bob
03-08-2006, 08:09 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_36;_ylt=AsxWLhZ3Wzlev3CMeO9vGl ZSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
So . . . .

Bassplayer
03-08-2006, 08:39 AM
we need to start worrying about Iran. I don't trust them at all. We need to take care of them and take their nuclear materials. They're either going to nuke the U.S. or the Jews. if we don't take them out soon, we'll have another big problem on our hands. but it doesn't help that Russia keeps giving materials to Iran. I don't trust the Russian president either.

alorian
03-08-2006, 02:10 PM
I've been following this story for a few weeks.. I'm interested how it'll end up

unshakeable15
03-08-2006, 10:32 PM
Honestly, i don't trust the Iranian government either, but you also have to see things from the Persian (and Middle Eastern) perspective (fyi, Persia = Iran).

The statement they released said "The United States has the power to cause harm and pain...[but] the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

My professor asked a class of 200 students and no one came up with a good answer (or one at all). Maybe because it was intimidating, but i think partly because there isn't a good one. He asked "Why can't Iran, or any other country that doesn't currentl have them, not get nuclear arms when the United States and Britain and the other world powers have them?"

i think this is the perspective of the statement. The Persians see the United States as a bit of a bully in the Middle East (we can't seem to keep our hands out of the "cookie jar" and let things be), so in order to protect themselves, while putting themselves on the same height, concerning firepower, as ourselves, they work towards nuclear firepower.

That's their perspective. What's ours? Why are we so worried whenever we hear of other countries that have nuclear weapons? Russia, France and India all have them (and not all of them are exactly chummy with us).

amodman
03-08-2006, 10:46 PM
That's their perspective. What's ours? Why are we so worried whenever we hear of other countries that have nuclear weapons? Russia, France and India all have them (and not all of them are exactly chummy with us).

Chummier than Iran...but really, Russia and France are sort of a part of the whole "Ye Olde Gentleman's Club," of European/Eurpoean descended powers that were first to attain the power of nuclear arms and the only ones who wanna be able to keep them. Ultimately, we should be aiming for a destruction of all nucelar arms in the world, as they are a bane more than a boon in any case, but we know THAT's not gonna happen...

bob
03-09-2006, 06:37 PM
Yeah, but we can't be assured that Iran won't use the nukes on someone, they have an extremely conservative governement which is different none the least.

disciple
03-09-2006, 06:47 PM
I've been following this story for a few weeks.. I'm interested how it'll end up
*as America is wiped off the face of the planet*


I heard some months back that military action may in fact be taken there if it keeps escalating as it has. I don't remember who said it, and no, I don't have the link because my computer crashed a couple months back and I lost all my links.

unshakeable15
03-10-2006, 04:03 PM
Yeah, but we can't be assured that Iran won't use the nukes on someone, they have an extremely conservative governement which is different none the least.
According to this argument, conservative governments are more likely to use nuclear weapons.

How so?

(They are "conservative" because the are an Islamic country. Muslims see the Quran as the epitome of wisdom and since they believe God (Allah) should pervade all facets of life, they mold their governments around the constructs of Islamic law. Islam, as we know, is by no means a liberal religion.)

bob
03-10-2006, 05:07 PM
How so?


They're reactionary. Far right side of the political spectrum, to put it into perspective, facism is reactionary, the Nazis were facists. The end.

unshakeable15
03-13-2006, 09:27 PM
At the same time, i think that a lot of countries have Nukes that i wouldn't trust to have them.

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons), both India and Pakistan (two countries that have been at war with each other on and off for the past 50+ years. Neither of them has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and with them constantly at each others' throats over Kashmir, i doubt it's a good idea for them to have nukes in their arsenal. And yet, it's Iran we're worried about.

bob
03-14-2006, 04:00 PM
If Iran does get a Nuclear reactor, Isreal will probably bomb it, just like in Iraq . . . I just hope France doesn't give Iran nuclear technology just like with Iraq.

amodman
03-14-2006, 04:10 PM
At the same time, i think that a lot of countries have Nukes that i wouldn't trust to have them.

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons), both India and Pakistan (two countries that have been at war with each other on and off for the past 50+ years. Neither of them has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and with them constantly at each others' throats over Kashmir, i doubt it's a good idea for them to have nukes in their arsenal. And yet, it's Iran we're worried about.

They're not our problem ;). Seriously, can you really expect the American Government/media to be concentrating it's energies on a crisis so far removed from us, especially when we're currently involved with (some of) the muslims?

unshakeable15
03-15-2006, 10:09 PM
The reason i brought it up is to contrast our current attention on Iran with our non-existent attention on those two countries that have a known grudge against one another that they have previously acted upon at various times, far different from a nation that isn't on our friendly list and hasn't attacked anyone (outright; terrorists are their own entity and should not be brought into the discussion). The last war they were actively involved in was with Iraq, which Iraq started.

And with how much tech support we have over in India, i think it is our problem. Do you want to have your computer crash the same day India is nuked by Pakistan? ;)

asparagus
03-16-2006, 07:00 AM
They're not our problem ;). Seriously, can you really expect the American Government/media to be concentrating it's energies on a crisis so far removed from us, especially when we're currently involved with (some of) the muslims?A billion and a half people engaged in nuclear war and you say, "that's not our problem?"

Hmmm...I think the Bush administration would strongly disagree with you considering Bush's recent visit to both of those countries.

theelectric3
03-16-2006, 12:00 PM
the whole thing with nuclear weapons is tough. because in order for every nation to destroy their weapons and disarm, we'd have to completely trust each other. and that's not going to happen.

i know i don't trust many countries with them (ie. iran, north korea, china...). so i would feel totally uncomfortable if the U.S. were to disarm. it would be completely foolish.

i agree with alex, it is our problem. we should be concerned for those who are in danger...

amodman
03-16-2006, 12:07 PM
A billion and a half people engaged in nuclear war and you say, "that's not our problem?"

Hmmm...I think the Bush administration would strongly disagree with you considering Bush's recent visit to both of those countries.

The world's a big place, bud. The American public only has so much of an attention span. India and Pakistan aren't big enough of issues to us yet for the majority to really take notice.

bob
03-17-2006, 07:55 PM
Right, India and Pakistan have been at each other's throats for more than 25 years, no one has been nuked yet . . . big deal . . .

skilltroks
03-18-2006, 08:03 AM
We definately should think this is our problem. One day something might happen, and someone might nuke us. The public should be concerned a little.

bob
03-18-2006, 09:12 AM
But more or less 'the public' cares more about Jessica Simpson than they do India-Pakistan or Iran . . .

theelectric3
03-18-2006, 12:06 PM
which is the problem, i think. why do we have to wait until we're in danger to suddenly care (even though we technically are... iran doesn't like america either)? and then get made at everyone in leadership for "doing nothing"... when really we (the public) wanted nothing to do with it...and could have cared less.

in america, we tend to live in a fantasy bubble... seperated from the rest of the world. and get shocked to discover our fantasies aren't as nice to us we think...

sorry... *gets off soapbox*

Jesus_Skater
03-20-2006, 05:22 AM
which is the problem, i think. why do we have to wait until we're in danger to suddenly care (even though we technically are... iran doesn't like america either)? and then get made at everyone in leadership for "doing nothing"... when really we (the public) wanted nothing to do with it...and could have cared less.

in america, we tend to live in a fantasy bubble... seperated from the rest of the world. and get shocked to discover our fantasies aren't as nice to us we think...

sorry... *gets off soapbox*
he is right a bout a lot of things... if you really think about it we are kinda stuck in our own little fantasy bubble while the rest of the world goes on suffering and disputing through hardships

bob
03-20-2006, 03:55 PM
he is right a bout a lot of things... if you really think about it we are kinda stuck in our own little fantasy bubble while the rest of the world goes on suffering and disputing through hardships

Well, Tracy is a she by the way. ;)To add on to what you were saying, people really like living in their little bubble. It makes the world seem a lot smaller and less troublesome and I guess they like living like that. But for others, they like being informed. Really, it's all personal preference, but I do think that the government should be aware of everything. The United States is a government of 'the people' but the country was founded on ways to avoid people's opinions if it was actually bad, especially in the area of elections. So . . .

somasoul
03-20-2006, 04:05 PM
I don't think pre-emptive strikes against nuclear capable countries is the answer. In fact, I'm not worried about countries having these weapons at all. What I am concerned about are persons and terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons. Countries will not attack other nuclear capable countries with nuclear arms. The thing is foolish. But suicidal maniacs weilding such power is terrifying. If there is any one reason to not allow Iran nuclear weapons it is because their populace is a breeding ground for such people. The access to nuclear weapons and the sympathy for terrorism in that land is too great. I can imagine nuclear scientists handing the bombs to those radicals.

That is my fear.

bob
03-20-2006, 06:51 PM
Countries will not attack other nuclear capable countries with nuclear arms. The thing is foolish. But suicidal maniacs weilding such power is terrifying.

Russia a couple of years ago discovered it was missing 5 nuclear bombs and what did it do? It shrugged.

somasoul
03-20-2006, 06:57 PM
Russia a couple of years ago discovered it was missing 5 nuclear bombs and what did it do? It shrugged.

I doubt it shrugged. But I think they figured some of 'em were gonna go missing.

If anyone has ever worked retail they know what shrink is........stuff just disappears off the shelf. Who knows where it went? Stolen? Thrown away? Never received?

Our government has thousands of these things sitting in warehouses. If one or two of them nukes goes missing from inventory did it ever really exist? A computer glitch? Stolen? Dismantled and paperwork not filed?

Tough to say.

theelectric3
03-21-2006, 12:24 PM
Well, Tracy is a she by the way. ;)To add on to what you were saying, people really like living in their little bubble. It makes the world seem a lot smaller and less troublesome and I guess they like living like that. But for others, they like being informed. Really, it's all personal preference, but I do think that the government should be aware of everything. The United States is a government of 'the people' but the country was founded on ways to avoid people's opinions if it was actually bad, especially in the area of elections. So . . .

heh, thanks bob. :P

it is a shame that some people shrug off national security... chosing to not even think on it.

good point somasoul... the biggest fear being that the wrong hands get on the weapons... who will use them, or threaten to use them, for their own agenda.

riz
03-21-2006, 01:09 PM
The problem with taking action on Iran at the present time (or the majority of other nuclear-toting 'extremist' countries) is that we're still knee-deep in the war in Iraq. Today, Bush said that troops will not be pulling out of there any time soon, not until 2008 when another president steps onto the pedestal. I don't fancy trying to fight multiple battles at the same time; this is a very tricky and volatile situation.

bob
03-21-2006, 02:16 PM
this is a very tricky and volatile situation.

Thus is the Middle East.

unshakeable15
03-21-2006, 07:47 PM
Very true. Getting into another war would be probably the worst thing we could possibly do.

But diplomatically, we can do a lot. If enough of the American public get behind it, the people in office have to listen and will work harder at getting other countries to help as well.

Unfortunately, like a lot of people said, Americans care more about which is better, Pepsi or Coke? than they do about even countries as close as Canada and Mexico (i don't even know the names of their presidents, and they are our neighbors!)

bob
03-22-2006, 07:00 PM
Americans care more about which is better, Pepsi or Coke?
The answer is coke by the way. That's the way the modern American is. They don't give a rip about the outside world, until the outside world is directly affecting them.

cloroxmartini
03-23-2006, 08:25 AM
If Iran did have nuclear weapons, I have a feeling they'd go after Isreal first. That would be the end of the world though.

bob
03-24-2006, 02:07 PM
I don't think Israel will allow Iran to do that. Heck, they didn't allow Iraq to have reactors . . .

somasoul
03-27-2006, 04:54 AM
Someone mentioned that America can't fight two wars at once. I disagree, they apparently can't fight one war at once.

The problem with the current situation in Iraq is that America is unwilling to really get their hands dirty. They want a clean war, a careful war, a nice looking war. Real wars, wars that are winnable, involve killing lots of civilans, firebombing towns, cutting off water and food supplies. Winnable wars are hell, and typically the hellraising side wins out in the end. America is unwilling to create such a bloody mess in Iraq but their enemies are. Thus it gives their enemies a significant advantage.

In the end this war in Iraq will boil down to two things:

1) How much mess are we willing to make?
2) Which side is willing to continue dying over the long haul?

I think both those questions are in favor of our enemies.

timmyrotter
04-17-2006, 01:36 PM
i agree with you Tim. America needs to get dirty in the war, blow the heck out of the hostiles! its the left wing human rights that ruin this for us...

they said on the news that it would be a good 5-10 years before Iran would be capable of making a Nuclear bomb, so we still have time.

and about Isreal i would be more concearned aobut another 9/11 more than them. Isreal arent a bunch of pansies who dont want to get dirty, they will defend thier country, they have the best defence in the world! they wont hesitate to retaliate, and they will bomb the crap out of Iran. but my concerns is the US or UK, i think they will go there first, easier targets, plus we are the ones defending Isreal.

cloroxmartini
04-18-2006, 08:34 PM
Then as you said, bomb them into oblivion!

Send them back to the stone age.

riz
04-19-2006, 12:32 PM
Yeah, because using nuclear weapons against another nation is definitely the safe way to go about things.

cloroxmartini
04-19-2006, 01:36 PM
You better believe it buddy.

zeroneff
04-19-2006, 01:55 PM
If Iran did have nuclear weapons, I have a feeling they'd go after Isreal first. That would be the end of the world though.agreed.............

bob
04-01-2007, 12:59 PM
So now Iran has 15 British hostages. What's your take on this? I believe this is going to lead to some conflict. Hopefully it will be handled better than the previous Iranian hostage conflict back in 1979.

bob
04-04-2007, 05:17 AM
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has pardoned and will free the 15 British sailors and marines detained in the Gulf last month.

Rest of article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain;_ylt=AkOwzpSjwZdlyRt8HnnYwCOs0NUE)

Well that solves that conflict. Now focus can shift back to Iran's nuclear program . . .

V-Ball Queen 32
04-04-2007, 06:07 AM
If we start nuking and killing each other, do you really think that will accomplish any more than killing more people, giving everyone have more reason to hate each other, and just be an excuse for all hell to break lose? Granted, we need some action, but we also need to think about what's best for everyone, including those who will be stuck in the middle of it all unwillingly.