Iran continues uranium enrichment

[Jhhnn]

Uranium enrichment does not necessarily mean that the goal is nuclear weapons, at all. The goal could easily be just what the Iranians say it is, homegrown reactor fuel.

Of course, if the US and whatever chorus they can create continues demonizing Iranian efforts, the Iranians will eventually tell us all to piss off- and then we won't have any real idea of what they are doing. Better to keep an open dialogue, and keep IAEA inspectors in Iran, overseeing their program...

Well, unless the objective is to create a boogeyman for domestic political purposes, in which case the Bush Admin is doing a fine job...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
perhaps i would, raildogg, but that's why i don't live in iran.

No. The reason you don't live in Iran was because you were LUCKY enough to be born in the USA. As for the unfortunate gays and lesbians surviving in Iran, who were not so lucky re: their country of birth, your response appears to be indifference.

 

[sarotara]

It seems like everyone is clamoring about Iran continuing uranium enrichment and the US wants to refer Iran to the UN Security Council and impose sanctions. The issue here is whether Iran has breached the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT). If not then either the US and EU stop harassing Iran, or review the NPT to exclude fuel and ask Iran to agree to that. Under the NPT and provided that it fulfils its IAEA obligations, Iran is entitled to not only have nuclear power plants, but to convert and enrich uranium to fuel such power plants. Nuclear energy does not equal nuclear weapons. It's true that mastery of nuclear fuel cycle is just one step below producing nuclear weapons, and there is a risk that Iran could abandon the NPT and develop nuclear weapons, but that is not the case at the moment.

Article VI of the NPT says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." Isn't the US violating the NPT with its plans to develop earth-penetrating "bunker busters" and mini-nukes? There is also the fact that nothing is being done to stop Pakistan (which receives multi-billion dollar military aid packages from the US) and India from further development of their nuclear weapon programmes (neither of these countries are NPT signatories).

Iran is claiming that it wants to continue its uranium enrichment to develop its civilian nuclear energy program, and unless it's proven by the IAEA that Iran is developing nuclear weapons then there is no violation of international law and no reason for imposing sanctions on Iran by the UN.

It appears to me that the US is basically concerned with its inability to impose its agenda on Iran and is using the NPT against NPT signatory states (like Iran) that are not in-step with the US policies. I realize that Iran, once it fully develops a civilian nuclear energy program, could pontetially drop the NPT and start producing nuclear weapons. However, with the US openly threatening to use nuclear weapons at its own discretion, a crossover from civilian to military nuclear programmes and development of a limited nuclear defense capability by Iran would not be unexpected in the future. After all, Iran is being actively threatened by US, a superior military power, and its only possible deterent in the case of a US invasion would be nuclear weapons.

Regardless, the current issue is whether the Iran has violated the NPT, something that hasn't been but would need to be proven by the IAEA, in which case UN sanctions could be applied to Iran. Sanctions without a proof of violation of the NPT by Iran are illegal.

Edit: Grammar

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: raildogg
You do realize that you would get arrested, possibly tortured, or even worse for practicing your gay lifestyle in Iran?

But continue to defend and support anti-US countries. Its what you guys are good at.

I do not support the Iranian regime, and likely one of the more pro-US advocates in my country. This issue doesn't come down to US vs. anti-US; to assume such crap is absolutely naive.

I couldn't help but notice you didn't reply to my above post...interesting

 

[Stunt]

No Raildogg rebuttal...post and run!

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: raildogg
Too bad I'm a American, otherwise I would love Iran to have nukes too. Looks like a 2nd Islamo-fascist country will have nukes. God help us all.

Americans have to be against Iran having nukes...:roll:

Tell me why Iran should not have nukes, and how you propose you stop them?

I don't think Iran should have nukes, but I understand their desire to acquire them. It's one way to guanantee their safetly from the big mean invasion monster known as the United States of America, and also pits them squarely against their mortal enemy Israel. I don't believe Iran would ever be foolish enough to pass off any sort of nuclear bomb to terrorist groups, cuz any bomb that exploded would leave a signature that would lead right back to Iran, and then they'd be nothing but a glass parking lot in a short period of time

Just like they're not foolish enough to storm an embassy and hold hostages for weapons?

Not saying the current leadership of Iran would use the nukes or sell the nukes... but once they have it, it's going to be impossible to remove it from them.

Iran having nukes will cause a nuclear arms race in the middle-east. Mutually Assured Destruction? You really think that'll hold them back as it does in democratic nations? Democratic nations have the benefit that the leaders are accountable for their actions... if a war is unpopular, then they'll get voted out of office. In a dictatorship, one man lunacy isn't held in check... ie Iraq.

 

[piasabird]

You have to have the capability to deliver a nuke also. It would only take a few planes with bunker busters to stop them. Nuclear power is very dangerous. The waste created has to be stored somewhere. It is insane to even use nuclear power. They have a giant stockpile of oil and could easily generate their own power.