Thursday, April 13, 2006

nuclear

I’ve been watching the story of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with interest since he was elected. Here’s a guy who, religiously speaking, is pretty extreme, enforcing his own enterpretation of what is proper and acceptable under Islamic law. Wilkepedia describes him as a guy who is considered to be a religious conservative with Islamist and populist views. Rumor has it that he considers himself to be the 12th Imam, or the so-called Muslim Messiah. And, to top it all off, he believes that the holocaust was a hoax and would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the map.

But lately he’s been ticking the world off because he wants nuclear energy.

Now don’t get me wrong, who wants a guy like this to have access to nuclear resources? Not me. I’m under no delusion that the guy won’t eventually make a nuclear weapon out of it. But what I can’t figure out is what business it is of the UN, or any Western Nation, whether he’s allowed to or not. We have nuclear weapons. Why can’t Iran?

One thing’s for sure, this guy is an impressive leader. Like him or not, he’s charismatic and has managed to get Iranians to believe in themselves. He’s stood up to the West, telling all of us to go screw ourselves, and has forged ahead in producing nuclear power, something that will allow Iran to move from the stone ages to a modern day contender.

So what am I missing here? Why shouldn’t Iran be allowed to produce nuclear energy or even nuclear bombs if they want to?

Comments on "nuclear"

 

Blogger Sean said ... (3:45 PM) : 

Even if we say no, assuming we have any say at all, he will probably get nuclearized anyway.
Props for his initiative.

And yes it is the same rainbow connection that kermit sang.

 

Blogger surrendered said ... (5:10 PM) : 

props for his initiative? c'mon...

 

Blogger Ben said ... (8:54 PM) : 

Did I read in the paper that Mr. Bush is intent on using his own nuclear weapons to deal with Iran? Yes, he denies, but with statements and words we've heard before....

If I was this guy, I'd be be shouting for the west to take the measures needed to put down their nuclear weapons first, before I froze my own nuclear program. Why should any nation be held hostage by another?

Those who live by the sword die by the sword. and so do all the people within swinging distance.

 

Blogger BLUE said ... (2:39 AM) : 

Those who don't have any sword at all die first.

Should Iran get them they will in fact hold the whole world hostage. I agree with you Ben.

 

Blogger Pete said ... (3:14 AM) : 

"In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie that we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too"
-Sting

Yeah man, ARM UP!! Nukes for everyone!

 

Blogger Dave C said ... (4:12 AM) : 

Tim, you answered your own question...because he wants to wipe out Israel, completely off the map. A second holocaust.

That should be enough of a reason.

Dave

 

Blogger Bill said ... (1:01 AM) : 

Dave,
What is so different from wanting Israel gone from wanting Iran gone? I mean seriously, are we meaning the west the world's police? Are we an empire? Is it right for us to do anything a few leaders want because we can? And here is the main issue, if (big if) its about Israel, then why Israel only? We rarely step in to protect other nations, Tibet, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, ect. All I'm saying is why?

So why else, what gives us the right to kill and conquer anyone we want?

 

Blogger surrendered said ... (3:36 AM) : 

Bill, the similiarity is eery. People used some of the same kinds of statements to excuse Hitler's actions against the Jews. We didn't find out until later (or maybe we didn't look hard enough?) the extent of the Nazi's hatred of the Jews.

The Jews - God's chosen people - have suffered probably more throughout history than any other cultural group. It's my guess that Satan hates the nation of Israel, the nation from which the Savior came, physically speaking.

So when the president of Iran says that they want to wipe Israel off the map, and then they pursue nuclear weapons towards that goal, I think we should take that seriously. And if I'm right in reading the headlines, most of the international community agrees that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

When he says he wants Israel gone, make no mistake, he is talking about Jews. He wants the Jewish people annihilated. And the land that they inhabit was given to them divinely by God. Drawing the parallel to Bush/Blair/the West doesn't work, whether or not you agree with the Iraq war. A coalition against Iran would not be for the purposes of the annihilation of all Iranian people, but for the replacement of Iranian extremists with those who might be able to better work toward stability in the Middle East.

The West wants an Iran that is benevolent to Israel. Iran wants the destruction of Israel, no matter how benevolent she is.

Don't see how the two are the same.

 

Blogger Bill said ... (5:36 AM) : 

So, do you believe that Jewish people are inherantly more valuable then others? It seems that is what you are saying.

Also, Iran is not alone in wanting Israel distroyed so should we just take over the whole middle east?

All people are equally important. I just don't think we can be in the business of inforcing Americanism everywhere. Besides Iraq was "an threat to use Wepons of mass distruction." My point? I don't trust our liars in office. So...
Why should I trust thier statements on Iran. Even if they want Nukes (they argue its energy) it will be years before they have them.

I just don't understand the Israel argument. Theologically it does not hold weight. And please, did we enter WWII to free the Jews? NO! we knew and did nothing. We even did it in our own country. (Japanesse) So really what is it all about?

If we are going to stand up against mass murder and executions then there are alot better places to start. But if Israel is more important then everyone else, then I guess we ought to wipe out Palistine to? I mean really?

 

Blogger surrendered said ... (6:06 AM) : 

Sorry, Bill, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't implying that Israel was inherently more important than any other nation. I was simply trying to shed some light on why the evil one might incite hatred in the hearts of those who do not believe in the one true God.

You're right - Iran isn't alone in wanting Israel to be destroyed. But right now, it looks like they're the only ones who want Israel to be destroyed AND are trying to develop the means by which to do it. So, I think stopping them from acquiring nuclear weapons is a good idea.

If my choices are between either exporting democracy or importing militant Islam, I'll take the former, I think.

 

Blogger Gareth Evans said ... (10:22 AM) : 

This is such a tough debate.

Personally I think nuclear power is a great idea. I think the benefits of the cleaner and cheaper energy (excluding sunk costs and disposal issues) outweigh the costs of 'dirty' energy.

There is a growing energy-gap that needs to be filled. As a country becomes more developed it has a greater need for energy. Iran has plenty of oil with which it can produce electricity. But 'cleaner' energy would be better for the environment and ensure that Iran can export its natural resources rather than use them at home. By being able to export its oil Iran will develop further. Through further development Iran will be less likely to have as many extremists. Poverty fuels discontent and leads to people being more likely to be involved in extremism. Commentators have also expressed a link between poverty and extremist Islamic teaching. You can see it in the UK that poverty and exclusion can lead to extremist views (Islamic or otherwise).

So if Iran had access to nuclear energy then perhaps they would not have such extremist views?

As far as building a nuclear bomb is concerned they are not able to do this and possible wont be able to do so for 3-5 years. Some have said they wont be able to build a bomb for 10 years. That is assuming that they want to.

Sure the guy hates Isreal and that is down to his extremist views. Eradicate poverty and you can reduce the number of extremists.


OK, to play devils advocate...
If I was Iran and America was running around the world blowing it to pieces I would want some protection. Why should 'The Big Boys' be allowed to bully everyone?

If America adheres to UN policy the rest of the world might do too. Pre-emptive strikes, extraordinary rendition, torture, Abu Gharib, Guantanamo etc.

The last word...
Trade Fairly, Do unto Others as you want done unto you, share the wealth and share the worlds resources.

 

Blogger Tim said ... (8:52 PM) : 

Thanks, all good stuff. But nobody has answered my question. What RIGHT does the UN or West have in telling Iran that they cannot have a nuclear programme. I understand why nobody wants them to have nuclear capabilities. But what RIGHT does the UN or West have to step in and tell them that they can’t?

 

Blogger Bill said ... (2:54 AM) : 

Tim,
I think that is the point. They/we do not have the right to say such a thing.

Unless might makes right.

But there is no other standard by which the west has the right.

 

post a comment