NationStates Jolt Archive

Good thing, that. As soon as Iran has nukes, the US will stop dickwaving.

Just had to get this out there, since so many seem to think otherwise.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

In an admission of the international community’s failure to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the document – compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief – says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. “Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded,” it states.

The downbeat conclusions of the “reflection paper” – seen by the Financial Times – are certain to be seized on by advocates of military action, who fear that Iran will be able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb over the next two to three years. Tehran insists its purposes are purely peaceful.

So, given that this isn't a US document compiled by Bush, what do you now think are the chances that the Iranian program is not as peaceful as the Iranians claim?

so Iran will be soon able to develop Fission material not only does this leave the question of is this really news it also leaves the question of what century are you from?

Only yesterday the bloc agreed on how to apply United Nations sanctions on Tehran, overcoming a dispute between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar.

:eek:

You think the Europeans might like to tackle this and show us how a hostile egime is supposed to be dealt with. Tag, you're it!

so Iran will be soon able to develop Fission material not only does this leave the question of is this really news it also leaves the question of what century are you from?

:eek:

It's news.

“At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme,” says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU’s 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday.

“In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone.”

I guess the EU also believes now that sanctions will not work.

It's news.



I guess the EU also believes now that sanctions will not work.

Yep. Economical aid to Iran and a general detente is needed. Not bombings on operative nuclear power reactors what the hell!

So, given that this isn't a US document compiled by Bush, what do you now think are the chances that the Iranian program is not as peaceful as the Iranians claim?

Actually, I don't have that many problems with Iran armed with nukes.
Not any more problem that having a dictator-run, islamic country like Pakistan with nukes. Or expansionist China (Tibet anyone?). Or trigger-happy Israel. Or imperialistic USA. Or paranoid Russia. Or "no civil nuclear power anymore" Italy (we got our nukes from the USA on lease). etc etc etc.

I think that having nuclear power and nuclear weapons is ok for Iran if it is for any other country in the world. At least, the Islamic Republic of Iran never attacked any other country, nor did it use nuclear weapons on densely inhabited areas like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Given that, Ahmadinejad is a jerk and I do hope that Iranians will vote him away. Democratically and peacefully.

"Will be able to" is never anything that anyone has disputed. Most nations could develop nuclear weapons if they really wanted; the question is (a) whether or not Iran would, and (b) whether or not Iran would take initiative in deploying them.

There is nowhere in that report that says Iran has a weapons programme. The closest that it goes is that Iran would potentially have the ability to create weapons-grade uranium sometime in the future as a result of a civilian enrichment programme.

Actually, I don't have that many problems with Iran armed with nukes.
Not any more problem that having a dictator-run, islamic country like Pakistan with nukes. Or expansionist China (Tibet anyone?). Or trigger-happy Israel. Or imperialistic USA. Or paranoid Russia. Or "no civil nuclear power anymore" Italy (we got our nukes from the USA on lease). etc etc etc.

I think that having nuclear power and nuclear weapons is ok for Iran if it is for any other country in the world. At least, the Islamic Republic of Iran never attacked any other country, nor did it use nuclear weapons on densely inhabited areas like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Given that, Ahmadinejad is a jerk and I do hope that Iranians will vote him away. Democratically and peacefully.

two things:

1) justice is not symmetry

2) iran harbors terrorists

It's news.



I guess the EU also believes now that sanctions will not work.
Well, sanctions are the best we have, cause we can't do jack all else.

Well, sanctions are the best we have, cause we can't do jack all else.

Oh, I'm all for waiting until Iran nukes something.

You guys have got to be kidding me. Iran, a nation which drops out of olympic events if they are matched up against Israel, which has denied the holocaust ever happened, which sent a memo to the Germans two years ago talking about how much they hated jews, who has been preaching the US is the great satan and that they would drive Israel into the sea, who is supporting the insurgents in Iran, who sponsored a killing of a US senator in the 80's, who every knows is a supporter a Hezbolah and Syrian radicals. Not peaceful? No, who'd of thought.
Of course they need it for power since they only have a massive amount of oil to the point where the average Iranian citizen owns a old school car which gets 12 miles to the gallon because it costs about 50 cents a gallon. And we all know how worthless oil is as a fuel source.

And to think that after we put sanctions on North Korea, and they got the bomb last year, so we know it doesn't work. We put sanctions on Iraq, and through that corrupt oil for food program Iraq just got more money. Sanctions don't work, they never have, and you cannot name a single rogue nation that has been dissuaded by them. If they did, they wouldn't be rogue nations led by insane radicals and psychopaths like Kim Jong-Il.

But of course if America points it out we are just some corrupt evil empire trying to oppress brown people because we have never supported freedom in hmmm let's say...

World War II
The Entire Cold War including Berlin Air-lift, Korea, Vietnam, and countless other battles and such, including NATO.
The whole Bosnian incident
Somalia
or Liberia.

But when Europeans, who have never had empires, and never caused the problems in

French Indochina,
Indonesia
Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel/ Palestine, Egypt, India.
Algeria
All of africa not counting Liberia or Ethiopia.
every single square inch of the America's from Mexico under the spainards to Brazil under the portugese.

God these is just the same stupid degeneracy theory mindset.

It's news.

so this whole time people have been saying Iran will nuke Israel has been complete and utter bullshit until now :eek:

I guess the EU also believes now that sanctions will not work.

Sanctions are for telling nations they have been naughty not stopping weapons programmes

Again not news

two things:

1) justice is not symmetry

2) iran harbors terrorists

1.Justice cannot exist without symmetry. Go ready any book about a thing called "philosophy of rights".

2.So do:
USA (they refuse to extradate to Italy a person who allegedly killed two italian tourists by placing a bomb in La Habana)
France (they gave political asylum to alleged italian right- and left-wing terrorists during the '80s)
... I'm sure there are many other countries, but for some reason those two nuclear powers come to my mind.

Good thing, that. As soon as Iran has nukes, the US will stop dickwaving.

Maybe.
Maybe not.
Depends on whose in office when the Iranians start 'dickwaving' themselves.

But as soon as Iran has nukes Israel is going to start getting nervous.

Do you know what happens when people with nuclear weapons get nervous?

Yep. Economical aid to Iran and a general detente is needed. Not bombings on operative nuclear power reactors what the hell!

Why provide aid to a government that kills people for being gay or having been raped? Why would you want to keep that government in power longer?

two things:

1) justice is not symmetry

I'm hoping I'm reading that the wrong way

2) iran harbors terrorists

who doesn't?

Oh, I'm all for waiting until Iran nukes something.

Yeah because that’s precisely what Iran will do :rolleyes:

so this whole time people have been saying Iran will nuke Israel has been complete and utter bullshit until now :eek:


No, it's just that the EU didn't believe it until now. So it's news.

The fact that Iran has a nuclear program is nothing to worry about. The propaganda campaign against it is probably a move to justify an eventual war in the future with Iran. Now they're trying to set off a wave of speculation to make people worry and see Iran as a threat to the world.

I found an interesting article on the matter of Irans nuclear program.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b1f6e402-c03c-11db-995a-000b5df10621.html

"Mr ElBaradei(the chief of IAEA) added that US and British intelligence estimates said that Iran was still five to 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb and warned against “hype” over Tehran’s nuclear progress."


"The UN inspector added, however, that “there’s a big difference between acquiring the knowledge for enrichment and developing a bomb”."

So they have the knowledge for enrichment of uranium. Big deal.

Good thing, that. As soon as Iran has nukes, the US will stop dickwaving.

I doubt it. Dickwaving is one of the principal purposes of governments. They'll just pick someone else to wave their dick at. Or they'll just wave their dick a little less vigorously.

Do you know what happens when people with nuclear weapons get nervous?

60 years of peace-iness?

Why provide aid to a government that kills people for being gay or having been raped? Why would you want to keep that government in power longer?

Because its better than the alternatives?

No, it's just that the EU didn't believe it until now. So it's news.

I’d like some news where the E.U says sanctions will stop a weapons programme

1.Justice cannot exist without symmetry. Go ready any book about a thing called "philosophy of rights".

2.So do:
USA (they refuse to extradate to Italy a person who allegedly killed two italian tourists by placing a bomb in La Habana)
France (they gave political asylum to alleged italian right- and left-wing terrorists during the '80s)
... I'm sure there are many other countries, but for some reason those two nuclear powers come to my mind.

1) that doesn't mean justice is symmetry. as long as we're recommending philosophy to each, perhaps you should go back to plato's republic.

2) do you want me to say that france and iran are equivalents when it comes to terrorists?

Gee, it's incredibly simple to build a gun-type bomb with enriched uranium. It was so easy that the US didn't bother to test the first gun-type design, because they KNEW it would work.

the hell they did

The fact that Iran has a nuclear program is nothing to worry about. The propaganda campaign against it is probably a move to justify an eventual war in the future with Iran. Now they're trying to set off a wave of speculation to make people worry and see Iran as a threat to the world.

I found an interesting article on the matter of Irans nuclear program.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b1f6e402-c03c-11db-995a-000b5df10621.html

"Mr ElBaradei(the chief of IAEA) added that US and British intelligence estimates said that Iran was still five to 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb and warned against “hype” over Tehran’s nuclear progress."


"The UN inspector added, however, that “there’s a big difference between acquiring the knowledge for enrichment and developing a bomb”."

So they have the knowledge for enrichment of uranium. Big deal.

Gee, it's incredibly simple to build a gun-type bomb with enriched uranium. It was so easy that the US didn't bother to test the first gun-type design, because they KNEW it would work.

Why provide aid to a government that kills people for being gay or having been raped? Why would you want to keep that government in power longer?

Not to a government (expecially Ahmadinejad's), but to a country. Helping them on the road to welfare will help them also out of the theocratical crap they still have.
It has worked with Italy. Since we're a richer country, the Church isn't all-powerful anymore. Ok, it still gives us some troubles, but even hard-core catholic former president Oscar Luigi Scalfaro stepped up last week and told the Church to shut up about gay couples.
Trust me, if Iran gets a richer country, and if that wealth is better distributed, jerks like Ahmadinejad will lose all the support they got.

Oh, I'm all for waiting until Iran nukes something.
Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. Not unless you have exceptional 10,000+ years worth of oxygen tucked up in those cute lungs of yours.

Gee, it's incredibly simple to build a gun-type bomb with enriched uranium. It was so easy that the US didn't bother to test the first gun-type design, because they KNEW it would work.

So do you really think that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel just because they are able to enrich uranium even though it's clear that they aren't able to build an atomic bomb? Have Iran given the world any signs that it want's to bomb any other country or are we being overwhelmed by anti-iran propaganda?
I say, let them have their nuclear program as long as they're using it for peaceful purposes. Otherwise we should use sanctions against them but war would be a complete catastrophy.

I don't trust a country that wants its "peaceful" (for them) nuclear program pretty much secret. It's so easy to turn a nuke power plant into a deathbomb. I mean, all you have to do is turn off the safety things and wait for Mr. Nuke to do his thing. It worked for Chernobyl and it would've worked for Three Mile Island too if it wasn't for those pesky nuclear scientists and their blasted nuclear knowledge of nuclear stuff.

Anyway, when a country is known for harboring some of the most infamous Islamofascist terrorist groups and publicly wishes a country was wiped off the map, maybe the cons of them having nukes outweighs the pros. Just maybe.

So what do you want to do to stop their nuclear program?

I don't trust a country that wants its "peaceful" (for them) nuclear program pretty much secret. It's so easy to turn a nuke power plant into a deathbomb. I mean, all you have to do is turn off the safety things and wait for Mr. Nuke to do his thing. It worked for Chernobyl and it would've worked for Three Mile Island too if it wasn't for those pesky nuclear scientists and their blasted nuclear knowledge of nuclear stuff.

Anyway, when a country is known for harboring some of the most infamous Islamofascist terrorist groups and publicly wishes a country was wiped off the map, maybe the cons of them having nukes outweighs the pros. Just maybe.

Good thing, that. As soon as Iran has nukes, the US will stop dickwaving.

And much more likely something very bad is going to happen. You hailing this as a good thing shows you know jack shit about what it means for politics.

Just had to get this out there, since so many seem to think otherwise.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html



So, given that this isn't a US document compiled by Bush, what do you now think are the chances that the Iranian program is not as peaceful as the Iranians claim?

I figured it was not as peaceful as they claimed it was. I was still hoping though.

It's news.



I guess the EU also believes now that sanctions will not work.

*dies of a heart attack*

And much more likely something very bad is going to happen. You hailing this as a good thing shows you know jack shit about what it means for politics.

Thats what I said...
Dont expect a response though. I think UB is ignoring me in a few threads >_>

Not to a government (expecially Ahmadinejad's), but to a country. Helping them on the road to welfare will help them also out of the theocratical crap they still have.
It has worked with Italy. Since we're a richer country, the Church isn't all-powerful anymore. Ok, it still gives us some troubles, but even hard-core catholic former president Oscar Luigi Scalfaro stepped up last week and told the Church to shut up about gay couples.
Trust me, if Iran gets a richer country, and if that wealth is better distributed, jerks like Ahmadinejad will lose all the support they got.

Let me give a counter example. Saudi Arabia was so rich with oil wealth that the average Saudi for many years didn't have to work. He lived off the generous dole funded with the Saudi family's oil wealth. They didn't liberalize. They instead still have strict religious laws, and they fund Sunni extremism worldwide.

I figured it was not as peaceful as they claimed it was. I was still hoping though.

If you actually read the article you know it says that Iran will be able to develop an atomic weapon but not until 2015. Iran however claims that their nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes. Do we have proof that says otherwise? The article is just full of speculations and doesn't present any proof that says that Iran want's to build an atomic weapon.

that they can does not mean that they are or will.

two things:

1) justice is not symmetry

2) iran harbors terrorists

Justice has nothing to do with this, and prove that Iran harbours terrorists, please.

"Will be able to" is never anything that anyone has disputed. Most nations could develop nuclear weapons if they really wanted; the question is (a) whether or not Iran would, and (b) whether or not Iran would take initiative in deploying them.I suppose Iran is yet undecided if it really wants nukes. However, if I were Iranian, I'd consider the US has come way to close with their footholds in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, the US had already once helped bringing an Iranian government down to replace it with a bloody dictatorship. And after all that Bush has said so far, Iran should indeed pursue nukes.

I think UB is ignoring me in a few threadsHave you written anything at all?

Let's allow them to waste a fortune on developing nukes, and then wipe out most of the infrastructure in a series of tactical airstrikes. That way, not only does Iran drain its already collapsing economy on building nukes but they get nothing out of it to begin with.

Also, we need to make a move towards hard sanctions; the Iranian regime is far more vulnerable to economic warfare than it is to any kind of external military pressure, and the slightest pressure will set it in to total decay.

so this whole time people have been saying Iran will nuke Israel has been complete and utter bullshit until now :eek:
No, it's just that the EU didn't believe it until now. So it's news.
The EU still don't believe that Iran will nuke Israel.

Let's allow them to waste a fortune on developing nukes, and then wipe out most of the infrastructure in a series of tactical airstrikes. That way, not only does Iran drain its already collapsing economy on building nukes but they get nothing out of it to begin with.

Are you talking 10 or 15 years in the future or what?

Let's allow them to waste a fortune on developing nukes, and then wipe out most of the infrastructure in a series of tactical airstrikes. That way, not only does Iran drain its already collapsing economy on building nukes but they get nothing out of it to begin with.

Also, we need to make a move towards hard sanctions; the Iranian regime is far more vulnerable to economic warfare than it is to any kind of external military pressure, and the slightest pressure will set it in to total decay.

And what do we end up with after that?

A lot of people pissed off because you just wrecked their lives and thus entirely willing to take any road to revenge? Nah, couldn;t happen.

Sanctions do nothing to stop a government, hell some governments THRIVE in adversity, especially when there's an easy target to blame. Britain didn;t fold under the Blitz or the Atlantic Blockade (granted we came closer then we'd like to admit), Iran will not fold easily to coercion either.

It makes a return to totalitarianism that much easier.

And pretty much every time there's a revolution things get worse, ever notice that? France, Iran itself, Russia et al.

The only times it works is when we get GOOD idealists in somewhere (US) or it's done with care and subtlety (the Glorious Revolution of 1688). Popular uprisings under idealogues, which is what usually happens don't end well and DO end up with a massive bodycount and plenty more survivors who wish they weren't.

Are you talking 10 or 15 years in the future or what?

Iran may not be exporting oil by 2010 due to their collapsing oil industry. That means pretty much that they'll be going broke in the next few years. Now, combine that with cutting off other exports and they'll be utterly ruined.

The EU still don't believe that Iran will nuke Israel.

That's probably because they wont.

And what do we end up with after that?

A lot of people pissed off because you just wrecked their lives and thus entirely willing to take any road to revenge? Nah, couldn;t happen.

Most of them have already been wrecked. Iran's got a poverty rate of 40%, 11% unemployment, 15% inflation and one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. They're also suffering under one of the most backward and repressive governments in the Middle East...they couldn't get much worse.

Sanctions do nothing to stop a government, hell some governments THRIVE in adversity, especially when there's an easy target to blame. Britain didn;t fold under the Blitz or the Atlantic Blockade (granted we came closer then we'd like to admit), Iran will not fold easily to coercion either.

Iran will be broke, and most likely in total economic collapse. They'll be much more amenable to negotiations on our terms and their nuclear program will be in shambles due to lack of funds. They won't even have an oil weapon at their disposal.

For all intents and purposes, they'll be powerless and we'll be able to get what we want from them with little additional convincing.

It makes a return to totalitarianism that much easier.

A secular dictatorship would be a lot better than the theocratic one they've currently got. I'd rather have the Shah there than some fanatic like that idiot Ahmadinejad.

And pretty much every time there's a revolution things get worse, ever notice that? France, Iran itself, Russia et al.

It really couldn't get much worse. The clerics have ruined that country far more than anything except a major war.

The only times it works is when we get GOOD idealists in somewhere (US) or it's done with care and subtlety (the Glorious Revolution of 1688). Popular uprisings under idealogues, which is what usually happens don't end well and DO end up with a massive bodycount and plenty more survivors who wish they weren't.

That would be terrible, but it couldn't be much worse than their 30 years of suffering under the clerics. Iran's regime needs to go.

Let's allow them to waste a fortune on developing nukes, and then wipe out most of the infrastructure in a series of tactical airstrikes. That way, not only does Iran drain its already collapsing economy on building nukes but they get nothing out of it to begin with.

Also, we need to make a move towards hard sanctions; the Iranian regime is far more vulnerable to economic warfare than it is to any kind of external military pressure, and the slightest pressure will set it in to total decay.What has Iran ever done to you?

Justice has nothing to do with this, and prove that Iran harbours terrorists, please.

it absolutely does. if you don't see it, i can't make you.

prove iran harbors terrorists? ok, ill prove that to you with indisputable evidence via jolt online forums using websites that are immune to any skepticism, just give me a minute.

What has Iran ever done to you?

To me personally? Nothing.

However, they do pose a threat to the rest of the Middle East, especially our allies in the Persian Gulf.

Most of them have already been wrecked. Iran's got a poverty rate of 40%, 11% unemployment, 15% inflation and one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. They're also suffering under one of the most backward and repressive governments in the Middle East...they couldn't get much worse.



Iran will be broke, and most likely in total economic collapse. They'll be much more amenable to negotiations on our terms and their nuclear program will be in shambles due to lack of funds. They won't even have an oil weapon at their disposal.

For all intents and purposes, they'll be powerless and we'll be able to get what we want from them with little additional convincing.



A secular dictatorship would be a lot better than the theocratic one they've currently got. I'd rather have the Shah there than some fanatic like that idiot Ahmadinejad.



It really couldn't get much worse. The clerics have ruined that country far more than anything except a major war.



That would be terrible, but it couldn't be much worse than their 30 years of suffering under the clerics. Iran's regime needs to go.

If Iran is put under sanctions it will only strenghten the power of the leaders there and they will be able to blaim the country's misfortune on the US. It will also be a perfect reason for them to develop nuclear weapons and armour up because they can always claim that the US began the conflict.

To me personally? Nothing.

However, they do pose a threat to the rest of the Middle East, especially our allies in the Persian Gulf.

The threat you're talking about is made up by the west. They won't be able to develop nuclear weapons in at least ten years and there are no proof that they want to do that.

To me personally? Nothing.

However, they do pose a threat to the rest of the Middle East, especially our allies in the Persian Gulf.Your allies in the Persian Gulf are far worse than Iran.
Iran has never been a threat to anyone. They have never started wars against anyone or instigated wars elsewhere. Unlike the US, which has a history of bringing death wherever involve.

Let's allow them to waste a fortune on developing nukes, and then wipe out most of the infrastructure in a series of tactical airstrikes. That way, not only does Iran drain its already collapsing economy on building nukes but they get nothing out of it to begin with.

Also, we need to make a move towards hard sanctions; the Iranian regime is far more vulnerable to economic warfare than it is to any kind of external military pressure, and the slightest pressure will set it in to total decay.

I agree 100%

Iran may not be exporting oil by 2010 due to their collapsing oil industry. That means pretty much that they'll be going broke in the next few years. Now, combine that with cutting off other exports and they'll be utterly ruined.
I was thinking more along the line of your proposed acts of agression; when should the airstrikes come? 10, 15 years from now or sooner?
Trilby63;12350865']That's probably because they wont.
That's what I believe too.
They're also suffering under one of the most backward and repressive governments in the Middle East...they couldn't get much worse.
Yes they could.

Iran will be broke, and most likely in total economic collapse. They'll be much more amenable to negotiations on our terms and their nuclear program will be in shambles due to lack of funds. They won't even have an oil weapon at their disposal.
So basically you're saying that they are indeed justified in pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that it will become vital for them shortly since they'll loose the oil in just a few years?

For all intents and purposes, they'll be powerless and we'll be able to get what we want from them with little additional convincing.
And what do we want?

And why not simply wait them out if this is true?
To me personally? Nothing.

However, they do pose a threat to the rest of the Middle East, especially our allies in the Persian Gulf.
As of now it's the other way around though, seeing as how Saudi Arabia is already engaged in a kind of economic war with Iran, fighting through oil production and prices. And of course, a battle for influence in Iraq.