14 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs that the same Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the US pulled out of so they could develop battlefield nukes?
[b]Nemesio: "Just because you don't think
Iran needs it, doesn't mean Iran doesn't. And, if she decides that she does
need them because of Pakistan or wherever, that remains her decision."
The fact is that Iran's president himself has stated publically Iran does not need nuclear arms.
Nemesio: "Unless you want to deny the auton ...[text shortened]... you think they have please show the evidence on which you base such an assertion.
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderA non sequitur is: A response that does not follow logically from what has been previously stated.
Non sequitur.
My post was in response to your question about the "Left's" opposition to nuclear energy in general. Thus, for you to say "Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons" was a non sequitur as it had nothing to do with my post. I agree that NO country needs nuclear weapons and the purpose of the NPT was to A) Stop other nations from getting them and B) Have the countries possessing them dismantle their stockpiles. You continue to stress A, although ignoring other countries that have gained them, while ignoring B though they are logically linked and were linked in the NPT.
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeThere's nothing in this post that contradicts what I said.
[b]marauder: "That is a false statement."
No, it is not. You are again erring.
"The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm
Hence the distrust I was talking about. Iran does not have a clean record ...[text shortened]... ding to El Baradei ... let's remember this, marauder. It is important.[/b]
15 Jan 06
7 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI support the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is no need to constantly emphasise the need for the Nuclear Countries to disarm if we are having trouble enough to prevent Non-Nuclear Countries from obtaining them.
A non sequitur is: A response that does not follow logically from what has been previously stated.
My post was in response to your question about the "Left's" opposition to nuclear energy in general. Thus, for you to say "Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons" was a non sequitur as it had nothing to do with my post. I agree that NO country needs nu ...[text shortened]... gained them, while ignoring B though they are logically linked and were linked in the NPT.
marauder: "A non sequitur is: A response that does not follow logically from what has been previously stated."
Correct. I reacted in this way because you were again confusing the issue by not distinguishing between the development and usage of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the development and production of nuclear weapons and the issue of enriching uranium.
As you are hopefully aware by now the negotiations between the EU3 and Iran do NOT deal with the issue of preventing Iran from developing and producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but with the issue of persuading Iran to develop and produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes WITHOUT obtaining the technical possibilities to develop and produce nuclear arms. The enrichment of uranium is a key issue in these negotiations, because enriched uranium can be used to produce nuclear weapons. The EU3 want to "trade" Iran's right under the NPT to enrich uranium with other advantages for Iran such as economic advantages. They have proposed to deliver a nuclear fusion reactor, which does not need enriched uranium to produce nuclear energy, but Iran has refused. Russia's proposal to deliver enriched uranium to Iran and take it back again after usage is also one of the proposals talked about in the negotiations. Iran has also rejected this proposal. Until now there have been no results whatsoever. Iran simply doesn't want to give up its right to enrich uranium. The International Community doesn't think this is such a great idea looking at Irans record concerning hiding nuclear activities in the past and taking into consideration the nature of Iran's present regime and its political agenda.
marauder: "I personally still think nuclear power is a bad way to boil water considering it leaves toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. I think it's unwise for ANY country to rely on it for any part of their energy needs. Nonetheless, many countries do and I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be "allowed" to if other countries are."
I hope that you are now able to see what I meant with my non sequitur "Iran does not need nuclear arms".
15 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThen how come you labeled my preceding remark about Iran hiding certain nuclear activities in the past and the resulting distrust towards Iran presently found in the International Community as "a false statement" ?
There's nothing in this post that contradicts what I said.
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour statement was, in pertinent part, : because it [Iran] had kept its nuclear research secret for 18 years before it was revealed in 2002.
Then how come you labeled my preceding remark about Iran hiding certain nuclear activities in the past and the resulting distrust towards Iran presently found in the International Community as "a false statement" ?
That statement is false. My statement that it had kept certain parts of its nuclear program secret for national security reasons was true. In 1984, Iran was still at war with Iraq, which had invaded it. Do you think it would have been a wise policy for Iran to disclose to the world under such circumstances the location of places where radioactive materials were?
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhen you ask a question I, unlike you, try to respond to it. YOU asked about opposition to civilian nuclear programs, so if anybody was "confusing the issue" it was you.
I support the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is no need to constantly emphasise the need for the Nuclear Countries to disarm if we are having trouble enough to prevent Non-Nuclear Countries from obtaining them.
marauder: "A non sequitur is: A response that does not follow logically from what has been previously stated."
Correct. I reacted ...[text shortened]... ble to see what I meant with my non sequitur "Iran does not need nuclear arms".
15 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWe are discussing the FACT that Iran did hide nuclear activities. It did and you give the, in your view, "good" reasons why it did. Thank you. These FACTS are the reasons for the international distrust towards Iran about its present nuclear activities.
Your statement was, in pertinent part, : because it [Iran] had kept its nuclear research secret for 18 years before it was revealed in 2002.
That statement is false. My statement that it had kept certain parts of its nuclear program secret for national security reasons was true. In 1984, Iran was still at war with Iraq, which had invaded it. ...[text shortened]... e to the world under such circumstances the location of places where radioactive materials were?
How do you explain the international distrust towards Iran ?
15 Jan 06
4 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder:"I personally still think nuclear power is a bad way to boil water considering it leaves toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. I think it's unwise for ANY country to rely on it for any part of their energy needs. Nonetheless, many countries do and I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be "allowed" to if other countries are."
When you ask a question I, unlike you, try to respond to it. YOU asked about opposition to civilian nuclear programs, so if anybody was "confusing the issue" it was you.
The issue is not whether Iran should be "allowed" to research and develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy ["to boil water"], the issue is whether the International Community should "allow" Iran to develop and produce nuclear arms.
My statement is cristal clear and you are confusing the issue ...... period.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs this your "crystal clear" statement?
[b/]marauder:"I personally still think nuclear power is a bad way to boil water considering it leaves toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. I think it's unwise for ANY country to rely on it for any part of their energy needs. Nonetheless, many countries do and I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be "allowed" to if other countries are." [/b /i] statement is cristal clear and you are confusing the issue ...... period.
Ivanhoe: What ever happened to the Left and their opposition against any form of nuclear energy ?
The present issue is whether the "international community" should continue to bully and threaten a country for developing a uranium enrichment program like many other countries have and which are allowed under the NPT. The issue is whether not "allowing" them to do so if they insist on it means war. You have my answer and I have your's, but with you it's always something when it concerns Muslim countries that aren't pro-Western.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioOn what basis should a country (any country) be permitted to decide whether or not other countries may make their own internal decisions as long as those internal decisions aren't invasions or declarations of war (and thus involving other nations)?
On what basis should a country (any country) be able develop a nuclear
program? On what basis should a country be able to develop nuclear
weapons?
Nemesio
16 Jan 06
In case you brainiacs have not figured it out, membership to the Nuclear Weapons Club is closed. Shitty little power hungry countries that cannot manage their own internal affairs or be a force in the world economic order or have terrorist tendencies, have no chance to gain entry. In the event where they break in to the Club without valid authorisation, Israel will escort them to the door by force.
From where I sit in a tiny island in the Caribbean .. I have one comment on this blatant abuse of power .. " thank goodness for the US and Israel !
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Wow, that was very uninformed. So when did membership to this club close? Was that before or after N. Korea got them? Or was it when Pakistan got theres? What are you thanking god for Israel for? For creating instability in the most volatile region in the world. You should be thanking GW Bush and his cronies for that. Well Israel too, but I don't think creating instability in any part of the world is anything to thank anyone for.
In case you brainiacs have not figured it out, membership to the Nuclear Weapons Club is closed. Shitty little power hungry countries that cannot manage their own internal affairs or be a force in the world economic order or have terrorist tendencies, have no chance to gain entry. In the event where they break in to the Club without valid authorisation, Isra ...[text shortened]... I have one comment on this blatant abuse of power .. " thank goodness for the US and Israel !