lol...some spanish wise man..maybe the preacher was from Spain Doh!

Ecclesiastes 1
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
[10] Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
[11] There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Ecclesiastes 12
[8] Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

This subject is a perfect example for why one should read Ecclesiastes...

Well there you go. It is interesting that you disagree with me but you did not offer any supporting information. It is ok that you disagree with me, but if you were trying to convince me with your logic, I am afraid you failed.

I have to ask.

Why the personal attacks in your response? Is that the only way you can discuss issues? My response to one of the posters was not personal or insulting in any way. But you felt it necessary. I wonder why?

I feel very sorry for you.

platapus - granted, there is no absolute proof which has been released to the public that Iran is chasing up nukes.

But. (theres always a but)

Iran is able to exploit enough oil from its territory to export to the world as well as power their own infrastructure for centuries yet. Hundreds of years worth of fuel are readily available to the Iranians, yet they 'need' nuclear power to be able to provide enough energy for themselves?? One must ask.. why?:hmm:

Additionally, we have got i believe leaked reports that there were Iranians present at the Korean nuclear tests, and i recall watching a program on the father of Pakistan's nuclear program fairly recently, where it was suggested that several missing pakistani nuclear scientists can now be found in Iran.

On top of that, we need to consider the relations between the US and Iran, and the US and NK. NK have now got the bomb, its proven, and hey presto the US is sitting down and talking to them, lifting sanctions and unfreezing assets. How would that look to an Iranian? It tells them that he who possesses a bomb is safe from attack, and will instead be treated with respect, able to make demands and expect them to be complied with.

Regardless of what Iran might say, or how sceptical you may be about reports that come out of the US by the govt, its a very very good expectation that the Iranians are after the bomb, no matter what they tell the media.

Did we ask that same question in the 1970’s when the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi contracted with the United States for 20 nuclear reactors to be constructed by the year 2000? We did not seem to have a problem with Iran, on top of the second largest oil field, building a nuclear industry... especially when we had the contract.

The Oil has not changed, only the government. So I am suspect of any argument that bases the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear industries on its oil supply. Did you know that Iran has to import gasoline? They may have the oil fields but they are just as dependent as we are on the refineries in other countries.


We need to be honest here.


We approved of the Shah's Iran of having nuclear industries because we liked him and he did what we liked. I certantly hope no one is suggesting that the Shah was a nice and kindly leader who loved his people. He was a cruel dictator who enslaved his people, but, at least he was our dictator.


We disapprove of the Iranian Republic of having nucleaer industries because we don't like them and theydon't do what we like.



An excellent and reasonable point. And one that sends the wrong message if we wish to limit countries making nuclear weapons. You are quite right, with our current foreign policy, any country would presume it is in their best interest to make nuclear weapons.

This, in my opinion is a good thing. We should treat all countries with the respect. Our history has not always followed this.

I am not disagreeing with you. The point I was trying to make is that currently we have considerable uncertainty based on a lack of evidence that can either confirm or refute our hypothesis.

I feel that before the United States takes any action, that we use all our resources to mitigate that uncertainty. Don't let's fear whether Iran is or is not making nuclear weapons, lets find out. Lets use all our diplomacy resources as well as cooperate with other countries in their diplomatic efforts instead of antagonizing Iran with our rhetoric. Until we get evidence that Iran is moving down the road to nuclear weaponization, we should watch them and study them.. carefully and with discipline. Everything the Iranians say should be carefully, unemotionally, and non-politically checked and verified. Once we have evidence one way or the other, then we can start taking foreign policy actions but until then, we must accept the frustrating state of "we simply don't know".

My favourite Damon Runyon qoute is "trust but verify". I think it applies to Iran.

I think that the nuclear deal with the Shah was not so much because of his being such a magnaminous leader - he certainly wasnt. But, as you say, we liked him. He was reliably on our side, and iran was as close as it has ever been to an ally - thus the offer of help, and thus the contract.

i ought to have clarified, by all means all nations oughta be treated respectfully, very true - but at the same time, that respect ought to be mutual and not based on fear. As far as i can tell, the iranians have hardly given the British any respect in recent times..

You are right, of course, in suggesting we wait before acting. I know I've often put forward my own opinion that we oughta wreck their military etc.. thats because i've got a certain gut feeling we'll end up being really badly surprised. Its also why im not in charge! The problem is that, like in NK, there isnt really a way to know for sure until a bomb goes off, if the country doesnt want it known. And is there anyone who doubts that a nuclear-armed iran would be a bad thing??



hey, look at that, civil exchange of opinions on world relations - three cheers!:lol:

Just neer know what to expect in these forums.....


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8.../hopscotch.gif

Then you won't mind reading England's own Melanie Phillips: Weep for Britain. Indeed. :oops:

Plenty more will need weeping for if we don't wake up.

I seem to recall a certain President telling me to go shopping or the Terrorists would win. Rings a bell.

When you start talking about nuclear, what is the point of having the technology really? To make bombs or energy? Either way, what is every nations point of trying to acquire it really? No one addresses this. Does Every, single, nation, on planet Earth need nuclear technology to make energy and to fell really secure? If the answer is yes...wtf are we humans doing? We must be really really ignorant people almost not worthy of survival.If the point of every nation is to feel secure and to have plentiful energy then wouldn't it be prudent on behalf of the planet for the leading nations to say enough is enough is enough and step in and assume total control of this very very dangerous technology that can be used for good or evil?.Are'nt we past the conquering the new frontier stage of our exsistence yet?For the leading nations of the world to continue to allow smaller nations to begin to "Dabble" with fire we invite our own doom.

I truly believe that this is why a passage in the KJV Holy Bible states by Jesus Christ....

Matthew 24
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.


Humans are not capable of ruling themselves or this planet without help.Since the time of cain and able nothing has changed.You ask who are the "elect" in this passage?...those who believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God sent to save the world.

God be with you all in this perilous time we live in.

I don't understand your point. :hmm:

UPDATE: We must have lost. :(

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7...diburqasp8.jpg

in a ideal world you have a point in the royal navy with the MOD pulling the strings and the PR campaign with iran they will do anything to get one over i wouldnt be surprised if the guy dosent make it to admiral , no matter what size of vessel they had no ROE to engague the irainians no shots were fired no hostile intent untill the sailors where kidnapped and tell me with 4 gunboats in close proximity to the navy ribs how the hell is anyomne going to make sure our own side didnt get hit

they need it indeed. Currently they use so much of their oil themselves for keeping up traffic and economy needs, that they do not sell enough of the oil they produce to make the needed income to keep their economy running. This disbalance between the oil they produce and the oil they sell (and the generated income) is a long-known issue wih Iran, and it is a real problem. So: yes, they do need alternative energy like nuclear energy indeed. I know it sounds absurd for an oil-producing country, but it is true.

nuclear power is the only way ahead for energy the oil aint going to last forever but irans intrest in nuclear power isnt for energy its for the bomb you dont need centrfuges to make energy you need them to get weapons grade material to make a bomb that swhy they have been black market buying al the centrefuges they can get hold of

I did not say they do not want the bomb. I just said that they have an essential interest in civilian nuclear energy as well. ;) Personally, I am very convinced they are wanting the bomb as well, because they even need it, else they sooner or later get accused of being close to getting it, and being attacked. I am sure they learned the lesson from the Iraq war, and the many lies and manipulations by which it was excused. The only way to keep the Americans an armslength away is - actually owning nuclear weapons. Having no nukes will lead to military actions sooner or later.

Never expect your enemy to have an obligation to act stupidly.

Is Iran looking toward other measures to improve power generation? Or are they focusing primarily on nuclear power?