[shortonoil]

Gazzatrone said:

No for the simple reason is I don't give a fuck about the consequences of actions of people who fucking died years before I was born.

A troubling comment - what we are, is from where we came; and until we comprehend this simple concept, we will continue to see death, destruction and a profligacy toward the planet that maintains us. We merely mindlessly mimic the same behaviors generation after generation. Apparently, thirty thousand years hasn’t taken us very far from the entrance to our cave.

[Gazzatrone]

Gazzatrone said:

No for the simple reason is I don't give a fuck about the consequences of actions of people who fucking died years before I was born.

A troubling comment - what we are, is from where we came; and until we comprehend this simple concept, we will continue to see death, destruction and a profligacy toward the planet that maintains us. We merely mindlessly mimic the same behaviors generation after generation. Apparently, thirty thousand years hasn’t taken us very far from the entrance to our cave.

I disagree, what we are is what we make ourselves, here and now. That is the simple concept. Until recently I had always been glib about death until the 14th December last year. So you see, I have no time for peoples actions I knew nothing of or feel any responsibility for.

Death is a part of life, that we cannot avoid. If "destruction and a profligacy toward the planet that maintains us" are conscious actions, then one would assume in those we have a choice. But as you astutely point out, we have been doing so for 30,000 years. Then mindless mimicry would also apear to be something we cannot avoid. Maybe our glorification of our technological achievements has hidden the underlying fact that mentally, we still survive on primitive responses that we in evolutionary terms have not over come yet.

[Gazzatrone]

And yes I walked out the door got onto a plane invaded a country and left it in a shit pile. Well no I didn't, which is why it is of no business of mine.

No, but your leaders of the UK have done that for you, in your name. If you're not completely off of oil, then that blood is on your hands. Everyone on here knows damn well that Iraq was about a need to secure future oil supplies for the US and UK and the other member nations of the coalition. That need to invade and cause the destruction of that nation, meddling in their affairs and probable targetting of the elite has been at the hands of the oil users.

No its not. I never asked them to go and get oil for me. That was their choice. Not mine. If that is the case do you say I should accept the actions of every car bomber in baghdad that has killed and maimed. Or any bomb detonated by the IRA.

That blood is not on my hands

Well I'm not American, so your arguement is lost there.

Didn't the UK support Saddam throughout the '80's as well?

Ah yes when I was between the ages of 6 and 16 I knocked on Maggie's door at Number 10 and said

"Yo bitch! Do the decent thing and support the actions of a man I know nothing about in a country I have never heard of for reasons that I would have no concept of."

Do you see the point I am getting at?

[Zardoz]

...I'm not dismissing that as extremely troubling since the Nazis were so concerned about the 'problem of the Jews' that they would even kill good, German citizens because of their grandparents ethnicitiy or religion.

Good German part-Jews as opposed to bad German pure Jews? I was unaware that "real" German Jews were bad citizens. Thanks for clarifying that.

[mekrob]

Gazzatrone, I'm saying they did it for you. Since you most likely use oil, one way or another, then their actions have been on your behalf. If you didn't use oil, then there is no reason to feel guilty because they didn't do it for you (unless you wanna believe in Saddam-9/11 link, etc). I'm not saying you actively participating in jocking support for the war.

Good German part-Jews as opposed to bad German pure Jews? I was unaware that "real" German Jews were bad citizens. Thanks for clarifying that.

When did I say that "real" German Jews were bad citizens? I'm just saying that they were so maniacal in their quest for the end of Jewishness (not just Judaism) in Germany that they would murder anyone that they might have sensed was Jewish in anyway.

But again, I'm automatically painted as someone that supports the Nazis by claiming that German Jews were bad citizens. See how that works?

[DarkDawg]

UN Hails Iran nuclear agreement

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency says it has reached a deal with Iran to allow new inspections and safeguards at key nuclear facilities.

Shouldn't this be on the front page? I mean all this posturing about going to war with Iran and now they are making a major concession and are preparing to let inspectors back in. This is good news!!

[dissident]

This news won't get hyped because the plan to attack Iran is still there. What Cheney wants, Cheney gets.

[billp]

Let's hope Jimmy does something.

Without Internet this wouldn't be happening.

[Fishman]

Duh, it might not be big news because they routinely agree to UN restrictions then routinely ignore them. Do you guys miss not having any short term memory?

[Euric]

UN Hails Iran nuclear agreement

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency says it has reached a deal with Iran to allow new inspections and safeguards at key nuclear facilities.

Shouldn't this be on the front page? I mean all this posturing about going to war with Iran and now they are making a major concession and are preparing to let inspectors back in. This is good news!!

So what is there to stop a country like Iran or even North Korea from building two nuclear facilities. One a real one hundreds of metres underground beyond the scope of detection and a second decoy unit above ground where UN inspectors and US officials are allowed to monitor at their whim and the sites comply with every rule imposed on them?

This would be a perfect way to have your cake and eat it too and to keep your enemies fooled.

[matt21811]

Euric,
I think you just tried to feed us the "Saddam has WMD" story. Noboddy is going to buy that rubbish again. (except some stupid Americans).
If Iraq showed us anything, it is that weapons inspectors know what they are doing.

If Iran wants Nukes, they will get them. I'm over it.

[mekrob]

BBC

President Hosni Mubarak has said Egypt is to build a number of nuclear power stations to generate electricity.

Mr Mubarak said he had decided to go ahead with the programme because energy security was such an important factor in Egypt's development.

Egyptian officials announced plans last year to revive civilian nuclear activities but at the time they spoke of building a single power station.

The United States said it would offer its co-operation in the project.

And the nuclearizing of the ME continues.

[Concerned]

BBC

President Hosni Mubarak has said Egypt is to build a number of nuclear power stations to generate electricity.

Mr Mubarak said he had decided to go ahead with the programme because energy security was such an important factor in Egypt's development.

Egyptian officials announced plans last year to revive civilian nuclear activities but at the time they spoke of building a single power station.

The United States said it would offer its co-operation in the project.

And the nuclearizing of the ME continues.

Hello they are going to need it including Saudi Arabia. I have read reports Iran is to stop becoming an oil exporter within a decade.

Seriously this Peak Oil end of cheap energy thing is REAL, the time to mitigate is NOW, for everyone.

[Petrodollar]

...here's some fyi info....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar26.html

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.

Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium -- the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.

....now here's the interesting factoid that is never mentioned on TV within the US...

The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb.

After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.

....

The U.S.-Iran deal was shelved when the shah was toppled in the 1979 revolution that led to the taking of American hostages and severing of diplomatic relations.

Despite the changes in Iran, now run by a clerical government, the country's public commitment to nuclear power and its insistence on the legal right to develop it have remained the same. Iranian officials reiterated the position last week at a conference on nuclear energy in Paris.

Mohammad Saeidi, a vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, told the conference that Iran was determined to develop nuclear power since oil and natural gas supplies were limited.

U.S. involvement with Iran's nuclear program until 1979, which accompanied large-scale intelligence-sharing and conventional weapons sales, highlights the boomerang in U.S. foreign policy. Even with many key players in common, the U.S. government has taken opposite positions on questions of fact as its perception of U.S. interests has changed.

Using arguments identical to those made by the shah 30 years ago, Iran says its nuclear program is essential to meet growing energy requirements, and is not intended for bombs. Tehran revived the program in secret, its officials say, to prevent the United States from trying to stop it. Iran's account is under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is trying to determine whether Iran also has a parallel nuclear weapons program.

...and here's the self-evident part, which shows the depths of obfuscation that Cheney and the neocons engauge in with regard to Tehran's nuclear energy program....

Since the energy program was exposed, in 2002, the Bush administration has alternately said that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program or wants one. Without being able to prove those claims, the White House has made its case by implication, beginning with the point that Iran has ample oil reserves for its energy needs.

Ford's team commended Iran's decision to build a massive nuclear energy industry, noting in a declassified 1975 strategy paper that Tehran needed to "prepare against the time -- about 15 years in the future -- when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."

Estimates of Iran's oil reserves were smaller then than they are now, but energy experts and U.S. intelligence estimates continue to project that Iran will need an alternative energy source in the coming decades. Iran's population has more than doubled since the 1970s, and its energy demands have increased even more.

The Ford administration -- in which Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as chief of staff and Wolfowitz was responsible for nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency -- continued intense efforts to supply Iran with U.S. nuclear technology until President Jimmy Carter succeeded Ford in 1977.

That history is absent from major Bush administration speeches, public statements and news conferences on Iran.

...now that is an understatement.....

The shah, who referred to oil as "noble fuel," said it was too valuable to waste on daily energy needs. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

(excerpt)

"It is absolutely incredible that the very same players who made those statements then are making completely the opposite ones now," said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Do they remember that they said this? Because the Iranians sure remember that they said it," said Cirincione, who just returned from a nuclear conference in Tehran -- a rare trip for U.S. citizens now.

....."The shah made a big convincing case that Iran was going to run out of gas and oil and they had a growing population and a rapidly increasing demand for energy," Sick said. "The mullahs make the same argument today, but we don't trust them."

...So, both Iran and Egypt want nuclear technology. I find it interesting that Egypt, who has had an oppressive dictatorship for the past 27 years, the 2nd largest recipient of US foreign aid after Isreal - and a government that is far more oppressive and far less democratic than Iran - is allowed to pursue nuclear energy - but Tehran can not? (unless ruled by a pro-western dictatorhsip like the late Shah of Iran?) Well, as pointed out by that 2005 Washington Post article, the hypocracy of the Bush administration's position is probably stunning to much of the world - especially to the average Iranian.

PS: Iran reached peak oil in 1974, only 3 years after the US reached peak oil...

[emersonbiggins]

Denying Iran rights to nookular power have nothing to do with an Iranian export land model indicating internal consumption now running 3x what it was at the height of Iranian oil production (not coincidentally the same moment that U.S. contractors were trying to sell Iranians on peaceful nuclear power), and everything to do with antagonist moves on the part of the U.S. to prevent those who won't play ball from achieving self-sufficiency.

[heroineworshipper]

Pharoahs R our friends. Iranians R freaks.

[Fishman]

You don't think it has anything to do with Irans leaders publicly discussing destroying Israel, you missed that part, right?
Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, think that might have something to do with it?

[mekrob]

You don't think it has anything to do with Irans leaders publicly discussing destroying Israel, you missed that part, right?

You're not talking about that debacle of a translation and misreading in which he simply stated the obvious: that Israel, like every other nation on the planet, will be removed from the pages of time, just like the Soviet Union, Iraq and the monarchy of Iran (all of which were fairly peaceful and did not involve the destruction of their respective nations). You mean that one? No threats were involved. Just facts. Unless you think that Israel is special and will do what no other nation has done before: last throughout time intact.

One thing I've always wondered. We know that Iran has WMD's already; they admit to it. So if they are so bloodthirsty for Israel, why not attack Israel now with those weapons? Why would they need a nuclear weapon when they have weapons, chemical and biological, that could annihilate the Israeli population without destroying key Islamic landmarks? It's insane to think that any Muslim would consider thinking about destroying al-Aqsa without a need to and there is no need to if you believe that Israel must be destroyed violently (which again, Iran didn't advocate).

[gg3]

I heard an analysis on the radio today saying that the reason Israel wants to get Iran is that Iran is supplying resources to Hezbollah (sp?) which is a pain in the side to Israel. And the nuclear weapons thing is just a smokescreen (surprise!).

Meanwhile, any nuclear power plant anywhere, so long as it's built and operated competently, is a plus in terms of reducing climate change. Good for Egypt, good for all of us.

Dammit I want one in Northern California.

[Concerned]

I heard an analysis on the radio today saying that the reason Israel wants to get Iran is that Iran is supplying resources to Hezbollah (sp?) which is a pain in the side to Israel. And the nuclear weapons thing is just a smokescreen (surprise!).

Meanwhile, any nuclear power plant anywhere, so long as it's built and operated competently, is a plus in terms of reducing climate change. Good for Egypt, good for all of us.

Dammit I want one in Northern California.

Im not a big fan of nuclear. Personally if I were Iran I would be pursuing solar tech and electric cars.

However a nuclear plant does produce an enormous amount of energy to power a city for example and unlike Israel and India they are signatories to the NPT well I would rather have signatories to the NPT than non signatories build nuke plants. Ironically both India and Israel have nukes and no one is crying foul.

The US has gone so far as to say that Iran should not even be developing rockets for space flight.

Usual double standards.

Look at Gadaffi today one minute he is out to get the US and needs to be wiped of the planet. Open the doors welcome BIG oil and he's our best buddy.

Whatever. This just proves the stupid human race will go down so hard it ain't even worth contemplating. Live for the day folks.