Bush/Iran/Nuclear weapons

[10ClarionSt]

George Bush (and others) reckon it would be a threat for Iran to have nuclear weapons. I'm not saying it's right for Iran to have them, but why is it ok for America to have them and no-one else?

George Bush is a patronising, arrogant, two-faced hipocrite.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

Come on clarion,even you cant be stupid enough to ask this,iran along with iraq,nth korea,certainly could not be trusted to have the use of nuclear weapons,nuclear power to run the country yes, but not weapons.and yes we all know bush and possibly blair are war mongers,but they are sensible enough not to use them.where as iran certainly would,in my opinion.

[Coobeastie]

George bush is cretin who i wouldn't trust with a pet let alone control over a nuclear arsenal. And lets not forget that America is so far the only country in history to use nuclear weapons in anger.

[Lonnie]

Its true that both Bush and Blair are warmongers, and of course, why shouldn't Iran have the Nuclear option if we have it. Problem is, their leader has just said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, then he goes and opens up his nuclear plants against international law, which he signed up to, all sounds a little bit fishy, but what do you do about it, leave it to the double B brand, and they'll invade given half a chance.

North Korea, Bush has included them in his triangle of evil, so why have they not been threatened, because the have nuclear weapons that can reach the States, and have said that if threatened, they will use it.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

excuse me coobeastie,america have never used nuclear weapons on anybody,there is a hell of a difference between them and a atomic bomb,

[gary baldy]

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Iran have any intent to use its nuclear programme to create weapons.
Its power generation programme is in its very early stages and even if it did intend to make weapons it is at least 7 years down the line if they started now (which they cant because they dont have the technology or know how - yet)
Nobody stopped Israel and their nuclear programme was never intended for energy production only weapons.

[kempie]

NORMANTHEDOG - in what way is the "Atomic Bomb" not a nuclear weapon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

[UosdwisjewoY]

You lot want to try working in Nuclear Power Plant, like I do in Springfield! I'm Mr. Burns' favorite emloyeeeeeee!! Doh!

[kempie]

�чор

[UosdwisjewoY]

Wow! That's soooooooo cooooool Kempie! It's about time someone gave a serious aspect to this thread!

[bernardo]

It is not acceptable for the USA (in particular) or the existing nuclear weapon states (in general) to dictate to other countries that they can't have nuclear weapons. Any country has the sovereignty to make its own decisions about the development of their own energy supply and self-defence. Decommissioning of nuclear weapons should be done by negotiation on the basis of parity of esteem of all countries, or unilaterally (like South Africa) and not on the basis of threats. I have no reason to believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

[brachiopod]

"...their leader has just said he wants to wipe ----- off the face of the planet, then he goes and ----- against International Law....all sounds a little bit fishy..."

No, lonnie, sounds a little 'Bushy' to me.

War Against Terrorism? Ok, fair enough, but Iraq was hardly the most likely offender in this trans-national tirade of offences on the West, yet Bush wanted to wipe this nation off the face of the Earth.

Guantanamo? Surely a severe transgression of International Law for a so-called 'civilised nation' and 'fighter for Freedom'?

And what does it matter who did, or did not, 'sign up to' anything? (The words 'Kyoto Agreement' and 'Geneva Convention' spring to mind.)