Seconds to Go?
I've already talked about the Doomsday Clock which hasn't been moved since 2002, and currently stands at Seven Minutes to Midnight and why it should be updated in the face of the nuclear threat nuclear research over in Iran, but I really think its time to move the doomsday clock on - to the point there's just "Seconds to Go" ...
"No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities," Ahmadinejad said in his speech to inaugurate the project. The plant's plutonium by-product could be used to make atomic warheads.The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran meet an August 31 to halt uranium enrichment, the part of Tehran's atomic programme which is the biggest worry to the West.
Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to master technology to produce nuclear weapons. Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, insists it only wants to produce electricity.
"Iran is not a threat to anybody, not even to the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, using Iran's term for its arch-enemy Israel, which the Islamic Republic does not recognise.
Really? Coming from a man who has been widely quoted as having said:
Israel must be wiped off the map
I don't see why we should trust Iran to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Even now nobody has made any sensible response to the question I asked when I wrote about The Big Lie earlier this year.
Why would a country like Iran, which holds oil reserves of approx 132.5 billion barrels - roughly 14% of the world’s oil reserves, and which also holds 812 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves – 15.8% of the world’s gas reserves - choose to develop nuclear energy as an alternative power source - with the huge expense, environmental risk, and danger of political fallout?In a country which enjoys an average of 8.5 hours of sunlight per day wouldn’t a solar solution be more ecologically and politically acceptable?
Well actually - people do have answers - they just seem a little crazy to me.
Every peace activist on the globe ought to be in the streets and elsewhere lobbying in support of something very simple:do not attack Iran, even if this means allowing Iran to develop its own nuclear weapons.
Hmmm ... well try this - which, argues that a succesful terror attack could force "regime change" on the USA and actually save lives in the long run
What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.
If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.
If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate ...:
So while Iran is busy building nuclear weapons - what is the world doing about it?
Right now everybody is too busy re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic in preparation for Nero's premier as violin soloist to see the iceberg looming on the horizon.
But ask yourself this:
Do you think an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is going to make the world more, or less, safe?
Now go home and try and sleep tonight.
Tags: new cold war, iran, nuclear threat, jihad, ahmadinejad, doomsday clock, appeasement monkeys, ostrich faction