Opinions on Iran policy-wise

[chris1216]

Quick thread rule to avoid irrelevant arguments:

 

 

 

Don't post your opinion on what you think of the current administration (i.e. Bush is stupid or Bush is the greatest human being alive, will save us time).

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think current U.S. policy on Iran should be? The CIA is estimating their ability to go nuclear at being years away (however, their guesses have been way off).

 

 

 

Do we invade and risk igniting, functionally, all of Islam?

 

 

 

Continued diplomatic pressure?

 

 

 

Incentives?

 

 

 

Embargo?

 

 

 

go!

[pianofrieak2]

The Iranian president has repeatedly said that he will not stop his nuclear technology. He blased Kofi Annan's request that he disarm, and since Russia and China are on his side (against the USA of course), the chances of him getting an embargo are extremely slim and far off into the future. But if he keeps at it, Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike which might be defended by the USA and, perhaps, Britain depending on who the prime minister is.

 

 

 

Honestly, I think we should destroy it. They don't care what the international community thinks. That much is clear. Besides, incentives only work for so long. They'll want technology or money which will only further their cause. Pretty soon, after enough incentives, they won't even need them and then will forget anything you offer them.

 

 

 

Pre-emptive strike, anyone?

[chris1216]

I guess it comes down to a debate of whether or not prolif is a good thing, even in the hands of those less rational.

 

 

 

A pre-emptive strike, however would do quite a lot to piss off a LOT of folks, not to mention kill a whole lot more.

 

 

 

And the last time we went preemptive, we ended up with iraq.

[Kryptic]

All I hear is that the US wont let anyone else have the big toys. Maybe it's about time they share...?

[PURESMITHER]

The UK has nuclear weapons, so does the USA, China, Russia and several other countries I can't be bothered to mention. Why can't Iran have them?

[Ragen]

All I hear is that the US wont let anyone else have the big toys. Maybe it's about time they share...?

 

 

 

IMO it'd be better for America to be un-opposed so that we don't get into another Cold War situation.

[sjiskebab5]

There are alot of nuclear weapons stored in Belgium :shame: :shock:

[Kryptic]

All I hear is that the US wont let anyone else have the big toys. Maybe it's about time they share...?

 

 

 

IMO it'd be better for America to be un-opposed so that we don't get into another Cold War situation.

 

 

 

If you dont want any threats from someone else, maybe you shouldnt make something to threat them with. The mistake isn't Iran making Nukes, it is that the US started the whole nuclear project. Its just unforutnate that everyone else wants them too, just to feel safe.

[Destroyer822]

Iran CANNOT have them because they have sworn to destroy isreal they dont have to do it themselves its not hard to find a suicide bomber in that reigon tell its for allah and they will do anything if Iran gets a nuke the terrorits will get a big weapons upgrade.... They did supply hezbollah long range missles what makes you think they wouldnt supply them a nuke?

 

 

 

The countries that have nuclear weapons are not bent on using them. Iran claims the program is purely for energy and not for military purposes. If Irans nuclear program is simply for energy why wouldnt they have taken russia's offer to enrich the uranium for them?

 

 

 

Okey heres my solution to the problem

 

One month ultimatum to stop nuclear testing

 

After that if testing is not stopped take out all air defences then proceed to bomb ALL nuclear facilities

 

If iran so boldy attacks us in any way in iraq or elsewhere send out another ultimatum to stop that

 

Once thats not meant bomb one military target a day give them an hour to evacuate.

 

This plan would force them to negotiate and you wouldnt have bombed all potential targets once thats done theyve got nothing left to lose.

 

Of course if they push it out that far declare all out war.

 

AND NOT A RESTRICTED WAR LIKE WHAT WE HAVE GOING IN IRAQ

[Destroyer822]

I guess it comes down to a debate of whether or not prolif is a good thing, even in the hands of those less rational.

 

 

 

A pre-emptive strike, however would do quite a lot to piss off a LOT of folks, not to mention kill a whole lot more.

 

 

 

And the last time we went preemptive, we ended up with iraq.

 

 

 

Our problem in Iraq is that our goverment is currently fighting a Political Correctness war. We cannot go into pakistan because we dont want to violate their sovereignty to retrieve terrorists hiding inside their borders so much for "with us or against us". We cannot use Coarsed interigation, Coarsed interrigation is NOT torture. Deprive them of sleep break their will make them talk of course have some oversight. The ACLU sues the goverment on everything the goverment has fight terrorism. One last thing i saw one of these just the other day a report on a prisoner released from guantanomo bay they portrayed him as an innocent bystander cought up in the war. Cross reference it as expected i found contradictory evidence it was an interview in which he claimed to have just been watching the activities at the 2 terrorist training camps and even admitted supporting terrorists with donations.

 

Link To Article http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/230/

 

Link To Interview http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/02/week_4/24_morebegg.html

[hells_mishap]

IF the US were to call for an air strike on nuclear facilities Iran would immediately respond by attacking Israel. They have already threatened to do this if they were attacked by the US. This could cause a huge regional war. So the US should be very careful when dealing with this situation. If there is a pre-emptive strike it could get a lot bloodier than Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Michael_Allen]

Why should western countries be aloud neclear power and Islamic and arab countries be denied it. If Iran wants neclear technology to make its self a better country what right has any other country have to denie it.

[Destroyer822]

True it could be worse than those conflicts but i must point out that they

 

both have really low casualties compared to previous wars. But the cards have to be thrown down at some point it best be now before the nuclear weapons come into play. Its all in the hands of Iran and whether they will give up nuclear ambitions.

 

 

 

Hitler Annexed Sudenland before they actually started their offencive as that is where the weapons producers were. If we let Iran get nukes we will be repeating the past mistakes of trying to appease a power hungry madman. Really Iran has the same goals the germans had in world war 2 they want to kill the Jews.

 

 

 

Also Israel is a very capable military power and i believe they could withstand an attack. They are our allies as well if Iran attacked we should back them up especially if it is in direct responce to our actions.

 

 

 

I also dont believe much chance of the muslim whole uniting to Irans cause. There are two religious factions that constantly fight amongst themselves that alone would prevent that. Everyone is always talking about the peace loving muslims, They are out there. We only see the extremists as they are causing the problems in the world.

[Destroyer822]

They have every right to it i referenced this in an earlier post in same topic. Russia offered to enrich uranium for Iran so they could run powerplants they turned it down while claiming their program was purely for energy purposes. What is the reason they should have a nuke because we have one? Im really interested to hear an arguement other than that. Pakistan has nukes last i checked they were an arabic country in the middle east.

[caligula101]

You guys say Iran isn't safe to have nuclear weapons. I don't think America are either, what about Hiroshima an Nagaski. I think America are the last people that should be allowed nuclear weapons...

[Destroyer822]

Hehe this never ends thats fine im getting more enjoyment out of this than the game itself....

 

Did we start that war? ... No

 

Were Japan and Germany trying to develop nukes? .... yes

 

Would they have readily used them on us? ..... yes

 

We actually cut down the number of casualties that would have resulted from the final invasion into Japan saving many more than the lives lost in the two nuclear weapons dropped in japan killed.... Yes even the Japanese casualties that would have resulted.

 

Have we used the nukes since then? .... no

 

At that point in time it was them or us. A concept blurred by the spread of nuclear weapons which could be a good thing but certainly not if the weapons fall into the hands of terrorists and why should we expect nothing less than Iran to give them to the terrorists? They did supply hezbollah long range rockets to fire at israel even a few soldiers to show them how to use them.

[Destroyer822]

Also Im curious what country is everyone from here? I think it is quite obvious that im an american.

[richpoepaap]

There are alot of nuclear weapons stored in Belgium :shame: :shock:

 

Yup, we got some part lying around. Pretty freaky that.

 

On Iran, I am against giving them the opportunity to make nuclear weapons. Remember, they are led by the man who says the holocaust didn't happen, and has said he admires Hitler in some ways.

 

They may, however use them for power plants, that's fine. But I wouldn't feel safe if Iran has nukes anymore. =;

[Destroyer822]

Responding to the second post... I dont think Russia and China would move against us but i certainly dont expect them to help unless it interests them specifically to do so. I also dont believe much can be accomplished through the UN sure it makes sence in theory but its corrupt and inneficient nothing gets accomplished. France spearheads a ceasefire between hezbollah and isreal and commits 200 troops to the suggested 15000 UN troops to be sent in to enforce the border.

[Ragen]

All I hear is that the US wont let anyone else have the big toys. Maybe it's about time they share...?

 

 

 

IMO it'd be better for America to be un-opposed so that we don't get into another Cold War situation.

 

 

 

If you dont want any threats from someone else, maybe you shouldnt make something to threat them with. The mistake isn't Iran making Nukes, it is that the US started the whole nuclear project. Its just unforutnate that everyone else wants them too, just to feel safe.

 

 

 

Yes it would be better if there was no nuclear bombs, but they exist and I don't think that America will want to get rid of them. So the best thing to do is to let America keep its weapons and not provoke her into unleashing them. I'd rather live in a world where America dominates than a world where we could have a Nuclear war at any time.

[Guest XplsvBam]

The UK has nuclear weapons, so does the USA, China, Russia and several other countries I can't be bothered to mention. Why can't Iran have them?

Because Iran isn't following nuclear-policy. The point is they arn't suppose to have weapons (international policy.) What ever is suppose to be done Iran isn't doing that is why there is a problem.

[darkmage099]

True it could be worse than those conflicts but i must point out that they

 

both have really low casualties compared to previous wars. But the cards have to be thrown down at some point it best be now before the nuclear weapons come into play. Its all in the hands of Iran and whether they will give up nuclear ambitions.

 

 

 

Hitler Annexed Sudenland before they actually started their offencive as that is where the weapons producers were. If we let Iran get nukes we will be repeating the past mistakes of trying to appease a power hungry madman. Really Iran has the same goals the germans had in world war 2 they want to kill the Jews.

 

 

 

Also Israel is a very capable military power and i believe they could withstand an attack. They are our allies as well if Iran attacked we should back them up especially if it is in direct responce to our actions.

 

 

 

I also dont believe much chance of the muslim whole uniting to Irans cause. There are two religious factions that constantly fight amongst themselves that alone would prevent that. Everyone is always talking about the peace loving muslims, They are out there. We only see the extremists as they are causing the problems in the world.

 

 

 

Actually you are wrong about Hitler. He actually wanted all minorities to me exterminated from Europe. His other main goal was global domination. I think what Iran is doing is more defensive. Why is America allowed to have them and Iran not? I think America needs to buzz off.

 

 

 

So you say they provided Lebanon with weapons. America supplied Israel. There is no way to stop Iran unless America goes into a full blown war. America is already in trillions of dollars of debt and they cant go into more. I dont think you understand that if Iran doesn't beef up their defense, they will be a traget.

 

 

 

Besides, why is America so concerned about Iran? North Korea has nukes...and they're pointed right at us. That right I forgot, America is going into wars they know they can win. Oh and to the guy who said the thing about the ultimatum...do you know how much $$$ that would take??? If America gets into a war with the Middle East and the Middle east bands together against America, America is SCREWED. One, we dont have the money. Two, it would be next to impossble to win. Three, you may say we will nuke them but they'll nuke us right back.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. These are my opinions and I know I'll get flamed on them so I dont care. 8-)

 

 

 

Edit: just read the post above me. Well then who made hte policy? What are we going to go to war with them because they aren't following policy? That's chaos. We can, however, try and make peace? Idk the answer that but I'm sure there is one.

[Destroyer822]

America does not dominate the world.... and international law doesnt mean anything as it is never enforced this is simply a matter of common sence do you take the gun away from the murderer or do just stand in front of him and try to talk it out? If theres no action taken were going to be shot.

[darkmage099]

America does not dominate the world.... and international law doesnt mean anything as it is never enforced this is simply a matter of common sence do you take the gun away from the murderer or do just stand in front of him and try to talk it out? If theres no action taken were going to be shot.

 

 

 

Yes but the murderer has already commit the crime (hence the name murderer). Iran hasnt used their weapon they just threaten. So there is time. You can never assume someone will do something. You can try all you want but dont go to the extreme if it hasnt happened.

[chris1216]

Lets assume Iran actually manages to get nukes.

 

 

 

Do you all think that they're irrational enough to use them immediately, or will they understand the concept of mutually assurred destruction?

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that everyone knows if they nuked Israel, they'd most likely get glassed.

 

 

 

And by glassed, I mean so much heat from the explosives that all the sand in their country turns to glass.