I apologize for the spelling and grammer, oops...

The evidence I have seen so far is that Iran is building Nuclear Power
Plants. Not bombs.

They need these plants gentlemen because they are fully aware that the
oil is running out.

Without these plants they will not have the energy necessary to supply a
growing economy.

They appear to be looking towards the future.

They have the technical expertise to fully understand the environmental
impact of a nuclear strike upon a country as close to them
geographically as Isreal.

Such a stupid move on their part would cause catastrophic long term
damage to their own country.

I doubt they are that ignorant.

Ocean, I think you made some good points. Valid points. I'm sure it was
me who said that more Muslims are killing Jews than the other way
around, but if you consider the recent action in Lebanon that would
certainly skew the numbers the other way. So anyway I take your point on
that issue and recognize that there is likely unbalanced reporting in
our media.

Also I make see your point that there is some media bias and that some
people have an agenda. I will say however that having an agenda is not
always bad. The question is, what is their agenda and why. I don't think
it is as simple as go after all the oil resources, but maybe that is
because I don't want to think of our foreign policy as being motivated
by greed. Considering natural resources to be unimportant is not a wise
thing to do. I have the feeling that if natural resources are available
through an open market, it benefits the world economy and ours by
extension. If, however natural resources are sought and monopolized by a
few powers and kept for their own personal hoard, that would be a
problem, in my perspective. So to allow despotic governments to seize
resources, and back them up with militarization would be a problem. I
think this is what has happened in Iran in 1979 and more recently has
been happening with Chavez in Venezuela (nationalization).

There is no question in my mind that the government is looking at these
issues critically .

I would not like to see the US attack Iran. I see that there would be
some considerable troubles for the US if this were to occur. Obviously I
don't care for their government. I do not see any compromises on the
horizon.

I am not going to address the enrichment level as an expert in the
field, but it is my understanding that they are enriching to the level
needed to produce a bomb. Even with that they need to enrich so much
that it will take a considerable time.
they are however creating a large volume of a deadly poison in the
process. Does anyone notice that fact?

The reason that might be relevant is this. Most people did not spend any
time considering about how much heat it would take to melt and destroy
the steel structure of the World Trade Center buildings, but apparently
somebody did spend the time.

Poet, I see what you mean about the countries you mentioned and I didn't
get your meaning correctly the first time.

I agree there is no evidence Iran is building a Nuke, but for them to
survive with the threat from us, US, they want, and need one. We need to
pull out of Iraq, (the threat Iran feels) and start leading these
countries, (including Israel, especially Israel)instead of bullying
them. Iran knows we can beat them militarily, but are determined we will
not make them submissive, even if everyone of them has to die. I also
think Russia has been more supportive of them than they let be known.

Exactly. It's one huge freakin' mess and the best way to clean it up is
to make nice with Iran. They're the one nation that has the political
will, economic strength, and military might to bring a working peace to
the area. And if we can get them to see the value in that- and then make
sure they have enough international economic ties- we can create a
westernized foothold that won't seem to be an enemy propoganda/invasion.

It's worked really well at least once in America's past. Japan. We
NUKED them. We used atomic weapons on their soil. And yet, bizarrely
enough, they like us. Know why? It's because we created economic ties.
They bought stuff from us, and we from them. We traded cultural concepts
until they became so like us that they're more part of the western world
than the eastern.

Westernized foothold, why does it have to be our way???
Let them rule their way. give advice and leave them to rule their self,
their way, if the Iranians dont like it, then they can change it.

Doesn't work like that. Not in a globalized world. Either our culture
will subsume theirs, or they will subsume ours. Or a blending will occur
that makes something completely new. You can't have seperate-but-equal
cultures. Minor divergences, yes, but not seperate.

A foothold would flow both ways. They'll learn of our culture, and in
return, we'll learn theirs. Like I said- look at Japan.

Ive heard it here before, someone said the Canadians need to stay out of
our politics. Why do we feel the need to involve ourselves in everyone
else's politics. Dont we have enough problems of our own, or is it our
superiority complex?

Begging permission from all the posters, I will intervene here and take
this deabte back to the first page and the discussion of the Panama
Canal, it's treaties and the inaccuracy of the information that most of
you seem to have.

First of all: I am Panamanian, born and raised in this country, a
citizen that lived through most of the process that led to the Panama
Canal Treaties (yes, there are more than one, first one signed in 1903
and two signed September 7, 1977). That being said, let us talk about
the treaties.

The first treaty was called the Hay-Bunau Varilla and it gave the United
States of America the right to build, operate and safeguard a
transoceanic Canal to perpetuity, in an area close to 1,500 sqkm in the
Republic of Panama. Panama had just concluded its separation as a state
from Colombia, and the USA paid the amount of $40,000,000 for such right
(we are still looking for the 40 millions).

After several attempts to renegotiate the Hay-Bunau Varilla treaty
failed, and after a series of very unfortunate events were Panamanian
high school students, in the attempt to raise the Panamanian Flag in the
grounds of a High School located in the Canal Zone, which existed as an
entity, or better yet, like a small country with it's own laws and
government, within Panama, said students were beaten and the flag torn
to pieces and set on fire. This uncahined a series of violent protests
by the civilian citizenry demanding a change. Twenty Panamanian students
were shot to death by US Soldiers, from inside the Canal Zone firing
towards Panama City, and over 500 civilians were seriously injured. This
pushed the Panamanian President to break Diplomatic relations with the
US, and upon the request of the US to re-stablish relations, the
Panamanian Government demanded to restart the negotiations of a new
Treaty. This was January of 1964.

The final negotiations for the new treaty began in 1977, and the treaty
was signed September 7th by Gen. Omar Torrijos, de facto leader of
Panama and Pres. Jimmy Carter.

PANAMA was not given away under Carter, because PANAMA wasn't a property
of the US to be given away to begin with. PANAMA has been an independent
country ever since Nov. 28, 1821, when we parted from SPAIN, and
voluntarily joined COLOMBIA

If we would read our constitution and abide by it we wouldnt be in other
countries doing all those things...

until we left them too Nov. 3, 1903.

Truth be told, the original treaty gave the US of A the eternal right to
administer, defend and safeguard the Canal and the Canal Zone. C'mon
people, did you really think that in the XX Century, the US was still
going to have Panama as a colony?

Carter didn't have a thing to do with this. He was the President at the
moment, but it could have been Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon to sign the
Treaty... Gen. Torrijos was Chief of Government since 1968. The US kept
putting the negotiations off, as the US was too busy in Vietnam, you
see...

Get the facts straight before you insult the integrity of others.

Venezuela, as Ecuador and Chile are part of the Social-Democratic
culture started recently in the area. Hugo Chavez, Calderón and
Michelle Bachelet, Presidents of the mentioned countries, are making
examples of economies that were once oppresed, but are learning to work
in a social (communist-like) way. And this is not to the complete like
and pleasure of the US.

I might not know about the middle-east. Is far from me and we have more
immediate problems to contend with. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is a huge
pain the behind for all the region, but there is nothing the US can do,
he was democratically elected.

The CIA funded most governments in latin america in the 60's, to ensure
fidelity. The US wouldn't relinquish their control of Panama, because
it was its stronghold in the region. Not any more. Teh treaties will not
be renegotiated ever again.

Hi, Fanta, and everyone else,
Great posts!

Fanta, I strongly doubt the assertions about the heavy-water plant and
the 7,000 centrifuges made by your geography teacher. Can you ask him to
provide references?

It is generally thought that some 3,000 centrfiges in series are needed
to produce weapons grade materials, sufficient to make enough material
for one bomb/year.

Now, it is one thing to purchase centrifuges, and another to operate
them successfully.

At the Fantaz plant, it is estimated that there are 328 centrifuges, not
all of which are operational, and estimated that throughout the country,
there may be about 650 centrifuges.

The Fantaz plant is someday to have industrial enrichment capability,
but this is conjectural, and leaves aside the question of whether the
centrifuges would be configured for power-plant fuel production, or
weapons-grade production. Maybe this is what your geography teacher is
referring to? An industrial facility could easily have around 50,000
centrifuges.

I'll comment on Palestine next.

Oceans

I forgot. The new treaty gave a time table for the US to revert the
lands, buildings and the operations of the Canal to the Republic of
Panama starting October 1979 and ending precisely by midnight, December
31, 1999. The last US soldier left Panama that day.

The Panama Canal used to be more of a strategic interest to the US than
it is now. We built it and if we wanted it back it would be ours. Not to
be disrespectful, but we just dont need it as much as we used to. As far
as the money, you should look towards your past leaders for it. I doubt
that we cheated you. Are you Panamanian, or American?
In 1903 the US proposed a treaty that would permit a renewed effort to
construct a canal across Panama's isthmus. The previous attempt by the
French had failed in the 1880's. When the Colombian Government refused
to allow the US to build the Canal, the Panamanian people rebelled, and
supported by the US, ( the US military prevented the Colombian troops
from intervening) The Panamanians declared their independence and the
new country (Panama) immediately granted the US the rights to the Canal
Zone, 10 miles in width and 50 miles long. No money involved, and the
Panama government allowed the US all rights, powers, and authority in
the Zone as if it were the sovereign territory of the US. In the 70's
the Canal had more traffic than now and was generating millions of
dollars in tolls, and Panama started demanding it back. Given that the
original treaty did not give the US permanant possesion of the Canal the
US renegotiated a treaty in 1977 qnd began a staged withdrawl from the
Zone, which was completed in 1999.

This is a paraphrase from: "Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts"
12th ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2006

Palestine:

The populations of Palestine/Israel are about equally divided between
Israelis and Palestinians, a bit over 5,000,000 each. (I can get exact
figures if any one wants them.)

The difference between these numbers and Fantas is probably due to:
some 1.4 million Palestinians who live in Israel are included in the
Israeli figure, while not counted in the Palestinian figure. These
Palestinians who live in Israel are treated like second-class citizens
and would undoubtedly opt to be counted with their Palestinian
co-population.

In 1947, when the UN General Assembly offered up its opinion (it had no
legal validity) that Palestine might be split between Jewish Zionists
and Palestinians, the population of the place was: Jewish 30%
(predominantly recent immigrants); 60% Muslim Palestinians; 10%
Christian Palestinians.

Jewish immigration to Palestine began with a trickle in the 1880s, and
was opposed by the Palestinian population. But after WWI the British
controlled Palestine and allowed unfettered Jewish immigration until
1939 when they tried to rein it in.

Zionism, the Jewish movement to create a Jewish State for the Jewish
people, was founded by Theodor Herzel, a Viennese journalist. It became
a popular idea in Europe and led to a modest jewish community in
Palestine before WWII. Nazi massacres of European Jewry (and other
unfortunate populations, e.g. slavs, gypsies, homosexuals, political
'deviants', etc) in the Holocaust led many Jews to turn to Palestine as
their last refuge, and by 1947 the Jewish population in Palestine was
strong enough militarily to seize about 2/3rds of the land.

At time, Jewish immigrants only owned about 7% of the land. To create
the Jewish State, Palestinians were run off their land, many massacred,
and the rest prohibited from returning to their homelands.

In 1967, Israeli used a pretext now known to be false (that they thought
they were going to be attacked by Egypt) to seize the remaining lands of
Palestine, and now 40 years later still occupies those territotries, the
longest lasting military occupation in existence today. The Palestinians
live in a state of deliberate utter poverty and destitution, not allowed
to trade freely between Gaza and the West Bank, not allowed if they
leave their territories to return, and daily facing over 540 Israeli
roadblocks and controls.

I hope this thumbnail outline of the history of Israel and Palestine
helps.

Best,
Oceans

Hi, Philosopher, thanks for the thoughts....

I was not including the Lebanon casualty figures in the 1:8 ration of
Israelis killed to Palestinians killed.

I can look it up, but my guess is that the kill ratio in Lebanon must
easily have been along the lines of 1:1000, that is, i Israeli killed
for every Lebanese killed. Of course, Israeli was using US ordinance
and being resupplied by the US, and failed to support the call of the
world's leaders as well as the leaders of Lebanon for a cease fire, so
it seems to me that both the Israelis and the US share the moral
responsibility for the massacre of the Lebanese.

Of course, this was not the first time the Israelis have attacked
Lebanon: by Lebanese government count, it was the eighth distinct and
major attack by Israel against the Lebanese territory and people.

Oceans

I agree that oil is not the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq and
saber-rattling against Iran. If that were all it was, we would simply
have lifted the sanctions against Saddam Hussein and be dealing happily
and reliably with him on oil contracts.

The same is true of Iran: except for the Iranian desire to development
nuclear power resources and save their oil for export, there is no
difference int he interests of the US and Iran when it comes to making
oil available on the international markets.

Of course now, the US bellicosity toward Iran has opened the door to
China and Japan to conclude very large oil deals well into the future.
These could have been our contracts had we not fallen under the
anti-Arab, anti-Muslim policies of Wolfowitz and the other neocons I
listed earlier.

It is indeed a huge mess that the US has created for itself, and all of
it unnecessary.

Oceans

I need to look into that myself Ocean, I havent yet, but I will. The
teacher was talking off the cuff about it and I suspected he was not
able to provide facts. Thats why I said Ill have to check, but in class
it tends to interrupt so I didnt say anything to him then. I read the
number of current centrifuges in the paper, so I kinda knew those # were
correct, although the reports conflict, one says 300 currently in
operation, another says 675. I also read that the number of
malfunctioning centrifuges Iran was reporting were consistent with
industry statistics from Western Countries, and believed to be a sign
that they are operating them.