The point of disagreement is your contention that nations of the world have some “right” to possess nuclear anything.
They do not.
And the fact that the Bush administr.ation chooses to sell nuclear power equipment or technology to certain nations only proves my point. That it is up to the U.S. to decide which nations can receive what of our technology (if any), based upon OUR interests, and not some non-existent “right” of any other nation to possess or access or use any particular technology.
Also, I never said you said OBL should have anything. I was mocking your assertion that:
It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.
That assertion lacks any logic to it, and my (admittedly absurd) examples were to point out the absurdity of your assertion:
It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.
sr
Who said anything about U.S. technology?
Canada has its own nuclear reactor tech -- as do several other nations. China is miles ahead of anyone in the field of pebble-bed nuclear reactors. The U.S. does not have a lock on nuclear technology -- you don't get to say who has a nuclear power plant, and who does not.
You are sounding like the embodiment of the worst stereotypes of American arrogance. I've spent a great deal of time and effort taking the side of the U.S. on recent geo-political issues. If I thought you were the slightest bit representative; I never would have bothered. There's no way on earth I could even consider trying to defend your viewpoints.
If the U.S. builds a "coalition of the willing" to take out Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities; then I'm solidly in your corner. If the U.S. tries to bully Canada, or any other country that wants to have nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes -- then we part company.