Nuclear Iran

Guys, war shouldnt even be in your top 5 options. Thiers diplomacy, sanctions, and a whole bunch of OTHER methods that arent for war. Not that Im a pacifist, its just wars are expensive…If only they were cheaper…

@Emperor_Taiki:

then bomb them every few years.  The Iranians are putting alot of effort into this, and they work likly stop if they new we had the gut to destory their labors. And where are you getting your info on the think tanks and Pentagon.

I don’t think so. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-01-iran-talks_N.htm

Here is what diplomacy gets you:

•Iran agreed to let inspectors from the United Nations’ nuclear regulatory agency inspect its newest nuclear fuel enrichment facility, buried in a mountain near Qom, south of Tehran, within two weeks. The United States, Britain and France announced its existence last week and demanded such a response.

•Western powers agreed to let Iran transfer low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment. The move lets Iran pursue peaceful nuclear research. (I’ve also read France and that the uranium will be converted to fuel rods for a medical reactor)

•Both sides agreed to further meetings this month. At the United Nations, Iranian officials even suggested they would be open to “summit” meetings involving their nation’s leaders.

I am not trying to defend saudi arabia, but they are better than Iran because they are not aiming for nukes and are not interested in having an empire.

They have the same desire for nuclear energy as Iran.  What makes you think Iran wants an empire?

Mostly they are interested in wasting their wealth on their absurd lifestyles, and while that is horrible it is better than Iran who may accauly be considering seizing oil in Iraq, Kuwiat, and Saudi Arabia.

You mean like the US?  There is no reason for Iran to do that.  It would have no chance for success.

Americans are not interested in fighting another war with Iran, much less a nuclear Iran, (even if Iran is smart and does not resort to nukes, the media/politicians/voters at home will start spazing out about a nuclear war getting started) might bank on the softness of western nations. It has happened before. Persoanly i think western nations dont have the gut for this and that Iran would be right it calling our bluff.

Desert Storm.  That was an international address to Iraq invading Kuwait.  The same thing would happen with Iran, if they were so stupid to do so.    As pointed out previously, they would be destroyed in no time.

Iran has a strong military, its had twenty years to work on it and is surrounded by week and destabalized states, it is a mistake to assume that a war with them will be easy or cheap, especaily if we let them have the initiaitve or wait till they have nukes. Think back to the churchill quote.

That’s why we negotiate if there is a concern, which is working.  Save the chicken hawk stuff for another day.  We already got burned the last time for WMD scares.

i beleive these recent breakthoughs are a result of iran being scared of the west giving the green light to isreal. What do you think they are a result of, nice dinner conversation? I never said we should not conduct diplomacy with Iran, I am just saying it would not be good if they got a nuclear weapon or could quickly assemble one. Diplomacy only works if backed up by power, or maybe East Timor could settle this dispute for us.

In general the saudis have no interest in their own country, they are compalcent like the west and only interest in blowing their own cash on luxuries. Iranian leadership is in interested in its own countries power and i dont see why they would not want a monopoly on middle east oil. If the US was almost going to pull out of Iraq after 4,000 dead over the course of 5 years( from 06-07 was when the anti-war movement was at its highest) , i dont see them putting up a fight against the full military power of Iran.

Also, I know this is going to proably start another debate that is very tried, but you brought it up.
it was not just a scare,Saddam was trying to get nukes( which they would have eventually and now we would be dealing with a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq) aswell as suppoting terrorism and being an abusive dictator.If John McCain(John McCain was the first critic of the US occuaption stratagy that aslo supported the orinignal invasion) had won in 2000 the US would have won the war alot sooner, but we won the war anyways and as long as we deal with Iran properly the war will have been very much been worth it.

Please leave out political figures/references out of thread. (John McCain). We don’t want to go in this direction

If I remember well, they haven’t found any nuclear facility/WMD in Iraqi.

I completely agree with the fact that you can’t act against a nation based on the assumption that he will do something stupid. There is nothing as absolute certainty in world affairs.

You say I am a pacifist. I am not sure if I understand what you imply.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes in peaceful discussions first, then yes, I am a pacifist.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes Military should NEVER be used, then you are incorrect, or I have not expressed myself correctly.

Say self-defence. I agree that every nation on this planet has the right to exist. I think most people can agree. Thus, if someone attacks, say Canada, Canada will have the right to defend itself. But that right is only limited to defence. Should Canada attack the aggressor, than he becomes an aggressor and the attacked country has the right to defend itself too, which leads to an infinite wheel.
I do not really believe in absolute (except maybe that we live and die, and that numbers can go on infinitely). I will never agree with someone who believes that it is INEVITABLE that a country will attack another one. Nobody can read into the future.
That is why I refuse any argumentations about pre-emptive strike. This is something that goes against my thinking. How can you be so sure that one will attack you that you give yourself the right to attack them?
But we are getting into the Right war discussion, and I do not believe that I am capable at the moment to express my thoughts logically.

“If a nation does not have a nuke they  are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons. »
First, do we have proofs that they are attacking their own country? You are getting into the ideas of plot (of government trying to control its people). Its very possible, and I must admit I have little to no interest in Iranian politics.
What makes you think they support terrorists attack?
Second, I fail to see exactly what kind disadvantage you are talking about. It’s a military weapon/threat, yes. But how exactly is one disadvantaged to not possess nuclear weapons? Like, is Canada disadvantaged to USA because we don’t have nukes?

Do we have the right to nuclear weapons? That is a big question. I’d love to reply NO. Not sure how though and if its possible logically.
Instead, let me say things this way : Either NO country has the right to nuclear weapons, either ALL country has the right to nuclear weapons. Its that simple to me. If USA. Russia and other big countries can have nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t smaller countries like Iran be allowed to get them?
I do agree though that having the technology to build such weapon does not mean that one is ready to possess them. But quoting Transformers 2 :D “Who are you to judge us” Like who are we to say that Iran is not fitted in having nuclear weapons? Do we have any criteria?
Russia is also very ambitious. And one can say that Russia government is trying to control opposition in China. Some even say that Russia eliminate their opponents (there was this story of journalists killed/poisoned)

Don’t get me wrong. I completely disagree with Iran trying to get the bomb (if that is what they seek). I also feel that there are better alternatives to energy problems. Hydro energy, aerial energy, for example. Of course, none of those can generate as much energy as nuclear energy can.

@Omega:

“If a nation does not have a nuke they  are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons. »
First, do we have proofs that they are attacking their own country? You are getting into the ideas of plot (of government trying to control its people). Its very possible, and I must admit I have little to no interest in Iranian politics.
What makes you think they support terrorists attack?
Second, I fail to see exactly what kind disadvantage you are talking about. It’s a military weapon/threat, yes. But how exactly is one disadvantaged to not possess nuclear weapons? Like, is Canada disadvantaged to USA because we don’t have nukes?

Its common knowledge that the Iranian regime abuses and attacks its own people, and that it funds terrorist orgnaizations. Your a smart person, you can go look it up on the web.

Nukes destroy everything, so in one sence it is a military advatage, but since it destory everything and militay threats are also political, social and econamic threats, it is everything advatage. Canada and the US of A are good buddies, but the US dose use its many advatages it has over canada against it (this is a sign the US is a responsible nation). However many of the countires around Iran are it’s rival, and Nukes would cause a shift in the balance of power that might lead to a very devistating outcome rather quickly.

When you say thing like “who are we to judge other”, it seems like your saying that their is nor criterea to judge nations, that their is no morality. Of couse that is not what you mean since you are having this discusion and have stated you support for peaceful soultions and that war should only be used in self defence, so obviosly you beleive in some way of juding the ethics of nations and what the best thing to do is.

I feel that only the responsible nations(examples US/UK/France/Isreal) should have nuclear weapons. So I also dont think Russia should have nukes. Having nukes is not a moral issue, it is who has the nukes that matters. Good people should have power, bad people shouldn’t.

The flaw in your arguement is deciding WHO is a “responsible nation”. What standard do you hold EVERY NATION by?

@idk_iam_swiss:

The flaw in your arguement is deciding WHO is a “responsible nation”. What standard do you hold EVERY NATION by?

You dont think that their are standards that you can hold nations too? You dont beleive in truth? I doubt it.
What do you think of dictatorship, One-Party rule, genocide, controlled press and speech, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan?
It is common and reasonable to treat these nations as irresponsible and evil. So you agree with me on some level you can judge nations. Of couse there are no absolutes and things get commplicated when you ally with a nation like the Soveit Union, but some times you have to befriend bad guys to get bad guys because it would be foolish to take every jerk on at once.

Truth and justice makes up the good, and to do the good is ultimatly the purpose of any person or state.

whoa. thers no need to get uppity. I just meant who decides whos “good” or “bad”. what if the one calling everyone “bad” is themselves guilty of what they accuse.

Those who think they know the truth no longer seek the truth.

@idk_iam_swiss:

whoa. thers no need to get uppity. I just meant who decides whos “good” or “bad”. what if the one calling everyone “bad” is themselves guilty of what they accuse.

I dont see your point, the knowledgeable and resonsponsible can decided the good and explain to everyone else what the should be done and for what reason. And if you call someone out for something that you yourself do, that is hypocrasy.

@Brain:

Those who think they know the truth no longer seek the truth.

Of course, but it would be foolish to suggest that simply because no one has the whole picture that it is wrong to act on the part of picture/truth that is persived.

@Emperor_Taiki:

Of course, but it would be foolish to suggest that simply because no one has the whole picture that it is wrong to act on the part of picture/truth that is persived.

Okay Pontius Pilate

I wouldn’t put Israel in the good guys yet. Seems like they are hated by most of their neighbours for some reasons (and not just because they hate them, but it seems Israel isn’t exactly kind neither). Plus, at the moment, UN is accusing Israel of War crimes (much like the terrorists).

But even so, I still believe, based on personal feelings, that Israel is a better country than Iran to live in. Women have much more rights in Israel I believe. More freedom, etc. They can be criteria, some kinds of criteria. But I doubt everyone would agree on those criteria.
Say us WEstern. We believe in freedom of speech. So a country is “better” than another one if that freedom of speech is more guaranteed.
Now, there are cultures in this world that does not believe in freedom of speech.

In my opinion, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. But how are we to argue with someone that has a completly different logic than ours? This is usually the problem with Middle-East. Islam mostly. Their women, for example, in some countries, never knew “equality” with men. To them, its absolutely normal to be inferior to men.
Now, to us, clearly, this is barbaric. But again, its in their culture/religion.

There might be absolutes. But to find them, we must first have an international agreement. Not all countries have signed the human rights chart.
We should criticize them. But we shouldn’t try to force them into thinking like us even if we are right (I sincerely hope we are right).

@ABWorsham:

@Emperor_Taiki:

@idk_iam_swiss:

The flaw in your arguement is deciding WHO is a “responsible nation”. What standard do you hold EVERY NATION by?

Of couse there are no absolutes.

Of course there ARE absolutes. Countries differ in some ideas, but core laws have been in place since civilization started. Man has viewed murder as wrong. Think of a country where people were admired for running in the face of battle , or where a person felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to them. Why do you think the bizarre cases where mothers kill their children are so hard to accept?

Whenever you find a person who says Right and Wrong do not exist, you will find the same person going back on this a moment later. That person may break their promise, but if you try breaking one to them, they will complain.

I dont know what your point is,  if you read my statement, which you must have, i am not contridicting right and wrong i am just recognizing that things can become complicated and not simple(simple is what i meant instead of absolute).

Although generaly seen as wrong, there is a time for killing, for fleeing a battle, and for backstabing those who have been kind to you.

@Omega:

I wouldn’t put Israel in the good guys yet. Seems like they are hated by most of their neighbours for some reasons (and not just because they hate them, but it seems Israel isn’t exactly kind neither). Plus, at the moment, UN is accusing Israel of War crimes (much like the terrorists).

But even so, I still believe, based on personal feelings, that Israel is a better country than Iran to live in. Women have much more rights in Israel I believe. More freedom, etc. They can be criteria, some kinds of criteria. But I doubt everyone would agree on those criteria.
Say us WEstern. We believe in freedom of speech. So a country is “better” than another one if that freedom of speech is more guaranteed.
Now, there are cultures in this world that does not believe in freedom of speech.

In my opinion, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. But how are we to argue with someone that has a completly different logic than ours? This is usually the problem with Middle-East. Islam mostly. Their women, for example, in some countries, never knew “equality” with men. To them, its absolutely normal to be inferior to men.
Now, to us, clearly, this is barbaric. But again, its in their culture/religion.

There might be absolutes. But to find them, we must first have an international agreement. Not all countries have signed the human rights chart.
We should criticize them. But we shouldn’t try to force them into thinking like us even if we are right (I sincerely hope we are right).

Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo&feature=player_embedded

The UN is not useless, its evil, a PR tool of terrorists.

I dont want to get into an arguement about religion, but although it is important to understand somones culture and relgion to understand where they are coming from, it is not good enough to say something is okay because of religion or culture, because they are traditions and are not nessisarly logical or rational. It was the culture of the South to have slaves, it was the culture of Europe to hate Jews.

And in regards to freedom in islamic soceity, your also assuming that simply because you want to discuss these issues, that islamic extremist want to discuss these issues to. You dont properly grasp their culture, they dont want to discuss anything with you because your an infidel. To  them your part of a hedonistic culture that they feel should be destoyed and and the wost of them will fight us until we are all converted.

Even if the majoirty of muslims embrace western values, the islamists have all the power and fear, and their influence and is only growing, especailly in western Europe.

Let me chime in on this discussion with some information I have learned firsthand.  I spent the last year having discussions with detained suspected terrorists.  I can’t get into allot of details.  But I can tell you I’ve learned allot about a sect of Shia Islam known as Imami Shia.  Imamist believe that the “Antichrist” is a force of evil they see this force manifested in the US and its colony Israel.  They believe that prior to the return or the Twelfth Imam - Muhammad ibn Hasan who has been in hiding for over 1000 years, the world must be descended into apocalypse.  The Imamists believe that war with the west is inevitable and the result will be the reemergence of the twelfth Imam as well as Jesus, the resurrection.

90% of Iran is Imamist Shia including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khomeini.

For me that is reason enough to do everything we can to keep Iran from getting Nuclear weapons.

99% of the world population suffers from mass delusion.

Religion is like a widespread disease, everyone is being brain washed to beileive the version of the god or gods been imprinted into their crazed mind is the ‘‘right and only one real truth’’.

They can’t even think by themselves. They go about their live without challenging anything intellectually, always going the easy route. Race, religion, country… like theses things had any meaning. It’s the same sh*t everwhere.

So why would I care if Iran get the bomb based on some assumption of their religion? In my mind, anyone who beleive in religion is a dangerous monkey, so we cannot be worse than we already are far being close to a total global human failure.

@Corbeau:

In my mind, anyone who beleive in religion is a dangerous monkey, so we cannot be worse than we already are far being close to a total global human failure.

Sure, religion is baseless, but to say everyone who beleives in relgion is a dangerous monkey is quite bigoted. 100% of the world suffers from mass delusion, even if your a non-belevier everyone is crazy in their own way and in ways common to others.

Imamist Shiaism does sound scary, but I feel Iran is simply a threat because they are a geopolitical rival. The Islamistisation of Islamic youth around the world and particularly in western euorpe is a whole nother issue, although it is equally if not more grave.