Iran will produce highly enriched uranium if nuclear talks fail: MP

[bananas]

Source: Tehran Times

The deputy chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has said that Iran will produce highly enriched uranium if the nuclear talks between Tehran and the six major powers fail to yield positive results.

“If the talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) do not yield results, the Iranian youth will (produce) up to 60 percent enriched uranium to fuel submarines and oceangoing ships,” MP Mansour Haqiqatpour said in an interview with ISNA published on Tuesday.

<snip>

Haqiqatpour said, “The 5+1 group, which repeatedly postpones the talks, should be aware that if the talks are dragged on into the next year,” Iran may start producing uranium enriched to a purity level of 40 to 50 percent.

<snip>

“They should not suppose that if they increase threats and sanctions and intensify pressure on the country, we will remain calm,” he said, adding, “Now, we need 60 percent enriched uranium to fuel ships, and if Western countries do not provide us with it, our youth will produce it.”

<snip>

Read more: http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/102016

[bananas]

1. They need HEU for their nuclear-powered oil tankers which don't exist and never will. nt

[zellie]

2. Gee, and here I thought it was for energy.

Well I'm shocked.

I can't believe Iran lied.

[rachel1]

3. Who cares?

Why should Iran be excluded from producing it when other countries have already wasted money and resources to producing vast amounts of it?

[JDPriestly]

5. Because they have Ahmadinjad who goes around threatening to destroy other countries.

[cpwm17]

7. No matter how many times that lie is repeated

it's still not true.

[leftynyc]

10. No matter how many times people deny it

or claim he was mistranslated, it's still not true.

[JDPriestly]

11. Thank you. We have all heard Ahmadinejad. Personally, I think that Netanyahu is showing

extreme patience in his situation. His country was established by the United Nations. It is in that sense one of the most legitimate nations in the world. How dare people second-guess the decision to establish Israel. It was done in the historical context that was real but is still denied by people like Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad needs to get realistic. He is losing his battle to impose bigotry and hatred on the world.

[cpwm17]

12. We have a fan of Netanyahu here – it figures.

Netanyahu is a world class bigot and war monger. Your support for him reflects negatively on you.

I'm not a fan of Ahmadinejad, but only the truth.

Third parties have no right to establish homelands. Truman had no right, legal or otherwise, to pressure the UN to help steal the Palestinians' homeland. That's just basic common sense and human decency. That's all history now. We must now look forward.

Israel/Palestine is one state now. The only way forward is to give equal right to ALL citizens in Israel/Palestine. Right now it's Apartheid, which NO liberal can support.

[leftynyc]

13. Sounds like you live in a black and white world

While the rest of us live in the world of gray that is reality. And do let me know when the election was to make you the arbitor of what is and what is not a liberal position? I missed that.

[ronnie624]

15. *

[JDPriestly]

17. Lots of people were displaced after WWII.

There is nothing unique about the Palestinians. Countries were broken up. Areas were assigned new names and given to existing or new countries.

Remember Yugoslavia? That was a far bigger change to the map than the partition of Palestine.

I was a child in the post-war period. The expression "displaced persons" was used nearly every day as countries around the world scrambled to make room for people from war zones. The Jews were no different except in much worse situations than most of the others.

Most lost and forgotten among the many displaced persons were the homeless, parentless Jewish children who survived the Holocaust.

After the surrender of Nazi Germany, ending World War II, refugees and displaced persons searched throughout Europe for missing children. Thousands of orphaned children were in displaced persons camps. Many surviving Jewish children fled eastern Europe as part of the mass exodus (Brihah) to the western zones of occupied Germany, en route to the Yishuv (the Jewish settlement in Palestine). Through Youth Aliyah (Youth Immigration), thousands migrated to the Yishuv, and then to the state of Israel after its establishment in 1948.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005142

In Poland, the Kielce Pogrom (July 1946) led to a wave of Holocaust survivors escaping Europe and the British responded by imprisoning the growing numbers of Jews trying to illegally enter Palestine by sea in Cyprus internment camps. Those held were mainly Holocaust survivors, including large numbers of children and orphans. In response to Cypriot fears that the Jews would never leave (since they lacked a state or documentation) the British later allowed the refugees to enter Palestine at a rate of 750 per month.

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

Here are excerpts from a study conducted some years ago entitled
Orphaned Child Survivors Compared to Child Survivors Whose Parents Also Survived the Holocaust*

I'm not certain of the date of the article.

The number of Holocaust survivors now living in Israel is estimated at over 200,000 including new immigrants from the former USSR.

Approximately 100,000 of them were children during the Nazi persecution (child survivors). Many of them lost their parents during the Holocaust and had to struggle alone for their lives during and after the war. The aim of this study was to compare child survivors whose parents were killed during the Holocaust with child survivors whose parents survived. We wanted to see if the two groups differed as to their destiny and suffering during the Holocaust, if they differed as to their coping and adjustment after the war, and how they cope today - almost 50 years later.

http://www.holocaustechoes.com/5robinson.html

[Ash_F]

18. You are welcome to pick up where the last person left off

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=243845

You are welcome to pick up where the last person slinked away quietly after being proven wrong. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. I didn't "slink off." It was obvious you were changing the goalposts.

You weren't even consistent.

ETA: You proved NOTHING.

[Ash_F]

20. You were parroting Reuters' propaganda in that thread, which CBS directly debunked.

I pointed this out. Seriously, how were goal posts were moved?

In any case, I am not for Iran getting any nuclear weapons(or anyone). I don't even like the idea of nuclear oil tankers, though it isn't a violation of NPT. But a lie is a lie and saying a country is threatening genocide is one that should not stand. It smacks of "babies tossed out of incubators".

[Behind the Aegis]

21. CBS didn't "debunk" shit.

They made a comment about it and that was it. They didn't prove it wasn't accurate or not. How you changed the goalposts is quite simple, when I started to break down what was actually reported, you finally changed to the "CBS is the real thing" crap.

Oh and as for threatening genocide, you really need to do some goddamned research. Would they do it? I doubt it. Will the US use it as an excuse for war? FUCK NO! The only ones hoping for it are the extreme far-right. The far-left simply use it for their own brand of hate and war-mongering.

[Ash_F]

22. CBS was directly addressing Reuters' piece.

The very writing you were standing behind was specifically addressed, quickly and appropriately, by CBS and Reuter's story lost it's legs shortly thereafter. Sorry, you jumped on it too soon and were wrong. Don't latch on now that even the original reporting agency is humbled.

For a leader of a country to say another will be eliminated is a threat of genocide. It's something to take seriously even if you think they wouldn't or couldn't. But it never happened.

And because it never happened, when someone in this thread decided to use it as reason for them to not have a nuclear program, they were doing so under a false premise.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. And they didn't debunk shit.

Here is the quote:

But while Reuters quoted Ahmadinejad as calling for Israel to be “eliminated,” the official translation of his remarks indicated that he steered clear of the fiery rhetoric he is best known for.

That is not "debunking."

The official translation did include "eliminated," but like so many because he didn't directly say it, confusion abounded, which I demonstrated when decontructing the actual statement, which CBS did not provide. Rather, you simply "took their word for it" and considered it "debunked." No fuss, no muss.

"For a leader of a country to say another will be eliminated is a threat of genocide. It's something to take seriously even if you think they wouldn't or couldn't. But it never happened."

Oh but it has! You need to actually do some research and Ahmadinejad is more a figurehead, though his words are important, others have called for the destruction of Israel. The genocide of Israel would matter to few.

And because it never happened, when someone in this thread decided to use it as reason for them to not have a nuclear program, they were doing so under a false premise.

In your fantasy, yes, but in reality, it is the NPT actually standing in the way. Poor Iran.

[Ash_F]

24. You are really latching on.

The story completely puttered out afterward, but here you go trying to dissect it to find something. Reuter's has a bad reputation for inaccuracy and right-wing editorializing of both headlines and articles, on issues totally unrelated to Iran as well. Of course I will go with CBS. As did most of the media, apparently.

"Oh but it has! You need to actually do some research and Ahmadinejad is more a figurehead, though his words are important, others have called for the destruction of Israel. The genocide of Israel would matter to few."

^^^ OK this one threw me for loop. I am not sure I understood you correctly here(maybe it just needs more articulation) but I beg to differ. The genocide of Israel, or any country, would matter to the entire world. Any degree of unprovoked attack by any country, on any other, would matter to the world. I am not sure if you think Israel does not have many allies or something, and maybe they don't have many close allies, but that doesn't mean the world would stand by and watch them be inexcusably attacked. The same goes for Iran. I don't know what kind of world you think this is. Of course that doesn't mean either country is completely safe from attack, and that is why these discussions matter.

And the NPT is to protect against weaponization, not a nuclear program altogether.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. You are the one who linked to my post.

Of course, you will go with CBS, it meets your needs, despite the lack of...well, facts. It "puttered out" because it was "par for the course." It would be like him saying "water is wet." How long do you think that story would carry on? Basic reading skills, and this includes dismissing your continued logical fallacies, doesn't dismiss the real fact that he said it, but no one really cares because he has said similar things over and over; this time, it just wasn't the "show" many hoped he would provide.

^^^ OK this one threw me for loop. I am not sure I understood you correctly here(maybe it just needs more articulation) but I beg to differ. The genocide of Israel, or any country, would matter to the entire world. Any degree of unprovoked attack by any country, on any other, would matter to the world. I am not sure if you think Israel does not have many allies or something, and maybe they don't have many close allies, but that doesn't mean the world would stand by and watch them be inexcusably attacked. The same goes for Iran. I don't know what kind of world you think this is. Of course that doesn't mean either country is completely safe from attack, and that is why these discussions matter.

**Giggle** Ok, if YOU say so! Maybe you can get CBS to back it up!

"And the NPT is to protect against weaponization, not a nuclear program altogether."

And yet I, nor anyone else in this thread (or the other) claimed anything such thing. This is what is known as a strawman logical fallacy.

[Ash_F]

28. It's not even a Reuters said, CBS said issue anymore.

"par for the course" is a lame excuse. Reuters' got slapped down, so they stopped spreading it, period. You should try being more incredulous about things, saves on embarrassment later.

And there was no straw-man, you said the NPT stood in the way of them having a nuclear program. It doesn't.

"**Giggle** Ok, if YOU say so! Maybe you can get CBS to back it up!"

^^^I still don't get where you are going with this. Are you seriously trying to say the world would not care about the genocide of Israel? Maybe we should just drop this particular line of discussion because I don't see it being constructive.

Cheers

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Reuters' got slapped down?

In your fantasy only, try reality, it's easier to follow.

"you said the NPT stood in the way of them having a nuclear program."

Please demonstrate where I said anything of the such. You know, with actual proof, not a third-party saying it.

'^^^I still don't get where you are going with this. Are you seriously trying to say the world would not care about the genocide of Israel? Maybe we should just drop this particular line of discussion because I don't see it being constructive. "

Yup. Was it that "covert?" I figured I was being pretty obvious about my opinion.

[Ash_F]

32. Well...

"Please demonstrate where I said anything of the such. You know, with actual proof, not a third-party saying it. "
I was only ever speaking of the Iranian nuclear program in a non-weaponized context and I thought I was pretty clear about it, maybe not. You responded with "the NPT is standing in the way" so it is reasonable to assume that you meant that. A misunderstanding I guess.

"Yup. Was it that "covert?" I figured I was being pretty obvious about my opinion."

^^^ All I can say is that I can't believe you think this. I can't say much more to it. It would be way off-topic anyway. Maybe something for another thread. Take care.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. You weren't clear, thus, producing your misunderstanding.

At least that is cleared up!

"^^^ All I can say is that I can't believe you think this. I can't say much more to it. It would be way off-topic anyway. "

I really don't care what you believe or not about my opinion with regards to this. History, education, and actual knowledge of politics in the world is what predicates my opinion.

[leftynyc]

26. So I have your permission

to call your argument total and complete bullshit - how very nice of you.

[Ash_F]

29. It's a free internet.

I'll call you out, every time.

[JDPriestly]

4. Iran needs to get its agreement negotiated very quickly because as long as Obama is president but

not yet re-elected, they have a chance of avoiding serious repercussions for waiting.

Iran has a short time frame for coming to terms with the rest of the world on this. The fuse is quickly burning away.

[bemildred]

6. What a babbling fool.

(No I don't think this is a Presidential debate thread.).

[ronnie624]

8. Certainly defiant.

Perhaps defiance is a part of Iranian national identity, after having had a decades long terrorist war waged against them by foreign powers from half way around the world.

[bemildred]

9. Persia is an ancient and sophisticated civilization.

These babbling fundamentalist clowns represent Persia like George W. Bush represents the USA, the social-reactionary strain in their culture, the ones who are desperately afraid of "losing control" and people just doing "whatever they want". Had we not insisted on meddling in their affairs, these clowns never would have been able to seize power.

I do not support the US vendetta against Iran, I support the Iranian people, but I don't support blubbering fools like this, he discredits himself and he discredits his government, not that much is required to do that. You cannot threaten people with stuff they are not afraid of. This is such a case. His enemies will just love it that he has made such "threats", and will love it even more if he carries it out.

[ronnie624]

14. He's Iranian,

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)

and his suspicions about U.S. motives in that region are well justified. Whether or not he continues to hold a position of power within the Iranian government, is a matter that concerns only Iranians.

George Bush, by the way, "seized control", with the support of roughly half the U.S. population.

[bemildred]

16. Have a nice day. nt

[RandiFan1290]

27. Elections coming up in Iran!!

Right wingers on both sides are scared to death of the people taking their country back and doing it for themselves. Not for Israel or the US.

[Ash_F]

31. Hate to say it, but I think the next President of the Iran will be more authoritarian

...than Ahmadinejad. And further right. That seems to be the purveying wisdom.

Though the electorate is trending to the center, it is not quite there and this will probably not be the election to empower reformists. It is about 60-40 right-left. Last time it was closer to 65-35.