Are you suggesting that USA should be the ruler of the world and decide what energy policies other countries are allowed to have? Wasn't this Hitler's plan to rule the world?
What else do we, ahem, I mean...the rest of the world have to worry about? http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0905/256983.html Further down the article, we see Jacques Chirac. Apparently he's concerned as well. I take it there is no oil-for-food program in Iran, that would sway France's concern.
Great question which is why I think we should be worried about the actual threats and not the possibles, at least with our full force. Threats I believe that should be at issue are #1 better security at US nuclear plants, #2 enemy states that already have nukes that can hit us, #3 possible missing nukes from Russia or x soviet union states. If we were trully worried about nukes or a mushroom cloud I think these would get more attention, instead why all this attention on Iran who doesn't have a nuke as far as anything I read, or even a delivery system to get it to the US. At that time if we can prove and know where the WMD or research/storage facilities are for the nuclear weapons I would support a full fledged bombing campaign to dismantle such programs. I'm disputing a full fledged invasion of the facts as we know them at this moment.
I actually discussed this a few pages ago, no one is debating a nuclear program, but of course with any nuclear program even for power plants there is going to be uranium hexafluoride. With that logic any country who has nuclear power plants is guilty of producing nuclear weapons. It's a key part of the weapons but not proof of weapons in the least. A few of my previous posts that go to this issue http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=355099&postcount=33 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=360170&postcount=92
One is not exclusive of the other. I disagree, we should focus on both. I used to work at a nuclear disassembly plant (not actually disassembling them) not 40 miles from my home. The security is nothing short of phenominal. Doesn't mean all sites are the same. I don't see it as an "if" issue. The IAEA, the UN, EU (good heaven's, even the French!) are concerned. When the French are actually concerned about something, that raises a flag. The US isn't all that should be worried about a nuclear attack from Iran. We have allies and should not dismiss their needs (even though some were bought out by saddam). In essence, if Iran will lead the world to said storage facilities and proudly proclaim "we have it and will use it?" To be honest, I'm glad the EU and the IAEA is taking the initiative. That they are concerned says a lot. I'm watching with interest to see if they will keep sending strongly worded letters (ouch, that's gotta hurt!), or do something else. Should be interesting.
Even if we forget the facts that there is no bomb, delivery system or guidance system, can anyone gives us 1 logical reason why Iran or North Korea should attack USA when they know very well that it means a total destruction of their country? Isn't this more logical that they want nuclear weapons in order to protect their own security and as deterrence to USA? Doesn't USA actions toward Iraq and North Korea proves their point?
But we're not talking about any country or a country that has nuclear power plants. We're talking about a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism. I can't help but wonder if that will make the EU and IAEA more, or less, comfortable with their task at hand?
Yes we should focus on all ends, but appears to be at least that we are focusing more on Iran at this moment. I could be wrong, but that's my perception at least. Yes that might be so, I however have watched many film crews walk right into the building with not so much as a guard questioning them. I just watched another story last week, some plants continue to have less than adequate security. I don't disagree with this at all, but being worried is drastically different than an all out invasion From what I have taken from this statement I actually do not disagree with it, I am not backing up Iran at all. Simply stating yet again with the facts as we know them right now, at least from my research on the subject with many other factors mixed in I do not see the need or justification for an all out military invasion.
I was not aware you had these facts. Please share them. How did you come up with this kind of intelligence? Who is "us?" Are there others active in this thread that supports Iran's nuclear program? When did terrorists ever worry about being killed? No, I do not think the entire country are terrorists. They are a state sponsor of terrorism. Dying in the cause of Allah? A country who supports and trains terrorists? Nah, we should be worried about that. Kim il Jong? There's the sanest man I know It isn't just about the US. It's about the world. The world has an obligation to ensure leaders/countries like these cannot obtain and/or use them against other countries. For one, North Korea, it's too late. And someone managed a nobel peace prize out of it That explains why the EU, the IAEA and so many other countries are worried about it.
Yes and as I already stated if it wasn't Iran most probally wouldn't even be batting an eye at the situation. However this does not dispute the fact that the US from what I've read was at one time trying to get Iran to open nuclear power plants, even wanted to supply them with much of the equipment etc. Iran's need for an alternative source of power is much greater now which is one reason why I find the argument that it has not be for nuclear weapons that much harder to swallow.
It is very possible and a very logical reason as to why they would want them. I however am not willing to support Iran actually having a nuke
But since I don't currently advocate an all out military invasion, it makes the point moot. I've never seen a million dollars, but I know it exists.
If an agreement can be worked out through the international community, Iran is following all laws and inspections such as the US allows for I don't think we have much choice but to allow Nuclear power plants unless we want to have it 'both way' so to speak or a double standard.
That's because a million dollars is real and fact, everyone knows that. Drawing conclusions that it has to be for nuclear weapons on the facts as we know them however is not factual it is opinionated guesses on your part I guess the only real debate between our opinions that I can see is if there is actual proof of a nuclear weapon or not. I don't doubt they are trying, or possibly have tried just have yet to see sufficient proof of it for my tastes to justify what the intent of the first post in this thread was about.
I don't think you'll find the IAEA and EU taking this stance. For that matter, let's just say "most of the rest of the world" (except gworld, of course). Maybe you are thinking of Kerry? Kerry was ready to give nuclear technology to them. Drew quite the sharp criticism too, as I recall. Didn't we try that with North Korea in the nineties? Didn't someone walk away with a nobel peace prize for it?
Likewise, drawing conclusions that it has to be for nuclear power on the facts as we know them however is not factual it is opinionated guesses on your part. A mushroom cloud would surely indicate there was a nuclear weapon. Of course, it will be too late then.
I'm not saying I'm pro giving or allowing Iran to have nuclear power plants. I am simply stating how can the US state previously Iran needed nuclear power plants and even offer and wish to design and build them when Iran's need was much less, now with Iran's need being much greater the US is stating they don't need the power plants? Now that's a true case of having it both ways.
I NEVER stated is had to be for nuclear power now did I ? Point me to where I stated it had to be for nuclear power? If I did it was by complete mistake and I take it back, I however don't believe I ever did or you are reading what I posted a different way than it was meant to be. Same lame excuse used to attack Iraq, it sounds nice and pretty, even puts the scare into some people, it however does not take away or discredit the actual facts as we know them to be.