posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:31 PM
Methinks that some of the posters make good points. I suspect that they start from the idea that the US should not be acting as "World Policeman."
Which is not the point of my post, but perhaps should be discussed more.
One of irritations that Bin Laden said justified attacking the US is the continuing presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Especially Saudi Arabia
because of its special significance to the Muslim world. That is, if no US troops in Saudi Arabia, no 9-11 attack, no US intervention into
Afghanistan, and probably it would not have been politically possible for George W. to invade Iraq. Which also might be viewed as whether the US
should have any concern about one group of Muslims (Saddam Hussein government) committing Genocide against another group of Muslims (Kurds).
If the point of other posters is that Iraq did not have the WMD that supposedly justified the US invasion of Iraq, and the US should have known it.
That is also another point, which I imagine I could find a lot of threads here on the forum.
My thought being that natural gas, not gasoline, is not very profitable for Iran to export. The US has built a port facility for handling (Liquefied
Natural Gas) LNG here in the US. No, I do not know where the LNG originates. Several years ago the story was that no company intended to built
another ship to carry LNG because it was not profitable. I understand, that Iran has huge amounts of natural gas. Perhaps the means of their
selling large amounts of natural gas would be by pipeline to Europe. Simply what I am unclear about is how much natural gas they have and how much
they sell, or could sell. The question being, if Iran has large amounts of natural gas, which they can not profitably sell, why do they absolutely
need to spend hundreds of millions, (or is it in the billions) of dollars to have atomic reactors.
To others, the argument morphs into why should the US be concerned with whether Iran, or any other country has nuclear weapons?
The limitation of gasoline in Iran seems to be involved with the amount of refining capacity in Iran, plus the European sanctions against Iran that
limit gasoline import. If it is immoral to have this sanction about the gasoline on Iran, it is another cost that Iran has chosen to bear to have:
Either the ability to have atomic reactors to produce electricity, OR to have a that as a pretext to get refined radioactive material to build some
kind of bomb.
In regard to the point of whether I suffered from the explosions in Japan during WWII, I point to later public exposure to radioactive materials, I
was born in 1950. I know that the Japanese point to many health problems of individuals who were a long way from ground zero in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. One of the points which has created to large number of Japanese to oppose all nuclear weapons.
We continue with the deliberate immoral actions of the US government, and private corporations in the US in regard to public exposure to radiation.
Uranium miners in Utah have had enormous health problems. Their children played on the mine tailings and years later have health problems.
Compensation to disabled miners, if offered at all, would barely cover funeral expenses.
In Utah there is a term "downwinders" which refers to individuals exposed from the radiation that blew in from the US atomic bomb experiments in in
the next door state of Nevada. I had a friend whose childhood during the time of the atomic bomb tests was in Iowa. Her life has been constantly
handicapped by thyroid problems which are common in individuals who also drank milk from Iowa during those years. Last I heard, she had finally
In regards to the conspiracy part, I point at the case of Karen Silkwood. For those of you who are more youthful or not in the US. Karen Silkwood
was a woman who worked in a plant which shaped Uranium Pellets for atomic reactors. She complained about her employer not adhering to the safety
rules. Which led to her being followed by new vehicles. The company sent a team into her home and found food which had been contaminated with heavy
levels of radiation. Company said Silkwood contaminated herself, and said she was an unsafe worker. Silkwood made an appointment to meet with a
reporter to describe her claims. Silkwood's body was found by the highway. Not sure if I would believe the results of the police investigation,
which I do not know. Silkwood died in the 1970's and her story was portrayed in a movie starring Cher.
I seem to recall reading how the incident at Chernobyl increased cancer in many places far distant from Russia.
I am not aware that the US policy to try to limit nuclear weapons to any other country have ever been successful. Yes, I do know that soon after the
US second invasion and occupation of Iraq, that Libya announced they were abandoning their nuclear ambitions. I raise the point that Libya may have
realized that they did not have a ghost of a chance of building a bomb and were unwilling to accept any more pain for a pretend program. Any other
When I said even if the bomb exploded in Iran, it would have a negative effect, I did not intend to suggest that Iran would deliberately explode a
dirty bomb in their country. Rather, I intended that the reader infer - it makes no difference where in the world the dirty bomb explodes, it will
hurt a lot of people.
Surely we do know that Iran will have the capability to produce a dirty bomb, if not an extremely explosive one, if not now, then very soon.
Whether Iran lets one fly at Israel, Israel will soon likely attempt a military operation against Iran.
Bringing up that old statement about the middle east; Radicals want radicals on the other side, and commit themselves to actions which bring that
about. or something like that.