Conquer Club

saxitoxin wrote:

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

Kind of the point of the thread, no?

Is the pressure working?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

Kind of the point of the thread, no?

Uh ... that was your quote.

Anyway, why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

Kind of the point of the thread, no?

Uh ... that was your quote.

Anyway, why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?

It was a quote from an article I posted, but no- not a quote from me.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

Kind of the point of the thread, no?

Uh ... that was your quote.

Anyway, why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?

It was a quote from an article I posted, but no- not a quote from me.

splitting hairs there sym... careful not to make them asymmetric

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

Kind of the point of the thread, no?

Uh ... that was your quote.

Anyway, why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?

It was a quote from an article I posted, but no- not a quote from me.

splitting hairs there sym... careful not to make them asymmetric

Difficult not to split hairs in a response to such a loaded question.

"Why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?"

Seriously?

How would you have responded?

Symmetry wrote:Difficult not to split hairs in a response to such a loaded question.

"Why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?"

Seriously?

How would you have responded?

I'm military, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on iranians

Symmetry wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
It was a quote from an article I posted, but no- not a quote from me.

splitting hairs there sym... careful not to make them asymmetric

Difficult not to split hairs in a response to such a loaded question.

"Why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?"

Seriously?

How would you have responded?

That's a loaded question. FP never said he hates Iranian cancer patients.

fadedpsychosis wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Difficult not to split hairs in a response to such a loaded question.

"Why do you hate Iranian cancer patients?"

Seriously?

How would you have responded?

I'm military, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on iranians

Fair enough, I did my level best to respond to Saxi's determined efforts to derail the thread, and keep things on topic. He ain't a big fan of Israel or Britain.

So how does one deal with the unintended consequences of curbing Iran's ability to treat cancer patients?

Shall this be ignored? Shall the facts be disputed?

BigBallinStalin wrote:So how does one deal with the unintended consequences of curbing Iran's ability to treat cancer patients?

Shall this be ignored? Shall the facts be disputed?

are you saying uranium enrichment is the only way of getting cancer treatment in iran? what about other, non nuclear based treatment options? what about weapons grade enriched nuclear material? are you saying they need that too? wouldn't that be counter productive, considering weapons grade uranium is more likely to cause cancer that treat it?

fadedpsychosis wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So how does one deal with the unintended consequences of curbing Iran's ability to treat cancer patients?

Shall this be ignored? Shall the facts be disputed?

are you saying uranium enrichment is the only way of getting cancer treatment in iran? what about other, non nuclear based treatment options? what about weapons grade enriched nuclear material? are you saying they need that too? wouldn't that be counter productive, considering weapons grade uranium is more likely to cause cancer that treat it?

Saxi posted some great rhetoric, which in my opinion seems worthy of being addressed; however, I have no idea how cancer treatment and enriching uranium are related.

fadedpsychosis wrote:are you saying uranium enrichment is the only way of getting cancer treatment in iran? what about other, non nuclear based treatment options?

You don't NEED anaesthesia to amputate someone's leg. You could do it 1860s style and have them drink a fifth of whiskey first. Iranians should have to settle for something less than the full range of modern treatment options just so some religious fanatics in Tel Aviv don't kvetsh?

fadedpsychosis wrote:what about weapons grade enriched nuclear material? are you saying they need that too?

Yes, from my post above, to produce medical isotopes, Iran needs fuel rods to run their US-built nuclear reactor. To build fuel rods, you need to enrich uranium to the 20% level, which is the same level of enrichment used in nuclear weapons. Iran requested the west sell them rods so they wouldn't have to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. The west refused, meaning Iran's only option to continue to run their Cancer Reactor was to enrich it themselves. This is how the west engineers Wars/IMF Colonization.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So how does one deal with the unintended consequences of curbing Iran's ability to treat cancer patients?

Shall this be ignored? Shall the facts be disputed?

are you saying uranium enrichment is the only way of getting cancer treatment in iran? what about other, non nuclear based treatment options? what about weapons grade enriched nuclear material? are you saying they need that too? wouldn't that be counter productive, considering weapons grade uranium is more likely to cause cancer that treat it?

Saxi posted some great rhetoric, which in my opinion seems worthy of being addressed; however, I have no idea how cancer treatment and enriching uranium are related.

I have gone back and read it closer, and even though in research reactors you do typically see higher levels of enrichment the US at least has moved to change the fuel from HEU to LEU (higher to lower grade)... the US policy makers in this case may want iran to do the same process to the reactor in question rather than just give them high enriched uranium... but I'm not a policy maker and as I said earlier have no official opinion on this...
I state again however, that there are plenty of other treatment options available as well; see here for a decent list: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Treatme ... ypes/index
as you'll see, radiation treatment is one of many options, and while a common one, is to my understanding actually less common than chemotherapy.

fadedpsychosis wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So how does one deal with the unintended consequences of curbing Iran's ability to treat cancer patients?

Shall this be ignored? Shall the facts be disputed?

are you saying uranium enrichment is the only way of getting cancer treatment in iran? what about other, non nuclear based treatment options? what about weapons grade enriched nuclear material? are you saying they need that too? wouldn't that be counter productive, considering weapons grade uranium is more likely to cause cancer that treat it?

Saxi posted some great rhetoric, which in my opinion seems worthy of being addressed; however, I have no idea how cancer treatment and enriching uranium are related.

I have gone back and read it closer, and even though in research reactors you do typically see higher levels of enrichment the US at least has moved to change the fuel from HEU to LEU (higher to lower grade)... the US policy makers in this case may want iran to do the same process to the reactor in question rather than just give them high enriched uranium... but I'm not a policy maker and as I said earlier have no official opinion on this...
I state again however, that there are plenty of other treatment options available as well; see here for a decent list: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Treatme ... ypes/index
as you'll see, radiation treatment is one of many options, and while a common one, is to my understanding actually less common than chemotherapy.

Again, if Germans, Israelis, Americans and Italians have the option of simple, non-invasive radiation therapy, it's not okay to say Iranians will have to make due with having their bodies cut open to remove small growths because they're just Iranian. It's not okay to say Iranians will have to deal with being blinded from thyroid eye disease because the west has decided they're not allowed to have radiation therapy in their country.

saxitoxin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So how does one deal with the unintended consequences of curbing Iran's ability to treat cancer patients?

Shall this be ignored? Shall the facts be disputed?

are you saying uranium enrichment is the only way of getting cancer treatment in iran? what about other, non nuclear based treatment options? what about weapons grade enriched nuclear material? are you saying they need that too? wouldn't that be counter productive, considering weapons grade uranium is more likely to cause cancer that treat it?

Saxi posted some great rhetoric, which in my opinion seems worthy of being addressed; however, I have no idea how cancer treatment and enriching uranium are related.

I have gone back and read it closer, and even though in research reactors you do typically see higher levels of enrichment the US at least has moved to change the fuel from HEU to LEU (higher to lower grade)... the US policy makers in this case may want iran to do the same process to the reactor in question rather than just give them high enriched uranium... but I'm not a policy maker and as I said earlier have no official opinion on this...
I state again however, that there are plenty of other treatment options available as well; see here for a decent list: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Treatme ... ypes/index
as you'll see, radiation treatment is one of many options, and while a common one, is to my understanding actually less common than chemotherapy.

Again, if Germans, Israelis, Americans and Italians have the option of simple, non-invasive radiation therapy, it's not okay to say Iranians will have to make due with having their bodies cut open to remove small growths because they're just Iranian. It's not okay to say Iranians will have to deal with being blinded from thyroid eye disease because the west has decided they're not allowed to have radiation therapy in their country.

how did you get your conclusion out of what I said? by the article you posted they're using a reactor we provided them in the first place, probably many years ago, which uses higher level enrichment fuel rods. we don't want to give them higher enriched rods. they have several options in this case: they can convert the facility to use lower enriched uranium like we are doing with our own (which would most certainly be the option the western policy makers seem to want), they can build their own damn reactor that uses LEU in the first place, and they have plenty of alternatives to nuclear produced cures.

fadedpsychosis wrote:they have plenty of alternatives to nuclear produced cures

Radiation therapy isn't just one in a smorgasbord of options cancer patients can choose from, a la carte style. It has specific uses for specific situations. Your policy would condemn Iranians to death or appalling alternatives (e.g. one alternate treatment for radiation therapy in dealing with eye cancer is to cut out the eye) for conditions that are easily treatable in the west.

It's almost like I know the news before it happens (this is from a today-edition of a Zionist newspaper, BTW) ...

Defense sources say Israel has received additional information that reinforces the IAEA's conclusion that Iran is using enriched uranium for medical purposes.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.468768

saxitoxin wrote:It's almost like I know the news before it happens (this is from a today-edition of a Zionist newspaper, BTW) ...

Defense sources say Israel has received additional information that reinforces the IAEA's conclusion that Iran is using enriched uranium for medical purposes.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.468768

Are you....

Amos Harel?


<cue mystery music>

saxitoxin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:they have plenty of alternatives to nuclear produced cures

Radiation therapy isn't just one in a smorgasbord of options cancer patients can choose from, a la carte style. It has specific uses for specific situations. Your policy would condemn Iranians to death or appalling alternatives (e.g. one alternate treatment for radiation therapy in dealing with eye cancer is to cut out the eye) for conditions that are easily treatable in the west.

and the other options they have for getting access to the isotopes that don't involve weapons grade material? or are you going to conveniently ignore that because it doesn't fit into the fantasy you've built?

fadedpsychosis wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

fadedpsychosis wrote:they have plenty of alternatives to nuclear produced cures

Radiation therapy isn't just one in a smorgasbord of options cancer patients can choose from, a la carte style. It has specific uses for specific situations. Your policy would condemn Iranians to death or appalling alternatives (e.g. one alternate treatment for radiation therapy in dealing with eye cancer is to cut out the eye) for conditions that are easily treatable in the west.

and the other options they have for getting access to the isotopes that don't involve weapons grade material? or are you going to conveniently ignore that because it doesn't fit into the fantasy you've built?

Iran is a sovereign state. It should not be required to import isotopes when it can produce its own. The west could simply embargo isotopes to undermine the Iranian government if Iran does not have self-sufficiency. The west is already embargoing spare parts for civilian aircraft which is resulting in many needless deaths, like the crash of an IranAir 727 last year that killed 77 and was attributed to a lack of proper maintenance.

saxitoxin wrote:The west is already embargoing spare parts for civilian aircraft which is resulting in many needless deaths, like the crash of an IranAir 727 last year that killed 77 and was attributed to a lack of proper maintenance.

Iran Air 277? Caused by flying in poor weather conditions according to initial sources? With an investigation incomplete by Iranian authorities?

Did you hear that story from some guy in a bar?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The west is already embargoing spare parts for civilian aircraft which is resulting in many needless deaths, like the crash of an IranAir 727 last year that killed 77 and was attributed to a lack of proper maintenance.

Iran Air 277? Caused by flying in poor weather conditions according to initial sources? With an investigation incomplete by Iranian authorities?

Did you hear that story from some guy in a bar?

The New York Times ... which may be barely one step up from a guy in a bar, but is a step up ...

Iran’s Aging Airliner Fleet Seen as Faltering Under U.S. Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/world ... .html?_r=0

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The west is already embargoing spare parts for civilian aircraft which is resulting in many needless deaths, like the crash of an IranAir 727 last year that killed 77 and was attributed to a lack of proper maintenance.

Iran Air 277? Caused by flying in poor weather conditions according to initial sources? With an investigation incomplete by Iranian authorities?

Did you hear that story from some guy in a bar?

The New York Times ... which may be barely one step up from a guy in a bar, but is a step up ...

Iran’s Aging Airliner Fleet Seen as Faltering Under U.S. Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/world ... .html?_r=0

So you got confused between flight 727 in the NYTimes story, and flight 277 that crashed?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The west is already embargoing spare parts for civilian aircraft which is resulting in many needless deaths, like the crash of an IranAir 727 last year that killed 77 and was attributed to a lack of proper maintenance.

Iran Air 277? Caused by flying in poor weather conditions according to initial sources? With an investigation incomplete by Iranian authorities?

Did you hear that story from some guy in a bar?

The New York Times ... which may be barely one step up from a guy in a bar, but is a step up ...

Iran’s Aging Airliner Fleet Seen as Faltering Under U.S. Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/world ... .html?_r=0

So you got confused between flight 727 in the NYTimes story, and flight 277 that crashed?

confused, indeed ...

"727" is a brand of aircraft manufactured by the Boeing Corporation. "277" is an IranAir flight number. Flight 277 was a 727.

You should stop now while you're only a little bit behind, Symmetry.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The west is already embargoing spare parts for civilian aircraft which is resulting in many needless deaths, like the crash of an IranAir 727 last year that killed 77 and was attributed to a lack of proper maintenance.

Iran Air 277? Caused by flying in poor weather conditions according to initial sources? With an investigation incomplete by Iranian authorities?

Did you hear that story from some guy in a bar?

The New York Times ... which may be barely one step up from a guy in a bar, but is a step up ...

Iran’s Aging Airliner Fleet Seen as Faltering Under U.S. Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/world ... .html?_r=0

So you got confused between flight 727 in the NYTimes story, and flight 277 that crashed?

confused, indeed ...

"727" is a brand of aircraft manufactured by the Boeing Corporation. "277" is an IranAir flight number. Flight 277 was a 727.

You should stop now while you're only a little bit behind, Symmetry.

Fair point, but it's still not backing up your original story.