Iranian cowards are making a human chain of CHILDREN around nuke sites

and there are tons of isralis in power who have had urges to wipe off all palestinians. how can anyone say that israel has the right to nuclear facilities.

and that said, both india and pakistan have decide to wipe each other off the map, and yet both of them seem pretty cool... If iran is not trustworthy, neither are any of the other 3 that havent signed the UN treaty.... israel, pakistan, and india... all volatile states, with an agenda against someone else.

 

Actually, pretty much any bombing of those nuclear facilities will be an illegal act of aggression unless the UN explicitly authorizes the use of force against Iran, which is widely accepted as virtually impossible.

So the issue then would be more so how you can justify such blatant violation of international law rather than blaming the Iranians for getting bombed.

However, I do agree that putting those facilities in civilian areas isn't wise not only because they might be targeted by their enemies, but also because of general safety concerns regarding radiation and accidents at those plants (even the Israelis have had problems with this issue as well).

 

and Israeli government kills innocents
the indian government did nothing to stop many hindu muslim riots, and still has corruption in ever sector
the paki government.... you know what im trying to say.

 

Iran is among the top 5 in the world's oil reserves. The other 3 countries mentioned aren't energy rich.

Plus it reeks of circular logic to list nations that have nukes instead of nations that uses nuclear energy (Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea) for peace and then insist that Iran won't use the "benefits of nuclear capabilities" for war.

 

No I am not in favor, but Iran has played the game according to the rules and has said they will not make nuclear weapons. They are doing nothing against Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's not too difficult to understand. And T_J, it does not matter why the children line up around the plant. If permitted, they can do it. What's the problem with Children visiting a nuclear plant?

 

Iran's chief export is oil! It does not make sense to smoke your own stash. Tehran is one of the most polluted cities in the world. Of course, they could go to clean, efficent nuclear fuels, or they could use up their only pathway to economic power to appease past-imperialists. If you were an Iranian, what would you do?

 

Move.

 

Oil is the reason why the Mullahs are in power. It's also the reason why some countries are eager to invade them...

If the theocracy had no revenue to bribe its cronies or fund its military, then they'd have more incentive to bargain with the middle-upper class. Other industries wouldn't be burdened with an inflated currency caused by oil.

Wind? Solar? Geothermal?
Public works projects for better refineries?

 

The Shah is the reason the Mullahs are in power. And the middle-upper class lives their lives no differently.

Wind? Inefficent.
Solar? Inefficent.
Geothermal? Impractical for the population size.

 

So you only care for the powerless Persians?
The past-imperialists are at fault for that?

Your response is too vague....

Do you have a definition for Inefficient?

Wind power can be as cheap as coal.
Wind and solar fall victim to climate conditions, but there's potentially cheap technology such as flywheels to convert it to use at night.

Just because the US doesn't adopt it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

EDIT: Besides,nuclear power wasn't designed to completely supplant the oil infrastructure.

If whoever in power really cared about a clean Tehran, they'd start with the oil refineries first. Money shouldn't be an issue....

 

Actually, this is incorrect. Treaties are like contracts. You don't have do to what they say if you don't sign them, but once you do compliance is mandatory. The other countries never signed the treaty in the first place, so were never bound by it. Iran did sign.

If they want to leave they have to go through the same process that North Korea did.

Article X of the treaty details the process:

[rquoter]
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

[/rquoter]

The argument is so personal for both the Bushies and the anti-Bushies that the finer differences between not signing a treaty and signing one and breaking it might not seem all that different. In fact they are.

I see parallels between the argument that Iran can choose to ignore the treaty despite an easy procedural method to leave it to be analogous to the Bush arguments that they don't need to work through the FISA court to spy on Americans. The willfull disregard for it's mandates speaks volumes to attitudes when it would be so easy to acheve the same aims through the proscribed process.

People these days seem to have trouble differentiating between "right and wrong" and "legal and illegal". You shouldn't let your dislike for Bush and sympathy to the Iranian people obscure the facts.

I think U.S. aggression would be a reasonable extraordinary event and would be a good way for Iran to legally both defend themselves and highlight that attacking people because you don’t like them can have negative consequences.

Though I am no expert on Iranian history, I am reminded of a couple of things.

1. The first attempt to decrease the power of the Shaw came from Mossadegh (or Mossadeq) who nationalised the Oil industry and led Iran in a very different direction. The one similarity between the two besides the Shaw was the quick focus on oil.
   
   
2. The Shaw was able to kick out Mossadegh thanks to American and English support of the Shaw's accomidating attitude toward the West on oil issues. Therefore if the Shaw was in power because of oil, and Khomeini came to power because of the Shaw, then in an extended way the Khomeini came to power because of oil.

 

Mossadegh, who was democratically elected, was overthrown with the help of US and British intelligence after he nationalized Iran's oil. The covert operation, that helped put the Shah in power, was led by a CIA agent (Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of President Roosevelt).

 

Is US opening the borders to all Iranian immigrants?

 

That's more or less what I said...

Please excuse my horrific misspelling of Shah. That's what I get for using a spellchecker.

I would like to point out that it is ambiguous to say President Roosevelt. There were two of them.

 

What about all that natural gas they're sitting on top of? You know.....all that stuff they used to just burn off as worthless.

 

I cant believe noone else has called you out on possibly the most stupid thing I've read in a while.

Yes all children are enthusiastic about things they have no understanding of. Palenstinian children are also enthusiastic about wearing suicide bomber costumes.

 

Link, please.


Keep D&D Civil.