DescentBB

Gotcha.

I think he was referring to this specific case as the 'ultimate' goal.

Will Robinson wrote:Diedel you really don't know much about the subjects you try to lecture us on so what is your motive?

The new reactor deal is the idea of your very own government, mr. smarta$$, not mine. This very government agrees that it

a) cannot afford another big scale conflict
b) attacking Iran would hurt more than it would help

Any more questions, Mr. butt-in-behind?

I have one. Why do you ignore every detail I say about this? Every detail not supporting your retarded prejudices? Like e.g. point b) which I repeated just for you in the hope enough repetition would make the little go on in your 2 cell brains? Or that I would have liked to see the heck bombed out of A-dinejad, if it only made sense?

Do you have a good answer, or do you want me to explain your dumb self to you?

Before you complain about the tone of my reply, think it over, master of insult.

Btw, here is the entire story about the N.Korea deal. It looks like the U.S. didn't keep all of their part of the agreement, huh?

Rob, you really don't know much about the subjects you try to lecture me on, so what is your motive?

Diedel wrote:The new reactor deal is the idea of your very own government, mr. smarta$$, not mine. This very government agrees that it

a) cannot afford another big scale conflict
b) attacking Iran would hurt more than it would help

Any more questions, Mr. butt-in-behind?

I have one. Why do you ignore every detail I say about this?

I never said it wasn't part of an offer we made or one that was made by Russia etc. !!
I said it was a bad idea and told you why!
You haven't offered anything to refute that.
It was a bad idea to give it to N.Korea and it's a bad idea to just give it to Iran.
If they want to go along with the sanctions and inspections that we wanted to include in the deal it might be worth it to us but they won't go along with that and we knew that going in, it's just posturing.

The truth is they will weaponize anything they can so they too can carry the big nuclear stick, we know it and they know it. You apparantly don't know it or are willing to give it to them anyway, either way it makes you look like a fool.

You said:

Diedel wrote:Just look at Iran: It is better to offer them advanced nuclear tech (of a kind that can be used for peaceful purposes, but not for creating enriched, weapon-capable uranium) than have them build their own bomb ...

and you were wrong because there is no nuclear reactor tech that can power a country but can't be used for weapons! Now you can keep changing the debate until you find something to be right about but please don't try to rewrite what I said to fit your new argument, just move on. Keep arguing semantics over the methods vs motives for crying out loud, at least there you have plenty of grey areas for you to hide in.

There's reactor types that easily lend themselves for it, and others don't. You can't deny that, as little as the fact that the U.S. is offering the latter kind.

Diedel wrote:There's reactor types that easily lend themselves for it, and others don't. You can't deny that, as little as the fact that the U.S. is offering the latter kind.

I guess that all depends on what the definition of is is doesn't it?
Nevermind Diedel, you just go on believing the islamikazi's won't process the fuel rods from the reactors that 'don't easily lend themselves for it' and remove the plutonium to make weapons... or just chop a few of the fuel rods up as they are and pack them around a truck load of nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel. Go ahead, keep whistling past that graveyard.