Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (170943)	9/19/2005 3:27:06 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

"Bush cannot maintain that nuke energy is good for the USA, but bad for Iran." Which is exactly what's he saying. He's saying this about any muslim country but not about Israel. He's saying this about North Korea but not China. Hey! As expected, Republicans want to gut Medicare, Medicaid, Farm subsidies in order to pay for Halliburton, Fluor and Bechtel crony contracts in the Gulf AND a repeal of estate tax for multimillionaires AND more tax theft by multimillionaires. Who knew? Obviously everyone other than Republican sheeple. Surprise! The US of A, under the policies of Norquist, will look like Afghanistan in a few years. Put away your briefcase and invest in weaponry because we will all need it under the Bush administration. The government? The Bushies will have dragged it to Grover's bathroom and drowned it. Your tax money? They'll have stolen it and sent it to numbered offshore bank accounts.

To: neolib who wrote (170943)	9/19/2005 6:00:49 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Neolib, your environmental bent is distorting your economic judgment. All an environmental bent should mean is that you want public commons protected, such as air, water, spectrum. Or, if there is some tolerable level of pollution, then we the people might as well sell the right to pollute to the highest bidder. We environmentalists aren't rabid religionists who will destroy the village to save it. We want things better, not worse. Unfortunately, luddites have climbed on the environmental bandwagon, polluting environmental sense. In the instance of the USA you mentioned, the difference between the USA and Iran for their energy needs is that the USA doesn't have sufficient hydrocarbons to keep them moving, whereas Iran is awash in hydrocarbons and doesn't need nuclear energy. So it is quite true that nuclear energy is good for the USA and bad for Iran. The income from hydrocarbon sales today should not go to nuclear energy now, but to income generating assets such as roads, and other public facilities. The pipeline is not needed. The hydrocarbons that would flow down the pipeline should be used in Iran to produce valuable products such as methanol, plastics and value-added finished goods, which would be the way to provide employment for the people you are concerned about. Building a pipeline to India, selling the gas to India, using the money received to build nuclear reactors, will waste Iran's resources, leaving no future for the people you are concerned about. They'll be sitting in a desert with nuclear reactors and no industry and no gas. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The simple answer is that Iran wants nuclear bombs. Why pretend otherwise? Mqurice