(Tkalbfus1) wrote in message ...
And its begging that idiot right-wingers don't ruin the country in the
name of saving it.

They do the obvious thing to try to save it, while Liberals concoct complex
theories about how doing precisely the opposite of the obvious thing is what's
needed. For example, for a good part of


Love it when armchair warriors rattle sabres.

FYI from the Washington Post:

Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran retains the right to produce
nuclear energy. The Bush administration insists, however, that Iran,
as the world's fourth-largest oil producer and second-largest gas
producer, does not need nuclear energy, even though the United States
approved about 20 nuclear energy plants for Iran before the 1979
revolution.

But Iranians counter that they need nuclear energy, specifically seven
1,000-megawatt plants, to accommodate domestic demand that already
absorbs 1.8 million of the 4 million barrels of oil that Iran produces
daily. Iran's population of 69 million is expected to increase to 90
million in 16 years, the government says.

As a result, Iran could be forced to use all its oil just to meet
domestic demands within 20 years. That would be devastating for an
economy dependent on oil exports for most of its revenue, said Ali
Salehi, Iran's former representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency.

"This is the worst way of using our oil, especially since we won't
have oil forever," Salehi said. "If we did that, we'd be like the
United States, which is the third-largest producer of oil in the world
but also the first importer of oil."

Although the cost of a nuclear reactor is much higher than a plant for
fossil fuels, Iranian experts say the savings that would come from
being able to export more of its oil as a result would pay for a
nuclear facility in two to three years.

SOURCE: Desire for Nuclear Empowerment a Uniting Factor in Iran
Issue Seen as Matter Of Independence, Reaction to U.S.
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page A25