The DU final " What should we do with Iran poll"

[serryjw]

Poll question: The DU final " What should we do with Iran poll"

First lets assume their ultimate goal is nuclear weapons not energy. IF you were Prez what would you do right now with the Iran threat

[Monkeyman]

1. With our kids in Iraq I don't think bombing is the way

Fallout would be a killer to all

[KyndCulture]

2. Stay the hell out of it.

[MadMaddie]

3. The US assumed that Iraq had WMDs.....

It's not just the US that should make that decision....the World should be involved in the decision......I suspect Iran is willing to work with other countries than the US to resolve this....since the US won't hold talks with Iran....they cannot attack Iran based on speculation and no proof of what Iran is or is not doing.

Devil's advocate

What if another country decided that it didn't want the US making any more Nuclear Arms and wanted the US to destroy existing stockpiles? Would the US capitulate to the demand? Would the threat of a preemptive strike against the US make the US give up it's nuclear armament?

Then why should we expect Iran to do it? Just askin....

[skids]

4. Fund the hell out of wind, wave, tidal and power storage...

...until it is so cheap the world can start to call for a phase out of nuclear power -- there will be no excuse to have reactors for any purpose at that point, and global consensus that anyone who does so is either a nuclear weapons threat, or just plain threat to the environment.

[serryjw]

5. Preaching to the choir

but if we started today it would take decades world wide. I support worldwide disarmament( including bio/chem). With 3rd world countries getting nuclear capabilities,when nuclear material is all over the world, when any idiot can build a dirty bomb from info on the internet..It's just a matter of time before we have a disaster.A.Q Khan may very well be the most dangerous man in the world.

[skids]

12. It would only take half a decade...

...to bring the cost of these technologies below that of nuclear. Five years. The cost of the raw wind energy is already lower than nuclear (e.g. per dollar invested you get more energy out over the lifetime of the plant.) The only thing that drives it up is the price of storing that power to provide reliable baseload. There are numerous products in the works for that now.

Once wind + storage costs are lower than nukes, anyone building new plants would be engaging in iffy business economics at minimum.

(And of course, that totally ignores the externals.)

You are right, though, it would take a while to remove the need for existing reactors in addition to meeting any demand increases resulting from our utter failure to initiate meaningful conservation. Left to mere free market drivers, it won't be fast enough.

[serryjw]

19. We are making more progress

in the last few years than decades before. IF anything good came out of the Iraq war it is Americans undertsnading on how volatile our lives are being dependent to oil.Personally, I don't have a car. I choose to be part of the solution by busing where I go.I posted this a while back. I got a market research call of this 'Blue Fund'. If I had the money to invest; I would only do it with socially responsible companies.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/16/funds/blue_fund/index.htm

quote....
There are preliminary signs that global oil production may be nearing its peak, at a significant time when developing nations are starting to use more oil and concern over environmental impacts is growing. Most agree this signals the end of a long era of carbon fuel dependency. Wind power is experiencing a surge of growth because it is now competitive to oil. Solar and biomass are gaining use with further development, and nuclear power is being reconsidered, while conservation remains a strong option. A hydrogen economy is possible in the long term, but hydrogen is merely a carrier rather than an energy source. All "alternative" sources now comprise about 17% of global energy use. With nuclear excluded, however, true "renewables" (wind, solar, and biomass) make up roughly 11%. Overall, alternative energy is growing 30% per year, backed by wide public suport, and corporate investment is strong. As oil prices continue to rise and the cost of alternatives continues to fall with further technical advances, it seems likely that carbon fuels will no longer be the main energy source in two to three decades. TechCast has completed different studies that converge on 2020 +/- 5 years as the serious beginning of this transition period, when 30% of all global energy is most likely to be derived from alternative sources.
end quote......
http://www.techcast.org/event.aspx?event=27

[Sinti]

22. This is the perfect answer. Make it a non-issue. n/t

[Vincardog]

6. Let the IAEC do its' job and tell aWoL to STFU

[RC]

7. There would not even be a problem except for the United States

meddling in the internal affairs and otherwise threating other countries with "My way or we'll take over".

[Zhade]

8. Well, since Iran has the right to pursue nuclear power...

...we really don't - legally - have a say in the matter.

(I don't like nuclear anything. But it's not our call. Those who voted for bombing are welcome to tie themselves to the bombs to be dropped, since it's clear they are a detriment to humanity.)

[bananas]

9. serryjw, what would you do? nt

[serryjw]

14. Read #5

I believe in M*A*D. It worked well for us for 40 years. NOW that Israel sees that Lebanon/Hezbollah can give them a run for their money, I think they will have a better time negotiating. US/UK/Israel have become the worldwide bullies. How can we NOT stop Pakistan and object to Iran having nukes?

[bananas]

21. Would you vote "negotiate" or "allow"?

From post #5 I would have that you would vote "negotiate",
but from post #14 it seems you would vote "allow".
It's interesting that nobody has voted for the russian choice.

[serryjw]

24. I doubt that negotiate would work

and why should it with Pakistan having nukes. The ME will only calm down when EVERYONE or NO ONE has WMD of any kind. Now , I vote for the later but I doubt this is going to happen.Israel maybe the smalest country but it is the most powerful in the ME with our weapons.

[koopie57]

10. I voted "other"

and if I were the president I would ask Bill Clinton to get a team together and negotiate.

[KyndCulture]

11. to the 3 idiots that said bomb the hell out them...

I guess you're cool with the fallout killing Pakistani's and Indian's too?

pulease

[LWolf]

13. Other:

Clean up our own "house," and when we no longer have a nuclear weapons "program" then we can turn our attention to the world, including Iran.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. Overthrow their govt again, hell, we are getting ready to

overthrow ours (so to speak) in a couple of years... the sooner the better.

[serryjw]

16. That, IMHO, is what causes the problems

We are doing such a great job bringing democracy to Iraq, why not do it in Iran?!:sarcasm: I wish the damn CIA would stop doing this sh*t!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. Yes, that is what causes problems, along with the love of

money, not the money itself, and all the problems it brings many people once they amass large amounts of it, then there is this.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780471678786&itm=1


British / CIA overthrowing democratic elected leder
One of the greatest book for understanding Iran today. As an American I am shamed what CIA/British did in Iran in 1953. Blame could be given most to British for their greed for Iranian oil. By overthrowing democratic elected leader of Iran in 1953, CIA and British are blamed for the Fundamentalist terror regim of Iran today. As a taxpayer I wonder why our tax money is going toward distroying other countries. Great book for those who can connect the dots from 1953 to 9-11.

[serryjw]

20. Have it added to favorites

I am trying to recover from " Confessions of an Economic Hitman". That hit he hard to really understand what this benevolent country has being doing for decades.

The next one is:William Blum's Rogue State

http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-3rd-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/sr=1-1/qid=1159138366/ref=sr_1_1/104-7760765-6951931?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Sinti]

23. Ah... Kermit Roosevelt and Mossadeq - nobody likes to talk about that. n/t

[orwell]

17. It's absurd to think...

...that we have any "rights" in this case over another sovreign nation.

I guess Bush's assertion of pre-emption is a fait accompli. The only question to the propaganda addled masses is whether or not this case warrants it.

Mission accomplished...

[Jack Rabbit]

25. A combination of 3 and 5 and please your time

The silly thing about this argument is that Iran is about ten years away from a nuke and we have that much time to reach a satisfactory resolution to the problem. Calling it a crisis at this stage is hyperbole.

And bombing Iran now? We all know what that is: domestic politics, Bush style.

[truthisfreedom]

26. if Russia provides them with enriched uranium, they can't justify their

enrichment program. and remember, uranium enriched for fuel use is a FAR CRY from weapons-grade uranium. it's useless for conventional nuclear weapons.