Darth Andrew Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 With all the controversy over Iran, what if anything should be done? Link Link (article from Feb. 3 edition of South Bend Tribune; newspaper website) Personally, I think the UN will get little to nothing done. Of course, military action is out of the question because the world most likely can't stomach another war, especially another pre-emptive one (based off of current information that Iran has no nukes for the moment). Decisions, decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 [sarcasm] We should back a revolution there and have the people of Iran overthrow their government with weapons that we give them! I'm suprised no one has come up with that idea yet [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 that usually works. for a while "Our nation can't give in to the coercion of some bully countries who imagine they are the whole world and see themselves equal to the entire globe," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech Wednesday. Fair point. Is it technically illegal IF iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons? Whether they are or not, i don't see it as a justification to war... so i doubt anything can be done other than negotiations and the usual pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord ignarn Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 The negotiations will be enough, in the other hand, if Iran gets nukes, we don´t know what would happen. It´s a political debate, influence and geopolitics. Quite complex. At least we can be sure that nukes never will be used. Think on it: a country says that will develop nukes, why? to feel they have a paper in the world politic, is just an identity reafirmation like having a big car and other stuff like that. USA and Russia have them because of the cold war. Also, a nuke war would take a so great cost of lifes that no one would take the risk of using them. Using a cold war concept: Sure mutual destruction. If all this isn´t true, I won´t sleep well this night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Iran has us over a barrel (somewhat literally...) and they know it, since they are one of the world's biggest suppliers of oil they can make everybody's lives really miserable if they choose to stop the flow,.. either because of too severe sanctions, or military threats, or both. Which is why our administration is treading so lightly in regards to rhetoric towards Iran right now. They are also a much larger nation, and at the moment much more powerful than Iraq was before we invaded. Making it a far less likely target for a quick, easy ground assault that leads to regime change. Our current forces are already stretched to the limits as well as totally exhausted with Iraq and Afghanistan as it is. I'm sure Iran is well aware of this, which is why they are choosing now to accelerate this project. So we are left with keeping up diplomatic pressure... which will have questionable results. We could choose harsh UN sanctions to try to weaken them considerably and soften them up while building up our own forces... but this would force Iran into shunting off the oil supplies to the West, bringing the cost of oil up astronomically. Making a large mechanized army even more costly to sustain. It will also probably have little effect of Iran, since they will most likely just redirect all their oil to places like China and North Korea for the lowest possible cost, making both of those nations much stronger in the process. Either way, we are left in a worse position than when we started: A nuclear Iran; or paying through the nose for oil, making ourselves weaker, while strengthening nations we don't wish to see strenghthened. Check, and mate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 One thing I don't understand is how the U.S., a country with nukes, can tell Iran that it can't have nukes. Sounds hypocritical to me. We should disarm before we go around blowing the whistle on other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Is it technically illegal IF iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons? No, but the controversy is based on the fact that the president of Iran has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," which to me is a valid reason for Iran to not develop nukes; the problem is how to stop them. One thing I don't understand is how the U.S., a country with nukes, can tell Iran that it can't have nukes. Sounds hypocritical to me. We should disarm before we go around blowing the whistle on other countries. Very true, but responsible nations have nukes simply for the reason to act as a deterrent against rogue nations using nukes. A necessary evil in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I wouldn't read too much into the "wiped off the map" comment if I were you. It strikes me more as the sort of thing hardline muslim leaders in the middle east are all expected to say than an actual threat that THEY will do the wiping out. I can't see Iran using nukes even if it got them...the leaders there aren't that suicidal. Its more likely that they just want the international respect and bargaining power that being a nuclear nation commands. And the immunity for invasion by the US that it apparently confers. And they do seem to me to have a fair point about nuclear energy. I suspect it might be like north korea in that they will use the threat to bargain for better deals in other areas.. but who knows. I think analysts think that iran has been slowly softening its hardline stance over the last 10 years or so. Its still no paradise of human rights.. but i think its supposed to be a lot better than it was a decade or two ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord ignarn Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 As I see it it´s just a buliers fight in the schoolground. Nukes have no real use, they aren´t a way to win a war using them directly, but just a way to make the others be afraid of the nukes. Nukes are definitive weapons, as they wipe all out. Because of that they should never be used. And, if your hearts still can laught (if not, they have won against us) I encourage you to see Dr Strangelove, from Stanley Kubrick, is sole comedy, a very funny satira about the nukes and the cold war. See it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 One thing I don't understand is how the U.S., a country with nukes, can tell Iran that it can't have nukes. Sounds hypocritical to me. We should disarm before we go around blowing the whistle on other countries. Well, for one thing, US nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent against other nations attacking us...and we're actually less likely to use them than many other nations, due to our political structure...but that has little to do with Iran. For another thing, I haven't heard of any US presidents or other government officials advocating to wipe any other nation "off the map" the President of Iran has...and while you may not want to read too much into that, toms, when you combine that with other wacko comments he has made pertaining to the Holocaust (which he doesn't believe happened, or at the least believes was exaggerated) and how the nation of Israel should be moved to Europe, and his involvement in the hostage crisis, I don't think the international community in general, and Israel in particular, can really afford to not take him seriously, especially in light of his threat to go full-throttle in their nuclear enrichment program if their case is reffered to the Security Council (which I think it has been). The core question surrounding whether Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons is, can we really trust them not to use them? Will the doctrine of mutually assurred destruction work? And really, all you need is someone in power in Iran who believes that if another nation obliterates Iran with a nuke or any other weapon, all of the people of Iran will be martyrs & sent to heaven for their 72 virgins...and then, there's no reason not develop & use nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 Iran says goodbye to UN cameras. If they really are pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful means, why are they making it so difficult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I imagine it's the same reason that Bush decided to stop publishing statistics on the amount of money being printed - it's not convenient for them to allow transparency anymore. Why not? I daresay your guess is as good as mine, but some scenarios are more likely than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord ignarn Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Because maybe it´s true that is only woth peacefull intentions, but now they are like an unveiled menace, they can press in order to get their goals. And remember that all the countries have their sewers, some dark secrets that maybe better the citizens not to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Personally, I think they're playing the same games that Saddam played with the UN - they're thumbing their noses at the UN, because history has shown that the UN isn't going to do anything substantive about it. On top of that, Iran exports so much oil that they potentially have the power to cripple much of the world's economy, giving them one heck of a bargaining chip should the UN decide to do anything to chastise Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotélēsticus Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 In my point of view is that every country has the right to own nuke tech, but off course not to use it for evil. Some of you said that USA has the right to own nuke weapons for they will use it against evil, now the question is: what is evil? The definition of evil defers from side to side, so if we accepted your idea then all of the nations have the right to own such things, and with the human hunger and lust for power, wars shall unleashed and the result will be terrible. Another thing, you've said that your country must have nuclear weapons in order to keep you safe and to protect you, so let me ask you a simple question, aren’t the Iranian or anyone in the world human enough to feel safe as you do? If not then this is racism, and if yes then they must have the right to own this tech. Now back to Israel, if they fear the Iranian nuke tech, then they should not have this tech also, coz they have stated a very similar quotes such as the Iran President have said, some of them was against Lebanon, Syria and Iran, not just that, they are sending their fighters everyday to fly above Beirut and that’s dangerous, what I meant to say that the two sides are in a cold war and thus the most perfect solution is to agree on forbidding all these nuke weapons in the middle east first then in the whole world, only then we can have peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Personally, I think they're playing the same games that Saddam played with the UN - they're thumbing their noses at the UN, because history has shown that the UN isn't going to do anything substantive about it. Becasue the UN has no mandate or right to do anything about it? Maybe if the US ever paid its debts to the UN then the UN would have the money to do something.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Andrew Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Iran starts enrichment process. Another take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.