Should we let Iran go nuclear?

U.S. and Israeli experts increasingly believe Iran could have its first nuclear weapon by the end of 2009 or early 2010. President Barack Obama has all but ruled out military force to stop Iran, preferring instead to pursue direct negotiations with Tehran.

Last week, however, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, dismissed such talk. “Negotiations with whom?” asked Khameini. “With an occupying and bullying regime [Israel], who does not believe in any other principle other than force?....Or negotiations with America and Britain who committed the biggest sin in creating and supporting this cancerous tumor [the Jewish State]?”

www.glennbeck.com...

The so called "experts" are marching straight into armaggedon just as the bible predicts. It is simply insane to even suggest a nuclear Iran would be tollerable.

We should dig a nice, big, glass-lined crater where their nuclear facilities are. The fast way. That would send the appropriate message.

Though this probably wouldn't solve anything, it would give them a taste of what they would like to do to Israel.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by moonwilson]

There is a documentary out called "Iran is not the Problem" and it helps explain the situation better. I think you have to buy it on a website i don't think it's on youtube, but you could try.

reply to post by heliosprime


Heliosprime, I think that letting any country go nuclear is a good thing right now; including Iran.

But....

I think that any and all spent nuclear material from all country's nuclear power plants should be stockpiled together, so that no country can use any of the spent material to make atomic weapons.

Also, all nuclear power plants should be openly inspected by all governments at any and all times in order to make sure no one country is pilferring atomic waste to enrich later for atomic bomb manufacture.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by RussianScientists]

No more nuclear anything ever. There are better ways to get energy, and nuclear weapons should be eradicated.

Go geothermal. Go wind power. Go solar power. But don't go nuclear just for energy because we all know you have another reason to do so, and really if it were up to me nuclear weapons would just disappear.

It is simply insane to even suggest a nuclear Iran would be tollerable.

And in my opinion it’s simply insane for the USA to continue policing the world.

Sooner the USA learns to keep it's fat filthy snooping nose out of other countries business and tend to it's atrocities the world will be much better off.

peace

A nuclear Iran means:

a) They become the dominate power in the oil rich mid-east.

b) Oil prices back about $100.

c) the possibility that terrorist acquire nuclear weapons.

d) Increased likeihood of a confrontation with Israel, the USA, UK, etc...

That would be very dangerous indeed; however, at this time, I am more worried about a country which has already developed nukes, Pakistan.

Silo13 is right, the USA should not be policing the rest of the world; it is up to ALL countries to police the world, and to make sure that the future of the world is safe.

I have to say let em go nucular, and if they nuke anyone "im guessing they wont"..

Then we all know what happens after that, and im guessing so does Iran..

kinda logical really

[edit on 11-3-2009 by theresult]

Why is everyone so concerned about whether Iran get's nuclear weapons? Israel was always gonna come back and bite everyone on the arse. Now it's a case of not ALLOWING Iran to have nuclear weapons? Doesn't Iran have a right to defend itself? Or is it that the US/UK won't find it as easy when they've concocted another BS reason to invade yet another country that has nuclear capabilities? Or is it Israel who'll feel threatened? What is the deal with Israel/Mossad, the UK, the US, the Jews, the Holy Land....?

Ahmedinejad has balls and a duty to his people. They feel threatened, they build nuclear weapon. It's also a national achievement. I wonder how most of you would feel if our governments or even the UN stepped in to declare regions of our territories Muslim states, and I choose this only cos Islam is seen as a common "enemy" or opposer to both Jews and Christians in respects to claims to the Holy Land. How about if the British Midlands were suddenly declared a Muslim state? Hell you can see the way people are reacting to the seemingly favouritism some immigrants get....so a state? Then armed to the teeth with weapons more powerful than our own? Just for arguments sake. Then oppressive and political bullying at the "Big Table"...nobody listening to your pleas....? I'd fight like the Palestinians are and I'd be concerned and vigilant if I was an Iranian in Iran. This is something that I fear cannot be resolved peacefully.

reply to post by heliosprime


Personally , I would like a Nuclear Iran, Maybe have them do a few fly overs of Israeli installations

Should we give loaded guns to a three year old? Should a three year old be allowed to decide whether or not they should have a loaded gun?

Iran is not socially ready. As long as its leader believes he personally is to enable the "Last Imam" to come forward, nuclear should be out of the question.

If Saddam was alive, I would rather him have nuclear weapons. Atleast everyone agreed that he was a bad dude and an eye needed to be kept on him.

Some people think Iran is just misunderstood and they wouldn't hurt anyone without being provoked.

reply to post by jd140


I think the people of Iran are just fine. It is obviously the Leaders who are screwed up.

North Korea has about 8 bombs. And NK keeps on making outrageous threats all the time. So far, nothing happened. Probably same with Iran.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Look at what our leaders behave like. Control freaks. We won't attack you with ours but we don't want you building them. Much like a 3 year old. Free trade? Freedom to choose what one wants to do? All in the name of liberty and protection of the people blah blah blah....Everything America stands for, or at least meant to.

reply to post by Blaine91555



You really think I meant every person in Iran? Saying Iran is easier then spelling President Ajamdwo;iudid.

How about we just call him Captain Wonderful.

Iran will never have a nuclear bomb with the present leader of Iran, because this Iranian leader would blow Israel off the map as soon as he could, since Israel is so small. Israel knows this, and will never let Iran have nuclear weapons as long as this present Iranian leader is in power.

I'd like it if Iran changed its name back to Persia, I like the name Persia, and so do many of the Iranians.

Here's an article I read that brings some very interesting things to mind that I never thought of before.

nydailynews.com

partial snippet...

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, every Arab state, with the exception of Iran’s ally Syria, would also be imperiled. Those countries would beg for U.S. protection. But could they depend on America, under the Barack Obama administration, to go to war – especially a nuclear one – to shield them?

Marilyn~