Am I the only one who agrees with Iran?

Originally posted by drogo
what war did they stop? the cold war?

Errrr in fact yes - that's why it was called the cold war - it never went hot.

MAD kept the world safe then - why not now?

why would anyone agree with a nation that deprives women of freedoms and supports terrorism? are you off your rock? i think you need to read alot more about iran before you agree with them about ANYTHING.

Listen, I don't like the Irnian Government, but they do have a right to nuclear fuel. The fact is, they don't help their case when they deny information and inspectors and are very secretive about their program.

Now, about nuclear weapons. I don't think any country should give up their nuclear weapons except for India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. They are not "oficially" recognized by the UN as nuclear powers and frankly, they are not of the orginal five. Why? Nuclear weapons are very good detterent and frankly, they have kept five countries "safe" for 60 years. Yes, we had our close calls, but giving them up will just mean we will find other means of mass destruction.

Originally posted by Strangerous

MAD kept the world safe then - why not now?

The reason for "why not now?" is because the world should have learned back in 1962 that MAD and brinksmanship brought on a huge chance of untold chaos and nuclear destruction.

Here is some food for thought concerning Che Guevara and the Cuban Missile Crisis...

"During an interview with the British newspaper Daily Worker some months later, he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities."

en.wikipedia.org...

Why would you call for this dangerous dance to be resurrected?

I don't think the argument that "no one should have nukes, therefore Iran should be allowed to have them" is a legitimate one. I think the argument is further undermined by terrible spelling, but I won't get into personal attacks or name-calling as it undermines my opinions just the same.

I don't think that the issue is Iran's rights as a state to have nuclear technology. I think the issue is more about their intentions for such technology. What overrides it all is the issue of TRUST. I do not trust Iran with nuclear technology. I do not trust that a dictatorship that is incidentally the largest state sponsor of terrorism will not pass nuclear weapons onto a group like Hezbollah or al Qaida.

What puzzles me furthermore is Iran rejecting Russia's offer to take control of their spent fuel. I would feel much more comfortable if Iran allowed full and complete access of all their nuclear facilities to the IAEA, and allowed a third party to handle their spent fuel. I'm no expert, but from what I understand they can't manufacture nuclear weapons without the spent fuel, correct? This isn't a perfect situation, but if there is a scenareo where Iran is allowed to have nuke technology, then those steps would at least make me feel slightly more comfortable. Of course this all comes with the understanding that Iran allows full and unfettered access, with no conditions and with the UN allowed to do surprise inspections. I don't want a repeat of the whole Saddam/UN Weapons Inspectors situation.

Originally posted by vance
donk,
Our Country has proven multiple times that we can own an aresenal of nukes. We are responsible keepers of this tech. Trust me, on alot of occasions I wish my country was the bad nuke threat some of you foriegners believe we where. I would have felt alot better watching Somalia turned to glass after my troops where drug threw the streets. But, no, our liberal leaders at the time saw fit to just run home. I also felt this way back in 83' when the coawrds dropped the embassy of beirut. You should be glad none of our leaders including the big ole meany Bush, doesn't feel and think as I do.

Finally, someone whom I can consider to be a true, progressive humanitarian

In all honesty Vance, I dont know if you were being serious or sarcastic (the humorless air of your post suggests seriousness though), but you have to realize how ridiculous what you said was.
A couple of Special Forces soldiers who volunteered to sign up for the Military are killed, and you think its an even response to nuke the country? I am in no way belittling the deaths of those soldiers but to suggest nuclear retaliation would is insane. A nuclear holocaust is a terrible thing to imagine, let alone even endorse. If this is how you truly feel than I think you need to get a check on the real world.

The only thing in your post that I find positive in the least is that "big ole meany Bush, doesn't feel and think as [you] do".

God help us all if that ever happened.

I have the simplest reply to mr. dong.... uhmmmmm no I dont.

IF THE US AND ISREAL GOT RID OF THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEN WE COULD MAKE SOME PROGRESS.

its not fair for us to have them and tell iran they cant. its no wonder the UN is so wishwashy on this whole topic. ITs obvious that a definite solution wont be found until America ceases its hippocracy. Noone should have nuclear weapons, its cowardly. We should rely on óur military and thats IT.

Originally posted by donk_316
Who? The USA? I dont think they deserve nuclear arsenal at all! Thats very scary knowing they are "allowed" and no one else is.

America isn't the only nuclear power.

The fact that America has nukes is the only thing that has kept China (another nuclear power) from running amuk and taking over vast amounts of the earth.

That's a fact ... like it or not.

IF Iran was stable and IF they had leadership that didn't want to destroy innocent countries and IF they could be trusted then I'd be all for them having nuclear power. Oil power can't last forever and it's not good for the environment. I'd love for Iran to be able to have an alternative to fossil fuels, but the fact remains that it's a massively unstable and dangerous government and it can't be trusted with nuclear materials.

im looking at this thread and I see alot of "it's not fair".

Wake up. The world is not a fair place. It's a constant struggle for survival and to stay in power. Why in the world would we want our enemies to have weapons capable of killing us? It makes no sense. What does make sense is us making sure a country that is more than likely a threat to us now or in the near future( depending on what kind of actions they take), doesnt aquire the means to create weapons to use against us. So if you are gonna argue about whether or not Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear power, at least give us some real reasons and not this Jr. High "it's not fair" crap.

the fact of the matter is , if the major superpowers were to disarm, the world would be thrown into a chaotic huge world war. The reason being is that for some countries, the threat of getting nuked by us is the only thing holding them back from a large scale attack. So instead we have people resort to small attacks, which we label terrorism, but all it really is is them poking and prodding at us for weak spots, waiting and waiting, being patient. It's almost as if they are waiting for us to slip up so they can hit us with a huge assault. Luckily for us, we haven't slipped up enough for them to hit us with such an assault.

The balance of power is maintained through the threat of nuclear attack. It is maintained through fear. Fear is one the strongest, if not THE strongest human emotion. This is why it is used for control. If a man fears nothing, he cannot be controlled. Terrorists are these type of people. They do not fear death, they fear nothing, therefore they are pretty much free of control and do what they please, which seems to be in the order of attacking and killing people. Then again, I think of these terrorists as simply soldiers, fighting a war. They are fighting for survival and their way of life, the same way we do, only they do it with a different means to an end, as their organized militaries are no match for the bigger powers, so they have to peck and prod. This is not to say that I agree with them, just making the point that they are fighting for the same thing our soldiers do; to protect their way of life and ideas.

So, in closing, I think Iran is going to do whatever it deems necessary to survive and give itself the capabilities to defend itself and to possibly exert power over some other countries in the region. They are completely within their right to do so, but since the US and other countries deem them as a threat, they will do everything in their power to deter them. This isn't about good vs bad. It's about survival and power. Those people over there are no more evil than the people here, they just have different ideas and ways of doing things. Yes, innocent people have been killed. On both sides. It IS a war, and these things happen in war, regardless if no one has actually officially declared war. What must be understood is that this struggle for power will shape the next century at least, and both sides are going to do whatever is necessary to preserve their ways.

Alright, long winded post, but I needed to get it out.

Originally posted by nephyx
IF THE US AND ISREAL GOT RID OF THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEN WE COULD MAKE SOME PROGRESS.

Oh sure. It would then be war on a global and nuclear scale by the Chinese and the fundamentalist muslims over who could take over the planet. yeah, that would be progress.

The only thing keeping Israel alive is the fact that they are nuclear. The only thing keeping YOU from being fought over by China and fundamentalist islamics is that America is nuclear. That's a fact.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
[
The only thing keeping Israel alive is the fact that they are nuclear. The only thing keeping YOU from being fought over by China and fundamentalist islamics is that America is nuclear. That's a fact.

I couldnt agree more and I couldnt have said it better myself.

All these people who believe that the US disarming would bring peace and prosperity throughout the world really have their heads in the sand.

The Islamic extremists take every opportunity they can to strike at the West and our Values - the US disarming would be like waving a red flag at a bull!

i find it mildly amuseing that the us is so hard that iran should not have what they themselves have.

There is a difference in having them as a deterrent and having them with the publicly stated intent and willingness to USE them...

it is much like telling a youngster that drugs are bad and not to use them while in the midst of snorting coke. it's just a wee bit hypicritical to tell someone you can't have what we have.

No, it's more like a reformed drug user, who knows the danger, trying to keep drugs away from a young, experimenting teenager who feels they are immortal.

It's one thing to have nukes, quite another to desire to USE them. Regardless of the translation semantics, etc. it is quite clear that Iran would desire nothing less than to wipe out Israel, and they've proven it in the past, so that argument is moot. We, and other nuclear powers, have proven to be stable, and responsible in having them yet not using them (excepting the first time of course, which then just served as an example to the world how dangerous these things are), for over 50 years. Iran's recent history is not so rosy or stable. Military/religious coups, etc. are par for the course for the region, and this is not a good recipe for responsible use of nukes. Add to this the public sponsorship of terrorism, and it should be NO surprise that the US and other nations (or any sane individuals) find the thought of a nuclear Iran to be somewhat destabilizing....

Of course Iran has the right to own nuclear missiles, so did Hitler.

the problem is not WHO has nukes, the problem is that NUKE EXIST.

We need to get rid of them and make steps to survive as a strong nation that does not hide behind the threats of nuclear holocaust.

If we are destined to fall as a nation, so be it. I do know one thing, no diplomacy will be achieved unless we set an example. Hippocracy will be the downfall of our nation, not throwing away nukes. If you prove to the world that you are willing to drop the weapons and start making peaceful negotiations, there would be more support from the UN and other non UN related countries.

Let's see
How many iranian hostages has the US taken in domestic embassies?
How many times do American citizens protest in the streets, burn Iranian flags and chant "Death to Iran"?
How many times have American leaders threatened to wipe Iran off the map?
How many times have American leaders called those that don't believe the same as they, "infidels" and worthy of death?

There is a reason why there is a strict, attempted UN control on nuclear weapons. Iran is an unstable state driven by religious radicals whose beliefs justify and encourage death to those who don't share their beliefs.

Unfortunately we have too many spineless, "head in the sand" people in the west who want to appease and don't (or won't) recognize the threat.

How many more 9/11s or larger have to happen before these people realize what is going on in the world? This is not a Iran vs. Bush thing. The terrorists don't pick their targets based on democrat or republican. Appeasement will just result in more innocent deaths and history will judge the appeasers harshly and wonder why they couldn't or wouldn't learn.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by Apoc]

I must say this talk of "destroy the nukes and we can negotiate peace" is naive at best.

It has been proven throughout history that negotiations MUST be initiated from a position of strength, or you will lose your shirt (and everything else).

This goes for any type of negotiations, not just between countries, but between businesses and people in general.

This is why Iran (and just about any other nation that feels it needs a better negotiating position) wants nuclear weapons. It's the biggest bargaining chip on the table. North Korea developed nuclear weapons not to be able to use them (at least in my opinion) but to be able to brow beat the US into a better deal for North Korea. That's why they are also developing ICBMs. I really don't think they are planning a first strike. But the threat of the possibility of a first strike improves their negotiating stance immensely.

On another tack....

Knowing that no nation can act with impunity while under the threat of losing a major city, certainly reduces the need for other types of military power as well. How much money can a nation save by not fielding a large (manned) military when they can cause the same destruction with a few well placed bombs? Nuclear weapons are force multipliers. You can get "more bang for the buck" if you pardon the phrase. A 100kt nuclear weapon could cause more damage than several battalions of massed artillery or several squadrons of high altitude bombers, for considerably less expense.

In conclusion...

Make no mistake. I'm not trying to justify the use or possession of nuclear weapons, I'm only trying to describe the realities of the world around us. Self interest governs all! Sometimes it's enlightened self interest (I help you now, because it in the end, it helps me too.) or selfish self interest (You give me what I want or I will hurt you.). Anyone who believes otherwise is either naive (at the least) or self delusional (at the worst). We can want the world to work differently, where self sacrifice and benevolence are the rule, but we aren't there yet, and won't be for quite some time. Utopia will not be acheived in our lifetimes. Accept it and you will live happier.

Enough of my rambling....

[edit on 4-9-2006 by BomSquad]

[edit on 4-9-2006 by BomSquad]

posted by donk_316

From a report on Canadian TV.
President Ahmadinejad challenged the authority of the UN Security Council deadline to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment. He called for a televised debate with US President Bush on world issues.

"The US and Britain are the source of many tensions," he said. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.”

"This veto right is the source of problems of the world . . It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.

Last week Iran responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment - the key demand - before engaging in further talks. [Edited by Don W]

And the fact he wants to have a debate with Bush43 is awesome. Of course the blundering buffoon would never agree to it as he obviously could not string enough words together to HAVE a debate. but I digress.
[Edited by Don W]

The US position - if you can so honor it - is simply, an ultimatum. “Do what I want before I will talk to you about doing what I want.” Only B43 would deign to call that a policy. He shows his disdain for our intelligence, too.

More from a report on Canadian TV.
“Ahmadinejad called his debate response an opportunity for the two sides to resolve the issue and he didn't rule out the possibility of direct talks with the United States. "The opportunity the Iranian nation has given to other countries today is a very exceptional opportunity for a fair resolution of the issue," he said. The Iranian president also called Israel a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. "The Zionist regime has deprived the Palestinian nation and other nations of the region of a single day of peace. In the past 60 years, it has imposed war on the Palestinian nation and others," he said.” [Edited by Don W]

Well spoken, Mr D316


[edit on 9/4/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donk_316
2nd largest religion IN the USA is ISLAM!

Can you please state your source for this.

The only place I could find that asserted this was an Islamic website. All of the others that had statstics showed Jewish 2nd and Islam 3rd (including the 2000 census).

Originally posted by Apoc
Let's see
How many iranian hostages has the US taken in domestic embassies?

Gitmo and the secret prisons anyone?

How many times do American citizens protest in the streets, burn Iranian flags and chant "Death to Iran"?

There were americans that stated that they thought it would be a good idea to make Saddams Execution a public display.

How many times have American leaders threatened to wipe Iran off the map?

Might not be threatening to wipe them off the map, but we are threatening to come in and attack them, and if Iraq is any example, they would be effectively wiped off the map.

How many times have American leaders called those that don't believe the same as they, "infidels" and worthy of death?

"Your either with us, or against us."

There is a reason why there is a strict, attempted UN control on nuclear weapons. Iran is an unstable state driven by religious radicals whose beliefs justify and ecourage death to those who don't share their beliefs.

George Bush is a fanatical Christian who believes God got him into the white house, and is driven by the justification that we should be running around the middle east ridding the world of WMDs that dont exist. Same thing.

How many more 9/11s or larger have to happen before these people realize what is going on in the world? This is not a Iran vs. Bush thing. The terrorists don't pick their targets based on democrat or republican. Appeasement will just result in more innocent deaths and history will judge the appeasers harshly and wonder why they couldn't or wouldn't learn.

Last I checked 9/11 happened from, allegedly, a group of guys in a cave. Not Iran, not Iraq. They came from, oh...right, Saudi Arabia. So if we REALLY wanted to focus on cracking down on terrorists, we would crack down on Saudi Arabia. But, seeing that they basically own the United States now, that wont happen. So we bully around other countries that have no strategic value to us in allegiance, and more while in control of them.