. None, nada, zip. 

Ask yourself WHY the United States should have the POWER to enforce what *some other country *develops using their own scientists and engineers. Are all nations of the world supposed to abide by OUR Constitution and OUR laws? There are international laws governing certain no-nos, but there is nothing that allows one country to dictate the conduct of another country, unless of course the losing country is swallowed up by war.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.
Click to expand...


I question people when they insult me for no reason, but the key to it is not turning around and insulting other people.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> since shogun is a lazy poop....
> 
> China tells US to stop 'illegal' naval activities
> 
> china tells us to stop 'illegal' naval activities - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> china taiwan us relations - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> i really can't believe you stuck to your guns like this over something so easy to school you on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we'd have a similar response if China sent naval ships into our waters, in fact we'd probably just sink them.  Though I think Shogun was speaking of domestic policy, not necessarily foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> taiwan....china demands we don't sell arms to taiwan...it doesn't matter if it is foreign or domestic, his claim was that NO country tells the US what to do...that is a false statement and if you really think it through, the reason many in the US don't want iran to have nuclear power is not that we want to tell them what to do with domestic policy, it is that they do not want iran to have nuclear weapons would as you know, is more about foreign policy.
Click to expand...


Well we shouldn't be selling arms to anyone.

However, we are telling Iran what to do with it's domestic policy and we have no right to do so.


----------



## Sinatra

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume most of them had at least been ordered and/or under construction at the time of the Three Mile Island incident. Better?  I am never intentionally misleading. *EVER.* If you misunderstood because of my choice of words, I apologize.
> 
> That said, if in 30 years an additional 35 reactors have gone online, and using the 10-year timeframe as the average amount of time it takes to go through the regulatory and construction processes, frankly I'm surprised it's that many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know MM, seems pretty big assumption on your part:
> 
> Washingtonpost.com: Three Mile Island
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Live Discussion
> Nuclear Power Since Three Mile Island
> 
> Tuesday, March 30, 1999
> 
> The nuclear power industry has built no new plants in the United States since the partial meltdown at one of two reactors on Three Mile Island 20 years ago. Washington Post business reporter Martha M. Hamilton joined us live online today to discuss changes in the nuclear energy industry since the 1979 accident.
> 
> washingtonpost.com: Welcome, Martha. To start, how did the accident at Three Mile Island change the nuclear power business in the United States?
> 
> Martha M. Hamilton: It drove a stake through the heart of any new construction. No new nuclear plants have been built since then in the United States. GPU, which owned Three Mile Island, had $425 million invested in construction of what was to be a new plant at the time and canceled it. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can I say? I posted the NRC website which gave the numbers of 104 oprational reactors, up from 69 thirty years ago. Why would I lie? Why would the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lie? Maybe the 35 additional reactors were already built but sat idle for x-number of years. I haven't really studied the site, but I think if anyone cares to, the answers can easily be found.
> 
> I'm not arguing _against_ nuclear energy, by the way. But I do understand both sides of the issue--on the one hand it's clean and reliable, and on the other there remains the problem of the spent rods. But I think that problem is going to be quickly resolved by the latest European technology of recycling those rods. *Problem solved. GO NUKE!*!
Click to expand...


On that we totally agree.

Greatly expanded Nuclear energy must be fast tracked.

Alas, this current administration does not appear willing to do so. Obama's stance on nuclear energy has been tepid at best, when energy reality should require that it be far more supportive.

Here is Obama giving yet another lukewarm (and bloviating) response to the nuclear energy question where he falls back on the tried and true liberal supports of solar and biodiesel, etc. (And of course every politicians use of the "kid-card".)  I am all for solar, wind, bioiesel - but those are secondary options.  Nuclear is a completely viable and first tier energy source.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU]YouTube - Barack on Nuclear Energy[/ame]


----------



## Article 15

rhodescholar said:


> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.
Click to expand...


Mods user names are in orange.  Administrators are in red.


----------



## MaggieMae

rhodescholar said:


> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.
Click to expand...


They're listed (coded) above all the other members at the bottom of the first screen after logging on.


----------



## Sinatra

rhodescholar said:


> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.
Click to expand...



Don't sweat it.

Just speak your mind, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Yurt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure we'd have a similar response if China sent naval ships into our waters, in fact we'd probably just sink them.  Though I think Shogun was speaking of domestic policy, not necessarily foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taiwan....china demands we don't sell arms to taiwan...it doesn't matter if it is foreign or domestic, his claim was that NO country tells the US what to do...that is a false statement and if you really think it through, the reason many in the US don't want iran to have nuclear power is not that we want to tell them what to do with domestic policy, it is that they do not want iran to have nuclear weapons would as you know, is more about foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we shouldn't be selling arms to anyone.
> 
> However, we are telling Iran what to do with it's domestic policy and we have no right to do so.
Click to expand...


while i don't agree we should, we sure as hell do....its how the world works...if your neighbor is loud, you would ask them to turn the music or whatever down...what gives you the right to do that?  

why shouldn't we sell arms to anyone?  are you saying we don't have a right to?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> taiwan....china demands we don't sell arms to taiwan...it doesn't matter if it is foreign or domestic, his claim was that NO country tells the US what to do...that is a false statement and if you really think it through, the reason many in the US don't want iran to have nuclear power is not that we want to tell them what to do with domestic policy, it is that they do not want iran to have nuclear weapons would as you know, is more about foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we shouldn't be selling arms to anyone.
> 
> However, we are telling Iran what to do with it's domestic policy and we have no right to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while i don't agree we should, we sure as hell do....its how the world works...if your neighbor is loud, you would ask them to turn the music or whatever down...what gives you the right to do that?
> 
> why shouldn't we sell arms to anyone?  are you saying we don't have a right to?
Click to expand...


You have the right to ask them to turn the music down, you don't have the right to go into their home and smash their stereo.

We shouldn't sell arms to anyone because we should be practicing a non-interventionist foreign policy, and selling arms to people isn't non-interventionist.


----------



## Yurt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we shouldn't be selling arms to anyone.
> 
> However, we are telling Iran what to do with it's domestic policy and we have no right to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while i don't agree we should, we sure as hell do....its how the world works...if your neighbor is loud, you would ask them to turn the music or whatever down...what gives you the right to do that?
> 
> why shouldn't we sell arms to anyone?  are you saying we don't have a right to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to ask them to turn the music down, you don't have the right to go into their home and smash their stereo.
> 
> We shouldn't sell arms to anyone because we should be practicing a non-interventionist foreign policy, and selling arms to people isn't non-interventionist.
Click to expand...


strawman, i never mentioned going in and bombing iran....you have me confused with someone else...last i checked US policy and UN policy is to sanction them, something wholly different than going in and smashing their reactor....and guess what, if they don't want their neighbors sanctioning them, then don't play the loud music....

do you really want every country in the world to have nuclear weapons?  

again, do we have the right to sell arms?  we are talking about so called rights....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> while i don't agree we should, we sure as hell do....its how the world works...if your neighbor is loud, you would ask them to turn the music or whatever down...what gives you the right to do that?
> 
> why shouldn't we sell arms to anyone?  are you saying we don't have a right to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to ask them to turn the music down, you don't have the right to go into their home and smash their stereo.
> 
> We shouldn't sell arms to anyone because we should be practicing a non-interventionist foreign policy, and selling arms to people isn't non-interventionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> strawman, i never mentioned going in and bombing iran....you have me confused with someone else...last i checked US policy and UN policy is to sanction them, something wholly different than going in and smashing their reactor....and guess what, if they don't want their neighbors sanctioning them, then don't play the loud music....
> 
> do you really want every country in the world to have nuclear weapons?
> 
> again, do we have the right to sell arms?  we are talking about so called rights....
Click to expand...


Sanctions don't hurt the government, only the people.  So I would be against sanctions as well.  We should learn not to adopt a double-standard.  We have nukes, Israel has nukes, so we have no right to stop anyone else from obtaining nukes.

I see nothing in the Constitution that states our government has the authority to be an arms dealer around the world, so I would say not.


----------



## Yurt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to ask them to turn the music down, you don't have the right to go into their home and smash their stereo.
> 
> We shouldn't sell arms to anyone because we should be practicing a non-interventionist foreign policy, and selling arms to people isn't non-interventionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strawman, i never mentioned going in and bombing iran....you have me confused with someone else...last i checked US policy and UN policy is to sanction them, something wholly different than going in and smashing their reactor....and guess what, if they don't want their neighbors sanctioning them, then don't play the loud music....
> 
> do you really want every country in the world to have nuclear weapons?
> 
> again, do we have the right to sell arms?  we are talking about so called rights....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions don't hurt the government, only the people.  So I would be against sanctions as well.  We should learn not to adopt a double-standard.  We have nukes, Israel has nukes, so we have no right to stop anyone else from obtaining nukes.
> 
> I see nothing in the Constitution that states our government has the authority to be an arms dealer around the world, so I would say not.
Click to expand...


if only the government would abide the constitution.....with that said, i don't see the constitution limits the president from selling arms, he has authority under his foreign powers to sell arms, IMO...or are you goign to actually argue that the US has no authority to engage in any trade with a foreign nation whatsoever....

hey, we nuked japan, let's not have double standards and tell others they can't nuke....hell, let's everybody have a nuke party becuase the US did it...we allow police to have guns, but not felons....double standard...as to sanctions only hurting the people, that is up the leaders, not the sanctions, nice try


----------



## pete

WillowTree said:


> you know what's funny about this latest goddamn spew from the obamalama??? Iran is entitled to Nuclear energy.. America is not??


----------



## Fraulein Hilda

Israel will take care of this.


----------



## Annie

Hmm, still no response from DavidS or Jillian for that matter. 

Obama is NOT Israel friendly, he's way too European for that.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose to stop it? Try *THINKING* before you answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't change your story, you claimed it was a right, you mentioned nothing about stopping anything, but you don't like the full implications of your unreasoned response so you attack and change your stance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not making any sense. None, nada, zip.
> 
> Ask yourself WHY the United States should have the POWER to enforce what *some other country *develops using their own scientists and engineers. Are all nations of the world supposed to abide by OUR Constitution and OUR laws? There are international laws governing certain no-nos, but there is nothing that allows one country to dictate the conduct of another country, unless of course the losing country is swallowed up by war.
Click to expand...


How can one tell a democrat on talking points? They are pwnd and come back like they weren't. Amazing. GOP listen up, learn!


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> national sovereignty
> 
> 
> Tell me, what nation do you want telling the US what it can and cant have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US isnt planning genocide now is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> perhaps you should ask a dead "they have weapons of mass destruction" civilian iraqi that question, tex.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should learn what genocide means.


----------



## jillian

rhodescholar said:


> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.
Click to expand...


If you want to know who the moderators are, look at the main page. the names in orange are moderators.

We don't censor people's words here.


----------



## jillian

Annie said:


> Hmm, still no response from DavidS or Jillian for that matter.
> 
> Obama is NOT Israel friendly, he's way too European for that.



see post 3 dear... as for israel friendly, bush was "israel friendly" and caused more problems for israel than any president i can think of.


----------



## Avatar4321

SpidermanTuba said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do, I don't even see how that's a topic of debate.
Click to expand...


Then you are rather slow considering there are already 21 pages of debate on the subject.


----------



## Avatar4321

MaggieMae said:


> You're not making any sense. None, nada, zip.
> 
> Ask yourself WHY the United States should have the POWER to enforce what *some other country *develops using their own scientists and engineers. Are all nations of the world supposed to abide by OUR Constitution and OUR laws? There are international laws governing certain no-nos, but there is nothing that allows one country to dictate the conduct of another country, unless of course the losing country is swallowed up by war.



Is it really this difficult to understand that creating weapons to blackmail/attack us and our allies is a bad thing and that we have a right to stop that?


----------



## Gunny

DavidS said:


> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."



No they don't.  Fundamental Islamic regimes don't have a right to anything.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> strawman, i never mentioned going in and bombing iran....you have me confused with someone else...last i checked US policy and UN policy is to sanction them, something wholly different than going in and smashing their reactor....and guess what, if they don't want their neighbors sanctioning them, then don't play the loud music....
> 
> do you really want every country in the world to have nuclear weapons?
> 
> again, do we have the right to sell arms?  we are talking about so called rights....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions don't hurt the government, only the people.  So I would be against sanctions as well.  We should learn not to adopt a double-standard.  We have nukes, Israel has nukes, so we have no right to stop anyone else from obtaining nukes.
> 
> I see nothing in the Constitution that states our government has the authority to be an arms dealer around the world, so I would say not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if only the government would abide the constitution.....with that said, i don't see the constitution limits the president from selling arms, he has authority under his foreign powers to sell arms, IMO...or are you goign to actually argue that the US has no authority to engage in any trade with a foreign nation whatsoever....
> 
> hey, we nuked japan, let's not have double standards and tell others they can't nuke....hell, let's everybody have a nuke party becuase the US did it...we allow police to have guns, but not felons....double standard...as to sanctions only hurting the people, that is up the leaders, not the sanctions, nice try
Click to expand...


Trade is great, selling arms is trade of a dubious nature.

We shouldn't have nuked Japan.  As to the whole leaders cause the sanctions not the government imposing the sanctions, utterly ridiculous.  And you can be sure the people hurting and dying due to the sanctions don't see it that way either.


----------



## Dr Grump

Iran are entitled to nuclear power...


----------



## Red Dawn

jillian said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, still no response from DavidS or Jillian for that matter.
> 
> Obama is NOT Israel friendly, he's way too European for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see post 3 dear... as for israel friendly, bush was "israel friendly" and caused more problems for israel than any president i can think of.
Click to expand...



true dat. 


I continue to be amazed that Bush lovers like Annie think Bush was good for isreal.   Blowing shit up and just generally being a belligerent dumbfuck doesn't make israel safer. 

Hey, next time you see annie, ask her if she's so concerned about israel, why did her hero Ronald Reagan illegally sell hi-tech arms to Iran?  The democratic congress NEVER would have approved or sold hi tech weapons to iran.


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> Iran are entitled to nuclear power...



I disagree... they have no intention of using it defensively... 

and i kind of like tel aviv.


----------



## jillian

Red Dawn said:


> true dat.
> 
> 
> I continue to be amazed that Bush lovers like Annie think Bush was good for isreal.   Blowing shit up and just generally being a belligerent dumbfuck doesn't make israel safer.
> 
> Hey, next time you see annie, ask her if she's so concerned about israel, why did her hero Ronald Reagan illegally sell hi-tech arms to Iran?  The democratic congress NEVER would have approved or sold hi tech weapons to iran.



Bush did two things that were horrible for Israel... he destabilized the region, thus empowering Iran, which swore Israel's destruction. And he forced elections in Gaza... which resulted in the election of a terrorist organiztion. Plus, he did nothing to foster peace until the last nine months of his admin when he sent Condi to make a half-hearted effort... 

Friends like that, who needs enemies... 

as for Reagan, do they acknowledge that Iran-Contra ever happened?


----------



## Harry Dresden

rhodescholar said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the blog sums up the facts dumbass....i didn't feel like doing your home work, if you have a problem with the facts in the blog say so, don't be an ignorant ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do say I really like this forum and its hands off-moderation style, but the admins do need to apply some and get this jackass troll off the board.  He/it has no interest in an intelligent debate, and is just polluting the threads he enters.  Can the mods stop it?
Click to expand...

wait until you meet Chris & Yukon.....Sho is just a  passionate poster....Chris and Yukon are the morons you speak of....


----------



## jreeves

sealybobo said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't/won't stop N. Korea, how we gonna stop Iran?
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Let them deal with Iran.  None of our business.
> 
> And fuck Americans fighting these bullshit wars.  I saw a documentary on Mohamad Ali last night.  He was sooo right.  Why should a black man go to another country to kill brown men for the white man?
> 
> All wars are about rich people making a power grab.  If Dick Cheney wants to go die for his cause, we can strap a fucking suicide bomb on his fat ass and let him blow himself up.  That's what he asks our kids to do.  Fuck the GOP and yes, Iran can have a nuke too.  How many other countries have them?  Fuck it!!!!  *They can't reach the USA*.
Click to expand...


Dipshit ever heard of ICBM's? If they developed a nuke don't cha think they would develop a delivery system aka ICBM?


----------



## oreo

*Dear President Obama*--it would sure be nice if we had our own Nuclear Power too.  Upps--I forgot--you're against Nuclear power plants--you have been forever--except when your teleprompter tells you to be for it--during the campaign season.  _You're also against off shore drilling for new sources of oil & CLEAN natural gas._

*Not one single penny in the so-called 787 BILLION dollar economic stimulus bill for nuclear power plant construction.*


----------



## Agnapostate

jillian said:


> Iran...swore Israel's destruction.



Post evidence of this. The only person I saw insinuating anything about wiping countries off maps was Shimon Peres, and I don't think he's the president of Iran.


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> since shogun is a lazy poop....
> 
> China tells US to stop 'illegal' naval activities
> 
> china tells us to stop 'illegal' naval activities - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> china taiwan us relations - Google Search
> 
> tell me, what does china demand of the US when dealing with taiwan....
> 
> i really can't believe you stuck to your guns like this over something so easy to school you on....




Are you fucking KIDDING ME?  And, do you think for a second that IF THE US CHOSE TO TELL CHINA TO FUCK OFF THAT WE WOULDNT?

Further, YOU put America's interaction with TAIWAN on par with our NUCLEAR PROGRAM?



maybe you should stick to blogs, dude..


----------



## Shogun

Annie said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A BLOG!?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try again, homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 'blog' that is commenting on a Reuters article. Respond to the response or don't. Straw man.
Click to expand...


If a blog is YOUR standard for evidence then I guess it's clear why your kind fail so bad at science, flat earther.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Hi rhodescholar.  Mod here.  You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit.  We are very pro free speech around here.  If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?  How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?
> 
> I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.
Click to expand...


Clearly, you would have been the puppy that starved.


----------



## Shogun

Xenophon said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran sits on a sea of oil and one of teh world's largest natural gas supplies.
> 
> They do not 'need' nuclear power at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such is not for you to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion counts as much as yours.
Click to expand...


thats good.. because even MY opinion doesn't matter in regards to iranian domestic energy policy.


----------



## Shogun

Yurt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> taiwan....china demands we don't sell arms to taiwan...it doesn't matter if it is foreign or domestic, his claim was that NO country tells the US what to do...that is a false statement and if you really think it through, the reason many in the US don't want iran to have nuclear power is not that we want to tell them what to do with domestic policy, it is that they do not want iran to have nuclear weapons would as you know, is more about foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we shouldn't be selling arms to anyone.
> 
> However, we are telling Iran what to do with it's domestic policy and we have no right to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while i don't agree we should, we sure as hell do....its how the world works...if your neighbor is loud, you would ask them to turn the music or whatever down...*what gives you the right to do that?
> *
> why shouldn't we sell arms to anyone?  are you saying we don't have a right to?
Click to expand...



again, national sovereignty.  If America turns up its fucking stereo tell me how many complaints it would take from the likes of CUBA to get us to turn it down..

hold on.. .I got a blog...


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US isnt planning genocide now is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you should ask a dead "they have weapons of mass destruction" civilian iraqi that question, tex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should learn what genocide means.
Click to expand...


Rather, don't you mean the SELECTIVE APPLICATION THAT IS ONLY USED ON WHAT WE APPLY IT TO?

whatever you say, Walt Disney.


----------



## Agnapostate

Goddamn, soggy, *multi-quote!*.


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran are entitled to nuclear power...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree... they have no intention of using it defensively...
> 
> and i kind of like tel aviv.
Click to expand...


says the saber rattling, IM GONNA GET YOU zionist...


----------



## Agnapostate

jillian said:


> I disagree... they have no intention of using it defensively...
> 
> and i kind of like tel aviv.



If you don't like it, perhaps you should pick a bone with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which grants Iran the right to peaceful development of a nuclear energy program...then again, what's the name of that country in the Middle East with the unauthorized nuclear weapons arsenal that they lied to American inspectors about the existence of?


----------



## Gurdari

Newby said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands?  Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think under law - all actors should be equal. As for the rest of your question, I was not eactly sure what you were asking. But, yeah - one standard is ideal, instead of 'our rules' and 'their rules'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't understand the 'rest of my question', then you aren't capable of addressing the issue as it needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...


Just be clear... there's no harm in it. But regardless:

_"Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?"_

Answer: No. Since nations do not have equal financial status.


----------



## brewerboy

sealybobo said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate
> 
> LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
> In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
> Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
> "What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
> The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
> "Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
> Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
> "What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't/won't stop N. Korea, how we gonna stop Iran?
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Let them deal with Iran.  None of our business.
> 
> And fuck Americans fighting these bullshit wars.  I saw a documentary on Mohamad Ali last night.  He was sooo right.  Why should a black man go to another country to kill brown men for the white man?
> 
> All wars are about rich people making a power grab.  If Dick Cheney wants to go die for his cause, we can strap a fucking suicide bomb on his fat ass and let him blow himself up.  That's what he asks our kids to do.  *Fuck the GOP* and yes, Iran can have a nuke too.  How many other countries have them?  Fuck it!!!!  They can't reach the USA.
Click to expand...


Will you be saying the same about the Demos when its their turn to fuck shit up? Just curious is all.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Annie said:


> Hmm, still no response from DavidS or Jillian for that matter.
> 
> Obama is NOT Israel friendly, he's way too European for that.



"too European.

not Israel friendly."

Americans don't know that Europe is not a country.

See how this works.


----------



## Paulie

I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?

We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?  

Give me a fucking break.


----------



## rhodescholar

Paulie said:


> I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?
> 
> We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?
> 
> Give me a fucking break.



WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?

Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.

Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.


----------



## Article 15

rhodescholar said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?
> 
> We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?
> 
> Give me a fucking break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?
> 
> *Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.*
> 
> Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.
Click to expand...


Directly, huh?

Got something to back that up?


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?
> 
> We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?
> 
> Give me a fucking break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?
> 
> *Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.*
> 
> Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Directly, huh?
> 
> Got something to back that up?
Click to expand...


Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?
> 
> *Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.*
> 
> Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Directly, huh?
> 
> Got something to back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?
Click to expand...


When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.

And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directly, huh?
> 
> Got something to back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all *sorts of murders all around the world*.
Click to expand...


so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or otherwise?


----------



## Article 15

elvis3577 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all *sorts of murders all around the world*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or
> otherwise?
Click to expand...


Where are you getting that from?

I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.  

Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time.  We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all *sorts of murders all around the world*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or
> otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you getting that from?
> 
> I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.
> 
> Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time.  We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?
Click to expand...

We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.


----------



## Article 15

elvis3577 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or
> otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting that from?
> 
> I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.
> 
> Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time.  We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.
Click to expand...


You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?

Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting that from?
> 
> I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.
> 
> Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time.  We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?
> 
> 
> 
> We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?
> 
> Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.
Click to expand...


I was saying comparing Iran to Russia doesn't work, that's all.


----------



## rhodescholar

Article 15 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting that from?
> 
> I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.
> 
> Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time.  We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?
> 
> 
> 
> We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?
> 
> Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.
Click to expand...


Dude, that's fucking hilarious.

Conduct regime change in iran, and the middle east might actually discover peace for the first time, in oh, 1,000 years...


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?
> 
> Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's fucking hilarious.
> 
> Conduct regime change in iran, and the middle east might actually discover peace for the first time, in oh, 1,000 years...
Click to expand...

what troops would you use to accomplish this?


----------



## Article 15

rhodescholar said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?
> 
> Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's fucking hilarious.
> 
> Conduct regime change in iran, and the middle east might actually discover peace for the first time, in oh, 1,000 years...
Click to expand...


How 'bout you lay out your regime change plans, homey?


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We fought wars by proxy.  Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?
> 
> Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, that's fucking hilarious.
> 
> Conduct regime change in iran, and the middle east might actually discover peace for the first time, in oh, 1,000 years...
Click to expand...


yeah, nothing promotes peace like forcing a regime change on an unwilling population.


----------



## jreeves

Article 15 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directly, huh?
> 
> Got something to back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.
Click to expand...


Lets play, when have we supplied arms to governments to kill our troops?
Not only arms, but terrorist weapons such as IED's?


----------



## elvis

del said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?
> 
> Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that's fucking hilarious.
> 
> Conduct regime change in iran, and the middle east might actually discover peace for the first time, in oh, 1,000 years...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, nothing promotes peace like forcing a regime change on an unwilling population.
Click to expand...


you don't think they'd support us overthrowing the Mullahs?  just asking.


----------



## del

elvis3577 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that's fucking hilarious.
> 
> Conduct regime change in iran, and the middle east might actually discover peace for the first time, in oh, 1,000 years...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, nothing promotes peace like forcing a regime change on an unwilling population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't think they'd support us overthrowing the Mullahs?  just asking.
Click to expand...


no, i don't. 

the mullahs may be bastards, but they're _their_ bastards.
nothing unites like a common enemy.


----------



## elvis

jreeves said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets play, when have we supplied arms to governments to kill our troops?
> Not only arms, but terrorist weapons such as IED's?
Click to expand...


We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.


----------



## Article 15

jreeves said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets play, when have we supplied arms to governments to kill our troops?
> Not only arms, but terrorist weapons such as IED's?
Click to expand...



Kill OUR troops?  Huh?

And Elvis just gave you a shining example of the US supplying arms to Iraq.


----------



## elvis

del said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, nothing promotes peace like forcing a regime change on an unwilling population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't think they'd support us overthrowing the Mullahs?  just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i don't.
> 
> the mullahs may be bastards, but they're _their_ bastards.
> nothing unites like a common enemy.
Click to expand...


You know, when the Germans first invaded Russia, they were greeted as liberators until the SS started enslaving and shooting them. Has there ever been another time when an invader was greeted as a liberator?


----------



## del

elvis3577 said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you make the statement "_directly_ murdered" it sure does.
> 
> And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets play, when have we supplied arms to governments to kill our troops?
> Not only arms, but terrorist weapons such as IED's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.
Click to expand...


good point, we supported ho chi minh during WWII-same thing


----------



## Article 15

del said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets play, when have we supplied arms to governments to kill our troops?
> Not only arms, but terrorist weapons such as IED's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good point, we supported ho chi minh during WWII-same thing
Click to expand...


Didn't we do a whole lot of weapon supplying in South America in the 80's as well?


----------



## jreeves

del said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets play, when have we supplied arms to governments to kill our troops?
> Not only arms, but terrorist weapons such as IED's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good point, we supported ho chi minh during WWII-same thing
Click to expand...


At the same time, no, we didn't battle with Hussein until a decade or so later.


----------



## del

jreeves said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good point, we supported ho chi minh during WWII-same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the same time, no, we didn't battle with Hussein until a decade or so later.
Click to expand...


well, we're not stupid.

right?


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good point, we supported ho chi minh during WWII-same thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't we do a whole lot of weapon supplying in South America in the 80's as well?
Click to expand...


That's what the Iran-Contra affair was all about.  So, in a way, that creates another example.  That act by Reagan was worse than what Nixon did, imo.


----------



## Article 15

What happened to the resident Rhodes Scholar?


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> What happened to the resident Rhodes Scholar?



thought he died in a plane crash.  oh that was Randy rhoads, my bad.


----------



## elvis

I would like to see his military strategy for invading Iran and overthrowing their government.


----------



## del

Article 15 said:


> What happened to the resident Rhodes Scholar?



he eased on down the... 

nah, can't do it


----------



## Article 15

elvis3577 said:


> I would like to see his military strategy for invading Iran and overthrowing their government.



Me too.  I had my popcorn ready to go and everything.


----------



## elvis

del said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the resident Rhodes Scholar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he eased on down the...
> 
> nah, can't do it
Click to expand...


he won't have to worry about that broken down ragged Ford.


----------



## Article 15

del said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the resident Rhodes Scholar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he eased on down the...
> 
> nah, can't do it
Click to expand...


A joke?  Too cheap for del?  Wowzers!


----------



## del

Article 15 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the resident Rhodes Scholar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he eased on down the...
> 
> nah, can't do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A joke?  Too cheap for del?  Wowzers!
Click to expand...




i have standards you know.

they're low, but they're there.


----------



## Paulie

rhodescholar said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?
> 
> We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?
> 
> Give me a fucking break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?
Click to expand...


I guess you didn't read the thread title, or the accompanying link.

Did you miss the part where Obama decided what Iran's "rights" were?

You want a war against Iran, simply get an official congressional declaration of war.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  You don't go around deciding what other nation's rights are, you either declare war as per the constitution, or you shut the fuck up about their supposed misdeeds.

It's not really that difficult to understand.


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> You know, when the Germans first invaded Russia, they were greeted as liberators until the SS started enslaving and shooting them. Has there ever been another time when an invader was greeted as a liberator?



Every European country in WW2 that had US troops enter, Lebanon welcomed Israeli troops in 1982 - until they fucked that up, the Iraqi crowds were cheering for the US troops - until the al qaeda/Baathist/iranian-shia militia fucking trash fucked iraq up...


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> I would like to see his military strategy for invading Iran and overthrowing their government.



Granted.

I would re-deploy the following forces:

 - all US-based EU forces - which the Euros neither appreciate, nor want to pay for - which number about 60,000
 - about 100,000 of the 140,000 still in iraq
 - 2 Spec Ops Delta units and 2 Navy seal units
 - 101st Airborne division would drive the point of attack alongside the 3rd and 4th mechanized divisions leading southward into iran 
 - multiple US Airforce squadrons (deployed from Riyadh and Qatar)
 - 4 current Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf, which contain about 40,000 US marines
 - Israeli Airforce and Special operations battations delivered via 5th US carrier group currently near Israel
 - highly mobile advanced units developed to neutralize nuclear materials and armaments, including NEST
 - British, French, Australian, Dutch and Austrian units designed to conduct nuclear testing and dis-armament procedures
 - British army units previously deployed in southern iraq

into Iran for the following missions:

#1: destroy/eliminate all known nuclear facilities, whether civilian or military in nature through Deep Earth penetration bombings or forward spec ops on the ground using demolitions methodologies.  On-the ground deployments ringed by US Marine and Army units defending nuclear facilities.
#2: liquidate all government officials and known/available nuclear scientists - capture option available to onsite commanding officers
#3: debilitate or destroy elements designed to repel regime-changing forces, in particular, the RG and Basij in major cities
#4: major infrastructure related to the conducting of external proxy wars, such as military factories supplying EFPs, grenades, anti-tank missiles, plastic explosives, etc.
#5: eliminate all naval forces including submarines through the use of US subs attached to naval carrier groups
#6: provide insulation and protection of gulf traffic against small speed boats to prevent suicide attacks or deployment of mines at narrow gulf points

Mission time table toward completion: 96 hours.

I would then evac all units and allow the iranians themselves to clean up the mess, in particular, instate a government not committed to the development and deployment of ICBM's, nuclear armaments, and proxy armies.

UN assistance and aid should then be made available with sanctions lifted, depending upon new government initiated.


----------



## rhodescholar

Paulie said:


> I guess you didn't read the thread title, or the accompanying link.
> 
> Did you miss the part where Obama decided what Iran's "rights" were?
> 
> You want a war against Iran, simply get an official congressional declaration of war.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  You don't go around deciding what other nation's rights are, you either declare war as per the constitution, or you shut the fuck up about their supposed misdeeds.
> 
> It's not really that difficult to understand.



Sometimes yes, sometimes not.  From:

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* "Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act."*


----------



## rhodescholar

I should also add to my Iran Invasion Plans that all captured government officials would face trials for their Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes committed, both in iraq, lebanon, argentina and israel, as well as the murders of some 20-30,000 of their own citizens.

Most would hopefully be hanged for their horrific crimes.


----------



## Shogun

*yawn*

really, no one gives a shit about your silly little ironic jewish, hatefest induced, wannabe RISK strategy, dude.  You'll continue to sit there and continue to shut the fuck up when it comes to the global stage where your racist zionism has been put in its place.

Now go sit in the fucking corner.


----------

