NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061027/ts_afp/irannuclearpolitics_061027160819

It looks like Iran is still defying the rest of the world and moving ahead with their nuclear program. North Korea may be getting ready to set off a second nuclear bomb.

I think the UN will not do anything to stop these two rogue states from getting the bomb. Europe has failed in their diplomacy to stop Iran from moving ahead.

What should be done? What should the world do about these two "want to be nuclear nations?"

North Korea is a joke. Have been since their first nuclear test back in '93.

Now Iran can keep having their uranium enrichment program. If worse comes to worse, their first nuke would be produced in 10-20 years. Enough time for another President of the U.S to make a decision on what to do.

What should be done? What should the world do about these two "want to be nuclear nations?"
Let them have the weapons. It’ll be fine.

North Korea is a joke. Have been since their first nuclear test back in '93.

Now Iran can keep having their uranium enrichment program. If worse comes to worse, their first nuke would be produced in 10-20 years. Enough time for another President of the U.S to make a decision on what to do.

Why should it be up to the US to decide? Why not the UN or even the EU?

Why should it be up to the US to decide? Why not the UN or even the EU?

I really don't see the EU making decisions for themselves without the U.S or the U.N.

The U.N has failed countless times when it comes to making decisions (I.E Darfur), but maybe things will change with Ban Ki-Moon goes into office on New Years Day, 2007?

... maybe things will change with Ban Ki-Moon goes into office on New Years Day, 2007?

Don't hold your breath. :(

Well the US as the only nuclear trangressor in the region, yet in the entire history of man, is the last person who should lecture sovereign states on such matters.

How can you say that? I would expect everyone to be afraid of the U.S (whether or not they show it) because of all the nukes they have. Same goes for Russia.

I think Russia and the U.S should lecture the world on nukes, seeing how they have the most experience in them. Of course, that may lead to some fighting, but that'll happen anyway.

Well the US as the only nuclear trangressor in the region, yet in the entire history of man, is the last person who should lecture sovereign states on such matters.

Yeah we had no reason to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki:rolleyes: .

You fail at history.

Don't hold your breath. :(

Why not? Kofi Annan has done nothing "in the name of peace" since 1997. I say that Ban Ki-moon will tear up the office and the world will be at LEAST 2 times safer than it was under Kofi Annan.

Why not? Kofi Annan has done nothing "in the name of peace" since 1997. I say that Ban Ki-moon will tear up the office and the world will be at LEAST 2 times safer than it was under Kofi Annan.

2 X 0 = 0 Nope, not further ahead than 0 X 0 = O. :mad:

To be honest, I really do not care if Iran has nuclear weapons. For all the faults of the Iranian state and government, they are not insane. I would trust Iran not to use their weapons.

2 X 0 = 0 Nope, not further ahead than 0 X 0 = O. :mad:

Give the dude a chance before we condem him.

Give the dude a chance before we condem him.

I'm not condeming him, I'm condeming the UN. There are very few times they have acted responsibly and it didn't matter who the President was. :mad:

I'm not condeming him, I'm condeming the UN. There are very few times they have acted responsibly and it didn't matter who the President was. :mad:

Well, perhaps this person can bring change to the UN.

All I'm saying is to give the man a chance to do his job before we throw him to the lions.

Well, perhaps this person can bring change to the UN.

All I'm saying is to give the man a chance to do his job before we throw him to the lions.

He has no power to make changes. He is simply a Secretary General, not a president. He and the UN still have to do what the big powers in SC tell them to do.

You want the UN to be an effective, responsible international body? Tell the five permanent members to give up their veto and to really commit to give the UN some force, not just drag their feet for a year and then vetoing any resolution that pretends to be just a little bit strong.

I'm not condeming him, I'm condeming the UN. There are very few times they have acted responsibly and it didn't matter who the President was. :mad:

Yeah. Damn those UNSC countries, eh?

The Secretary general is not to blame - they are. The member states that make up the UN with them at the head.

1) Ban Ki-moon will make the world a better place. He's South Korean, common man.

2) Calm yourself down, I was overexaggerating when I said Kofi Annan did nothing. I know math. I'm far more advanced than I should be in my grade, so don't teach me math.

3) The President of the U.S DOES matter. I recall Kofi Annan condemning the U.S from entering Iraq, but the President still did so anyway. He actually has power over Kofi Annan (is that supposed to be?).