Will America attack Iran?

[Poverty]

Well said Casio. If every country in the world had Nukes americas say in how things are run around the world would diminish and hence they would be alot worse off.

Ok that still doesn't mean you understand our poltical system and what's best for the US, I've taken a few European studies classes and I still don't think I know much about Europe...hence why I don't talk about other countries.

Why do I need to understand the american political system (even though I know alot more than the average american teen) to voice my opinion of whether or not its right for them to attack Iran? I dont want Iran to have Nukes, but if we have them and americans have them why not the Iranians? The russians seem to be helping them aswell so surely they cant be that much of a threat.

And you talk about "whats best for the US", what about whats best for the Iranians. Who gives america the right to just storm in and attack them?

 

[Famine]

So why should America be allowed to have them, but not Iran? The point always confuses me.

If 'Nuclear weapons are not used for defensive purposes', then the only reason for America to have them is to nuke the **** out of other countries. Right?

I dont want Iran to have Nukes, but if we have them and americans have them why not the Iranians?

And you talk about "whats best for the US", what about whats best for the Iranians. Who gives america the right to just storm in and attack them?

Here's the thing...

America - and the majority of the world's other countries - signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This includes Iran. The agreement is that signatory countries without nuclear weapons agree not to develop them. Developing them is in breach of their agreement. Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea (the latter having withdrawn) are not signatories and so can develop them if they wish - and have. Preventing Iran from going nuclear is merely an enforcement of this treaty which, I'll stress again, Iran already agreed to abide by.

America is allowed to have them because they have signed the treaty. Iran is NOT allowed to have them because they have signed the same treaty.


I would add at this point that I do not think we have requisite evidence for Iranian non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet. I also think that nuclear energy is the BEST way of getting massive-scale energy/electricity and all countries should be allowed, under strict IAEA supervision, to develop it - but the line is very, very thin indeed, and sabre-rattling with highly aggressive statements and posture toward neighbouring nations is not helpful to the Iranian case.

 

[Poverty]

I knew of the treaty, but I heard Iran has some kind of get out clause.

 

[Casio]

Preventing Iran from going nuclear is merely an enforcement of this treaty which, I'll stress again, Iran already agreed to abide by.

America is allowed to have them because they have signed the treaty. Iran is NOT allowed to have them because they have signed the same treaty.

But according to the treaty

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment program, ostensibly for its civilian nuclear energy program, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT.

On that same page it says 'Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have currently presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

So until that time. In my opinion America isn't justified in attacking Iran.

 

[Famine]

Or, as I said:

I would add at this point that I do not think we have requisite evidence for Iranian non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet. I also think that nuclear energy is the BEST way of getting massive-scale energy/electricity and all countries should be allowed, under strict IAEA supervision, to develop it - but the line is very, very thin indeed, and sabre-rattling with highly aggressive statements and posture toward neighbouring nations is not helpful to the Iranian case.

But you asked why America is allowed nukes and Iran not. The NPT is the reason why.

In the event that Iran breaches the NPT they open themselves to extreme sanctions (probably delivered by a B2).

 

[Kylehnat]

So why should America be allowed to have them, but not Iran? The point always confuses me.

If 'Nuclear weapons are not used for defensive purposes', then the only reason for America to have them is to nuke the **** out of other countries. Right?

We haven't used a nuclear weapon on anyone else in 60 years. The only reason we have them now is because they were developed during the Cold War when the USSR was threatening us with nuclear strikes. Of course, the Cold War was nothing more than a pissing contest, and our neato weapons never got to see the light of day. What a pity...

 

[///M-Spec]

There is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Just like there is no evidence that the CIA is outsourcing the torture of terror suspects in Eastern Europe.

But let's face it; both things are probably happening. You'd have to be pretty naive to think otherwise.

Regardless of whether America (or anyone) should be telling Iran what it can or can't do with it's nuclear program, I think we should think for a moment about what the ramifications of a nuclear armed Iran means --not just for Asia and the Middle East, but for the rest of the world as well.

[As a side note, the US is not the only country pressuring Iran on it's nuclear ambitions. The peace loving French and Germans are quite active in this political process. I find it peculiar that some people in the thread seem to think the US is alone on this position]

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and possibly even Egypt will become interested in their own nuclear programs. After all, Iran is keenly interested in exporting their own brand of Islamic theocracy throughout the Middle East and a nuclear armed Iran represents a fairly dire threat to the secular regimes in those places.

The mullahs in Tehran have pretty much always thought of these moderate governments often friendly to western interests were nothing but lap-dog puppet states and they have a strong desire to spark Islamic revolutions in those countries as well. The revolutionary groups in those countries will only become emboldened by a nuclear sponsor.

How would these countries react to an Iran that possess nuclear weapons?

I think this will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Asia which will be good for no one. Not just the US and EU, but also for ordinary people in the mid-east. It will also lead to more social strife in these countries that will eventually lead to the suffering of the people living there. Car bombs are just the begining, as the fanatics like to tell us.

Also, Iran tells us they are ready to transfer nuclear technology to other entities. Well that's great. I'm sure Israel is thrilled to know Hamas, Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad are waiting to take delivery of their 5 kiloton warhead sometime in 2010. If and when that happens, do you think it will do anything to ease the plight of the Palestinian people?

I doubt it. [Aside: IMO, Islamic extremists pay lip service to the Palestinian plight the way the Bush administration pays lip service to spreading democracy in the Middle East. Same bull&*t, different players.]

And so what would happen if one of these weapons made it to Tel Aviv? Or London? Or New York City? Some people may like to think it would be a great victory for the Islamic world. But nothing could be further from the truth because Iran would simply cease to exist as a country, which would serve the people of that country not one bit.

For the record, I have no interest in the US enforcing the terms of the NPT on Iran. Dubya had me at Afghanistan, but lost me sometime in 2003.

I DO wish Iran's neighbors make some real attempts at making sure Iran remains true to the treaty, though. After all, they have the most at stake, IMO. But so long as America is playing the tough guy on their street, they could care less because it doesn't cost them anything.

Now I could be wrong about this. It is possible sometime in 2010 or whenever Iran declares itself a member of the nuclear club and nothing actually happens.

But I doubt that too.

So why should America be allowed to have them, but not Iran? The point always confuses me.

Still confused after this post?


M

 

[Famine]

And so what would happen if one of these weapons made it to Tel Aviv? Or London? Or New York City? Some people may like to think it would be a great victory for the Islamic world. But nothing could be further from the truth because Iran would simply cease to exist as a country, which would serve the people of that country not one bit.

Or indeed as a place:

 

[Kylehnat]

///M-Spec's got it 👍

Edit:

Looks like the folks in Ethiopia have some smashing waterfront property now

 

[Danoff]

Freedom... when it suits our needs. Oppression... when it suits our needs.

We overthrew their democratically-elected government in 1953... to help the Shah and his band of lunatics SAVAK stay in power.

How's that for freedom? How's that for spreading democracy?

What does this have to do with what we're doing over there now? And we still stood for freedom then, though not all of our foreign policy was directed at spreading it.

This is a fairly weak point on your part. Check out the "Has She Gone Too Far" thread in the opinions forum for a discussion of freedom where it does NOT suit our needs.

I'm leery of any action this country takes in that region... especially Iran. We have no business there. We need to stop playing chess, and start doing diplomacy.

We're doing diplomacy right now. Every time we respond or do not respond to Iran, or issue statements about things going on over there - all of it is part of diplomacy, and we're not alone. France for example is participating by explaining to Iran that no matter what they do, no force will be used against them via the UN. That's very productive because it ensures that Iran can do anything they want without penalty.

You've got me all wrong! I don't believe that "to be weak is noble, and to be strong evil"... No, sir.

I just have a problem with the powerful taking advantage of the powerless... nothing more.

In a country like the US, where individuals have rights, no individual has more power than any other. That's the exact function of rights.


By the way, thanks to ///M (+rep for you - hey, did I see a quality posts badge appear?) and Famine for bringing a little light to this thread.

 

[Carl.]

France for example is participating by explaining to Iran that no matter what they do, no force will be used against them via the UN. That's very productive because it ensures that Iran can do anything they want without penalty.

Here we are again, beating our favorite dead horse. I'm sure it'll become a national sport one day or another. France is basically saying the same thing as the US right now. Please show me where anyone in France said that Iran shouldn't face any penalties, because I've missed it.

What is beyond me is that you're still complaining about France while the real issue here, especially if it comes to a military conflict, is the current stance of China and Russia. They don't even acknowledge that Iran poses a threat, at the moment, and are hostile to resolutions for sanctions against Iran.

For the record, I think this ultimately will lead to military actions anyways, which is to me much more justified than going to Iraq ever was back in 2003, but at the same time it could have considerably worse repercussions, from tensions with China and Russia, and further widening the schism between the western world and the Islamic world, making future terrorist actions even more likely. In any cases, the only way I see it at the moment is as a lose-lose situation.

Frankly, I wouldn't like to live in either Iran, Tel-Aviv, New York or Washington right now.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/04/iran.villepin.ap/index.html

 

[Carl.]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/04/iran.villepin.ap/index.html

I've already read that, but it doesn't say they don't want Iran to face any consequences, that's what China and Russia want, not France.

While I disagree with his assertion that Force won't be necessary (I already stated that I think it's more than likely to come to - justified - military actions), what you said though is quite a stretch, and I don't see the point of bashing France when the real issue within the UN is with China and Russia in that case.

 

[Danoff]

I've already read that, but it doesn't say they don't want Iran to face any consequences, that's what China and Russia want, not France.

While I disagree with his assertion that Force won't be necessary (I already stated that I think it's more than likely to come to - justified - military actions), what you said though is quite a stretch, and I don't see the point of bashing France when the real issue within the UN is with China and Russia in that case.

It was just an example of the kind of thing that is counterproductive in diplomacy with Iran. Taking force off the table (whether it be France, China, or Russia) is the same as assuring that no diplomacy will be effective.

 

[Keef]

Whoever says Iran wouldn't be penalized for any of its actions needs to think that over a little. Diplomacy never works unless there is a reason for it to work, namely punishment if the advice is not taken. I wish we knew what Iran would do if everyone did stop pestering them about quiting their nuclear programs. Maybe they're just trying to scare the world into chaos. Or maybe they really are insane.

EDIT: That Grounf Zero Ocean picture is neat. Too bad they missed Somalia--I still have a beef with those bastards.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

I like the picture of 'ground zero ocean' . I dont think Iran has nuclear weapons,. theyre probably just saying that to scare us or to make everyone think they have power. Wait... Im confused agin.... Can someone come back to the Israel thread? At least there I kinda know what Im talking about...

 

[Kylehnat]

Or maybe they really are insane.

They've given absolutely no indication that they aren't.

 

[McLaren]

Exactly Rogue.

Because Assuming makes an ass of "u" and me.







Sorry, just trying to add some humor to this debate.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Yeah Im out; bye. Maybe Ill come back later when I understand what the hell were talking about.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

The Iranian view
Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary to keep its 'booming' population and 'rapidly industrialising' nation.(theyre booming and industrializing, are they?) They use in their defense the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's environment drastically. Iran also questions why it shouldn't be allowed to have different sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil supplies eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products, not simple electricity generation. Iran also raises financial questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran apparently has a lot of easily accessible uranium ore. As we know, uranium ore is radioactive and can create energy.

Iran does have a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.


The US view
Since 2002, the US has insisted that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil reserves since, it argues, nuclear power is more expensive to generate than oil power.

However, a potential reason behind US resistance lies in Middle Eastern politics. The allpowerful US feels that it must guard against even the slightest possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Nuclear technology is dual-use—i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, but the same technology, it is argued, could also be used to develop nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran in the region would severely change the balance of power away from the West and into Iran's hands. A nuclear Iran could also potentially act as a catalyst for other middle eastern nations to develop weapons of their own for the same reason.

Sounds to me like the US is being a bit of an idiot. So we can have nukes but Iran cant? Why? The way I see it theres really no good reason. Anyway even if they had nukes we could still kill them in one shot with ours. And Iran's right, the oil should be saved. Iran seems quite reasonable here, Im gonna have to side with them. Dunno what the hell we think were doing...

oops I double posted, I meant to edit the last one. Sorry!


Alright I know its Iraq not Iran, but hey, they only differ by one letter found this in the funny pix thread:https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40071&d=1082936924

 

[Kylehnat]

Yeah Im out; bye. Maybe Ill come back later when I understand what the hell were talking about.

Yet, 10 minutes later, you post this:

Sounds to me like the US is being a bit of an idiot. So we can have nukes but Iran cant? Why? The way I see it theres really no good reason. Anyway even if they had nukes we could still kill them in one shot with ours. And Iran's right, the oil should be saved. Iran seems quite reasonable here, Im gonna have to side with them. Dunno what the hell we think were doing...

You really should keep researching, or at least read the entire thread.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

oh sorry its just athat these threads are so @#$* long!!!!

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Speedy,

Seriously, anytime on the response to what I posted. And I'm still looking forward to your research to back up your claims about the evils of the US.

this

Some good info (not all of it evil, I might add)

concerning Cuba

Remember Sudan?

Panama (not the Van Halen version)

I do agree that Noriega was not a good man, but Ollie North and Co. thought so. (make sure to read Ollie's personal notes.) A plan that went awry.

More concerning American support for the Contras and the illegal harbour mining A Noble Prize winner's view of this episode (I thought it was a good read anyway.)

Suharto

Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire was a truly terrible man, but not according to this guy. But maybe he had a little help.

The hot topic of Iran.



The U.S.'s veto record in the UN. Also, this. You are right, the UN is impotent!

 

[TurboSmoke]

Then why is the US not currently bankrupt? (keep in mind that you must distinguish your response to suggest that the US was not bankrupt prior to the war with Iraq)

try asking the treasury, thier reports are contrary to yours.

That's not a response. I asked a simple question, perhaps you'd like to actually attempt a conversation here rather than brushing me off as some sort of moron.

you are not a moron and and an not trying to suggest that you (or anyone else) is.

We shall see if the UN does it job this time. It didn't last time. We gave it every opportunity last time, and the UN proved itself incapable of action.

the UN held thorough investigations and found NOTHING incriminating...lemme repeat that, NOTHING..

what action did you expect the UN to do in such a situation...?

to make this easier to answer, the US also found nothing in Iraq that proved they had WMDs immediately prior to the invasion...

so, what action were the UN supposed to take? They submitted thier report. The US decided the report was false and went to war, The US found out later that the reports were actually true.

That wasn't the 'excuse' last time, and it isn't an 'excuse' this time. I'm starting to think you're completely ignorant of all things foreign policy.

diplomacy is the answer here...

I'm guessing (just a wild stab) that you're referring to the US and Iraq. [snip]...[/spin]

err, no..
i am talking about that other country that was devastated, namely Afghanistan. remember them?

As for the "devestation" in Iraq. Saddam killed more Iraqis than we have. I'd say they're quite a bit better off without him. Not to mention the whole "freedom" and "democracy" thing.

okay, the whole freedom and democracy thing might be what they are reporting on faux news but the reality is a country torn apart by civil war, increased agression against the occupying forces, another city totally out of control (Basra) and no sign of it abating...

no, freedom and democracy cannot be forced upon those who do not wish it.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Hey, don't call Americans arrogant.

i am not calling anyone arrogant.
it seems largely an American pass time to bash Chomsky.

my bad, sorry. Anyone would benefit from from reading him.

 

[TurboSmoke]

You try protecting every inch of a 3,000 mile border to the north, a 1,500 mile border to the south, and 4,500 miles of coastline. Not so easy, now is it? Even so, we've caught numerous terrorists at our borders and other points of entry.

no, its not easy. Thats exactly my point. When the US invades countries to 'protect its borders' as Bush puts it, something is very wrong when terrorist are passing through your border controls with full documentaion.

 

[TurboSmoke]

It is impossible to to discuss American foreign policy (the most agressive foreign policy of all countries) without being labelled an American basher.

Many Americans wish to be distinguished from the American Administration and its policies for fear of being branded with the same brush. This also is impossible as long as Americans continually blur the distinction. This is deliberate and is designed to hide that fact that Bush's current approval rating and support for Iraq is 33% among the people of this great country.

You should have a banner on your bumper...

"Love America. Love our Government."

Why is a critique of US foreign policy "bashing"?

 

[ledhed]

i am not calling anyone arrogant.
it seems largely an American pass time to bash Chomsky.

my bad, sorry. Anyone would benefit from from reading him.

Because chomski is a far left moronic dolt that allways twist facts to fit his own veiw and then passes it along to his blind followers who beg to be affirmed ?

The only benifit I got from reading all his crap was I found out how twisted some could take logic and facts to fit their world view .

Other than that Chomski's God .

 

[Swift]

It is impossible to to discuss American foreign policy (the most agressive foreign policy of all countries) without being labelled an American basher.

Many Americans wish to be distinguished from the American Administration and its policies for fear of being branded with the same brush. This also is impossible as long as Americans continually blur the distinction. This is deliberate and is designed to hide that fact that Bush's current approval rating and support for Iraq is 33% among the people of this great country.

You should have a banner on your bumper...

"Love America. Love our Government."

Turbosmoke, you're half right.

I would say that in my case, I don't like it when people "critique" America like their nation has a perfectly clean record. Like Speedy Samurai was doing earlier. Now, though he said he didn't mean it(and I believe him) he's remarks sounded very condesending.

Also, why is it you put the quote below your response? Sometimes that's very confusing.

 

[TurboSmoke]

which part of my post is half right and which half wrong?

i dont pretend our govt has a clean record, we are in bed with America so to speak...I want Blair out and to stand accountable for Iraq also..

yes the quotes are sometimes above or sometimes below my responses, its pretty much random and i agree, confusing...

Turbosmoke, you're half right.

I would say that in my case, I don't like it when people "critique" America like their nation has a perfectly clean record. Like Speedy Samurai was doing earlier. Now, though he said he didn't mean it(and I believe him) he's remarks sounded very condesending.

Also, why is it you put the quote below your response? Sometimes that's very confusing.

also, just to point out something, when i said that the blurring was deliberate, i meant that these approval ratings are published on the internet. i.e. in the public domain so worldwide parties are privy to the information that 66% of Americans are not in favour of the occupation of Iraq. Iraqis know this and Iranians know this. It looks bad, very bad...hence the attempt at a cover up...deliberate.