Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?

wes

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.

Your complete inability to actually address what I said is simply astonishing. Get back to me, when you actually have something to say that addresses what I said, as opposed to a non-sequitor, that allows you not bother to address what was said.....

brimal

Nodin wrote: »

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

How very condescending of you.

How about you say what you think of this situation instead of the usual one-liners?

brimal

wes wrote: »

Your complete inability to actually address what I said is simply astonishing. Get back to me, when you actually have something to say that addresses what I said, as opposed to a non-sequitor, that allows you not bother to address what was said.....

wes man, you need to stop foaming at the mouth whenever someone doesn't agree with you. 'Simply astonishing'? Pull the other one.

The Iranian regime has no value on life. They kill their own on a daily basis in the most barbaric of ways.

Why should the international community trust them with nukes?

wes

brimal wrote: »

How about you say what you think of this situation instead of the usual one-liners?

Thats a bit rich considering you quoted my post, and your reply didn't address a single thing I said. You came out with some random non-sequitor instead. It seem to me, that you have little intention of actually addressing what others say.

wes

brimal wrote: »

wes man, you need to stop foaming at the mouth whenever someone doesn't agree with you. 'Simply astonishing'? Pull the other one.

You didn't disagree with me at all actually. You posted a non-sequitor and didn't address what I said. You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of debate. Oh and foaming at the mouth is a bit much, I am actually rather bemused, at how incapable you are of actually being able to form a reply that make any kind of sense in the context of what you quoted. I find it rather entertaining personally.

brimal wrote: »

The Iranian regime has no value on life. They kill their own on a daily basis in the most barbaric of ways.

No worse, than Western allies Saudia Arabia, Bahrain or Israel and many other at the end of they day. Still doesn't change the fact that you have yet to address anything I actually said.

brimal wrote: »

Why should the international community trust them with nukes?

When you bother to actually address what I said, I will bother to answer your questions.

brimal

wes wrote: »

You didn't disagree with me at all actually.

This thread is entitled 'Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?' I say no, you say yes. There is a disagreement here.

wes wrote: »

No worse, than Western allies Saudia Arabia, Bahrain or Israel and many other at the end of they day.

I'll say again, this thread is entitled 'Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?' BTW I think most Islamic regimes shouldn't be allowed nukes until they get their act together regarding human rights - this includes Saudi Arabia, etc.

I gave a general reply to your stance on the issue. I don't see the need for your tone and your words.

wes wrote: »

'You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of debate'
'I am actually rather bemused'
'When you bother to actually address what I said'
'I find it rather entertaining personally'

Are you for real? All these emotions and sniping all in one post. Seriously wes, I used to read alot of your points, but over the past few months your 'debate style' has been getting more and more aggressive and slightly fanatical at this stage.

wes

brimal wrote: »

This thread is entitled 'Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?' I say no, you say yes. There is a disagreement here.

Desperate, desperate nonsense. You know full well what I was talking about:
I post the following:

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.

--> SNIP -->

You reply with the following:

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.

Which didn't address a single damn word I said. On that basis, there is no disagreement at all.

The only time in that you mention any kind of actual position on a word I said is in the post that I am replying to right now. Seriously amazing the amount of back tracking your now engaged in.

brimal wrote: »

I'll say again, this thread is entitled 'Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?' BTW I think most Islamic regimes shouldn't be allowed nukes until they get their act together regarding human rights - this includes Saudi Arabia, etc.

I'll say again, you are incapable of debate, and are now desperately back tracking.

brimal wrote: »

I gave a general reply to your stance on the issue. I don't see the need for your tone and your words.

You posted a non-sequitor and refused to engage in debate, and now you are pretending otherwise. As for my tone, considering your refusal to engage in debate, and then claiming I was "foaming at the mouth", I think my tone is perfectly justified.

brimal wrote: »

Are you for real? All these emotions and sniping all in one post. Seriously wes, I used to read alot of your points, but over the past few months your 'debate style' has been getting more and more aggressive and slightly fanatical at this stage.

"Foaming at the mouth" and "fanatical", more garbage from you. Again, you are incapable of engaging in debate. You have shown 0 interest at actually talking about what is said, and have just hurled insults when I dared point out that you did not address a word I actually said. The only aggression has been from you, when you claim I am "foaming at the mouth", and that I an "fanatical".

So again, get back to me when you are bothered enough to engage in debate, which you to be fair you have finally started to do in this post, but nontheless it was following with a lot of other personal attacks.

czx

wes wrote: »

You didn't disagree with me at all actually. You posted a non-sequitor and didn't address what I said. You seem incapable of engaging in any kind of debate. Oh and foaming at the mouth is a bit much, I am actually rather bemused, at how incapable you are of actually being able to form a reply that make any kind of sense in the context of what you quoted. I find it rather entertaining personally.



No worse, than Western allies Saudia Arabia, Bahrain or Israel and many other at the end of they day. Still doesn't change the fact that you have yet to address anything I actually said.



When you bother to actually address what I said, I will bother to answer your questions.

imho

the_syco

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't personally believe that they are capable of

I've seen how they've reverse engineered planes, and built them from scratch (with very little resources), so I'd say there are some great minds in their military that should be capable of it. When you consider that Ireland had a (small) nuclear reactor at some time in the past, I'd say Iran will be able to build nuclear reactors easy enough.
And with so many enemies around it, it'd be tactically unsound not to build nuclear weapons.

Einhard wrote: »

Iran responds that if America intervenes, she will deploy her nuclear arsenal.

Worst case scenario: those who build planes for the American airforce all jizz in their pants at the same time, knowing that America may increase the production of it's long range unmanned stealth bombers?

brimal

wes wrote: »

'Desperate, desperate nonsense.'
'a single damn word'
'Seriously amazing'
'desperately back tracking.'
'more garbage from you'
'when you are bothered enough'

wes, this exaggerated outrage over not replying to your post properly? Cop on.

Regarding this fatwa.. Why should secular states trust this?
It's an idealogical command given by a religious leader. Ali Khamenei also still stands by the fatwa claiming Muslims around the world should kill Salman Rushdie.

Sykk

NinjaK wrote: »

If I created a poll saying 'should Ireland be allowed to create nuclear weapons?' it would as valid as this poll.

No it wouldn't. Ireland doesn't have enemies nor does it threaten other countries with military action, nor is it ruled by religious law.

NinjaK wrote: »

Both countries dont want nuclear weapons and all the evidence available supports this.

Where is this evidence exactly?

brimal

Sykk wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Ireland doesn't have enemies nor does it threaten other countries with military action, nor is it ruled by religious law.

Where is this evidence exactly?

NinjaK revealed his real agenda in the other thread when he started talking about the 'Jewish press' :rolleyes:

wes

brimal wrote: »

Seriously wes, this exaggerated outrage over not replying to your post properly?

What outrage? As I said I am largely bemused and enterained by your antics.

Also, I should point out that after daring to call you on your non-sequitor, you referred to me as "foaming at the mouth", which seems an over the top way to respond to me, and later you referred to me as being fanatical. The only one engaged in exageration here is you. Personally, I find it rather amusing the lenghts your went to.

brimal wrote: »

Regarding this fatwa.. Why should secular states trust this?

There a religous regime, and they take those thing seriously. The West can't have it 2 ways, either Iran is a religous regime that take these things seriously or they don't.

brimal wrote: »

It's an idealogical command given by a religious leader. Ali Khamenei also still stands by the fatwa claiming Muslims around the world should kill Salman Rushdie.

Perfect example of the kind of thing I am talking about. That kind of proves my point doesn't it? Iran takes fatwas very seriously. So you can't say they take the fatwa against Rushdie seriously one minute, and then wonder anyone should trust that they take the other anti-nuclear weapons one seriously. IMHO, your position seems hypocritcal, you accept that a fatwa is very serious in Iran, but the minute it doesn't suit you, you are wondering why anyone should trust such a thing.

brimal

wes wrote: »

What outrage? As I said I am largely bemused and enterained by your antics.

Also, I should point out that after daring to call you on your non-sequitor, you referred to me as "foaming at the mouth", which seems an over the top way to respond to me, and later you referred to me as being fanatical. The only one engaged in exageration here is you. Personally, I find it rather amusing the lenghts your went to.



There a religous regime, and they take those thing seriously. The West can't have it 2 ways, either Iran is a religous regime that take these things seriously of there not.



Yeah, and that kind of proves my point doesn't it? Iran takes fatwas very seriously. So you can't say they take the fatwa against Rushdie seriously one minute, and then wonder anyone should trust that they take the other anti-nuclear weapons one seriously. IMHO, your position seems hypocritcal, you accept that a fatwa is very serious in Iran, but the minute it doesn't suit you, you are wondering why anyone should trust such a thing.

"largely bemused and enterained" - here we go again..


It would be ludicrous for the West to trust this fatwa. It's an idealogical command given on the whim of a religious leader. It should have no place in governance of countries.

And your point about Iran taking fatwas seriously - you could see it like that. However I see it as their supreme leader giving permission to Iranians (and all 'Muslims around the world') to kill a man outside Iran. Obviously has no problem with violence being used against non-Iranians too. What's to say someday he wants some punishment handed out to Israelis?

wes

brimal wrote: »

"largely bemused and enterained" - here we go again..

What do you expect me to say exactly? You were more than happy to get in your own little jibes.

brimal wrote: »

It would be ludicrous for the West to trust this fatwa. It's an idealogical command given on the whim of a religious leader. It should have no place in governance of countries.

The fact is that it does have a place in the governance of Iran, which is a religous regime which take such things seriously is what matters, and not your opinion on whether it has any place in the governance of any country is irrelevant. If people want to embrace ignorance of how Iran works, there welcome to do so, but then I think is safe to disregard a word they say in regards to Iran, if they want to ignore things they don't like for convenience of there own accusation, which they can't back up.

There is also the lack of proof, of an active weapon program as well, but its not like that ever been a problem for those who want war.

brimal wrote: »

And your point about Iran taking fatwas seriously - you could see it like that.
However I see it as their supreme leader giving permission to Iranians (and all 'Muslims around the world') to kill a man outside Iran.

Obviously has no problem with violence being used against non-Iranians too.

What I see is hypocrisy, where you ignore fatwa's when it suits you, but the moment it doesn't there relevant. Thanks for making my point for me.

brimal wrote: »

What's to say someday he wants some punishment handed out to Israelis?

Well, when you find a working crystal ball, and can predict the future, then come back to us on that. As it stands I can't predice the future and I know of no one who can.

Nodin

brimal wrote: »

How very condescending of you.

How about you say what you think of this situation instead of the usual one-liners?

I usually use one liners? Hmmmm.

brimal

wes wrote: »

What do you expect me to say exactly? You were more than happy to get in your own little jibes.

You were the aggressor. I'm not wasting anymore time on this silliness now.

wes wrote: »

The fact is that it does have a place in the governance of Iran, which is a religous regime which take such things seriously is what matters, and not your opinion on whether it has any place in the governance of any country is irrelevant. If people want to embrace ignorance of how Iran works, there welcome to do so, but then I think is safe to disregard a word they say in regards to Iran, if they want to ignore things they don't like for convenience of there own accusation, which they can't back up.

You could also look at it as Iran being ignorant of how the majority of the world works. We are talking about nukes here, this could have global side affects. Iran must understand that the whim of a 'religious leader' doesn't cut it.

wes wrote: »

What I see is hypocrisy, where you ignore fatwa's when it suits you, but the moment it doesn't there relevant. Thanks for making my point for me.

And what about your hypocrisy? The supreme leader stands by a fatwa that commands the death of a non-Iranian outside of Iran. Why should a guy who is giving permission for the death of someone outside Iran, be trusted with the lives of his neighbours?

wes wrote: »

Well, when you find a working crystal ball, and can predict the future, then come back to us on that. As it stands I can't predice the future and I know of no one who can.

Pointless rubbish.

wes

brimal wrote: »

You were the aggressor. I'm not wasting anymore time on this silliness now.

Wow, you giving me a good laugh here. Your more than happy to dish it out, but can't handle it, when someone gives as good as they get.

brimal wrote: »

You could also look at it as Iran being ignorant of how the majority of the world works.

No, actually you have no basis to come to that conclusion. Iran having there own form of governance does not mean they are ignorant of how other countries work. TBH, such a conclusion is bizare to say the least.

brimal wrote: »

We are talking about nukes here, this could have global side affects.

Sure, if there was a nuclear weapons program, then you would be correct. There is no such program. What Iran is doing wrong is not allowing the IAEA full acess, which as per the NPT they signed up for they should allow. All this hype and nonsense of a nuclear weapon program, is the same tactics war monger used in regard to Iraq.

brimal wrote: »

Iran must understand that the whim of a 'religious leader' doesn't cut it.

Fatwa are law in Iran. So its not quite the whim or a "religous leader" as you falsely put it. Also, you show you complete ignorance of how Iran work as well. The Supreme Leader is the guy in charge, and a fatwa is law in there system of governance.

brimal wrote: »

And what about your hypocrisy?

What hypocrisy? I am not the one who ignores that Iran take Fatwa's seriously when it suits me. Your the one doing that. Now me, I know they take those thing serious. Again, you show you utter desperation.

brimal wrote: »

The supreme leader stands by a fatwa that commands the death of a non-Iranian outside of Iran.

So you only take Fatwa serious when it suits you? Again, you are being hypocritical.

brimal wrote: »

Why should a guy who is giving permission for the death of someone outside Iran, be trusted with the lives of his neighbours?

Ok, let me say this again, so that maybe you can understand this. Iran takes Fatwa seriously, they are law in that country, when the Supreme leader says it. Now you say Iran can't be trusted because they took an earlier fatwa against Rushdie seriously, but when I point out that they also made Fatwa against nuclear weapons, it should be ignored. Sorry, but that is hypocrisy and nothing more.

brimal wrote: »

Pointless rubbish.

A bit rich considering coming from a guy asking me to predict the future.

InReality

Yes they should.
They are no more likely to use it that any other country.
The "they are super religous nutters" is normally made by people with a vested interest in stopping them.
The logic of mutually assured destruction applies to Iran as much as to every other country in the world , including North Korea.

JupiterKid

I think many people are being lazy by villifying the USA whilst claiming to be "liberal" themselves. Yes, Iraq was illegally invaded and yes, the line about WMDs in Iraq was a lie spun by Bush and Blair and a pretty weak excuse to justify war in that country and taking Saddam Hussein out. I completely opposed the war in Iraq and marched against it. But ask yourself this question:

Where would you prefer to live? In a Western democracy where your freedoms - including the freedom to give your opinions - are protected or in a theocratic discatorship where, if you speak out against the regime in power, you can find yourself on the fast route to the gallows?

Iran is run by a barbaric, cruel bunch of religious fanatics and if the country gets hold of nuclear weapons I'm not certain that the Iranian regime would have the sense not to use them. In any case, it may well trigger a new era of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East that could well end in a tragedy of nightmarish proportions.

We are sleepwalking into real danger here. Don't let your disdain of the USA and US foreign policy cloud the fact that Iran's wish to have the bomb will make the world a less safer place in which to live.

czx

InReality wrote: »

Yes they should.
They are no more likely to use it that any other country.
The "they are super religous nutters" is normally made by people with a vested interest in stopping them.
The logic of mutually assured destruction applies to Iran as much as to every other country in the world , including North Korea.

Very few countries boast the comprehensive second-strike capability that MAD is based on

ed2hands

JupiterKid wrote: »

We are sleepwalking into real danger here.

We are indeed, but it's not for the reason you think. Threatening or attacking a sovereign nation based on lies is the real danger.

Where would you prefer to live? In a Western democracy where your freedoms - including the freedom to give your opinions - are protected or in a theocratic discatorship where, if you speak out against the regime in power, you can find yourself on the fast route to the gallows?

Am not sure what exactly all this has to do with this thread tbh.

JupiterKid

ed2hands wrote: »

We are indeed, but it's not for the reason you think. Threatening or attacking a sovereign nation based on lies is the real danger.



Am not sure what exactly all this has to do with this thread tbh.

On the contrary, I think how a regime in power in a given country treats its own citizens is very pertinent to the discussion as to whether it is fit to be a nuclear armed country.

I would rather that a regime such a North Korea didn't have nukes either. Nuclear arms proliferation in the Middle East - which is a probable outocme of Iran developing the bomb - is really in no-one's interest.

gbee

Sykk wrote: »

I don't think a country ruled by religion should be given such capabilities. Do you?

BUSH spoke to GOD, so I don't think you sentiments stand up to scrutiny. The Iranians would at least develop a clean bomb, one that would only kill non Muslims.

Sykk

"All evidence supports the fact that they are not making a nuclear bomb, sher why would they want one?!"

IEAE stopped from entering key nuclear plant in Iran

UN nuclear inspectors have been stopped from visiting a key military site in Iran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said its officials are now leaving the country after failing to reach a deal to inspect the Parchin military site near Tehran.
"Intensive efforts were made to reach agreement on a document facilitating the clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear programme," the IAEA said in a statement.
"Unfortunately, agreement was not reached on this document."

Clearly they're sound and have no plans to make a bomb, they just won't let anyone in for the craic.

wes

Sykk wrote: »

Clearly they're sound and have no plans to make a bomb, they just won't let anyone in for the craic.

Just as likely they won't let anyone due to fears of espionage. You are jumping to conclusions imho.

BTW, Iran should allow access to inspectors, as they signed up to the NPT, and they should abide by it.

veloc123

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Not really for me to say whether they should or not.

But the idea that anyone who believes in an afterlife or armageddon scenarios can have access to nuclear weapons scares the **** out of me.

Yeah like the Israeli's very scary stuff...

InReality

czx wrote: »

Very few countries boast the comprehensive second-strike capability that MAD is based on

I'm modifying MAD theory slightly ..

Any use of nucs by Iran would almost certainly lead to a massive response from the US.
Iran knows this and hence is very unlikely to use them.
In my view that's as much as anyone can ask for , & going down the route of sanctions , threats is both ineffective and raises tensions.
If israel attacks , as I expect they will , it will have the same result.

bnt

It's one thing to have nuclear weapons; it's quite another thing to use them. Half a century of Cold War, under the threat of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD), taught us that. Should Iran actually use a nuclear weapon, the missiles are already lined up to bomb them back to the Stone Age. The USA has thermonuclear weapons with 100x the explosive power of the kind of small nuke that Iran could build.

Badgermonkey

Morlar wrote: »

Iran is not a threat to this country. Neither were Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt etc. Not one of them has ever threatened this country engaged in killing it's citizens, using it's passports to carry out international murders etc.

Libya provided arms to the Provisional IRA.

Call me old fashioned, but that to me constitutes a threat to the security of the State.

Badgermonkey

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.

Iran is not an Arabic country btw.

They're Persian, speak Farsi, are not members of the Arab League.

wes

Posted this on the thread in politics:

What Iran’s Inspection Rebuff Says About Prospects for Nuclear Diplomacy

--SNIP--
But Iran argues that is not required by its existing obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to grant the request. That’s because Parchin is a military facility rather than a declared nuclear site, and under Iran’s current NPT obligations, it’s required to grant inspectors access only to designated nuclear sites.

Tehran would have been obliged to grant access to Parchin were it still voluntarily abiding by an Additional Protocol to its NPT safeguards agreement that it had accepted in December of 2003, granting more intrusive and short-notice inspection powers to the IAEA. Indeed, agency inspectors twice visited Parchin during the period that Iran voluntarily observed the Additional Protocol, and declared themselves satisfied that no military nuclear work had been undertaken there. The IAEA’s November 2011 report, however, based on intelligence from Western agencies, suggested that a steel tank unseen on the inspectors’ previous visits may have been used in 2000 to conduct experiments on what may have been high-explosive trigger devices for nuclear warheads.

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/23/what-irans-inspection-rebuff-says-about-prospects-for-nuclear-diplomacy/#ixzz1nbDfj2p2

--SNIP--

Looks like more hype for war from some quarters. Iran already allowed inspections voluntarily before, and under the NPT, they actually don't have to allow inspectors into that site. So, if that is the case, then Iran is no in violation of anything, and considering that the IAEA found nothing the other 2 times, and that the source for the claims against the site are unnamed "Western Intelligence", the whole thing smacks of the same hype we saw before the Iraq war.

Kirby

Who are we to dictate to another country what they should do?

You would think we would get that after being invaded by the english and currently have half the country vehemently against EU interference in our own lives.

Nearly every country surrounding them has a nuke pointed at Iran. Surely it's only natural that they should want their own?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Israel refuse to sign the NPT? It's a bit rich to ask other countries to submit to inspection after that.

Eggy Baby!

I think that they should make nuclear weapons to counterbalance Israel. Then neither would use any such weapons against each other. The Cold War arms race did not lead to a nuclear slalom. It actually preserved peace between the superpowers.