3 ms·

>So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009 If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a

by yyyk 6y ago

>So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009 If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have. >just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power. It's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way around.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. >t's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there. >Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die. A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there Or for the civil nuclear program. >A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," and had further elaborated that they are calling for an end to policies that are imperialist and hostile towards Iran. Similar statements are common in US politics regarding Iran.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      >civil nuclear program Sure, right. Iran already receives nuclear fuel from Russia. It makes 'perfect' economic sense to risk massive sanctions to enrich 100x times the amount of 'fuel' Iran needs for a single 1000MW nuclear generation unit in Bushehr just so they could ditch their supplier. In a country with nearly free gas and oil. Which everyone accepts has done nuclear weaponization work. >You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. I'm saying the Iranian regime kills people too, just with a slightly different cover. >That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," "Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The US has shown it will impose sanctions on Iran no matter what, so yes it does make sense to divert away from the only resource they ever have a chance to sell. >Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress. I can't say that every use of the term over fourty years has been translated as "down with," but that's hardly "weasel words." They've made very clear what they mean by the statement.
        yyyk 6y ago
        > The US has shown it will impose sanctions on Iran no matter what, so yes it does make sense to divert away from the only resource they ever have a chance to sell. 1) The country was far less sanctioned before the nuclear program. 2) Iran has a huge oil glut, no need to divert. 3) It's absurdly without economic sense even then. The expenses due to sanctions and diplomatic conflict are 1000x of any profit. If there's any profit compared to available imports from Russia. 4) It's a country with past weaponization program. We know what it's really for. >They've made very clear what they mean by the statement. Yep, very clear. Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Nothing you say makes any sense. Even you seem to agree that Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program for a decade and sanctions didn't improve, so why do one and three mean anything? Two ignores Iran's status in OPEC, and four shows nothing. Yet you act like they've completely unprovoked start massing nuclear weapons without a shred of evidence. >Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement Disliking the imperialist policies of a state that regularly bombs you makes sense.

by yyyk 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. >t's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.

yyyk 6y ago
>There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels. They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there. >Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die. A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there Or for the civil nuclear program. >A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," and had further elaborated that they are calling for an end to policies that are imperialist and hostile towards Iran. Similar statements are common in US politics regarding Iran.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >civil nuclear program Sure, right. Iran already receives nuclear fuel from Russia. It makes 'perfect' economic sense to risk massive sanctions to enrich 100x times the amount of 'fuel' Iran needs for a single 1000MW nuclear generation unit in Bushehr just so they could ditch their supplier. In a country with nearly free gas and oil. Which everyone accepts has done nuclear weaponization work. >You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people. I'm saying the Iranian regime kills people too, just with a slightly different cover. >That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," "Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The US has shown it will impose sanctions on Iran no matter what, so yes it does make sense to divert away from the only resource they ever have a chance to sell. >Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress. I can't say that every use of the term over fourty years has been translated as "down with," but that's hardly "weasel words." They've made very clear what they mean by the statement.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        > The US has shown it will impose sanctions on Iran no matter what, so yes it does make sense to divert away from the only resource they ever have a chance to sell. 1) The country was far less sanctioned before the nuclear program. 2) Iran has a huge oil glut, no need to divert. 3) It's absurdly without economic sense even then. The expenses due to sanctions and diplomatic conflict are 1000x of any profit. If there's any profit compared to available imports from Russia. 4) It's a country with past weaponization program. We know what it's really for. >They've made very clear what they mean by the statement. Yep, very clear. Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Nothing you say makes any sense. Even you seem to agree that Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program for a decade and sanctions didn't improve, so why do one and three mean anything? Two ignores Iran's status in OPEC, and four shows nothing. Yet you act like they've completely unprovoked start massing nuclear weapons without a shred of evidence. >Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement Disliking the imperialist policies of a state that regularly bombs you makes sense.