Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant

mangu writes "Iran said on Saturday it is removing the fuel from the reactor of a Russian-built nuclear power plant, a move seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program. The plant was first launched by the shah using contractors from Siemens. It was shelved after the Islamic revolution and it lay unfinished through the 1980s. In the early 1990s, Iran sought help for the project after being turned away by Siemens over nuclear proliferation concerns. In 1994, Russia agreed to complete the plant and provide the fuel, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning the spent fuel. The plant has faced hiccups even after its physical launch, with officials blaming the delays in generating electricity on a range of factors, including Bushehr's 'severe weather.' But they deny it was hit by the malicious Stuxent computer worm which struck industrial computers in Iran, although they acknowledge that the personal computers of some personnel at Bushehr were infected with it."

Comments

Re:more concerned about israels nukes.

[Dan667]

then you understand why iran wants them. If israel has then then you agree iran needs them for a deterrence.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes.

[Cwix]

New York Times good enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html

CNN International work?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

Washington Post?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html

How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4384264.stm

Now what the fuck were you saying again?

all this crap about israel

[circletimessquare]

i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon

this is the constitution of iran:

1- General Principles
Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; ...

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html

you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?

and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?

no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran

again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU

and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real

Re:all this crap about israel

[SplashMyBandit]

Not quite the same. What are the actual limits on power of the Supreme Leader? What checks and balances are there to make sure the Supreme Leader follows the will of the people/democratic process? It appears while there might be some limits in theory in practice the Supreme Leader has the Pasdaran and Basiji to do whatever the hell he wants. Iran has the trappings of a democracy but in actual practice it is a very corrupt absolute theocracy. Which is a real shame since all the Iranians I meet I really like as generally intelligent, warm and humerous people.

Re:more concerned about israels nukes.

[gambino21]

Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran

You sure about that?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm

http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/

And of course the US has made similar threats against Iran:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml

But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.