Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Will the problem with that Uranium they found is something that I had referenced in the thread. It was equipment bought from Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, a man who was caught for selling illegal nuclear techonology and bomb plans on the black market. This is backed up by Libya disclosing the details of there relationship with him, and his dealings with North Korea on the same issue. It's a little convienent, is it not,(sp) that although this man has been caught red handed for illegal nuclear dealings, somehow Iran is clean?
|
As stated above: this is called suspician.While it is possible that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there is still no proof. Just like it's possible that Iraqw had weapons of mass destruction, but there was never any proof. We have to put our gun away and sit and talk with these people instead of making threats via the media from across the globe while prepping a military response. The UN has some of the best weapons inspectors in the world, and since the treaty that Iran has sign is with the UN, and not the US, it is their responsibility to deal with the situation. The US has no direct jurisdiction over Iran unless there is absolutel proof that the US is in immediate danger, and no such proof exists. What we should do is simply send over the inspectors. If Iran makes a stupid decision and doesn't allow inspectors in, then we have several options. Trade embargos (don't let the oil out) would do nicely to coax them into cooperating. Bombing campaigns just kill innocent civilians.
I don't know for sure if Iran is clean or not, but the bottom line (in my kmind at least) is that no one knows for sure right now except Iran. We have to act in a manner befitting a great peaceful democracy, expically after Iraq. We cannot continue to be a nation of war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Edit: I guess what's even more funny is that the UN found those "tainted" samples in investigation, but they were "cleaned" up. If Iran had nothing to hide they would've first disclosed the fact that they had bought the materials from Pakistan, they didn't; at the same time I reckon if they had nothing to hide, there would've been no reason to try and hide the fact that they had enriched uranium at such high levels, that after actively trying to hide it and clean it up, the UN was still able to find samples of enriched Uranium at levels of 30% or higher.
What does it all mean?  |
Well look at it this way: Iraq was said to have a developing nuclear weapons program in the dawn of the second Gulf War, and they were oblitterated. The US bombed, invaded, and now controls Iraq (from an economic standpoint). Iran does not want to be the next target, so they try to hide this crap and get caught. It's a big blunder, but it's hardly proof of guilt. Again, this is suspicion. We need to investigate, not threaten and prep for war.
If we ever manage to get our troops out of Iraq and the Middle East, do you really want to send them right back to go after Iran? History dictates that we, the US, cannot win against insurgencies or rebelions after we invade a country that has shown no hostility towards us. Iran has shown no hostility towards us. Iraq never showed any hostility towards us. Vietnam. Korea. Several Central and South American countries. The list goes on and on.
Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.