by mavie 131 Replies latest jw friends
The bottom line is that any nation in the world, regardless of what we think of them has a right to be able to defend itself.
The US and Russia went eye ball to eye ball in the cold war for decades and the only thing that stayed the nuclear button was "Mutually assured destruction". That was between two nations with ideological differences. The tension in the middle east is based on religious hatred "Mutually assured destruction" means nothing when you think God is telling you what to do...
I think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear technology
I have no problem with that. In this age of global warming nuclear technology should be utilized to the max look at France I think they get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. But when a militant nation like Iran claims to be developing it for power and refuses to allow inspectors in to monitor it that should tell you something. If all they want it for is power production why do they have a problem with the international community inspecting it to determine if they are trying to create a nuke...
nation like Iran claims to be developing it for power and refuses to allow inspectors in to monitor it
That is just not true
>>nation like Iran claims to be developing it for power and refuses to allow inspectors in to monitor it
>>That is just not true
References from both of you would be appreciated.
Dave
December 2003 - Iran signs protocol allowing snap inspections of nuclear facilities.
November 2004 - Iran promises EU negotiators it will suspend all nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing work.
September 2, 2005 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
January 10, 2006 - Iran removes U.N. seals at Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research
February 4 - IAEA votes to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council. Iran ends snap U.N. nuclear inspections the next day.
February 14 - Iran restarts small-scale feeding of uranium gas into centrifuges at Natanz after 2-1/2-year suspension.
April 11 - Iran announces it has produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for use in power stations; IAEA confirms.
June 5 - EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana delivers a package of incentives from world powers if Iran agrees to halt uranium enrichment.
July 31 - The U.N. Security Council demands that Iran suspend its nuclear activities by August 31.
August 31 - IAEA announces Iran has not met deadline to suspend its atomic fuel program.
December 23 - Security Council votes for sanctions and gives 60 days to suspend enrichment. Iran calls the resolution illegal.
March 24 - The Security Council unanimously approves new arms and financial sanctions against Iran.
April 18 - IAEA says Iran has begun making nuclear fuel in its underground uranium enrichment plant.
May 23 - A confidential IAEA report says Iran has not suspended enrichment-related work.
Aug 21 - Iran and the IAEA say they agreed a timeline for answering outstanding questions about Iran's nuclear program.
Oct 4 - Diplomats say Iran has installed close to 3,000 centrifuge machines, enough to start refining usable amounts of nuclear fuel if they worked without glitches.
Oct 20 - Saeed Jalili is named to replace chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, who resigned.
Oct 24 - The U.S. imposes new sanctions on Iran and accuses Revolutionary Guard of spreading weapons of mass destruction.
Nov 2 - Britain, France, Germany, the U.S., Russia and China agree to push ahead with a third round of tougher sanctions. The six say they will meet again on November 19 to assess reports from IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei.
somebody posted:
I don't believe that Arab nations would nuke Europe, because Europe is more than capable of defending itself and retaliating.....
One little problem here...the extremist islamic leaders want Isreal wiped out so badly they care NOTHING about retaliation....They blow themselves up in great numbers already...It is an HONOR...What better way to please Allah than making several of their cities martyrs? I do not see how any group or any nations that has vocalized such hatred of other groups should be allowed to posess nearly limitless destrutive power....I still think in my lifetime there will be some nuclear device set off by terrorists....what a shame....oompa
And it's very likely it will a major US city. That is why the US is behind the UN/world in making sure a psychotic, racist and religious extremist does not have access to such a destructive device.
Thank you, ZeroDay.
As you can imagine, this bullet point list is presented from an anti-Iranian viewpoint. One could align it with a similar pro-Iranian list and still not know much. Good luck finding a neutral-Iranian discussion!
Here's is one that seems to at least switch back and forth between the anti- and the pro-: http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/iran-nuclear-timeline.html
And here is another neutral-ish sounding one: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/iran.html
A 'for instance'. The list you cited says:
September 2, 2005 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
Which is true. But it doesn't mention that Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume uranium conversion a month earlier. The IAEA didn't 'discover' this information; Iran volunteered it. On the other hand, they volunteered the information the day before they resumed enrichment -- hardly a confidence-building move.
Do you think Iran needs to 'build confidence'? The non-proliferation treaty calls non-weapon nuclear activities a 'soveriegn right'. They have allowed inspections. Are they currently not allowing inspectors to have access?
The most recent information I can find on inspections is:
November 23, 2006
The IAEA reports that new traces of uranium were found in Iranian facilities. The IAEA concludes that it "will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues, including through the implementation of the Additional Protocol, and provides the necessary transparency."
Does this indicate inspections took place in 11/2006? Have any been requested and denied since then? (The 'traces of uranium' were determined to have been contamination from the source country of the equipment, not developed in Iran)
Understand, I'm not debating, just trying to understand.
>>the extremist islamic leaders want Isreal wiped out so badly they care NOTHING about retaliation
While they may not like Israel, what reason do you have for believing they are willing to destroy themselves as a nation (or at least risk it) to eliminate them? Or do anything at all to bring about Israel's destruction, for that matter?
Dave
Good discussion here. However, let's not lose sight of the topic.
Does one nation have the right to dictate another nations domestic policy?
One little problem here...the extremist islamic leaders want Isreal wiped out so badly they care NOTHING about retaliation....They blow themselves up in great numbers already...It is an HONOR...What better way to please Allah than making several of their cities martyrs? I do not see how any group or any nations that has vocalized such hatred of other groups should be allowed to posess nearly limitless destrutive power....I still think in my lifetime there will be some nuclear device set off by terrorists....what a shame....oompa
oompa - the terrorists are in the minority*, and not in charge of any Muslim country (yet!). Their most likely radioactive threat from a terrorist is the 'dirty bomb' - made largely from waste recovered from redundant x-ray units and the like. This wouldn't take out a whole city - it would be a 'regular' sized device.
*Out of 1,226 million Muslims, how many do you think are terrorists?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
More useful links and info here:
