WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. exports to Iran -- including brassieres, bull semen, cosmetics and possibly even weapons -- grew more than tenfold during President Bush's years in office even as he accused Iran of nuclear ambitions and helping terrorists. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html Hey, you can't make this kinda stuff up. Hopefully they're not using the brassieres and bull semen to promote terrorism in the region (but you can't be too sure). I'll bet we send along instructions on proper use. IMHO, the obvious solution to the Iranian nuclear power debacle is to offer US technicians in to help build the plants. Not to mention, if my neighbor had a tomato catapult aimed at me, I'd want one too (and I think I should be allowed to have one to protect my garden).
I'm glad to see cosmetics and lingerie are being shipped over there. Consumerism is a great way to take down a totalitarian regime. I'm hoping it will have a good effect on Cuba in the coming years.
I dunno what dgridley thinks, but I think they should. It's a pretty big double standard to have them, and not to allow others to have them.
well, I'd rather see them allowed peaceful and efficient nuclear energy but I can see where any country would be nervous if neighboring countries had nukes and they didn't. I'd rather NO ONE had nukes. I'd rather have defense than offense of course. I can't see where "we" have the right to say, sorry, you have to rely on fossil fuels or some other antiquated method of energy simply because we have a suspicion it would be misused. Better to help build it and regulate it that way, I say. I'm not convinced Iran is any more a threat to us than Israel or Saudi Arabia. That's justy my opinion.. funny too how bringing issues to the fore with a creative post title is considered attention whoring by some. Maybe we can just talk about puppies or kittens instead of something controversial that someone else doesn't agree with? I bring up the issue not because I'm attention whoring but because I find it ironic and an important issue that deserves attention when and where it can get it.
So you think Iran can just ignore the NPT? If they want to pursue nuclear weapons, get out of the NPT, then do whatever they want and deal with the consequences. I don't understand the stance you take, that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons when Iran has signed an agreement not to have them. Although, I am not surprised that you want/think Iran should have nuclear weapons.
I would prefer Iran not having nukes as well, however aren't we ourselves breaking many treaties when it comes to nukes and the defense of nukes? Bush had a bunch of new nukes ordered up from what I remember 'unless I'm wrong' which I could have sworn was against treaties we had signed to.
So far Iran has been saying they don't want nukes, so exactly how are they ignoring the NPT (tho I understand that was in rspect to the post you quoted). That said, I would like to see ZERO nukes anywhere, including the US.
Can or should? Can, yes. Should? Probably not. That doesn't sound unreasonable. I was speaking more philosophically, not technically. I don't understand the stance that we take, that Iran can't develop nuclear power. Or Israel's stance that they can be out of the NPT and have nukes, but their neighbors cannot. I don't understand why clowns scare some people, and I don't understand why I like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. The world is full of contradictions, and irrational mysteries. Are you missing swaymedia and thraxed that much? Next time, don't get them banned! Oh geez sweetie. I'm into having a real discussion with you. I don't have time to change your diaper and powder your bottom today baby.
See the whole thing about allowing every odd country to have nukes is, well, a lot of countries are extremely unstable. What prevents Iran from selling those nukes to terrorists when the coffers run low?
Or not.. it depends on your view of Iran I suppose. Most of what we know in the West is tainted by bias.
they are allowed to enrich under NPT rules. i might be wrong but i do not think so. What do they give up if they leave NPT? The problem with our approach is that it might have just the opposite effect.We can be pushing them into wanting to have a weapon program. I do not see any good in the approach that shrub and co. is taking. They are really badddddddddd at this
I hope they never come back. It is a waste of time to deal with ignorant bigots. They are responsible for what they write, not me. Your repeated attempts to blame me for any bigot that gets banned is really pathetic. I stand behind everything I write and do on this forum. You and they should do the same. Stop foolishly trying to blame me because those two fools can't follow simple rules. [as for the topic. Yeah, I do think you want Iran to have nuclear weapons as a counter weight to Israel. But what does that have to do with the bigoted views of sway and thrx? Somehow you read some accusation in that sentence that is not there. Protesting a little too much, ehh.] I don't know. If we are in violation of a treaty, that would be wrong. We should either get out of the treaty or follow it. That is my position on treaties whether it is the US or Iran who is the signatory.
Which country is the world's largest arms dealer? Which country has sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq (not to mention Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt) at the same time while lying about it under inquiry? Seriously pal, you need to lay off the crack. It's making you koo-koo. What if I blame you unfoolishly? I could care less who does and does not have nukes. I could care less who is a counterweight to Israel. You're projecting again. Now, do you want to act like a big boy, or do I have to change your diaper again?
I was just posting and then you started with this diaper silliness and repeating the same baseless accusations of getting your friends banned. I called you on it because I am done just letting you be a pompous bully with your bullshit style. That you have the gall to accuse me of acting like a 5 year old after your behavior on this thread is just more grist for the mill.
Look at my post at 5.07. Then look at your response to me, where you first insinuate (following up later) that I have a pro-Iran, anti-Israel perspective. Seriously, you're acting out like a child. I was trying to discuss in good faith until you got stupid and confrontational when there was no need for that. Whatever, back on ignore. You bounce between being genuine and friendly, and confrontational and hostile. Not even a week ago, I thought we were getting along really well.
Nah, you don't have an anti-Israel perspective. I must have been nuts to think that. Regardless, your diaper response was so mature. Well done. And then calling me the 5-year old to boot. Oh well, I guess I hit a nerve when I suggested it was not a surprise to me that you were supporting Iran having nuclear weapons because Israel has them. Perhaps it was a little too much reality for you to offer a serious response.
I know I'm jumping in, and I think the DP universe knows guerilla and I are not exactly "pals" on this board; nevertheless, all, take it for what you will, but I agree totally with you on this one, Brown, and it should be obvious. It is one thing to say you are not surprised with the political views of another. You have come to this conclusion based on an assessment of the member's posts, I would guess, Brown. The immediate leap to personal attacks: Is, in my opinion, completely out of line. I find it ironic, to be honest, as this poster only very recently sought my banning by a direct appeal to Rob, over his contention of my alleged "campaign" of personal attacks. I see this kind of stuff far too often, and I personally think it blows.