Iranian Nuclear Program and the U.S.

[Judge Hades]

The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology but is it fair? Should not the US lead by example and get rid of its own nuclear weaponry? How can the current administration tell another country to disarm when we ourselves have enough weaponry to wipe out any other country on the planet with a push of a buton?

 

In my view Iran has as much right to nuclear weaponry as the U.S. and if the Bush administration wants to disarm other nuclear or would be nuclear powers he needss to lead by example and not by he sword.

[Arkan]

The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology but is it fair?  Should not the US lead by example and get rid of its own nuclear weaponry?  How can the current administration tell another country to disarm when we ourselves have enough weaponry to wipe out any other country on the planet with a push of a buton?

 

In my view Iran has as much right to nuclear weaponry as the U.S. and if the Bush administration wants to disarm other nuclear or would be nuclear powers he needss to lead by example and not by he sword.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Because the BA is batty.

 

True nuclear capability is the only true deterent to a US invasion, so I can definately see the reason they want one.

[metadigital]

Because that'll work.

 

US: Look, Iran, we'll put all our nuclear weapons beyond use.

Iran: Go on, then.

US: See, all done. Now please stop making enriched uranium for weapons.

Iran: Make me.

 

[Arkan]

Because that'll work.

 

US: Look, Iran, we'll put all our nuclear weapons beyond use.

Iran: Go on, then.

US: See, all done. Now please stop making enriched uranium for weapons.

Iran: Make me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We have them now...but they still aren't stopping...I wonder why? "

[Volourn]

"Because the BA is batty."

 

Weird. Why blame the BA for this? You think they're the only US administration, or heck world gov't who opposes Iran's push for nuclear weaponry? They aren't. And, there are many reasons why countries - including most of Europe - oppose Iran's push for nuclear weapons.

 

To try to lay the blame on the BA alone over this issue is shortsighted.

 

I sure as heck rather not see a country whose montra is 'wipe out Isreal' and 'the holocaust didn't happen' have nuclear weapons.... WOWSERS!

[Lucius]

LOLOLOLLIPOP!

[metadigital]

Because that'll work.

 

US: Look, Iran, we'll put all our nuclear weapons beyond use.

Iran: Go on, then.

US: See, all done. Now please stop making enriched uranium for weapons.

Iran: Make me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We have them now...but they still aren't stopping...I wonder why? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, let's wipe them out! Dubya? Let's have a nuclear crusade!

[Arkan]

"Because the BA is batty."

 

Weird. Why blame the BA for this? You think they're the only US administration, or heck world gov't who opposes Iran's push for nuclear weaponry? They aren't. And, there are many reasons why countries - including most of Europe - oppose Iran's push for nuclear weapons.

 

To try to lay the blame on the BA alone over this issue is shortsighted.

 

I sure as heck rather not see a country whose montra is 'wipe out Isreal' and 'the holocaust didn't happen' have nuclear weapons.... WOWSERS!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm sorry. I thought the topic was about the US and Iran...not the rest of the world. Silly me.

[Volourn]

The Iran Nuclear Issue, and the US reaction to it does not exist in a vaccuum nor is it a new one. Ignoring the rest of the world's part in the drama paints only part of the picture which means any point one makes is not useful.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Volourn

[Arkan]

The Iran Nuclear Issue, and the US reaction to it does not exist in a vaccuum nor is it a new one. Ignoring the rest of the world's part in the drama paints only part of the picture  which means any point one makes is not useful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep. But not the point of this thread.

[Cantousent]

"The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology... [emphasis added]"

 

Seems that the originating post had a broader definition than yours, Arkan.

 

first of all, threads are funny things. They tend to evolve and mutate over time. With all of the spam thrown into threads, I don't see why you would concern yourself with keeping to the original point in this particular thread. It seems a bit unfair to cite the original point in this thread when I've seen you, Arkan, when I have seen you break from the original point in other threads.

 

Second of all, saying that we have nuclear weapons and therefore we should be happy to see Iran have nuclear weapons doesn't make sense from any angle. If you hate nukes, you want ours dimished or destroyed. You don't want another nation to have them. The entire premise of this thread is flawed.

 

Finally, the real point behind this thread, rather than question whether or not Iran should have nukes, is to attack the United States.

 

...Well, the real point is to trawl, but we might turn this into a legitmate discuss despite the nature of the original post.

[deganawida]

The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology but is it fair?  Should not the US lead by example and get rid of its own nuclear weaponry?  How can the current administration tell another country to disarm when we ourselves have enough weaponry to wipe out any other country on the planet with a push of a buton?

 

In my view Iran has as much right to nuclear weaponry as the U.S. and if the Bush administration wants to disarm other nuclear or would be nuclear powers he needss to lead by example and not by he sword.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess you've forgotten the START agreements, eh?

[alanschu]

Your (Eldar's) avatar needs to exact some Urban Justice.

Edited August 23, 2006 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

The premise of the thread is what right does the US have to tell other countries, such as Iran, to stop producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear technologies if we ouselves will not disarm and stop the same. I am not just criticizing the Bush Administration for our nuclear program has gone far longer than Bush have been in office obviously.

 

The point I am trying to make tha if the US and other countries, such as Europeans, want the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technologies stopped or limited in countries such as Iran and North Korea then we need to lead by example. This shouldn't be a "do as we say not as we do" thing.

 

I would love to see all nations get rid of their nuclear weaponry but as long one nation has them then other nations will seek to have them in order to "protect" themselves through "assured mutual destruction" defense.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology but is it fair?  Should not the US lead by example and get rid of its own nuclear weaponry?  How can the current administration tell another country to disarm when we ourselves have enough weaponry to wipe out any other country on the planet with a push of a buton?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US and the other four 'official' nuclear powers should reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons - I think the US did already, up to a point, when the cold war ended. I don't think they should disarm completely, at least not in the short term, because I think the world needs some stability rather than radical gestures. Total nuclear disarmament is still a worthwhile long-term goal, though.

 

The US can't invade and occupy Iran. It's not strong enough, in all kinds of ways. A strategic military strike on nuclear facilities might work, but might not, and in any case could stir up more trouble and instability that the world doesn't need.

 

The best option is to convince Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. For that, the whole world needs to agree and tell the Iranians the same thing, and to get that kind of coalition together, the US needs moral authority, which it can get in four easy steps:

 

1. Partial nuclear disarmament by the US and other nuclear powers. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires that the nuclear powers work towards their own disarmament. The nuclear powers can't insist that Iran follow the rules by not developing nuclear weapons unless they too will follow the same rules they signed up to.

 

2. Stop developing new nuclear weapons, these so-called 'bunker busters'. See above.

 

3. Work for a nuclear-free Middle East, not just a nuclear-free Iran. Iran is much more likely to abandon its nuclear programme as part of a deal in which the Israelis also get rid of their nuclear weapons. The Egyptians and others, too, of course (allegedly).

 

4. Elect a new US President. It will happen in a few years anyway, but the US has to accept that George Bush is now a hate figure in much of the world, and no meaningful deals are going to be done on his watch. His successor, whether Republican or Democrat, will have a better chance.

[Arkan]

"The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology...  [emphasis added]"

 

Seems that the originating post had a broader definition than yours, Arkan.

 

first of all, threads are funny things.  They tend to evolve and mutate over time.  With all of the spam thrown into threads, I don't see why you would concern yourself with keeping to the original point in this particular thread.  It seems a bit unfair to cite the original point in this thread when I've seen you, Arkan, when I have seen you break from the original point in other threads.

 

Well, I was the first person to respond, and, as I live in the US, I gave my US perspective. But whatever.

 

Second of all, saying that we have nuclear weapons and therefore we should be happy to see Iran have nuclear weapons doesn't make sense from any angle.  If you hate nukes, you want ours dimished or destroyed.  You don't want another nation to have them.  The entire premise of this thread is flawed.

 

Did I ever say I'd be happy to see them have nukes? I said I can see why they want them..

 

Finally, the real point behind this thread, rather than question whether or not Iran should have nukes, is to attack the United States.

 

With nukes?

[Cantousent]

Finally, the real point behind this thread, rather than question whether or not Iran should have nukes, is to attack the United States.

 

With nukes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your a witty guy, Arkan. Tell me if that's what you think I meant.

 

As for the original idea, what is your position, then? I mean, you don't want Iran to have nukes but you can see why they want them. You support the effort to deny nukes to Iran? You think Iran should have equal access to nuclear weapons? What's your point, because mostly I just see the usual, ineffective griping about the president. That's all well and good, but you should really come up with a constructive statement in regards to what the proper course of action should be. For example, should we increase our efforts to disarm? Should we seek concensus from the United Nation and, even more important, our allies? How will we handle an Isreali military operation such as the one that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program?

 

See, flippant come-backs and the typical snide comments simply don't do much to further the discussion. However, you do have the right to ask silly questions. I might even answer them.

[Hurlshort]

The US isn't going to just give up its position as a superpower, and having a buttload of nukes is the literal definition of superpower. You see, people hate the US. Sure, the major reason that people hate the US is because they are a superpower. The problem is, if the US decides to stop acting like a superpower and start being superfriendly, they still might leave themselves open for an attack. It's just unrealistic. Oh, and Iran is a religious state. History has shown how violent it can be to have powerful religious states. Most modern countries got that way because they separated church and state. Iran is dangerous, and much more prone to zealotry than the US or even China.

[Azarkon]

I guess we should count our blessings then now that religious fundamentalism is making a comeback in the US

[alanschu]

It's a pipe dream to expect the US to disarm their nukes first.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It's a pipe dream to expect the US to disarm their nukes first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US could reduce the number of nuclear weapons it has and abandon development of new kinds of nuclear weapon, and still keep enough to destroy the world, if that makes it feel safe or happy, and I'm not sure why it would do either.

Edited August 23, 2006 by SteveThaiBinh

[Arkan]

Finally, the real point behind this thread, rather than question whether or not Iran should have nukes, is to attack the United States.

 

With nukes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your a witty guy, Arkan. Tell me if that's what you think I meant.

 

 

Why so quick to offence? Was it because I didn't use a friendly heart-felt smiley? It was a joke, considering the topic at hand. That is all.

 

As for the original idea, what is your position, then?  I mean, you don't want Iran to have nukes but you can see why they want them.  You support the effort to deny nukes to Iran?  You think Iran should have equal access to nuclear weapons?  What's your point, because mostly I just see the usual, ineffective griping about the president.  That's all well and good, but you should really come up with a constructive statement in regards to what the proper course of action should be.  For example, should we increase our efforts to disarm?  Should we seek concensus from the United Nation and, even more important, our allies?  How will we handle an Isreali military operation such as the one that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program?

 

My position? Do I want Iran to have nukes? Not necessarily, but do I think they should be denied nuclear technology because of what they may do with them? Not at all. Guilty before any crime is committed? How do we know that their ultimate goal isn't to obtain nuclear energy for their poplulation, just as they say?

 

I also believe they should be discouraged. If they can be talked out of it through diplomacy (and not bribery or strong-arm tactics), then grand. All is well. The world is safe . If talks fail, then they do indeed have every right to do what they want with the resources under their soil, as we do ours. But let them know how any act of aggression on the US or it's allies (which brings in Israel, but that's a whole 'nother can o' woims) will be met.

 

The more we, the US, the "righteous protectors of the word" try to keep other countries down or to keep them from developing as we have, the more said countries will be likely to retaliate.

 

Would Iran use nukes if they had them? Maybe, maybe not. The future is not certain. And risking more US lives on assumptions and falsehood is NOT acceptable...under ANY circumstances.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Arkan

[Cantousent]

I'm not offended. I'm actually glad to hear your opinion on the matter. So happy, in fact, I'm willing to leave it at that. I'll even use a smiley. :Cant's slapping Arkan on the back and offering his the beverage of his choice icon:

[Dark_Raven]

nothing here move along

Edited August 23, 2006 by Dark_Raven

[Arkan]

:Cant's slapping Arkan on the back and offering his the beverage of his choice icon:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your smiley isn't showing up.