Opinions on Iran policy-wise

[Giordano]

Nuclear weapons = PEACE! THink about it for a second. Who wants to go to war with a country that has nuclear weapons even when they do? Dont say Iran because they do care for their people...somewhat. India and Pakistan are prime examples. They used to fight constantly and now they have nuclear weapons so they are willing to discuss matters. This has brought a fragile peace between them but nonetheless it is peace. Nuclear weapons actually stops people and makes them think about the consequences. India and Pakistan have actually opened their borders!

 

Intresting addittion, you changed my views. =D>

[Barihawk]

 

I would rather live in a world with no nukes, but since America decided they wanted them we all have to suffer knowing other countries will want and get them aswell. Dont blame Iran for wanting Nukes, blame America for setting up the threat first.

 

 

 

Why doesn't America just abolish their Nuke programs? That would be a huge step into International agreement where everyone will disable and remove the Nuke threat. Maybe to start the solution, you need to fix where the problem started - America.

 

 

 

For the record, the Democrats invented nukes :P.

 

 

 

But as I said before, we are not willing in this day and age to nuke our nukes unless the other countries are willing to disarm...which they arent.

 

 

 

Not to mention, it costs 9 million dollars to dismantle one nuclear missile and dispose of the radioactive substance safely. Multiply that by the millions of warheads we have, and it is impossible to afford. That is why we can't just destroy our nuclear program, nor can we just throw them all in caves somewhere and forget about them.

[Not]

Not to mention, it costs 9 million dollars to dismantle one nuclear missile and dispose of the radioactive substance safely. Multiply that by the millions of warheads we have, and it is impossible to afford. That is why we can't just destroy our nuclear program, nor can we just throw them all in caves somewhere and forget about them.

 

 

 

I'd like to know where you got the $9 million dollar cost per missle dismantlement. I'd REALLY like to know who or what gave you the idea that there are millions of nuclear warheads. I find this hard to believe as it is estimated only 128,000 were ever built and that was before massive disarmament that left the world with between twenty and thirty thousand nuclear warheads.

 

 

 

The United States alone dismantled 60,000 of it's 70,000 warheads, it is no where near as economically infeasable to dismantle the warheads as you claim.

[Tigra00]

Not to mention, it costs 9 million dollars to dismantle one nuclear missile and dispose of the radioactive substance safely. Multiply that by the millions of warheads we have, and it is impossible to afford. That is why we can't just destroy our nuclear program, nor can we just throw them all in caves somewhere and forget about them.

 

 

 

I'd like to know where you got the $9 million dollar cost per missle dismantlement. I'd REALLY like to know who or what gave you the idea that there are millions of nuclear warheads. I find this hard to believe as it is estimated only 128,000 were ever built and that was before massive disarmament that left the world with between twenty and thirty thousand nuclear warheads.

 

 

 

The United States alone dismantled 60,000 of it's 70,000 warheads, it is no where near as economically infeasable to dismantle the warheads as you claim.

 

 

 

I was thinking that too. Hell, 70,000 warheads is more than you'd EVER need, but MILLIONS? Come on. I don't buy that. I don't buy that we actually made millions of bombs expecting to use them. Or even not expecting to use them...Still doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

The bottom line here in that yes, Iran does have the right to use Nucular power for peaceful reasons. However, we are suspicious of them because they directly fund terrorists...But hell, we indirectly fund terrorists by funding Iran. :lol: If we could stop being idiots using oil, this problem would be so easily solved by just not buying oil from them, but alas, oil companies OWN us and won't allow us to use other power sources. Little known fact, but hydrogen powered cars are way further in technology than people are lead to believe. Oil companies just won't allow it to be taken over because they cannot control water and/or hydrogen prices...One is the most abundant thing on Earth, the other is the most abundant thing in the UNIVERSE. They cannot charge for it unless we're using liquid hydrogen or something...They should get working on that, maybe...Moronic people.

 

 

 

Anyways, Iran is up to somethin' fishy. All we can do is keep a close watch on them with satellites and if we see anything goin' on there, we'll have to do...something. What that something is would be hard to say...There are so many consequences for attacking them, and they know this.

[chris1216]

Actually, Tigra:

 

 

 

Hydrogen power is completely unfeasible because of the amount of energy required to break down water molecules (the main source of hydrogen energy) and compress it costs more energy than it actually gives off. To get that energy, we have to either burn fossil fuels (global warming = extinction) or, well, burn oil.

 

 

 

Additionally, liquid hydrogen is colder than liquid nitrogen, nearly as cold as liquid helium. Creating it would cost, well, even more energy.

 

 

 

The only real way to get a net-profit in power is from the original source of all the energy on earth- the sun, either through solar power, wind power, what have you.

 

 

 

And as long as you're generating electricity from solar power, there's no point to waste energy producing liquid hydrogen, you might as well just use electric cars.

 

 

 

The solution behind all this lies in nanotechnology- carbon tubules that can carry electricity for hundreds of miles without generating excess heat (which causes power to be lost), which is the only reason why we haven't covered a useless state like Nevada with solar panels to power the country.

 

 

 

And the reason there's no conspiracy of oil companies to prevent things like hydrogen power is because they don't need to- Americans and the rest of the world are too dumb to realize the dangers of continued oil dependence. Why try to blind the masses when they're already walking around with their heads buried in their behinds?

[Michael_Allen]

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.

 

 

 

Why is it iternational policy that iran cant have nukes if america and other countries can...

 

 

 

 

 

Also you dont think america, the uk and other countries are still developing more powerful wepaons secretly.... I DO.

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think its entirly the fact IRAN wants nukes to strike another country, but more that america says they cant have them...

[matthew_t_d]

Violence is not the solution. Just look at Iraq - The way it seems now, it looks like they were actually better off under a genocidal dictator. It seems like diplomacy is the best solution dispite Iran's apparent lack of communication.

 

 

 

The main reason (or excuse...) that terrorists are attacking western countries is that we allowed Jews into Palesteine (now israel...). Now they use us attacking Iraq and Afganistan as an excuse/reason. Attacking Iran will only increase the ferocity of 'terrorists'.

 

 

 

Iran is already winning the war with america... The proxy war with lebannon was a faliure by Israel (aka America).

 

 

 

I think thats all i wanted to say...

 

 

 

p.s i hate the bush administration and its foreign policy lol

[Barihawk]

By "we", I was referring to the WORLD. There are over a million warheads in the world between the many nuclear nations. Forgive me, that does indeed look a little unclear.

 

 

 

And it does indeed cost 9 million US dollars to dismantle a Titan 2 missile. That includes safely disposing of the warhead, cleaning up fuels, etc. Add a few more million to seal up the launch tube or silo, and it is pretty costly.

 

 

 

There is more to a nuclear weapon than it's warhead.

[jak722]

Its unfortunate Iran doesn't seem to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction...

 

 

 

Pakistan and India and China has had open fights with each other, but had never resorted to nukes...

 

The main purpose those countries still have nukes is mainly for self preservation...

 

 

 

Iran on the other hand, openly declared that a country AND its people shouldn't exist at all, WHILE they're trying to develop technology that can create the most powerful weapon of all...

 

 

 

And they aren't even close enough (geography wise) to directly threaten each other!

[slayermia]

First of all let me tell you I'm from Iran and I live in Belgium.

 

It's clearly some of you believe anything thats been said on the media.

 

90% what u hear there is LIES or half the truth.

 

 

 

You see that guy on tv, the so-called president of Iran, Ahmadinejad...

 

that guy has nothing to say, he's just a doll being controlled (like G. bush in America) by the filthy basterds who are in control in Iran, the mollahs.

 

they are cruel, consiounceless animals who treat the citizens of Iran like dirt.

 

 

 

many innocent ppl got put in jail without any reason.

 

 

 

now on topic:

 

 

 

Iran is making nuclear bombs, thats 1 thing im pretty sure of.

 

i believe they are doing this for the time that america will attack them

 

and america will attack them eventually with the same excuse they've attacked Iraq ( terrorists , some other BS) . It really had nothing to do with the fact that Iraq ( and Iran) are a country with a lot of OIL. :roll:

 

 

 

who the hell do america (the goverment) think they are?!

 

playing judge over the whole world?

 

the UN was created for a reason!

 

Iran will feel the consequences cuz they will decline the propositions and ultimatums of the UN.

 

but why the hell is america an exception?!

 

didnt they ignore the UN when clearly more then 60% was against america taking action against Iraq? u might even thing uve got planet earth and have another planet called america :?

 

 

 

and why did Iran give missiles to libabon u ask?

 

cuz Iran wanted to prevent another palestina vs Israel : where u see citizens throwing rocks to the military of Israel who are shooting with ak-47s and kalashnikovs.

 

Israel gets their stuff from america and libanon got theirs from Iran.

 

so even tho i dont like whats happening between libanon and israel, im still glad what Iran did ( making chances equal at a fight).

 

 

 

I wish there was a way to evacuate all the ppl of Iran and let those damn basterds get caged while america may bomb the [cabbage] out of them

 

than all of this madness would come to an end.

 

but WOULD it come to an end you think?

 

i think aslong as america plays judge judy over the whole world

 

we will always have problems.

 

and the goverment of america is 1 big problem , if u have seen 'loose change 2' ud know what i mean.

 

i really got sick watching that documentary, i couldnt believe a goverment could be so f***** up to kill their own ppl.

 

 

 

just as afghanistan and iraq, america is using nuclear BS to start a war against Iran cuz they know how selfish the leaders of Iran are.

 

 

 

 

 

u know how it would all end IMO?

 

america attacks... the WHOLE islamic world get tired by america and supports Iran in the fight. while Iran attacking first target < Israel >

 

and there u have it folks... worldwar III.

 

and it will all end with a big blast that will destroy the world.

[Kryptic]

 

I would rather live in a world with no nukes, but since America decided they wanted them we all have to suffer knowing other countries will want and get them aswell. Dont blame Iran for wanting Nukes, blame America for setting up the threat first.

 

 

 

Why doesn't America just abolish their Nuke programs? That would be a huge step into International agreement where everyone will disable and remove the Nuke threat. Maybe to start the solution, you need to fix where the problem started - America.

 

 

 

For the record, the Democrats invented nukes :P.

 

 

 

But as I said before, we are not willing in this day and age to nuke our nukes unless the other countries are willing to disarm...which they arent.

 

 

 

Not to mention, it costs 9 million dollars to dismantle one nuclear missile and dispose of the radioactive substance safely. Multiply that by the millions of warheads we have, and it is impossible to afford. That is why we can't just destroy our nuclear program, nor can we just throw them all in caves somewhere and forget about them.

 

 

 

Then we have no one to blame but ourselves! We brought them into this world and we dont want to get rid of them, thats our fault. Dont get mad at Iran for wanting them, imagine how they feel? What dumbfounds (sp) the most is that even after Hiroshima, realizing the full extent of nukes we still hold them in our back pockets? America is obviously planning to use it again if they still have them after what happened.

 

 

 

America has lots of nukes now, basically able to target any state on earth - I would be piss scared too! I would do the same thing as Iran and N. Korea but would have started decades ago.

 

 

 

To these other states we are nothing but a threat to their existence. It may take millions to disable these missles but I believe its the price we have to pay for. Its our fault. America should be kickin' themselves because their own weapons are going to be a threat not only to themselves but everyone else.

 

 

 

If you want the nukes gone, it needs to start with America. Easy as that. No one ever wanted nukes until America thought it would be a great toy.

[Barihawk]

First, allow me to clarify that in my 9 million dollar per missile figure, the most costly part of dismantling weapons is disposing of the propellant fuel. You could stick your hand in that fuel and come out with a stub, it is so toxic and caustic. It takes a very long and expensive process to neutralize it.

 

 

 

Second, to Slayermia.

 

 

 

I am glad America is "judging" the world. Because the U.N. is not doing it's job out of fears that oil for it's member nations will rise, or some other bullcrap. Right now, the U.N. is publically making known troop movements in Israel WHILE they happen. They are fair though...they report exactly where Hezzbolah rockets hit AFTER they are already gone.

 

 

 

The U.N. is as corrupt a governmental body as they come. They should not be looked up to as saints trying to save the world. They won't act on anything unless it affects them...primarily monetarially like Iraq.

 

 

 

And so the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil now? I am pretty sure we would have heard from some source that U.S. Military tankers were flying oil out by the barrel-full. In fact, if we were, gas would not be so costly here. Unless of course the villain Bush is censoring every media organization on Earth :roll:.

 

 

 

And I loved the statement about Bush being a puppet of a greater evil. I needed a good laugh today :P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Kryptic: During World War 2, the U.S. was not the only power-that-be that was developing atomic weapons. Germany, Japan, the Soviets, and England were all conducting heavy-water or atomic research. In fact, Germany was only 2 years away from completion. Who would you rather have come out with it first?

 

 

 

And we are working on ridding ourselves of the nukes. The problem as I stated before is cost. Not only are we talking all the missiles, there are fuel centers, atomic artillery shells (over 10,000 of the damned things were made! Then left to rot!), bombs, and other facets of the nuclear program. Even if we did have no national debt or commitments with an infinite budget, it would take decades to dismantle them all since very few people are capable of safely doing it.

 

 

 

It is the same problem in other nations like Russia and England, who are also disarming. The problem lies with countries not willing to disarm, like India and Pakistan. It's not just America's problem anymore, it's everybody's problem. And I wish more people shared your opinion so we could be rid of the things forever.

[darkmage099]

 

It is the same problem in other nations like Russia and England, who are also disarming. The problem lies with countries not willing to disarm, like India and Pakistan. It's not just America's problem anymore, it's everybody's problem. And I wish more people shared your opinion so we could be rid of the things forever.

 

 

 

Well then. You say that Pakistan and India shouldnt. Why should they? When America has disarmed their last few nukes (well as many as Pakistan and India have) then you can argue that point. Right now, U.S. has far more nukes than India and Pakistan. What if they just dont want to get caught in the middle? As for now, they can keep them until the United States of America is almost done wtih disarming themselves of nuclear weapons.

[PURESMITHER]

BIG FACT:

 

 

 

ISRAEL IS OFFICIALY AT WAR WITH EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

[darkmage099]

BIG FACT:

 

 

 

ISRAEL IS OFFICIALY AT WAR WITH EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

 

 

 

 

 

Can you support that? Can you show me the article or place you got that from? I doubt it. However, I agree that Israel is not at peace with the Middle Easter countries and there are tensions. They are not at "official" war with them.

[hasnol143]

BIG FACT:

 

 

 

ISRAEL IS OFFICIALY AT WAR WITH EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

 

 

 

 

 

Can you support that? Can you show me the article or place you got that from? I doubt it. However, I agree that Israel is not at peace with the Middle Easter countries and there are tensions. They are not at "official" war with them.

 

I agree Israel isn't at war with every single country but Israel is pessing of the whole arab nation if Israel dosen't stop the stupidity it's making I don't know what might happen but I know it's bad...Saudia-arabia,Egypt,Libanon,Syria,Iraq,iran and Palestine are all against Israel.

[PURESMITHER]

Yes, officialy, they just have cease-fires all round.

 

 

 

 

 

I got this piece of information from a book called The financial times World Desk Reference. It says in the chapter on Israel that Israel is at war with all countries in the middle east, except Lebanon. The book was published in 2003, so I figured that now it is at war with all of them. If they have made peace since the book has been published I apologize.

[Kryptic]

Who would you rather have come out with it first?

 

 

 

 

Anyone but us. Atleast we wouldn't be seen as a threat and wouldn't be as much of a target.

 

 

 

*Packs bags and moves to Cananda*

[hasnol143]

Who would you rather have come out with it first?

 

 

 

 

Anyone but us. Atleast we wouldn't be seen as a threat and wouldn't be as much of a target.

 

 

 

*Packs bags and moves to Cananda*

 

LOL if you want to do that do it fast and now before it's too late.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Who would you rather have come out with it first?

 

 

 

 

Anyone but us. Atleast we wouldn't be seen as a threat and wouldn't be as much of a target.

 

 

 

*Packs bags and moves to Cananda*

 

 

 

That's a good thought. It was probably a bad idea that we ultimately helped justice prevail in World War II. It probably would have been better if Nazi Germany created atomic warfare first and used it to achieve world domination.

 

 

 

Anyone else noticing how completely irrational Kryptic's anti-U.S. positions are? Why are we still arguing with him like he's a rational debater?

[chris1216]

We're getting a bit off topic- we need to be discussing the best approach to dealing with Iran at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

Currently, Iran is heading to Europe to call for more talks. There's a general sentiment that neither an invasion nor sanctions will be fortchoming very soon.

 

 

 

 

 

And another question for you folks- what happens if Iran gets nukes? What would other Middle East countries believe?

 

 

 

Additionally, I can't imagine that Israel would be very pleased with the first muslim nation (in the middle east, excepting Pakistan), getting nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

And to those of you that are war-hawking for immediate assault, you need to understand the power Iran currently has on the world stage. Not only are they pursuing nuclear technology, their massive oil supplies and trade relations with Russia and China give them tremendous leverage. Its not just the muslim world that would be very very angry if we made a pre-emptive strike.

 

 

 

As for those who want to continue discussing nuclear technology, I point you towards the "prolif good or bad" thread.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Bush is currently pushing hard for China and Russia to move forward with sanctions, although I doubt that'll happen soon.

[jak722]

BIG FACT:

 

 

 

ISRAEL IS OFFICIALY AT WAR WITH EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

 

 

 

Im sorry what?

 

 

 

I was under the impression that Egypt and Jordan already signed peace treaties in 1979 and 1994 respectively?

 

 

 

Israel-Egypt-Jordan Peace Treaty

 

 

 

 

The main features of the treaty were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and the withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways.

 

 

 

The agreement notably made Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. Jordan would follow in 1994 with the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.

 

 

 

The peace treaty was signed sixteen months after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel in 1978 after intense negotiation. Even after the landmark Camp David agreements, there was no certainty that a treaty would be signed. Egypt was under intense pressure from Arab countries not to sign a separate peace treaty.

 

 

 

 

 

Israeli companies are even upgrading post soviet Egyptian military equipment to function as good as western ones...

 

 

 

Heck, Egypt and Jordan are now in good terms with the US compared to Cold War times...

[Bmw]

=D> Finally, some sensible posters hit this topic.

 

 

 

Iran has to have the right to nuclear technology, that's no doubt. If they don't, they can easily argue that the west is preventing them, along with other arab nations, from advancing themselves in the relm of energy.

 

 

 

The problem is how to deal with it, without war. The idiots suggesting we bomb them...I mean, I don't even know what to say to that anymore. We can't just bomb them, like...come on. :roll:

 

 

 

I don't understand what exactly the US/UN proposed that was rejected time and time again, but my suggestion is as follows:

 

 

 

There needs to be some sort of regulations on Irans nuclear program. From a global stand point, Russia and China need to step in and have their officials thoroughly inspect Irans nuclear facilities on occasion. Obviously this doesn't make the US happy. Of course, the officials would be in relation to the UN.

 

 

 

What does Iran say on that issue? It is to my understand that Iran does constantly turn away IAEA officers...but if they're intentions are good, I don't understand it. :?

[Guest GhostRanger]

=D> Finally, some sensible posters hit this topic.

 

 

 

Iran has to have the right to nuclear technology, that's no doubt. If they don't, they can easily argue that the west is preventing them, along with other arab nations, from advancing themselves in the relm of energy.

 

 

 

The problem is how to deal with it, without war. The idiots suggesting we bomb them...I mean, I don't even know what to say to that anymore. We can't just bomb them, like...come on. :roll:

 

 

 

I don't understand what exactly the US/UN proposed that was rejected time and time again, but my suggestion is as follows:

 

 

 

There needs to be some sort of regulations on Irans nuclear program. From a global stand point, Russia and China need to step in and have their officials thoroughly inspect Irans nuclear facilities on occasion. Obviously this doesn't make the US happy. Of course, the officials would be in relation to the UN.

 

 

 

What does Iran say on that issue? It is to my understand that Iran does constantly turn away IAEA officers...but if they're intentions are good, I don't understand it. :?

 

 

 

I don't know how you can make the comment about "sensible posters" when you make a post like that.

 

 

 

Iran's intentions are good? Did you miss out on the whole "I won't stop until Israel is blown off the map?"

 

 

 

I don't necessarily support a war with Iran yet, but give me a break. U.N. sanctions don't do anything. If Iran was going to comply with the U.N. - we wouldn't even have a problem to discuss.

 

 

 

What's ridiculous about this entire thread is that people believe that U.N. sanctions are going to solve this problem. If the U.N. could solve this problem, we wouldn't be where we are right now. When are people going to quit having this baseless admiration for the U.N.?

[Bubsa]

A very good point. Kofi Annan is a really nice man, but no-one takes a damn bit of notice to him because he and his organisation are practically powerless.