Iran's Nuclear Program

EireRoadUser

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The soviets were free? I don't think so, no say in the running of the country, no money, no food, oh ya, Stalin wasn't that nice a guy either !! That also goes for asians and arabs to a smaller extent.(Replace stalin with the appropriate dictator/leader, Mao, etc)

I was referring to the general population of those regions ,I.E people like you and me.

Not every american is a BUSH

joebhoy1916

Manic Moran wrote:

On the one hand, the argument that a country is entitled to be totally self-sufficient if it has the capability to do so is a compelling one. As Iran has its own uranium sources, why should it be reliant on Russia to process it? If it really were that simple, and if we lived in a black-and-white world, that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately, we live in a world with many shades of grey. Other countries in the world have a vested interest as well, in that they really would rather not see nuclear weapons in the hand of questionable governments who might well use them without ample provocation. These concerns are just as valid to these countries as the self-sufficiency concern is to Iran. This is why proposals such as the Russian compromise have been offered. An internationally acceptable compromise solution seems pretty reasonable given the real-world constraints, would you not agree?
NTM

Why are you talking about Russia they
offered to make the uranium for them :rolleyes:
ages ago but they said no.

Would ya not think after the Iraq
war they would be worried there country
could be next after all if they did have
a nuclear bomb nobody would attack
them. There learn that from NK
it was them a few months ago America
couldnt get what they wanted so they
turn on Iran.

Squaddy

EireRoadUser wrote:

Not every american is a BUSH

Exactly millions of people from america and across the world marched to stop Bushs war.. But still Bush didnt listen. He only cared about getting rich.

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Why are you talking about Russia they
offered to make the uranium for them :rolleyes:
ages ago but they said no.

February of this year is ages ago? The EU made a similar proposal in 2004, maybe you're thinking of that? And yes, they said 'no', which is what I meant when I said that Iran is rejecting internationally offered compromises.

Would ya not think after the Iraq
war they would be worried there country
could be next after all if they did have
a nuclear bomb nobody would attack
them. There learn that from NK
it was them a few months ago America
couldnt get what they wanted so they
turn on Iran.

North Korea is a slightly different kettle of fish for two primary reasons.
Firstly, though the DPRK is not exactly the US's friend, they have not stated any particular desires for anything other than unification with their misguided/lost brothers on the South side of the 38th parallel in a Communist/Jong-Ilish utopia. This is slightly different from claiming that a country which doesn't even border it should be wiped from the map.

Secondly, there is the conventional military reality: Seoul is in artillery range of a lot of guns. Any conflict will immediately put a quarter of all South Koreans in jeopardy, and the tactical/operational realities placed by the terrain, preparation, and sheer size of the DPRK's military make any attacks an extremely bloody affair. This is, again, not the same case with Iran.

NTM

joebhoy1916

Well Feb is awhile ago and they said no
so there is no offer on the table.

Well say if Iran just wanted a nuclear bomb
a country like NK where thousands die
every year because they have no oil.
Would ya not think Iran would do a swap
nuclear bomb for oil. If they wanted oil
bad enough which they do
do ya think he would do it.

marco murphy

Hizbollah said they have units ready to attack U.S and Britian in the event of an assault

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Well Feb is awhile ago and they said no
so there is no offer on the table.

And whose fault is that then?

Well say if Iran just wanted a nuclear bomb
a country like NK where thousands die
every year because they have no oil.
Would ya not think Iran would do a swap
nuclear bomb for oil. If they wanted oil
bad enough which they do
do ya think he would do it.

Interesting proposition. I'm not sure about the logistical realities, or if NK is in a position to give away any of the few warheads it likely has right now, but it does provide food for thought at some stage in the distant future.

NTM

mcgarnicle

Manic Moran wrote:

North Korea is a slightly different kettle of fish for two primary reasons.
Firstly, though the DPRK is not exactly the US's friend, they have not stated any particular desires for anything other than unification with their misguided/lost brothers on the South side of the 38th parallel in a Communist/Jong-Ilish utopia. This is slightly different from claiming that a country which doesn't even border it should be wiped from the map.

Secondly, there is the conventional military reality: Seoul is in artillery range of a lot of guns. Any conflict will immediately put a quarter of all South Koreans in jeopardy, and the tactical/operational realities placed by the terrain, preparation, and sheer size of the DPRK's military make any attacks an extremely bloody affair. This is, again, not the same case with Iran.

NTM

The fact that they test their new medium range missiles by firing them across Japan, while at the same time claiming to have nuclear weapons probably doesn't sit very well. I'd rather have a country stating they want me destroyed without the means to do it, than have a country just randomly fire missiles over to let everyone know that they could wipe me out if they chose.

It's obvious that Iran will never nuke Israel, people might call it a dictatorship and I know it's a horrible place but there are some controls and as far as I know no one guy can decide to nuke Israel. NK on the other hand is a country where the leader is a total lunatic, has absolute power and could attack Japan tomorrow if he saw a Japanese cartoon he didn't like.

I could be wrong but I think that this Iranian guy keeps making these wild statements to pander to the masses in Iran, they have a pretty crappy lot but they don't like Israel and like to think of Iran as powerful he tells them what they want to hear and his popularity goes up. It's just good old fashioned demagogeury.

Akrasia

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Don't accuse me of lying just because you are uninformed. Have you never heard of the Lancet Study? Are you aware that Iraq body count, which is the source most used by the mainstream media, is necessarily, as a result of their methodology, an understatement of the true casualties in the war (as admitted by the people who run the website) IBC also understates the number of dead in iraq because it only counts Civilian deaths as a result of action by the U.S. military. All other deaths are ignored.

joebhoy1916

Manic Moran wrote:

And whose fault is that then?

Its nobody's fault. Oh no let me guess its
Iran's fault. Im sure if Russia made the same
offer to US do you think they would do it?

Interesting proposition. I'm not sure about the logistical realities, or if NK is in a position to give away any of the few warheads it likely has right now, but it does provide food for thought at some stage in the distant future.

My point more or less is if Iran
wants a nuclear bomb they will
get one.

100,000 seems right after all how many
people died in the Iraq, Iran war?

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

100,000 seems right after all how many
people died in the Iraq, Iran war?

Estimates are generaly somewhere just under a million. It was eight years, and involved chemical warfare, so it wasn't 'warfare lite.'

FWIW, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ has a max figure of 38,641 civilian deaths at time of writing.

NTM

joebhoy1916

Manic Moran wrote:

Estimates are generaly somewhere just under a million. It was eight years, and involved chemical warfare, so it wasn't 'warfare lite.'

NTM

And which country gave Iraq the chemical weapons
to use on Iran? America

growler

Why anyone would trust a nation that can claim to have 40,000 volunteer suicide bombers ready and trained to attack the west shouldn't be allowed to play with anything sharper than a stick ( a small bendy stick with blunt ends) .

Iran is a nation run by nutjobs who think that they are doing Allah's will, the lunatics are firmly in charge of the asylum, like any other regime that continually fails its people it blames everyone else for it's woes: Israel, Zionist conspiracies, the US.

I think much of this nuclear sabre rattling is simply to divert the general populaces attention away from thoughts of democracy or even a more secular state, if the general public feel that they are under threat then any dissenting voices won't receive support, leaving the nutters free to do as they want.

I don't trust these loons with a nuke or even the ability to come close to building one. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility for them to start sending dirty bombs off to the West waiting for Global Martyrdom Day (tm).

joebhoy1916

"democracy"

Can you tell me what that word is?

growler

joebhoy1916 wrote:

"democracy"

Can you tell me what that word is?

glad to be of help : here

joebhoy1916

lol.

Is England a democracy state?

growler

joebhoy1916 wrote:

lol.

Is England a democracy state?

technically its a constitutional monarchy, in practice its a democracy, what has that got to do with the nutjobs in Iran having an opportunity to make a big glass bowl of the middle east ?

joebhoy1916

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Is the queen elected?

And how is Iran nuts?

mcgarnicle

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Is the queen elected?

Does the queen govern?

Squaddy

growler wrote:

technically its a constitutional monarchy, in practice its a democracy, what has that got to do with the nutjobs in Iran having an opportunity to make a big glass bowl of the middle east ?

Iranian people have every right to practise their religion just as we do! It sounds like your a racist??

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

And which country gave Iraq the chemical weapons
to use on Iran? America

Which country gave Iran chemical weapons to use on Iraq? America as well? The US is not, contrary to opinion, the root of all evil.

Iranian people have every right to practise their religion just as we do! It sounds like your a racist??

He called them nutjobs, not pagans or anything else related to religion. Racism doesn't enter the equation.

NTM

Squaddy

Manic Moran wrote:

Which country gave Iran chemical weapons to use on Iraq? America as well? The US is not, contrary to opinion, the root of all evil.

They must be if they are giving countries weapons to kill each other!

Manic Moran wrote:

He called them nutjobs, not pagans or anything else related to religion. Racism doesn't enter the equation.

NTM

growler wrote:

Iran is a nation run by nutjobs who think that they are doing Allah's wil

Well it sounds like it because what he just said there^^. Its in there religion that they do not attack until they where attacked first which they where. and we all know that they are the most religius pep in the world - they pray all the time and from my experience they are the nicest group of pep i have ever met (-Iranians and muslims)

growler

Squaddy wrote:

Iranian people have every right to practise their religion just as we do! It sounds like your a racist??

did I say anything about them practicing their religion ? did I say anything about their race ? nope.

joebhoy:

no the queen isn't elected, but she doesn't make the laws of the land, mke foreign policy, decide on childrens allowance or anything else, she just waves a bit , makes a speech at christmas, reads the tabloids to see what the family are up to and so on. Have a look at english history if you want to see why her position exists at all.

Iran isn't nuts per se, Iran's leaders are, any country governed by a religious clique (theocracy) ... those who think they are doing god's work , are imo nutters. When they then go on to threaten other countries with annihilation it confirms my opinion. These nutters will do everything they can to stay in power under the guise of protecting Islam's faithful from the evil west.

Do you honestly think Irans rulers are nice ould fellas ?

growler

Squaddy wrote:

Well it sounds like it because what he just said there^^. Its in there religion that they do not attack until they where attacked first which they where. and we all know that they are the most religius pep in the world - they pray all the time and from my experience they are the nicest group of pep i have ever met (-Iranians and muslims)

substitute Allah with any God word and my answer is the same.

We all know that jsut because a state is islamic it would never ever be an aggressor ... oh hang on, thats not true ! :eek:

Are you good pals with the leaders of Iran ? I also know loads of muslims and they are great people but they don't run their own countries by some divine right.

Gurgle

mcgarnicle wrote:

Does the queen govern?

growler wrote:

no the queen isn't elected, but she doesn't make the laws of the land, mke foreign policy, decide on childrens allowance or anything else, she just waves a bit , makes a speech at christmas, reads the tabloids to see what the family are up to and so on. Have a look at english history if you want to see why her position exists at all.

Actually, now that you mention it, have a look at english history since it became a democracy, you might be surprised at the times when a monarch has taken more direct influence than you might think.

btw it can't be a constitutional monarchy, they don't have a constitution.
linky

mcgarnicle

Gurgle wrote:

Actually, now that you mention it, have a look at english history since it became a democracy, you might be surprised at the times when a monarch has taken more direct influence than you might think.

Like when?

joebhoy1916

Do you honestly think Irans rulers are nice ould fellas ?[/QUOTE]

No but i think George Bush is
a evil man, he is going to be gone
soon but if they went to war they
might not regret it now but they will
in years to come.

Iraq was a good country the Americans
said years ago it was a country other Arab
countrys could look up to then when
sanctions were put on them the
country fell apart. Now America is
doing the same with Iran.

QUOTE=Gurgle]Actually, now that you mention it, have a look at english history since it became a democracy, you might be surprised at the times when a monarch has taken more direct influence than you might think.

OMG are you serious?


"Whatever the result of this meeting might be, Iran will not abandon its rights (to nuclear technology)," Can anyone sport the key word here?

Manic Moran

No but i think George Bush is
a evil man, he is going to be gone
soon but if they went to war they
might not regret it now but they will
in years to come.

So you would ignore one evil to focus on another? Whether or not you like Bush has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should approve of Iran's having nuclear weapons, would you not agree? Bush won't be in power for ever.

Iraq was a good country the Americans
said years ago it was a country other Arab
countrys could look up to then when
sanctions were put on them the
country fell apart. Now America is
doing the same with Iran.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the sanctions have something to do with Iraq invading Kuwait, or otherwise misbehaving in some manner?

NTM

Gurgle

Manic Moran wrote:

Whether or not you like Bush has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we should approve of Iran's having nuclear weapons, would you not agree?

whether or not we approve has no bearing on Iran's right to have a) nuclear power or b) nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation treaty is dead (thx to GWB) and the message to the enemies of the USA has been made clear - get nukes before we get you. As demonstrated on Iraq, getting rid of WMD is the biggest mistake Iran could make.

Manic Moran

Gurgle wrote:

whether or not we approve has no bearing on Iran's right to have a) nuclear power or b) nuclear weapons. The non-proliferation treaty is dead (thx to GWB) and the message to the enemies of the USA has been made clear - get nukes before we get you. As demonstrated on Iraq, getting rid of WMD is the biggest mistake Iran could make.

I don't believe that point A is under dispute. Point B is the tricky one, as not many countries seem to be lining up to support the concept of Iran as it currently stands being a nuclear power.

NTM