Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
As a way around previously agreed upon targets for green and renewable energy supplies the British government is looking to reclassify Nuclear power as a "renewable energy". Given the increasingly aggressive accusations being directed towards Iran how can this not smack of gross hypocrisy?
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=124097Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
As with all counts of Gross Hypocrisy and the Tories, they stick to what they do best.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Iran is a rogue power who have threatened the very existence of Israel and there is substantial evidence that they fund terror.
Any and all action is needed to stop them developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver their payloads. Whatever they claim their nuclear power research is aimed at weapon development. All and any actions necessary must be taken to stop them getting nukes.
Nuclear is essential for the UK and you cannot compare the UK to the Iranian madmen.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Relying on rogue translations it is baldly stated and restated that there was talk of 'wiping from the map'.
Such talk in English seems to be perfectly acceptable when directed at Iran.
Only one country has dropped the bomb.
Only sensible, level-headed and right thinking individuals run Britain. Discuss.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom - I totally dismiss your 'moral equivalence' argument. No-one has talked about wiping Iran off the map, just doing whatever iss needed to stop them getting nukes.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Anti-Israeli rhetoric is common to a lot of Middle Eastern states and anti-semitism seems to know no borders. WMD's need not be nuclear and biological weapons can be developed in fairly small and well hidden facilities. The Iranian nuclear power programme is very public and, although not always willingly, they have allowed some inspection. It is too easy to recall the non existent WMD's that supposedly sent us into Iraq.
What makes a "rogue" state? Would it be the way they treat their people, we see far worse in many other countries that we have no interest in invading? Would it be the tone of their diplomatic statements or just the rabid slant put on them by the tabloids (and The Telegraph)? It can't possibly just be the funding of terrorism as there is hardly a country in the world who has not done that.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Why?
Nuclear energy is a clean, renewable and sustainable source of energy that many, many countries see as essential to their future.
Iraq was taken on even though governments in the west were certain their armies would be facing chemical and biological weapons.
Is this what is meant by the (final) Two-State solution? One that on a daily basis kills and steals and is welcome at the table and one looking out for the future well-being of it's nationals, but is destined, it seems, to play wash-rag to the other?
"Let Nation speak unto Nation"...You there, bring my car around boy!!!
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the reports that emanate from the atomic energy inspector chaps make clear that they believe weapons are being developed.
the evasive nature of their iranian hosts just confirms their findings.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,if iran was going to nuke israeal,im sure they would have done before now.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"NPT Non-Signatories
India, Pakistan and Israel have been "threshold" countries in terms of the international non-proliferation regime. They possess or are quickly capable of assembling one or more nuclear weapons. They have remained outside the 1970 NPT. They are thus largely excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, except for safety-related devices for a few safeguarded facilities."
Iran IS a signatory.
When was the last visit of the "atomic energy inspector chaps" to the UK, to the USA? To any non-signatory?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Brian - the point is they do not yet have nukes and we have to stop them getting them.
I am amazed that anyone would be willing to risk these terrorist sponsoring crazies be allowed to get nukes even if we were to ignore their anti-Israel rhetoric.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
tut tut barry,they could have got some from there russian and chinese friends,couldnt they.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Perhaps another way around the tabloid sensationalism would be to ask how many of the states likely to support Iran already have nukes?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The two separate issues here need separating. Uranium is not a renewable energy. Nuclear power plants leave behind atomic waste that needs to be disposed of, and remains active once deposited miles underground in salt barriers.
As for Iran, it seems the Gulf states are as much alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear Aiatollah army over the strait of Hormuz as are Israel, the USA and the West in general.
Nuclear energy can be produced without enriching uranium; further still, uranium can be enriched to an amount that makes it unusable for a nuclear weapon.
Iran has recently proved to the world in a big show-off display that they are enriching uranium through their own means.
The question is: how long would it take Iran to enrich uranium sufficiently to be capable of reaching nuclear-missile status? They already have long range missiles of their own construction.
The USA is following every development undertaken by Teheran, and Iran is doing their utmost best to provoke the USA and the West. It's a ticking time-bomb, because Teheran knows that the USA will not back down, and the Iranian regime wants to provoke and challenge the USA.
President Obama has warned Teheran time and again, he's tried to be diplomatic, it is not his fault. The American governing system - Senate Congress whichever - have made clear they will not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran.
Some web-sites try to paint it out as an Iran-Israel conflict, but there is much more to it, including the enormous oil supplies in countries near Iran and their passage through the Persian Gulf.
Iran has had a policy of being hostile to the USA since Khomeni got to power, and to be quite sincere, if the Iranian regime goes on provoking the USA and making a point of proving their capabilities of enriching uranium, and continue making their "closure of the Strait of Hormuz" naval exercises, it is because they are asking for a war and want one.
Anyone who wants a war with the USA must be mad!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
difficult to disagree with any of that alex, the issue is not just about iran and israel but has severe repercussions on all of us.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Of course on the basis of threatening those countries who have or are sponsoring "terrorism" and have nuclear weapons capability or are developing it then all current nuclear powers should be threatening each other with sanctions and invasion as they have all been responsible for sponsoring/funding/supporting terrorism, blatantly ignoring UN Resolutions etc etc etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Britain and America have strong ties, economically, culturally and militarily.
Britain and France have close ties, for the same reasons.
We have close ties with other European countries.
Our ties with Canada, Australia and New Zealand are excellent.
We've got very strong trading ties with China, and Russia is an ally.
But Russia has asked the West not to upset Syria. This seems to be a condition.
There is no evidence that Russia or China have great sympathies for the Iranian regime.
So in terms of pragmatic geopolitics, my greatest concern now is that someone tries having a go at Syria. To me it seems a forgone conclusion that Syria has not only pulled all soldiers out of Lebanon years ago, but has ceased being involved in these armed factions that once infested Lebanon.
The big menace in Lebanon now is Hezbollah, and they are Iranian backed. If we play our cards right, Syria, backed and encouraged by Russia, might once and for all stop all ties with Hezbollah or any other armed faction in Lebanon (if they haven't already done so), and this could bring about the isolation of Hezbollah. It might stop Iran supplying them with missiles and other nasty technologies, especially if Russia, with the help of Syria, approved together with the West an arms embargo on Hezbollah (checking ships sailing to Lebanon etc.)
We could of-course go in and attack Syria, unleash the devil in Lebanon as a consequence, push Syria in the arms of the Ayatollah regime in Teheran, annoy and humiliate the Russians, bring to power ten different factions (horns) in Syria, and raving fanatics, and endure all the consequences, and have the Teheran regime claiming countless moral victories and asking Russia for weapons and technology for "self-defence".
So in conclusion, if we don't do something insane, perhaps God will help us.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Speaking of, "Too many cooks..." [and Ian's forlorn hope that the sous chef from on-high shall step-in]
Where does this urge to stir every pot come from?
Why does each stew have to be the signature dish of an individual cook and not a typical stew, and be the glory of the work of many hands?
Many years ago the world was a much simpler place. 'We' in the west were a somewhat disparate chain of restaurants each individually run by one or other of the Brothers' Roux (the house of Hanover, was it?) and our kitchen-garden, larder and store house (on which the Sun never set) extended around the globe, on and beneath the earth, a veritable Gringotts Bank of possibilities.
The question these days is the same as it wasn't way back then. I say "wasn't" in a very real sense. In a very ordinary sense it very-much was and is the same: "Where, out there, is it all going wrong?"
In the very real sense the fundamental question of Geo-politics is still not asked: "Where am I going wrong?"
In exchanging Blue-Blooded sibling rivalry for the 'ideal' of Democracy we have again erred in not going all-out for Real Democracy, actual Democracy. And them chickens keep coming home to roost.
We err in thinking we have the power that Democracy promised, the might that may accomplish. We have swapped Orb & Sceptre for Oratory & Spectacle, for Ordinary & Similitude. That those we elect are much-of-a-muchness reflects the inner torpor of we who could have been much more.
"Where do I go wrong?"
Waddington's, was it who gave us 'Risk'? Which gives us each the confidence to out-chef the Big Chef.
Life, both individually and collectively, is not a novel board game.
Perhaps we should have stuck with Chess and stayed in touch with the plight-of-the-Pawn.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.