BREAKING NEWS: Iran nuclear issue now closed

Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?rimnet00

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

The US could hand over it's entire nuclear arsenal to Canada or the Swiss or the Brits, and they'd all have a level of responsibility and wherewithal to be trustworthy.

Iran however does not have the same genuine level of responsibility. It's conducted and continues to conduct torture, enact gender apartheid, and is implicated in terrorist financing if not outright intefering with Iraqi stabalization efforts.

Being watched by a nuclear watchdog has little effect if one were to simply go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]when did I say that attack and surgical strike were any different?Sajo7

I'm just trying to make sense of this:

I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesmig_killer2

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

mig_killer2

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]when did I say that attack and surgical strike were any different?mig_killer2

I'm just trying to make sense of this:

I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesmig_killer2

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

mig_killer2

Read your first quote again.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?Loonie

Since Iran said they wanted Israel wiped off the map. Well no, thats a lie, people wouldnt probably wouldnt want Iran to have anything radioactive anyway.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?Atrus

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

The US could hand over it's entire nuclear arsenal to Canada or the Swiss or the Brits, and they'd all have a level of responsibility and wherewithal to be trustworthy.

Iran however does not have the same genuine level of responsibility. It's conducted and continues to conduct torture, enact gender apartheid, and is implicated in terrorist financing if not outright intefering with Iraqi stabalization efforts.

Being watched by a nuclear watchdog has little effect if one were to simply go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one.

First of all I think it is less responsible of the American people to hand over the most powerful country in the world with enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over to a man that stumbles over the simplest of sentences. Second of all under international law any country has the right to a civilian nuclear program and there is no evidence that Iran has anything but a civilian nuclear program. Third of all the country I am most afraid of right now is America because they have nuclear weapons, they have a history of using nuclear weapons and their military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons, not to mention the relocation of 5 nuclear missiles using a B52 bomber to the same airbase that is used to transport weapons to Iraq.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]you dont think the oil prices would go up to 100$ a barrel if one of those iranian nuclear bombs exploded in a major US or European city?Loonie

If Iran was going to nuke anyone it would be Israel.

But I think Iran understands mutually assured destruction, Israel has nukes too; i think Iran just wants to be able to throw its weight around and have nukes to back it up. Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if Saudi Arabia follows suit. If bush hasnt already sold them nukes that is.

Personally I don't mind if the US goes to war with Iran. Although Iran is actually one of the more civilised countries in the middle east it is still ruled by religious fundamentalists and enforces sharia law.

Correction the United States government is arming Saudi Arabia as we speak.. Lets not forget we have armed the local extremists in Iraq to help kill AQ..

[QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?MGS9150

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

The US could hand over it's entire nuclear arsenal to Canada or the Swiss or the Brits, and they'd all have a level of responsibility and wherewithal to be trustworthy.

Iran however does not have the same genuine level of responsibility. It's conducted and continues to conduct torture, enact gender apartheid, and is implicated in terrorist financing if not outright intefering with Iraqi stabalization efforts.

Being watched by a nuclear watchdog has little effect if one were to simply go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one.

First of all I think it is less responsible of the American people to hand over the most powerful country in the world with enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over to a man that stumbles over the simplest of sentences. Second of all under international law any country has the right to a civilian nuclear program and there is no evidence that Iran has anything but a civilian nuclear program. Third of all the country I am most afraid of right now is America because they have nuclear weapons, they have a history of using nuclear weapons and their military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons, not to mention the relocation of 5 nuclear missiles using a B52 bomber to the same airbase that is used to transport weapons to Iraq.

Lets not forget that the United States has direclty threatened Iran to use nuclear weapons on them.. Against a non nuclear nation.. the US also has broken Nuclear sanctions to give the weapon to India a unsanctioned country. In the end this guy is a head ache to the US government in my mind that they want to overthrow so Oil is kept safe.. They have done this before in the past, I can hardly see now why this is not the number one reason. Specially when Iran has yet to even devolpe a GENERATIOn 1 let alone the generation 5 nuclear weapons the United States has.

He'll crumble when sanctions tie him off like a noose.LukeAF24

You mean like Saddam did? :lol:

He'll crumble when sanctions tie him off like a noose.LukeAF24

Werd, the iranian economy can't hold out against the first world nations,

IF it ever came down to invading if the UN see's fit, then all the nations would do something, the reason not everybody is in iraq is because they voted against it.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]when did I say that attack and surgical strike were any different?Sajo7

I'm just trying to make sense of this:

I honestly dont think we have a choice now. we NEED to take out their nuclear program with multiple surgical strikesmig_killer2

only 1 problem

we CANNOT attack Iran if the rest of the world doesn't have our back. we have to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure this doesn't bite us in the ass like iraq did.

mig_killer2

Read your first quote again.

[QUOTE="LukeAF24"]He'll crumble when sanctions tie him off like a noose.mark4091

Werd, the iranian economy can't hold out against the first world nations,

IF it ever came down to invading if the UN see's fit, then all the nations would do something, the reason not everybody is in iraq is because they voted against it.

Wrong.

Saddam had heavy sanctions look what happened to him. His government and himself skimmed the oil funds and lived lavishly, then the infrastructure crumbled but not so much that it cost them anything, they remain in power. If you take them down you've got more problems. The problem is America running around calling certain nations "evil" its really ridiculous.

[QUOTE="LukeAF24"]He'll crumble when sanctions tie him off like a noose.mark4091

Werd, the iranian economy can't hold out against the first world nations,

IF it ever came down to invading if the UN see's fit, then all the nations would do something, the reason not everybody is in iraq is because they voted against it.

Are you guys on meth? THEY ARE ALLIES with China.. One of the worlds largest growing economies and distributors.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?Atrus

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

Oh come now, its a bit rich for americans to be talking about other countries electing competent leaders.

[QUOTE="Loonie"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?rimnet00

Since Iran said they wanted Israel wiped off the map. Well no, thats a lie, people wouldnt probably wouldnt want Iran to have anything radioactive anyway.

What I was actually suggesting is that people wouldnt want Iran to have nuclear weapons even had he not said it. Iran has a history which I am not overly familiar with myself being only 20 but I am assuming tensions stretch back to 1949, I believe that is when Israel was founded. Could be wrong. They may even stretch back further.

Personally I think Iran needs to take steps towards becoming secular before it should be allowed nukes. Turkey managed it and the Iranian citizens seem to be more secular than the average middle eastern country, shame they are still ruled by ayatollahs.

And I imagine there are several things preventing bush from doing those things, but i wouldnt be overly upset if he did.

to be honest i'm more worried about the north korea and syria partnership, it has more potential for disaster. imo our enemies are going to obtain nuclear capabilities at some point in the future, just a matter of when.

Syria-North Korean "connection"

N.Korea Denies aiding Syrian nuclear plans

[QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?sSubZerOo

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

The US could hand over it's entire nuclear arsenal to Canada or the Swiss or the Brits, and they'd all have a level of responsibility and wherewithal to be trustworthy.

Iran however does not have the same genuine level of responsibility. It's conducted and continues to conduct torture, enact gender apartheid, and is implicated in terrorist financing if not outright intefering with Iraqi stabalization efforts.

Being watched by a nuclear watchdog has little effect if one were to simply go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one.

First of all I think it is less responsible of the American people to hand over the most powerful country in the world with enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over to a man that stumbles over the simplest of sentences. Second of all under international law any country has the right to a civilian nuclear program and there is no evidence that Iran has anything but a civilian nuclear program. Third of all the country I am most afraid of right now is America because they have nuclear weapons, they have a history of using nuclear weapons and their military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons, not to mention the relocation of 5 nuclear missiles using a B52 bomber to the same airbase that is used to transport weapons to Iraq.

Lets not forget that the United States has direclty threatened Iran to use nuclear weapons on them.. Against a non nuclear nation.. the US also has broken Nuclear sanctions to give the weapon to India a unsanctioned country. In the end this guy is a head ache to the US government in my mind that they want to overthrow so Oil is kept safe.. They have done this before in the past, I can hardly see now why this is not the number one reason. Specially when Iran has yet to even devolpe a GENERATIOn 1 let alone the generation 5 nuclear weapons the United States has.

Not to mention the U.S involvement in helping Israel attain nuclear technology, a country with a long list of human right violations and a country who has not signed the nuclear no proliferation treaty. It is also important to mention that there have been at least 60 U.N resolutions against Israel. No matter what the western media says Israel is a threat and they are guilty of war crimes, they are not an innocent party in this and are as guilty as anyone, I think that if America attacks Iran it is doing so because of Israel.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?Atrus

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

The US could hand over it's entire nuclear arsenal to Canada or the Swiss or the Brits, and they'd all have a level of responsibility and wherewithal to be trustworthy.

Iran however does not have the same genuine level of responsibility. It's conducted and continues to conduct torture, enact gender apartheid, and is implicated in terrorist financing if not outright intefering with Iraqi stabalization efforts.

Being watched by a nuclear watchdog has little effect if one were to simply go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one.

Atrus, if the question was posed in the way you have posed it, I think it would make quite the interesting discussion. I just find it rather annoying when people turn on their WW3 alarms calling doom and gloom - with little understanding of the situation. A few years ago, I would not have cared so much, thinking such alarms were only convincing to a minority, however as of late I have realized that a vast number of people will quickly take as fact anything that deals with the outside world. Anyways, enough of the rant there, onto your statement...

The US is not being asked to "hand over" a nuclear arsenal over to Iran. Are you suggesting that by not halting Iran's nuclear program, we are essentially "handing over" a nuclear aresenal?

What do the accusations of "coducting torture, enating gender apartheid" have anything to do with nuclear technology. Those are moot points, as having or not having nuclear technology would not effect those areas in the least. Unless you are suggesting nuclear technology be used as a bargining chip. Is this the case?

As for Iran being implicated for funding terrorists, I'm not quite sure which implications you are refering to. Are you referring to the accusations that Iran is sending in it's people into Iraq to help the insurgents?

As for a nuclear watchdog having little effect on whether Iran was to go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one, this simply can't happen. The level of enrichment from nuclear grade to military grade is very vast. It requires something like 5 times the number of califuges (don't know how to spell it). In fact, estimates show that it would take Iran upwards of 10 years to construct one nuclear missle, and this is not even taking into consideration that the nuclear watchdog could tell between nuclear grade and military grade. You can't just hide this kind of program when the UN is breathing down your neck, which is precisely how Pakistan and India were able to hide their technologies, as no one was overseeing them.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Once again. Why is it illegal for a country to have civil nuclear technology? Especially when being watched by the UN nuclear watchdog?MGS9150

It isn't illegal to possess civilian nuclear technology. However, the question is whether or not it would be responsible to hand over nuclear technology to a state that elects a man like the Iranian president to power?

The US could hand over it's entire nuclear arsenal to Canada or the Swiss or the Brits, and they'd all have a level of responsibility and wherewithal to be trustworthy.

Iran however does not have the same genuine level of responsibility. It's conducted and continues to conduct torture, enact gender apartheid, and is implicated in terrorist financing if not outright intefering with Iraqi stabalization efforts.

Being watched by a nuclear watchdog has little effect if one were to simply go rogue and start converting civilian nuclear technology to a military one.

First of all I think it is less responsible of the American people to hand over the most powerful country in the world with enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over to a man that stumbles over the simplest of sentences. Second of all under international law any country has the right to a civilian nuclear program and there is no evidence that Iran has anything but a civilian nuclear program. Third of all the country I am most afraid of right now is America because they have nuclear weapons, they have a history of using nuclear weapons and their military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons, not to mention the relocation of 5 nuclear missiles using a B52 bomber to the same airbase that is used to transport weapons to Iraq.

Lets not forget that the United States has direclty threatened Iran to use nuclear weapons on them.. Against a non nuclear nation.. the US also has broken Nuclear sanctions to give the weapon to India a unsanctioned country. In the end this guy is a head ache to the US government in my mind that they want to overthrow so Oil is kept safe.. They have done this before in the past, I can hardly see now why this is not the number one reason. Specially when Iran has yet to even devolpe a GENERATIOn 1 let alone the generation 5 nuclear weapons the United States has.

Not to mention the U.S involvement in helping Israel attain nuclear technology, a country with a long list of human right violations and a country who has not signed the nuclear no proliferation treaty. It is also important to mention that there have been at least 60 U.N resolutions against Israel. No matter what the western media says Israel is a threat and they are guilty of war crimes, they are not an innocent party in this and are as guilty as anyone, I think that if America attacks Iran it is doing so because of Israel.

Yep, nothing makes me more angry then how some sides claim to be rightous like they have done nothing wrong.. Complete BS.

First of all I think it is less responsible of the American people to hand over the most powerful country in the world with enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over to a man that stumbles over the simplest of sentences. Second of all under international law any country has the right to a civilian nuclear program and there is no evidence that Iran has anything but a civilian nuclear program. Third of all the country I am most afraid of right now is America because they have nuclear weapons, they have a history of using nuclear weapons and their military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons, not to mention the relocation of 5 nuclear missiles using a B52 bomber to the same airbase that is used to transport weapons to Iraq.

MGS9150

I see no reason to be afraid of the US and Canada is pretty damned close to the country. Sure, the US participates in an extremely nationalistic mindset that tries to force the rest of the planet to support Pro-American policies that seem only to benefit that country, but aside from that it's also the country that's a leader in medicine, technology, and world aid.

America may be prone to mistakes but it is foremost a democracy that is controlled by the people. The concerns raised by the US against Iran are more than valid.

The Iranian people have a right to nuclear power, but they have to realize that unless they elect (or overthrow) for a more responsible and humanitarian regime then this technology cannot be simply handed over.

Well, time to duck under our desks if we want to avoid being incinerated by atomic holocausts.Silver_Dragon17

Yes because somehow when Iran gets their nuclear weapons its gonna be generation 5 able to reach across the planet on their first try :roll:

[QUOTE="MGS9150"]

First of all I think it is less responsible of the American people to hand over the most powerful country in the world with enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over to a man that stumbles over the simplest of sentences. Second of all under international law any country has the right to a civilian nuclear program and there is no evidence that Iran has anything but a civilian nuclear program. Third of all the country I am most afraid of right now is America because they have nuclear weapons, they have a history of using nuclear weapons and their military doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons, not to mention the relocation of 5 nuclear missiles using a B52 bomber to the same airbase that is used to transport weapons to Iraq.

Atrus

I see no reason to be afraid of the US and Canada is pretty damned close to the country. Sure, the US participates in an extremely nationalistic mindset that tries to force the rest of the planet to support Pro-American policies that seem only to benefit that country, but aside from that it's also the country that's a leader in medicine, technology, and world aid.

America may be prone to mistakes but it is foremost a democracy that is controlled by the people. The concerns raised by the US against Iran are more than valid.

The Iranian people have a right to nuclear power, but they have to realize that unless they elect (or overthrow) for a more responsible and humanitarian regime then this technology cannot be simply handed over.

Well I live in Canada and I see the U.S as the biggest threat to the world. If Iranians like their government that is up to the people that live in Iran, if any other country in the world doesn't like it that is too bad, Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program, the technology is not being handed to them they are attaining it themselves and have every right to do so. Unless there is solid proof and I mean actual proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons I think the U.S should just mind its own business.

Well I live in Canada and I see the U.S as the biggest threat to the world. If Iranians like their government that is up to the people that live in Iran, if any other country in the world doesn't like it that is too bad, Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program, the technology is not being handed to them they are attaining it themselves and have every right to do so. Unless there is solid proof and I mean actual proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons I think the U.S should just mind its own business.

MGS9150

Its a bit of an exagerration to call the US the biggest threat to the world. Its a bit like overlooking all the positives and remembering all of the negatives. The US is a giant in many ways but the fact that it is a Capitalistic society means that it has to adhere to one bottom line: $$$ and waging war with countries without reason leaves less of that $$$ to go around. That's less $$$ for healthcare, border security, military improvement, pensions, education, medicine and a host of other civilian needs.

As mentioned before, Iran certainly has the right to civil nuclear power. So does Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and others.

The question is; are they to be trusted enough to handle nuclear material or technology or can we expect them to conveniently have some go missing, finding their way onto the black market or perhaps into the hands of Islamists or their own special forces assaults against 'The Zionists' or just the West in general.

Personally, my trust level for a regime that oppresses its people and entertains torture, even to Canadians like Zahra Kazemi, is extremely low to begin with. After the Iranian presidents speech at Columbia and the UN, I have less trust in the sensibility of that administration.