Fox propaganda openly calls for US support for acts of terrorism—such as car bombings—in Tehran.
FOX Anchor Calls for Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH3BTaWrQ3I)

Interesting this guy isn't behind bars tonight awaiting indictment:
US Code - TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 45 - 956 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_45notes.html)

956. Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country
(b) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, conspires with one or more persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to damage or destroy specific property situated within a foreign country and belonging to a foreign government or to any political subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield, or other public utility, public conveyance, or public structure, or any religious, educational, or cultural property so situated, shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be imprisoned not more than 25 years.
I see the gloves are off in the war on the impoverished Third World .

I think the charge would fall through because it's not credible. Remember, FOX News is a comedy routine, and you can say that kind of crap when doing comedy.

That's pretty irresponsible.

It's faux news, Seriously Someone start car bombing their TV stations ,See how they like it. This sort of thing makes me avoid TV completely.. except for shows like life.. (Love the Zen Quotes)

It's no more irresponsible than the other news networks, which is why I avoid all of them all of the time.

It's no more irresponsible than the other news networks, which is why I avoid all of them all of the time.

I'd think that at least some of them are less of a freak right wing show than FOX's news network, that network is murdoch's mouthpiece to the world.

A section of a interview that is out of context, and the rest of the program is missing that would give the statement context and full meaning.

Which is?

I think the charge would fall through because it's not credible. Remember, FOX News is a comedy routine, and you can say that kind of crap when doing comedy.

Two thumbs way up!

Which is?


With out the whole interview how should I know, the U-Tube clip is definite edited to start in mid-sentence, and there were technical problem with some parts of the broadcast, so we don't know what the whole interview was about.

We still heard the part in question loud and clear. He advocated terrorism in Iran.

Yeah, let's arm anti-Iranian militants so that we can fight them at a later date when they decide to not be our bitches as we'd hoped and turn on us like all the previous groups we've armed in the past, lol..

Too bad we're already arming them. I'll be on the lookout for them on our homeland in another 10-15 years, per clockwork..

- N

I support taking out Iran's nukes. If we don't, Iminajihad will use them against Israel and then us. It will be too late. Everyone will blame Bush. :(

First of all, WHAT NUKES ? Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons and hasn't given any indication of intending to build one.
I'm no expert, but i thought this was about the ability to enrich uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons and also to reduce reliance on other nations to fuel their reactors.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.

Iminajihad only admits to having 3,000 centrifuges. He has more.

Just like Saddam he is a lying sack of ****.:(

We'll know he's serious like Saddam as soon as he tries to hit Israel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21666121/

So what ? Centrifuges are elements in any nuclear power plant. Big deal, Show me some missiles and i might change my mind, But so far.. not impressed.

Oh for God's sake, you aren't serious, are you? Iminajihad isn't even hiding the fact that he wants nukes to take out Israel and then us.:rolleyes:

No one trusts him. He reminds me of the anti-Christ but he doesn't even try to pretend to be nice.

If by not hiding you mean denying...

Iran does whatever the hell it wants. They keep tempting fate because no one will stop them. Iminajihad knows we've lost the political ability to do anything about their nuke program, so they continue to develop the bomb. The Euro-wienies are too spineless and too addicted to their oil to do anything. I'm guessing Israel will be the one with enough b@lls to do it.

It's no more irresponsible than the other news networks, The hell it isn't.

Prediction: at some time in the next few months, we will "suddenly discover" that the US has been sponsoring raids and paramilitary actions in Iran. At that time the righty punditry will bring up the "fact" that we weren't sponsoring car bombs in Tehran, like real terrorist supporters do in Baghdad.

Wow, even for Fox, that's pretty incredible.

Why war with Iran is likely (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=30554)
Whereas in the early Rumsfeld era we mainly restricted ourselves to warning Tehran against meddling in our newly-acquired province, these days we are blaming the clerics for our failure to stabilize the country: Iraq won't stay conquered, dammit, and it must be the Iranians' fault - that's the narrative the War Party is pushing to rationalize the ongoing disaster, while simultaneously making the case for opening up a new front.
War with Iran is likely because Americans really do live in a 2 Party (Demo/Publican) dictatorship . Americans are sent off to die in wars that they do not agree with because that is what dictators do.

I'd think that at least some of them are less of a freak right wing show than FOX's news network, that network is murdoch's mouthpiece to the world.

So in other words, it's OK to be a freak right wing show? But there's no room, none at all, for those conservatives. Nope. They shouldn't be allowed on television at all. Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we shut the station down? Their newspapers, too. And if they give us any trouble, we can just round them up and send them to work camps...

So what ? Centrifuges are elements in any nuclear power plant. Big deal, Show me some missiles and i might change my mind, But so far.. not impressed.

Yes. And when you're building a power plant, you hide and disperse the requisite facilities in underground lairs. You also refuse international offers to build said power plant. Wake up...

So in other words, it's OK to be a freak right wing show? But there's no room, none at all, for those conservatives. Nope. They shouldn't be allowed on television at all. Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we shut the station down? Their newspapers, too. And if they give us any trouble, we can just round them up and send them to work camps...


No , It's not OK to be a right wing freak show, And yes, you should shut down fox, That station gets more errors, and is more biased than any other TV show, look at a report from FOX and say maybe CNN or MSNBC (I don't know I don't live in the US) , look at the people interviewed. From what i've seen of FOX and according to FAIR, FOX gets it wrong more than other network, but you might have a point, CNN isn't all that much better, but still isn't blatantly calling for Terrorism in Iran. But according to FAIR, It thinks Civilian deaths aren't worth reporting.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1668


Yes. And when you're building a power plant, you hide and disperse the requisite facilities in underground lairs. You also refuse international offers to build said power plant. Wake up...

Show me an exercise, a military plan , a document , a shred of evidence that Iran intends to use nuclear weapons or that it even has them, ? The International Offers you so speak of would leave Iran dependent on others for fuel (although there is Uranium in Iran) and Technology.
I can show you quotes that Iran doesn't intend to use nuclear weapons, straight from the President Itself,

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. The text of the fatwa has not been released although it was referenced in an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Now the Pentagon on the other hand , there are Airstrikes planned, Ground Assualt Contingencies planned, all written up, Gearing for war, So who's the one going for conflict? eh ?

That was more than years ago!! Since then, Iminajihad has already bragged about taking out Israel and the USA. We believe him. Wake up. Smell the jihad. :(

Iran's nuke program needs to be stopped. Now.

Well under Ahmadinnajab's sheepish grin it's pretty clear what he wants!!!

No , It's not OK to be a right wing freak show, And yes, you should shut down fox.

So it's wrong to express conservative opinions and Fox should be shutdown? Well, at least you're honest about being the sort of liberal stormtrooper who wants to crush all the opinions you don't like...

That station gets more errors, and is more biased than any other TV show, look at a report from FOX and say maybe CNN or MSNBC (I don't know I don't live in the US) , look at the people interviewed.

You don't live here, but you have this incredibly nuanced opinion of American news coverage from this source you found on the Internet? My aren't you the expert...

Show me an exercise, a military plan , a document , a shred of evidence that Iran intends to use nuclear weapons or that it even has them?

I didn't say it has them or plans to use them, I inferred it is pursuing acquiring them, which you would have to be a fool to not see and understand. Again, if you're building civilian energy plants, you don't disperse and hide your facilities. You don't thwart the IAEA and thumb your nose at the world community if all you really want is power plants. This from the Economist:

"Iran's credibility suffered a massive blow in 2002 when a dissident group, perhaps tipped off by Western spies, revealed that the country had built two nuclear facilities in secret without informing the IAEA. One of these Arak, was a heavy-water reactor, which is one way to fuel an atomic bomb. The other, Natanz, was a facility for enriching uranium, which is the other way of doing it."


The International Offers you so speak of would leave Iran dependent on others for fuel (although there is Uranium in Iran) and Technology.

No, it would have boosted and helped provide a civilian nuclear program. And the idea that it would have left Iran "dependent on others for fuel" is laughable. Iran has something called Oil. They have lots of it. So much, in fact, that people are wondering why they need nuclear power when they already have another cheap and abundant source of energy readily available.

I can show you quotes that Iran doesn't intend to use nuclear weapons, straight from the President Itself,

Again, that's not what I said. But Ahmadinejad? Yeah, he's so credible...

Now the Pentagon on the other hand , there are Airstrikes planned, Ground Assualt Contingencies planned, all written up, Gearing for war, So who's the one going for conflict? eh ?

The Pentagon has war plans and target lists, etc. for just about every problematic region or country in the world. Periodically, those plans are updated and it's usually leaked in order to buy some diplomatic leverage for the State Department. The fact someone has plans to bomb something doesn't mean that is what they want to or will do. Consider the US had plans to attack the former USSR and didn't act on them for 60 plus years...

Wake up. Smell the jihad.™

Well, isn't that clever.

Back on topic, let's all remember that this is just some pretty face who runs his mouth on television and calls himself a journalist. In other words, what is his opinion worth? Not much. For the record, here's what someone whose opinion is worth something recently said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071111163737.rs2yskk5&show_article=1

Wake up. Smell the jihad.™

Who's got a trade mark on that? I said it after 911.

Fox propaganda openly calls for US support for acts of terrorism—such as car bombings—in Tehran.
FOX Anchor Calls for Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH3BTaWrQ3I)

Interesting this guy isn't behind bars tonight awaiting indictment:

I see the gloves are off in the war on the impoverished Third World .

so the jew hater that advocates attacks on innocent Israelis is furies when the same is said on Iranians. and then he calls it terrorism. to bad nuclear bombs arent pint pointed, so they could hit only the "smart ones" who were against an attack on iran.

I didn't say it has them or plans to use them, I inferred it is pursuing acquiring them, which you would have to be a fool to not see and understand. Again, if you're building civilian energy plants, you don't disperse and hide your facilities. You don't thwart the IAEA and thumb your nose at the world community if all you really want is power plants. - - -
- - -
"Iran's credibility suffered a massive blow in 2002 when a dissident group, perhaps tipped off by Western spies, revealed that the country had built two nuclear facilities in secret without informing the IAEA. And the idea that it would have left Iran "dependent on others for fuel" is laughable. Iran has something called Oil. They have lots of it. So much, in fact, that people are wondering why they need nuclear power when they already have another cheap and abundant source of energy readily available. Well, I think that some factions in Iran would very much like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and may be attempting this expensive, slow, and uncertain route to getting a couple of them in a few years. The reason I think so is that probably no country on earth has more need for a few nuclear weapons than Iran - there are two nuclear powers on its border threatening invasion and war.

however: Iran has very good reason to hide any peaceful nuke fuel program it has in bunkers, and conceal it from the IAEA, given what has happened to other nuclear power plants designated as "enemy" by the US, other countries designated as "enemy" by the US, and the effect of the US infiltration of the IAEA with military spies in the past.

And the arguments for Iranian nuke power are just as persuasive now as they were under the Shah, when the US was arguing that Iran needed nukes badly and should be building several of them. Oil is expensive and not renewable, the supply is limited and vulnerable to interruption, there is no alternative, etc.

As far as the weapon potential: Iran might, if all goes much better than it has been going with the centrifuges, be able to get some bomb grade stuff out of them eventually. If it quintuples the size of the current planned array, actually builds the plan, they quit disintegrating when revved up, and the peaceful nuke plants get shorted and left dark, in ten or fifteen years Iran might have a few bombs. Better them than Pakistan, eh?

And sometime in this journey, if all goes as statistics indicate is likely, at least one of Iran's nuclear plants will get hit with a fairly large earthquake, and Iran will join the club. Living and learning about nuclear power, this whole scene.

So it's wrong to express conservative opinions and Fox should be shutdown? Well, at least you're honest about being the sort of liberal stormtrooper who wants to crush all the opinions you don't like...

There's a difference between conservative and blatantly wrong, Fox has been proved wrong on many occasions,

You don't live here, but you have this incredibly nuanced opinion of American news coverage from this source you found on the Internet? My aren't you the expert...

You're right , I don't live in the States, but I still know that Fox isn't you're ordinary news channel, conservative or not, It still lies to the public. Lucky for me, we don't have a channel like fox.


I didn't say it has them or plans to use them, I inferred it is pursuing acquiring them, which you would have to be a fool to not see and understand. Again, if you're building civilian energy plants, you don't disperse and hide your facilities. You don't thwart the IAEA and thumb your nose at the world community if all you really want is power plants. This from the Economist:

"Iran's credibility suffered a massive blow in 2002 when a dissident group, perhaps tipped off by Western spies, revealed that the country had built two nuclear facilities in secret without informing the IAEA. One of these Arak, was a heavy-water reactor, which is one way to fuel an atomic bomb. The other, Natanz, was a facility for enriching uranium, which is the other way of doing it."


Right,So we agree then, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, only wants them to balance Israel's ability to have nuclear weapons.


No, it would have boosted and helped provide a civilian nuclear program. And the idea that it would have left Iran "dependent on others for fuel" is laughable. Iran has something called Oil. They have lots of it. So much, in fact, that people are wondering why they need nuclear power when they already have another cheap and abundant source of energy readily available.


I meant that Iran would be dependent on others for NUCLEAR fuel, such as Enriched uranium that is currently being provided by a french company, which Iran would have to pay.


Again, that's not what I said. But Ahmadinejad? Yeah, he's so credible...



The Pentagon has war plans and target lists, etc. for just about every problematic region or country in the world. Periodically, those plans are updated and it's usually leaked in order to buy some diplomatic leverage for the State Department. The fact someone has plans to bomb something doesn't mean that is what they want to or will do. Consider the US had plans to attack the former USSR and didn't act on them for 60 plus years...

Ok, so you won't bomb them, But why keep repeating them ? Why keep beating the war drum ? Why keep saying " the pentagon revised its war plans to target nuclear facilities"
The US recently agreed to try diplomacy(with Germany) , and Fox is not helping it.

so the jew hater that advocates attacks on innocent Israelis is furies when the same is said on Iranians.
Iran is a completely innocent nation that deserves to be protected whereas Israel is a guilty non nation that is responsible for the suffering of the innocent Palestinians .
and then he calls it terrorism.
Any policy formulated in Israel or America concerning Iran is just that a precursor to Terrorism .

Iran is a completely innocent nation that deserves to be protected whereas Israel is a guilty non nation that is responsible for the suffering of the innocent Palestinians .

Any policy formulated in Israel or America concerning Iran is just that a precursor to Terrorism .

Sorry Israel is a Nation recognized by the United Nations, it was legally formed, and established, it defended that formation, and with stood the illegal attacks on its state by, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Now explain why if the League of Nations, and U.N. could establish the states of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, which didn't exist, which lands were part of the Ottoman Empire, why they couldn't establish the State of Israel and Palestine?

If Israel is a illegal state by your reasoning, so to are the States of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, they were established by the same process as Israel under the League of Nations and the U.N.

If anything the illegal actions were by the Arabs when they as members of the United Nations defied the legal process, that they agreed to honor by treaty when they joined the United Nation.

Remember the Arabs didn't want a Palestinian State either, their plan was to divide up the land of Israel and Lebanon between them, Syria taking most of Lebanon, and northern Israel, Egypt and the Trans Jordan taking most of Israel, and in the end they did kill the state of Palestine.

There's a difference between conservative and blatantly wrong, Fox has been proved wrong on many occasions,

Give some examples where the factual reporting has been wrong. The incident here is purely one man's opinion. The entire network can hardly be held accountable for him and his mantra, even if he does work for them.

You're right , I don't live in the States, but I still know that Fox isn't you're ordinary news channel, conservative or not, It still lies to the public. Lucky for me, we don't have a channel like fox.

Give me an example of a lie.

Right,So we agree then, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, only wants them to balance Israel's ability to have nuclear weapons.

We agree Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. We do not agree why Iran wants them, which is what you not so cleverly tried to tack onto to the end of your statement. I don't know why Iran wants such weapons, nor do I care.

I meant that Iran would be dependent on others for NUCLEAR fuel, such as Enriched uranium that is currently being provided by a french company, which Iran would have to pay.

Which makes my point for me. Why go ahead with this if it costs money? There is plenty of energy available in Iran, so tying itself to a lengthy and costly process makes little sense. Of course you know that, and you know this entire argument is a red herring on your part. You stated above they want weapons to "balance Israel's ability," so you're acknowledging the program is for weapons, not for fuel. So we can quit wasting our time arguing about energy costs...

Ok, so you won't bomb them, But why keep repeating them ? Why keep beating the war drum ? Why keep saying " the pentagon revised its war plans to target nuclear facilities"

Well talking with Iran has achieved little or nothing. Perhaps some gunboat diplomacy is in order.

The US recently agreed to try diplomacy(with Germany) , and Fox is not helping it.

I'm sure you're aware FOX does not set or make US foreign policy? If you're not, I just told you. And you might also want to click on that link I posed. It will take you to a story where Sec. of State Rice says exactly the opposite of this boob on the network. Her opinion actually matters.

There is plenty of energy available in Iran, so tying itself to a lengthy and costly process makes little sense.

They don't have plenty of energy in Iran, they have plenty of oil. Just like with the U.S., it doesn't matter how much oil you have if there's a refinery bottleneck as they have.

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSL1490018620070619?pageNumber=2

Iran falling short of oil refining ambitions
Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:41am EDT

By Simon Webb - Analysis

DUBAI (Reuters) - Sanctions and insufficient funding are thwarting Iran's ambitious plans to nearly double domestic oil refinery capacity to end its dependency on expensive imported fuels.

Iran has the world's second largest oil reserves but lacks the refinery capacity to meet its own transport fuel demand. OPEC's second largest crude producer imports around 40 percent of its gasoline needs, which it then heavily subsidises.

The United States has said fuel imports give it potential leverage in the dispute over Tehran's nuclear programme. Washington accuses Iran of seeking to build atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

"Iran's political rhetoric is toward refining self-sufficiency to end this Achilles heel of gasoline imports," said Saad Rahim, analyst at Washington-based consultancy PFC Energy.

"But the obstacles are pretty significant. With the sanctions -- which companies would be willing to go in and build these refineries?"

U.S. sanctions forbid its companies and discourage those in other countries from investing in Iran's oil and gas sector, impeding Iran's efforts to source the technology it needs.

"Sanctions have led to limited technology transfer, higher operating costs, and a much slower pace of development," said Stuart Lewis, Middle East director at energy consultancy IHS.

Iran last year embarked on a multi-billion dollar, five-year programme to revamp and expand the refining system to 3 million barrels per day (bpd) from around 1.6 million bpd now. But analysts say state funding for the programme is inadequate.

"It is doubtful that this impressive goal will be achieved within this very tight deadline," Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) told Reuters, drawing on a report on Middle East refining capacity due to be published later this month.

The National Iranian Oil Company's (NIOC) investment budget this year -- for both upstream and downstream -- was not enough to cover the cost of one large refinery, CERA said.

"Fundamentally, there is not enough money," said Alan Gelder, vice president for Europe, Middle East and Africa downstream operations at oil consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Rising costs, as the oil and gas industry strains to bring new capacity on line to meet rising global demand, have hit refining projects throughout the world.

Wood Mackenzie estimates Iran's actual refinery capacity additions would more likely come to around 700,000 to 800,000 bpd by 2014 and would cost at least $10 billion, Gelder said.

The U.S. has piled pressure on European banks and energy firms to avoid doing business with Iran, and this was impeding Iran's efforts to find funds for the new plants, analysts said.

"The informal financial pressure linked to the nuclear issue is likely to hamper the financing of Iranian new refineries, as banks are turning down any project financing in Iran and insurance exports bodies have lowered their Iran exposure," CERA said.

Companies from energy-hungry Asia, less worried about U.S. pressure and looking to guarantee future oil supplies for fast growing economies, are participating in Iran's expansion plans.

India's Essar is in talks with NIOC to build a new $2 billion, 300,000 barrels per day plant, while China's Sinopec last year signed a deal to upgrade Iran's 170,000 bpd Arak refinery and has also upgraded plants in Tehran and Tabriz.

ORDERS, RATIONS

Iran has yet to place orders for some of the new refinery equipment that must be requested 2-3 years in advance, making any rapid increase in capacity even less likely, analysts said.

The country's domestic fuel consumption is rising at around 10 percent per year, encouraged by the subsidies that make its gasoline among the cheapest in the world.

Iran aims to launch a gasoline rationing scheme as it looks to slow demand growth.

Fuel subsidies dampen the financial incentives to build new refinery capacity, analysts said. New plants may cut dependency on expensive imports, but they would also divert potentially lucrative crude exports to domestic refineries and the subsidised market.

With NIOC's budget so limited, the state oil company would rather channel investment to the upstream sector, analysts said.

"From the financial perspective there is less incentive to do this, it is more politically driven," said PFC's Rahim. "If you're NIOC and you have a billion dollars to spend, you'd rather put it towards upstream oil output."

Still, Iran could easily increase spending on the refining sector, Rahim said. High oil prices have allowed it to boost foreign currency reserves that could be used to fund new projects.

The following details some of Iran's plans to increase refinery capacity:

Refinery Capacity Increase (bpd) Start date

Arak +100,000 expansion N/A

Bandar Abbas +248,000 expansion 2008/2010

Tabriz +110,000 expansion 2011

Bandar Abbas +360,000 new condensate splitter N/A

Bandar Abbas +300,000 new refinery N/A

Abadan +180,000 new refinery N/A

- N

You're correct, in a sense. Iran has enough energy for now, but it will need more in the future. However, starting up a nuclear program doesn't make sense. The key point of your story is this: "Still, Iran could easily increase spending on the refining sector, Rahim said. High oil prices have allowed it to boost foreign currency reserves that could be used to fund new projects." In other words, it would take less time (and probably less money) to increase the capacity to refine crude.

I say again. This isn't about fuel, it's about the bomb.

The key point of your story is this: "Still, Iran could easily increase spending on the refining sector, Rahim said. High oil prices have allowed it to boost foreign currency reserves that could be used to fund new projects." In other words, it would take less time (and probably less money) to increase the capacity to refine crude.


Or these key points:

"The National Iranian Oil Company's (NIOC) investment budget this year -- for both upstream and downstream -- was not enough to cover the cost of one large refinery, CERA said.

Iran has yet to place orders for some of the new refinery equipment that must be requested 2-3 years in advance, making any rapid increase in capacity even less likely, analysts said.

U.S. sanctions forbid its companies and discourage those in other countries from investing in Iran's oil and gas sector, impeding Iran's efforts to source the technology it needs.

"Sanctions have led to limited technology transfer, higher operating costs, and a much slower pace of development," said Stuart Lewis, Middle East director at energy consultancy IHS.

The U.S. has piled pressure on European banks and energy firms to avoid doing business with Iran, and this was impeding Iran's efforts to find funds for the new plants, analysts said.

The country's domestic fuel consumption is rising at around 10 percent per year, encouraged by the subsidies that make its gasoline among the cheapest in the world.

Iran aims to launch a gasoline rationing scheme as it looks to slow demand growth."

They don't make enough money in one year for one large refinery. New refinery equipment must also be ordered 2-3 years in advance. Most countries worth a bean aren't able to go in and build refineries for them due to sanctions. And Iran's fuel consumption is rising 10% per year where they need to start gasoline rationing in an oil-rich country.

In other words, they're screwed. We're basically manipulating Iran into the only viable means of energy they can acquire -- nuclear energy -- which is a bonus for us as we can point fingers saying they want nukes, which can give us justification to some to invade them at some later point in time.

- N

Do you think Iran is after a nuclear reactor for civilian energy or because they want the bomb?

Do you think Iran is after a nuclear reactor for civilian energy or because they want the bomb?

They have no need for the bomb. For those worried about Iran nuking Israel, they can destroy Israel with conventional arms if they ever decided to do so, but good luck with our troops stationed between them in Iraq.

Iran would need numerous nukes to even be considered a nuclear threat. Not only that, they'd need adequate missiles for em too. If you're worried about someone acquiring a nuke, not just Iran, be fearful of the black market, mainly Pakistan, even though Russia first comes to most people's minds.

Hell, be fearful of Pakistan, period. Iran should be of no concern except for the weasels in this current administration who served and failed miserably in the past during the Reagan era who want a second go in that region. Besides, we need resources and that's all what Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan is about and it's been that way since the 1950's!

Oh, but Iran supplies Iraqi insurgents with weapons, so they're a huge threat.. big whoopedy-do as we do, have done, and are doing the same thing to them right now in Iran. Besides, most of the insurgents and even arms come from our so-called ally Saudi Arabia, you know, like our so-called ally Pakistan. Don't forget, we signed a deal with Saudi Arabia to give em $20 billion worth of arms, which will surely find their way into Iraq. No better way to keep our war ongoing than to fund it ourselves.

Iran? Pssh. Pakistan? Ruh roh!

- N

Well talking with Iran has achieved little or nothing. Perhaps some gunboat diplomacy is in order. The US has refused to talk with Iran, and has confined itself to gunboat diplomacy, since 1979.

It hasn't worked very well.

Do you think Iran is after a nuclear reactor for civilian energy or because they want the bomb? Either, or both, depending on who in Iran you mean.

It wouldn't surprise me if the divide were similar to that in the US, with the technocrats (like AJ) singing the praises of nuclear power, the military guys looking for the big threat, the conservatives trusting the experts, and a bunch of wusses and liberals and "religion of peace" types saying "hey, wait a minute - - - ".

It's not so much the reactor as the fuel supply. Right now Iran is mining unranium, sending it to hostile countries for processing, and buying it back at large markup, with the constant risk of being cut off if the supplier is displeased about something.

Give some examples where the factual reporting has been wrong. The incident here is purely one man's opinion. The entire network can hardly be held accountable for him and his mantra, even if he does work for them.


Right, so Bill O reilly, Sean Hannity and all the other right wingers there, including, It's head Murdoch (who by the way made people win or lose elections) are just not part of the network ? I'm sure that if you call bill up, he'd have no problems hearing what this guy said, and would even support it.


Give me an example of a lie.

Repeatedly, its been proved that there are no links between Al qaeda and Iraq, yet fox keeps producing these lies,and now, more lies about Iran..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq9Dmoiwxo
Their very SLOGAN is a lie, "fair and balanced reporting" when all you see is right wing sources, and blatant warmongers more than any other anti war source, and of course, Bill loves cutting the mikes of the anti war source. If we can sue food companies for false advertising, why not fox ?


Which makes my point for me. Why go ahead with this if it costs money? There is plenty of energy available in Iran, so tying itself to a lengthy and costly process makes little sense. Of course you know that, and you know this entire argument is a red herring on your part. You stated above they want weapons to "balance Israel's ability," so you're acknowledging the program is for weapons, not for fuel. So we can quit wasting our time arguing about energy costs...


Oil does not provide as much energy as Nuclear Powerhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E5D81738F932A25754C0A9639482 60, And since all the advanced nations have it , why not Iran ? They want to be able to run their own nuclear reactor without being dependent on nuclear fuel for others,
So therefore they want the capability to produce fuel, which requires a consistency of something like 5 % (I'm not an expert, so it's probably off), but the ability to make fuel and the ability to make weapons grade uraniums while similar has a huge disrepancy, Weapons grade, you need at least 90 % pure uranium.


Well talking with Iran has achieved little or nothing. Perhaps some gunboat diplomacy is in order.

I'm sure you're aware FOX does not set or make US foreign policy? If you're not, I just told you. And you might also want to click on that link I posed. It will take you to a story where Sec. of State Rice says exactly the opposite of this boob on the network. Her opinion actually matters.

Right, So fox doesn't dictate foreign policy, It just parrots it from the mouth of the administration, Like it did with Iraq. Unfortunately, CNN wasn't really better off. But I'll accept that thats not the case here.