Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Exactly, it's so stupid!

I totally agree with DK, Choco and Liban in their latest posts.

Lionheart, why on earth should any country have nuclear weapons? Have you not read the history about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - have you not seen the pictures? The same thing for chemical weapons - they should be abolished. If every country got rid of weapons of mass destruction then this world would be a safter place for everyone.

What a shame that we have starving people, insecurity, and evironmental degredation happening on this planet - yet these are low on the priority list for most countries! Instead they are worried about having the most money, or taking revenge on other countries, meddling in other countries affairs etc.

Some people would do better to think of themselves as WORLD CITIZENS and take action to make the WORLD a better place. Instead, so many cling to ethnic, religious and political groups and cause destruction in the name of petty rivalry and selfish intentions.

Interesting views expressed on the subject recently.

I think there will always be a need for national defense - imagine the fate of the world if Germany went unchallenged in the 2nd world war. The fact that the world already has nuclear weapons now means it will be practically impossible to rid the world of these - I mean the US refuses to even follow enviromental agreements such as Kyoto - so what chance of nuclear non-proliferation being honoured (let alone nuclear disarmament).

Whilst there are nations who are viewed as potential agressors against a country's national interest, it will make utmost sense to any leader to seek to protect their national interests. They will be doing their people and country a dis-service if they didn't.

As much as we may not like it, the position of North Korea speaks volumes. It is one of the most oppressive regimes on this planet - with reports, for example, of millions of N Koreans starving due to lack of food and uber-control of everything. They saber rattle with the best in history and yet nothing is done against them.

Hmm.

China is a dictatorship - not a democracy - and is currently occupying another country and repressing the people there (Tibet). Human rights aren't really high on the agenda.. they have the nuke and also are an economic power that the Western nations are scrambling to do business with the nation.

Hmmm.

Iran, on the other hand, hasn't been an aggressor to any nation for centuries. (I know this argument has been outed many times before, so will not say more)

In my mind, Iran's 'sin' is to not bow down in worship of the USA and dares to strike it out alone.

Hmmmm.

Shafique

Yes, of course the whole situation is hypocritical on the part of nations who have nuclear weapons. Why weren't they taking serious action when other countries like North Korea obtained nukes , and why are they keeping their own nuclear weapons, and in the case of the US - developing them further? However, the fact remains that two wrongs don't make a right. No country should have nuclear or chemical weapons, period. If the US attacks Iran over alleged nuclear weapons development, I will be seriously pissed and seriously vocal.

Countries arming themselves to the teeth only makes tensions worse and they put the emphasis on military action instead of diplomatic action. This is a recipe for disaster!

If I had my way, militaries would only be allowed to fight like in the old days. Hand to hand combat and limited firearms and short-range cannons. It sounds silly, but there would be less war and less meddling in other countries' affairs if this was the case. Unfortunately, it is far too easy nowadays for foreign militaries to conduct air bombing raids where only one side sees death and destruction.

Shafique, it is all about money and power - like it has been through the ages.

It just fuels the notion that the Christian world (basically the US for all intents and purposes) is against the Muslim world (Iran being singled out)....

Whether its true or not is without regard in this matter.

The perception is how I said it.

What would give that perception?

The US and other Western countries are far more multicultural than most Muslim countries, and you can find many different religions there. Christians and people of other faiths have no concept of Jihad (as the Muslim extremists use it, which I know is incorrect) and there has been no movement on the part of religious leaders (e.g. the Pope etc.) to rouse their religious followers to fight Muslims and attack Muslim countries. It is only in Islamic countries where some people are turning the current world political issues into an issue of religion. Please don't bring up the crusades, because that was eons ago. If some Muslims want a crusade against Christianity or the West just because it is mostly non-Muslim - then they too are in the dark ages and haven't progressed much.

K

You haven't by any chance adopted a Rotweiller have you ??

The whole political gamut is 'Playground Politics'. The bullies in the playground will always try to oppress the weaker players and surround themselves with admirers and supporters. They form gangs and vie for dominance in their own, small territory. Once dominance is obtained, the gangs become large enough and powerful enough to move outside the playground and threaten gangs from other playgrounds. They identify themselves by wearing certain colours or styles and following different fashions and trends. To belong to one 'tribe' is a strong bond required by a social culture such as ours.

And so the cycle escalates...

The human psyche is built around aggression, posession and territory due to our origins as a 'hunter gatherer' species. It is deeply ingrained in our genetic code and we are a long way from evolving out of it.

For millenia we have fought and struggled over this pice of land, for that particular political belief, to defend our tribal territories...religion is now being 'worn' as just another 'colour' by the bullies and the gangs from both sides to seal the tribal bond.

Microcosm examples: Soccer teams are fiercly partisan about their teams, their players, the songs they sing, their team colours...even having the team names tattooed on their bodies. ReadDr. Desmond Morris 'Peoplewatching'

The musical West Side Story is a contemporary re-write of the classical Romeo and Juliet theme. The original story deals with the rivalry between the Montagues and the Capulets...tribal territorial posession.

If one tribe develops a weapon that is more powerful than the other tribes, the race to achieve equality is a pure emotional surge to feel 'protected'. The bullies have moved out of their international playgrounds for years and we are in the midst of a manufactured global quarrel that, if you strip it down to its bare human emotions, should and could be resolved by common sense and tolerance. Unfortunately, this does not suit the ulterior motives of the bullies from all the tribes and thus we a thrust into endless conflict and threatened by escalation from both sides.

There is no simple solution. In a perfect world (L. Ron Hubbard discusses this in various of his allegorical novels) the people of all nations...the 'citizens' would exercise the voice of reason through mass simultaneous communication, but requires the 'state' to exist to channel the result. In doing so, the state controls the voice and we return to a tribal conflict.

WMD either nuclear or chemical are morally wrong no matter what colour, creed, tribal group you belong to. But we have them and we cannot be rid of them, therefore someone has to take responsibility of controlling them. Would anyone want to see that global control in the hands of Isreal or Iran or North Korea or any nation or state that did not have a relatively stable society? I think not.

For now, and probably for the rest of our lives, we live with the Sword of Damocles hovering above our heads. All we can do is use our voices, united, in the hope that sense will prevail.

Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:

Lionheart wrote:Choco... I have question

In your opinion are there any country Mid east which is allowed to develop Nuclear Technology and Weapon to deter West Influence?

Saud Arabia
Jordan
UAE
Oman
Egypt
Libya
Syria
Iran( the only real democracy in Mid east, along With Hamas)

Iraq( does not exist anymore)
Yemen
Algeria
Tunisia
Etc

I'd just like to point out that Algeria, Tunisia and Libya are not technically Middle East countries Lionheart. They all have coastlines on the Mediterranean and are actually on the African Continent. Can I suggest that once more you seem to confuse countries that are Islamic as being 'East' and all others as being 'West'. I also note with interest that you omit Morrocco. Are they too far 'west' to be considered 'east' for you?

In answer to your question to Choco...no country should have nuclear weapons, including the ones that have them already. Unfortunately it is very hard to 'unlearn' something once it has been learnt.

Knight

You are right Tunisia, Algeria and Morroco are not Middle eastern Geographically, but technically they refer themself as Middle Eastern and they are also recognized as being part of the Middle East. This maybe because all the countries in Northern Africa speak Arabic and vast majority of its citizens refer to themself as Arabs.

No I don't consider Morroco as being part of the West, I simply left them out because I didn't have the time to list all the Arab middle eastern countries, that is why I put at the end etc. I also left Sudan, Maurtania and Lebanon from the list.


[qoute]In answer to your question to Choco...no country should have nuclear weapons, including the ones that have them already. Unfortunately it is very hard to 'unlearn' something once it has been learnt.[/qoute]

I totally agree with you that no country should be allowed to have nuclear weapon. The problem is that the countries that have nuclear weapon and one of them used nuclear weapon populated city are know telling another countries not to develop Nuclear weapon...don't you think its hyprocricy when you tell others not to have what you have.

arniegang wrote:I would like to point out at this point not one single country listed has the ability to produce a Nuke without WESTERN help or technology.

So i dont really see the issue here. On one hand Lionheart is winging about the Islamic Brotherhood blah blah, then he hypothesise's about "what if" Nuke production in the ME.

So to conclude, its NOT ok to have western influence ie Burger King, but it is OK to want to have Nukes.

mmmmmmmmmmm

If they can't produce NUKES without western help than why was Iraq invaded and Why is Iran pressured to stop their Nuclear activities? Iran never recieved Western help for the development of their NUclear plant.

Chocoholic wrote:I can't be bothered to answer your question Lionheart as you don't listen. But I'll agree with DK and say no country should carry Nuclear weapons, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Choco...Petition to your government to dismantle their nukes if you are soo concerned about countries having Nukes.

If they can't produce NUKES without western help than why was Iraq invaded and Why is Iran pressured to stop their Nuclear activities? Iran never recieved Western help for the development of their NUclear plant.

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


Background
The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960 under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle". The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

The Bushehr project
The Bushehr Nuclear Power Facility is located 17 kilometers south of the city of Bushehr (also known as Bushire), between the fishing villages of Halileh and Bandargeh along the Persian Gulf.

The facility was the idea of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out. He said that, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn." Instead, he wanted a national electrical grid powered by clean nuclear power plants. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz.

In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk-Union A.G., a joint venture of Siemens AG and A.E.G Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the nuclear power plant. Construction of the two nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp AG, and was to have been completed in 1981.

Kraftwerk-Union was eager to work with the Iranian government because, as spokesman Joachim Hospe said in 1976, "To fully exploit our nuclear power plant capacity, we have to land at least three contracts a year for delivery abroad. The market here is about saturated, and the United States has cornered most of the rest of Europe, so we have to concentrate on the third world."

Kraftwerk-Union fully withdrew from the Bushehr nuclear project in July 1979, after work stopped in January 1979, with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete. They said they based their action on Iran's non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments. The company had received $2.5 billion of the total contract. Their cancellation came after certainty that the Iranian government would unilaterally terminate the contract themselves, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which paralyzed Iran's economy and led to a crisis in Iran's relations with the West.

In 1984, Kraftwerk-Union did a preliminary assessment to see if it could resume work on the project, but declined to do so while the Iraq-Iran war continued. In April of that year, the US State Department said, "We believe it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr." The spokesperson also said that the light water power reactors at Bushehr "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." The spokesman went on to say, "In addition, we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel."

The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes between March 24, 1984 to 1988. Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear program was stopped until the end of the war.

In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed.

In 1995 Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the half complete Bushehr plant. The construction is being done by the state-controlled company Atomstroyexport (Russian for Atomic Construction Export), an arm of Russia's atomic energy ministry, Minatom. The Russians assert that because the reactor will be used for civilian purposes only, their contract is legitimate under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It was not until 2002 that the USA began to question Iran's nuclear intentions after the MKO (an anti-government guerrilla group) revealed the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities.



source :

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10023


a fairly reliable source dont you agree Lionheart

kanelli wrote:I totally agree with DK, Choco and Liban in their latest posts.

Lionheart, why on earth should any country have nuclear weapons? Have you not read the history about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - have you not seen the pictures? The same thing for chemical weapons - they should be abolished. If every country got rid of weapons of mass destruction then this world would be a safter place for everyone.

What a shame that we have starving people, insecurity, and evironmental degredation happening on this planet - yet these are low on the priority list for most countries! Instead they are worried about having the most money, or taking revenge on other countries, meddling in other countries affairs etc.

Some people would do better to think of themselves as WORLD CITIZENS and take action to make the WORLD a better place. Instead, so many cling to ethnic, religious and political groups and cause destruction in the name of petty rivalry and selfish intentions.

[qoute]Lionheart, why on earth should any country have nuclear weapons? Have you not read the history about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - have you not seen the pictures? The same thing for chemical weapons - they should be abolished. If every country got rid of weapons of mass destruction then this world would be a safter place for everyone.[/qoute]


The same country that dropped Nuclear Weapon on Nagasaki and Hiroshima...still has over 2000 Nuclear warheads...and is still threatening to drop atomic bomb on Iran. I don't understand how a country that used nuclear weapon civilians, went to illegal war can tell another not to develop Nuclear Weapons. No should be allowed to have Nuclear, but when the most dangerous country in the world has them, than its only fair for other peaceful countries to have them for defensive purposes.


[qoute]What a shame that we have starving people, insecurity, and evironmental degredation happening on this planet - yet these are low on the priority list for most countries! Instead they are worried about having the most money, or taking revenge on other countries, meddling in other countries affairs etc.[/qoute]

Finally we have agreement Kanelli...

arniegang wrote:

If they can't produce NUKES without western help than why was Iraq invaded and Why is Iran pressured to stop their Nuclear activities? Iran never recieved Western help for the development of their NUclear plant.

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


Background
The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960 under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.

President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle". The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

The Bushehr project
The Bushehr Nuclear Power Facility is located 17 kilometers south of the city of Bushehr (also known as Bushire), between the fishing villages of Halileh and Bandargeh along the Persian Gulf.

The facility was the idea of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out. He said that, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn." Instead, he wanted a national electrical grid powered by clean nuclear power plants. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz.

In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk-Union A.G., a joint venture of Siemens AG and A.E.G Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the nuclear power plant. Construction of the two nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp AG, and was to have been completed in 1981.

Kraftwerk-Union was eager to work with the Iranian government because, as spokesman Joachim Hospe said in 1976, "To fully exploit our nuclear power plant capacity, we have to land at least three contracts a year for delivery abroad. The market here is about saturated, and the United States has cornered most of the rest of Europe, so we have to concentrate on the third world."

Kraftwerk-Union fully withdrew from the Bushehr nuclear project in July 1979, after work stopped in January 1979, with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete. They said they based their action on Iran's non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments. The company had received $2.5 billion of the total contract. Their cancellation came after certainty that the Iranian government would unilaterally terminate the contract themselves, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which paralyzed Iran's economy and led to a crisis in Iran's relations with the West.

In 1984, Kraftwerk-Union did a preliminary assessment to see if it could resume work on the project, but declined to do so while the Iraq-Iran war continued. In April of that year, the US State Department said, "We believe it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr." The spokesperson also said that the light water power reactors at Bushehr "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." The spokesman went on to say, "In addition, we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel."

The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes between March 24, 1984 to 1988. Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear program was stopped until the end of the war.

In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed.

In 1995 Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the half complete Bushehr plant. The construction is being done by the state-controlled company Atomstroyexport (Russian for Atomic Construction Export), an arm of Russia's atomic energy ministry, Minatom. The Russians assert that because the reactor will be used for civilian purposes only, their contract is legitimate under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It was not until 2002 that the USA began to question Iran's nuclear intentions after the MKO (an anti-government guerrilla group) revealed the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities.



source :

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10023


a fairly reliable source dont you agree Lionheart

If this is case than why is the West worried about Iran's capability of producing Nuclear Weapons..afterall they assisted them and should know what Iran is capable of and what they are not capable of.

But YOU said

i quote

"Iran never received Western help for the development of their Nuclear plant"

Lets discuss your incorrect facts first Lionheart or has the West taken taken over control of Al Jazeera

Like Kanelli says Lionheart, we can all play the cut and paste game, and when we do, it starts putting some of your theories and so called "facts" into the garbage can

arniegang wrote:But YOU said

i quote

"Iran never received Western help for the development of their Nuclear plant"

Lets discuss your incorrect facts first Lionheart or has the West taken taken over control of Al Jazeera

Like Kanelli says Lionheart, we can all play the cut and paste game, and when we do, it starts putting some of your theories and so called "facts" into the garbage can

If this is the case than Western countries have nothing to worry about...since they helped Iran develop their nuclear technology as you claim. They should what Iran is capable of and what they are not capable of. If Iran is incapable of developing nuclear technology with the west...why not stop assisting them in developing nuclear technology and let them develop their own nuclear technology without Western assistance like present day. Why all this threats if Irans are incapable of developing this technology...why the worry.


You could cut and past all you want...I have no problem with that, just please don't complain when the other side is shown...as nothing more than propoganda.

Kanelli... If Iranians are incapable developing their own nuclear technology than why all the threats?


Isn't better if West stops assisting Iran withs Nuclear technology instead of threats of War?

Lionheart

With the greatest of respect i do not paste propoganda. I take from reliable sources and with further respect i take things from one of the most trusted Islamic Sites there is, not some numpty blinkered extemists web site.

Lionheart wrote:Kanelli... If Iranians are incapable developing their own nuclear technology than why all the threats?


Isn't better if West stops assisting Iran withs Nuclear technology instead of threats of War?

You need to "actually" read what i posted Lionheart. The west no longer assist Iran, the russians are now helping them to complete their power stations.

And if you read the website, Al Jazerra in fairness to them, puts a very balanced viewpoint. It states the Americans case of why they do not need Nuclear Power.

In summary, they state that because of their huge oil and Gas reserves and the fact they burn off enough wasted gas to supply x 4 Nuclear power stations, they are wasting money and resources in going the N. Power route.

That arguement is fairly convincing and reasonable dont you think?

All the input from the West ceased in 1980 when the American Embassy and staff were taken hostage after the Ayatolah came into power.

arniegang wrote:Lionheart

With the greatest of respect i do not paste propoganda. I take from reliable sources and with further respect i take things from one of the most trusted Islamic Sites there is, not some numpty blinkered extemists web site.

What extremist site do I get my information from? and what is the trusted Islamic site you get your information from? Aljazeera is not a Islamic site.

All My information is either from Anti-War sites, Iraqi sites that report things your media wouldn't report...Iraqi casualities and American abuses of Iraqis... and Some of the stories that I posted which you labelled propoganda were reported on some western media outlets..Example BBC. So please before you label my information extremist check out the link.

arniegang wrote:

Lionheart wrote:Kanelli... If Iranians are incapable developing their own nuclear technology than why all the threats?


Isn't better if West stops assisting Iran withs Nuclear technology instead of threats of War?

You need to "actually" read what i posted Lionheart. The west no longer assist Iran, the russians are now helping them to complete their power stations.

And if you read the website, Al Jazerra in fairness to them, puts a very balanced viewpoint. It states the Americans case of why they do not need Nuclear Power.

In summary, they state that because of their huge oil and Gas reserves and the fact they burn off enough wasted gas to supply x 4 Nuclear power stations, they are wasting money and resources in going the N. Power route.

That arguement is fairly convincing and reasonable dont you think?

All the input from the West ceased in 1980 when the American Embassy and staff were taken hostage after the Ayatolah came into power.

Again if that is the case than Russia is the country UN needs to put pressure on...not Iran.



[qoute]In summary, they state that because of their huge oil and Gas reserves and the fact they burn off enough wasted gas to supply x 4 Nuclear power stations, they are wasting money and resources in going the N. Power route.[/qoute]

Canada has more Oil reserves than any country in this world..so why don't they use their Oil reserves to for energy instead of developing Nueclear energy. Russia also has plenty of Oil reserves, why don't they also use their Oil to generate energy instead of developing Nuclear power plant. So this question could be asked other countries with plenty of oil reserves, but have developed nuclear power for energy.

Actually by developing nuclear power they are providing cheap energy to their citizens, while exporting their Oil at maximum rate. So therefore they are improving their economy by advancing rather than hurting it.

Your posts display a total lack of knowledge regarding Nuclear Energy Lionheart. Considering you started this thread, i am amazed you know so little on the subject.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, or did some homework on FACTS, you would learn that many western counties like the UK, are in fact decommissioning their Nuclear Power Stations for 2 reasons.

Safety and..

Cost.

Remember Chernobyl and Long Island !!!

arniegang wrote:Your posts display a total lack of knowledge regarding Nuclear Energy Lionheart. Considering you started this thread, i am amazed you know so little on the subject.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, or did some homework on FACTS, you would learn that many western counties like the UK, are in fact decommissioning their Nuclear Power Stations for 2 reasons.

Safety and..

Cost.

Remember Chernobyl and Long Island !!!

I thought we were discussing why Iran needs Nuclear weapon..not the reason why west is getting ride of their nuclear power plants.


[qoute]Safety and..

Cost.

Remember Chernobyl and Long Island [/qoute]


I think its up to Iran to worry about the safety, the cost of Nuclear Power plant in their country not the UN or any other country in the West.


Question

Why does Canada and Russia need Nuclear power plants when they have huge reserves of Oil and gas like the countries in Mid east?

There are many that now argue in favour of Nuclear power plants now - saying that they are kinder to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and are much safer than the first few generations of plants (Chernobyl, Long Island).

This is why the British government is looking seriously at building new plants despite the fact that those in power were previously dead against Nuclear power.

I've listened to both sides of the arguement and have to say that the pro-nuclear lobby have a sound and logical set of arguments for their views.

The anti-lobby, eg Greenpeace etc, tend to focus on other alternatives and changing of behaviour to be less energy dependant, but they don't actually dispute the main arguments put forward by the nuclear lobby. Zak Goldsmith is a charismatic and eloquent spokesperson for the anti-lobby (which I have to say is where I would naturally place myself).

Anyhow - the point I'm making is that the world agrees that nuclear power generation is a legitimate activity - may be undesirable ecologically in some people's minds, but not illegal.

Just thought I'd throw that in... as always, happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken.

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:What would give that perception?

The US and other Western countries are far more multicultural than most Muslim countries, and you can find many different religions there. Christians and people of other faiths have no concept of Jihad (as the Muslim extremists use it, which I know is incorrect) and there has been no movement on the part of religious leaders (e.g. the Pope etc.) to rouse their religious followers to fight Muslims and attack Muslim countries. It is only in Islamic countries where some people are turning the current world political issues into an issue of religion. Please don't bring up the crusades, because that was eons ago. If some Muslims want a crusade against Christianity or the West just because it is mostly non-Muslim - then they too are in the dark ages and haven't progressed much.

There is no reasoning with you. Even when I answer you directly you do not comprehend. ITs just too bad...

If the proper safeguards are in place, nuclear power plants can be a cheap and efficient source of energy.

But I stress on the words proper safegaurds.

I also agree that all nations have the right to nuclear energy but NOT nuclear weapons.

Canada has nuclear plants and it sits on the largest deposits of oil in the world (though not as accessible as Saudi's). But Canada has quite strict methods of nuclear energy generation and that is what all countries need to have if they wish to use this power.

Lionheart,

My brother, the West aided Iran because back then the Shah wass an ally of the West. Today the West is worried because it lost its ally to people who they do not necessarly like for their nationalism and their religious pride.

Lemmi give you a historical fact.

In 1952 Mossadeq (an Iranian national) took over power from the Shah to form a secular and democratic Iran, the US overthrew him and put the Shah back in place and then rewarded the Shah for being pro-US by giving him the basis of nuclear technology a few years later.

Today, Russia is closer to Iran not for the love of Islam but rather because Russia is a show of its former self and will do next to anything to regain its rightful place on the world stage.

Lionheart wrote:Kanelli... If Iranians are incapable developing their own nuclear technology than why all the threats?


Isn't better if West stops assisting Iran withs Nuclear technology instead of threats of War?

Excuse me, but I never said anything about Iranians being incapable of developing their own nuclear technology. Why are you attributing those comments to me? Please read carefully and address the correct people when posting.

Liban wrote:

kanelli wrote:What would give that perception?

The US and other Western countries are far more multicultural than most Muslim countries, and you can find many different religions there. Christians and people of other faiths have no concept of Jihad (as the Muslim extremists use it, which I know is incorrect) and there has been no movement on the part of religious leaders (e.g. the Pope etc.) to rouse their religious followers to fight Muslims and attack Muslim countries. It is only in Islamic countries where some people are turning the current world political issues into an issue of religion. Please don't bring up the crusades, because that was eons ago. If some Muslims want a crusade against Christianity or the West just because it is mostly non-Muslim - then they too are in the dark ages and haven't progressed much.

There is no reasoning with you. Even when I answer you directly you do not comprehend. ITs just too bad...

You haven't even explained yourself Liban. All you posted was that Muslims perceive the issue to be one of religion - pretty much a one-liner. What is so wrong about what I just wrote? Do you disagree with my comments? Are you agreeing that this should be a religious war?