Posts: 436774 Topics: 21981 LOGIN

Favourites

 

Home >> World-issues >> Time to get tough with Iran

04.04.2007, 19:03 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

The recent hostage crisis with Iran I think proved perfectly my point about Iran. Thankfully Iran is now deciding to see sense. Hopefully it will co-operate now with the UN over its uranium nerichment programme and allow UN inspectors to moniter it to make sure it is not being used to produce nuclear weapons.

 

04.04.2007, 21:24 quote

Anonymous

Why is the USA allowed to enrich uranium and Iran not? Is it fair?

I think nobody should be allowed to enrich uranium for weapons, neither Iran, nor the USA, nor any other country. I also think the USA should get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, as a role model.

 

05.04.2007, 17:25 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

god wrote:
I think nobody should be allowed to enrich uranium for weapons, neither Iran, nor the USA, nor any other country. I also think the USA should get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, as a role model.
Yes so do I too but if America got rid of all of its nuclear weapons first that would leave the world in dangerous situation where only countries like China and North Korea had nuclear weapons. There is however the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of which America and many other countries are signatries to which works for the elimination of all nuclear weapons eventually.

 

01.06.2007, 03:05 quote

PersianKnight
PersianKnight Joined: 31 May 2007 Posts: 5 Location: United Kingdom, England, Durham
View user's profile Visit poster's website

Lots of countries with lots of nukes = MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

 

01.06.2007, 07:57 quote

Anonymous

Greystone wrote:
Yes so do I too but if America got rid of all of its nuclear weapons first that would leave the world in dangerous situation where only countries like China and North Korea had nuclear weapons. There is however the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of which America and many other countries are signatries to which works for the elimination of all nuclear weapons eventually.

Why would the world be scared of only North Korea and China? Because they're terrorists and commies?
These countries have nukes too: Israel, Russia, India, UK, France, Pakistan.

Only America would be the target if they laid down arms first, and maybe not even them.
Only America has actually used nukes on another country, and twice.
Only America says it may use nukes in a pre-emptive strike. This while using conventional weapons as powerful as daisy cutters.

Stoney, in essence your view is that if not the US was acting world police and keeping other smaller countries down it "would leave the world in dangerous situation". Stop buying into the propaganda...

 

01.06.2007, 15:01 quote

Anonymous

god wrote:
Why is the USA allowed to enrich uranium and Iran not? Is it fair?


Easy. Iran is a signifigantly more unstable country than the US. Okay, people will argue war in Iraq and on terror to dispute that but the fact of the matter is we (as the West) trust the likes of the US, UK and France with them as we would only use them as an absolute last case senario. Iran would probably use them for genocide. That's the differance.

I agree that no one should have them in a perfect world but this isn't a perfect world. People worry about N. Korea and China having them but the truth is that Iran is far more of a risk that those two. China has trading interests to protect so launching a nuke against anyone offensivly is out of the question. North Korea, while not exactly stable isn't stupid. If they launched one they'd have half of the world on their asses before they knew what was happening. They know that. Israel has proven itself (to some degree) to be responsible enough with such devices as, lets face it, they've had plenty of oppertunities to use them and have decided against it.

However I don't see why Pakistan and India need them except to scare one another and perhaps the most worrying factor of all is that Russia don't know where half of theirs are.

 

06.06.2007, 19:01 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

By the way there is the nuclear non proliferation treaty which was signed by many countries several years ago to work for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. All America is doing to trying to enforce this agreement in its tough stance against Iran which is a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

 

07.06.2007, 11:04 quote

Anonymous

But US did nothing to impose restrictions on Israel, a country in a high risk zone. Of course Israel won't use these bombs on westerners.

Also US supply NATO bases around Europe with nukes. How does this rhyme with:
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state.

 

09.06.2007, 06:44 quote

Anonymous

has no one here ever heard of mad(mutual assured destruction)it's basically means in the event of all out nuke war both enemys would be fucked.whether or not this policy still stands is open to debate.

 

10.06.2007, 01:52 quote

PersianKnight
PersianKnight Joined: 31 May 2007 Posts: 5 Location: United Kingdom, England, Durham
View user's profile Visit poster's website

NIGHTWAVE wrote:
has no one here ever heard of mad(mutual assured destruction)it's basically means in the event of all out nuke war both enemys would be fucked.whether or not this policy still stands is open to debate.


Yes, I just posted that above. Did you not see it?

Very Happy

 

10.06.2007, 14:33 quote

Anonymous

PersianKnight wrote:
NIGHTWAVE wrote:
has no one here ever heard of mad(mutual assured destruction)it's basically means in the event of all out nuke war both enemys would be fucked.whether or not this policy still stands is open to debate.


Yes, I just posted that above. Did you not see it?

Very Happy

nah i was half asleep and had 1 eye shut Razz

 

16.06.2007, 11:33 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 444 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

Tabletop wrote:
But US did nothing to impose restrictions on Israel, a country in a high risk zone. Of course Israel won't use these bombs on westerners.
Where have you been for the past two decades. The US has continually made demands on Israel. What about the 1993 peace accord between the Israeli government and Yasser Arafat which was brokered by the USA and led to the handing over of control of the occuppied terrortries to the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli withdrawel of all its troops from Lebanon. The dismanteling of all Israeli settlements in Gaza and most in the West Bank a couple of years ago after pressure from the US government. Or go back further to President Carters brokering of a peace deal between Eygpt and Israel in 1978 which ended Israeli ocuppation of the Siani Peninsula in Eygpt.

The USA has for a very long time to tried to negotiate peace settlements between Israel and the Palestinians. Culminating in the recent "Road Map to Peace" peace plan.

 

16.06.2007, 12:06 quote

Anonymous

Greystone wrote:
The Israeli withdrawel of all its troops from Lebanon. The dismanteling of all Israeli settlements in Gaza and most in the West Bank a couple of years ago after pressure from the US government.


I read a while back that unilateral withdrawal from occupied territories has far more to do with preserving Israel than it does a genuine attempt to make peace. The motive has to do with the % of the population that are made up of Palestinians as opposed to Israelis. By getting rid of those territories and encouraging Palestinians to live there, they hope to maintain a majority within what is left of Israel. I think it may only be prolonging the inevitable, though. We shall see in due course.

So, from my understanding, what goes on there is just a continuation of a war that has never really finished. That most of the population probably isn't overly concerned really doesn't matter.

 

17.06.2007, 11:38 quote

GlasvegasGuy
GlasvegasGuy Joined: 20 Jan 2007 Posts: 100 Location: United Kingdom, Scotland, Glasgow
View user's profile Visit poster's website

stonecastle wrote:
Iran has for years being supplying Islamic terrorist groups with weapons including Shia militias in Iraq smuggling many tons of weapons across the border into that country.

Well guess what, the U.S. has been supplying arms both conventional and nuclear to Israel for decades, a country which a) has violated more U.N. resolutions than all it's neighbours put together b) has attacked, occupied land of and held captive natives from each and all of it neighbours. As if that wasn't bad enough, the U.S. military in Iraq has recently provided weaponry to Sunni insurgents (that's insurgents against western occupation in Iraq) in the hope that they will join them in the fight against Al Queda.

stonecastle wrote:
It has also refused at every point to stop its nuclear programme and is now only months away from being able to produce an atomic bomb.

Can you supply any evidence that Iran is months away from nuclear weapons capability?

stonecastle wrote:
It is time the world community got tough and stood up to this bandit state and demanded it stop immediatly supplying terroists with weapons and halted its nuclear programme or face very serious consequences such as invasion by a massive UN or NATO force to achieve those aims of disarmament and ending the supply of weapons to terrorists,

So when the U.S. or U.K. governments supply arms or technology to advance chemical/biological weapons programmes to "bandit" states, and arms terrorists like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq this is okay and should be overlooked in the name of democracy? but when Iran supports a rival faction to protect it's own interests then the rest of the world should invade?

 

17.06.2007, 12:03 quote

Anonymous

Quote:
Easy. Iran is a signifigantly more unstable country than the US.


Is it? lol

I think you are just making assumptions and wild guesses.

Quote:
Iran would probably use them for genocide.


What would you say if someone from Iran said:

Quote:
"The United Kingdom would probably use them for genocide."


Maybe you should go to Iran on holiday and learn something about the country, before talking lots of bollocks. Just because a country is different, you can not assert it was an evil country. There was a big difference between Iraq and Iran...just because the names sound almost the same, this does not mean Iran is run by a dictator. It is almost as funny as comparing Austria to Australia.

The USA is a lot more unstable then Iran. The USA has still been populated by Red Indians a little while ago...then the White Men came...killed them....made black people to their slaves.....started several wars....have had lots of presidents and different governments etc....in all within 200 years.

Iran has a democratically elected parliamant and a president...similiar to the USA...by the way.

All "unstable" events in the past in Iran were either caused by the USA, the United Kingdom and the USA or the United Kingdom and Russia.

BP refused to share the revenue from the oil with the government (and with the people from Iran) - then the USA and United Kingdom just boykotted the oil from Iran and caused lots of problems.....in general all problems were usually caused because of the greedy oil industry or countries that just wanted to rip-off Iran.

Iran has never made anything bad in the past - compared to the USA, Iran is an innocent country that has never done any harm to anyone.

 
 
Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum