Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?

NinjaK

man.about.town wrote: »

if america and the west are such bad places, why are so many immigrants/asylum seekers flocking its shores in search of a better life. we are so lucky to live where we do, america is no enemy of the west.

any iranian living here will tell you they lived in fear in there own country, its militarized and controlling, same as so many arab countries. its easy to jump on the down with america band wagon but i for one think its a great country and i would trust any western country with a nuke.

So much fail

NinjaK

brimal wrote: »

No. Iran should not be allowed develop nukes.

A country that has such little disregard for it's own people should never be trusted with nukes.

Jesus this place is sounds like Fox News. Brainless

RichieC

Freddie59 wrote: »

Wishful thinking on that cnuts part. Never gonna happen. He'll be gone first.:)

You do realise there are non zionist israelis, right?

scratch that... I doubt you even know the bloody difference.. :rolleyes:

jesus christ our education system needs burning to the ground and started again..

brimal

NinjaK wrote: »

Jesus this place is sounds like Fox News. Brainless

"So much fail"

"Brainless"

:rolleyes:


Do you agree/disagree Iran has a horrendous human rights record against it's own people? They treat their own people like scum, I don't see why they would show any remorse to other nations' people, Israelis for example.

RichieC

brimal wrote: »

"So much fail"

"Brainless"

:rolleyes:


Do you agree/disagree Iran has a horrendous human rights record against it's own people? They treat their own people like scum, I don't see why they would show any remorse to other nations' people, Israelis for example.

The UN has condemned Israel's human rights record 65 times.

brimal

RichieC wrote: »

The UN has condemned Israel's human rights record 65 times.

I am referring to the human rights applied to their own people. Iran is one of the worst in the world for this.

RichieC

brimal wrote: »

I am referring to the human rights applied to their own people. Iran is one of the worst in the world for this.

wtf is the difference?


Oh that's it, with your caveat it absolves Israel and the states appalling records... how grand

dr.bollocko

mod:
OK We've been quite liberal (heh) with the infractions up to now.
But from here on out any insults, any veiled insults "your posts are moronic..." etc will result in bans.
An interesting topic. Let's take out the knee-jerk ranting and replace it with discussion here on out.

LH Pathe

nobody should be. Least of all those who have actually used them, on a widespread radius so no double standards and no regional bias - they are only playing catch-up.

brimal

RichieC wrote: »

wtf is the difference?


Oh that's it, with your caveat it absolves Israel and the states appalling records... how grand

It's rather predictable you would completely ignore my point and bring Israel into it. I don't see what Israel's human rights had to do with my point.

My point was if Iran can do this to their own people, then why would they care about injuring/killing other nations' people?

Stercus Accidit

thebigbiffo wrote: »

right, well w'anker was originally a term used to refer to someone who masturbates - but it can now refer to...well, you get the idea.

you doubt Iran hates our freedoms eh? which freedoms do they love? uncensored internet? womens rights? the right to protest? the list is endless here buddy - if you can't get your head around iran being idealogically opposed to almost everything we hold dear then you best move there, because you're best out of this here gene pool and that's a fact.

it's pointless trying to reason with people who are so blind. here's news: life aint all love, peace and fuzzy pink stuff - there are people out there who hate your way of life and would think nothing about destroying it. and you want to give them nukes

baaaahhhaaahhhaaaaaaaahhhaaaahhaaaa

*coughs splutters and retreats back to my baptist church

Back to your tinfoil hat and cowards proxy insults, you are a moron and a wanker. Really, you are.

Kudos on the reported post by the way, do run and tell teacher about this one.

SillyMcCarthy

DarkJager wrote: »

No ****ing way. The views they hold on the western world are enough to justify them never having this sort of weaponry.

What you know about Iran is only what you listen to on Sky News!:eek:

Of course they should!
The yanks won't be so quick to invade & it will keep the Israelis
in check with a lot more to think about.
Good luck to them.

Nodin

brimal wrote: »

It's rather predictable you would completely ignore my point and bring Israel into it. I don't see what Israel's human rights had to do with my point.

My point was if Iran can do this to their own people, then why would they care about injuring/killing other nations' people?

I doubt they're that pushed. However flinging a nuke out would have dire consequences for the whole state, which I'm sure they're all too aware of.

Freddie59

RichieC wrote: »

Freddie59 wrote: »

Wishful thinking on that cnuts part. Never gonna happen. He'll be gone first.:)

You do realise there are non zionist israelis, right?

scratch that... I doubt you even know the bloody difference.. :rolleyes:

jesus christ our education system needs burning to the ground and started again..

Oh so true Richie. History lessons for the truly blinkered should be the first lesson. So that people can see Ahmedinejad and Co for the scumbag charade that they are.

Freddie59

man.about.town wrote: »

if america and the west are such bad places, why are so many immigrants/asylum seekers flocking its shores in search of a better life. we are so lucky to live where we do, america is no enemy of the west.

any iranian living here will tell you they lived in fear in there own country, its militarized and controlling, same as so many arab countries. its easy to jump on the down with america band wagon but i for one think its a great country and i would trust any western country with a nuke.

Shhh. Don't tell anyone.😉

RichieC

brimal wrote: »

It's rather predictable you would completely ignore my point and bring Israel into it. I don't see what Israel's human rights had to do with my point.

My point was if Iran can do this to their own people, then why would they care about injuring/killing other nations' people?

I did not ignore your point, I demonstrated how you move goal posts around to suit your agenda.

It's very nice for the US and Israel that we consider human rights violations on citizens far more reprehensible than those carried out on non citizens, it's arbitrary though. if you can do it to one human you can do it to any as far as I'm concerned. I do not play the debating game with rules enforced by the Washington consensus.

I agree that human rights in Iran are horribly restrictive and rather draconian, though. the Kingdom of Saudi arabia however are worse, yet they are allys of the united states. no one batting an eyelid about events in Bahrain either.. they are open to US banking and business interests.

KeithM89_old

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Back to your tinfoil hat and cowards proxy insults, you are a moron and a wanker. Really, you are.

Kudos on the reported post by the way, do run and tell teacher about this one.

Banned.

El Siglo

No point not allowing them nuclear weapons, the US gave the Shah of Persia the technology to develop nuclear weapons, even in 1974 the U.S. special national intelligence estimate said that while "Iran's much publicized nuclear power intentions are entirely in the planning stage," the ambitions of the shah could lead Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, especially in the shadow of India's successful nuclear test in May 1974.

Toby Take a Bow

Sykk wrote: »

And? What has that to do with ANYTHING? It is a country ruled by Islamic extremism... They fund terrorist organizations so your idea that they're a sound bunch of lads since 1768 is a little off the mark.



Cheers for the relevant history lesson.

It's a history lesson well worth paying attention to. It'll tell you how the history of their country has informed their thinking, and may help an understanding as to why they're (allegedly) developing nuclear weapons. Another history lesson may help here: the idea of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Iran have horrible human rights violations (and have had so since America installed the Shah) but they have yet to declare war and attack another nation for hundreds of years. And this includes the years since they've become an Islamic republic.

Sykk wrote: »

We are the epitome of what their ideals and religion stands against.. So yes they absolutely hate us.
...

Those two things don't necessarily follow each other. Just because someone holds the opposite views to myself doesn't mean I hate them.

c_man wrote: »

That must be why the Saudis, whos concern over the Iran in general is immense, are mentioned as often as the US/Israel in the 'pro-nuke' posts. Oh wait...

I'm not sure I understand. Can you elaborate?

man.about.town wrote: »

if america and the west are such bad places, why are so many immigrants/asylum seekers flocking its shores in search of a better life. we are so lucky to live where we do, america is no enemy of the west.

Because America is wealthy, and has sold the idea of it as being a country where you can become incredibly wealthy. Doesn't mean they don't also export war for their own ends (indeed, sometimes the two are related).

man.about.town wrote: »

any iranian living here will tell you they lived in fear in there own country, its militarized and controlling, same as so many arab countries. its easy to jump on the down with america band wagon but i for one think its a great country and i would trust any western country with a nuke.

You'd trust any western country with a nuke? Even the one country, which was western, which used it in wartime?

LH Pathe

Dubliner Eamon Zayed recently upped sticks there for a better life, wasn't really made feel at home here - as a supersub debutante scored a hattrick in the final 10 minutes in front of a hundred thousand; in Tehran turning 0-2 to 3-2 It don't come any more roy of the rovers than that - my uncle mo txt'd me his joy.

brimal

RichieC wrote: »

I did not ignore your point, I demonstrated how you move goal posts around to suit your agenda.

moving goalposts?

'Agenda'? I think you mean opinion.

The OP clearly states "Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?"
I clearly stated no, a country that doesn't treat their own people with adequate human rights, has no right to own them, thus endangering other nations' people.

I include Saudi Arabia (the anti-West trump card to use when ignoring Iran's shambolic human rights record) in this too.

Freddie59

RichieC wrote: »

I did not ignore your point, I demonstrated how you move goal posts around to suit your agenda.

Sure aren't we all guilty of that Richie - yourself included?:)

ed2hands

Einhard wrote: »

When I heard that less than 100 people had died because of Chernobyl I was astonished. Surely that couldn't be true? But it is true

No it's not true. You heard wrong. But that's for another thread.

c_man wrote: »

Love seeing the knee-jerk anti-American stance making people support nuclear weapons/power. They'll be back lecturing us on the evils of nuke power tomorrow

This is clearly a strawman.

First of all, you've just pigeon-holed some of the stances in this thread as "anti-American" and "support nuclear weapons/power".
Neither is necessarily the case.
Secondly you're attempting to say there is hypocricy for supporting Irans' right to follow this path if it so wishes while also being generally against nuclear power in general. This is not necessarily the case either.

I personally don't like or trust nuclear power and wouldn't like to live beside a plant, but who are the US, Israel or anybody else to dictate that Iran cannot develop nuclear if they so wish?
Who are they to issue veiled and not so veiled threats of invasion every other day?
Who are they to impose harsh sanctions on the people of Iran on this basis?

Luftwaffles

Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry, not because of their values or distaste for the west. Nuclear weapons are inherently wrong in every respect and as many have pointed out already they shouldn't even exist. However it is indeed extremely hypocritical for the United States to stand up and condemn Iran. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meaning they themselves have declared that they would not pursue such things and as a result they shouldn't. On the same level, The United States having also ratified the treaty continues to develop their own nuclear arsenal rather than completely disassembling it. Yes, it'd be stupid for the U.S to scrap them all for security reasons but the point is: U.S condemnation is complete hypocrisy.
Similarly it's not our place to deny them nuclear weapons simply because we disagree with their culture. The "No Nukes for Iran" argument can otherwise be validated by such things as Iran being a signatory of the NPT.

That's just my opinion

Also: I think as a nation, Ireland should stand back from this argument and establish our place as a neutral country. We don't want to get involved and should also make it clear that action on our neighbours would likely affect us and for nuclear-equipped nations to understand that. I'm pretty sure the government hasn't made any substantial complaints to Iran yet, at least I hope so anyway.

man.about.town

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

You'd trust any western country with a nuke? Even the one country, which was western, which used it in wartime?

i sure would, they have been involved in many conflicts since and haven't used there nukes. the world was a very different place 65 years ago. it finally ended the war (be it at a huge cost to life however japan could avoided the second bomb). it was an experimental bomb

quirky story unrelated, back in the 90's, Harley Davidson making huge losses because of the Japanese launched cheap motorbike cruisers like yahama dragstar etc... so Harley made there come back bike and called it a FATBOY (which brought them back as market leaders). because it was in direct competition with the jap bikes, they named it after the two bombs. "fatman" and "littleboy".

token101

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The US was ruled by the religious right for years. Not to mention the fact that they are the only nation to have ever actually used nuclear weapons (barring some french incident I'm not entirely sure of the details of) If anyone cant be trusted it's them.
Nobody should have nuclear weapons, they are expensive, dangerous and frankly obsolete in an era when the biggest threat to a nation is from small internal groups.
Russia's stockpile did prevent the Beslan massacre.
America's arsenal didnt stop 9/11.
Trident in Britain didnt foil the 7/7 bombings.
They should all be done away with and given that America sees itself as a world leader they should be the first to decommission their deadly arsenal.
After that any nation attempting to build them should face serious sanctions. But for America to dictate who can and cant have them while they continue to stockpile the biggest arsenal in the world (not to mention funding Israel's psychotic programme) is hypocrisy of the highest order

All Islamic Fundamentalist groups. That's the biggest threat to the world today. It's not necessarily Iran; it's the Iranian regime. I don't like the idea of a country who rules their people the way Iran do, who puts down any dissent with brutal force, who says countries should be 'wiped off the map' having access to nuclear weapons.

I'd agree with decommissioning, but that's unlikely.

Gingermagic

Why shouldn't Iran be allowed to go forward with Nuclear Tech.....It's laughable that a country who stands on their own two feet has to answer to those who lets face it, would not think twice about nuking the feck outa Iran.

In no way shape or or would I have another come into my house and tell me how I should run things. That is just asking for a spanking!

Further more the point is probably in fact moot. Iran has nuclear capabilities, and if it wasn't completely weapons grade, sher Russia and China will assist them. One of the issues with Iran is that can block a major chunk of distribution of oil in a heartbeat. Thanks to that river that borders Russia and Iran....(can't remember the name of it)

One more thing.....if you think that Ireland is still a neutral country...think again, especially now when Europe is squeezing the balls of your leaders. When you are in debt to others you say in your own land becomes Neutral!

Sykk

Gingermagic wrote: »

One of the issues with Iran is that can block a major chunk of distribution of oil in a heartbeat.

You're talking about the Strait of Hormuz.

By heartbeat you mean "Not a ****ing chance".. The military presence of Aircraft carriers, destroyers, navy and subs from France, Britain and the US would clearly not stand a hope of annihilating an Iranian offensive in a few hours.. Clearly.

Gingermagic wrote: »

Thanks to that river that borders Russia and Iran....(can't remember the name of it)

Genius. Russia and Iran aren't bordered.


You're doing it wrong.

Gingermagic

Opps my bad.....yes I do mean the strait of hormuz....MS and multi tasking not a good combo cos ya get yer facts fluffed up I should very obviously should have put something different, thanks

It only takes the sinking of one of those ships to close it down and yes it might be watched like a freakin hawk by those who fear it's closure...

Having said that I still believe that the west have absolutely no right to dictate who can do what where and when, when they can't even walk their own talk....

storker

Einhard wrote: »

You see, these are the kind of potentialities that those who clamour for a nuclear armed Iran fail to consider. The West and Israel don't want Iran to have weapons, ergo Iran should have weapons, and potential consequences be damned.

Such potentialities aren't considered because in such instances I believe anti-Americanism is the engine the drives the thought process, rather than any true attempt at analysis.

Stork

Gingermagic

I don't come from a place of anti Americanism. Though I can see how it can be perceived as that.

I have to admit to being slightly ignorant of the politics that is practised in Iran and in fairness I am not American so neither do I have in depth knowledge of processes.

Now having said that what I am against is one nation curbing the evolution of another because of the possibility that they will create nuclear weapons. Personally I believe that that is very much like trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. Coming from a country that has actually used nukes it a bit fecking rich.

I would rather that nuclear power was not an avenue anyone went down, but again too late for that. What ever is going on with Iran and its foes has nothing to do with nukes....if it was we certainly wouldn't know about it.

The only way another person can come into my house and tell me how I should run things is if that person has something over me, or I owe them something, reneighed (spelling?) on a promise....Its no different for countries. Either Iran owes something or has broken a promise that we don't know about yet....And now the fear mongering has begun.

Would Iran use Nukes....probably.....would the UK or US or any other country probably....So tell me why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons capability.....And who has the power to tell them that they can't have the rights to protect themselves as others have?

LH Pathe

Well this is it, gm. This is what these simpsons addicted simpletons that just go w/ the first thing that falls onto their lap anyhow safe in the knowledge they're born into the winning team tend to do. same unassailable majority blend in to the crowd bullyshìt merchants

44leto

Nuclear weapons are already created, the knowledge is out there, I even know how make one. The genie is out of the bottle,

I am more interested as to why someone would want one. To lay a populated city to dust, women, children, and old people all vaporised or buried in rubble. Why. I think nobody would deploy this weapon after seeing the effects in Hiroshima, even Iran will not

Nukes in my rational mind makes for peace. I don't believe any despot would fire one, the consequences are to dire. We are all the same under that weapon of total destruction., All nations could make them.

Jake187

Side of the fence type of stuff here.
What right do the current nuclear powers have to control who obtains nuclear weapon programs.
But on the other side, why should the current nations allow a country to when they could be used to incite a nuclear war.

Mike 1972

Sykk wrote: »

Japans "God" Emperor wouldn't stop fighting, though the USA wanted to and lets not forget who attacked first eh?

Thousands of Japanese lives =/= Thousands of American and Japanese lives.

Nonsense.

The Japanese government were on the brink of surrender/collapse and the Americans were well aware of it having cracked their codes and monitered most of their communications for years.

The bombings of Hiroshima and (particularly) Nagasaki were
1) A war crime.
2) A warning to the USSR.
3) A test of their new toys (The two bombs were different designs) on a live target.

44leto

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Nonsense.

The Japanese government were on the brink of surrender/collapse and the Americans were well aware of it having cracked their codes and monitered most of their communications for years.

The bombings of Hiroshima and (particularly) Nagasaki were
1) A war crime.
2) A warning to the USSR.
3) A test of their new toys (The two bombs were different designs) on a live target.

That is not true, even after dropping both bombs Japan would not surrender. It was only when the USSR declared war on Japan and over-ran the Japanese in Manchuria the Japanese surrendered.

The USSR declared war on Japan only after the dropping of the bombs.

ejmaztec

44leto wrote: »

That is not true, even after dropping both bombs Japan would not surrender. It was only when the USSR declared war on Japan and over-ran the Japanese in Manchuria the Japanese surrendered.

The USSR declared war on Japan only after the dropping of the bombs.

I think at that point, neither the Americans nor the Japanese wanted the Russians to land on Japanese soil, because the Russians wouldn't have left. In the end, the Russians only got their hands on Sakhalin, a disputed island that had been taken from them 40 odd years before after another punch-up involving the two countries.

Mike 1972

So then the bombings didnt actually achieve anything then ?

The Japanese government were disintegrating with most of the cabinet favouring surrender on the single condition of maintaining the Emperor the Americans faffed about on the issue only to acceed to it. The main priority for the US at the time was to contain the USSR as much as possible (although it could even be argued that allowing them to overstreach themselves could have been a smarter tactical move in the long run)
rather than using the bomb on an unpopulated (or even lightly populated) island or publicising the July test it was quite deliberately used on cities which had been largely spared conventional bombing.

This "bombing of Hiroshima ended the war" stuff is just Junior cert level history stuff to justify a War crime. Only the fact that Truman was on the winning side kept him from being tried at Nuremburg.

44leto

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So then the bombings didnt actually achieve anything then ?

The Japanese government were disintegrating with most of the cabinet favouring surrender on the single condition of maintaining the Emperor the Americans faffed about on the issue only to acceed to it. The main priority for the US at the time was to contain the USSR as much as possible (although it could even be argued that allowing them to overstreach themselves could have been a smarter tactical move in the long run)
rather than using the bomb on an unpopulated (or even lightly populated) island or publicising the July test it was quite deliberately used on cities which had been largely spared conventional bombing.

This "bombing of Hiroshima ended the war" stuff is just Junior cert level history stuff to justify a War crime. Only the fact that Truman was on the winning side kept him from being tried at Nuremburg.

They could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo or Osaka or any of the other Million Plus cities America had complete dominance of the air, but they selected 2 centers of relatively low population.

Nobody wanted to invade Japan, the casualty rate would have been enormous on both sides. The Atomic bombs were a factor in Japan surrendering, but not the whole reason. The main reason was it was not an unconditional surrender, Japan got to keep their emperor, when really he was a war criminal.

ejmaztec

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So then the bombings didnt actually achieve anything then ?

The Japanese government were disintegrating with most of the cabinet favouring surrender on the single condition of maintaining the Emperor the Americans faffed about on the issue only to acceed to it. The main priority for the US at the time was to contain the USSR as much as possible (although it could even be argued that allowing them to overstreach themselves could have been a smarter tactical move in the long run)
rather than using the bomb on an unpopulated (or even lightly populated) island or publicising the July test it was quite deliberately used on cities which had been largely spared conventional bombing.

This "bombing of Hiroshima ended the war" stuff is just Junior cert level history stuff to justify a War crime. Only the fact that Truman was on the winning side kept him from being tried at Nuremburg.

I think the sole purpose was to stop the Russians in their tracks, and that the Japanese surrender was an added bonus.

I dread to think what kind of place Japan would have become, with them all speaking Russian, and what would have happened technologically. We'd probably be driving around in sh1t cars and still listening to valve radios.

Mike 1972

Have you ever noticed how other countries have nuclear weapons but Britain has a nuclear deterrant ?

ejmaztec wrote: »

I dread to think what kind of place Japan would have become, with them all speaking Russian.

They dont speak Russian in Poland, Czech/Slovakia, Hungary etc why would they have spoke it in Japan ?

ejmaztec wrote: »

We'd probably be driving around in sh1t cars and still listening to valve radios.

The transistor wasnt invented in Japan nor were the first transistor radios manufactured there.

Oh and in before someone says but valves have a warmer sound

JupiterKid

Iran want nukes as this would make it a negotiating tool for them. However, I can see nuclear proliferation happening in the Middle East and that is a scary prospect.

That said, their hatred of Israel means that I wouldn't rule out someone in Iran pressing that red button. Not a pleasant thought.:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOaMzxEstWk

LH Pathe

Despite this not being the real thread, or real concern so to speak.. I'd still say yes. Sure they'd still have some catching up to do I terms of actually using them. particularly on a widespread scale.. and only one nation has had the raw nerve to do that. The very one leading this no to apparent weaponry campaign

biased westies.

Biggins

An interesting editorial comment from The Times.

We are sleepwalking to war with Iran

The world is sleepwalking towards a war in the Gulf. There is still time for Tehran to change course

It should be beyond doubt at this stage that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Protestations of a desire only for a civilian nuclear capacity have always rung hollow in the fourth-largest oil producer in the world and lately even Iranian spokesmen seem incapable of delivering them without an accompanying smirk.

There is little consensus about how close Iran is to being capable of building a bomb. There is universal consensus, however, that the country is not capable yet. The realist must accept that the world has a looming problem. The optimist might note that it is better a problem should loom than arrive. There is still time for something to be done.

Something must be. A nuclear Iran is a grave and credible threat to those other countries in its region. The country has no reason to acquire a nuclear weapon other than as an act of aggression. Nuclear deterrence is as implausible an Iranian strategy as nuclear power, for Iran faces no threat from a nuclear-armed country that it needs to deter. Nearby Israel does, of course, have nuclear capability, but would not require it to outgun this relatively backward theocracy.

The fulfilment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions would most likely spark an arms race among those Middle Eastern nations not yet so equipped. Saudi Arabian diplomats, in particular, have been relatively open about their unwillingness to allow Iran to become the dominant regional power. The last Cold War was at least conducted between relatively stable participants. The next one could be anything but.

Knowing that something must be done, however, is a great step away from knowing what. Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday began a new round of talks with Iranian officials. In November the agency reported that Iran had carried out weaponsrelated research and Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, has made it clear that the onus is on Iran to disprove this research.
Yet Iranian belligerence only grows. On Saturday, two Iranian warships entered the Mediterranean, for only the second time since 1979. The first time was a year ago. Western powers remain wary of military intervention: Israel, which regards a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, appears less so. The world sees war on the horizon yet continues to sleepwalk towards it.

Sanctions, pressure and reward are problematic, but can work. Iran has suspended oil sales to Britain and France — a token flail of rage given how negligible they were beforehand. Yet 18 per cent of Iranian oil goes elsewhere in Europe. It should not. India is a growing market for Iranian oil and must be reminded of its global responsibilities. Russia and China, likewise, must realise that curbing a nuclear Iran is something in the world’s interest, theirs included.

Britain and Iran have a peculiar relationship. In the mouths of the Ayatollahs, this country is the Little Satan, sidekick and enabler to America. Yet ties remain. Vast numbers of Iranians get their own news from the BBC Persian news channel. Britain no longer has an embassy in Tehran, since its storming by a state-sponsored mob in December, but the infrastructure of communication remains. This country could and should be spearheading global efforts to head off this crisis.
As the stolen election of 2009 and the plight of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani (who was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery) both show, few today would wish to be Iranian.

The country is an illiberal theocracy, with scant regard for the wellbeing of its own people. Yet there are other such countries, and most manage not to exist in a permanent state of near conflict with everybody else. Before near conflict becomes actual conflict, Iran must be persuaded of the benefits of joining the rest of the human race.

Source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3326356.ece

I don't honestly know who's right here or who's wrong.
I do know that I fear for the future if Iran, get its hands eventually on homemade nukes.
Given their possible actions of supporting outside groups and apparent willingness to easily fight and/or cause equal trouble as possibly others in the world, that same world is not made safer by Iran having nuclear bomb capability - it only ups the ante and makes the world more dangerous via knock on effects of other countries and they then playing (also) an additional game alone of "Well if they have one, we gotta have one..." and on and on...

In the end, all it will take, is for one device to go off either by accident or design and then countries will start within minutes or few hours, take sides (via signed treaties and/or idealogical supporters) and all hell will break lose.

I fear for the future that my kids are entering. Thats all.

NinjaK

If I created a poll saying 'should Ireland be allowed to create nuclear weapons?' it would as valid as this poll. Both countries dont want nuclear weapons and all the evidence available supports this.

JupiterKid

Iran wants nuclear weapons and anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded. This issue is the biggest threat to humankind's well bring today.

People should wake up out of their beloved and fashionable (but lazy) USA bashing for a moment and consider just how dangerous a nuclear equipped Iran would be.

GaryIrv93

although I wouldn't be up for Iran with nuclear weapons, who are the Israelis and Americans to decide who's allowed to have nuclear weapons or not?

wes

JupiterKid wrote: »

Iran wants nuclear weapons and anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded.

The only people who are deluded are those making such definitive claims. As it stands there is still no proof of a currently active Nuclear weapons program. Iranian theocrats have been put fatwa's against nuclear weapons as well. Finally, we saw this song dance already with Iraq.

JupiterKid wrote: »

This issue is the biggest threat to humankind's well bring today.

Global warming is a far greater threat, than a Iranian nuclear weapons program, that we stil don't have evidence of it existence. Still nice hyperbole, exactly the same garbage being spewed by war mongers in regards to Iraq.

JupiterKid wrote: »

People should wake up put of their beloved and fashionable ;but lazy) USA bashing for a moment and consider just how dangerous a nuclear equipped Iran would be.

A nuclear equiped Iran would be no worse than a nuclear armed Pakistan, Israel, India, China, and US etc. Still, there is still no proof of a active nuclear weapons program. Requiring proof doesn't make someone Anti-American, and that accusation being thrown around is what is lazy. The US is not exempt from providing evidence, and considering we saw a remarkably similar song and dance with Iraq, I would expect a hell lot more evidence.

brimal

wes wrote: »

The only people who are deluded are those making such definitive claims. As it stands there is still no proof of a currently active Nuclear weapons program. Iranian theocrats have been put fatwa's against nuclear weapons as well. Finally, we saw this song dance already with Iraq.



Global warming is a far greater threat, than a Iranian nuclear weapons program, that we stil don't have evidence of it existence. Still nice hyperbole, exactly the same garbage being spewed by war mongers in regards to Iraq.



A nuclear equiped Iran would be no worse than a nuclear armed Pakistan, Israel, India, China, and US etc. Still, there is still no proof of a active nuclear weapons program. Requiring proof doesn't make someone Anti-American, and that accusation being thrown around is what is lazy. The US is not exempt from providing evidence, and considering we saw a remarkably similar song and dance with Iraq, I would expect a hell lot more evidence.

Iran is a brutal, oppressive, medieval regime. They should not be trusted with nukes until they prove they can act like a modern civilisation should.

Nodin

brimal wrote: »

Iran is a brutal, oppressive, medieval regime. They should not be trusted with nukes until they prove they can act like a modern civilisation should.

If you'd stuck to the bold, you'd have been ok.