NationStates Jolt Archive

Nukes program 'legitimate if peaceful'
August 31, 2006 05:17am

ITALIAN Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said today that Iran's desire to develop nuclear energy is "legitimate" provided the goal of the program was for "peaceful purposes".

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20312213-5005961,00.html
Sources: Yahoo, News.com OcceanNEWS, Herald and Weekly Times.

my2cents: legitimate? ... of course.
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Indian or US Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Russian or Pakistani Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Israel or Chinesse Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as frech or Indian Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Brazilian or UK Nukes..

and so is Iranian Nuklear research.. like the Italian gov says..

Nukes program 'legitimate if peaceful'
August 31, 2006 05:17am

ITALIAN Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said today that Iran's desire to develop nuclear energy is "legitimate" provided the goal of the program was for "peaceful purposes".

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20312213-5005961,00.html
Sources: Yahoo, News.com OcceanNEWS, Herald and Weekly Times.

I love how you ignored the part that I just bolded. No one cares if it is for peaceful purposes or not. The objection is to the fact that it could very well not be for peaceful purposes. And since Iran is not following through on their obligations to verify if it is for peaceful purposes or not, makes one suspect.

my2cents: legitimate? ... of course.
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Indian or US Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Russian or Pakistani Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Israel or Chinesse Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as frech or Indian Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Brazilian or UK Nukes..

and so is Iranian Nuklear research.. like the Italian gov says..

And destabilize the region? You really want the M.E. to be even more destabled than it already is?

oh boy
:D
yes i am.

There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

If Iran gets nukes, what stops Saudi Arabia or Syria from getting them also? You really want that to happen? I can find at least half a dozen stories in which America and the USSR almost blew each other into oblivion simply because of technological malfunctions.

The prospect of a nuclear armed mid east scares the shit out of me.

If Iran gets nukes be prepared for Hezbollah to really cut loose in the middle east. You think this past war between Iran's proxy army and Israel was bad? Imagine how emboldened the Hezbollah puppets will be with a nuclear power at their back. Israel, of course, won't take any of their shit lying down, and there will be a regional war like none the middle east has ever seen before. Maybe WWIII. Maybe it will go nuclear.

Oceandrive = Cheerleader for millions of deaths.

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

What the hell does the Bush Administration have to do with this?!?

...

oh.

...oops.

...carry on. :P

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which believes God has choosen them over all others-Israel


I don't think for second that should Iran aquire nukes that they would use them, if Israel can have them why not Iran.

What the hell does the Bush Administration have to do with this?!?

...

oh.

...oops.

...carry on. :P

You know what? I was thinking the same thing at first. Odd, hmm?

Anyways, suuuuuuure its peaceful. Its why they deny the atomic inspectors the ability to look at certain facilities, they just want to jump out and say "APRIL FOOLS! We were telling the truth that it IS a peaceful program! We were just messing with you!"

There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which believes God has choosen them over all others-Israel


I don't think for second that should Iran aquire nukes that they would use them, if Israel can have them why not Iran.

When Isreal's leaders start calling for an entire nation to be destroyed and denies historical fact, then we'll talk.

When Isreal publicly and financially supports militant organizations whose express purpose is to kill every muslim in the world, then we'll talk.

When Isreal signs the NPT then withdraws, then we'll talk.

There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which believes God has choosen them over all others-Israel


I don't think for second that should Iran aquire nukes that they would use them, if Israel can have them why not Iran.

Just having nuclear weapons changes the rules of the game. It allows nations like Iran to continue using terrorism, or even expand their use of terrorism without having to worry about serious military repercussions.

'Stability' is an odd concept in international relations, in that it has little to do with any values of democracy or liberty.

By definition, a stable region is one where a single power has all nearly absolute control over its surroundings (thus why North America could be described as the archetypal stable region). So by this definition, if we see Iran's interventions in Iraq and Afganistan helping reestablish central authority in those countries, then Iran could be seen as a stabilising influence.

That is of course if Iran does not begin to follow a more destructive path, but, Iran has quite a pacifist culture (moreso than its Arab neighbours), and its constitution does not attribute military power solely on an elected demagogue.

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

*cough* USAandGeorgeW*cough*

Can't we just send in James Bond and be done with this crisis?

Just having nuclear weapons changes the rules of the game. It allows nations like Iran to continue using terrorism, or even expand their use of terrorism without having to worry about serious military repercussions. this could be turned around as well, with Israel in possesion of nukes what incentive does it have to return stolen land, allow the return of refugees, negotiate in good faith? None.

Lol.

Title says "## Italy: "Iran's desire to develop nukes is legitimate."

Link says "nuke program" as in nuclear energy not "nukes" as in nuclear weapons.

from link
"If Iran is looking to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it is not only legitimate, but can also clear the way for cooperation" with other countries, Mr D'Alema said in an interview on Radio 1.

But he said: "We must work so that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon."

*cough* USAandGeorgeW*cough*
I was thinking the same thing.

this could be turned around as well, with Israel in possesion of nukes what incentive does it have to return stolen land, allow the return of refugees, negotiate in good faith? None.


You mean like how Hamas rejected the last couple of treaties that would have done just that that the UN negotiated and Isreal agreed to?

Is Isreal a signer of the NPT? Is Iran?

*cough* USAandGeorgeW*cough*

The only problem is the fact our dear leader can't fire them at a whim. We have a system in place just to prevent that.

Can that be said of Iran?

The only problem is the fact our dear leader can't fire them at a whim. We have a system in place just to prevent that.

Can that be said of Iran?

Well right now and for the next 5 years at least that can be said of Iran since they don't have them and wont have them for a while.

Did the US have those assurances intact when we first developed nuclear weapons? I honestly don't know.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h278/NazcaVisitor/pandapiracy.jpg

Did the US have those assurances intact when we first developed nuclear weapons? I honestly don't know.

Not at that time. The delivery method was not as easy as it is now so we didn't have to have the kind of checks and balances in place.

Even then our message was stoping the red menace. We didn't call (officially that is) for the destuction of the USSR.

Mr long name has called for the destruction of Israel many times.

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

well, the uk has nukes, and tony blair once told an iterveiwer that God told him to invade iraq.....whose has the crazy gene now?

Not even the Iranians themselves believe its a peaceful program. (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432788,00.html) I don't know why people still try to cling to that hope.

People on the left (including me) often try to credit people like Ahmadinejad with as much rationality as possible. Well, have a look! It makes absolutely no sense for Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program, and it makes 100% sense to have a nuke or two in the plan to establish the country as one of the (if not the) regional power of the Middle East.

If Iran gets nukes be prepared for Hezbollah to really cut loose in the middle east. You think this past war between Iran's proxy army and Israel was bad? Imagine how emboldened the Hezbollah puppets will be with a nuclear power at their back. Israel, of course, won't take any of their shit lying down, and there will be a regional war like none the middle east has ever seen before. Maybe WWIII. Maybe it will go nuclear.

Oceandrive = Cheerleader for millions of deaths.
How about Israel gets rid of its nukes. If you want stability in the middle east, its a good place to start. If Israel has them, Iran needs to protect muslims around the world.

How about Israel gets rid of its nukes. If you want stability in the middle east, its a good place to start. If Israel has them, Iran needs to protect muslims around the world.

Would it?

How many wars were fought from 1948 till when they got them?

Would it?

How many wars were fought from 1948 till when they got them?

Now that's a loaded question - "officially", Israel doesn't have nukes.

*laughs*

How about Israel gets rid of its nukes. If you want stability in the middle east, its a good place to start. If Israel has them, Iran needs to protect muslims around the world.

What the? :confused.

To protect muslims around the world? What have you been smokin?

What the? :confused.

To protect muslims around the world? What have you been smokin?and with that comment you strike the nail on the head. Many Muslims see themselves as being attacked by the Christian West and Israel. That may never have been the intention but that is their perception and not understanding that and the reasons for it is why we have terrorism today.

and with that comment you strike the nail on the head. Many Muslims see themselves as being attacked by the Christian West and Israel. That may never have been the intention but that is their perception and not understanding that and the reasons for it is why we have terrorism today.

Umm we are not discussing terrorism here. We are discussing Iranians and Nukes.

Umm we are not discussing terrorism here. We are discussing Iranians and Nukes.I agree with you..

But its not him who inserted terrrrorrrism into the thread.

*hint* post #11

Umm we are not discussing terrorism here. We are discussing Iranians and Nukes. It's all conected Iran-nukes-hezzbollah-terrorism

The only problem is the fact our dear leader can't fire them at a whim. We have a system in place just to prevent that.

Can that be said of Iran?

Yes

Not even the Iranians themselves believe its a peaceful program. (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432788,00.html) I don't know why people still try to cling to that hope.

People on the left (including me) often try to credit people like Ahmadinejad with as much rationality as possible. Well, have a look! It makes absolutely no sense for Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program, and it makes 100% sense to have a nuke or two in the plan to establish the country as one of the (if not the) regional power of the Middle East.


True

Just having nuclear weapons changes the rules of the game. It allows nations like Iran to continue using terrorism, or even expand their use of terrorism without having to worry about serious military repercussions.
It changes the rules of the game allright...

'Stability' is an odd concept in international relations, in that it has little to do with any values of democracy or liberty.

By definition, a stable region is one where a single power has all nearly absolute control over its surroundings (thus why North America could be described as the archetypal stable region). So by this definition, if we see Iran's interventions in Iraq and Afganistan helping reestablish central authority in those countries, then Iran could be seen as a stabilising influence.

That is of course if Iran does not begin to follow a more destructive path, but, Iran has quite a pacifist culture (moreso than its Arab neighbours), and its constitution does not attribute military power solely on an elected demagogue.
Though nuclear proliferation is dangerous on a large scale. Nuclear weapons do increase stability.
As argued by Kenneth Waltz (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm)

Iran is a more stable state than Pakistan, so we should not be worry like Iran getting them is the end of the world. Think of what military action would do for stability in the region...

The level of danger depends on 3 factors that I can think of off the top of my head:

1: Do you think Iran has a rational government? Will it really start a nuclear war out of religious and political pique, or does it want a 'don't fuck with us' button it has little intention of using except in cases of last resort - like the other nuclear states.

2: Do you think it's likely to give/sell or otherwise allow terrorists and its proxy army(armies) access to its nuclear weapons?

3: Given its rhetoric (which doesn't always have a 1:1 relationship with its actual plans), and past history, and current situations, what is the response of neighbouring/interested states likely to be? Are they likely to go to war/start a military conflict when Iran goes nuclear? If that's likely to be their response, better to stop Iran reaching that point.

I know I haven't decided what I think is likeliest yet. States have the right to develop themselves as they see fit - but they also exist to further the interests of and protect their people. Iran can try to develop nuclear weapons if they want, but other states, if they see a threat in this, can try to stop them.

I want my (UK) countrymen, allies, and like-minded other states protected, and my country's, allies', and similar states' position safeguarded, a lot more than I'd want to allow a dangerous state access to nuclear weapons, 'rights' to nuclear weapons be damned. I just haven't decided whether Iran is a dangerous state, or if its rhetoric is bluster, and it wants nuclear weapons to prevent invasion rather than conveniently kill - or bully by threats of nuclear war - jews.

Sorry for being so naive, but on nuclear weapons, the US, as the only transgressor in human history, certainly should be regarded as having less authority on the matter.

States have the right to develop themselves as they see fit - but they also exist to further the interests of and protect their people. Iran can try to develop nuclear weapons if they want, but other states, if they see a threat in this, can try to stop them.You cannot try to stop a Country from developing itself.. Without Violating its sovereignity..

Now If you want to turn the Clock 2000 years.. and do away to the concept of sovereignity.

Yes you can.. rigth after I move to alpha Centaury. ;)

Sorry for being so naive, but on nuclear weapons, the US, as the only transgressor in human history, certainly should be regarded as having less authority on the matter.we.. US.. have selective memory.
and a shipload of excuses.

(the US) should be regarded as having less authority on the matter.our Authority does not come from the wisdom of our Dear Leaders (If you havent noticed yet.. the last one is retarded).. our Authority come from our Nukes and our huge firepower.

Sorry for being so naive, but on nuclear weapons, the US, as the only transgressor in human history, certainly should be regarded as having less authority on the matter.

And yet they have not been used in over 60 years. Also, those were firecrackers compared to what nations have today.

You cannot try to stop a Country from developing itself.. Without Violating its sovereignity..

Now If you want to turn the Clock 2000 years.. and do away to the concept of sovereignity.

Yes you can.. rigth after I move to alpha Centaury. ;)

It's an ideal, it's something to aim for, but you have to qualify that with reality. If you could prove another country aimed to bugger up your sovereignty, you've got every justification to act as you see fit.

The difficulty is nothing in reality is that clear cut :) Iran fears invasion and hates Israel - a nuclear program begins; parts of the west fear which strand is driving Iran's nuclear program and plans possible countermeasures; Iran is worried about western intentions, which alone drives it on to develop faster; this increased activity scares parts of the West even more so plans are put in motion...

boom!

Like I say, I don't know which is the least worst side, or to what end Iran wants its nuclear power to be put to. I do know that if another country threatens yours, and you have proof of it (but what counts as proof?), you need to respond to it. If that breaches the ideal of sovereignty, what a shame. I'd rather be alive, free and guilty than smug and a slave, or even a political-ethically correct corpse. And I'm sure I'd be thinking the same if I was Iranian. Maybe that's the problem, come to think of it.

And yet they have not been used in over 60 years. Also, those were firecrackers compared to what nations have today.
Not the point, just pointing out the manifest hypocrisy of the US, especially given Bush's hyper-belligerant rantings of late, I think some respect of national sovereignty wouldn't go far.

Like I say, I don't know which is the least worst side, or to what end Iran wants its nuclear power to be put to.to the same end of all the other Countries.

Your answer.. for the other countries (whatever it is) is my answer.
I am giving you a blank check.. by agree-ing with you in advance.

What trust! :D

to the same end all the other Countries.

Well, that's one answer, and it's certainly what I would want to believe - if that was the case, then the answer is certainly 'let them get on with it'.

But given the sheer destruction nuclear weapons cause combined with the rhetoric of Iranian leaders... I think some serious convincing is needed before that answer can be accepted. I hope that is the answer, but... doubts remain.

The level of danger depends on 3 factors that I can think of off the top of my head:

1: Do you think Iran has a rational government? Will it really start a nuclear war out of religious and political pique, or does it want a 'don't fuck with us' button it has little intention of using except in cases of last resort - like the other nuclear states.

2: Do you think it's likely to give/sell or otherwise allow terrorists and its proxy army(armies) access to its nuclear weapons?

3: Given its rhetoric (which doesn't always have a 1:1 relationship with its actual plans), and past history, and current situations, what is the response of neighbouring/interested states likely to be? Are they likely to go to war/start a military conflict when Iran goes nuclear? If that's likely to be their response, better to stop Iran reaching that point.

I know I haven't decided what I think is likeliest yet. States have the right to develop themselves as they see fit - but they also exist to further the interests of and protect their people. Iran can try to develop nuclear weapons if they want, but other states, if they see a threat in this, can try to stop them.

I want my (UK) countrymen, allies, and like-minded other states protected, and my country's, allies', and similar states' position safeguarded, a lot more than I'd want to allow a dangerous state access to nuclear weapons, 'rights' to nuclear weapons be damned. I just haven't decided whether Iran is a dangerous state, or if its rhetoric is bluster, and it wants nuclear weapons to prevent invasion rather than conveniently kill - or bully by threats of nuclear war - jews.
You can try to stop them, but we should not overestimate our power to shape the world. We may make an attempt to stop them, but I do not think military action would reduce the threat. It will most likely be counterproductive and be the cause of very real, new threats in the near future.

Many things are said about Iran, some of it true. Still, it is not an irrational country. The power of Ahmadinejad is very limited and we are quick to interpret his words in the harshest way. Iran is not that different from other states; best we view it as a rational power maximising actor. (Realism works best to explain Nuclear proliferation and war) States seldom allow their most powerful and most expensive weaponry to be used by their proxies at will.

Take the US and the USSR for example; they both placed Nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies. They probably trusted their allies more than Iran would trust a militant group like Hizbu-llah, but they still made sure that their allies could not use them without their consent.

It would be very dangerous to allow a weaker ally to draw you into a nuclear conflict. No rational state would allow this. For, nuclear weaponry means mutual assured destruction and Hizbu-llah using Iranian nukes on Israel would mean the destruction of Iran.

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

I agree, I support taking away America's nukes.

What trust! :D



Well, that's one answer, and it's certainly what I would want to believe - if that was the case, then the answer is certainly 'let them get on with it'.

But given the sheer destruction nuclear weapons cause combined with the rhetoric of Iranian leaders... I think some serious convincing is needed before that answer can be accepted. I hope that is the answer, but... doubts remain.do you know what "rhetoric" means ?

do you know what "rhetoric" means ?

Obviously not what you're thinking, or you wouldn't have asked; please make your point puncturing mine now :)

It would be very dangerous to allow a weaker ally to draw you into a nuclear conflict. No rational state would allow this. For, nuclear weaponry means mutual assured destruction and Hizbu-llah using Iranian nukes on Israel would mean the destruction of Iran.

For an aside, Pakistan's top scientist was selling nuclear secrets. He is now under house arrest after the US caught him. Oh no. But is anyone bitching about Pakistan? No. They are just blustering over Iran, though I doubt it's bluster. The Bush administration is stupid enough to go to war with Iran over nuclear development.

For an aside, Pakistan's top scientist was selling nuclear secrets. He is now under house arrest after the US caught him. Oh no. But is anyone bitching about Pakistan? No. They are just blustering over Iran, though I doubt it's bluster. The Bush administration is stupid enough to go to war with Iran over nuclear development.

I reckon Pakistan would not have been that happy with Khan either...

Obviously not what you're thinking, or you wouldn't have asked; please make your point puncturing mine now :)damn.. I feel naked (Andalip anticipated my move)

anyways.. *deflated*.. I think when they are talking about a presidential speech.. and they say "its only Rhetoric".. they mean "its empty words"..

"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." -- Plato

I agree, I support taking away America's nukes.
Burn.

damn.. I feel naked (Andalip anticipated my move)

anyways.. *deflated*.. I think when they are talking about a presidential speech.. and they say "its only Rhetoric".. they mean "its empty words"..

"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." -- Plato

Sorry, guy - I'm actually logging off in a minute because I'm in a mood, just didn't want to play the game! My bad.

That's true, and I shouldn't have been so blase. Rhetoric is empty words, but it's also the art of oratory, using bombastic language. The trick is, what comes out of the Iranian govt. - how do we know what's rhetoric, and what's a serious point? Or even what's rhetoric (empty words) and 'rhetoric' (a big set-piece, artful thing - which can be meaningless _or_ a serious point).

I was using 'rhetoric' as a shorthand for the overall bombastic effect, trying to make the point that we can't tell exactly what's serious and what's only for effect. It was imprecise, you're right, but I hope it doesn't invalidate my overall point - seperating fact from fiction when the stakes are so high is a serious business.

see you anon, btw!

Nukes program 'legitimate if peaceful'
August 31, 2006 05:17am

ITALIAN Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said today that Iran's desire to develop nuclear energy is "legitimate" provided the goal of the program was for "peaceful purposes".

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20312213-5005961,00.html
Sources: Yahoo, News.com OcceanNEWS, Herald and Weekly Times.

my2cents: legitimate? ... of course.
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Indian or US Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Russian or Pakistani Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Israel or Chinesse Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as frech or Indian Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Brazilian or UK Nukes..

and so is Iranian Nuklear research.. like the Italian gov says..

Iran has no need for nukes. Iran are being deliberately pravocative if they build nukes as they would only need to use them as an offensive.

Just having nuclear weapons changes the rules of the game. It allows nations like Iran to continue using terrorism, or even expand their use of terrorism without having to worry about serious military repercussions.

And it forces you to play by their rules and compromise with them under terms you normally wouldnt consider.

It stuns me when hapless idiots feel that Iran has every right to develop nukes-even when they are trying to do so under the guise of energy needs.
If the ywere coming out and saying we are building weapons, I'd give them an ounce of crdit, but every thing they do is a deceptive con-game.
And the alliance of huggy kissy bullshit with syria and venezuala, openly speculating the downfall of the US? I cant see a more clear and present danger to us and our way of life.

seperating fact from fiction when the stakes are so high is a serious business.
That is why we should not depend on our fears or our media* for accurate information on Iran, but on experts (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf#search=%22IRAN%2C%20ITS%20NEIGHBOURS%22) on the country and the region.

The same people that pointed us to the risk of an invasion of Iraq…


-----
(*same difference :p)

Iran has no need for nukes. Iran are being deliberately pravocative if they build nukes as they would only need to use them as an offensive.
No, they would be use them as deterrant weapons strictly in the defensive capability, just like everyone does and has a right to continue to do so. Anyway you think that if Iran gets a nuke they will just go 'NOW YOUR DEAD INFIDELZ!!!!111' are quite silly, Mullah are not stupid, neither are the other players, it's simply empty rhetoric, no sanctions will be imposed as long as Iran has it's finger on the oil button.

(Iran) would only need to use them as an offensive.why "only" offensive.

whay cant you even conceive it can be used as a Defensive deterrent.

No, they would be use them as deterrant weapons strictly in the defensive capability, just like everyone does and has a right to continue to do so. Anyway you think that if Iran gets a nuke they will just go 'NOW YOUR DEAD INFIDELZ!!!!111' are quite silly, Mullah are not stupid, neither are the other players, it's simply empty rhetoric, no sanctions will be imposed as long as Iran has it's finger on the oil button.

Can you guarantee that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon first?

So sure are you! Prove it, now.

No, they would be use them as deterrant weapons strictly in the defensive capability, just like everyone does and has a right to continue to do so. Anyway you think that if Iran gets a nuke they will just go 'NOW YOUR DEAD INFIDELZ!!!!111' are quite silly, Mullah are not stupid, neither are the other players, it's simply empty rhetoric, no sanctions will be imposed as long as Iran has it's finger on the oil button.
Yup, deterrant weapons. No problem with nukes as a deterrent. Except Iran will use them to deter any military action against them whilst they step up their funding to terrorists tenfold.

Sorry for being so naive, but on nuclear weapons, the US, as the only transgressor in human history, certainly should be regarded as having less authority on the matter.


No- we have the most authority on the matter because we have the most and the most advanced weapons. Not to mention the overwhelming might of our conventional forces,which until now, has kept these freaking lunatics around the world in check.

I'm sorry if you'd rather be living in a world where we didnt use them- I dont think you can comprehend how different your way of life would be if Japan defeated the US in WWII. Regardless of how naive you are, I'm sure you know you're better off living with the US in a position of power than Japan.

Iran has no need for nukes. Iran are being deliberately pravocative if they build nukes as they would only need to use them as an offensive.
No more need than other countries that aspire for an important role in the region…
Iran is located in an area with a high level of nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear weaponry is seldom used as an offensive, and then only against states without nuclear weaponry. Statistics never lie :D

Can't we just send in James Bond and be done with this crisis?

That would be nice.

No- we have the most authority on the matter because we have the most and the most advanced weapons. Not to mention the overwhelming might of our conventional forces,which until now, has kept these freaking lunatics around the world in check.

I'm sorry if you'd rather be living in a world where we didnt use them- I dont think you can comprehend how different your way of life would be if Japan defeated the US in WWII. Regardless of how naive you are, I'm sure you know you're better off living with the US in a position of power than Japan.

There is your problem, you do not understand the other and therefore conclude they are lunatics...

Yup, deterrant weapons. No problem with nukes as a deterrent. Except Iran will use them to deter any military action against them whilst they step up their funding to terrorists tenfold.

You mean like funding Afgani militia to fight the Soviet Union, funding military juntas and other indiscriminate acts? Again hypocrisy, as far as I am concerned the US is still unjustified in heading these UN measures while they are the only transgressor in such a regard.

I'm sorry if you'd rather be living in a world where we didnt use them- I dont think you can comprehend how different your way of life would be if Japan defeated the US in WWII. Regardless of how naive you are, I'm sure you know you're better off living with the US in a position of power than Japan.

Japan had no hope of beating the US. Japan was only fending on a declaration of defeat with sticks and pebbles when we nuked them.
Regardless of how naive you are, don't start spouting stupid bullshit without fact checknig first.

No more need than other countries that aspire for an important role in the region…
Iran is located in an area with a high level of nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear weaponry is seldom used as an offensive, and then only against states without nuclear weaponry. Statistics never lie :D

Not really, the region in which Iran currently resides has roughly equal proliferation to all of Asia, North America and Europe, as well as Africa a couple of decades ago. It's really not that abnormally high

Yup, deterrant weapons. No problem with nukes as a deterrent. Except Iran will use them to deter any military action against them whilst they step up their funding to terrorists tenfold.

That can be contained in other ways

That can be contained in other ways

Like what? Enforcing a border cordon and not letting anyone out of Iran?

Not really, the region in which Iran currently resides has roughly equal proliferation to all of Asia, North America and Europe, as well as Africa a couple of decades ago. It's really not that abnormally high

You are right,

I should have said “where the direct competition is so highly proliferated”
(Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, and China)

Can you guarantee that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon first?
I can.. rigth after YOU guarantee that Israel and the others.. will not use a nuclear weapon first. ;)
So sure are you! Prove it, now.Ladies first :D :D :p :D

I can.. rigth after YOU guarantee that Israel and the others.. will not use a nuclear weapon first. ;) Ladies first :D :D :p :D

Seen Israel using a nuclear weapon recently? No. Has Israel been in wars, including ones that threatened its existence? Yes.

See?

Iran has already promised to wipe out Israel. Not the other way around.

Iran has already promised to wipe out Israel. Not the other way around.
A bold statement!

Who said that?
What is his power in the regime?
In what context and to what public was it said?
Do you have a Persian (Farsi) text of audio of this? I’d like to hear it myself :D

Seen Israel using a nuclear weapon recently? No.that is no guarantee.
You asked for a guarantee.. didnt you?

You are asking for a guarantee for Iran.. but you cannot provide the same for Israel and the others.

Iran has already promised to wipe out Israel. Not the other way around.No, Iran NEVER-ever promised to wipe out anyone.

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

US already has nukes. ;)

There is your problem, you do not understand the other and therefore conclude they are lunatics...

You dont even have the slightest arguement that "Dear Leader" Kim Jong il OR Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ARENT lunatics. No-we dont understand them, nor do their own people understand them.

What the hell does the Bush Administration have to do with this?!?

...

oh.

...oops.

...carry on. :P

DAMN! you beat me to it!!!!

that is no guarantee.
You asked for a guarantee.. didnt you?

You are asking for a guarantee for Iran.. but you cannot provide the same for Israel and the others.

Their language is a bit radically different from that of Iran's though.

No one ever sees Ehud Olmert going about declaring that the Iranians should be wiped off of the face of the Earth. You don't see Olmert sending letters to the Greeks proposing an alliance against the Persians. You don't see Olmert proclaiming the only solution for peace is for everyone to convert to Judaism. You don't see Olmert saying the solution for peace is to kill all of the Muslims.

Hell, their country was nearly overrun in 1973, and they didn't make use of a nuke.

Like what? Enforcing a border cordon and not letting anyone out of Iran?
A carrot and stick aproach can be successful even without resorting to force.

Iran has much to gain by stability in the region as well, especially after its domestic security has been secured.
The deeper conflict in the region has to be resolved. Iran could play a role in this.

Japan had no hope of beating the US. Japan was only fending on a declaration of defeat with sticks and pebbles when we nuked them.
Regardless of how naive you are, don't start spouting stupid bullshit without fact checknig first.

regardless of your urgent need to feel good believing revised history, save your spouting of bitter bullshit smokescreens for someone impressed by you.

I'm not.

No, Iran NEVER-ever promised to wipe out anyone.

For once, you are right. The Iranian leader stated that Israel should be wiped off the map.

No, Iran NEVER-ever promised to wipe out anyone.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11624527
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Eh?

You dont even have the slightest arguement that "Dear Leader" Kim Jong il OR Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ARENT lunatics. No-we dont understand them, nor do their own people understand them.
Lucky for you that Ahmadinejad is a charismatic speaker, but not the major player in the regime.

A carrot and stick aproach can be successful even without resorting to force.

Iran has much to gain by stability in the region as well, especially after its domestic security has been secured.
The deeper conflict in the region has to be resolved. Iran could play a role in this.

The Iranian idea of stability is totally different from the American idea of stability, and it is a totally unacceptable vision of stability.

For once, you are right. The Iranian leader stated that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Agreed,

Note that this translation may well not be accurate. That the removal of the state of Israel could well be a “map issue” for Ahmadinejad. Removal of the state of Israel is a common wish in the Middle East, this does not equal killing the inhabitants.

Note that Ahamdinejad is the president and not the leader of Iran. His role can better be characterized as that of a prime minister.

The Iranian idea of stability is totally different from the American idea of stability, and it is a totally unacceptable vision of stability.

How?

Lucky for you that Ahmadinejad is a charismatic speaker, but not the major player in the regime.

Hitler was just a charismatic speaker at one time too.

this guy is a modern day hitler.

I'm afraid he is deliberately baiting the US, and maybe some allies, to attack Iran or its interests.

Once he accomplishes this, he will have taken a tremendous step toward uniting muslims against the west.

This isnt going to play out well no matter how careful we are.

Also- the dreaded UN sanctions will serve only to bolster support of Ahmadinjad-he will become very powerful amongst his own people in his own country as well as with all the terror organizations in other countries that he is funeling money to.

Edit- With Syria,Cuba and Venezuela all eager to play their parts when the time comes.

How?

It was generally outlined in his letter to Bush a couple of months back.

The plan consists of the forced relocation of all Jews, and totaly Iranian domination of regional affairs. Neither of which actions are desirable.

Begoner21;11622284']There's nothing better than to give nuclear weapons do a deeply religious, theocratical regime which enourages martyrdom and is led by an insane leader who believes he sees God at every step.

QUICK! Take America's nukes away from it!
:D

Also- the dreaded UN sanctions will serve only to bolster support of Ahmadinjad-he will become very powerful amongst his own people in his own country as well as with all the terror organizations in other countries that he is funeling money to.

Edit- With Syria,Cuba and Venezuela all eager to play their parts when the time comes.
It is true that he becomes more popular when opposed by the US this has always been the case and is the best way to unite the Iranians. Does this contain a word of advice for Bush perhaps?

The treat you perceive from Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria is not very real.

Nukes program 'legitimate if peaceful'
August 31, 2006 05:17am

ITALIAN Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said today that Iran's desire to develop nuclear energy is "legitimate" provided the goal of the program was for "peaceful purposes".

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20312213-5005961,00.html
Sources: Yahoo, News.com OcceanNEWS, Herald and Weekly Times.

my2cents: legitimate? ... of course.
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Indian or US Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Russian or Pakistani Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Israel or Chinesse Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as frech or Indian Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Brazilian or UK Nukes..

and so is Iranian Nuklear research.. like the Italian gov says..


Here is a huge example how skewed your thought proccess and you views are...

Italy: "Iran's desire to develop nukes is legitimate.. if peaceful"

Either you are ignorant of the fact that NUKES means weapons ..or you are deliberate in your attempt at bullshit .

BECAUSE..THIS...

ITALIAN Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said today that Iran's desire to develop nuclear energy is "legitimate" provided the goal of the program was for "peaceful purposes".


HAS NOTHING to do with...


my2cents: legitimate? ... of course.
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Indian or US Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Russian or Pakistani Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Israel or Chinesse Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as frech or Indian Nukes..
Iranian Nukes are as legitimate as Brazilian or UK Nukes..


Either your an idiot or you are deliberately trying to sell bullshit .

What is it ?

It is true that he becomes more popular when opposed by the US this has always been the case and is the best way to unite the Iranians. Does this contain a word of advice for Bush perhaps?

The treat you perceive from Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Syria is not very real.

I hope cool heads are paying close attention. Iran isnt the voice of reason teaching us a lesson-they are a rabid dog straining against the weak rope they're tied with.

The threat from those other countries would be foolish to ignore, especially when they are all carrying out what appear to be hateful threatening statements towards the US, on their cues. There is an agenda and they are keeping to it. Syria has been the main problem with control in Iraq.

It is a threat-just how much of one isnt clear yet.

well, war can be peaceful
but if it is not,then it is business
And "civilians" ,make 80 procent out of it
Looks like war?

It was generally outlined in his letter to Bush a couple of months back.

The plan consists of the forced relocation of all Jews, and totaly Iranian domination of regional affairs. Neither of which actions are desirable.
It is true that Iran, as a "fellow imperialist", has opposite goals. This however might not be that dissimilar from the struggle for spheres of influence with Russia or China.

Forced relocation of all Jews is a fantasy of course. This goal will not succeed and will be abandoned. It is a publicly stated goal to gain, influence, acceptance and support in the region.

Hitler was just a charismatic speaker at one time too.

I do not have to bother with mentioning charismatic speakers other than Hitler do I?

It was generally outlined in his letter to Bush a couple of months back.

The plan consists of the forced relocation of all Jews, and totaly Iranian domination of regional affairs. Neither of which actions are desirable.

Can someone say Iran-Iraq war where we did not want either side dominating the region?

I do not have to bother with mentioning charismatic speakers other than Hitler do I?
George W. Bush comes to mind for me...
:D

I hope cool heads are paying close attention. Iran isnt the voice of reason teaching us a lesson-they are a rabid dog straining against the weak rope they're tied with.

The threat from those other countries would be foolish to ignore, especially when they are all carrying out what appear to be hateful threatening statements towards the US, on their cues. There is an agenda and they are keeping to it. Syria has been the main problem with control in Iraq.

It is a threat-just how much of one isnt clear yet.
Conspiracy theories like these are quite common in the Middle East, they usually contain Jews, Israel and the US as major players though… It would be foolish to believe any of those. The world is not a rosy place, but not as threatening as you picture it either. You shouldn’t fear the rhetoric of these figures…

Can someone say Iran-Iraq war where we did not want either side dominating the region?

Iran has gained, due to recent US policies again see report (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf#search=%22IRAN%2C%20ITS%20NEIGHBOURS%22)

Iran has gained, due to recent US policies again see report (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf#search=%22IRAN%2C%20ITS%20NEIGHBOURS%22)

Gained yes but they DO NOT control the region at the moment.

Gained yes but they DO NOT control the region at the moment.

No they do not, nor should they... But I do not think furter military means will be the answer. I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a risk that should not have been taken...

Either you are ignorant of the fact that NUKES means weapons ..or you are deliberate in your attempt at bullshit .

BECAUSE..THIS...
HAS NOTHING to do with...

Either your an idiot or you are deliberately trying to sell bullshit .

LOL

Your Pathetic desperation is showing.. (Desparete times call for repetitive flaming) ;)

LOL

Your Pathetic desperation is showing.. (Desparete times call for repetitive flaming) ;)

And yet you continue to dodge all the main points with frivolous sentences of your own. That is a mark of a troll.

Also- the dreaded UN sanctions will serve only to bolster support of Ahmadinjad-he will become very powerful amongst his own people in his own country as well as with all the terror organizations in other countries that he is funeling money to.

Edit- With Syria,Cuba and Venezuela all eager to play their parts when the time comes.

LOL. You paranoid nutjob. You've just lost any credibility you may ever have had.

Still, I thank you for amusing me. It's always entertaining to see the floundering of an inferior intellect, clinging to propaganda-fed paranoid delusions and unable to build an opinion based on reason and facts.

LOL. You paranoid nutjob. You've just lost any credibility you may ever have had.

Still, I thank you for amusing me. It's always entertaining to see the floundering of an inferior intellect, clinging to propaganda-fed paranoid delusions and unable to build an opinion based on reason and facts.

Do you have an intelligent answer to give to his post instead of flabbing about nothing?

And yet you continue to dodge all the main points with frivolous sentences of your own.The point he is tring to make is that Nukes are Weapons.

Of course they are :rolleyes: capitain obvious ;)