maverick Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 i have been watching the channel 4 news here in blighty, the presentation is being done from locations in Iran. an interview with the minister in charge of the nuclear program categorically stated that Iran has no interest in weaponising their nuclear program. is Iran playing the game by accusing the UN that the US will look for any reason to invade? Has the UN lost so much credibility since the invasion of Iraq that a nation can hide behind the collective public of the world? if the uS and/or UN presses the issue what are the potential consequences? could Iran rally the middle east? considered opinions please. truth can only be found after all the facts have been presented and correctly evaluated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhug666 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 as far as i can see the reason that it is acceptable for nations such as UK,US, China, Russia and Israil to possess nukes is that they are relatively stable governments that do not act rashley and know how the international diplomacy game si played Over the past year or so Iran has denied the holocaust existed (i've been to autzwitch!!!) and called for a fellow member of the UN to "be wiped of the map". in my view Iran is not a stable country and therefore has no business possessing WMDs, N.korea falls into the same catogory although they have recently agreed to give up thier nukes in exchange for a nuclear reactor that cannot be used to enrich uranium. trek fans have heard of the fictional WW3 ,lets not make that a reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberbob Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Honestly, I do not think that Iran can be trusted with nukes but I am not sure that the US is handling this right. We say that we want a peaceful resolution to this so what do we do? Over a week ago, waaaaay before Iran declined Russia's offer, we start courting Georgia to let us use their country as a staging point to bomb Tehran. Now I dont know about you but if I had a country and I said that I just wanted nuclear power and somebody offered to help me do it and before I had even concluded talking with that somebody you start asking my neighbors if you can use their house to take a clear shot at me, if I was as stupid as the leaders of Iran, I would def. try and be defiant and escalate things. So, with how defiant the leaders of Iran will probably try to be (assuming their past track record is any indication of how they will continue to act), I do not think that our immediate show of force was a good idea. Whether it is right or wrong, most of the Muslim world is still very pissed about those cartoons. When you stop to think that Musharraf is barely hanging on in Pakistan (more people rioting there than are being peaceful), Iraq is facing some of the worst sectarian violence that it has seen in some time and the Palestinians clearly and legally voted in Hamas and they have yet to do any serious attacks on Israel since they have been voted in, we have got to be careful. We do not want to make ourselves out to be ones to jump the gun and just go in bombing people without plenty of proof that we have tried to resolve things through diplomacy. Now that is not to say that we haven't tried a lot so far but I seriously think that we need to be careful with this and draw it out so that it is very clear that we want to do things peacefuly first. The extremists over there want for us to act violently. They know that it will fuel their cause. Just remember, terrorists are people to and I dont mean that in the mushy gushy ohhh those cute little guys kinda way. I mean that they have got brothers, sons, nephews, and fathers. For every terrorist that we kill, how many do we create? If we want for this to eventually end without ruining both the West and the Middle East, we seriously need to take a step back and look at what is at stake before we get all trigger happy again (like we did with Iraq). It will take Iran quite a while to make enough enriched Uranium to make a bomb. Even if we cut the minimum time in half, that still leaves plenty of time for us to try and solve this through diplomacy. I have been dissapointed by this administration before....lets see what happens now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 If America invades or even just strikes at Iran - the Middle East is just going to hell. The cost of maintaining forces in Iran AND Iraq would be finacially crippling and damn, if you thought Arabs hated America now - imagine the impact of an invasion of the world's second largest oil producer. To be honest, just utterly devestating. The global impact would be tangible and inevitably bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 As far as I can see, the countries that are feeling most threatened by Iran are sitting on the largest nuclear arsenals on the globe. Surely, this whole thing is about supremacy. The nuclear club is growing too fast and its members are getting concerned their power will be reduced. So they keep messing with Iran or any other country which tries to develop the technology. People say Iran can't have nuclear weapons because it is an unstable regime. But, I ask, is Iran more unstable than Pakistan? Clearly not. So instability isn't really an issue, is it? On the other hand, if we take a look at history, we'll see that one of the most stable countries on Earth was the only one that actually used nuclear weapons against fellow human beings and, given the circumstances, would do so again. Obviously, the reason Iran seeks nuclear technology and, ultimately, nuclear weapons is sovereignty, self-determination, the ability of not being bullied by outside forces, but that conveniently escapes every news report, which, instead, suggests Iran wants to strike Israel and so on. Come on! :rolleyes: The truth is, nuclear disarmament is the only way to stop nuclear proliferation, but, unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to talk about that anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mateya Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 If America invades or even just strikes at Iran - the Middle East is just going to hell. The cost of maintaining forces in Iran AND Iraq would be finacially crippling and damn, if you thought Arabs hated America now - imagine the impact of an invasion of the world's second largest oil producer. To be honest, just utterly devestating. The global impact would be tangible and inevitably bad. I agree. Only I can see more than only middle east go to hell - in a chain reaction there is a possibility of ww3.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Iran does have a friend in N.Korea, and agrees with the plight of the Palestinians. They used to be one of the Heavy-Weights in the region, and have warred with Iraq for many years, trying to topple there regeim ... But i think the key is to get them to sign the 'Nuclear Non-Proliferation' Treaty. India is now a part of the Nuke-Club, But they still won't sign the treaty (because they don't trust their neighbour Pakistan - who currently has weapons supplied by the USA) Another note is: I watched a Doco the other Day about the USA's new and updated Nuclear Arsonal. It seems that even after signing the "Nuclear Proliferation Treaty' some countries just Won't stop making new nuclear weapons. I think we should all lead by example... ..Dis-Arm.. ..then some countries won't feel as threatened.. ..and have no need to make Big-Bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 SNIPPET: an interview with the minister in charge of the nuclear program categorically stated that Iran has no interest in weaponising their nuclear program. Yeah right. If you believe that well... the check is in the mail I'll pay you tomorrow I won't xxx in your xxxxx etc... c4 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhug666 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 as far as i can see the reason that it is acceptable for nations such as UK,US, China, Russia and Israil to possess nukes is that they are relatively stable governments that do not act rashley and know how the international diplomacy game si played Over the past year or so Iran has denied the holocaust existed (i've been to autzwitch!!!) and called for a fellow member of the UN to "be wiped of the map". in my view Iran is not a stable country and therefore has no business possessing WMDs, N.korea falls into the same catogory although they have recently agreed to give up thier nukes in exchange for a nuclear reactor that cannot be used to enrich uranium. trek fans have heard of the fictional WW3 ,lets not make that a reality ok prehaps i should have been clearer about this the governments of India, Pakistan, Israel, US, UK and Russia all depend on their people (to a greater or lesser extent) to validate thier power this means that they have to avoid upsetting those people whenever possable. In general governements tend to avoid upsetting the populace becasue at some point the people will fight back, this makes talking yourself into nuclear conflict unadvisable as averige joe cares about his/her life and that of thier kids. China is similar as apeasing the majority of the country at the expense of the few seems to be the current policy. + thier nukes are so outdated that the current SDI project could deal with it. the leader of Iran however has a religious claim to power (TOTALY INVALID I am a muslim so i should know!!) this makes him far less subseptible to the will of the people, therefore is able to take larger risks. This is what differentiates IRAN from the current nuclear club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I am not surprised if they want to develop a nuclear weapon. With the US attacking their neighbours and labeling them as part of the axis of evil, having nuclear weapons is probably the only thing that would ensure the US wouldn't invade. the US foreign policy is what has pushed them into this position where they feel they need adequate defence, a guarantee of their national sovereignty. They have as much right as any other nation to nuclear weapons. Israel has an ongoing policy of attacking their neighbours, a great source of instability in the region, and yet they were allowed to develop nuclear weapons. There is no way Iran is going to attack the US or Israel, they would be obliterated....especially if they used a nuclear weapon or provided one to terrorists. A nuke will only benefit them as a deterrent to invasion. If I were in their shoes I would be building a nuke. World War 3 has already started. It's up to the US where it goes from here. I predict things are going to go downhill...fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 i find it halirious in that there alot of truth in what that iranian presedents says.... heck if a country like israil can have nukes why can't iran?? yeah because israil is really reponsiable like making 20ft concreat walls, freely using the word occupied-hence admitting they're taking land which doesn't belong to them.... air-bombing palistian in retaliation to sueiside ?? attacks... yeap that sounds right... you'd think in as many years they'd of figure out that a guy waring a winter coat in the middle of a desert would be a dead give away... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vystral Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 heck if a country like israil can have nukes why can't iran?? Because Israel is our buddy. Same reason we don't complain about Britain, France, or Australia having nukes. If those crazy-cat Iranians would stop hanging people from cranes and burning themselves, we might get off their backs. Or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I'll bet anyone my entire life savings that the United States will invade Iran. I've known it since Bush sent an invasion force into Iraq. The nuke issue is being brought up because it was the only thing that the lukewarm population accepted (barely) as a justifiable reason to go to Iraq (WMD's, anyone?). How easily people forget. Remember that the administration outright lied and got away with it. That's right, they made stuff up. We all know it and I can't belive people are actually being fooled by the same trick all over again. Open your eyes, guys. I also wanna add that it's easy to look at the USA as the bad guy, but remember that the people pulling the strings here are not as visible as "Joe Blow who's in office". Instead, Joe Blow and his other co-conspirators in various offices belong to a covert brotherhood which is controlled by guys X, Y, and Z ,who stay out of the public eye as much as possible. That's how it works. Anyone who can't see that in today's world is simply naive. They're called cults. Cults created the third Reich, which anyone can see was riddled with occultism and occult symbols, and now the same kinds of cults are f***ing things up en mass again. This time the scapegoat and vessel is the good old USA, whereas before it was ONLY a vessel and the scapegoat + vessel was Nazi Germany. This is a classic case of people not learning their history and therefore repeating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipbah Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 This is a classic case of people not learning their history and therefore repeating it. DAMN F***EN STRAIGHT!!!!.... 1950's mcarthyism == 2000's bushism.... in 30 years that is all this bull**** will be..... the current administration are fracken fools if he wants to INVADE iran and its government that has legitimately ruled the country for what 1500 years?! IMHO iraq will still be a mess in 15 years and who knows we might jus have to pull out and let the extremists win jus like we had to after the 20 years of vietnam.... then again look how chilled out those "communist extremists" in vietnam worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 ...Same reason we don't complain about Britain' date=' France, or Australia having nukes...[/quote'] Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons, not one! We have also signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I think that all of us agree that Iran should not have nukes, and so does every super power on this planet. There are already far to many nukes held by far to many countries. I dont think that Iran can be trusted, they have shown that they are unwilling to grow up and join the global comunity as a civilized country. The Russians have suggested what would seem like a great solution to the Iran nuclear need, but they turned it down. They avoid letting any one come into their country to help them with Nuclear energy. Which brings up a good point... Why would Iran need nuclear energy when they sit on top of one of the worlds LARGEST oil lakes...? I think that Iran is between a rock and a hard space. If they obtian Nuclear weapons no one needs to worry about how much money America will spend fighting a war in Iran, b/c we learned our lession. If there is a call to arms agisnt Iran, then America will bomb the hell out of every thing down there and there will not be much of an Iran left to fight off the wave of hevaly Armed Angry Americans. (AAA, lol). I think that the real issue that needs to be looked at is what will China do if America invades Iran. I think that America should place a few Nimitz class carriers down there by Japan to show China that we are keeping an eye on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Ghostshadow, you're at least right about one thing... sort of. We have to worry about retaliation from Eurasia. We are so dead. Our economy is pwned by foreign investors and our budget is set up to take a fall in the next couple of years, causing the worst economic disaster since the great depression. Yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Ghostshadow, you're at least right about one thing... sort of. We have to worry about retaliation from Eurasia. We are so dead. Our economy is pwned by foreign investors and our budget is set up to take a fall in the next couple of years, causing the worst economic disaster since the great depression. Yay. Well I mean that if you apply pressure to a wound it will stop bleeding. If we put military forces down there, then maybe that will intimidate China into not messing with the hypothetical war with Iran. And I think that we can all agree that it is far better to inimidate than to actualy go to war. If we just leave China unwatched and unchecked while we engage in the hypothetical war then there is a huge security risk. China could be scared into staying a trade partner with the Americas. (sounds cynical I know, but it is safer than hopeing they stay allies while we go and we take out one of their largest oil supliers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 If the USA attacks Iran, I would say they most likely have streched their luck a bit to far.... They are firstly financially not capable of doing that, and secondly without an good reason, the rest of the world will be pissed. The only option I see is that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons if they really insist. The only other possibility is that they'll do something very stupid, and the rest of the world agrees that Iran has to be neutralized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 If the USA attacks Iran, I would say they most likely have streched their luck a bit to far.... They are firstly financially not capable of doing that, and secondly without an good reason, the rest of the world will be pissed. The only option I see is that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons if they really insist. The only other possibility is that they'll do something very stupid, and the rest of the world agrees that Iran has to be neutralized. SO are you saying that we should wait for Iran to blow a few million ppl off the face of the world before ANY ONE steps in. I think this is where a lot of ppl from europe and America disagree. Americans like to take care of problems before they get too big. I would sleep better at nite knowing that Iran didnt have any nukes. I dont want to wait for them to blow up a city before any one dones something, remeber Hitler? Invaded half a dozen countries before war was formaly delcared... Dont let Iran getting nukes be the poland that started a world war of the 21st centery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now