Iranian President pardons all 15 Sailors

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: Phokus
Were they tortured? Wouldn't it be ironic that the Iranians treat their prisoners better than the US or Brits?

This is a media stunt. Do you think they would free prisoners whom they beat and tortured.

Media stunt?

What evidence do you have that Iran tortures and beats their prisoners?

I can show you evidence of the U.S doing it to Iraqis

Yeah, exactly.. big media stunt.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Aimster
You keep talking about not trusting Iran because they censor their Internet

... SO DOES CHINA

According to you , we should cut off all diplomatic relations with China.

You sir should stop posting in p%n. You sound like you are 16.

You cannot even prove Iran is a violent nation, whereas I can prove how U.S actions have done far worse than Iran's actions ever have. So keep posting your B.S

Are you saying that you believe any conflicts with Iran can be relieved via diplomacy?

Talk about being short sighted. . . or ignorant.

* their president's participation in the 1979 Hostage Crisis

* their presidents denial the holocaust ever existed

* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

* the desire to crush Israel and "wipe it off the map" -- i don't care how it is translated

* the recent capturing of 15 british troops and pulling a charade



there i removed it...

 

[Al Neri]

Aimster,

You type as if you are a child. I don't mean to offend children, but I am using that as a substitute for (what appears to me to be) an ignorant person. You are typing "aggressively." I use the quotes because if we were seated in a room, you would have raised your voice at the time you came back with some of your statements.

Aggressive statements:

Sorry to hurt your feelings by basically saying you have no idea wtf u r talking about.. but I stopped reading after you said the Iranian President took part in the hostage crisis.

You took me to school? Look at the B.S you are typing. It makes you look foolish.

So since most of your rambling is on the Iranian President.. I think u need to educate yourself on matters you claim to be an expert on.
"rolls eyes"

You sir should stop posting in p%n. You sound like you are 16.

I will admit that I am guilty of some provoking, which I will apologize for and try not to do in the future.

Anyway, pyschology has shown that when aggresive stances are taken in what is perceived to be an intelligent debate, because, among othe reasons:

a) the agressor knows they are wrong, but continues to fight hoping to intimidate, or

b) the agressor doesn't know any facts surrounding the matter, so they spit out random facts that are either well known (the president of Iran isn't the leader, and china and turkey ban youtube) or completely off base with no support ("& Iran has a right to nuclear energy. Why should they listen to the UN about it when they have a right?? ", and you can lump the china and turkey youtube comment you made here) and hopes to intimidate and have the issue blow over.

The two are relatively the same.

You tell me to look into facts, yet you have not used anything to back up your arguments. You use statements like "I stopped reading after you said..." and "take a look at a picture of you 30 years ago." All of those are very judgemental and do not have much of a foundation for your argument(s).

Anyway, if I ever make a post on P&N, which is rarely, I will back up my statements with facts I have gleaned from various sources. I do not claim to be smart, but I do claim to have support for my statements, and if I am proved wrong, I still win because I have learned something. I would delve into what I think about your posts, but flames are not allowed on these boards. If you think this is a flame, you are wrong it is just a statement of knowledge I have gathered from this one thread and summarized.

Regardless, try being a little more civil and back up your claims with facts, it likely will get you further.

Cheers,

Don Rodriguez

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: Aimster
you mean talking to Iran actually gets results?

Who would have thought?

Are you saying that you believe any conflicts with Iran can be relieved via diplomacy?

Talk about being short sighted. . . or ignorant.

* their president's participation in the 1979 Hostage Crisis

* their presidents denial the holocaust ever existed

* the fact that wikipedia, youtube, among other websites and supressed media outlets

* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

* the desire to crush Israel and "wipe it off the map" -- i don't care how it is translated

* the recent capturing of 15 british troops and pulling a charade


just to name a few issues... these guys seem like stand up guys who could easily be trusted to keep up their and and negotiated with......

:roll:

Sorry to hurt your feelings by basically saying you have no idea wtf u r talking about..

but I stopped reading after you said the Iranian President took part in the hostage crisis.

hey buddy - do yourself a favor and read.

While it has not been confirmed that Mamoud Ahjmenejad(sp?) was a participant in the 1979 hostage crisis, he has been id'd by several participants... either way, knowing his track record I'd say he was a supporter regardless.

Sorry to hurt your feelings in taking you to school.

You mean to tell me you can ID someone from 30 years ago because they look the same?
Why don't you show me a picture of yourself from 30 years ago and let's see if you look the same.. The students who took the Iranians hostage were part of MEK.. a group against the Iranian Regime.

It has been proven that hundreds and maybe thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted in the U.S alone based on facial ID alone Now we have DNA testing.

You took me to school? Look at the B.S you are typing. It makes you look foolish.

i mean the other points besides that chowderhead!

edit:

I spit out a list of reasons why I wouldn't trust Iran, and you come back with "take a picture of yourself 30 years ago, it wont look the same"

How educated you appear

o rly?
They ban sites such as Youtube????
So does China and Turkey. Let's cut off all diplomatic relations with them!

What a foolish thing to post

Iran's President is not the leader of Iran

& Iran has a right to nuclear energy. Why should they listen to the UN about it when they have a right??

So since most of your rambling is on the Iranian President.. I think u need to educate yourself on matters you claim to be an expert on.
"rolls eyes"

Comforting to know Iran's President is not the leader. I have so much more faith in the unelected Mullah's with zero accountability.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Were they tortured? Wouldn't it be ironic that the Iranians treat their prisoners better than the US or Brits?

I guess we'll see what they say when they get back - the news networks will be fighting for the first interview right now no doubt. I'll be watching.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Phokus
Were they tortured? Wouldn't it be ironic that the Iranians treat their prisoners better than the US or Brits?

I guess we'll see what they say when they get back - the news networks will be fighting for the first interview right now no doubt. I'll be watching.

You have to play devil's advocate (and not just the pinball game). They would not have been set free if they were tortured. That's just common sense IMO.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their president's participation in the 1979 Hostage Crisis

What do you think, is President Ahmadinejad actually one of the captors during the 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran?

There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages.

Source

Sorry Donny Boy, the word of some half-wit forum jockey versus the word of the CIA...I'll side with the latter.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their president's participation in the 1979 Hostage Crisis

What do you think, is President Ahmadinejad actually one of the captors during the 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran?

There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages.

Source

Sorry Donny Boy, the word of some half-wit forum jockey versus the word of the CIA...I'll side with the latter.

To quote Frank Rizzo, "do you have corncobs between your ears boy?"

read:

from above:

hey buddy - do yourself a favor and read.

While it has not been confirmed that Mamoud Ahjmenejad(sp?) was a participant in the 1979 hostage crisis, he has been id'd by several participants... either way, knowing his track record I'd say he was a supporter regardless.

Sorry to hurt your feelings in taking you to school.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

Where exactly does the NPT limit development to light-water reactors? It doesn't.

Has evidence been produced to show that Iran is producing nuclear weapons specific components? Nope.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
basically answer this -- do you really think that Iran should be trusted and we should be openly diplomatic with them?

:laugh: @ the loaded question. Openly diplomatic? For the most part, yes. Trusted? For the most part, no.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

Where exactly does the NPT limit development to light-water reactors? It doesn't.

Has evidence been produced to show that Iran is producing nuclear weapons specific components? Nope.

I never said anything about the NPT, why are you introducing new statements.

Iran has proven time and time again they should not be trusted. Your points are taken, but I will still stand by being uncomfortable with Iran developing heavy-water reactors.

Iran has not gained much support on the world stage, and if they wanted to gain any, IMO, they would agree to getting funding to develop light-water reactors, I am not a nuclear scientist, but if they (as they claim) want to develop a nuclear reactor for electricity then what is the purpose of favoring a heavy-water reactor (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor Light water reactors tend to be simpler and cheaper to build than heavy water reactors. Power-generating capabilities are comparable.).

The world is not a zero sum game, if Iran wanted to get support internationally it would comply to the international pressure and develop non-weapons grade generating reactors. But the problem is (if I were an optimist) that Iran is weak, they know they are weak, why else would they suppress media.... furthermore agreeing would make themselves look weak in the world's eye... if I were a pessimist would say they are holding out so that they can secretly develop nuclear weapons. Regardless it's give a little take a little and they are acting like babies on the world scene. Iran's current government happens to suffer from a napolean complex and must always look strong and can never look weak (look at this whole nonsense with the british)...

at least we have the UN to sanction them....

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
basically answer this -- do you really think that Iran should be trusted and we should be openly diplomatic with them?

:laugh: @ the loaded question. Openly diplomatic? For the most part, yes. Trusted? For the most part, no.

I will clairfy. Do you really think that any conflicts that arise with Iran can be solved diplomaticaly?

 

[soundforbjt]

Bush just went flaccid...His dreams for a war with Iran is back on hold.

 

[JEDIYoda]

thats what I love about these forums....you can express an opinion whether right or wrong....
democrat or republican....
brainwashed or not brainwashed....
Intellectual or just plain ass backwards...
Everybody gets to have an opinion regardless...
It`s Opinion day in AT forums!!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
basically answer this -- do you really think that Iran should be trusted and we should be openly diplomatic with them?

:laugh: @ the loaded question. Openly diplomatic? For the most part, yes. Trusted? For the most part, no.

I will clairfy. Do you really think that any conflicts that arise with Iran can be solved diplomaticaly?

This conflict certainly was.

A better question is, can we afford to solve conflicts in any other fashion? The US had a credible threat of military action before the war in Iraq; now we (and our grand coalition of the willing) look like fools.

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

Where exactly does the NPT limit development to light-water reactors? It doesn't.

Has evidence been produced to show that Iran is producing nuclear weapons specific components? Nope.

I never said anything about the NPT, why are you introducing new statements.

Iran has proven time and time again they should not be trusted. Your points are taken, but I will still stand by being uncomfortable with Iran developing heavy-water reactors.

Iran has not gained much support on the world stage, and if they wanted to gain any, IMO, they would agree to getting funding to develop light-water reactors, I am not a nuclear scientist, but if they (as they claim) want to develop a nuclear reactor for electricity then what is the purpose of favoring a heavy-water reactor (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor Light water reactors tend to be simpler and cheaper to build than heavy water reactors. Power-generating capabilities are comparable.).

The world is not a zero sum game, if Iran wanted to get support internationally it would comply to the international pressure and develop non-weapons grade generating reactors. But the problem is (if I were an optimist) that Iran is weak, they know they are weak, why else would they suppress media.... furthermore agreeing would make themselves look weak in the world's eye... if I were a pessimist would say they are holding out so that they can secretly develop nuclear weapons. Regardless it's give a little take a little and they are acting like babies on the world scene. Iran's current government happens to suffer from a napolean complex and must always look strong and can never look weak (look at this whole nonsense with the british)...

at least we have the UN to sanction them....

Light water reactors require uranium fuel that has been enriched to 3% U-238, if I recall correctly. Normal uranium only contains about .7% of the required isotope. Keep in mind that the current brouhaha has been over Iran's enrichment capacity, their attempt to develop a domestic enrichment capability for said light water reactors, in that the west does not want them to have one. Among their other benefits, heavy water reactors require no uranium enrichment for reactor operations, they can use the unenriched .7% supply right from the get go. That, and that they can be refueled while still operating thereby avoiding the time it takes to refuel a light water reactor in which the reactor is offline and not producing electricity, is part of the reasons my country, Canada, selected that design as the basis for the nuclear power plants in our nuclear industry.

Now I do not necessarily know Iran's motives, but you're inferring guilt from them crossing an imaginary line that you've constructed. Now, some other dude will say that Iran is guilty because they're developing an enrichment capability when they could be getting their fuel elsewhere, ignoring the security of supply issues that comes from relying on others for something as integral as your electricity supplies, as witnessed by Russia stopping development of a reactor because Iran can't pay the checks. Or that Iran is guilty because they're developing nuclear power plants at all, when they're sitting upon all that oil, ignoring the fact that Iran's oil production peaked a long time ago and the oil they use for domestic consumption is steadily eating into the oil they export for monetary concerns, and maybe they have valid economic reasons for a nuclear power industry, just as our countries did back when they were awash in oil and yet still developed nuclear power plants. Do you see how bankrupt these "they must be guilty because they're violating a line I don't see the merit in" arguments can seem after awhile?

edit: I had the isotopes mixed up. Natural Uranium is comprised mostly of U-238, with a tiny amount of the fissile U-235. In light water reactors, the natural Uranium must be enriched to the point where U-235 comprises 3% of the Uranium, where heavy water reactors can take as fuel the unenriched natural Uranium with its much smaller quantity of U-235.

 

[Atheus]

My dad made an interesting comparison; during Franco's time the Spanish government would periodically arrest opposition leaders, put them on trial, inevitably sentence them to death, and then right before the execution Franco would give them a full pardon. Then everyone would go - wow Franco, what a nice guy!

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: Atheus
My dad made an interesting comparison; during Franco's time the Spanish government would periodically arrest opposition leaders, put them on trial, inevitably sentence them to death, and then right before the execution Franco would give them a full pardon. Then everyone would go - wow Franco, what a nice guy!

It's all about perception. That's what Mamoud is trying to alter, make him look like such a GREAT person for pardoning these "spies."

 

[SamurAchzar]

Yep, Atheus got that right - nice that they are pardoning soldiers that they unjustly kidnapped.
Also, you don't have a clue about what went on behind the scenes. This could be, for all that we know, due to direct military threat posed by either Britain or USA.

So, president of Iran takes 15 British men as hostages, accuses Britain of invading Iranian water, puts them to laugh while he puts their men on public display making them approve the Iranian version of the events, he then "pardons" them and the leftists are impressed by his good nature. That's life.

 

[Al Neri]

Originally posted by: libs0n

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

Where exactly does the NPT limit development to light-water reactors? It doesn't.

Has evidence been produced to show that Iran is producing nuclear weapons specific components? Nope.

I never said anything about the NPT, why are you introducing new statements.

Iran has proven time and time again they should not be trusted. Your points are taken, but I will still stand by being uncomfortable with Iran developing heavy-water reactors.

Iran has not gained much support on the world stage, and if they wanted to gain any, IMO, they would agree to getting funding to develop light-water reactors, I am not a nuclear scientist, but if they (as they claim) want to develop a nuclear reactor for electricity then what is the purpose of favoring a heavy-water reactor (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor Light water reactors tend to be simpler and cheaper to build than heavy water reactors. Power-generating capabilities are comparable.).

The world is not a zero sum game, if Iran wanted to get support internationally it would comply to the international pressure and develop non-weapons grade generating reactors. But the problem is (if I were an optimist) that Iran is weak, they know they are weak, why else would they suppress media.... furthermore agreeing would make themselves look weak in the world's eye... if I were a pessimist would say they are holding out so that they can secretly develop nuclear weapons. Regardless it's give a little take a little and they are acting like babies on the world scene. Iran's current government happens to suffer from a napolean complex and must always look strong and can never look weak (look at this whole nonsense with the british)...

at least we have the UN to sanction them....

Light water reactors require uranium fuel that has been enriched to 3% U-238, if I recall correctly. Normal uranium only contains about .7% of the required isotope. Keep in mind that the current brouhaha has been over Iran's enrichment capacity, their attempt to develop a domestic enrichment capability for said light water reactors, in that the west does not want them to have one. Among their other benefits, heavy water reactors require no uranium enrichment for reactor operations, they can use the unenriched .7% supply right from the get go. That, and that they can be refueled while still operating thereby avoiding the time it takes to refuel a light water reactor in which the reactor is offline and not producing electricity, is part of the reasons my country, Canada, selected that design as the basis for the nuclear power plants in our nuclear industry.

Now I do not necessarily know Iran's motives, but you're inferring guilt from them crossing an imaginary line that you've constructed. Now, some other dude will say that Iran is guilty because they're developing an enrichment capability when they could be getting their fuel elsewhere, ignoring the security of supply issues that comes from relying on others for something as integral as your electricity supplies, as witnessed by Russia stopping development of a reactor because Iran can't pay the checks. Or that Iran is guilty because they're developing nuclear power plants at all, when they're sitting upon all that oil, ignoring the fact that Iran's oil production peaked a long time ago and the oil they use for domestic consumption is steadily eating into the oil they export for monetary concerns, and maybe they have valid economic reasons for a nuclear power industry, just as our countries did back when they were awash in oil and yet still developed nuclear power plants. Do you see how bankrupt these "they must be guilty because they're violating a line I don't see the merit in" arguments can seem after awhile?

I'm going to oversimplify it for a reason

Iran wants: A heavy water nuclear reactor

The West Wants: Iran not to have a reactor

The west gives: Funding and support for Iran's development if Iran develop's a light-water plant

Iran gives: nothing but problems

Iran has to look like they are superior to the rest of the world. Give to get.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
* their desire for a nuclear facility for "peaceful purposes," but their refusal to accept help in exchange to limit their development to light-water reactors in place of heavy-water reactors (which can be a way to manufacture weapons grade Uranium, light water is ostensibly not)

Where exactly does the NPT limit development to light-water reactors? It doesn't.

Has evidence been produced to show that Iran is producing nuclear weapons specific components? Nope.

I never said anything about the NPT, why are you introducing new statements.

Iran has proven time and time again they should not be trusted. Your points are taken, but I will still stand by being uncomfortable with Iran developing heavy-water reactors.

Iran has not gained much support on the world stage, and if they wanted to gain any, IMO, they would agree to getting funding to develop light-water reactors, I am not a nuclear scientist, but if they (as they claim) want to develop a nuclear reactor for electricity then what is the purpose of favoring a heavy-water reactor (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor Light water reactors tend to be simpler and cheaper to build than heavy water reactors. Power-generating capabilities are comparable.).

The world is not a zero sum game, if Iran wanted to get support internationally it would comply to the international pressure and develop non-weapons grade generating reactors. But the problem is (if I were an optimist) that Iran is weak, they know they are weak, why else would they suppress media.... furthermore agreeing would make themselves look weak in the world's eye... if I were a pessimist would say they are holding out so that they can secretly develop nuclear weapons. Regardless it's give a little take a little and they are acting like babies on the world scene. Iran's current government happens to suffer from a napolean complex and must always look strong and can never look weak (look at this whole nonsense with the british)...

at least we have the UN to sanction them....

The NPT is the only document they are currently bound by, and they are complying with it. Even the NPT is optional; they can remove their signature at any time, but have no reason to. It is not legally binding in any way.

So without a legal argument pertaining to their development of alternate energy, what claim do you (or any government) have against them? They aren't required to comfort and coddle us at our every whim.

The only real international pressure is coming from the US and the UK, and Iran is dealing with that pressure very well. Iran has powerful friends in China and Russia. The weak sanctions just passed were revised several times at China and Russia's request.

They don't need to gain support at a broad level right now; they just need to maintain the status quo, keep Bush/Blair looking like retards in Iraq, and wait for this hubub about non-existent nuclear weapons programs to blow over. The war in Iraq largely contributed to Iran's boldness in pursuing this matter; had the US not had its hands tied in Iraq, a threat of military force would have been realistic.

 

[Al Neri]

And there you go, you have been brought to siding with Iran in an argument. I guess that the level's that some have sank, are sinking and will sink to to to denounce the current administration will never cease to amaze me! Sorry to pull an Aimster but it had to be done there!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
And there you go, you have been brought to siding with Iran in an argument. I guess that the level's that some have sank, are sinking and will sink to to to denounce the current administration will never cease to amaze me! Sorry to pull an Aimster but it had to be done there!

Siding against our administration = siding with our country.

Unless you think we need another trillion dollar, decade long occupation to prove false intelligence and fear-mongering.

The bottom line is that you have no proof the Iranians are developing any nuclear weapons, and you keep dancing around that fact.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Don Rodriguez
basically answer this -- do you really think that Iran should be trusted and we should be openly diplomatic with them?

:laugh: @ the loaded question. Openly diplomatic? For the most part, yes. Trusted? For the most part, no.

I will clairfy. Do you really think that any conflicts that arise with Iran can be solved diplomaticaly?

Depends on what you mean by "conflicts."

 

[bamacre]

:laugh:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=2026501&enterthread=y

Originally posted by: bamacre
I imagine they will hold the men for a while longer, let the media do their hype job.

Then they will release the men as things heat up, and it will come out that the men were treated and fed well.

It's all a game.

Am I talented, or even smart? No. This was just so obvious.