A Nuclear IRAN

[Kalle]

We get the impression that yankees are quite demagogic. You have managed your own environment so badly that there is nothing left. Artificially you now patch and transplant, and you continue to fund and suppurt a similar global policy where you can, using all your political, economical and military resources.
Do you know that Tjernobyl-accident released radio-activity for about 2000 Hiroshima-bombs? Our environment has been damaged forever. There is consequently no sense to use that argument any more - On that front the situation cannot become worse. Not on the behalf of Iran.
The political question of Iran's choice is not either a question of common global concern nor a question of moral. Those who resist the west's over-use of all resources in the world for free, will welcome any resistance and encreased self-sufficiency in the III world. We cannot live of forced ideals alone, neither can, in the long run you, cling to concepts such as "the free world" (= The whole world for America's use).
It is time for each to look after only his own yard and learn to get along with what nature still gives just there. - Why did you desturb your own milieu?!

[jeff]

Same post you made earlier today in your other thread. Two posts with the same content - the second one doesn't make any more sense than the first one. And who is this demagogic "we" accusing other people of being demagogic? Making allowances for a non-native English speaker (just guessing here), maybe you don't know what the word means in the first place.

[Kalle]

Originally Posted by jeff

Same post you made earlier today in your other thread. Two posts with the same content - the second one doesn't make any more sense than the first one. And who is this demagogic "we" accusing other people of being demagogic? Making allowances for a non-native English speaker (just guessing here), maybe you don't know what the word means in the first place.

I am new here so I lost the message temporarily which I liked to reply on. Demagogy I guess, is when a person talks to "the people" in a lowlyer and not quite honest way, to get the masses with himself in different projects. So the americans are often wery one-minded - You have had no real left-party and so one. In environmental question the environment philosophers of yours always address a concensual "we" (that is the people of USA) and seldom see over the border to environment elsewhere.
NATO-countries may agree with USA in certain political matters - the people of the world not. So You are probably the only nation where the government (maybe trough successful demagogy) has succeeded to create such a wide concensus among the citicens.

[jeff]

Okay, your English isn't too bad, but your knowledge of the US and the rest of the world really is terrible.

You claim we're demagogues and no other country is? Wow, that is really a stupid claim. Pick up a newspaper, would you? We're bad because we have no effective leftist party? Well, Communism has done so much damage around the world, that makes us very fortunate.

It's bad that we have a national consensus? For starters, we don't have a national consensus on the environment, with very strong disagreements about topics like global warming. Just to demonstrate how wrong you are: many factory jobs moved from the US to other countries because we had stricter environmental rules.

The people of the world don't agree with the US? Is that something we should believe because you said so? If it's true, is that necessarily a bad thing?

We're the only country in the world where demagogues have created a consensus? That is such a stupid remark: our country is extremely divided on many issues, with an unpopular president. Go have a look at Russia, Cuba, or Venezuela if you want to find demagogues.

Thanks for your very funny post. You know nothing at all, and it was very amusing.

By the way, what country are you from? (This all assumes you're a person who really has these beliefs, and not just a troll)

[Kalle]

Originally Posted by jeff

Okay, your English isn't too bad, but your knowledge of the US and the rest of the world really is terrible.

It's bad that we have a national consensus? For starters, we don't have a national consensus on the environment, with very strong disagreements about topics like global warming.
The people of the world don't agree with the US? Is that something we should believe because you said so? If it's true, is that necessarily a bad thing?

We're the only country in the world where demagogues have created a consensus?
Thanks for your very funny post. You know nothing at all, and it was very amusing.

You cannot deny that your president Bush, he may be popular or inpopular, when he is abroad really only talks straight to his home audience. To the rest of us (not americans) his retorics is so strange!
I guess USA is a little bit isolationistic and thus lag behind in understanding world opinions. You should talk with the rest of the world - we all can english now. Well, not to the governments, but to us people, say the saudi people, or the ukrainian people - why not Cubas not yet bought people. If they praise their regime - why not believe in it?
When Ayn Rand came from Soviet as a refugee to USA she began to swear in the name of capitalism to be able to stay. Is it so with all of you americans: This is your pass that keeps you together. It is a "must". That's why you are not open.

[rdg]

Did anyone notice today's Wall Street Journal article that the US is supplying the UAE (a very non-democratice society) with nuclear technology "to build power plants". As the article points out, this is a nation floating on natural gas and that has 300 days / year of sunshine. If they need power, the obvious answer is something beside nuclear reactors.

The article also points out that in 1979 we sent the Iranians nuclear technology under a program called Atoms for Peace. Granted that was during the reign of their unelected dictator, known as the Shah.

It is a strange government we have over here, where one day we provide plans for technology that the next generation we condemn and threaten to bomb the receipients for using.

Sam

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by rdg

It is a strange government we have over here, where one day we provide plans for technology that the next generation we condemn and threaten to bomb the receipients for using.

No one is upset with Iran for attempting to pursue nuclear power generation for civilian uses. People are concerned that Iran is developing nuclear technology and not letting international inspectors verify that it's not going towards a weapons program, as existing treaties dictate.

[rdg]

And in the UAE is getting US technology so they can build a plant. It is hard to believe anyone is that naive.

Sam

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by rdg

Did anyone notice today's Wall Street Journal article that the US is supplying the UAE (a very non-democratice society) with nuclear technology "to build power plants". As the article points out, this is a nation floating on natural gas and that has 300 days / year of sunshine. If they need power, the obvious answer is something beside nuclear reactors.

Unfortunately, all I can pull up online is the intro to the article, and some other news agency reports. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...27-707574.html

As far as I can see, we're just agreeing to cooperate with them on peaceful power generation. I have to assume that means US businesses will be called in to assist, pumping some money into the economy. It will be supervised, and UAE doesn't have a history of violence in the region, so that shouldn't be a concern.

As for alternate energy sources:

UAE is pretty wealthy, and even they balk at the prospect of trying to use solar power, in one of the best places in the world to implement it. To me, that shows just how cost inefficient solar power is.

I'm surprised you'd propose natural gas...don't you care about CO2 emissions, global warming, etc? Again, UAE isn't stupid...I'm sure there's been some cost analysis done. I'd guess they figure they'll get more money selling natural gas than they'll save using it themselves (or using nuclear power).

Originally Posted by rdg

The article also points out that in 1979 we sent the Iranians nuclear technology under a program called Atoms for Peace. Granted that was during the reign of their unelected dictator, known as the Shah.

It's called diplomacy. The Middle East was just as unstable then as it is now, and the Shah, at least, was a fairly stable element in the midst of it. Whether or not it was the right decision in the long run, at the time assisting the Shah to stay in power seemed a good idea. I think we (and the Middle East) would be in much better shape today if the Shah were still around, as opposed to their current situation. We did the same with Iraq in the 1980s...play the two nations off of each other to keep the region stable, with no one dominant. It's easy, 20ish years later, to see problems arise from those decisions, but what we'll never know is what problems those decisions may have averted in the intervening 20 years.

Originally Posted by rdg

And in the UAE is getting US technology so they can build a plant. It is hard to believe anyone is that naive.

I hope you'll forgive me for being too slow to keep up with your dizzying intellect, but what are you implying here? The US is actually giving the UAE nuclear technology to build a weapon? To what possible end? That the US is wrong for dealing with non-democratic nations? We'd be doing a lot less business all around the world if that were the case.

[rdg]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I hope you'll forgive me for being too slow to keep up with your dizzying intellect, but what are you implying here? The US is actually giving the UAE nuclear technology to build a weapon? To what possible end?

That is exactly what I am saying. The UAE simply has no need for nuclear power. They have 300 days of sun and they are floating on natural gas.

What is the motivation? How should I know, except that the current administration and the UAE are very, very close. Money and power come to mind, but again I am no insider. I am just looking at the facts as I see them reported, and trying to think for myself.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

That the US is wrong for dealing with non-democratic nations? We'd be doing a lot less business all around the world if that were the case.

Wrong is a bit simplistic, however, giving nuclear info to non-democratic regimes does not strike me as particular wise. Certainly it is not something I support.

Sam

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Kalle

You cannot deny that your president Bush, he may be popular or inpopular, when he is abroad really only talks straight to his home audience. To the rest of us (not americans) his retorics is so strange!

I don't know...the Poles seem pretty receptive.

And the Israelis.

And Africans generally, apart from the Iraq war.

I guess USA is a little bit isolationistic and thus lag behind in understanding world opinions.

Perhaps you mistake understanding for caring.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Perhaps you mistake understanding for caring.

Rep for that.