DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on January 18, 2007, 06:01:04 PM
-
Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'
Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.
The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.
In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.
But as soon as it got to the White House, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself
Lawrence Wilkerson
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion.
One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.
"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.
"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."
Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.
Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon.
Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank.
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm
-
<<In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.>>
REPATRIATE members of an anti-government exile group? So they could be tortured to death like Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi, who only took photos for the media?
If that story's true, it's probably the only decent and honourable thing that George W. Bush ever did in his life.
-
The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight
Riiiight. Then print the document. Let's see it.
I'm sick of false accusations by liberals which never stick.
-
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons.
LOL....and Iran is so "Holocaust is a hoax" credible. Sitting on top of endless oil, but they can't make it without nuclear power. Now, let's pull the other finger
-
<<LOL....and Iran is so "Holocaust is a hoax" credible. Sitting on top of endless oil, but they can't make it without nuclear power. Now, let's pull the other finger>>
<<Iran Oil Report (2006)
<<Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connections
<<Chapter 3 of the report explores the balance of oil production and domestic oil consumption of Iran. The chapter reveals how the domestic consumption has been outpacing the growth in oil production in the recent years and the what it means for the future of the oil sector in Iran as a major foreign exchange earner for the country.
<<Chapter 4 is more of a continuation of the analysis of the oil industry and its economic gains for the economy by analyzing the changes in the oil export and import of Iran. The chapter reveals once again the precise impact of the slow growth in oil production and on the contrary rapid rise in the domestic oil consumption and thus, dropping exports and increasing imports of oil into Iran as a consequence. The chapter explores the various strategies Iran may adopt in order to rectify the situation and reverse the trend.
http://www.gasandoil.com/GOC/marketintelligence/primevistas/iran_oil_report.htm>>
<<International Herald Tribune
<<Jan. 8, 2007
<<Iran actually is short of oil
<<Muddled mullahs
<<Roger Stern
<<Published: January 8, 2007
<< . . . Another threat to exports is the growth in domestic demand. Iranian oil demand is not just growing, it's exploding, driven by a subsidized gasoline price of about 9 cents a liter. This has created a 6 percent growth in demand, the highest in the world.
<<So Iran burns its candle at both ends, producing less and less while consuming more and more.>>
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/opinion/edstern.php>>
-
<<LOL....and Iran is so "Holocaust is a hoax" credible. Sitting on top of endless oil, but they can't make it without nuclear power. Now, let's pull the other finger>>
<<Iran Oil Report (2006)
<<Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connections
<<Chapter 3 of the report explores the balance of oil production and domestic oil consumption of Iran. The chapter reveals how the domestic consumption has been outpacing the growth in oil production in the recent years and the what it means for the future of the oil sector in Iran as a major foreign exchange earner for the country.
<<Chapter 4 is more of a continuation of the analysis of the oil industry and its economic gains for the economy by analyzing the changes in the oil export and import of Iran. The chapter reveals once again the precise impact of the slow growth in oil production and on the contrary rapid rise in the domestic oil consumption and thus, dropping exports and increasing imports of oil into Iran as a consequence. The chapter explores the various strategies Iran may adopt in order to rectify the situation and reverse the trend.
http://www.gasandoil.com/GOC/marketintelligence/primevistas/iran_oil_report.htm>>
<<International Herald Tribune
<<Jan. 8, 2007
<<Iran actually is short of oil
<<Muddled mullahs
<<Roger Stern
<<Published: January 8, 2007
<< . . . Another threat to exports is the growth in domestic demand. Iranian oil demand is not just growing, it's exploding, driven by a subsidized gasoline price of about 9 cents a liter. This has created a 6 percent growth in demand, the highest in the world.
<<So Iran burns its candle at both ends, producing less and less while consuming more and more.>>
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/opinion/edstern.php>>
If I were they , I would stop subsidiseing the price of gas so much and allow a few more refinerys to be built.
How would a Nuclear reactor affect the price of Gasoline?
-
I am all for everyone in other countries building nuclear power plants: less CO2 in the atmosphere, lower demand & prices for fuel.
I just don't want to have one near me.
Ahmedinejad wrote Juniorbush a long, long letter dealing with pretty much every issue last year. It would make sense for him to start a dialog with him.
This won't happen, because Big Oil doesn't want any dialog. The want the US in Iraqi bases, guarding their interests.
This whole bit where you refuse to even speak to the "enemy" until essentially he surrenders everything important to you.
-
<<If I were they , I would stop subsidiseing the price of gas so much and allow a few more refinerys to be built.>>
You are not they. They are mullahs. Fucking morons too, in this case.
<<How would a Nuclear reactor affect the price of Gasoline?>>
Lowers it.
-
<<How would a Nuclear reactor affect the price of Gasoline?>>
Lowers it.
France is a large nuclear power producer.
What is the going rate for a litre of gas there?
-
<<France is a large nuclear power producer.
<<What is the going rate for a litre of gas there?>>
Wrong question. You should be asking what the price of a litre WOULD be if there were less domestic nuclear power available.
One factor you gotta consider is if the nuclear power is for export or domestic consumption. If the nuclear power doesn't reach much of the French domestic market, it can't have much of an effect on local gasoline prices.
-
I am all for everyone in other countries building nuclear power plants: less CO2 in the atmosphere, lower demand & prices for fuel.
Nuclear power plants also produce lots of thermal pollution.
-
Wrong question. You should be asking what the price of a litre WOULD be if there were less domestic nuclear power available.
Don't see how i is te wrong question. To the best of my knowledge France is a petroleum products importer. Nuclear power allows then to import less but i don't see how that would lower the price.
Iran neglected refining infrastructure so they export raw oil and import refined. Both would still be subject to market rates.
-
Nuclear power plants also produce lots of thermal pollution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thermal pollution' is nothing more than heat. Hot water. Big Effing Deal.
If it's hot enough, it can be turned into energy.
-
I think that the price of gasopline is afected by Nuclear power only marginally.
Although some middle eastern people cook with gasoliene ,and some own generators for the most part Gasoliene and electricity are not interchangeable .
Plentyfull potatoes can lower the price of wheat because one can substitute for the other easily , but plentifull paint doesn't affect the price of wheat much.
But seriously , if they had wanted Nuclear power generators ,they could have had some already at a much lower cost and less trouble and no need for secrecy.
Their need for such a huge production plant is strictly because they are wanting to make bombs.
-
But seriously , if they had wanted Nuclear power generators ,they could have had some already at a much lower cost and less trouble and no need for secrecy.
Their need for such a huge production plant is strictly because they are wanting to make bombs.
================================================================
There is NO WAY that Iran would have been able to build any sort of nuclear power facility that would be independent of all other countries that the Juniorbushies would have approved of.
I don't think that their plans are huge, or even big. They are in the development stage.
Considering the evil tricks and crap that the UK and the US have played on Iran since the 1950's, and ARE STILL PLAYING, there is no sane reason why Iran (like Israel) would NOT want a nuclear deterrent.
Iran has a perfect right to build nuclear power plants to generate electricity, and the US has ZERO right to tell them they can't, just as you have a right to buy a Hummer with your children's college fund or piss it all away on whores and cheap wine, and I have no right to force you to Do the Right Thing.
Juniorbush, even as we speak, is building far more nuclear bombs RIGHT NOW than Iran will even dream of building. That is also not doing the Right thing.
I suggest that your mind might have been somehow separated from the ability to reason logically, perhaps by an overdose of ratwing idiocy and Israeli propaganda.
Ahmedinejad is a demogogue, but AIPAC and Juniorbush are also demogogues. Iranians did not start this, and their desire has no signs of being anything other than defensive. I see no possibility that Iran would see any advantage in selling nuclear devices to terrorists, unless they believe that this would be a useful defensive measure. And it wouldn't, just as the US did not sell nuclear devices to the Contras, Pinochet, Chaing Kai-Shek, Syngman Rhee, Colonel Ky or any of the other fascist goons that idiot Republicans and misguided ratwing Democrats have suppored over the past half-century. NO good could possibly come of it, and much bad could.
The truly badboy nuclear threats are Pakistan and North Korea, and Juniorbush is incompetent to deal with disarming either of them.
Six party talks. Whoop de doo. What are the odds that six people will all agree?
Many, many greater than two agreeing, or three.
The US, China and North Korea are the only ones with the clout and the reason to discuss this, and kindly observe how NOTHING has been accomplished since Juniorbush was selected Fearless Leader.
Bupkiss, Nada, Niente, Rien, Nada, Zip, Zilch.
-
"Thermal pollution' is nothing more than heat. Hot water. Big Effing Deal.
If it's hot enough, it can be turned into energy.
Thermal pollution leads to evironmental damage.
But if it's no big deal, why are people railing against global warming? The human input to global warming is "thermal pollution".
-
Heating a river at most damages fish and aquatic fauna.
Leaving the door open in the winter is not 'thermal pollution'.
If any power plant is emitting too much heat, energy can be extracted from the exchange, which eliminates most of the excess heat.
Neither is driving your car with the AC on and the windows down, that is only moronic.
-
Heating a river at most damages fish and aquatic fauna.
And the aquatic flora as well. Ever heard of "the cycle of life"? It's not just a song in a children's movie. Damaging the environment of a river causes damage downriver, which usually includes cities and the ocean.
If any power plant is emitting too much heat, energy can be extracted from the exchange, which eliminates most of the excess heat.
And your degree in either chemistry or physics comes from which university?
-
Energy can always be extracted from differentials between heat and cold.
Stop carping and just look it up.
-
Energy can always be extracted from differentials between heat and cold.
Stop carping and just look it up.
Don't want to answer the question?
I already know about it; it's obvious you do not.
-
Energy can always be extracted from differentials between heat and cold.
Stop carping and just look it up.
Don't want to answer the question?
I already know about it; it's obvious you do not.
The thermal energy that spun the turbines had to go somewhere , it isn't possible to convert the entirety of that energy to the desired form , electricity. There has to be a place to dump it . The hot reactor core and the cool river are not near each other by accident.
ON the upside when this situation is benefiting an aquatic creature , the creature finds conditions much more constant and dependable than nature.
Turkey point for example has a healthy population f endangered Florida crocodiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscayne_National_Park
-
ON the upside when this situation is benefiting an aquatic creature , the creature finds conditions much more constant and dependable than nature.
Well, it also causes algae bloom, which reduces available oxygen in the water. This is not good for those creatures that have gills.