Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (23790)	10/10/2007 11:49:46 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219928

ElM, the evidence is that one of the world's biggest hydrocarbon exporters with some of the biggest reserves is building nuclear reactors. New Zealand should build nuclear reactors. They should build oil wells, not pipelines to India to take away hydrocarbons which they should use themselves. It's amazing that so few people can understand the logic. It does take 4 steps of reasoning, and most people are gone after two, so I suppose it's understandable. New Zealand should build nuclear reactors, but doesn't. India should build nuclear reactors, but is going to get gas through a huge expensive pipeline. Iran should build thermal stations, but wants instead to build a huge pipeline to distant thermal power stations with nuclear reactors at the upstream end. It's political shenanigans which make all these silly things happen, not economics. New Zealand has an idea that nuclear reactors are evil-doing appliances. But now, woe is us, we are destroying the ozone layer, causing the Greenhouse Effect and unsustainability; sustainability being the new religious word to use, along with sustainable. Recycling sustainably is what life in NZ is about [except that the rubbish isn't wanted so the recycling religion is having a glitch]. In fact, anything NZ does about CO2 is lost in the 4th significant figure in China's output and they don't care. But we are voting ourselves back to the stone age anyway, in an attempt to stop Global Warming in the face of India, China and the USA cooking up large. India wants cheap energy and if gas through a hugely expensive pipeline all the way from Iran is cheaper than a nuclear power station, they'll take it [and to heck with the greenhouse effect - which makes a joke of NZ's Global Warming fetish]. Iran can have the nuclear power reactors, which suddenly become economic at the other end of the pipeline, which is of course absurd because they don't. New Zealand and India should build the nuclear reactors, Iran should burn the hydrocarbons. What is actually happening is back to front and topsy turvy. It makes sense if we assume that the nuclear reactor will produce fissionable material which can make nuclear bombs which Iran would love to have. I know that logic is too lengthy for you to follow, but I thought I'd write it out anyway. Maybe somebody can figure it out. Mqurice

To: elmatador who wrote (23790)	10/10/2007 12:07:28 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 219928

Moscow has no information that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. Well, then, that settles it, doesn't it? Putin, whose country is selling all the nuclear stuff to Iran, should know about these things, right? Ergo, Iran's leaders are now ipso facto, ipse dixit, ex ante, squeaky clean. They clearly don't plan to wipe anyone off the map, are going to start believing that one of the most historically analyzed and corroborated event in history, the Holocaust, really did happen, and will stop funding Hizbollah. All we need for this to be true is for Putin the Polonium Poisoner to say so. Peace, love and understanding reigns in Iran and in the Middle East. Putin says so. Sorry for this brief foray into politics, which I studiously avoid here, but Putin saying there is no evidence of nukes in Iran is a bit of a bizarre joke.