Printable View
Personally, i do think they have the right to pursue nuclear technologies, just as any other country in the world should have the same right.
As of right now, its looking like this whole thing is becoming an excuse to go to war with Iran.
What are your thoughts? Do you think Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology or not?
Regards,
Lee
looks like we are going to go to war with them. hilter is up to it again
As I've said before, my best friend in childhood was a Westernized Iranian. His family had immigrated from Iran. His father was a dentist. They had such a close family and were very kind. They were great people and a great part of our community.
Unfortunately for years the Iranian government has put it's people in jeapordy. It's unfortunate. I wouldn't put it past Bush to goto war with them now, but I think he'll have difficulty getting support as our military is already spread to thin.
Kerry warned of all this in the debates. Just get that asshole president and his religious right the hell out of office asap.
Exactly. Bush's administration and the republican congress are failing at their agenda, so they are trying the things that worked before --make gay marriage an issue, go to war and call anyone who doesn't support them unpatriotic traitors.
Iran is a soveriegn country and should be able to pursue nuclear energy [but why? they are sitting on the 4th largest pool of proven oil reserves in the world] if they choose.
I am not really even worried about a country like Iran developing nuclear weapons because I don' think they would ever use them. That would be silly--the retaliation would completely wipe them out--the same reason the US and Soviet Union never used nuclear weapons in the cold war.
Chad,
Do we know each other from convetions. We think way too much alike.
Everybody complains about Bush and their unhappyness with his cowboy diplomacy. But it also shows how if the US doesn't lead in foreign affairs, nothing gets resolved.
These past few months there has been an outstanding opportunity for European countries ---- Germany, France, etc. to resolve the problem of Iran seeking nuclear capabilities, without the US jutting in or going off half cocked.
Where's the resolution? Where are the other NATO countries like Canada? Why don't they resolve it? Where's their Ambassador Sarek swooping in with the forces of logic and diplomacy to fix it? (It worked in the Journey to Babel episode.)
The EU has been negotiating with Iran, and as we've seen it's not worked very well.
THIS is the crux of the foreign policy situation. No other countries want to really make big decisions. Plus the people in those countries do not want to mess with "foreign wars across the globe" so their leaders don't get their hands dirty. So here we go again it's going to be the US and possibly also the "Anglo-American Axis" whose going to have to do something.
I recall how the US invasion of Iraq was allegedly solely to enrich Bush's "oil friends."
Why do people refuse to make any similar conclusion with Russia or China whose state owned corporations do lots of $$$ business with Iran and also just happen to vote against financial sanctions?
Steve
PS: I'm critical too of mistakes the US has made since the Iraq war. Yes - it's a complex issue. Problems like Iran's Supreme Muslim Fundamentalist government developing nuclear capabilities aren't things you can just appease forever. Plus, how many gay people like you and me have been publically beheaded in Iran for their sexual orientation this year?
With the war in Iraq winding down, Hailiburton needs some place else to sell its products.
Michael
Well I think if anything, Iran's case shows that no country really works in a vacuum.
You have an Iranian nuclear program made possible, in part to each, by nuclear secrets sold to them by a Pakistani (our ally) scientist, technology and funds gained from relationships with China (one of our biggest trading partners) and Russia (no longer the "Evil Empire" and no longer the US' arch enemy). All this within the context of the current Iraq situation - a country we invaded on all of the pretenses we see in Iran right now, yet for which none of those pretenses turned out to be accurate.
I think there's more that's flawed here than just this aggressive Bush Admin foreign policy that has as in Iraq right now. The whole notion of spreading democracy is flawed. Democracy in and of itself is not the cure to the world's ailments, despite what Bush would have us believe. And this neoCon idea of spreading democracy by all means necessary seems blind to the fact that what others want might have nothing to do with what we'd like.
Democracy will bring a heavily Islamist leadership in to power in Iraq.
Democracy won Hamas the Palestinian legislature.
Democracy is nationalizing countries throughout Latin America.
Democracy, were it not subject to violent repression on the part of secular governments, would have Egypt and Algeria be fundamentalist Islamic states.
Democracy is what put the Islamist regime in to power in Iran in the first place.
Further, it would have been foolish for anyone to have expected Muslim and Arab regimes to willingly remain non-nuclear while Israel had nukes (thanks in no small part to embargo and sanction-violating exchanges with an apartheid-era South Africa, by the way). Again, no vacuum. We can't expect Israel to give up their nuclear capabilities anymore than we can expect other nations in the region to willingly forgoe pursuit of their own nuclear programs given Israel's capabilities.
When Khan Noonan Singh went after Admiral Kirk for killing his wife, Mr. Spock remarked that his attack strategy "indicates two dimensional thinking" Don't make this easy pitfall.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD
Democracy does not equal utopia. And people will decide differently on identical issues - just like if the people of the states of Massachusetts and Utah were to vote on a gay rights question, there would probably be different outcomes.
Democracies allow for the competition of ideas, and no better demonstration of this appears currently in South America. This weekend Peru and Columbia elected Presidents who oppose nationalizing their economies, and that's a direct public reaction of Hugo Chavez's actions to unite Cuba and Bolivia together with Venezuela so he becomes the next Simon Bolivar.
Democracies are superior because they are a process. So yes, you can point to Iraq's current instability, or the Palestinian Hamas government today, but as democracies they have the ability to move through it. (maybe painfully, but still) Regimes like the Saddam Hussein goivernment or Fidel Castro's are different because they will keep their power by force, and they are not held accountible by anyone. They become places frozen in time. The lands that time forgot.
It's like how equal rights for gays in lesbians in the US over the past thirty years has been a moving process, which we ultimately win. In those places of the world with big problems, they will do best if they have a democratic government in place to move them through the process.
Steve
I think you need to share that concept with the current administration more than anyone else, who views democracy not as a process but as an end all be all solution. I don't see the Bush administration as considering democracy to be a process so much as an end point.
If the process of democracy involves our having to stick around Iraq indefinitely in to the future and prop up a fragile government at the expense of our tax dollars and troops' lives, it's certainly not the type of democracy we were sold... after being sold previous false pretenses for the invasion.
The Bush administration backed themselves in to a corner with Iraq, forcing themselves to latch on to the notion of democracy as the cure for all the world's ills and stuck trying to put the best face on the fact that not every part of the world - not every country or culture - is as compatible with democracy as we'd like to think.
In his speech, Khameni argued that Iran is not a threat to the world and cited the support of 116 Non-Aligned Movement nations for Iran's aspirations for nuclear technology.
He criticized U.S. policies in Iraq and the Palestinian territories and compared U.S. President George W. Bush and Ahmadinejad.
"Those people currently running the government of the U.S. should understand and should compare their president with our president. Your president is hated within the U.S. according to your own polls. Your current government is the most hated in the U.S. history from the point of view of the people, whereas ours is the most popular in Iran in the last 100 years.
"Wherever your president goes in the world, there are demonstrations against him, and he is hated in Africa, in Asia and everywhere. In Latin America such as Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela, governments are elected based on the strength of anti-American slogans. The people of the U.S. -- they don't have security in their private telephone conversations.
"The government of the U.S. doesn't trust their own people to allow them to have private telephone conversations and have passed laws to eavesdrop on them. The recent visit of the Iranian president to Indonesia and his predecessors' visits to Lebanon and other countries were all warmly welcomed."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ran/index.html
He is right but I still don't trust their government.
But the difference between us and them is that Iran's government is not held accountible. You only quote the speechmaker as "Khameni" ... he is actually titled Supreme Leader Khamenei, a very clear and honest title.
Basically history is going to show whether or not Iraq is going to be a success.
That'll be the jury.
It's a provocative idea, and there really are no other competing ideas as to how to handle rogue governments. Hence I reiterate my observation as why other countries have been unable to resolve the problem of Iran's nuclear aspirations.
But I suppose people can always just complain about Bush's cowboy diplomacy.
Steve
As much as I value the opinions of so many people on this forum, there's something in posing this question to a bunch of pornographers that is akin to asking Cameron Diaz or Julia Roberts what they think of immigration policy or the war in Iraq. Which is to say nothing "bad," of course. But I just don't want to hear any complaints from the folks on this board the next time Julia or Britney Spears go on record talking about politics. LOL! :)
Or someone that writes about porn fancying themselves a journalist? :develish:
I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing things other than porn here. Threads like these make it apparent so many people here have a wealth of knowledge in areas far beyond just porn.
There's a difference between people simply sharing their opinions with one another and people assuming that just because someone's a celebrity, they're inherently able to offer an expert opinion on any and everything given more weight on account of the celebrity alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinFisher_BD
I was actually being facetious in my other opinion. I remember a while back some people were saying how ridiculous it was for celebrities to share their thoughts on political matters. That's all.
I'll assume your opening statement was merely a joke--albeit a bad one. Otherwise, we'd have problems. ;)
No country should have nuclear weapons but who are we to say they can't. I mean the USA is the only county to have ever used a nuclear weapon. Now we are the ones telling other countries they are not responsible enough to have them? It seems like the ultimate hypocrisy.
Well ok.... by that logic, Stalin's Soviet Russia mercilessly razed Germany as their army reoccupied it in 1945, and then made it a prison for fifty years. (and when I say razed they burned up everything in their path - grass, land that produced food, buildings, humans.. because they did not want a German people ever able to invade them again)
Do you know what Stalin proposed doing to Germany for war reparations... if Churchill and Roosevelt hadn't been there to stop him in Yalta?
As not to mention took over Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. So let's say that the US's use of dropping two bombs in 1945 Japan destroys our ability to say how nuclear technology is used around the world.
So, why should Russia have moral license to sell nuclear technology to Iran? Why should their opinions on the UN Security Council therefore have moral weight?
Steve
:sun: The US government I think is pushing itself to rule the world rather than diplomacy. We are all afraid of other countries like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba,etc. on developing this nuclear weapons but we have forgot that US gov itself is engaging on this things. In fact, US secret military camps has been developing this nuclear against its enemies. Does this means that if you are an Islamic country or not on the side of US gov you are convicted as threatening entity to them and you dont have the right to build this nuclear weapons while US gov is doing it. History speaks louder on how US has been pushing off on war and millions of innocent people had died. Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Cuba, Pakistan...name it there are a lot of countries that US had exploited in terms of human rights, territorial rights, international policy, religious practice,etc. The bottom line here is how serious and dedicated the US gov is in promoting peace and unity to the world. Before doing this they should stop first their secret nuclear military camps, pull off all JOEs in all countries, stop dictating the United Nations on what to do, stop controlling the world bank. I wonder why US gov keep on attacking middle east countries in asia... is it because of the reserve fuel? Also why there is continues war... I mean where these people gets their arms and equipment. Who's behind it? That sounds business for me. God bless America! :sun: