[Azred]

Let's make a break from Washington and actually think logically here.

Nuclear energy is, in the long run, cleaner than oil. There are no tankers with vulnerable hulls that could leak crude oil into the ocean, there is a dramatic reduction in potential greenhouse gases being produced, and--contrary to popular belief--spent nuclear fuel could be safely shipped via spacecraft to be stored on the Moon where it could irradiate no one.
Strangely enough, it's almost as if Washington wants to force Iran to remain dependent upon the oil industry because we are dependent upon it. Or maybe that isn't so strange.... [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Iran is as likely to develop a nuclear weapon at this point as Bush is to wear a pink teddy on TV and sing "I'm A Little Teapot". Timber's argument that all nations should have nuclear weapons makes itself known here, because if Iran did produce a nuclear weapon then the US would have to sit down at the negotiating table with them; that is something we wouldn't like but could do. Israel, on the other hand...they will never allow themselves to sit down at the negotiating table unless they have all the advantages.

As with everything, if you ask yourself "who will benefit most from a certain set of circumstances happening?" and then realize that the set of circumstances is "Iran has no nuclear energy capability" the likely answer is "multinational oil corporations".

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps.
Practical reality? Probably so. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]