Iran Welcomes Talks With the US

[mmmcannibalism]

It's pretty irrelevant why it was used, (the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a whole thread worth of argument on its own) it is important that it was used. I don't like the idea of Iran having a nuclear bomb but I just don't think that America is in any position to make the case when they're still the only ones to have used one. See it from Iran's point of view - lets assume they want a bomb - America is telling Iran not to have one while America has many and have used them. It's like a child hitting somebody with a big stick and then stopping everyone else having a stick because they can be used to hurt people. Diplomatically, it is a mine field.

 

 

 

Last line is entirely accurate, the problem is why we used the nukes is very important here. We used them to end a war and save lives, Iran has no reason to need a nuclear weapon and if they are pursuing a peacful program they should allow inspection(as should any country seeking such a program including the US).

[Robert_de_Sable]

Win:

 

 

 

The Obama administration and its European allies are considering dropping a long-standing U.S. demand that Iran immediately shut down its nuclear facilities if it enters talks over its atomic program, The New York Times reported on Monday on its website.

 

 

 

The proposal would also allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks and would be a sharp break from the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities, the report said.

 

 

 

Enriching uranium can produce fuel for a nuclear power plant or, if purified to a much higher degree, provide material for an atomic bomb. The West suspects Iran's nuclear program is cover for building an atomic bomb but Tehran says it is to generate electricity.

 

 

 

The proposals, still under discussion, were aimed at drawing Iran into nuclear talks that it has so far shunned, the newspaper said, citing officials involved in the strategy sessions.

 

 

 

A senior Obama administration official cautioned that "we are still at the brainstorming level" and said the terms of an opening proposal to Iran were still being debated, the newspaper said.

 

 

 

The six major powers dealing with Iran, including the United States, met in London last week and invited Tehran to a new round of talks about its nuclear program.

 

 

 

The New York Times cited European officials as saying that in talks during Obama's visit to Europe there was agreement that Iran would not accept the immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded.

 

 

 

Obama administration officials declined to discuss details of their deliberations, but said any new American policy would ultimately require Iran to cease enrichment, the newspaper said.

 

 

 

"Our goal remains exactly what it has been in the U.N. resolutions: suspension," one senior administration official told the newspaper.

 

 

 

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... F520090414

 

Good god.

 

Incredible. You honestly think that a stupid, Islamic-fundamentalist-led country like Iran should be allowed to continue with its nuclear enrichment program? They are NOT using it for peaceful reasons, everyone. Economically, it makes no sense to pour billions of dollars into a uranium enrichment program when you have the largest supplies of natural gas and oil on the planet earth. They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

[magekillr]

They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

 

 

 

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either.

 

 

 

Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

 

And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

[mmmcannibalism]

They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

 

 

 

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either.

 

 

 

Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

 

And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

 

 

 

okay robert sounds a little paranoid but, major world powers having nukes has kept us safe since the cold war. ww3 between the United States and Russia would have been quite plausible if there were no nuclear weapons. The need is obviously lessened now, but there is no benefit to removing nuclear weapons just so we can feel good about it.

[magekillr]

They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

 

 

 

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either.

 

 

 

Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

 

And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

 

 

 

okay robert sounds a little paranoid but, major world powers having nukes has kept us safe since the cold war. ww3 between the United States and Russia would have been quite plausible if there were no nuclear weapons. The need is obviously lessened now, but there is no benefit to removing nuclear weapons just so we can feel good about it.

 

 

 

No, major world powers having nukes almost caused mutually assured destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just imagine if instead of JFK, we had George Bush at the helm?

 

 

 

And if I may quote Barack Obama who recently gave a speech regarding the matter:

 

 

 

For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

[obfuscator]

I would be inclined to think this is just political posturing, I can't see Iran giving up their nuclear program no matter what compensations they may get.

[mmmcannibalism]

No, major world powers having nukes almost caused mutually assured destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just imagine if instead of JFK, we had George Bush at the helm?

 

 

 

a. The United States and Russia starting a standard war would have led to them making nukes and using them anyway; diplomacy problems with Russia were far more then both having nukes.

 

 

 

b. Bush's skill at leading is debatable(I dont even think he was good), but even suggesting he would start a nuclear war is foolish. You might want to find another card beside yelling George Bush.

[Robert_de_Sable]

They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

 

 

 

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either.

 

 

 

Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

 

And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

 

 

 

there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons.

 

Please tell me you're not really THAT naive.

 

 

 

 

Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

Honestly, that's a situation where you say "No [cabbage], Sherlock." Just like this one. I support nuclear countries. All except Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan's a whole other matter though, and in all honesty I know very little about it.

[l0l0lpur34]

They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

 

 

 

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either.

 

 

 

Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

 

And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

 

 

 

there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons.

 

Please tell me you're not really THAT naive.

 

 

 

 

Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

Honestly, that's a situation where you say "No [cabbage], Sherlock." Just like this one. I support nuclear countries. All except Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan's a whole other matter though, and in all honesty I know very little about it.

 

who is the USA to dictate who is "allowed" nuclear power and who isn't?

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

They are building a nuclear weapon, and we can't let that happen.

 

 

 

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either.

 

 

 

Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

 

 

And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government

 

 

 

there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons.

 

Please tell me you're not really THAT naive.

 

 

 

 

Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

Honestly, that's a situation where you say "No [cabbage], Sherlock." Just like this one. I support nuclear countries. All except Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan's a whole other matter though, and in all honesty I know very little about it.

 

who is the USA to dictate who is "allowed" nuclear power and who isn't?

[/hide]

 

 

 

The UN is supposed to do it but they wont stop anyone, notice how North Korea is still testing missles even though its banned. Secondly, nuclear allowance should be based at least in part on stability which Iran isnt exactly known for.

[1_man_army]

 

Secondly, nuclear allowance should be based at least in part on stability which Iran isnt exactly known for.

 

 

 

 

 

I could see Iran blaming on the UK and the US for deposing its democratically elected government in 1953 and forcing the horrible regime of the Shah on them. The rule of the Islamic Republic isn't ideal and I don't agree with how Iran is run in many respects but it is ironic that people in the west complain about the lack of freedom in Iran but they really weren't that bothered about those issues under the Shah.

 

 

 

As far as stability goes, I'd say Iran is pretty stable. There are a few small number of groups who are against the but they're no threat to the regime and aren't as widespread as they are in Pakistan or India say. Iran hasn't even fought an offensive war in god knows how long (the Iran-Iraq war was a defense for Iran).

[magekillr]

Please tell me you're not really THAT naive.

 

 

 

Do I think they're after nuclear weapons? Yes. Do I have evidence for it? No. There's absolutely no evidence that suggests this is what they're after, just speculation.

 

 

 

Honestly, that's a situation where you say "No [cabbage], Sherlock." Just like this one. I support nuclear countries. All except Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan's a whole other matter though, and in all honesty I know very little about it.

 

 

 

Why aren't they allowed to have nuclear weapons? The United States remains the only country to actually use them, seems to me we're the ones that shouldn't have them.

 

 

 

And about Iran's stability, they're very stable. They're probably the most pro-American Muslim country, too, besides maybe Turkey. Iran is the only Muslim country that had candle light vigils for 9/11.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Please tell me you're not really THAT naive.

 

Do I think they're after nuclear weapons? Yes. Do I have evidence for it? No. There's absolutely no evidence that suggests this is what they're after, just speculation.

 

 

I've been trying to drill this into your thick skull for a while now.

 

THEY HAVE THE LARGEST SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS IN THE WORLD.

 

Economically, it makes no sense to pour billions into creating a nuclear power source, and Iran doesn't exactly have billions to spare. No one really does.

[l0l0lpur34]

Please tell me you're not really THAT naive.

 

Do I think they're after nuclear weapons? Yes. Do I have evidence for it? No. There's absolutely no evidence that suggests this is what they're after, just speculation.

 

 

I've been trying to drill this into your thick skull for a while now.

 

THEY HAVE THE LARGEST SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS IN THE WORLD.

 

Economically, it makes no sense to pour billions into creating a nuclear power source, and Iran doesn't exactly have billions to spare. No one really does.

 

Iran is just as concerned about the rest of the world about long-term energy security - that "LARGEST SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS" won't last forever

[Robert_de_Sable]

And there is no reason to seek alternative energy sources until they are approaching the point where it's going to run out soon.

[mmmcannibalism]

And there is no reason to seek alternative energy sources until they are approaching the point where it's going to run out soon.

 

 

 

Unless they intend to earn more money from selling the natural gas they wont have to use now.

[Robert_de_Sable]

The nuclear power plants cost a lot more money than they can make by selling natural gas.

[l0l0lpur34]

And there is no reason to seek alternative energy sources until they are approaching the point where it's going to run out soon.

 

nuclear power plants take time to build! they are a long-term investment in better energy security, you can't just build them overnight once all the other sources of energy start to run out.

[Robert_de_Sable]

And there is no reason to seek alternative energy sources until they are approaching the point where it's going to run out soon.

 

nuclear power plants take time to build! they are a long-term investment in better energy security, you can't just build them overnight once all the other sources of energy start to run out.

 

Did that comment have any basis in reality, or are you just saying that because in your computer games it takes 30 turns to build a nuclear power plant? Uranium enrichment is a long process. Construction of a power plant most certainly is not.

[mmmcannibalism]

And there is no reason to seek alternative energy sources until they are approaching the point where it's going to run out soon.

 

nuclear power plants take time to build! they are a long-term investment in better energy security, you can't just build them overnight once all the other sources of energy start to run out.

 

Did that comment have any basis in reality, or are you just saying that because in your computer games it takes 30 turns to build a nuclear power plant? Uranium enrichment is a long process. Construction of a power plant most certainly is not.

 

 

 

I think he is referencing the overall incorporation of them; if you dont start building till you run out of oil you could be having a serious crisis while your trying to replace your entire energy system.

[l0l0lpur34]

 

Did that comment have any basis in reality,

 

Yes.

 

Didn't bother to read the rest