Iran Resumes Building Nuclear Centrifuges

Iran has declared that it will go back to building nuclear centrifuges.

Discuss.

Another triumph for the UN and diplomatic multilateralism. I'm sure Bush is learning some hard lessons about how foolish it is not to trust totalitarian governments, and how they can be depended on to cooperate in good faith with entities that epitomize moral legitimacy, like the UN and France.

how dare a third world country attempt to provide electricity to itself!

Yeah, that's *exactly* what they're after...

Well of course they are. The US only invades countries that don't have WMDs, silly.

Seriously?

The idea, of course, being to get the country on the right track _before_ they do have loads of WMD's and delivery mechanisms. While I personally believe that we should move on N. Korea, that's not politically feasible as tens of thousands will be killed (minimum).

Considering the vast wealth of oil resources Iran is blessed with, it's a pretty wan argument that generating electricity is the main focus of their nuclear program.

The first person that calls Iran an Arab nation is getting smacked with a fish.

Only because I like fish...

An even better idea would be to deal with countries that are greater nuclear menaces, such as Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea in the first place instead of going after one that doesn't have any. It just shows them that if they've got nukes, they'll be left alone. You can be sure every rogue nation on the planet's clamouring for nukes right now. All thanks to Bush & co.

In my opinion, Libya's surrender of its nuclear program and subsequent reentry into global politics _is_ a direct consequence of US actions in Iraq; it's also, in my opinion, a good thing.

All of the above mentioned countries have stability issues, which is one of the reasons why the US has been trying to work for change slowly. In Iran, it seems to working on the people, if not the government. Recently, there have been pro-US protests in Tehran. North Korea had a record defection within this last week.

Aggressive foreign policy is working. Should it be tempered at times? Sure. But overall, showing that corrupt governments cannot take advantage of their people or they will be held accountable is a good thing.

Unless of course ,the corrupt government in question happens to be headed in Washington D.C.

I suppose they're buying intermediate range ballistic missiles from North Korea to go along with their energy program. It's almost like an axis of some kind.

BTW, why does a country sitting on such a huge resevoir of petroleum feel the need to go nuclear for their energy needs?



[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by stockula]

Those countries have long been seeking nuclear weapons. Sure, we could invade those countries that admit that they have nuclear weapons, but it'll make Iraq look like a game of checkers - there will be massive casualties.

The real question is who dies?

If we use force on N. Korea, Americans die. If we don't use force, N. Korean civilians die. It's a lose-lose situation, but the use of force is not politically possible; no one in Congress is going to vote to kill tens of thousands of Americans.

Yeah, on second thought, I don't think that any desert nations have the capability to support a nuclear power plant. Iran has a few lakes and rivers, and the caspian sea to the north, so it's kinda feasible, but all Libya has is the mediterranean. So I change my mind, they probably are going after weapons.

Maybe they want to conserve oil?

I suppose you could look at it that way. But I personally cannot compare the governments of Iran/N.Korea to the US; whatever mistakes this administration has made are dwarfed by the atrocities that those governments commit daily.

Then let them ride bikes!*







*if you miss the "let them eat cake" reference... well...

True enough, but that response was more tongue in cheek than anything....except for them not being held accountable for screwing the people daily.

Well, Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time now and is generally considered the world's greatest nulear threat by many IR analysts. But they're an *ally* right now, so they don't get much attention. Iran and North Korea are only trying to get their hands on them, and if we had been serious about preventing their spread, we would have gone after them. But no, we went after a country that doesn't have them but does have a lot of oil.

The moral of the story for the world's dictators: get yourself some nukes and get 'em fast. The Iraq war may just have encouraged nuclear proliferation.

Ok.

I agree that Pakistan is a problem. Heck, just a few years ago they were listed as a "rogue nation." Islamabad is still a _very_ dangerous place for Americans... But we have to contend with keeping the balance between Pakistan and India. If we were to use force in Pakistan, they would no doubt nuke India, who would nuke them back; bam! WW3.

Whether or not N. Korea has nukes is debatable. What isn't is that they have a massive well equiped army with miles of land mines between N and S Korea. If we use force on N. Korea, S. Korea will be wiped off the map. Then... bam! WW3.

Currently, there is a friendly adminstration running the show in Pakistan. We will have to get involved there in the next 10 years, without a doubt. The question is merely one of timing.

[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by slimjim]