World Peace discussion

Nuclear Hypocrisy and Iran

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:35PM) (new)

Héctor The Bush administration is very focused these days on Iran’s nuclear program. This focus has only sharpened in the aftermath of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of a UN Security Council demand. In the White House, “options on the table” is code for military action. There have been many media reports of U.S. preparations to attack Iran. But the primary rationale for such an attack – to prevent Iran from going nuclear – is deeply problematic. Not only is the United States beefing up its military in general, it is even planning a modernization of its nuclear arsenal. The nuclear hypocrisy of the Bush administration makes any resolution of the conflict with Iran all the more difficult. The new round of hand-wringing and saber-rattling about Iran’s nascent but worrisome nuclear program comes just a few weeks after the Bush administration announced its new budget, which included billions for nuclear weapons development. The Department of Energy’s “weapons activities” budget request totals $6.4 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s $481.4 billion proposed budget. But the budget for new nukes is large and growing -- even in comparison to Cold War figures. During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year (in current dollars). Almost two decades after the nuclear animosity between the two great superpowers ended, the United States is spending one-and-a-half times the Cold War average on nuclear weapons. In 2001, the weapons-activities budget of the Department of Energy (DOE), which oversees the nuclear weapons complex through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), totaled $5.19 billion. Since President Bush’s January 2002 “Nuclear Posture Review” asserted the urgent need for a “revitalized nuclear weapons complex” -- “to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing” -- there has been more than a billion-dollar jump in nuclear spending. Included in the $6.4 billion 2008 request is money for “design concept testing” of two new nuclear warhead designs that officials hope will be deployed on submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles-- even as U.S. warships set their helms towards the Strait of Hormuz to menace Iran back from the nuclear brink.

By Frida Berrigan in:

message 2: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:36PM) (new)

Héctor Foreign policy expert says Bush has ruled out first-strike on Iran; Worries about 'accidental' conflict by John Byrne in:

message 3: by Deena (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:36PM) (new)

Deena | 6 comments America and his double standard..

message 4: by Farzan (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:37PM) (new)

Farzan (persianguy1983) I really don't know why they can't see us to develop our technology , they want to colonize everyone and everywhere , it's really ridiculous to compel you idea to other country and tell them obey our rules because we think that we're god of the world ...
Shame on them

message 5: by Suvi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:37PM) (new)

Suvi (orpheusbooks) It seems that America is sometimes unable to see its own mistakes and just wants to basically rule the world economy.

message 6: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:38PM) (new)

Héctor USA and Iran are of the few countries that have the capital punishment. It would be good that they discarded it. But the subject is not that here…

message 7: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:38PM) (new)

Héctor USA is the main actor in the war. A war that nobody wants, dear Tracy.

message 8: by SYED (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:38PM) (new)

SYED | 30 comments Mod
i think disscussion is on fire carry on/....../////////i will comment latter

message 9: by Deena (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:42PM) (new)

Deena | 6 comments Ahmadinejad talks about nuclear on CBS's 60 minutes:

message 10: by Deena (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:42PM) (new)

Deena | 6 comments should see the part 5 and 6 of the interview. That's where Ahmadinejad comment about nuclear (weapon)

message 11: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:42PM) (new)

Héctor German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier opposes French calls for European Union sanctions against Iran. He will back up his case with German Foreign Ministry data showing that leading French and American companies are conducting large amounts of business with Iran.

Berlin Says US and France Guilty of Hypocrisy in:

message 12: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:42PM) (new)

Héctor Ahmadinejad in New York: "The Iranian President Doesn't Want to Become Isolated." Simon Piel Interviews Didier Billion in:

message 13: by Dewi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:42PM) (new)

Dewi | 5 comments Everyone has their own value, if iranian is OK with it why should bother? They can shout it by themselves if they didn't agree. And then for gays.. stay out from Iran.

Why make something difficult? Don't put America's standards on Iran, or Iran's standards on America, it won't work anyway.

message 14: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Héctor Gays also are human beings... or not, Dewi?

message 15: by Dewi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Dewi | 5 comments of course.. no one say they aren't. Which part of my post said that they aren't?

message 16: by Deena (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Deena | 6 comments I particularly like the way Ahmadinejad freed people to make their own decision, for the palestinian, for example.

I think what he's trying to say (and I believe it's what Dewi also trying to say) is to let a country decide their own fate as long as your not messing with other country's rights.

Why should we worry about Iran who runs their country inside their boundary? We should worry about a country who's messing about other country and society..

message 17: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Héctor Consensus, Deena. If the rights are good, they must be applied in all the countries.

message 18: by Deena (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Deena | 6 comments It's not easy to create a consensus Hector. Especially ones that can be applied in all countries. People have their own standard and views based on their experience and how well they were informed.

I dare say some consensus are applicable in all countries. But some people can't see it with an open mind :)

message 19: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:43PM) (new)

Héctor It´s a bet to the future, Deena.

message 20: by Dewi (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Dewi | 5 comments I do hate world consensus today.
Which allow some powerful countries to attack other country (physically or economically), killing their citizens, steal their resources, put sanctions on country just because the people choose their-so-called-terrorist-organization as their leader.

I do hate world consensus today.
The biggest killing ideology, maybe democracy. Who said we should respect each other, who said that the greatest power it's on people voices, who yell most at human rights.

O yea..

message 21: by Enespaniol (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Enespaniol | 23 comments It is not democracy. It´s capitalism. The fight is: Democracy vs. Capitalism, People Rights vs. capital rights.

message 22: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:44PM) (new)

Héctor It´s a bet to the future, Dewi. More rights for the people.

message 23: by yusar (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:52PM) (new)

yusar  mikail | 4 comments Well hector,

I am in indonesia. Our way of going to the loo is different with people in europe, Australia. Even our toilet equipment is different.
How am I going to the toilet if there is only American toilet. maybe I will go to the hospital because I don't go to the toilet.
We are different in some way, and we love to live in this way.

message 24: by yusar (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:52PM) (new)

yusar  mikail | 4 comments Tell, george Bush to stop killing hundreds or thousands of peole with one bom. yes you do not hang one people in your own house. but you slaughter people in other house while they are sleeping

message 25: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:52PM) (new)

Héctor There are many classes of toilet in the world, Yusar, but all have a hole in common...

message 26: by Jyv (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:54PM) (new)

Jyv | 4 comments "At least, in America, we do not hang innocent people from cranes. "

No, America bombs innocent people from the skies.

message 27: by Jyv (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:54PM) (new)

Jyv | 4 comments Continue sticking your head in the sand Tracy.

message 28: by Héctor (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:54PM) (new)

Héctor Today, Senator Barack Obama will propose setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world. This proposal should be celebrated. It is a sign of Obama's commitment to a sane security and foreign policy -- consistent with an understanding that the US is safer when it respects international rule of law and cooperation. This is not a radical proposal--a characterization you're likely to hear from many inside-the-beltway pundits and security analysts. They may try to label Obama as a candidate disconnected from reality. But then they could level the same charges at Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn. All four men, earlier this year, called for a revival of Ronald Reagan's vision of " a world free of nuclear weapons" in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

Obama and Edwards Get It on Nukes by Katrina Vanden Heuvel in:

back to top