|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems as good a time as any for a rousing discussion on this subject, since SoConPubbie brought it up. I would like to hear some thoughts on the Iran problem. Since they have not signed a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with anyone and have a right to energy creation, how would you resolve the conflict of nuclear energy vice nuclear weaponry? Please present theory with potential consequence and resolution.
I believe that the Iranians have the right to nuclear energy but due to their hostile stance in the region should be prevented from nuclear weaponry. Since nuclear fuel for energy can be enriched for weaponizing (given the proper centrifuges and materials), this is in conflict and presents the problem. Should the Iranians be allowed to continue with a nuclear power plant? I surmise no because of previously stated issue. Thus the resolution. The only viable way to prevent enrichment is to eliminate the centrifuge, military action would be required (inspection required access and they are notorious for denial and subversion). This would require agreement by powers in the region as well as the superpowers.
Could this be possible?
So Paul is saying we should ignore Iran...What they do is their business...BUT, we should never let on that that is our position...
He is a mirror image of his ‘old man’...That’s why he will do good with the numbers but not quite good enough to go any where...
Rand Paul supports open borders, unfair trade with anyone, anywhere...And smaller government...He’s pro America and anti America at the same time...
He and Kerry are simpatico on this and many other issues