Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 78444	2007-04-15 21:19:00	News Story From The New York Times	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
541345	2007-04-15 21:19:00	The NYT, unlike it's sister publication the Los Angeles (Socialists') Times, has posted this rather unique perspective on the Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Mid-East tumult. (www.nytimes.com) [partially quoted here] "The NYT paints the nuclear ambitions of virtually every Middle Eastern nation as the byproduct of fears that a nuclear Iran would dominate the region. All the nations concerned say they only want nuclear technology for generating electricity (despite the region's vast oil reserves) and the paper treats this claim with healthy skepticism, assuming that at least some of the states in question would want to pursue nuclear weapons. The article's most startling claim: most Arab nations would prefer a U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to Iran having nuclear weapons. In a related story, the NYT says North Korea failed to meet deadlines for shutting down its nuclear facilities, leaving the U.S. with relatively few options for bringing the nation in line with the commitments it made last February." I don't know why the winds have shifted here...perhaps some insight by youse guys..without flames..this is a discussion..would be interesting.	SurferJoe46 (51)
541346	2007-04-16 03:47:00	Simple: They all just want to have what the US has got and those that cannot afford it are jealous. By the by, How come the US thinks it has a mandate to call the shots & decide that some Countries are allowed Nuclear power / weapons and some are not ? NZ is Nuclear Free and the US doesn't like that either. Sovereign Nations make their own laws and decisions.	Sue (33)
541347	2007-04-16 05:44:00	Well said Sue	lazydog (148)
541348	2007-04-16 06:34:00	Simple: They all just want to have what the US has got and those that cannot afford it are jealous . By the by, How come the US thinks it has a mandate to call the shots & decide that some Countries are allowed Nuclear power / weapons and some are not ? NZ is Nuclear Free and the US doesn't like that either . Sovereign Nations make their own laws and decisions . I can't and WON"T defend US policy towards any country . . . it's not my job . :groan: "Sovereign Nations"? That makes the Indian Reservations, all of them are declared "Sovereign Nations" under treaties and US law . . . does that mean they too should go nuc? :xmouth: I DO, however applaud NZ individuality . . . :thumbs:	SurferJoe46 (51)
541349	2007-04-16 09:08:00	We so need nuclear power, its not bad at all. Nuclear WEAPONS are bad, thats clear but in a age of increasing global warming and simultaneously dwinfling oil supplies, it is a great alternative.	beeswax34 (63)
541350	2007-04-16 10:06:00	I am a strident critic of the US policies in the Middle East, but Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear arms . A nuclear-armed Iran would be a very destabilizing influence in the Middle East, because of its belligerence towards Israel . Israel itself is almost certainly nuclear-armed (remember Mordechai Vanunu?) . All countries in the Middle East fear an all-out conflict between the two . The whole region would be devasted . Petrol prices would . . . blah blah blah The way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms is through diplomacy with Iran and its influential neighbours and strict sanctions against nuclear arm technology trading .	vinref (6194)
541351	2007-04-16 10:13:00	Well, thats that sorted then, and to think people have been trying to sort that mess out for thousands of years. Ever thought of taking up a role in Talkback radio?	Metla (12)
541352	2007-04-16 16:50:00	We so need nuclear power, its not bad at all . Nuclear WEAPONS are bad, thats clear but in a age of increasing global warming and simultaneously dwinfling oil supplies, it is a great alternative . Peaceful nucs is a very good thing . . . the tree huggers should recant and stop belly aching about it as a dirty alternative . . . the fossil-based and coal-based power plants are just not good enough even with the best scrubbers and after-burn cleaners . Weapons of any kind are nasty . . be it slingshots or spears . . . but we can't put that back in the box .	SurferJoe46 (51)
541353	2007-04-18 05:55:00	Any country with good supplies of oil probably should be developing "weapons of mass destruction". If they don't, they will at some time be accused of having them, and the accusation will be the "justification" for invasion by some country which wants free access to the oil.	Graham L (2)
541354	2007-04-18 11:07:00	. Weapons of any kind are nasty . . be it slingshots or spears . . . but we can't put that back in the box . Take a bloody great spear to wipe out an entire city . But thanks to the US for trying to boss around the entire world because they hold a crapload of weapons of mass destruction, and as a country your not scared of killing as many people as it takes to . . . . . um . . . what the hell are they trying to acheive again?	Metla (12)
1 2