Brazil Officially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facility

thank you

i was searching for an exact translation, because i had a hunch that it was translated incorrectly

 

The evidence I have already provided is that the current president of Iran, himself, said that Khomeini said it. Is he lying? Is he wrong?

You want HayesStreet to answer your questions, answer the ones I just asked.

Furthermore you said that "nobody in Iran" made the statement. You are truly playing word games if you imply that it did not occur because Khomeini MAY have been standing somehwere other than Iran when he said it.

Other articles indicate that Khomeini made the statment at the start of the Iranian Islamic revolution.

 

Of course if we are talking actions on the ground, the US has violated international law by supporting terrorists entering into Iran to attack them. By other accounts US troops are involved,which would be an illegal act of war by the US on IraN.

But we're Americans we don't have to obey no stinking UN Treaties or international law. Doesh't matter what we do, we are still the best, the pure etc.

 

i never said Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't the person he was quoting, but you and others said the 'he [ahmadinejad] was agreeing with him [khoemini] that israel should be wiped off the map,' and i said nobody in iran has made that statement and as prof. juan cole has shown courtesy of glynch's post, the quote ahmadinejad was citing was mistranslated

 

also, i didn't notice notice this statement until now...since you've demonstrated your ignorance vis-a-vis iran, maybe you should go worry about the astros and brad lidge or go read up on some history

 

Creepyfloyd are you Iranian?

 

creepy:hayes=al jazeera:fox news.

 

I'm no Brazil expert but hasn't Brazil been on a plan to eliminate dependence on oil for about 20 years or so? The Brazilians have also been very open and non-secretive while you can almost argue the Bush Admin. has learned it airtight secretiveness from Iran.

Comparing Brazil to Iran is just plain silly. You grab one idea and equate the two countries. Not only has the U.S. objected to Iran's program, the U.N. and nearly all of Europe have also. Not to mention the Arab neighbor states who are terrified at the prospect of Iran owning nukes. On the other hand, NOBODY, including their Latin neighbors, has objected to Brazil's energy program.

Saying Brazil = Iran in nukes is dumb da dumb dumb.

 

Actually, Al-Jazeera isn't pro-Iranian. It isn't pro-Shia by any stretch. If you want to say it's pro-Arab and anti-American, I'll buy that.

 

the same international community that said iraq had wmds....they got lots of 'credibility'

 

what are you talking about? i'm not the one that used al-jazeera as a source
A_3PO 2nd post about al-jazeera should set you straight

 

who you are or who i am isnt important, but what we say is

 

I'm not brazil expert either, but the last part of your statement is factually incorrect...iran's program is under international inspection and they haven't done anything illegal...i dont think there are any countries whose program has been under the microscope and inspected as much as iran's program

US must address Iran security concerns: IAEA

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512...XQ0BHNlYwMxNjkz

Iran has legitimate security concerns that the United States must address if the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme is to be resolved, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday

"When you are talking about security, there is only one country that can talk to Iran and that is the U.S., it's not Europe. Europe can talk economics, it can talk trade ... but it cannot talk about hard security issues."

ElBaradei said while Iran still had to clarify a number of issues with the IAEA, inspectors had not seen any "significant" nuclear material being undeclared or diverted into weapons.

"We haven't seen a clear and present danger. We haven't seen an imminent threat," he said

 

^fixed link for article above:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512...HdDsFJg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4b3FrcXQ0BHNlYwMxNjkz

 

Your bias is comical.

Curious..does the IAEA have any concerns about Iran's nuclear program? If so, have you provided links ... just as you keep providing this one about a single comment by El Baradei? How many nations make up the IAEA board? How do they feel about Iran's nuclear program?

 

It isn't and neither is posting on Clutchfans but I think many of us are curious why you are such a vociferous and heated defender of Iran?

 

Just to try to get this train somewhat back on track: Interesting article. I remember hearing a while ago tht Brazil had voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons program and at the time I was under the impression they were thinking about cutting back on their civillian nuclear program. From reading the article the impression I'm getting isn't so much that they want a civillian nuclear power program as they are looking to develop a new export industry and since they possibly might have the World's third largest uranium reserves are thinking that enriched uranium might be a good product.

 

Traces of HIGHLY ENRICHED Uranium have been confirmed in Iran. If you didn't know this already, highly enriched uranium is only used for weaponry. Zero (not even low grade) uranium was found in Iraq before the invasion. It is a verified fact Iran acquired nuclear bomb technology from Pakistan; not so with Iraq. The two situations are very different. Do you not see this or do you just refuse to see it?

Don't let the Bush Admins Iraq catastrophy blind you to obvious facts involving another situation. I don't trust Bush any more than you do but let's be real here. The big question is not a matter of "if" but when will Iran be able to manufacture weapons grade nuclear material. We can only hope it's a few years after the present admin is gone because I would have no faith in their ability to handle such a crisis.

 

Why should anyone have a discussion with you, when you reply like this?



Keep D&D Civil.