Obama thinks Iran should have nuclear power

[Super B]

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 9:24 AM



LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.

Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that "they can embrace and affirm."

Obama added that there is a danger "when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."

© 2009 The Associated Press

 

[woodzy]

Maybe we should send our nuke scientists over there to show them how to put the bomb into the rocket... ya that's a good idea Obama, that way they know exactly what we mean when we say not to make bombs with it.. ya.. He's just taking care of his own. He'll get lotsa peeps killed if he keeps this chit up

 

[MPS]

Douche Bag!!!!!

 

[redlineguy]

He thinks that, I know he is an A-HOLE!!!!










.

 

[Ollie]

yall arn't going to like this but...................
I agree with the Obamanation on this one.
It is not the place of the U.S. or anyone else to dictate what a country does inside it's own borders.

It would be like Iran telling us we can't have nuclear power and then going to the UN and imposing sanctions on us for doing it anyway.
If you truly believe in freedom and freedom of choice you must extend that same phylosophy (wow did I butcher that) to other countries. As long as it is within their own borders.

Heck, I think WE need more nuclear power plants.
How can we say they can't have nuclear power when we want to utilize it more?
If sabor rattling was justification for getting santions put on a country, the U.S. wouldn't be able to import a flee.

 

[bonz50]

yall arn't going to like this but...................
I agree with the Obamanation on this one.
It is not the place of the U.S. or anyone else to dictate what a country does inside it's own borders.

It would be like Iran telling us we can't have nuclear power and then going to the UN and imposing sanctions on us for doing it anyway.
If you truly believe in freedom and freedom of choice you must extend that same phylosophy (wow did I butcher that) to other countries. As long as it is within their own borders.

Heck, I think WE need more nuclear power plants.
How can we say they can't have nuclear power when we want to utilize it more?
If sabor rattling was justification for getting santions put on a country, the U.S. wouldn't be able to import a flee.

totally ollie... nuclear power plants are important in this world...

 

[redlineguy]

yall arn't going to like this but...................
I agree with the Obamanation on this one.
It is not the place of the U.S. or anyone else to dictate what a country does inside it's own borders.

It would be like Iran telling us we can't have nuclear power and then going to the UN and imposing sanctions on us for doing it anyway.
If you truly believe in freedom and freedom of choice you must extend that same phylosophy (wow did I butcher that) to other countries. As long as it is within their own borders.

Heck, I think WE need more nuclear power plants.
How can we say they can't have nuclear power when we want to utilize it more?
If sabor rattling was justification for getting santions put on a country, the U.S. wouldn't be able to import a flee.

I am surpirsed u feel that way, If they were not such a BAD country I would say yes that is fine but they WANT to wipe Isreal off the map and this will be a good start for them.










.

 

[ruffryder]

Crap, Ollie, now I am agreeing with you! Good points though.

 

[redlineguy]

Also if Butthead thinks Nuke Power is so great why not here???


Lets Build some here!!!









.

 

[Gainster]

Also if Butthead thinks Nuke Power is so great why not here???


Lets Build some here!!!









.

Now there is a idea!

 

[Ollie]

Also if Butthead thinks Nuke Power is so great why not here???


Lets Build some here!!! .

That is actually a very good question.
Wonder how many nuclear plants we could build for 787 BILLION dollars?

Also, no one should be surprised I feel this way.
I am all about personal responcibility, consequences for actions and self reliance.

Also, all Iran has done is threaten, they haven't actually taken direct action against Isreal. They have supported terrorist groups that are at war with Isreal. If you read my posts concerning this, you will find I am all for Isreal going in and wiping Hezbala off the face of the earth.

But how is what Iran is doing in supporting the groups fighting Isreal and what we did in supporting the Taliban in fighting Russia during Russia's Afgan war?

If Iran should take direct action against Isreal I thin the U.S. should give full military support to Isreal and take out Iran. Till then, it's not our buisness to tell Iran how to deal with an energy shortage inside their own borders.

 

[Gainster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SoTLTzKJnA&feature=channel_page

Read the comments!

 

[Idcatman3]

I am surpirsed u feel that way, If they were not such a BAD country I would say yes that is fine but they WANT to wipe Isreal off the map and this will be a good start for them.

Bad country? I would say no, just some misguided people in charge. Yes, it's semantics, since it really amounts to the same thing, but still.

How could they prove to you that their intentions were peaceful? If they proposed building reactors that aren't breeder reactors, and used designs that make it so that the plutonium produced is suitable only for use in power generation reactors, not weapons, would that satisfy you?

I agree with Ollie however, that it isn't really our place to tell them what they can/can't do inside their own country.

But for Ollie:
Isn't there a point at which what they do inside their own country has the potential to affect the rest of the world? What do we do then?

 

[redlineguy]

Bad country? I would say no, just some misguided people in charge. Yes, it's semantics, since it really amounts to the same thing, but still.

How could they prove to you that their intentions were peaceful? If they proposed building reactors that aren't breeder reactors, and used designs that make it so that the plutonium produced is suitable only for use in power generation reactors, not weapons, would that satisfy you?

I agree with Ollie however, that it isn't really our place to tell them what they can/can't do inside their own country.

But for Ollie:
Isn't there a point at which what they do inside their own country has the potential to affect the rest of the world? What do we do then?

Thats my point, If u know the 20 year old guy down the street looks at kiddie por% 10 hrs a day but has never done anything would you let him watch your 9 year old girl???










.

 

[Idcatman3]

It's more like:

If you think the guy (That you don't like, and you think doesn't like you) down the street wants to build a cannon, would you let him build a shop that could conceivably allow him to do it?

I would say you don't have the right to prevent it, and he may have a legitimate use for the shop that doesn't involve threatening you.

If you can prove that he's building something for the specific purpose of threatening you, then....? That's where I'm not sure what the proper course of action is.

 

[redlineguy]

It's more like:

If you think the guy (That you don't like, and you think doesn't like you) down the street wants to build a cannon, would you let him build a shop that could conceivably allow him to do it?

I would say you don't have the right to prevent it, and he may have a legitimate use for the shop that doesn't involve threatening you.

If you can prove that he's building something for the specific purpose of threatening you, then....? That's where I'm not sure what the proper course of action is.

But if the Guy himself is a lose cannon why take the chance? If he uses it now its to late your dead.









.

 

[Idcatman3]

So you wouldn't even let him build the shop?


In this country, do we (or should we) arrest people, or infringe on their rights before they've done something wrong?

I'm having some trouble articulating my point, but I think you get the picture. Yeah I'm not totally thrilled about the idea, but I think we have to apply our principles of freedom to everyone, even if they wouldn't do the same for us.

Ah, figured out a way to say what I wanted.

If you agree to give the president the power to tell another country:
"You can't do that because you're a loose cannon and you might use it to do something I don't like."

Then you also agree in principle to give him the power to tell you:
"You can't buy/build that because you might use it to break the law."

 

[6Mile]

Like others have said if he thinks they should have the right to nuclear power, who are we to argue, but then why is it so hard to get new facilities built here on our own soil?

During the campaign cycle "P-BO" touted the need for energy independence, did he mean it? Probably not, but it did help him win some votes, and he will say anything to get votes and keep his approval ratings up.

 

[woodzy]

So we let them build nuclear power facilities as long as they comply w/ the UN inspections policies?

 

[Ollie]

So we let them build nuclear power facilities as long as they comply w/ the UN inspections policies?

Actually, again, I don't think it is the UN's place or ours to tell them no.
I am not happy about the people in power and would love to see a friendlier government in charge, but again, that is an internal issue to Iran.

Lets look at this from their stand point (playing devil's advocate here).
Isreal isn't a country that was won thru war or inheratence. It was created after WW2 to give the Jews a home. It was seen as an invasion supported by the west. It would be like Saudi Arabia coming in and telling the U.S. that Texas is now a muslim homeland. We wouldn't be very happy about it.

Then, they don't like the U.S., and we don't like them. Bush called Iran part of the axis of evil. They call the U.S. the evil empire.

Now, we invade Afganistan and they actually help (to a small degree) by refusing to allow the Taliban (whom they also hate) to take refuge in their country. Then we invade Iraq, which they saw an unnecessary and unwarrented.
So here we are.
They hate us, we hate them.
We are on 2 of their borders and a major ally of their hated enemy the invaders of their holy land (Isreal).
If you were in their shoes, what would you do?