Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 17:20 -0500 4/6/08, cliff parker wrote:
Cliff, no one is saying that they aren't after nuclear weapons. It
I take your points. Communication is a tricky business and some use that to
their advantage. But can you lay enrichment of uranium and construction of
nuclear power plants at the feet of mistranslation? Or do you really think
it is to avoid the CO2 emissions. They can't even refine their own crude
oil but rather have to import gasoline but are working on nuclear power to
produce ELECTRICITY?
looks pretty much that way to me, too. I agree with your analysis.
But you are assigning far too much certainty to your conclusions. It
is dangerous to convict someone, even in the international court of
public opinion, without conclusive evidence. What you are presenting
is circumstantial, and is strong evidence, but it needs more to
become conclusive.
If our government continues to operate on the basis that this
evidence is conclusive and then acts on it, we are, as John M. has
pointed out, likely to end up in a rerun of Iraq, no better results.
Appearances can be deceiving, and merely having a nuclear reactor, or
a nuclear enrichment facility in connection with a nuclear reactor
doesn't mean that weapons are inevitable. If it did, then Japan,
Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Australia and a whole host
of other countries would have nuclear weapons.
If Iran cannot refine its own oil, and is dependent on foreign
refineries for gasoline for its vehicles, it would make sense to me
to build a nuclear plant for electricity, especially if some country
like Russia was willing to do all the work, and all they had to do
was pay for it from their vast oil revenues.
Look what the assumptions about Iraq got us into. Are we ready to
play the same game in Iran?
Hugh
--