CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[Penelope]

Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.

What chemical weapons did the USA supply to Iraq and why would the USA be motivated to murder kurds? There
is no question that the USA used poor judgement in not
killing Saddam way back circa 1980 ----there was plenty of
evidence of his atrocities and his support of terrorism
For those who do not know----alkylating agents are important
in the making of ----medications important in fighting cancer---
but they are also useful in making chemical agents for warfare---
Supplying with chemicals---has an onerous ring------Penelope has
told us that Iran wants NUCLEAR REACTORS simply to make
medicines (uhm.......dumbest thing I have read all year)

No never did, although I'm sure they will at some time want 20% for isotopes, but for now its mainly for nuclear power. Iran is a large country.

 

[alpine]

Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.

What chemical weapons did the USA supply to Iraq and why would the USA be motivated to murder kurds? There
is no question that the USA used poor judgement in not
killing Saddam way back circa 1980 ----there was plenty of
evidence of his atrocities and his support of terrorism
For those who do not know----alkylating agents are important
in the making of ----medications important in fighting cancer---
but they are also useful in making chemical agents for warfare---
Supplying with chemicals---has an onerous ring------Penelope has
told us that Iran wants NUCLEAR REACTORS simply to make
medicines (uhm.......dumbest thing I have read all year)

1. You did not know Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran
2. You did not know Iran could have retaliated the same way but did not

And yet you claim to have a legit point of view on this subject.

But in fact, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, this is a free country, if anybody wants to hear your misinformed point of view, they sure have the right to do so, but please, spare us of this nonsense....




Iraq s Chemical Warfare Program Central Intelligence Agency
Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran Foreign Policy
CIA helped Saddam Hussein make chemical weapons attack on Iran 1988 under Ronald Reagan Daily Mail Online

 

[irosie91]

Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.

What chemical weapons did the USA supply to Iraq and why would the USA be motivated to murder kurds? There
is no question that the USA used poor judgement in not
killing Saddam way back circa 1980 ----there was plenty of
evidence of his atrocities and his support of terrorism
For those who do not know----alkylating agents are important
in the making of ----medications important in fighting cancer---
but they are also useful in making chemical agents for warfare---
Supplying with chemicals---has an onerous ring------Penelope has
told us that Iran wants NUCLEAR REACTORS simply to make
medicines (uhm.......dumbest thing I have read all year)

1. You did not know Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran
2. You did not know Iran could have retaliated the same way but did not

And yet you claim to have a legit point of view on this subject.

But in fact, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, this is a free country, if anybody wants to hear your misinformed point of view, they sure have the right to do so, but please, spare us of this nonsense....




Iraq s Chemical Warfare Program Central Intelligence Agency
Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran Foreign Policy
CIA helped Saddam Hussein make chemical weapons attack on Iran 1988 under Ronald Reagan Daily Mail Online

the available information that I find on the net that IRAN COULD HAVE RETALIATED is obviously all conjecture----no solid evidence---
in fact the information was to the "chemical weapons" is entirely vague-----the "US GAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS" to Iraq is , simply,
not true. The US supplied Iraq with chemicals that had multiuses.
Iraq CHOSE to used them to make weapons. Chlorox can be used for laundry------OR for making chlorine bombs Alkylating agents can be used to make meds for cancer OR for nitrogen mustard gas and nitrogen based fertilizers can be used ON THE FARM or to make car bombs

 

[irosie91]

Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.

What chemical weapons did the USA supply to Iraq and why would the USA be motivated to murder kurds? There
is no question that the USA used poor judgement in not
killing Saddam way back circa 1980 ----there was plenty of
evidence of his atrocities and his support of terrorism
For those who do not know----alkylating agents are important
in the making of ----medications important in fighting cancer---
but they are also useful in making chemical agents for warfare---
Supplying with chemicals---has an onerous ring------Penelope has
told us that Iran wants NUCLEAR REACTORS simply to make
medicines (uhm.......dumbest thing I have read all year)

No never did, although I'm sure they will at some time want 20% for isotopes, but for now its mainly for nuclear power. Iran is a large country.

you are "sure" ? I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----
YOUR HOSPITAL HAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR???? Iran got lots of oil. Nuclear energy would be of no value to Iran. If you are a real health care worker (yeah right) --go to the radio isotopes department and ask to see the NUCLEAR REACTOR

 

[Penelope]

Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.

What chemical weapons did the USA supply to Iraq and why would the USA be motivated to murder kurds? There
is no question that the USA used poor judgement in not
killing Saddam way back circa 1980 ----there was plenty of
evidence of his atrocities and his support of terrorism
For those who do not know----alkylating agents are important
in the making of ----medications important in fighting cancer---
but they are also useful in making chemical agents for warfare---
Supplying with chemicals---has an onerous ring------Penelope has
told us that Iran wants NUCLEAR REACTORS simply to make
medicines (uhm.......dumbest thing I have read all year)

No never did, although I'm sure they will at some time want 20% for isotopes, but for now its mainly for nuclear power. Iran is a large country.

you are "sure" ? I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----
YOUR HOSPITAL HAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR???? Iran got lots of oil. Nuclear energy would be of no value to Iran. If you are a real health care worker (yeah right) --go to the radio isotopes department and ask to see the NUCLEAR REACTOR

For now they will have nuclear power BUT the real big news is the sanctions are being lifted.

 

[mamooth]

I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----

Of course reactors are used to make medical isotopes. Nuclear reactors in Chalk Ridge, Ontario, Oak Ridge, TN and Idaho Falls, ID are the source of some of our medical isotopes. Other isotopes are made in particle accelerators.at the Brookhaven and Los Alamos labs.

YOUR HOSPITAL HAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR????

Isotopes can be moved from the processing center to the hospital, you know.

Anyways, this is a done deal. Whatever the Senate does, enough Democrats in the House have already declared solidarity with Obama, enough to sustain his veto.

 

[irosie91]

I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----

Of course reactors are used to make medical isotopes. Nuclear reactors in Chalk Ridge, Ontario, Oak Ridge, TN and Idaho Falls, ID are the source of some of our medical isotopes. Other isotopes are made in particle accelerators.at the Brookhaven and Los Alamos labs.

YOUR HOSPITAL HAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR????

Isotopes can be moved from the processing center to the hospital, you know.

Anyways, this is a done deal. Whatever the Senate does, enough Democrats in the House have already declared solidarity with Obama, enough to sustain his veto.

wrong again-----a nuclear reactor is not a cyclotron---did you pass
high school physics? I can help----I got some of the most stupid kids
thru high school plane geometry------long ago ---when I was in college.-------It helped pay my way----I charged $4 per hour-----uhm---it was in the 1970s. One does not need a NUCLEAR REACTOR to make the isotopes used in medicine

 

[mamooth]

I've operated nuclear reactors. I know the difference.

And by the way, if you're trying to pull off the condescending act successfully, it helps not to be completely wrong.

Let me now provide you with some helpful reading materials to dispel your confusion. You're welcome.

https://isotopes.gov/outreach/reports/Medical_Isotope_Production_Use.pdf

 

[irosie91]

I've operated nuclear reactors. I know the difference.

And by the way, if you're trying to pull off the condescending act successfully, it helps not to be completely wrong.

Let me now provide you with some helpful reading materials to dispel your confusion. You're welcome.

https://isotopes.gov/outreach/reports/Medical_Isotope_Production_Use.pdf

big deal----you are a NUKE tech-----so is my son. I have dealt DIRECTLY with medical isotopes for the past 40 years

 

[irosie91]

sorry---make that 45 years

I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----

Of course reactors are used to make medical isotopes. Nuclear reactors in Chalk Ridge, Ontario, Oak Ridge, TN and Idaho Falls, ID are the source of some of our medical isotopes. Other isotopes are made in particle accelerators.at the Brookhaven and Los Alamos labs.

YOUR HOSPITAL HAS A NUCLEAR REACTOR????

Isotopes can be moved from the processing center to the hospital, you know.

Anyways, this is a done deal. Whatever the Senate does, enough Democrats in the House have already declared solidarity with Obama, enough to sustain his veto.

Particle accelerators are not NUCLEAR REACTORS----think ***CYCLOTRONS**** Iran does not seek nuclear reactors to make
medical isotopes-----they want a BOMB-----as far as I am concerned----the SOONER THE BETTER--------their having a bomb will destroy them

 

[mamooth]

big deal----you are a NUKE tech-----so is my son. I have dealt DIRECTLY with medical isotopes for the past 40 years

And that gives you zero knowledge on how they're made.

Let's once more go to the source you're ignoring.

https://isotopes.gov/outreach/reports/Medical_Isotope_Production_Use.pdf

Note pages 8-9-10, where they specifically name the nuclear reactors used to make isotopes, and the specific isotopes made by nuclear reactors. Is it your contention that the US government was lying in that 2009 presentation?

 

[irosie91]

Iraq used the chemical weapons supplied by the US. The deal is a good deal and one that has been a long time coming. Just really hope Israel and the Saudis do not mess up and pull their false flags, terrorist attacks.

you never told me that nature of the chemical weapons that the USA gave to Iraq for use against the Iranians-----Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia engage in "false flag attacks"-------except for one action----in which Israel engaged in a completely harmless prank against Egypt----more than about 70 years ago-----since that time tens of thosuands of children lie dead in the gutters of the Levant ---murdered by your side for no reason at all except for your pleasure and that of your fellows.
You have a very odd sense of proportion. Now tell me more about those false flag things-----it will rain heavily tomorrow----obviously a ZIONIST OPERATION. There is a very unfortunate outbreak of CHOLERA in Yemen-----obviously a ZIONIST OPERATION
-----obviously a ZIONIST CONSPIRACY

 

[irosie91]

big deal----you are a NUKE tech-----so is my son. I have dealt DIRECTLY with medical isotopes for the past 40 years

And that gives you zero knowledge on how they're made.

Let's once more go to the source you're ignoring.

https://isotopes.gov/outreach/reports/Medical_Isotope_Production_Use.pdf

Note pages 8-9-10, where they specifically name the nuclear reactors used to make isotopes, and the specific isotopes made by nuclear reactors. Is it your contention that the US government was lying in that 2009 presentation?

It is my CORRECT contention that nuclear reactors using enriched unranium are completely unnecessary in the making of radio-isotopes
used in medical practice-----either medicinally or diagnostically. Your citation is a piece of propaganda in support of the PRESENCE of
nuclear reactors-----"down the block----near the nursery school. I do not object. That there are useful by products of US nuclear reactors------fine with me------but suggesting that an enriched uranium fueled nuclear reactor is NECESSARY for such production ------is not true

 

[mamooth]

It is my CORRECT contention that nuclear reactors using enriched unranium are completely unnecessary in the making of radio-isotopes used in medical practice-----

A contention you haven't backed up in any way. Don't worry, nobody has noticed.

Now, I do see some fine frantic backpedaling.

Your initial claim was "I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----"

And after I conclusively showed otherwise, you retreated to claiming reactors aren't the only way.

The point we've moved away from is Iran. Reactors are often used to make medical isotopes. That is a proven fact. So if Iran claims it would be useful for them to have that capability, that is a reasonable claim. Especially as Iran is kind of lacking in particle accelerators.

 

[irosie91]

It is my CORRECT contention that nuclear reactors using enriched unranium are completely unnecessary in the making of radio-isotopes used in medical practice-----

A contention you haven't backed up in any way. Don't worry, nobody has noticed.

Now, I do see some fine frantic backpedaling.

Your initial claim was "I got news-----you don't use NUCLEAR REACTORS to make the isotopes used in medical practice----"

And after I conclusively showed otherwise, you retreated to claiming reactors aren't the only way.

The point we've moved away is Iran. Reactors are often used to make medical isotopes. That is a proven fact. So if Iran claims it would be useful for them to have that capability, that is a reasonable claim. Especially as Iran is kind of lacking in particle accelerators.

LOL---you accuse ME of "BACK TRACKING"----that did I do ? I said
"you don't use..." instead of 'YOU DON't HAVE TO USE'-----ok ---it would have been more accurate to say ---"YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE....."-----as to particle accelerators-------don't worry-----no one noticed that you are desperately trying to INSIST that a particle accelerator is THE SAME THING AS A NUCLEAR REACTOR ---using enriched uranium. For those out there------the notion that Iran NEEDS nuclear reactors for medical purposes is filthy islamo Nazi shit propaganda -----which mammooth is DESPERATE that you believe. -----and I own a bridge in Brooklyn-----for sale and Saddam Hussein devoted his chemical plants and nascent nuclear reactors to the making of "baby formula"

 

[mamooth]

My secondary point here would be that opponents of the Iran deal tend to be irrational. I don't think there's any question about that now. My work is done.

 

[irosie91]

My secondary point here would be that opponents of the Iran deal tend to be irrational. I don't think there's any question about that now. My work is done.

you top off your misinformation with a baseless ASSERTION. I am not particularly against the IRAN deal other than the fact that I do not
believe that sanctions should be lifted entirely-----MOSTLY in view of the FACT that Iran is fomenting brutal conflict RIGHT NOW---thurout
the Levant------tens of thosuands already dead----and hundreds of thousands- ----displaced and in very miserable condition-----BECAUSE OF IRAN. Also Iran supports, funds, and galvanizes world wide terrorism. ----------and now the rest of the world is going
to HELP Iran continue and MAGNIFY the program--------It is not all bad. I am safe and my family is generally
safe--------but unlike you, I do not dance on the dead bodies of children and consider those who don't "irrational". Every theory requires a "proof"----the proof is-------"can one make a prediction based on the theory" -------I am going to make a prediction based on
MY theory. >>>> The violence in Yemen will increase and Iran
will attempt to get control of ADEN and block the strait of Hormuz----AND to galvanize violence against Saudi Arabia<<<< as a result of the "NUKE DEAL" Keep an eye on the PORT CITY OF TAIZ

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I am posting my first thread for the same reason I joined this online forum. I am not a politician, nor do I know any, and I am too young for anyone who does not personally know me to give any thought to my arguments. For this reason, I turned to the internet, where everyone’s view will be given consideration (at least by the intelligent, rational people). I believe that the best way for me to help the world before I reach what I like to call “the age of perceived credibility” is for me to clearly and fully explain issues which are often oversimplified and manipulated by bureaucrats in an attempt not necessarily to win people over to my side (although when I am confident that I have a good answer/solution concerning to an issue, that will be the goal), but to get people to think more deeply about world issues rather than blindly accepting what the party they have aligned themselves with says. The first issue I would like to discuss is the new agreement made between the US and Iran, as it has been a topic of much debate for quite some time, and will most certainly be an important issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Please let me know what you think in the comments. I am open minded and willing to consider any and all points of view, no matter how ridiculous they seem superficially. Now enough exposition, and on to the essay.


This new deal has been getting quite a bit of backlash from the right, most notably the republicans in the US and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most critics of the agreement say that this deal only gives Iran more money to advance its nuclear program, fund terrorist groups, and stir up trouble in the Middle East. Assuming that this is what will happen, the deal is obviously counterproductive. But alas, there lies the quintessential dilemma. I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

This agreement with Iran will not, as many people claim to believe, cause Iran to put more money into their nuclear program and fund more terrorist groups. If the Iranian government and people saw this as “finally escaping from the crushing weight of the westerner’s sanctions”, this would surely be the case. But Iran is not a country of radical religious zealots, but rather a country of people eager and ready to join the modern world who see it instead as “a new chance to cooperate with the west”. The only people who oversimplify the agreement and say that all it does is give Iran more money to stir up trouble are the far-right republicans who rely on painting everything any democrat does as bad in order to get votes. Their voters are the ignorant people who are willing to believe anything they are told. DO NOT fall into this trap.

This deal will also reduce terrorism. The main cause of terrorism is desperation. People who are impoverished, starving, and oppressed often feel that it is the only option left. Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber. This is another issue often oversimplified by manipulative, bureaucratic politicians. They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism. While it is hard to make sure that financial aid gets to the people, it is still something that needs to be done. This deal will also keep the Iranian government from funding terrorist groups. The reason many small, marginalized countries support terrorism is because they feel that it is the only way to be heard by larger nations. If Iran is given a chance to join the world community, which it has with this agreement, it will not feel the need to resort to such extreme measures.

The last and easiest to disprove criticism against the deal is that it will be easy for Iran to cheat. It just simply is not. Radioactive materials are very hard to hide, and nearly impossible to cover traces of. Unless all inspection teams forget to bring even a basic Geiger counter, it will be impossible to cheat. I don’t even need to go into how easy it would be to know if any weapons were tested.


This concludes my first essay. I apologize if the quality is not the best, but I wrote it between 1:00 and 2:30 am, so it is not my best work. The next essay I plan on releasing is one I have already written about the link between the poverty and education crises within America. Please let me know if you would like me to post it.

Well done.

"Nobody with a steady job, clean house, and healthy family decides to become a suicide bomber."

This might be a little tricky however, considering a lot of people from the west with nice homes and jobs joining to ISIS. But if this was the concern of the right wingers, they should have been asking for sanctions on Saudi Arabia, before asking sanctions on Iran. But they don't. And this is their hypocrisy.

I see Iran being much more progressive, and much more suitable to integrate west, comparing to Saudi Arabia. And yet, US supports Saudis with every possible way, while sanctioning Iran.

US should not be a tool in the Sunni-Shia conflict. I think Obama is making the right move here, lets hope Iranians take this as an opportunity to bring peace to their country, rather then an opportunity to cheat.

With Ahmedinejad and his dirty "deep state" being removed from power, I think this has a pretty good chance for success...

by lots, you mean about .0000003 percent of the population.

but other than that I agree.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

My secondary point here would be that opponents of the Iran deal tend to be irrational. I don't think there's any question about that now. My work is done.

you top off your misinformation with a baseless ASSERTION. I am not particularly against the IRAN deal other than the fact that I do not
believe that sanctions should be lifted entirely-----MOSTLY in view of the FACT that Iran is fomenting brutal conflict RIGHT NOW---thurout
the Levant------tens of thosuands already dead----and hundreds of thousands- ----displaced and in very miserable condition-----BECAUSE OF IRAN. Also Iran supports, funds, and galvanizes world wide terrorism. ----------and now the rest of the world is going
to HELP Iran continue and MAGNIFY the program--------It is not all bad. I am safe and my family is generally
safe--------but unlike you, I do not dance on the dead bodies of children and consider those who don't "irrational". Every theory requires a "proof"----the proof is-------"can one make a prediction based on the theory" -------I am going to make a prediction based on
MY theory. >>>> The violence in Yemen will increase and Iran
will attempt to get control of ADEN and block the strait of Hormuz----AND to galvanize violence against Saudi Arabia<<<< as a result of the "NUKE DEAL" Keep an eye on the PORT CITY OF TAIZ

is there ANYONE out there who can explain why some people ----including Obama have either CLEARLY stated or strongly implied that
the ratification of the "NUKE DEAL" is NECESSARY TO AVERT WAR?

I am also interested in knowing why such people also either clearly state or strongly imply that the reason Israel or 'zionists' reject the "NUKE DEAL" with Iran is because they want there to be a war between Iran and the USA. I see no reason at all that a rejection of the NUKE deal will cause a war between the USA and Iran

I think the reason Israel and in particular Zionists are looking to null this deal is simply because they want the Israel-Palestine conflict to go on, at least for a while, rather than to come to an end. Because as long as there is conflict, Israel can hold on to the land, and grab it day by day.

If Israelis want any peace in their land, this is an opportunity to take. Netanyahu, not so long ago, was alarming the UN, claiming Iran would get nukes in a year, and now with this deal, Obama postponed that for 10 years, and he is still not happy.

I think Israeli right wing is just as hypocrite as US right wing. They could have at least said: "Thank you for buying us another 10 years. At least with the Iranian 'right winger' Ahmedinejad removed from power, they they will have a chance to behave before we decide to obliterate them"

Or a simple "Thank You" would do it...

But I guess, right wing is a right wing, regardless...........

its not worth trying to have an intelligent debate with irosie97. you can see for yourself if you want, but I would suggest that you don't waste your time.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

school has started for me, and I am going to be very busy, as I get home from cross country practice at about 6 pm and than have at least 2 hours of homework from about 50,000 AP classes, so I wont be able to post during the school week, and most likely not on the weekends, either (that's when teachers like to assign surprise essays). i'll be on and respond to comments when I can, but it wont be often, and definitely don't expect any new threads.