Ok, I'd like to believe I'm an opened minded person that likes to look at all sides of any given situation. So, in doing some research on the whole Iranian nuke issue, I found this article.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88307
This paragraph is what really got me to thinking:
IT’S LEGITIMATE: Iran has a legitimate economic case for using nuclear power, and the means to manufacture the necessary fuel domestically. It also has the legal right to do so. But the US and the European Union demand that Iran and other countries abandon any indigenous capabilities and rely solely on western fuel suppliers to power their economy.... Under the guise of non-proliferation, the EU and the US also want to create an underclass of nuclear energy have-nots, concentrating what could become the world’s sole major source of energy in the hands of the few nations that have granted themselves the right to it. Iran presents a convenient opportunity to set a precedent to be used against other aspirants for nuclear power in the developing world.
Now think about the recent State of the Union Speech where Bush denounces America's dependency on foreign oil and that it needs to find alternate solutions. Suddenly, there's a complete and opposite side to the story beyond the *bomb* issue with Iran. It's all about the money trail and long term planning for both power/supremacy and NPT control. My understanding of this comment is that eventually, as we all believe, the world's oil reserves will become depleted. Suddenly, the balance of who supplies the world's power needs is SERIOUSLY reversed. No longer will the middle east have the bargaining chip it once had with world opinion. Why wouldn't the US, EU and Russia want to be in this position? (Not to mention the idea of the "current" Iran having a nuke is just a bad idea.) Now some I'm sure will argue that this is exactly why Ahmadinejad is so vociferous at the moment. He's trying to gain as much economic compromise from the West as possible.
So, is Ahmadinejad the crazy nut job that everyone (including myself) is making him out to be?
Tough questions to ponder....
*I didn't put this out there as an opportunity to bash Bush, the US, the EU, Iran or anyone else, so maybe we can stay on topic in this thread and discuss the issues without the rhetoric? Somehow I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask.*
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88307
This paragraph is what really got me to thinking:
IT’S LEGITIMATE: Iran has a legitimate economic case for using nuclear power, and the means to manufacture the necessary fuel domestically. It also has the legal right to do so. But the US and the European Union demand that Iran and other countries abandon any indigenous capabilities and rely solely on western fuel suppliers to power their economy.... Under the guise of non-proliferation, the EU and the US also want to create an underclass of nuclear energy have-nots, concentrating what could become the world’s sole major source of energy in the hands of the few nations that have granted themselves the right to it. Iran presents a convenient opportunity to set a precedent to be used against other aspirants for nuclear power in the developing world.
Now think about the recent State of the Union Speech where Bush denounces America's dependency on foreign oil and that it needs to find alternate solutions. Suddenly, there's a complete and opposite side to the story beyond the *bomb* issue with Iran. It's all about the money trail and long term planning for both power/supremacy and NPT control. My understanding of this comment is that eventually, as we all believe, the world's oil reserves will become depleted. Suddenly, the balance of who supplies the world's power needs is SERIOUSLY reversed. No longer will the middle east have the bargaining chip it once had with world opinion. Why wouldn't the US, EU and Russia want to be in this position? (Not to mention the idea of the "current" Iran having a nuke is just a bad idea.) Now some I'm sure will argue that this is exactly why Ahmadinejad is so vociferous at the moment. He's trying to gain as much economic compromise from the West as possible.
So, is Ahmadinejad the crazy nut job that everyone (including myself) is making him out to be?
Tough questions to ponder....
*I didn't put this out there as an opportunity to bash Bush, the US, the EU, Iran or anyone else, so maybe we can stay on topic in this thread and discuss the issues without the rhetoric? Somehow I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask.*
