USA backs Egypts nuclear power programm

These wars are artificially created. They want to attack Iran, so they make up some reason to do it. Its not about them thinking Iran will get nuclear weapons, they know they are AT LEAST 3-8 years away from that and that they are not even planning for weapons, only energy.

The hypocracy of the Bush administration is outstanding. They are making themselfs look like fools all over the world.

Is it really so?

The two prevailing views seem to be "Iran are the bad guys" and "U.S. are the bad guys". This is evident in the answers received to this thread and countless other threads on Iran.

My problem is that both sides deliver reasonable explanations for their views.

But the fact that egypt and south africa and others receive backing for their nuclear programs while iran doesnt, does prove that there is more going on than meets the eye.

Copernicus, you might be right that its not about irans nuclear program at all but all about finding some kind of excuse to invade.

On the other hand, Iran is not an example of a progressive, democratic, free country.

The confusion remains.

Originally posted by patrickbateman
reply to post by turbokid

 

Although i agree with many of your points i feel it necessary to counter your argument concerning all "anti-iran" comments coming from neo-conservatives. Why is it so unbelievable that people may have grave concerns about Iran that aren't "hawks" or "neo-cons". I think when it comes to international proliferation and nuclear programs, trust is a vital element. How can the Iranian regime be trusted, they kept this program under wraps for 2 decades, threaten neighbouring states, restrict inspectors and sponsor terrorist organisations!

i agree, trust is vital, but a little back digging indicates iran has signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty but enriched uranium in secret which does not voilate the NPT but does voilate IAEA safegaurds. on the flip side israel has outright refused to sign the treaty and they posses nuclear weapons and will not allow inspections and did everything in secret, that sounds fair.
about the neocons or hawks comment, i base my accusation on what i read, PNAC has been pushing for "regime change" in iraq since what, 1998? when PNAC members say things like

"the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."

and ..

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon"

(they have already engaged hizballah, and syria)

and the large amount of PNAC members serving in the bush administration

en.wikipedia.org...

click on any member in there in a position to advise on policy or defense and you will find someone advocating war with iran.
look up members of AIPAC, PNAC, JINSA, and you will find it to be full of pro war members (many who also were pushing for war with iraq)

if you look up PNAC's paper "a clean break" from 10 years ago i reads almost like a roadmap for things that have happened since 911, including but not limited to, regime change in iraq, strikes against hezbollah, and strikes in syria, and hopes for strikes against iran.

belive me man i wouldnt just make things up. if you feel like it, look up the people most adamant about bombing iran and i promise you will find neocons and hawks first and foremost, then you will find war Generals looking to keep their jobs, and the rest would be regular folks who watch the news but think terrorism started on 911

a star for you for being polite in your post opposing my points

Of course i agree there are many like them pressing for war with Iran. I for one am against any war with Iran and berate the warmongers who are. However, it easy for such war endorsement from like people to cloud the real issue. There is a big problem with Iran, that needs to be tackled, i do genuinely feel they pose a threat. The Iranians do not respond to negotiations... For example the continuing European negotiations that have gone abolsutely nowhere. All they have achieved is for the Iranians to buy time and validate the regime there. Everybody knows they are not about to suspend enrichment under any circumstances so what are these negotiations for i ask?!!! The Americans were wise to not directly negotiate unconditionally, but to offer incentives.

Thanks for the star (returned the gesture), it's nice to have civil debate even when views conflict or differ from eachothers.

reply to post by patrickbateman


Would you know how valid the statement is that their religion would rule out that they ever use nuclear energy as a weapon?