Log in

View Full Version : Iran Declaires the Right to Nuclear Energy



andrew_the_fox
18th September 2005, 18:15
First of all this articles title on the AIM today pages was "Nukes in Iran" which is total bullshit because there was no talk about nuclear or as the president would say Nucular weapons. I personally don't think nuclear energy should be used anywhere, and I don't think the U$ has the right to be hypocritical and say no you can't have nuclear power but we can, and we'll have nuclear weapons too!






Link to Article {http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050917164009990004}


Updated: 09:47 AM EDT
Iran Proclaims Right to Nuclear Energy
By SAM F. GHATTAS, AP


AP
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves after speaking at the United Nations.



UNITED NATIONS (Sept. 18) - Iran's president proclaimed his country's "inalienable right'' to produce nuclear fuel Saturday, defiantly rejecting a European offer of economic incentives if the Mideast nation would halt its uranium enrichment program.

In a fiery speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied his nation had any intention of producing nuclear weapons. To prove that, he offered foreign countries and companies a role in Iran's nuclear energy production.

The Iranian leader lashed out at the United States for its insistence on keeping its nuclear weapons even as it rejected Iran's efforts to build a peaceful energy program.

He said Iran has a right to produce nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and implicitly accused the Europeans and Americans of "misrepresenting'' Iran's desire for civilian nuclear energy "as the pursuit of nuclear weapons.''

"This is nothing more than a pure propaganda ploy,'' he said.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its previously and repeatedly declared position that in accordance with our religious principles, pursuit of nuclear weapons is prohibited,'' Ahmadinejad said.

The Europeans and Americans have argued that Iran doesn't need to enrich uranium because it can obtain it from other countries, but Ahmadinejad said "the peaceful use of nuclear energy without a fuel cycle is an empty proposition.''

To reassure the international community of Iran's peaceful intentions, Ahmadinejad said his government is prepared to take "the most far reaching step outside the requirements of the NPT... in keeping with Iran's inalienable right to have access to a nuclear fuel cycle.''

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has already installed cameras to monitor Iran's nuclear activities, he said.

As a further "confidence building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment programs in Iran,'' he said.

"We will work with public and private companies in the context of Iranian and agency laws,'' he told a news conference afterwards.

He noted that President Bush said recently he approves of Iran having a peaceful nuclear program.

"This is a step forward, but this means that others are to produce the fuel and sell it to us to use and for us to be always dependent on others - this is outside the NPT and this is not acceptable to my nation,'' Ahmadinejad told reporters.

"We will work with public and private companies in the context of Iranian and agency laws,'' he told reporters later.

Ahmadinejad said "Iran is presenting in good faith its proposal for constructive interaction and a just dialogue.''

"However, if some try to impose their will on the Iranian people through resort to a language of force and threat with Iran, we will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear issue,'' he warned.

Washington has been a key force in trying to marshal enough support at Monday's board meeting of the Vienna-based IAEA for referring Iran to the Security Council, which could consider sanctions. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested this week that the U.S. might accept a delay.

Momentum for Security Council action grew after Tehran last month rejected incentives offered by Britain, France and Germany - negotiating on behalf of the EU - and resumed uranium conversion. The Europeans say Tehran broke its word by unilaterally restarting that activity while still discussing ways to reduce international suspicions about its nuclear agenda.

But the U.S.-European effort for Security Council involvement has run into trouble due to stubborn resistance from council members Russia and China, as well as by India, Pakistan and other key nations.

Asked at the news conference about the possibility of sanctions, Ahmadinejad said, "We believe that we should not give up to bullying in international relations.''

09/18/05 07:44 EDT

Severian
19th September 2005, 23:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:46 AM
I personally don't think nuclear energy should be used anywhere, and I don't think the U$ has the right to be hypocritical and say no you can't have nuclear power but we can, and we'll have nuclear weapons too!
Right. This is going to become a question more and more often.

A large percentage of electricity in the imperialist countries is generated with nuclear power. Far less in the semicolonial countries. Yet imperialism seeks to deny semicolonial countries the right to develop nuclear energy: even Brazil has been harassed with inspection demands, although not even imperialism claims there's a nuclear weapons program in that case.

It's claimed that Iran does not need nuclear energy because of its oil; but if Iran is going to achieve any broader industrial development it does need to greatly increase its electricity generation. Unless it develops some new source, a larger and larger proportion of its oil production will be needed for domestic consumption.

This was recognized even by the shah's regime, which began the nuclear power development program.

This has also been an issue in the talks with north Korea: if they give up their nuclear weapons program, they want to continue generating power with light-water reactors (which are not very suitable for weapons purposes.) The imperialists are balking at this. North Korea of course has major energy-shortage problems.

bolshevik butcher
20th September 2005, 11:22
I'm not a fan of nuclear energy but it's better ofr hte environemnt thatn coal or oil operated power stations.

As for the weapons question, i don't think they should be aloud them. I dont think anyone should, but i dont see the point in spreading them further. However the iranians should deffinatley be aloud to have nuclear energy if they desire it.

h&s
20th September 2005, 16:26
I'm not a fan of nuclear energy but it's better ofr hte environemnt thatn coal or oil operated power stations.
Says who? The BNFL? :lol:
Nuclear energy is probably worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Nuclear energy creates highly radioactive waste, for which there is no real safe way to dispose of. In the short term this waste can be secured, and even sealed into stable geological fromations, but will this last for the 4.8 billion years needed?
No-one knows, but everyone does know the catastrophic effects if the waste does get into the environment.


As for the weapons question, i don't think they should be aloud them. I dont think anyone should, but i dont see the point in spreading them further.
Which just shows why the non-poliferation treaty isn't worth the paper its printed on. The UN demands that no other states develop weapons, yet the security council refuses to scrap theirs, and carries on developing new ones.

bolshevik butcher
20th September 2005, 20:26
h and s i was really thinking more about the effect of green hosue gases and the ozone layer. But i agree, all nations should disarm their nuclear weapons.

Ander
20th September 2005, 21:03
It pisses me off how the US acts as the world's police.

"Only us and our buddies can have nuclear weapons... Iran? Nope, don't even think about it. North Korea? Hah!"

Imperialism is a cancer..

h&s
20th September 2005, 22:25
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 20 2005, 07:57 PM
h and s i was really thinking more about the effect of green hosue gases and the ozone layer. But i agree, all nations should disarm their nuclear weapons.
I know - I was just saying that greenhouse emissions are not the only thing people should think about - there are worse things out there.

Commie Rat
21st September 2005, 06:38
couldn't we just strap it to a rocket with all the conservatives and blast it into space?

h&s
21st September 2005, 07:30
Or we could just not create it at all. If we could produce energy in a more local way, instead of relying on large-scale power stations, we could produce energy in a more efficient and green way.
Burning short-coppiced willow is completely carbon dioxide-neutral, and when done on a local scale it provides most of the heat needed to heat buildings.
There are many other ways, other than doing what the power industry tells us is best.

Severian
21st September 2005, 08:57
Originally posted by h&[email protected] 21 2005, 01:01 AM
Burning short-coppiced willow is completely carbon dioxide-neutral, and when done on a local scale it provides most of the heat needed to heat buildings.
Yeah, maybe so. But it's not going to replace the amount of electricity currently produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power, let alone provide the increased power generation required to bring electricity to all the billions who have little or no access to it now!

h&s
21st September 2005, 09:49
Originally posted by Severian+Sep 21 2005, 08:28 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 21 2005, 08:28 AM)
h&[email protected] 21 2005, 01:01 AM
Burning short-coppiced willow is completely carbon dioxide-neutral, and when done on a local scale it provides most of the heat needed to heat buildings.
Yeah, maybe so. But it's not going to replace the amount of electricity currently produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power, let alone provide the increased power generation required to bring electricity to all the billions who have little or no access to it now! [/b]
Now I'm not normally one for these little hippy-style local schemes, but I do think that this sort of thing has promise. There is a school near where I live that gets all of its energy - thats heat and electricity - from this.
I'm not suggesting that this should be done everywhere, but for public buildings I think its a good idea. That would free up a whole lot of power from the national grid, which could then rely on more conventional green energy to supply the public.
Its just an idea, and I much prefer it to relying on large-scale power for everything.
As for the billions without electricity, I have no ideas really.

wet blanket
21st September 2005, 11:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:34 PM
It pisses me off how the US acts as the world's police.

"Only us and our buddies can have nuclear weapons... Iran? Nope, don't even think about it. North Korea? Hah!"

Imperialism is a cancer..
Well, not to defend the US or anything, but I don't really think it's a good idea for Iran(or any militaristic nation for that matter) to be messing with nuclear technology either...

bolshevik butcher
21st September 2005, 15:51
H and S, dont discount wind and wave power as well. Aren't there power stations htat run of burning animal crap as well?

h&s
21st September 2005, 16:06
I don't discount wind and wave energy - thats what I think that the national grid should be run off. I just think that through localisation of supply we can depend less on large-scale power stations.
You can burn animal shit - biomass - on a small scale though that is not really green as naturally the carbon in the shit would go into plants, but when burnt it is let off as CO2.

bolshevik butcher
21st September 2005, 16:12
ah ok. Yeh i see your pint about lcoal power, it does sounds like a good idea.

Severian
21st September 2005, 19:25
Originally posted by h&[email protected] 21 2005, 09:37 AM
I don't discount wind and wave energy
I do. Simply impractical on a large scale.

If you're going to advocate it, look up how many acres of windmills it'd take to replace current power requirements....and how much that'd cost.

h&s
21st September 2005, 19:30
I know exectly what you mean. But wind energy can make up part of an energy supply, as it already does.
And I really shouldn't have said that about wave energy - I don't actually think its feasible.

bolshevik butcher
21st September 2005, 19:33
Originally posted by Severian+Sep 21 2005, 06:56 PM--> (Severian @ Sep 21 2005, 06:56 PM)
h&[email protected] 21 2005, 09:37 AM
I don't discount wind and wave energy
I do. Simply impractical on a large scale.

If you're going to advocate it, look up how many acres of windmills it'd take to replace current power requirements....and how much that'd cost. [/b]
yeh, but what about large sea trunbines?

h&s
21st September 2005, 19:49
They're too large scale and expensive for me. But then I know little about them.

Ander
22nd September 2005, 19:23
Originally posted by wet blanket+Sep 21 2005, 08:08 AM--> (wet blanket @ Sep 21 2005, 08:08 AM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 08:34 PM
It pisses me off how the US acts as the world's police.

"Only us and our buddies can have nuclear weapons... Iran? Nope, don't even think about it. North Korea? Hah!"

Imperialism is a cancer..
Well, not to defend the US or anything, but I don't really think it's a good idea for Iran(or any militaristic nation for that matter) to be messing with nuclear technology either... [/b]
I don't think ANYONE should have nuclear weapons.