PDA

View Full Version : Should Iran Be Allowed to Develop the Bomb?



Slå ring om Norge
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:22 AM
.













Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear arms?
It should also be interesting to hear the reasons for your opinion.


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=54920&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1143356490

Slå ring om Norge
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:29 AM
.

I voted yes.

I think that may balance the martial hegemony that Israel are building up in the region.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:38 AM
I voted no. The fewer non-European peoples possess such technology, the better. This goes particularly for dar al Islam.

Jäger
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:42 AM
.

I voted yes.

I think that may balance the martial hegemony that Israel are building up in the region.


Second that.
Futhermore, I can't see why not? It's a souveraign state. If other states think Iran is not, they shouldn't recognize it.
Other than Iraq the Iran is quite homogenous, sadly they dropped their persian heritage and adobted an arabian muslim one.

Slå ring om Norge
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:46 AM
.

I voted no. The fewer non-European peoples possess such technology, the better. This goes particularly for dar al Islam.



I understand that...

But,
I am sure it would be used locally in the region, saving us from much dirty work, and katalyzing a neutralization of the martial ressources of the region for long times...

http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=54920&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1143356490

a. b.
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 12:14 PM
Personally, I don't see why anyone should be 'allowed' to possess atomic bombs. I don't see any proper use of such a device. Not for the USA, Iran or any other country.
The (potential) use of A bombs is symptomatic of the conflicts in the world today - talking heads pressing buttons. These decisions are made distant from the people(s) that will be affected by them, and, in most cases, for causes that aren't in their interest.

Weg
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 12:20 PM
I voted Yes. The Bomb is anyways a preventive weapon that no State with the Nuclear Power will ever use it against another one (they know very well they would receive their own bomb and would have their own country destroyed if they launched it).

Why Iran could not have the Bomb? Muslim Paskistan has the Bomb. China has the bomb. Israël has the bomb. And nobody finds anything to say... I think it is a good thing, it would endanger one of their worst neighbour ennemy.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 04:30 PM
I am sure it would be used locally in the region, saving us from much dirty work, and katalyzing a neutralization of the martial ressources of the region for long times...

Not so much neutralization as consolidation. The Middle East is of geopolitical importance (at least as long we are very much dependent on oil) and it is therefore not to our advantage that it would stabilise under political Islam.


Muslim Paskistan has the Bomb. China has the bomb. Israël has the bomb.

I'm not happy with that either.


I think it is a good thing, it would endanger one of their worst neighbour ennemy.

It won't just endanger Israel. It's likely their range will extend to European soil, if not now then within the foreseeable future. Some may say Iran has no reason to attack Europe, but why take the risk that might change in the future when it could be stopped in its tracks?

OdinThor
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 04:42 PM
I trust Iran more than Israel. The Israelis themselves are saying, that if there will be a war, they will attack europe with atomic bombs.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/02/52318.html

And I cant see how anyone should be able to prevent Iran from getting such a weapon, anyhow.

nicholas
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 04:44 PM
First, I am not sure because I question their restraint in using it.

Secondly, they have every right to. Who does the american govt think it is to dictate to sovereign nations. If you ask me its a matter of israel bullying others with American forces. Why has the american gov't become israels bitch?

nicholas
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 04:46 PM
I trust Iran more than Israel. The Israelis themselves are saying, that if there will be a war, they will attack europe with atomic bombs.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/02/52318.html

.

WOW!:-O This is the first I've heard of this. Why is it that fanatical jews are tolerated and fanatical "anyone else" gets bashed by the media?

RusViking
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 04:49 PM
Absolutely not. Why would I allow my enemy (the government of Iran, not the people necessarily) such a weapon. This goes for any theocracy, but especially the Islamic fundamentalist governments at this point in history.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Secondly, they have every right to.

Rights are not absolute.


Who does the american govt think it is to dictate to sovereign nations.

Sovereign nations are rapidly becoming an anachronism, and absolute sovereignty has probably never existed. To be honest, I'm not all that concerned with the sovereignty of Iran. What matters far more to me are the geopolitical and ethnopolitical interests of Europe and its descendents overseas.


If you ask me its a matter of israel bullying others with American forces. Why has the american gov't become israels bitch?

Rhetorical question, I suppose?

Æmeric
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 06:11 PM
I voted no. I think it is would be particularly dangerous for America. Muslims do not value life as much as Westerners & may be more willing to use the bomb, even if it meant retaliation. Of course it may not make any difference since Pakistan has the bomb & eventually they will have a radical Isalmic government.

Prince Eugen
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 06:22 PM
I'm against nuclear weapons!All nuclear weapons must forbidden!But why we must tolerate from JSA and Israel to develope their own nuclear program?
I vote yes because Iran has a right to protect himself from JudeoAmerican aggressive!
I don't support radical Islam,i don't want mosques or muslims immigrants in Europe but i can't support and the "god's chosen ones"!

RusViking
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 06:32 PM
I'm against nuclear weapons!All nuclear weapons must forbidden!But why we must tolerate from JSA and Israel to develope their own nuclear program?
I vote yes because Iran has a right to protect himself from JudeoAmerican aggressive!
I don't support radical Islam,i don't want mosques or muslims immigrants in Europe but i can't support and the "god's chosen ones"!

I'm a thinkin' the JudeoAmerican thing is a myth.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 06:33 PM
I vote yes because Iran has a right to protect himself from JudeoAmerican aggressive!

To what extent do we want them to? At what price?

Prince Eugen
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 06:50 PM
To what extent do we want them to? At what price?
To protect itself from Israelis and American agression!I'm not a great fan of Islam but i don't support ofcourse and an American invation against Iran!
I don't believe that Iran has the power to attack against Europe but i hope Europe to stay out from that war!It's not our business to bleeding for the american oil companies!

Moody
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 07:09 PM
I voted no because I think that the need not to escalate nuclear weaponry out-weighs other considerations.

This doesn't mean that I support Bush's foreign policy though [one of those 'other' considerations].

I believe that there must be a freeze of nukes and then a concerted de-escalation.

However, there is also the issue of nuclear power itself [as Iran claims to be developing that, and not nuclear weaponry].

Is it possible to 'ban' a power source multi-laterally?

OdinThor
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 08:18 PM
I voted no. I think it is would be particularly dangerous for America. Muslims do not value life as much as Westerners & may be more willing to use the bomb, even if it meant retaliation. Of course it may not make any difference since Pakistan has the bomb & eventually they will have a radical Isalmic government.

Islam outside of Europe isnt an enemy. They are respectable inside their own nations.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I say only if we...the West let them.

The Nuclear bomb could be very dangerous in the hands of a radical Islamic nation like Iran. In other words not conductive to Western interests.

Even if they do not use it they could use a bomb as significant leverage.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:12 PM
Islam outside of Europe isnt an enemy. They are respectable inside their own nations.

Even if every ethnic and religious group had a homeland of its own, there's still a global powerstructure and nuclear weapons offer a lot of leverage. It's not like we'd have political tranquility and stasis once Islam would be removed from Europe. History goes on, and history means struggle.

OdinThor
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:18 PM
Even if every ethnic and religious group had a homeland of its own, there's still a global powerstructure and nuclear weapons offer a lot of leverage. It's not like we'd have political tranquility and stasis once Islam would be removed from Europe. History goes on, and history means struggle.

Iran needs the weapon to defend itself. I dont see a moralic basis to deny an independent nation its right for selfdefense. Europe isnt under threat from Iran because of a nuclear weapon. It has always been a defensive weapon with the exception of WW2.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Islam outside of Europe isnt an enemy. They are respectable inside their own nations.

The problem is Islam is a violent and expansionist in nature. And stands in direct conflict with Western Culture.

There attitudes about women and religious dissent being just a few examples.

OdinThor
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:23 PM
The problem is Islam is a violent and expansionist in nature.

Who is expansionistic and doesnt belong in the middle-east?



And stands in direct conflict with Western Culture. There attitudes about women and religious dissent being just a few examples.

None of our buisness. :)

Northern Paladin
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:36 PM
Who is expansionistic and doesnt belong in the middle-east?



None of our buisness. :)

Aggression is a two way streak. If Iran had the resources I dare say it would be interfering with the policies of the West.

As for the Islamic attitudes about women and religious dissent. I think we should be on guard about these things if we value our freedom.:)

OdinThor
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Aggression is a two way streak. If Iran had the resources I dare say it would be interfering with the policies of the West.

I dont understand what you mean. Right now the only expansionistic aggression in the middle east is jewish/american. You dont think the muslims have a right to defend their home?



As for the Islamic attitudes about women and religious dissent. I think we should be on guard about these things if we value our freedom.:)

We should be on guard in our own nations and throw them out, but we shouldnt interfere in other nations traditions. Our "freedom" isnt seen as desireable to everyone as you might think.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:50 PM
Iran needs the weapon to defend itself. I dont see a moralic basis to deny an independent nation its right for selfdefense.

Right and morality become highly problematic when the other side subscribes to a very different ethos. On top of that, we need to practice Realpolitik and secure our own ethnic, economic and geographical interests. And why do you assume Iran needs a nuclear weapon to defend itself? If they had one, they couldn't shoot it all the way to the USA anyway. Who are the likely targets then? Primarily Israel and perhaps Europe. Would we benefit from an Israel ravaged by nuclear warfare? Highly unlikely; it would stabilise political Islam in the Middle East and increase sympathy for the Jews throughout the West. Hardly desirable. Remember there are more Jews in the USA than in Israel itself. The way I see it, Europeans have little to nothing to gain from Iran developing nuclear weaponry, yet risk losing a lot if Iran does indeed gain that kind of power.


Who is expansionistic and doesnt belong in the middle-east?

Who is expansionistic and doesn't belong in Europe?


None of our buisness.

It becomes our business once they start forcing it on our people. There are already neighbourhoods in, for example, Brussels where women do not dare to walk the streets without a headscarf, because they know they'll be attacked, verbally or physically, and literally spit on if they do not wear the damn thing.

RusViking
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:52 PM
It becomes our business once they start forcing it on our people. There are already neighbourhoods in, for example, Brussels where women do not dare to walk the streets without a headscarf, because they know they'll attacked, verbally or physically, and literally spit on if they do not wear the damn thing.

Are you serious?

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:54 PM
Are you serious?

Yes. I'll try to find the newspaper article about this.

OdinThor
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Right and morality become highly problematic when the other side subscribes to a very different ethos. On top of that, we need to practice Realpolitik and secure our own ethnic, economic and geographical interests. And why do you assume Iran needs a nuclear weapon to defend itself? If they had one, they couldn't shoot it all the way to the USA anyway. Who are the likely targets then? Primarily Israel and perhaps Europe. Would we benefit from an Israel ravaged by nuclear warfare? Highly unlikely; it would stabilise political Islam in the Middle East and increase sympathy for the Jews throughout the West. Hardly desirable. Remember there are more Jews in the USA than in Israel itself. The way I see it, Europeans have little to nothing to gain from Iran developing nuclear weaponry, yet risk losing a lot if Iran does indeed gain that kind of power.
Iran wouldnt need to ravage anyone, if they arent under attack.



Who is expansionistic and doesn't belong in Europe?

I agree, we need to throw them out and defend our nations, just like the Arabs and Persians.



It becomes our business once they start forcing it on our people. There are already neighbourhoods in, for example, Brussels where women do not dare to walk the streets without a headscarf, because they know they'll be attacked, verbally or physically, and literally spit on if they do not wear the damn thing.
See above.

Cilith
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 10:20 PM
I voted Yes,
Iran is one of the last if not THE last independent Nation without jewish control. I do not see why they should not have the same chances to armour up as Usrael. I only feel sorry for the good Aryan Americans and Europeans that will have to fight a war down their for the Jews.:~(

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Iran wouldnt need to ravage anyone, if they arent under attack.

Even then there's the issue of nuclear arms proliferation in general and the political leverage it would give Iran if it had control of nuclear weaponry. Not to mention it's fairly likely that the US will move against Iran anyway. In any scenario, it seems to me Europeans have little to nothing to gain with Iran developing nuclear weapons, yet risk losing a lot if Iran does gain that sort of power.

Siegfried
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 10:33 PM
The discussion on who is German and who Jewish, has been split: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=51961

Gorm the Old
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:07 PM
OF COURSE NOT !!! There are enough damned nuclear weapons in the world already. For what does Iran need weapons of mass destruction ? Obviously for mass destruction. Iran is a Muslim nation. Islam is the enemy of western civilization, any non-Islamic civilization, and every religion other than Islam. Islam has never converted anybody otherwise than by force. If nuclear weapons are allowed to be developed by ANY Islamic power, a major religious war, on the brink of which we teeter already, becomes inevitable. NOTHING will deter the Muslim from using weapons of mass destruction against the entire rest of the world ! It is suicide for the rest of the human race to allow the Iranians or ANY Islamic power to have nuclear weapons. The Muslim firmly believe that only "When the world is Dar al Islam ( the House of Islam) , will it be Dar as-Salaam (the House of Peace.)" This will be "peace" by extermination. Be assured that . given nuclear weapons, the Muslim will not confine their use to destroying Israel and the United States. ONLY Islam will be allowed to survive. Islam, the religion which has contributed NOTHING to human welfare, NOTHING to human progress for over 1000 years, the religion which has championed repression, misery, and ignorance. Whether it wants to be or not, every religion and every social order other than Islam and Islamic society is inevitably the ENEMY of Islam. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, the inevitable confrontation between militant Islam and all of the other civilizations and religions in the world will become a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST ! If you have any doubts about the objectives of Islam, READ THE QUR'AN. It's all there. No other religion, no other social order can be tolerated. God help mankind if the Iranians get nuclear weapons !!!

nicholas
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:19 PM
I'm a thinkin' the JudeoAmerican thing is a myth.

According to one of my religious studies professors, the Hebrews were getting their asses kicked by the Amonnites and their tribal war god Jehovah was not lending a hand. The priestly class then, in an attempt to save face, claimed that Jehovah was a creator God and "made" the Amonnites attack in order to "correct" the Hebrews.

Course once the professor said this there was no end to the wailing of the Jews in class.:D

Weg
Thursday, March 30th, 2006, 11:57 PM
I'm not happy with that either.

Nobody made war to India or China, I don't see why we should be bothered if Iran get the Bomb. No blood for the "Great Satan". ;)


It won't just endanger Israel.

But it would endanger some, that's not bad at all. :thumbup


It's likely their range will extend to European soil, if not now then within the foreseeable future.


As I already said, this weapon is not intended to be used since those who would use it know they are likely to be destroyed in the minutes which come if they do. Why would they take such a risk? Even though they are Muslims, they are consequents. The Bomb should be rather seen as a weapon to chill out any potential aggressors.


Some may say Iran has no reason to attack Europe, but why take the risk that might change in the future when it could be stopped in its tracks?

This is just speculation. Currently, there are greater risks for the future than a nuclear attack on Europe by Iran. I think that we should care about our European issues and not the JSA affairs in the ME.

That they first get the bomb and destroy their greatest enemy, then we'll see.

Anyways, I will not side with the JSA and its best ally.

Northern Paladin
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 12:02 AM
Nobody made war to India or China, I don't see why we should be bothered if Iran get the Bomb. No blood for the "Great Satan". ;)

That they first get the bomb and destroy their greatest enemy, then we'll see.

Anyways, I will not side with the JSA and its best ally.

The "Great Satan"...are you referring to Ronald Mcdonald. He's harmless.=)

Israel has said it will not allow Iran a nuclear weapon. Even if Israel was destroyed the Jews would simply find another home land.

Weg
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 12:07 AM
The "Great Satan"...are you referring to Ronald Mcdonald. He's harmless.=)

JSA.


Israel has said it will not allow Iran a nuclear weapon. Even if Israel was destroyed the Jews would simply find another home land.

Yes, Graveland maybe... because if Israel is destroyed with a nuclear bomb, there will be no inhabitant left to leave the place. Anyway, a nuclear conflict won't happen any soon.

Northern Paladin
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 12:15 AM
JSA.



Yes, Graveland maybe... because if Israel is destroyed with a nuclear bomb, there will be no inhabitant left to leave the place.

Jews have influence everywhere in the West not just in America. What's so good about France besides that huge tower of junk metal you call the Eiffel Tower.:D Parts of the country are looking a lot the Middle East already. You should worry more about Muslims than Jews.

Didn't Muslim youths reek havoc in France few months ago?

I don't think that's going to happen given Israel's defense capabilities. They have nukes advanced radar ect.

Weg
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 01:35 AM
Jews have influence everywhere in the West not just in America.

But so far, America is still the main support to Israel.


What's so good about France besides that huge tower of junk metal you call the Eiffel Tower.:D

Yet, this is not what American tourists seem to think. :D (To answer question : Wonders yourself couldn't even ask Santa. ;) :P)


Parts of the country are looking a lot the Middle East already.

Rather like Maghreb and Black Africa, but hey, we're not going to split hair. It all looks like foreign places.


You should worry more about Muslims than Jews.

It's just a matter of cause and consequences.

I worry about Muslims in Europe, but not in Iran. Why should I prevent Iranians to be their own masters at home?...


Didn't Muslim youths reek havoc in France few months ago?


Well, they're still...


I don't think that's going to happen given Israel's defense capabilities. They have nukes advanced radar ect.

Bah, Israel is a 3rd World country which live like a beggar thanks to foreign supports. It can't last forever this way.

Leofric
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 02:05 AM
Personally, I don't see why anyone should be 'allowed' to possess atomic bombs. I don't see any proper use of such a device.
To kill people. Lots of them. All at once.

Of course, the other side of that coin is that it saves a lot of lives. That's the principle behind any weapon.

Absolutely they should be allowed to have it! If they can figure out how to build the Bomb, by all means, let them.

And stockpile a few more here at home to offset theirs.

I believe that a society that is more armed is safer than a society that is less armed. Siegfried has rightly pointed out that our increasing technology has made the world a bit smaller than it once was (though it is still quite large), which makes Iran part of our global society, as it were. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Well I say, let them arm themselves — but let them never forget that we too are armed, and that any abuse of their newfound power will reap some negative repercussions.

I think it would make our geopolitical situation much safer in the long run.


I say only if we...the West let them.
That's kind of a circular argument. Since we are the only ones who could disallow it, the question "should they be allowed" means "should we allow them".

Your answer is saying that we should allow it if and only if we allow it.




The problem is Islam is a violent and expansionist in nature.
Who is expansionistic and doesnt belong in the middle-east?
Islam.

Islam doesn't belong in Persia. The Persians shouldn't be teaming up with the Arabs. They only side with them because Islam has been forced onto them.

And where exactly does the Middle East end? Lots of folks place Morocco in the Middle East. It's further west than Germany. And it's only Islamicized because of violent expansionism. So if Islam grows in Europe and becomes hegemonic there, then will Europe also become the Middle East, and so any non-Muslim elements in what had been Europe will become expansionistic and not belong there?

And in fact, Islam has already installed itself in Europe and has already become hegemonic in Europe. And most people consider that portion of Europe to be the Middle East, I think. Constantinople (they call it Istanbul) is the largest city in Europe, and yet it's fully Islamicized, and by violent expansionism. Do we have a statute of limitations on expansionism, so that only recent expansionism is bad? After 500 years, then expansionism is forgiven, and we assume that the land is rightfully theirs now?

Islamic societies have no more right to the Middle East than anyone else. We can't even talk about rights in such matters. There is only strength. He who has strength decides who has rights. As Siegfried said, history is struggle. Every civilization on earth (except maybe the Basques) has gained its current position through violence and expansion. No one is truly indigenous. So why argue about whether they have the right to their lands so long as they stay there. The line between their lands and our lands is freshly and arbitrarily drawn anyway — why not draw a new one?

Northern Paladin
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 02:26 AM
To kill people. Lots of them. All at once.

That's kind of a circular argument. Since we are the only ones who could disallow it, the question "should they be allowed" means "should we allow them".

Your answer is saying that we should allow it if and only if we allow it.


Islam.

Islam doesn't belong in Persia. The Persians shouldn't be teaming up with the Arabs. They only side with them because Islam has been forced onto them.

And where exactly does the Middle East end? Lots of folks place Morocco in the Middle East. It's further west than Germany. And it's only Islamicized because of violent expansionism. So if Islam grows in Europe and becomes hegemonic there, then will Europe also become the Middle East, and so any non-Muslim elements in what had been Europe will become expansionistic and not belong there?

And in fact, Islam has already installed itself in Europe and has already become hegemonic in Europe. And most people consider that portion of Europe to be the Middle East, I think. Constantinople (they call it Istanbul) is the largest city in Europe, and yet it's fully Islamicized, and by violent expansionism. Do we have a statute of limitations on expansionism, so that only recent expansionism is bad? After 500 years, then expansionism is forgiven, and we assume that the land is rightfully theirs now?

Islamic societies have no more right to the Middle East than anyone else. We can't even talk about rights in such matters. There is only strength. He who has strength decides who has rights. As Siegfried said, history is struggle. Every civilization on earth (except maybe the Basques) has gained its current position through violence and expansion. No one is truly indigenous. So why argue about whether they have the right to their lands so long as they stay there. The line between their lands and our lands is freshly and arbitrarily drawn anyway — why not draw a new one?

It may not have been the original religion of the Persians but neither was Islam the original religion of Arabs. But through centuries of influence the Persians have come to idenify themselves so closely with Islam that it has become the measure by which they see the world.

Yes people have claimed lands and spread their influence through the use of force. Which is precisely why it would be in the West's best interest for Iran to be as weak as possible.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 03:45 AM
Should Iran be allowed to develop the Bomb?
Should Israel be allowed to keep their Bomb?

Two sides of the same coin. If it is good for one, it is good for the other.

All other considerations such as Iran attacking the USA are red herrings. Iran isn't interested in attacking "its neighbors", it is interested in attacking Israel and the USA is interested in stopping this, nothing else. Russia, Iran's immediate neighbor is not worried about being attacked. Neither is China. Apparently, neither is its neighbor to the east, Pakistan who gave Iran nuclear technology. So who is really afraid? Only Israel.

nicholas
Friday, March 31st, 2006, 03:51 AM
So who is really afraid? Only Israel.

Fear is natural for bullies and cowards when their victims are strong enough to fight back.

Deling
Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 05:03 PM
Nuclear weapons aren't good, but objectively negative weapons. Iran SHOULDN'T have nukes (and really; except for the questionable, and earlier misused, claims of states with nuclear capacity, there are no proof of Iranian nuclear weapons). Neither will Iran bomb Israel, if they could, since Israel is the holy land.

Thing is... Israel and the Anglo-American coalition will attack Iran. Will THEY use nukes, perhaps these "mini-"? Just like the case with Iraq, the question isn't whether this-or-that nation should possess nukes, but how things will turn out in Iran, Israel and Iraq... not to mention the West, because of the actions of political elites; especially the anglo-American and Israeli ones.

nicholas
Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 06:19 PM
Both china and russia have treaties with Iran saying that if Iran is attacked they will come to Iran's aid.


Nuclear weapons aren't good, but objectively negative weapons. Iran SHOULDN'T have nukes (and really; except for the questionable, and earlier misused, claims of states with nuclear capacity, there are no proof of Iranian nuclear weapons). Neither will Iran bomb Israel, if they could, since Israel is the holy land.

Thing is... Israel and the Anglo-American coalition will attack Iran. Will THEY use nukes, perhaps these "mini-"? Just like the case with Iraq, the question isn't whether this-or-that nation should possess nukes, but how things will turn out in Iran, Israel and Iraq... not to mention the West, because of the actions of political elites; especially the anglo-American and Israeli ones.

Siegfried
Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 06:34 PM
Both china and russia have treaties with Iran saying that if Iran is attacked they will come to Iran's aid.

I think it's unlikely either of them will actually enter the fray in the case of an USA attack against Iran.

Prince Eugen
Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 06:41 PM
BTW i heard from the news last night that British Goverments prepares for air raids at Iran.

Wjatscheslaw
Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 07:08 PM
Yes, it should! :thumbup

Deling
Monday, April 3rd, 2006, 11:58 PM
"Both china and russia have treaties with Iran saying that if Iran is attacked they will come to Iran's aid."

Which is unlikely. Atleast a direct Chinese intervention will be, and regarding the worthlessness of Russian leadership, that's doesn't sound likely either. However, Iran won't need much help, since the Iranians will fight of an invasion - even if not bombings. The "coalition" will probably use existing guerilla groups (like Communist Peoples' Mujahideen) and ethnical minorities like Kurds and Azeris as insurgency fodder.
Iran will be bombed rather much though; that nothing can stop.

Boche
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 12:11 AM
It doesn't matter anyway. If Israel and the USA own the nuclear bomb, then there shouldnt be fear towards other lands who own it.

With kind regards,
Svartr

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 12:20 AM
"Both china and russia have treaties with Iran saying that if Iran is attacked they will come to Iran's aid."

Which is unlikely. Atleast a direct Chinese intervention will be, and regarding the worthlessness of Russian leadership, that's doesn't sound likely either. However, Iran won't need much help, since the Iranians will fight of an invasion - even if not bombings. The "coalition" will probably use existing guerilla groups (like Communist Peoples' Mujahideen) and ethnical minorities like Kurds and Azeris as insurgency fodder.
Iran will be bombed rather much though; that nothing can stop.

Yes Iran should be stopped. If Iran gets its Nuclear weapon it will be a matter of time before other Middle Eastern Countries follow suit.

Æmeric
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 12:25 AM
"Both china and russia have treaties with Iran saying that if Iran is attacked they will come to Iran's aid."

Which is unlikely. Atleast a direct Chinese intervention will be, and regarding the worthlessness of Russian leadership, that's doesn't sound likely either. However, Iran won't need much help, since the Iranians will fight of an invasion - even if not bombings. The "coalition" will probably use existing guerilla groups (like Communist Peoples' Mujahideen) and ethnical minorities like Kurds and Azeris as insurgency fodder.
Iran will be bombed rather much though; that nothing can stop.

If the U.S. Army invades Iran they will probably concentrate on the southwest of the country which contains most of the oil. I doubt that they will try to conquer the whole country but they may bomb it.

Deling
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 02:58 AM
"If the U.S. Army invades Iran they will probably concentrate on the southwest of the country which contains most of the oil. I doubt that they will try to conquer the whole country but they may bomb it."

Yes, Khuzestan. And probably the Azeri/Kurdic parts of north-east Zagros Mountains will be "undermined" by "local freedom fighters". Still though; if the Anglo-American judaic alliance want to occupy Iran, they need a northern front. It would be sad if they were stupid enough to try to bring the Caucasian and perhaps central Asian states into the "crusade".

"Yes Iran should be stopped. If Iran gets its Nuclear weapon it will be a matter of time before other Middle Eastern Countries follow suit."

Not what I wrote. Of course, there's nothing good about more nuclear weapons in this world. However, in case of Iran, nukes aren't very relevant... what are Iran to nuke? Iraq? Kuwait? The holy land? ...only Russia and India will be available, if they had nuclear weapons.
The worst nuke nation in the world (if they can be ranged from "best" to "worst") is Pakistan, which is the worst of all dangers (not that Musharraf will use nukes, but his predecessors will probably be the worst elements of talibanism and fundamentalism...).

Back to Iran: thing about Iran isn't nuclear weapon, but the threat Iran poses to Israeli and anglo-American interests. Why would the "coalition" want a strong, independent and defiant Iran, instead of puppet arabs like Mubharak and the rest?
However, this is off topic, but in my view the whole topic is wrong. Morally sanctioned or not, Iran will be attacked because of different interests, not a test nuclear reactor (like Iraq's Osirak, which were bombed in 1981). Topic should rather be: what happens when the anglo-Americans fail in their results? Will US go home, and what about Israel? Will European cannon fodder definitely "refill" coalition forces fighting for Israel in a civilisation war between 'West' and 'Islam'? ...will US and Israel nuke Iran into submission, out of desperation if things screw up?These are more relevant issues than Iran's non-existent nukes.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 03:05 AM
[B]"Yes Iran should be stopped. If Iran gets its Nuclear weapon it will be a matter of time before other Middle Eastern Countries follow suit."

Not what I wrote. Of course, there's nothing good about more nuclear weapons in this world. However, in case of Iran, nukes aren't very relevant... what are Iran to nuke? Iraq? Kuwait? The holy land? ...only Russia and India will be available, if they had nuclear weapons.
The worst nuke nation in the world (if they can be ranged from "best" to "worst") is Pakistan, which is the worst of all dangers (not that Musharraf will use nukes, but his predecessors will probably be the worst elements of talibanism and fundamentalism...).

Back to Iran: thing about Iran isn't nuclear weapon, but the threat Iran poses to Israeli and anglo-American interests. Why would the "coalition" want a strong, independent and defiant Iran, instead of puppet arabs like Mubharak and the rest?
However, this is off topic, but in my view the whole topic is wrong. Morally sanctioned or not, Iran will be attacked because of different interests, not a test nuclear reactor (like Iraq's Osirak, which were bombed in 1981). Topic should rather be: what happens when the anglo-Americans fail in their results? Will US go home, and what about Israel? Will European cannon fodder definitely "refill" coalition forces fighting for Israel in a civilisation war between 'West' and 'Islam'? ...will US and Israel nuke Iran into submission, out of desperation if things screw up?These are more relevant issues than Iran's non-existent nukes.

If Iran has the capablity to develop a nuclear weapon what is to stop it from developing or obtaining from its allies a long range delivery system?

Jack
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 10:04 AM
God no.

Deling
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 02:33 PM
"If Iran has the capablity to develop a nuclear weapon what is to stop it from developing or obtaining from its allies a long range delivery system?"

Iran have delivery systems for all kinds of missiles (even though they couldn't impossibly have ICBM-type carriers), developed (probably) from Paki and Russian schematics. Problem is: there are no signs of an Iranian nuke, which probably still is in rather early R&D stage. No U.N inspections reports mentions nuclear weapons; Iranians are still in the stage of producing nuclear energy... And there's been no nuclear weapons test either in Iran (and if there are; it will quickly be known).
However, apparently Iranian mullahs have issued fatwas about "the right to conduct nuclear warfare in Jihad". Since Iran doesn't have nukes, I hope some shiite fanatics controlling Paki nuclear silos doesn't listen to that acknowledgment... to a fundamentalist there's a great difference between nuclear martyrdom (for muslims) and nuclear damnation (for heathens).

No Muslim nation should be allowed to have nukes, that's for sure, but if the anglo-American zionist coalition keep stirr up mess in southern Eurasia, they certainly can expect reverse results. A failed attack on Iran could produce Jacobin jihadist regimes all over the Muslim world, and Pakistan is my prime bet, eager for martyrdom wars...that's what I'm more affraid of than the Iranian republic.

Imperator X
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 10:15 PM
I voted Yes, because it is pretentious of the US to dictate to Iran what they can and cannot do, it's another example of the United States not respecting the rights of other nations.

It is good for Iran to have the bomb because perhaps they will use it against Sunni nations like Pakistan who need to be blown away. Iran has had good relations with India since the time of Darius, and both nations have a shared hatred of Sunni Pakistan.

I have applauded the signing of a contract between the US and India to develop nuclear plants for both military and commercial purposes WITHOUT INSPECTIONS. Which I think is a good thing, India is the world's oldest democracy, remember the old republics of Koshala during the Buddha's time. They do not need any kind of baby-sitter institution to monitor them. At this time there has not been a similar contract drawn up between the US and Porkistan, this is good. The Paki government is filled with babarians that do nothing but support and train terror. They don't deserve it. I support freedom for the occupied republic of Baluchistan, and the reunification of Kashmir under Indian rule.

Divide and promote war between muslim nations at all costs.

CountBloodSpawn
Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 04:19 AM
I voted Yes, because it is pretentious of the US to dictate to Iran what they can and cannot do, it's another example of the United States not respecting the rights of other nations.

It is good for Iran to have the bomb because perhaps they will use it against Sunni nations like Pakistan who need to be blown away. Iran has had good relations with India since the time of Darius, and both nations have a shared hatred of Sunni Pakistan.

I have applauded the signing of a contract between the US and India to develop nuclear plants for both military and commercial purposes WITHOUT INSPECTIONS. Which I think is a good thing, India is the world's oldest democracy, remember the old republics of Koshala during the Buddha's time. They do not need any kind of baby-sitter institution to monitor them. At this time there has not been a similar contract drawn up between the US and Porkistan, this is good. The Paki government is filled with babarians that do nothing but support and train terror. They don't deserve it. I support freedom for the occupied republic of Baluchistan, and the reunification of Kashmir under Indian rule.

Divide and promote war between muslim nations at all costs.

I have to really agree with you there, the foreign policy of the present globalist regime of the USA has been sticking its nose exactly where it doesn't belong, the middle east, and the rest of us have all been paying for it, both here in the USA and abroad, if other countries, especially Isreal are allowed to have a nuclear program, then how is it criminial for Iran to have theirs

Eestlane
Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 03:41 PM
I voted yes, because it will ensure some stabilty in the region.

Thumelicus
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 01:51 AM
I voted yes.

Someone has to teach the United States, Israel, and this bunch of ungrateful louts who call themselves "the West" their final lesson.

Gaian Meroveus
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 02:23 AM
Comrades,


I am vehemently opposed to the exploitation of all Nuclear applications in principle. I feel that the dangers involved in; and the waste by-products resulting from Nuclear fusion far outweigh any possible benefits. Look at the Chernobyl catastrophe. We still have not begun to calculate the environmental and biological repercussions from this disaster.
That said:

It is nothing but the most blatant of hypocricy for the United States and it's political cronies to decry the developement of Nuclear capability in Iran whilst, conversely, making no issue of the fact that backwards, third world gutter countries such as India, and Pakistan have already achieved this reality.

Not to mention the fact that the Zionist colonial entity on Palestine has a nuclear arsenal.
Is the morality of Nuclear technological posession to be predicated upon who does and who does not grovel to the Jews and their American political lapdogs?

The fact is; none of these people should be trusted with our sophisticated germanic technologies, but you cannot sanctimoniously declare that: "Ahmed cannot have a lolly but little shmuli can", and yet seek to represent yourself as taking some moral and ethical highground when in reality you are being dictatorial and totalitarian, and promoting a shameless double standard. To do so is to expose yourself as a hypocrite and moral and ethical deficient.
Good day to Mr. Blairsh.


Best wishes,
_GM.

Thumelicus
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 02:48 AM
I am vehemently opposed to the exploitation of all Nuclear applications in principle.

I tend to agree. Nuclear fission is a toxic, unnatural source of energy. Nuclear weapons are a threat to all life. However, that doesn't stop our enemies from having them.

The Zionist Jews will never give up their bombs, they'll have to be destroyed by another nuclear power, and Iran fits the bill. The USA, UK, and the Israeli retaliatory submarine strike will destroy Iran in the process. Tel Aviv, however, will be a smoking radioactive crater (sorry Illuminatus).

It’s sad, because I was just starting to like Ahmadinejad. Too bad he probably won't survive.

Prince Eugen
Saturday, April 29th, 2006, 06:17 PM
And not forget ,Iran is not Iraq!Very difficult terrain and a well training and fanatical Army!