Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Good Nuclear Iran, Bad Nuclear Iran

  1. #1

    Good Nuclear Iran, Bad Nuclear Iran

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Shah-nukeIran.jpg[/IMG]

    [url]http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/good-nuclear-iran-bad-nuclear-iran.html[/url]

  2. #2

    Saudi Arabia, China Sign Nuclear Cooperation Pact

    [QUOTE]RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia said Monday it inked an agreement with China to enhance cooperation between the two countries in the development and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

    The deal, signed Sunday, sets a legal framework that strengthens scientific, technological and economic cooperation between Riyadh and Beijing, according to a joint statement. It seeks to enable cooperation in areas like maintenance and development of nuclear power plants and research reactors, manufacturing and supply of nuclear fuel elements.

    The pact with China is the fourth nuclear agreement signed by Saudi Arabia following similar deals with France, Argentina and South Korea. The signing came at the end of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's first trip to Saudi Arabia as part of a six-day tour to the Middle East.

    The Gulf state has also been in discussions with the U.S., U.K., Russia and the Czech Republic over better cooperation in nuclear energy.

    In the desert kingdom, a booming population and developing economy are constraining the government's ability to provide electricity and water, while keeping domestic demand for oil at bay. Some economists say that if Saudi Arabia's current energy-consumption growth rate of 7% a year continues unabated, the kingdom within 20 years will burn the equivalent of around two-thirds its total current crude production capacity of 12.5 million barrels a day.

    Nuclear energy is increasingly becoming the favored alternative, one that experts say could save more valuable crude for export and help satiate local demand for power and water.

    In 2010, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East's biggest economy, took a step toward building nuclear power plants, establishing the King Abdullah Atomic and Renewable Energy City devoted to research and application of nuclear technology.

    Saudi Arabia plans to spend more than $100 billion on 16 nuclear reactors planned to be built by 2030 to meet its growing domestic energy needs, the kingdom's former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki Al Faisal, said last year.

    The cooperation agreement between Saudi Arabia and China comes amid intensifying international pressure on Iran over its controversial atomic energy program, which the Islamic republic says is only for peaceful purposes, while the U.S. and other Western states suspect it's aimed at developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

    China appears to be preparing to play a larger role in the global nuclear industry. In recent years it has been active in acquiring uranium assets abroad as well as obtaining advanced Western nuclear technology, which it hopes to begin exporting during the coming decades.

    The Asian country has adopted advanced technology from Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., to develop a domestic version of the company's AP1000 nuclear reactor. The lure of the Chinese nuclear market, among the world's fastest-growing, allowed Beijing to force the U.S.-based company to trade technology and know-how for market access.

    Westinghouse is helping China localize AP1000 technology, including so-called passive safety systems, which many say could have helped prevent the disaster at Fukushima in Japan. Westinghouse is working together with the Chinese to determine the feasibility of scaling up the AP1000. Early models of the reactor are expected to produce 1154 MWe, while analysts say future Chinese versions could perhaps be much larger.

    Some experts have raised concerns over the pace at which China is localizing the untested AP1000 technology, and scaling up its power production capacity, potentially for export to countries with little nuclear experience. China appears to eventually want to challenge Western nuclear equipment manufacturers like Westinghouse, though it appears to be years, if not decades, away from doing so.

    At home, China hopes nuclear power will help wean its reliance on choking pollution caused by burning coal. Beijing also sees its likely cheaper reactor prices and competitive financing from Chinese banks as ways to thrust its nuclear industry onto the global stage and shore up manufacturing jobs at home.[/QUOTE]

    —Brian Spegele contributed to this article.
    Write to Summer Said at [email]summer.said@dowjones.com[/email]

    [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577164742025285500.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[/url]

  3. #3
    Drill baby drill

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4332026][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Shah-nukeIran.jpg[/IMG]

    [URL]http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/good-nuclear-iran-bad-nuclear-iran.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Wait, you mean the response to Iran going nuclear isn't about not wanting "brown people" to have nuclear power, but is dependent on which regime is in charge of the country?

    For shame!

  5. #5
    All of the neocon candidates desire to strike Iran because they desire nuclear power. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is against war with Iran, particularly because they desire nuclear power.

    It is clear that they have had this desire for decades as the Shah was tossed out of power in the '70's

  6. #6
    If we want to go to war with Iran, we have to make the draft a part of it. Make everyone aware of the sacrifice and save money on big contracts with the contractors.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4335928]All of the neocon candidates desire to strike Iran because they desire nuclear power. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is against war with Iran, particularly because they desire nuclear power.

    It is clear that they have had this desire for decades as the Shah was tossed out of power in the '70's[/QUOTE]

    No, people are discussing striking Iran because they desire nuclear weapons, and have also funded and supplied weapons to terror groups around the world, including folks like Hezbollah, who have engaged in operations all over the world.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4336005]No, people are discussing striking Iran because they desire nuclear weapons, and have also funded and supplied weapons to terror groups around the world, including folks like Hezbollah, who have engaged in operations all over the world.[/QUOTE]

    The ad I posted sure makes it look like the US got Iran started on the path to nuclear power.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=cr726;4336001]If we want to go to war with Iran, we have to make the draft a part of it. Make everyone aware of the sacrifice and save money on big contracts with the contractors.[/QUOTE]

    .....and raise a separate tax to pay for it.......

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4336298]The ad I posted sure makes it look like the US got Iran started on the path to nuclear power.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.[/QUOTE]

    JD, maybe this will continue to go over your head, but:

    nuclear power /= nuclear weapons.

  11. #11
    What threat is that to the USA? We have our own nukes and the the only nation to ever use them.

    How does that justify US involvement? Why is it that it was good for Iran when the US backed Shah was pushing it and now all of a sudden it is bad after he is out of power?

    Several nations in that region have nukes, so what makes it so wrong for Iran that the US has to send troops and other war measures into the area, particularly when we are too broke to spend money on much else?

    Why is that over your head?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4337801]What threat is that to the USA? We have our own nukes and the the only nation to ever use them.[/quote]

    Really? Iran is virulently anti-American; every Friday prayer session led by the [URL="http://www.ghandchi.com/336-IRIParliamentEng.htm"]ayatollahs includes chants of "Death to America"[/URL]. Iran recently attempted to assassinate a diplomat on US soil. They also provide weapons, illegally, to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah, recall, carried out attacks on US troops and attacks in the Western Hemisphere, and is itself virulently anti-American.

    Aside from that, region-wide war in the Middle East would dramatically harm the US economy by massively increasing the cost of oil. And the likelihood of regional war increases dramatically the instant Israel is no longer the only nuclear state in the region.

    [QUOTE] How does that justify US involvement? Why is it that it was good for Iran when the US backed Shah was pushing it and now all of a sudden it is bad after he is out of power?
    [/QUOTE]

    Because the Shah:

    1) Wasn't seeking nuclear weapons; and
    2) Wasn't virulently anti-American.

    I'm not sure why either of those points are so hard for you to grasp.

    [QUOTE] Several nations in that region have nukes,[/QUOTE]

    Nope. Only 1.

    [QUOTE] so what makes it so wrong for Iran that the US has to send troops and other war measures into the area, particularly when we are too broke to spend money on much else?
    [/QUOTE]

    The facts outlined above: Iran is virulently anti-American, has supported and continues to support regional conflict, etc. etc.

    [quote]Why is that over your head?[/QUOTE]

    Your questions? They aren't. But it's akin to saying "hey, if a US Marine can carry an M-16, why can't my two year old? They're both people!"

    You haven't denied that there are relevant differences between the Iran of the Shah and the Iran of the Ayatollahs, and haven't denied that the Shah was seeking nuclear power generation while the Ayatollahs are seeking nuclear weapons. In other words, other than the fact that both involved the country of Iran, the context is so completely different that suggesting the two situations ought to be treated as parallel or identically is the type of childish, saran-wrap see-through propaganda I'd expect to see from Juan Cole.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    Pakistan has nukes, doggin.

    Syria likely does too.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4337970]Pakistan has nukes, doggin.

    Syria likely does too.[/QUOTE]

    Pakistan isn't in the Middle East (it's on the Indian Sub-continent). Syria absolutely does not have nukes (Israel bombed its last nuclear weapons attempt a few years back)

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4338057]Pakistan isn't in the Middle East (it's on the Indian Sub-continent). Syria absolutely does not have nukes (Israel bombed its last nuclear weapons attempt a few years back)[/QUOTE]

    May not be in the Middle East geographically (he did say the region btw, not the Middle East specifically), but that means very little ideologically, doesn't it? Are you saying you'd be ok with Iran having nukes if they moved over a few hundred miles? I think not. I know not.

    Need to know more about this Syrian take out by Israel. Got any good links?

  16. #16

    Good debating here d94it......

    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4337942]Really? Iran is virulently anti-American; every Friday prayer session led by the [URL="http://www.ghandchi.com/336-IRIParliamentEng.htm"]ayatollahs includes chants of "Death to America"[/URL]. Iran recently attempted to assassinate a diplomat on US soil. They also provide weapons, illegally, to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah, recall, carried out attacks on US troops and attacks in the Western Hemisphere, and is itself virulently anti-American.

    Aside from that, region-wide war in the Middle East would dramatically harm the US economy by massively increasing the cost of oil. And the likelihood of regional war increases dramatically the instant Israel is no longer the only nuclear state in the region.



    Because the Shah:

    1) Wasn't seeking nuclear weapons; and
    2) Wasn't virulently anti-American.

    I'm not sure why either of those points are so hard for you to grasp.



    Nope. Only 1.



    The facts outlined above: Iran is virulently anti-American, has supported and continues to support regional conflict, etc. etc.



    Your questions? They aren't. But it's akin to saying "hey, if a US Marine can carry an M-16, why can't my two year old? They're both people!"

    You haven't denied that there are relevant differences between the Iran of the Shah and the Iran of the Ayatollahs, and haven't denied that the Shah was seeking nuclear power generation while the Ayatollahs are seeking nuclear weapons. In other words, other than the fact that both involved the country of Iran, the context is so completely different that suggesting the two situations ought to be treated as parallel or identically is the type of childish, saran-wrap see-through propaganda I'd expect to see from Juan Cole.[/QUOTE]

    A lot of nations are anti-American because we get involved in things that are entangling alliances. We put the Shah charge against the will of the Iranian people. Of course that may anger them. The hatred we deal with now is the blowback.

    This blow back has a few faces including funding organizations that sympathize with them and vice versa.

    Iran produces only 4.5 of the world's oil
    [url]http://www.ngoilgasmena.com/news/irans-worldwide-oil-exports/[/url]

    One of the main reasons that they may desire to produce a nuclear weapon is because of Dimona and the lack of treaty agreements because of the undeclared nature that the current Likud run gov't has as its policy.

    How can one say for sure that the Shah would not have made nuclear weapons? He was tossed out of power. Things change in that region all the time and old alliances quickly become new enemies, like Saddam.

    More reason for the US to stay out of the entangling alliance over there

    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson
    [url]http://www.americanrevival.org/quotes/forefathers.htm[/url]

    With our economy the way it is, this is no doubt the proper approach to foreign policy

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4338115]May not be in the Middle East geographically (he did say the region btw, not the Middle East specifically), but that means very little ideologically, doesn't it? Are you saying you'd be ok with Iran having nukes if they moved over a few hundred miles? I think not. I know not.

    Need to know more about this Syrian take out by Israel. Got any good links?[/QUOTE]

    Re syria: [url]http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/826/the-attack-on-syrias-al-kibar-nuclear-facility[/url]

    As for iran and pakistan, they look in opposite directions. Iran projects influence westward - towards syria, lebanon, iraq, turkey . . . Pakistan concerns itself, primarily, with india. They may be close geographically, but not so much geo-politically

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4338822]Re syria: [url]http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/826/the-attack-on-syrias-al-kibar-nuclear-facility[/url]

    As for iran and pakistan, they look in opposite directions. Iran projects influence westward - towards syria, lebanon, iraq, turkey . . . Pakistan concerns itself, primarily, with india. They may be close geographically, but not so much geo-politically[/QUOTE]

    Where did we find Bin Laden again?

    Ugh, for some reason your link is blocked at work... will read this weekend.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4338288]A lot of nations are anti-American because we get involved in things that are entangling alliances. We put the Shah charge against the will of the Iranian people. Of course that may anger them. The hatred we deal with now is the blowback.

    This blow back has a few faces including funding organizations that sympathize with them and vice versa.[/quote]

    Irrelevant. Fact is, the situation now is what it is, and while I'm all for avoiding[B] unnecessarily[/B] antagonizing other nations and building constructive relationships, this isn't unnecessary. This iranian regime having nuclear weapons is very, very bad for global stability and american interests. Period.

    You haven't even bothered to argue that that statement is false.

    [QUOTE] Iran produces only 4.5 of the world's oil
    [url]http://www.ngoilgasmena.com/news/irans-worldwide-oil-exports/[/url]
    [/QUOTE]

    Again, irrelevant, for three reasons. First, while the world's reserves have enough cushion to replace iran's daily production, it's not by much. More importantly, a huge portion of the world oil supply is shipped through the straits of hormuz, same a regional conflict would significantly. And third, iran has proxies across the region -in iraq, lebanon, syria,etc. - that could further widen any oil fallout. Its why everyone has traded so carefully thus far and is waiting and going that military action won't be necessary.


    [quote]
    One of the main reasons that they may desire to produce a nuclear weapon is because of Dimona and the lack of treaty agreements because of the undeclared nature that the current Likud run gov't has as its policy.[/quote]

    It's always funny when propagandists are so blatantly wrong and stupid. That's not a Likud policy (sad for folks like cole, who try to pretend they aren't really anti-israel by using likud as a proxy for bad, implying that they like the rest of israel). Its been the policy of every israeli government, no matter its political party. As for the claim that dimona drives iranian efforts, stop and think about the implications of that, for a second. Why would that be?

    Because as long as the nuclear status is unbalanced in favor of israel, iran and its ideological fellows and clients can't launch a conventional war with any hope of success. Saying iran is motivated by dimona us equivalent to saying iran is motivated by a desire to make east against israel. You see that as legitimate?

    [quote]How can one say for sure that the Shah would not have made nuclear weapons? He was tossed out of power. Things change in that region all the time and old alliances quickly become new enemies, like Saddam.[/quote]

    On that theory, how can one say for sure what us attitudes would have been if he had? All you are doing is pointing up the inadequacy of the false equivalence cole is trying to draw.

    [quote]More reason for the US to stay out of the entangling alliance over there

    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson
    [url]http://www.americanrevival.org/quotes/forefathers.htm[/url]

    With our economy the way it is, this is no doubt the proper approach to foreign policy[/QUOTE]

    And, back to the isolationism

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us