Obama: Iran has a "right" to nuclear energy

[del]

Now where did you get that idea, honey?

probably from obama, sweetie.

"To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy – solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"

i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
probably a typo.

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy

Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, “I don’t think that nuclear power is a panacea” for America’s energy problems.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama says in his energy plan. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.

yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from his web site.
i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.

 

[elvis]

Are you really stupid enough to suggest that end of days christians arent basing their support of isreal on the SOLE impression that such is an indication of the LAST DAYS? For real, dude. Your willingness to disregard reality only proves how similar zionism is to nazi'ism.

Of course they are, which has nothing to do with what a-jad said.

It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen. I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.

1. just started a hagee thread.
2. I didn't get the A-jad from a christian site. I got it from one of the top terrorism experts in the nation, one who is scared to death of having Netanyahou and A-jad on the stage at the same time. He says BOTH of them are dangerous.

 

[Shogun]

What's to stop them from weaponizing once they have that energy? The energy they want puts them extremely close to weapons capability.

the same thing that kept the US and USSR from nuking the planet. Mutually assured destruction. say, jew, how often do you think israel will rattle a sabre after it knows it's ass can get nuked on par with the threats it sends out? Works both ways.

1. I'm not Jewish.
2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad. It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.

1. you act like a zionist jew.
2. Indeed, we SEE israel wiping a nation of palis off the fucking map as we speak. And, you can't refresh the Jpost daily without reading an article about a military strike in iran so I don't know what the fuck you are even trying to stand on.
3. Your opinion is noted and added to the rest of the TP that will wipe my ass this afternoon. You don't know that man OR his culture beyond looking for any reason to attack. Ironically. Hell, I could say the exact same thing about nukes in isrea, or JUKES if you will, and you'd fall on your knees defending jews.. DESPITE every article EVERY DAY calling to attack iran in the Jpost.

 

[Gurdari]

Well, what is the actual position of Iran's supreme THEOCRATIC leadership?

And who says Iran wants to wipe anyone off the map? I hope you're not referring to the quote 'Zionist occupation should be wiped from the pages of history' (that was actually mis-translated by the Iranians but that was clarified soon after) Ahmadinejad quoted from an earlier leader (Khomeini maybe).

Of course he is. It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days. It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.

Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.

Well, denying the holocaust may be offensive, but it is far from launching WW3... plus, it seems ahmadinejad has said 'if it happened, why should Palestinians pay the price, why not people in Europe' or things like 'if it happened, let's study it more and see what really happened' or whatever - which may be quite offensive to some people, and more of a quest for more information to others. Really though, he seems pre-disposed to caustic sound bites, but regardless - that shouldn't let others let their analytical guard down just because HE may be offensive. If he wants to invite people to discuss the holocaust, and he phrases it in offensive terms - don't like him. Most people don't.

There are plenty of offensive words that come out of leaders mouths, and making a reference to 'taking out' locations in another country, or threatening to nuke them is ILLEGAL - and offensive, and literally about visiting violence and destruction on someone. I'd say that is worse.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Of course he is. It's the fucking soundbyte that gives zionists wood these days. It's like a fucking coupon for muslim death, really.

Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.

Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen? I look forward to your evidence.

what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda. Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

 

[elvis]

the same thing that kept the US and USSR from nuking the planet. Mutually assured destruction. say, jew, how often do you think israel will rattle a sabre after it knows it's ass can get nuked on par with the threats it sends out? Works both ways.

1. I'm not Jewish.
2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad. It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.

1. you act like a zionist jew.
2. Indeed, we SEE israel wiping a nation of palis off the fucking map as we speak. And, you can't refresh the Jpost daily without reading an article about a military strike in iran so I don't know what the fuck you are even trying to stand on.
3. Your opinion is noted and added to the rest of the TP that will wipe my ass this afternoon. You don't know that man OR his culture beyond looking for any reason to attack. Ironically. Hell, I could say the exact same thing about nukes in isrea, or JUKES if you will, and you'd fall on your knees defending jews.. DESPITE every article EVERY DAY calling to attack iran in the Jpost.

What exactly is the Jew post?

 

[Shogun]

Of course they are, which has nothing to do with what a-jad said.

It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen. I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.

1. just started a hagee thread.
2. I didn't get the A-jad from a christian site. I got it from one of the top terrorism experts in the nation, one who is scared to death of having Netanyahou and A-jad on the stage at the same time. He says BOTH of them are dangerous.

HA! Oliver fucking NORTH? Any other talking head "terrorism expert"? Give me a fucking break. These same assholes had your type convinced that Saddam was minutes away from launching too.

But, I do find it funny how you only seem to call for demonizing iran and not bibi.. telling. quite.

 

[elvis]

It has EVERYTING to do with it as long as your big giant panty twist remains that A-jad is a religious nutter hellbent on armaghedoen. I sure don't see you shedding Hagee attention despite the root of their support.

1. just started a hagee thread.
2. I didn't get the A-jad from a christian site. I got it from one of the top terrorism experts in the nation, one who is scared to death of having Netanyahou and A-jad on the stage at the same time. He says BOTH of them are dangerous.

HA! Oliver fucking NORTH? Any other talking head "terrorism expert"? Give me a fucking break. These same assholes had your type convinced that Saddam was minutes away from launching too.

But, I do find it funny how you only seem to call for demonizing iran and not bibi.. telling. quite.

Wasn't Ollie north, good try, though. and this guy was against the Iraq War from DAY ONE.

 

[Newby]

uh, who is banning nukes here in the US? I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor. Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor! Why must you say dumb shit?

No ban; just no development of new reactors in how many years? 30 or more?

google is your friend. I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but... I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.

Nuclear power

New Nuclear Construction

Nuclear power’s future share in electricity generation will decline if there are no new orders. The nuclear power industry presently has no commitments to build new reactors. The TVA has announced that by 2007 it hopes to bring Browns Ferry-1 back into operation. That reactor has been closed since 1985. The TVA also has three partially completed reactors for which construction licenses are either active or for which extended licenses are being sought. Three firms also plan to apply for early site permits, though such permits are not commitments to build. Nonetheless the business environment has not encouraged power plant construction of any type by any firm during 2002-03. Nuclear plants are no exception.

There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.

A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.

The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.

The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlook’s conclusion under this “advanced nuclear cost case” is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.

Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plant’s life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear power’s task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks.

 

[MaggieMae]

can you spell development? try it sometime before you address me as "lamebrain" it helps make yer case! cupcake!

Ohhhhh, nanner nanner nanner, from the schoolgirl bully.

poor little lefty,, being bullied by a right winger.. oh boo fucking hoo!

Your bullying is an unfortunate trait only YOU should be worried about--not who you direct it at. I couldn't care less. My concern is that illiterates like you exist and actually believe you contribute something worthy to a conversation.

 

[Shogun]

Gimme your best spin on holocaust denial, too.

Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen? I look forward to your evidence.

what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda. Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...

Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation. If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...


but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?

 

[Shogun]

1. I'm not Jewish.
2. Has Israel said it wants to wipe Iran off the map?
3. MADD doesn't work with people like A-jad. It may work with the Mullahs, we have to hope it does.

1. you act like a zionist jew.
2. Indeed, we SEE israel wiping a nation of palis off the fucking map as we speak. And, you can't refresh the Jpost daily without reading an article about a military strike in iran so I don't know what the fuck you are even trying to stand on.
3. Your opinion is noted and added to the rest of the TP that will wipe my ass this afternoon. You don't know that man OR his culture beyond looking for any reason to attack. Ironically. Hell, I could say the exact same thing about nukes in isrea, or JUKES if you will, and you'd fall on your knees defending jews.. DESPITE every article EVERY DAY calling to attack iran in the Jpost.

What exactly is the Jew post?

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

 

[DavidS]

Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation... holy SHIT! It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.

That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.

Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)

Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.

In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.

Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.

Iran's GDP is $842 billion.

Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.

Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.

Iran? 1.648 million sq km.

That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.

In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.

Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.

If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.

There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.

 

[MaggieMae]

Course they do obamalama course they do! that's how we know ya love us the good ole usa so damn much innit???

More jibberish from lamebrain. No one has EVER claimed that Iran did not have the right to pursue nuclear energy developmet.

Clearly, you don't read the Jpost.

Huh? What is a "Jpost"?? I'm responding to her absurd claim that Obama has said Iran can develop nuclear energy, but the U.S. cannot. He said no such thing.

The Associated Press: Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

 

[Shogun]

No ban; just no development of new reactors in how many years? 30 or more?

google is your friend. I realize that reality may play tricks on your standard issue bullshit but... I guess it's a good thing I posted evidence.

Nuclear power

New Nuclear Construction

Nuclear power’s future share in electricity generation will decline if there are no new orders. The nuclear power industry presently has no commitments to build new reactors. The TVA has announced that by 2007 it hopes to bring Browns Ferry-1 back into operation. That reactor has been closed since 1985. The TVA also has three partially completed reactors for which construction licenses are either active or for which extended licenses are being sought. Three firms also plan to apply for early site permits, though such permits are not commitments to build. Nonetheless the business environment has not encouraged power plant construction of any type by any firm during 2002-03. Nuclear plants are no exception.

There are several reasons why there are no firm plans to build new nuclear power reactors. First among these in the short term is that many if not most regions of the Nation presently have surplus baseload generating capacity. There are exceptions to this conclusion. California imports much of its base load electricity needs but also effectively discourages new production from the typical base load power sources, coal and nuclear. This short term base load surplus must be worked off before any new nuclear construction can be seriously considered.

A longer-term reason why no nuclear power has been built is that the capital costs of building a new nuclear power plant have historically been high. There are also considerable financial costs and risks related to the long construction periods in the industry. The last completed nuclear reactor, Watts Bar-1, took 24 years to complete. There has been a history of regulatory uncertainty. The extreme case is the Shoreham plant on Long Island that was essentially completed before it was decided that it would not be allowed to operate. Policy issues such as spent fuel disposal methods, liability insurance questions, and overall safety concerns on the part of the public have also adversely affected nuclear construction.

The nuclear power industry and its promoters are addressing each of these issues. Prospective builders now promise lower costs. Regulatory processes are now better specified and, when possible, implemented early and consistently in the decision process. Financial risk, construction periods, waste disposal, and safety are now being handled in more direct and organized manners. Difficulties with public acceptance remain but are hard to gauge.

The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projects in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. This projection is a reference scenario that functions as a mid-term forecast under current laws and regulations. The EIA also examined a scenario where the costs of nuclear construction were lowered to a level that some vendors say they will achieve after first of a kind engineering and financing difficulties are worked out. The Annual Energy Outlook’s conclusion under this “advanced nuclear cost case” is that additional nuclear power capacity would come on line if cost targets are reached.

Are the changes in the nuclear power industry enough to make a difference in its future? There are still no new orders. Thus in the short term recent achievements are not enough. Getting new orders is the challenge that the nuclear industry must still meet if it wishes to expand. Most of the risks in building nuclear power plants must be faced early in the plant’s life cycle. A fossil fuel plant faces its greatest risks, uncertain demand and fuel prices, after the plant begins operation. This will discourage nuclear power investment when other anticipated costs are comparable. Nuclear power’s task remains controlling its risks better than competing fuels control their risks.

I posted my evidence. If you think The Tribune is lying about what you found in wiki then go ahead and shoot Ameren UE and email.

 

[DavidS]

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

starting to waiver on supporting Obama, there David?

On foreign policy?

Yes.

On domestic?

No.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Can you quote me suggesting that the holocast didn't happen? I look forward to your evidence.

what I CAN prove to you is that the quote you seem to be depending on was, in fact, a total mistranslation used as nothing more than ironic propaganda. Why don't you go ahead and post YOUR evidence of that quote so that I can have lots of fun dancing on your face and laughing at you with the ACTUAL translation.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

Last I recall the denial of the holocaust doesn't indicate that anyone wants to wipe jews off the map...

Indeed, I agree that we should correct the giant fuck up created post ww2 since we see what ZIONISM produces - racist segregation. If this is the big scary bone iran hs with israel then perhaps you should ask yourself why israel, a supposed western style democracy, won't allow the same equality to palis as jews enjoy in the US in order to deflate this tension...


but, you don't want to speculate that far when demonizing and, ironically, pouncing on a muslim nation just feels better to you, eh?

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

 

[Shogun]

Maybe *GASP* Iran does have as much energy aspirations as any other nation... holy SHIT! It's almost as if someone required the US to use up all of it's oil as an excuse not to allow us nuclear power... oh wait.. that didn't happen.

That this story conveys more than the typical blind zionist hardline "I wanna kill some iranians" slant makes my day.

Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)

Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.

In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.

Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.

Iran's GDP is $842 billion.

Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.

Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.

Iran? 1.648 million sq km.

That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.

In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.

Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.

If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.

There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave. Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.

 

[Gurdari]

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

The first quote seems pretty clear to me that he is saying the holocaust was a myth... unless, in translation he means they embellished or added myth-making (as in grandiose, not 'untruth') to the actual facts? I really don't know. I'd have to see more of this in context.

The second quote as for asking the 'West' (hey - I'm from there) to remove what they created - what exactly does he mean? The didn't create people, or land... just borders and a political entity (a nation). If my goal is a ONE state solution with everyone living in sweet loving peace and sharing and caring under a nation named 'Home' in Aramaic - well, technically that also means 'wiping Israel off the map' just like East Germany was wiped off the map - and Czechoslovakia...

 

[rhodescholar]

What common ground is there for a state that wants to wipe Israel off the map?

The responses of so many clueless morons on this board is amazing. You have all of these "america firsters", who demand that the US not fight iran since they believe it would be a war on behalf of israel - BUT - don't care to mention that it has been iran who has been killing large numbers of US troops in iraq for 5 years now.

Why does iran get a pass for murdering americans in iraq?

Regardless of whether one believes the iraq war was justified, it does NOT give iran the right to attack US troops there trying to midwife the new iraqi government.

That thought doesn't even include the 241 murdered US marines in beirut by iran in april 1983, the 83 diplomats murdered in beirut in october 1983, or the dozens, if not hundreds, of american citizens murdered in israel through iranian-proxy suicide bombings.