In a recent report by the international atomic energy agency, also known as IAEA, Iran was found to have expanded there uranium enriching program and is not letting the IAEA to complete their probe into an allegations that Iran has been researching nuclear weapons. Iran on the other hand is saying that they only want to enrich uranium to provide nuclear power. This problem has been going on for quite some time and probably will be a large part of the election speeches. My prediction is that when the new president comes into power he or she will use a different type of foreign policy than we have seen from bush. This different type of foreign policy will most likely be less militaristic in contrast to the policy we used in Iraq and Afghanistan. My hope is that we will solve this problem without any force.
In response to ngoc's comment i would like to say that government spending actualy helps economic growth and prosperity, as shown in the formula for a nations gdp, (GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)). The G stands for government spending.
citation
Heinrich, Mark. "Iran Blocks Probe Into Alleged Atom Bomb Work". Rueters. Monday september 15th 2008. <http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080915/NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-DC/>.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hey Joey, this is Ngoc.
After reading your summary of the article that you read, I was able to find that its just another "US" doesn't want other countries to have nuclear weapons besides itself. If you think about it, a lot of countries may have nuclear weapons, however who was the only country to ever used one on the world? It was the US. On my opinion, the US worries too much about their military affairs and that causes insufficient spending which, as you can see, isn't helping out our economic problems at the moment. As you can see, my hopes is that the new president that comes into power, whoever it may be, start worrying about the problems within this country first and not worry about the foreign one.
Nukes FTW1!!! Still, the United States used nukes in order to prevent countless casualties that would occur with a ground assault. Besides, we used 'em with a reason, not for terrorism. (In my book, Iran is a state of terrorism, just like North Korea)
I completly agree with you Joey on the point you made about the new president's straegy for dealing with Iran, Iraq and Afganastan. Bush's ratings are at a all time low so it would seem that they would take a different approach, and I also think that no violence would be the best way to end this conflict.
GDP isn't much of an effective indicator. In example, we have spent lots of money on the Iraq War and theoretically the U.S. GDP should go up; however if you look at the current state of the U.S. economy you'll see my point.
Note: Diplomacy DOES'NT WORK!
In essence, peace sounds good, but what happens is that we pay a large amount of money to the disputed country, which in turn the money is corrupted and nothing is completed.
(i.e. Africa, North Korea)
Examples of failing diplomacy: Darfur,Iran, North Korea, China, THE 1770's BRITAIN
You might respond, "Diplomacy prevented the Cold War!"
My counter-argument is: "No, the Korean/Vietnam War (Really just military occupations as the gov't says...) resulted from the Cold War."
I agree with you on the point that, when a new administration enters the white house, a new foreign policy will be adopted for the better. I feel that the Bush administration, being the NEOcons that they are, have blown this issue way out of proportion. Also, I completely agree with Ngoc, the US(But I say Bush's party) is afraid that they will have to compete for power if another country develops nuclear weapons. That's so typical of NEOcons. Now, concerning the actual issue of their uranium enrichment program, they have every right to use what they create for energy. We can rule out the idea of them using the uranium for nuclear weapons because increased sanctions, which they don't want, would result.
Note: Diplomacy DOES'NT WORK!
Kevin said this. It isn't true at some times, but when it comes to the middle east. Completely true, we tried to negotiate with all countries in the middle east. Didn't work too well. Iran's government is one that FUNDS TERRORISM! You can't negotiate diplomatically with people who are willing to die. And now with potential nukes, we should stay away from anything to do with Iran. Bottom line, stay away, new president, no diplomacy.
I am agreeing with Quinn and Kevin here, that diplomacy does not work in the middle east. The culture over there is completely different from ours, and does not respond well to diplomacy. This can be seen from the Iraq and Afghanistan "conflicts" that Bush initiated because he thinks that it is Americas job to fix the whole entire world while bringing on more problems right here. (9 trillion dollar debt, anyone?). What we should be doing is worrying about ourselves and leaving other countries alone unless they make an unjust attack on a country we have a defense treaty with. If we try to get into Iran's nuclear weapons extravaganza, it will not turn out well for either side.
Post a Comment