Posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:52:54
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 2, 2006, at 9:32:43
> "... but why can't iran have nuclear weapons?"
>
> My opinion - you *are* missing something.
>
> In general I think the goal is to stop anyone who doesn't already have atomic weapons from getting them.
>Except Israel which isnt even a signatory of the NNPT, not has it ever allowed IAEA inspectors into its country or has even admitted having nuclear arms.
> But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc,
>No he hasnt, he said Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, not that he'd do it, in fact when questioned on the issue he said he had no plans to attack Israel. Its an ideological standpoint, not a real one....a subtle but VERY important difference.
> It's a bit more urgent to stop countries that have sworn to blow up other ones, don't you think?
>Countries do that allthe time.....have you noticed how nicely pakistan and India "play" since they both became nuclear capable? If MAD (mutually assured destruction) is good enough for the USA and the USSR and now India and Pakistan, then why is it not good enough for "an arab nation" and Israel?
> There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
>No Iran has not said that at all (I'd like you to show us the evidence that they have if you believe this to be the case).......there are many grades of enrichment, but low grade enrichment is good for nuclear poser generation. The crus of the argument is that the west believes they intend to enrich their uranium much further.
> If they only wanted power grade uranium nobody would be saying anything.
>Thats it was they keep saying, but the USA claims they are lying........as it stands, Iran has broken *NO* international laws and its only "crime" is that the US does not believe them.
> -----------
>
> "ps. it isn't 'our' environment it is 'the' environment. not just for us but for our future generations too. and for years now... the us has been f*cking it up for the other present citizens of the world too... still. it would be good to see a shift away from dinosaur fuels. but... ethanol sounds expensive to me..."
>
> Granted the environment isn't the highest priority for the current administration, but I wouldn't go quite that far.
>
> When the iron curtain fell and the eastern bloc countries got their freedom one of their biggest problems was pollution. A large (very large) part of the aid given by the US was for the specific purpose of cleaning that up.
>
> On my first trip to Poland, in 1993, the soot in the air was amazing. The snow was black, everything needed dusting twice a day, the buildings were covered with layers of it, the sky was brown.
>
> I go back there now and see cleaned buildings, white snow and blue skies. US money at work.
>
> But I guess that kind of stuff doesn't make the news, does it.
poster:teejay
thread:605246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/606058.html