How many more hoops is Bush going to make Iran jump through before he is satisfied that once again he is wrong about a countries nuclear ambitions. Iran has made it clear time and time again that they have no intention of enriching uranium for the purpose of making WMD's and evidence from many nations seem to back this up and yet Bush and his cronies along with his whipping dog Prime Minister Blair seem intent on pushing the issue in what seems to be an attempt to force a confrontation.
When Bush first accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program they accepted UN investigators and showed proof of the fact that they were using the nuclear program that they had in effect only for energy, not weapons.
The Bush administration was not satisfied and tried to say that they had photos showing otherwise. Those photos were then shown to be of energy plants which was then confirmed by the Russian government who has been working with the Iranian government to put together a nuclear energy program.
This still was not enough and now the Bush admin and Blair are attempting to get the issue pushed into the Security Council. Now keep in mind that the UN nuclear watchdog has already stated that the nuclear programs taking place in Iran are purely for energy, but of course the UN also said that we needed to inspect Iraq further and we saw how right they were then, oh yeah they were right and we are now fighting a senseless war.
Well two things are now happening. First of all the Iranian government has stated that if the issue is in fact taken to the Security council they will begin enriching uranium commercial with or without the UN's permission. This seems to me to be their right. They have taken every step they can to prove their intentions are peaceful, what more do we want.
Second they have agreed along with Russia to have the uranium enriched their to a level used for energy and then shipped to Iran. This would ease fears that they are using it for weapons as it could not at that point be used for weapons grade material. If this does not satisfy Bush it makes it clear that he has no interest in whether or not they are actually making weapons and only in attempting to start a confrontation between us and another Mid Eastern country which possesses a large amount of the worlds oil.
Before we go all gung hoe into this one however it is imperative that we learn our lessons from Iraq. Look at how hard it is going there and then consider that Iran has a much more powerful military and is allied with most of the rest of the Middle East has well as Russia and China. To attack there would set off a powder keg that we are not prepared to handle.
Lets just hope that the American people have gained enough sense since the last fiasco to actually stand up to our leaders and tell them NO WE WILL NOT GO TO WAR WITHOUT CAUSE, AND NO ACCUSATIONS OF WMD'S WITHOUT PROOF IS NOT CAUSE!
8 comments:
Why use uranium as a source of power?
The US is trying to reduce the threat of a nuclear attack to itself by eliminating the ability of third world countries to produce nuclear weapons; especially, those countries with terrorist ties. The US is right in saying that we need to stop these countries and others from developing these kinds of weapons and move towards a nuclear free world. But, the problem is that the US is not offering a solution to the energy crisis that Iran and other similar countries are facing. These countries cannot afford to continue to burn oil or coal and need an alternative source of energy. The United States Government needs to help these countries develop better forms of technology to meet their energy needs.
Iran is not currently a real threat to the US, but it could be if we continue to press them. We cannot justify making war against every Muslim Nation in the world and call it a peaceful solution. America cannot afford another war and we most certainly do not need to make enemies out of every Muslim Nation on the planet. So, what can be done to fix this problem and bring peace?
First, Iran must agree to stop their nuclear program altogether and Russia needs to think about what they are offering the Iranians. It was not that long ago when Russia had a major nuclear accident that has scarred thousands of children to this day. Nuclear power is not a clean source of energy as some would want you to think. Nuclear waste, left over from the process, is not clean nor is it safe. It takes well over 500 years for the radiation levels of nuclear waste to drop within safe tolerances. Nuclear plants are expensive to keep running and poorly managed nuclear power plants are a threat to the planet. The energy output of a nuclear power plant would be enough to take care of Iran’s energy needs for many years to come, but at what cost? In the long haul, the cost of the power plant’s upkeep, storage of radioactive waste materials, and the lost of human life, if there is an accident, should make ethical leaders think twice about nuclear power. So, what can Iran do?
Iran needs to use their greatest two energy sources: solar and wind power. Iran has huge areas of inhospitable tracks of land where wind electrical mills could be placed. Solar power is proving to be an exceptional source of energy these days too. We finally have the technology to tap into these two amazing sources of energy. Houses and buildings could easily be fitted with solar panels and even giant solar power plants and windmill farms could be created to supply electricity to the nation. What is great about these two sources of power is that they can be easily intergraded to work with current systems.
Another idea would be to burn garbage instead of coal. This solution would solve two problems facing this country. There are even filters that can be fitted to remove smoke to prevent air contamination during the burning process. These filters could then be buried, thus shrinking the size of land fills significantly and speeding up the decomposition process. Iran has a chance to show the rest of the world that there are better alternatives to fossils fuels and nuclear energy. So what role would the United States play?
The United States would supply Iran with the technology needed to utilize these forms of energy. Other countries with similar technologies would then follow the actions of the United States and help other countries. Iran could also pass what they have learned onto other Middle Eastern countries. The United States could show the world, by their actions, that we are ready to lead the world into a time of peace, love, and prosperity for all nations. Iran can show the world that they are a peaceful nation just looking for new forms of energy by agreeing to this plan. Hand in hand the two countries can bring an end to the threat of war and terrorism by showing the world that love and caring are far more powerful than hate and war. Together these two great countries can bring peace to the world.
Paul,
I do not disagree that nuclear isn't the best source of energy and that we should offer other sources, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that we are once again rushing to conculsions without facts and once again threating the use of force.
Even if it is not the best source of energy we do not have the right to tell them that they cannot pursue the use of a form of energy that we use on a regular basis around the country.
Blevins said...
Iran has consistently dodged the IAEA time and time again. If they are not using uranium, etc. to produce nuclear weapons...then what do they have to hide?
Blevins,
Do me a favor and check out this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm
It gives a complete history of the occurances regarding the conflict with Iran to date. Now keep in mind also that this is not a small news group or a far left or right paper, this is the very well respected by both sides BBC.
Please point out to me were Iran has "consistently dodged the IAEA time and time again"
What I actually see is Iran cooperating with them. For two years they have stop their nuclear program and even now as they are breaking the suspension on it they are doing so stating that they wish to have the right, as granted in the NNP treaty, to do so UNDER INSPECTION. They have made it clear time and time again that they do not intend to make weapons and every time they talk of enriching their own uranium, keep in mind they have offered to negotiate terms to have Russia enrich it for them, they make sure and add that it would be UNDER UN INSPECTION.
What more can we ask of them?!
As for your claim that Isrial
"could so totally kick Iran's ass. Their airforce is second to none and so are their paramilitary organizations. Iran would be in a state of anarchy before it even knew what hit it. I think Iran should just back off, before it becomes a fiery inferno:?
The issue is not whether we or Isreal could beat Iran on it's own, it is that they would not be alone. The moment that we or Isreal attacked Iran (and don't be so niave to think that Isreal would attack Iran without U.S. backing in the form or weapons and most likely forces.) their allies, including those allied with us (and tired of us playing world police without their approval or even their opinion) would join the fight. We would have countries like France, Russia, China, and all of the Muslim countries of the world engaged in a war with us. Unlike Iraq which was not liked or respected in the Muslim and Eastern community Iran is very well respected if not liked amongst the world powers. Not to mention that they supply a large number of the worlds economies, including our own, with oil and the other major suppliers are their allies so to attack them would be to cut off all major oil supplies. Do you really think we could win a war with no Oil, I think not.
Then of course there is the question of humanity. I seem to remeber you being a strong voice against the Iraq war because of the thousands of innocent people who died. Do you value the lives of the innocent people in Iran less. I don't. And I garuntee you that many more would die in this war because it will be a war worthy of the title World War 3.
We are not the world's security detail and we need to stop acting like we are before WE become a fiery inferno, to borrow your phrase.
Blevins,
Its top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, who called the Russian plan "positive" after a meeting in Moscow Wednesday, on Friday said it was "not sufficient for Iran's nuclear technology," according to Iran's state-run news agency.
"It should be considered along with other proposed schemes, given that it cannot be dismissed as negative," Mr. Larijani said in Tehran, after a trip that included consultations in Beijing as well as Moscow. "We believe the proposal can be revised to be more complete."
This came directly from your NY Times article. Please tell me how this is "dodging the IAEA. It seems to me that they are open to letting this course of action take place with a "little revision". I'm sorry I thought that was how negotiatoins went. One side offers the other counters and you come to a deal.
And your second source, come on the CSM on a Muslim country, not exactly what I call unbiased journalism.
As for your last source, it simply points out that Iran is a theocracy and not a great place to live. No one is saying this is not true, but how does this effect their right to nuclear power.
You continue to say that they are not being forthcoming but have yet to show any real proof of this. I used to respect your use of facts and detail, but I am quickly loosing that respect. I have never seen you so easily cast away the rights and lives of innocents. You say that you respect their lives, and yet without proof of any danger you seem so ready to use force.
You talk of how bad Iran is yet you seem to exalt Israel for it's ability to use sabotage and assasinations. I am not sure what happened to the person who first got me into blogging and turned me into a flaming liberal many years ago, but your recent post are far from the intelligent, well thought out, well backed post I am used to. I would love to have a debate regarding this with you, but get so facts first.
Blevins,
First of all I would like to ask were you got the idea that the CSM is either liberal or moderate, let alone unbiased. It is a religoisly based paper and is known for it's conservative stand on most issues.
Secondly, I did not question your intelligence at all, I simply asked what happened to the person who backed up his post with real facts.
The reason I say this is because the first link you posted talked about how Iran would agree to the U.S. and Russian plan with a few revisions, not exactly dodging us. The second was by a paper known for it's bias, and which talked more about why the US was afraid that they were making weapons, not giving facts showing that they were. And the third talks about the state of the country, not their use of nucluer materials.
I agree that they are a theocracy and that they do have a lot of issues, but that does not take away there right to be a free nation. The simple fact is that if you were to judge a countries right to have nucleur power on there current state of affairs the U.S. shouldn't be allowed anywere near nucluer power. We have had more scandels, civil liberty issues, and straight out criminal activity recently than any time I can remeber in our history.
The simple fact is that the debate is not over whether they should have the right to nucluer power, they are already granted that right by the NNP Treaty. The question is whether they are pursueing technology for nucleur power or WMD's. The answer is that they have shown in every way possible that they have no intention or creating weapons. They have been forthcoming regardless of what you try to say, you have yet to show me one peace of evidence that says otherwise.
Until evidence, solid evidence, can be shown that proves that they are attempting to build weapons they should have the right to continue their research.
As for your personal attacks on me and my political education I would simply like to say two things.
First of all I have continued to research and study all aspects of current and past political issues and I do not appreciate the unfounded claims of my simply rehashing others talking points. I have done nothing of the sort. I would like to see the talking points that you are talking about.
I may not have a degree like yourself, but I am very much educated on this and every other major issue that I speak about. If you care to prove otherwise simply show me somewhere that I have shown otherwise.
As for your studying it for the last 10 years I know you have, but that does not mean you know more about it than I. I have been studying it in depth for the last 6 months and I can assure you I know what the hell I am talking about.
Well I have been watching the situation closely and I can admit when I am wrong. In the last few days Iran has shown a lack of effort to try and resolve the situation and almost seems to be simply trying to buy time by working with negotiators and then backing away from the table. I think that it is to early still for any action of force, but I do think that the U.N. Security Council should investigate the matter further to make sure that no foul play is taking place.
I stand by my assertion that it seems that Bush is more hungry for a conflict than a solution and that Iran should have the right to have nucleur power, but they do need to be a little more forthcoming and try a little harder to come to a solution to the issue. This however also goes for the U.S. which seems one minute to be all about reaching a diplomatic solution and the next seems all about applying sanctions which are sure to only further tense an already dangerously tense situation.
Right now I love all of you for supporting Iran's nuclear program and I like Blevis very much because of what he says about Iran. I am an Iranian and I congrat you all for helping me. I am right now writing a letter to the Senator of Georgia (project) and I put this website as a helpful website. I hope he brings this in front of the Senate and then Iran may have a chance. Thank you so much. I love all of you. THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!! I can't express my thanks and I hope you all support Iran's nuclear program. I am not bias just because I am Iranian and I have debated this with my teacher. Iran's leader may want to blow Israel off the face of the Earth, but in a couple of years, he may die and we may have a better leader for Iran. And for the U.S. :) Peace out.
P.S. A-Town! GO ATL!
Post a Comment