2. Write a response to one of these prompts as a comment on this post:
a. Come up with a question concerning something that you don't understand about this article.
b. Attempt an explanation in response to the question raised in response to (a).
c. What, in your own words, is the big-picture conflict that the negotiations are designed to help solve?
d. If someone else has answered (c) in a way that you think is not completely satisfactory, respectfully offer a revision to that person's comment.
e. What, in your own words, is the specific problem that has come up, motivating this particular article?
f. If someone else has answered (e) in a way that you think is not completely satisfactory, respectfully offer a revision to that person's comment.
g. At different points, people are quoted without attribution--their names are withheld, because they're not supposed to be talking about what they're talking about. Do you approve or disapprove, and why?
c. What, in your own words, is the big-picture conflict that the negotiations are designed to help solve?
ReplyDelete-Reading the article "Iran Threatens to Back Out of Fuel Deal", The big-picture conflict that the negotiations are designed to help solve it the nuclear fuel that's being stockpiled. United states, Russia and France did not agree with the shipment of it's stickpile of nuclear fuel out of the country. american official fears that a nuclear weapon could be produce by the fuel.
a. Come up with a question concerning something that you don't understand about this article.
ReplyDelete- After reading the article "Iran Threatens to Back Out of Fuel Deal" I am confused about the difference between enriched uranium and normal uranium. I am also confused at how some one would actually enrich the uranium. Is it a naturally occurring chemical process or do scientists need to add something to the uranium to make it enriched? What do the different levels of enrichment mean?
A) I am in the same position as Liz with the enriched uranium and normal uranium subject, but that is not my question. What I was wondering is since this is such an important issue, why aren't there more countries involved in this process? We know the U.S., Russia, France, and Israel are involved with the issue of nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just seems like there should be so many other countries offering to help, especially if there are nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteg) At different points, people are quoted without attribution -- their names are withheld, because they’re not supposed to be talking about what they’re talking about. Do you approve, disapprove, and why?
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I both approve and disapprove. On one hand, I believe that it is important for people who are well informed on such an important matter be able to give their well-researched opinion to the world - I think such opinions are probably important to know in cases such as this. On the other hand, it is possible that they should take up their “pessimistic” feelings with those with seniority at their administration before talking to reporters - after all, those are the people who could make changes. In addition to this, I also feel as though if you are going to work for something, you should be able to stand behind it (I am, however, aware that in such complicated times, it is not always as black-and-white as this).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteb) I think that in response to Mackenzie's post - a large number of countries are also involved a number "which filled an oversize conference room at the agency’s headquarters". I think that the paper specifically refers to these nations because they are who are ultimately the most influential. While, in today's political world, we would like to pretend that everyone is equal etc. etc. etc., the reality is that certain countries have gained an insurmountable amount of power that ultimately truthfully gives them the power of the situation. Obviously more than just the US, Russia, France and Israel are important however these countries are the most important given this context. The nations both have the ability to enrich uranium (btw TO LIZ - enriching is a processes that uranium goes through.) and they have the economic structure/power to gain control of the situation.
ReplyDeletec. What, in your own words, is the big-picture conflict that the negotiations are designed to help solve?
ReplyDeleteIn mu own words after reading this article is that other countries consider Iran to be dangertous thus distrustful due to their sneaky activities with nuclear power. If they were developing nuclear for years, they should not be asking for other countries to sell their nuclear uranium. Setting aside most of the things, I believe that the problem of all of this is the trust and connection problems that are having between Iran and other Countries. Therefore, negotiators or even contries should trust.
C)After reading this article that nuclear fuels are being stockpiled. The negotiations are designed to help stockpiled fuel that were rejected for commerce from United States, Frances, and Russia and the negotiator or official is afraid that nuclear fuel will be used as a nuclear weapon like a bomb. I think these are the problems, being afraid and keep away from each other. This century is different from the century at the past. People live in peace ( not every where) so they should be open minded to each other.
ReplyDeletee) I think that the specific problem that has come up, motivating this particular article is that there is not much trust between Iran and other countries. The US, France and Russia are concerned that Iran will not do what they said they would do which is to send 3/4 of their nuclear fuel to other countries. The big concern is that Iran will use its fuel to make nuclear weapons, and that Iran is not being honest about what they would use the fuel for. The big issue is trust.
ReplyDeleteIn response to G. I dissaprove of the idea that people have to hide their names because they shouldnt be talking about something. I feel like it shouldnt be something that you cant talk about. That is what is causing the trouble in the first place, that things are being kept secret. I think its important for the public to have facts, and if people have to hide their identity to do that, then it is difficult to be sure that they are telling the whole truth. And if for some reason they make a mistake, how can it be corrected if we dont know how to correct? It is vitally iportant to keep things out in the open.
ReplyDeletea. These were parts I got confused: "would demand that the West sell them new fuel for the medical reactor." "Should talks fail or sellers refuse to provide Iran with its required fuel, Iran will enrich uranium to the 20 percent level needed itself."
ReplyDeleteI thought Iran will send its fuel to Russia and France for further refinement. (To make original 20% uranium to below 5% low-enriched ones.) And France would give the fuel back to Iran. Why do they need more fuel for medical reactor, and why should the West sell them? Why is Iran demanding the West to provide more fuel when their total known stockpile of fuel amounts to enough for one to two bombs?
C. What, in your own words, is the big-picture conflict that the negotiations are designed to help solve?
ReplyDeleteAs usual there are discussions over nuclear weapon. The Americans fear that the fuel could create a nuclear weapon. The U.S.A., Russia and France did not agree on the shipment of more than three-quarters of its stockpile of nuclear fuel out of the country, unless the West acceded to Iranian demands to provide it with new fuel.
I feel that this will always be an ongoing dilemma. I think that Iran will always be suspected of nuclear weapons and the rest of the world will doubt their intentions, as maybe they should. I feel the US will not ever really trust Iran with anything coming close to nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteSo I wonder, will an agreement really be possible?
e. What, in your own words, is the specific problem that has come up, motivating this particular article?
ReplyDeleteI think that the specific problem is the global fear of Iran itself. There has been much tension in the recent months with Iran and other world powers, due to their persistent refusal to comply with peace measures concerning nuclear power and fuel. We have been talking in my Globalism and Development in the Middle East class specifically about this problem, that Iran has in some ways been using this new fear as a tool to gain legitimacy and actually unite their own country. When a nation is on the brink of war, or having external issues, internal issues become less important.