| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/9/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33681 Activity:insanely high |
9/21 So "liberal" guy, what do you think the US should do about
Iran's incipient nuclear program?
\_ I think we should violently rape and kill all non-US citizens.
Only then can we be SURE we won't be attacked!
\_ I don't have the whole answer, but this is part of it:
http://csua.org/u/959 (Yahoo! News)
Step 1: Elect Kerry (Bush is bad at coalitions)
\_ And he's good at what exactly? Looking
smug and stupid?
\_ Does step 1 include the "International tax" the UN wants
and GWB would never allow in a million years? Why did
Schroeder make a speech that essentially said, "Wait til
November because our boy Kerry will do it!"?
Step 2: Get Russia and Europe all on the same page
(Do you really want Iran to have nukes?)
\_ WTF does this mean? Get them? How? Why not just
say the answer to Iran's nuke program is "Get the
Iranians to stop having a nuke program"?
Step 3: Help Iran build nuclear power plants, but completely
restrict enriching uranium, even for peaceful purposes.
Russia can supply fuel for the power plants.
It doesn't matter if the NPT says Iran can enrich uranium
for peaceful purposes.
\_ There has been an open offer of help for years that
is even less restrictive than this but the Iranians
aren't interested. Now what? Please read a newspaper
every so often before deciding you have all the
answers.
You can still do 2 and 3 without 1, but I can't help but feel
Dubya will fuck it up again. -liberal
\_ what the hell do they need nuclear power for? What about oil?
\_ Iran will bewt the inspectors if we don't give em Step 3.
Europe and Russia will say they can live with Step 3;
but if the U.S. doesn't agree, then we're not using force
as the last possible option. We'll just look like warmongers
again.
\_ Huh? The US has offered the Iranians an even better
version of your "step 3" for several years. They are
not interested. Now what?
\_ Why does Iran need nuclear power??? It is sitting on massive
petroleum and natural gas reserves. A gallon of gas in Iran
is something like 0.30$. As for Europe, the Germans and
French were the same countries that sold Iran the illicit
refining equipment to begin with. It is Russia who is
is / has been building Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Haven't you figured out appeasement does not work.
Iran's foreign policy is not coexistence with the West,
it is elimination of the West. Iran has been the largest
state sponsor of terror over the last 30 years.
\_ Then why the hell did we invade IRAQ? "Oops, one letter typo"
\_ iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal. but it is
well accepted that its oil reserves will not produce enough
oil within 50 years.
\_ Well accepted? By whom? Do you have a source for this
statement?
\_ It is a geological fact for every country producing
oil. Many countries are now "post peak" and are
producing less oil every year, the US being a prime
example.
\_ "Iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal" ... Pakistan
has nukes and hasn't misused them. The only country to
use nukes so far is us.
\_ Of course Iran wants nukes; only a moron would think they
were only interested in nuclear power. No one tries to
squish a country with nukes without hestitating.
No one also doubts that they are at the top of list for
state sponsors of terror -- but it's also true we don't have
smoking gun evidence of an al Qaeda link.
Also, please provide a URL showing that Germany and France
sold "[nuclear] refining equipment" to Iran. I believe
Pakistan sold centrifuge equipment to Iran.
Also, WW2 showed that giving up a country to an invading
country doesn't work. This was the example of WW2, Korea,
and Kuwait. However, Vietnam and Iraq have been different
stories, and it might be again with Iran.
So, do we have enough people to invade Iran ...?
I told you what I'd do. Now what would you? -op
\_ He answered. He'd appease.
\-semi-tangential comment: while this doenst rise to
a "clash of civilizations" there are some instances
where it is hard to put yourself in the other guys
shoes ...
[continuation moved to ~psb/MOTD/AmericanDoubleStandards]
\_ When you're a super power there are no double
standards. You do what you want and make the rules
for everyone. That's what being a super power is
all about. The US is a rather benign super power
as these things go. What other country with this
kind of power would do so little with it?
\_ US is rather benign, but it's not because of
the current administration.
\_ I think a fair solution would be to allow Iran to use the nuclear
technologies for peaceful purposes, including the dual-use
technologies, as long as they allow UN's international atomic agency
to fully monitor their nuclear activities without any exceptions.
Iran's government has been working a lot in the recent times to
develop domestic manufacturing (including auto, aerospace) and IT
industries. Their nuclear ambitions might be viewed simply as yet
another step on the way to joining the "technologically advanced
nation" club. They also argue that meeting domestic energy needs
using solely fossil fuels will have a serious environmental impact.
Neither they have enough power generating capacity to meet energy
needs for future. This is probably why they have just started
building a gas pipeline to Armenia. They say they intend to export
gas to Armenia and import electricity produced there. I am not
saying that everything is well in Iran. They were definitely caught
red-handed handed with their undisclosed uranium enrichment
facilities but I would allow them to keep their reactors as long
as they agree to play by the rules.
\_ Wait a minute. Isn't our invasion of Iraq supposed to scare
countries like Iran and N. Korea into abandoning their WMD
programs? |
| 5/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/959 -> news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040921/pl_afp/iran_nuclear_iaea_us_040921184658 VIENNA (AFP) - The United States would have an easier time dealing with Iran if it were as willing to reward Tehran for cooperation in coming clean on an alleged nuclear weapons program as it is to punish the Islamic republic for not cooperating, a former senior US official said. web sites) administration, said in a phone conference interview Monday. The interview in which AFP and nine other news organizations took part was conducted from Washington and organized by the Jerusalem-based Access/Middle East journalist services organization. Einhorn said the United States is now stressing only putting pressure on Iran, after Washington pushed at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Saturday for a resolution that called on Iran to immediately halt all work on the nuclear fuel cycle and set a November 25 deadline for a review of the Iranian program. Russia and China, which are both members of the IAEA's 35-member board of governors that passed the resolution, only signed on reluctantly to the US position. The resolution was drafted by Britain, France and Germany, which have moved closer to the US stance after Iran broke an agreement with the so-called Euro-3 for a full suspension of uranium enrichment, the process which makes fuel for nuclear reactors but also the explosive material for atomic bombs. Einhorn said the Euro 3 and Washington should reverse their "good cop/bad cop" roles with Europe becoming tougher and the United States more conciliatory. web sites) was willing to show it was ready to meet cooperation from Tehran with "carrots," such as transfers of peaceful nuclear technology, this would give it more weight with IAEA members who favor constructive engagement rather than confrontation with Iran. Russia has a huge financial interest in Iran since it is helping Tehran build its first nuclear reactor in Bushehr. The United States "has to indicate that if Iran is ready to give up its uranium enrichment, the United States will drop its opposition to Bushehr," Einhorn said. He said the United States, which has had Iran under economic and security sanctions for decades, has to show it is "prepared to engage Iran bilaterally," something the Iranians desire. If the Iranians did not cooperate with all these carrots, then the Russians and others would be more willing to back a tough US line on Iran, Eihnorn said. He said "Russia and Putin are sceptical of Iran's intentions" and have told Iran privately "that unless the (alleged atomic weapons) issue is resolved, Bushehr won't go ahead." "Russian cooperation is absolutely critical in getting a positive result to this crisis," Einhorn said. The United States wants the IAEA to send the Iranian file to the UN Security Council, which could then impose punishing international sanctions on Iran. Einhorn said that "the readiness of the United States to (constructively) engage with Iran" will give the United States a better chance of winning Russian backing on the Security Council if Iran does not cooperate. "The United States may be paradoxically having a better chance of taking Iran to the Security Council if it shows a balanced approach to dealing with Iran," Einhorn said. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse. |