face of the earth is enriching uranium?
Keep in mind they were offered to be supplied with uranium for power purposes, and declined.
2007-01-23 01:51:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
---
last i checked (which is not often, because i don't watch or listen to him), pat robertson is not enriching uranium, nor is he running a nation.
2007-01-23 06:48:15 · update #1
I think you mean the quote where he is reported to have said:
"Israel must be wiped off the map"
when he actually said:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
The quote, misquoted and taken out of context, has been used to demonstrate the threat posed by Iran. Before we jump into another war lets be clear about the reasons, and not because of a mistranslation.
2007-01-23 02:15:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, if the quote is interpreted correctly, it would probably bother some people. However, leaders of opposing nations often threaten each other, without always having the means to do so.
Let's look at an example.
1. If a superpower were to threaten a third world country with nukes, that would be disturbing, if the country actually has the means to do it, and also if the third world country is defensless against it. This is no different from a big bully threatening a little weakling.
2. If two countries of equal power were to threaten eachother, that would still be disturbing, since both countries will take losses - but this is an even loss. This is like two equally strong kids fighting in the school yard.
3. If a country of lesser power (like Iran) were to threaten a country of greater power (like Israel), it would be somewhat of a questionable outcome. This is like a small guy threatening a big guy. Not the wisest thing for the small guy.
If you look at the information available you will see that Israel probably already has nukes, while Iran doesn't yet. And Israel has the means to deliver these nukes to Iran. Iran doesn't yet. So, if you look at the power balance, the scales tip towards Israel (Israel is the stronger power without a question). So, if Iran were to develop a nuke, it would only make it equal in power.
As far as I am concerned, nations of equal power can deterr each other by having nukes on each side, just like Pakistan and India. There is a balance. Although it is dangerous, a balance of power keeps nations from annihilating each other. An imbalance in power will allow one nation to destroy another or allow the nation of greater power to threaten or bully another weaker nation.
So, I wouldn't always be 'bothered' by some nation enriching uranium. Because enriching uranium takes time and resources, and also more time and resources to develop into a nuke. If Iran really wanted a nuke, they could probably smuggle it from some country.
2007-01-23 10:56:05 · answer #2 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this has nothing to do with politics. One culture has been seeking to wipe another off the face of the earth for thousands of years now. What's new? The point is that one generation passes the bullsh** on to the next. I KNOW, not believe, not think, not my opinion, not my ideas, why other nations are wanting to either bomb America or see America fall. And this goes for any other country that has the same or similar background as America. There are sayings in place that have some validity to them. And there is one that comes to mind, " what goes around comes around." If a person goes their whole life bullying people, stealing from people, lieing to people, causing other people to be poor, causing people to not know who they are, or where they come from, systematically exterminating other ethnic groups, forcing other ethnic groups to assimilate, what will happen to this person in the long run?
2007-01-23 10:17:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it bothers the current President enough to do anything about it.
It also bothers me that Pat Robertson, a far right Christian conservative with his own daily talk show viewed by millions everyday, says basically the same thing about wiping the the Iranians off the map.
Who is worse?
2007-01-23 10:00:02 · answer #4 · answered by JasSays 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if that country were say, China, N.Korea, or Russia. Basically any country with the technology to actually deliver a nuclear warhead this far. Iran has to buy this information from other countries.
Also, please forward me a link/article where Iran declined uranium for power purposes. I had not heard that before. Thanks.
2007-01-23 10:09:44 · answer #5 · answered by T S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it would if it was said. since it wasn't,i'm not worried. would the US stop enriching if offered an alternate supply? why do you seek to deny independence or a right to another country? even gates said that neither the US or iran have anything to offer the other.
2007-01-23 10:01:40 · answer #6 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. But there are more constructive and effective ways to deal with it than military build-up or war, which will potentially damage our country economically far worse than it will stabilize world politics.
2007-01-23 11:01:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think this question should be addressed exclusively to Democrats. It is a matter to consider for all of us, never mind if we are Democrats, Republicans, Independents or Greens.
2007-01-23 09:57:10 · answer #8 · answered by paloma 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not at all. We let Al Qaida attack 2 of our African Embassy's, The U.S.S cole, and try to bomb the World Trade Center when Clinton was in office and we just made a couple of arrests and walked away.
2007-01-23 09:58:19 · answer #9 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do you mean to say that the next president would be from Democrats!
2007-01-23 09:58:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋