Printable View
They knew what a big bang they would cause yes but I don’t think they understood the long-term effects. When they were testing the bomb they used to have American soldiers in trenches not far from blast sites to see what would happen. Not exactly the smartest thing to do considering what we know now about radiation, but back then they just didn’t have a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
Correct me if I am wrong but I have read your posts and you seem to lean on the side of letting Iran have a nuclear program just so long as outside forces manage waste from those facilities. You also seem to also rely heavily on the UN for deciding the matter of who and who should not be able to pursue a weapons program and to manage the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
What I fail to understand is how you can trust a regime that is a known sponsor of terrorism, has a repressive theocratic government, and has threatened more than once the destruction of one of their neighbors, Israel (not to mention the US and the rest of the Western world). Also you expect to rely upon a body that is thoroughly corrupt and has failed a great many times to prevent or do anything about wars/genocide like Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and the Sudan.
So in short you expect everyone to trust Iran and let the UN handle the rest? I’m sorry but that’s about the scariest thing I can think of.
X
The UN can be a little impotent, yes, but I think you'll find that I said "outside bodies" not the UN. Also I was not speaking about a weapons program I was talking about a domestic energy program; you imply that I was justifying Iran creating nuclear weapons. I wasn't; I simply believe that Iran should be 'allowed' to have a domestic nuclear program where the waste is controlled (or simply monitored) by outside forces to prevent the creation of a nucear arsenal for obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I didn't say I trusted Iran; In fact I strongly implied I didn't - hence the idea that someone else moniters the waste. I think I've already answered your point about the UN.Quote:
What I fail to understand is how you can trust a regime that is a known sponsor of terrorism, has a repressive theocratic government, and has threatened more than once the destruction of one of their neighbors, Israel (not to mention the US and the rest of the Western world). Also you expect to rely upon a body that is thoroughly corrupt and has failed a great many times to prevent or do anything about wars/genocide like Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and the Sudan.
As for threatening world powers, do you recall a speech by Bush regarding the 'Axis of Evil'? Of course, I'm sure that you'd claim that if the US do it, it's different, but then, apparrently, that's always the case, isn't it?
Of course that's always the case.
Who do you want running the world, the US or Iran?
I don't need you to state your answer, I know which one you MUST choose by default - otherwise you'd be against the entire Anglo hold on the global economy - in which case, you'd simply be a fool.
Actually I object to the disproportionate power that the the G8 hold - of which, as you rightly say, are mainly English speaking nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Also, as you say, I would rather the US be bully-boy than Iran; but my idealist situation would be where the world wouldn't need a bully-boy with the biggest stick - which, in essence, is all the G8 have. One big stick of which to bash and crush those who don't subscribe to their own political, moral, or ideological beliefs.
There is a case (with some evidence) that the most powerful nations of the world are only the most powerful because of (i) Geographic Wealth, (ii) Exploitation of the poor, and (iii) Nuclear weapons.
I know that the UK (if you take account of the last two centuries) is entirely guilty of all three.
The irony, as I'm sure you'll point out, is that I rather enjoy living in the West. Perhaps irony is not quite the word, oxymoron, perhaps .. . .
Japan: No geographic wealth, no exploitation of the poor until after they were wealthy, no nukes. Yet, there they are -- rich, powerful, and proud.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
You guys gotta stop whining and feeling guilty about coming from a successful -- and good -- country. The UK (especially over the last two centuries) has been the leading moral force in the world.
Slavery would still be situation normal everywhere if not for you. It took a long time, cost a lot of money, and you did not get anything in return. But it was the right thing to do. And you got almost everyone else, except a few Islamic countries to stop as well.
Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that the industrialised West does not do good things throughout the world. But there are other concerns. As an example, and not as an expression of support, but look at how the world organises itself around the UN.
Look at the security council; can you name a non-nuclear power that holds a veto? What about permanent and elected members of the council? Is Japan a permanent member or elective?
Why would you think this to be the case?
I think it had mostly to do with the failure of the League of Nations, the winners and losers of WWII, and the real concerns of not alienating anyone who was likely to get atomic capabilities anytime soon. That the winners and includers tended to overlap is no mistake. They were the forces to be reconned with in the 1940s. Japan and Germany were crushed, and Italy simply could not be trusted. No one else was really close -- at the time. It looked as if the arrangement would go on for a long time, and it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
If one were to look toward having a non-nuclear country in a permanent security council position, I would say put a number of stable and reasonable countries on it: Japan, at least one Scandinavian country, and New Zealand. But keep the nut-sacks off it.
Also, move the headquarters to a better place, like Japan. New York really is a melting pot, and UN people get away with all sorts of foolishness there. Stick them in a place where they are obviously outsiders and they might remember that they have serious responsibilities. They might.
Or in other words . . . completely reform the body. :thumb:
Absolutely.