Iran continues uranium enrichment
- Thread starter bdude
- Start date
if they actually use nuclear power for reactors and get electricity to the people, then i dont really see a problem.
unless you want another irak. afterall they might have weapons of mass destruction.
ok a bit below the belt but still, the US themselves has more nukes then iran will ever be able to produce and they know aswell that the entire middle easts ends up a parking lot if they even as much as think about using them.
i'd much rather leave them alone, or maybe have a comittee oversee their nuclear production, but definatly not another war.
unless you want another irak. afterall they might have weapons of mass destruction.
ok a bit below the belt but still, the US themselves has more nukes then iran will ever be able to produce and they know aswell that the entire middle easts ends up a parking lot if they even as much as think about using them.
i'd much rather leave them alone, or maybe have a comittee oversee their nuclear production, but definatly not another war.
I say, good for them. If I was an Iranian leader I'd do the same. Better to sell the oil to fat SUV driving Americans and use nuclear power there.
Too bad I'm a American, otherwise I would love Iran to have nukes too. Looks like a 2nd Islamo-fascist country will have nukes. God help us all.
Its a concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. With enemies like Pakistan and Israel, Iran needs to defend itself.
Iran and Pakistan are not enemies. Israel will not use nukes on a first strike basis, or at least thats what I'm aware of. Of course if Iran does get nukes, it will force the Arab countries in the region to do the same. It will lead many countries around to start their nuclear weapons programs as well.
The Arab countries will not stand still while the Persians get nukes. That is why allowing Iran to get nukes is a bad idea.
We could take out their known facilities, but I'd imagine they're smart people, and they have facilities we probably don't know about. Invasion, HA? not a chance of that happening.
I don't think Iran should have nukes, but I understand their desire to acquire them. It's one way to guanantee their safetly from the big mean invasion monster known as the United States of America, and also pits them squarely against their mortal enemy Israel. I don't believe Iran would ever be foolish enough to pass off any sort of nuclear bomb to terrorist groups, cuz any bomb that exploded would leave a signature that would lead right back to Iran, and then they'd be nothing but a glass parking lot in a short period of time
:roll::disgust:
Yes, Americans have to against Iran getting nukes because they are our enemy just like al-qaeda is. There is no difference except they are a country and al-qaeda is not.
I mentioned above why it shouldn't. They must be stopped by the international community. France and other European members have shown that they are not entirely happy with Iran's actions and have hinted they may take action. I really wish it happens.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
While i am firmly opposed to the current Iranian leadership, especially with President Ahmadinejad in power more recently; i still have no issues with them attaining nukes. Luckily with this regime come an Iranian people who are youthful and sober to the ways of their leadership. Over the short/medium term, I see a revolution of sorts in Iran, as the people themselves are quite intelligent and reasonable people.
I used to be a staunch advocate of nuclear proliferation, but have since become quite passive on the subject. I have come to the realization that no country is equal in military strength and especially in a destablized region such as the ME, countries all feel they are superior to others. Once nukes come into the picture, everyone is thought of as equals, as the consequences for all parties involved are staggering. I honestly believe if a muslim state, without close ties to the US/Israeli regimes, obtaining nuclear technologoes could in fact create stability in the region; much like Pakistan and India.
If history has tought us anything, nuclear aggression is highly unlikely, and forced regime change is extremely difficult and costly.
Nice try paralleling al-quida and Iran, people tried to do that with Iraq too...if you want actoin against Iran, proposing another Iraq is definately one of the weakest arguments you can make. Not to mention the military of Iran is many times larger than Iraq, and their 3 times larger population. Time to go back to the drawingboard Raildogg; "France and EU will fix it" just won't cut it these days.
I used to be a staunch advocate of nuclear proliferation, but have since become quite passive on the subject. I have come to the realization that no country is equal in military strength and especially in a destablized region such as the ME, countries all feel they are superior to others. Once nukes come into the picture, everyone is thought of as equals, as the consequences for all parties involved are staggering. I honestly believe if a muslim state, without close ties to the US/Israeli regimes, obtaining nuclear technologoes could in fact create stability in the region; much like Pakistan and India.
If history has tought us anything, nuclear aggression is highly unlikely, and forced regime change is extremely difficult and costly.
Nice try paralleling al-quida and Iran, people tried to do that with Iraq too...if you want actoin against Iran, proposing another Iraq is definately one of the weakest arguments you can make. Not to mention the military of Iran is many times larger than Iraq, and their 3 times larger population. Time to go back to the drawingboard Raildogg; "France and EU will fix it" just won't cut it these days.
Nukes might increase stability in the short term, but what happens if one of these countries ever uses them? It could possibly be the end of the earth. I find that more important that a bunch of Muslims killing each other in some ME war.
Iran has a right to do whatever they want
However
Someone needs to kill the towel heads who run Iran.
The towel heads are smart and won't nuke anyone. They still need to die.
However
Someone needs to kill the towel heads who run Iran.
The towel heads are smart and won't nuke anyone. They still need to die.
yeah, but then the rest of the world has to put up with increased cancer, radioactive pollution, etc. if those nutters decide to blow each other up
they are part of the world community, and they are behaving like children. utterly irresponsible. refusing to meet established, world community standards on all sorts of things like human rights, treatment of women, etc. they can't be allowed to threaten the health, wellbeing of other people on the planet or people in their own nation for that matter.
America already proved what it does to counties without nukes. Iran should be allowed to defend itself from any foreign invaders like the US.
From aidanjm-
"they are part of the world community, and they are behaving like children. utterly irresponsible. refusing to meet established, world community standards on all sorts of things like human rights, treatment of women, etc. they can't be allowed to threaten the health, wellbeing of other people on the planet or people in their own nation for that matter."
It's a lot more convincing to preach from a position that's not hypocritical, aidanjm. The US has some of the largest stockpiles of WMD in the world, and has been establishing a very poor track record with things like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Secret detention centers in eastern europe, support for Israeli lebensraum and the invasion of Iraq... not to mention our past sins in central and south america...
We'll be a lot more convincing on the world stage the day we practice what we preach, something that certainly won't occur with the Bush Admin... they've openly advocated doing what the Iranians are only accused of doing- more nuclear weapons research and development....
The current protocols wrt uranium enrichment are being followed by the Iranians- what they object to, and what the US wants, is to change those protocols so that they can't engage in that process at all...
Not to mention that the trash-talking from the Whitehouse inflames Iranians' own sense of patriotism, giving their own hardliners more leverage with the population and more of an excuse for repression...
"they are part of the world community, and they are behaving like children. utterly irresponsible. refusing to meet established, world community standards on all sorts of things like human rights, treatment of women, etc. they can't be allowed to threaten the health, wellbeing of other people on the planet or people in their own nation for that matter."
It's a lot more convincing to preach from a position that's not hypocritical, aidanjm. The US has some of the largest stockpiles of WMD in the world, and has been establishing a very poor track record with things like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Secret detention centers in eastern europe, support for Israeli lebensraum and the invasion of Iraq... not to mention our past sins in central and south america...
We'll be a lot more convincing on the world stage the day we practice what we preach, something that certainly won't occur with the Bush Admin... they've openly advocated doing what the Iranians are only accused of doing- more nuclear weapons research and development....
The current protocols wrt uranium enrichment are being followed by the Iranians- what they object to, and what the US wants, is to change those protocols so that they can't engage in that process at all...
Not to mention that the trash-talking from the Whitehouse inflames Iranians' own sense of patriotism, giving their own hardliners more leverage with the population and more of an excuse for repression...
that's an argument for the usa to reduce its stockpile of nuclear weapons, it isn't an argument as to why Iran should be allowed (by the international community) to develop its own nuclear weapons.
I am not an american citizen. actually, I believe I mentioned something about "international community" - as opposed to the usa. Legitimacy comes through the co-operation & working together of nations. E.g., facilitated by the united nations.
I'd support that. I don't think the people ruling Iran can be trusted, at all, with these kinds of dangerous materials.
I don't know if that is true, and even if it is it is no reason for the usa or the international community of nations to remain silent on these matters or for that matter to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
You do realize that you would get arrested, possibly tortured, or even worse for practicing your gay lifestyle in Iran?
But continue to defend and support anti-US countries. Its what you guys are good at.
Not a Bush defender, I was a hardcore Demoncat until all you guys decided to leave me and people like me. So saying Iran shouldn't be allowed nukes is equivalent to us wanting to take over the world?
Many European nations are against Iran having nukes, are they also out to dominate the world?
But those mullahs love you long time!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter