Opinions on Iran policy-wise

[darkmage099]

Ghost, you make it seem like 1 sentence is actually waht they think. Can you provide the link to the article (or whatever) where he said that and the date? Trust me, if Israel had nuclear weapons, they'd launch them at Lebanon, Iram, and almost every other middle easter country. What's wrong with them having a bit of defense. I highly doubt they'd use them. They just want them just in case Israel does something to them. And why are people so nosy about their nuke? I agree with the third party inspection. Even if they are a bit more willing to use anuke than another country, I doubt they would unless they were forced to.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Ghost, you make it seem like 1 sentence is actually waht they think. Can you provide the link to the article (or whatever) where he said that and the date? Trust me, if Israel had nuclear weapons, they'd launch them at Lebanon, Iram, and almost every other middle easter country. What's wrong with them having a bit of defense. I highly doubt they'd use them. They just want them just in case Israel does something to them. And why are people so nosy about their nuke? I agree with the third party inspection. Even if they are a bit more willing to use anuke than another country, I doubt they would unless they were forced to.

 

 

 

I sure can. You must not watch the news, do you?

 

 

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during a conference on Wednesday Oct. 26, 2005 in Tehran entitled 'The World without Zionism.' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel should be 'wiped off the map', the official IRNA news agency reported. Iran should be expelled from the United Nations after its new president said Israel should be 'wiped off the map,' Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Thursday, Oct 27, 2005.

 

 

 

In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained antagonistic statements about Israel. According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that would be eliminated.[45]

 

 

 

Ahmadinejad's comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.[46] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.[47] Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[48]

 

 

 

The translation of his statement has been disputed. At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad claimed regarding the October speech "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that." [49] In June, 2006 Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cited several Farsi speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".[50] Reviewing the controversy over the translation, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner observed that "all official translations" of the comments, including the foreign ministry and president's office, "refer to wiping Israel away". [51]

 

 

 

There you go.

 

 

 

And by the way, Israel does have nuclear weapons. Where have you been?

[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. :?

 

 

 

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.?

 

 

 

What was wrong about my post? The last sentence, which I should have specified, was what Ahmadinejad has said time and time again, in relation to the nuclear program, which is what this topic is about. Anyways, keyword in my sentence was "if".

 

 

 

Why are you talking about Israel when we are discussing Iran's nuclear policy in particular? We all know how Iran feels towards Israel, no need to point that out :roll: Are you implying Iran wants nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Do you really think Iran wants to attack Israel with nukes, causing M.A.D.? :?

 

 

 

Did I specifically say that UN sanctions will fix everything? I am against the Security Council as it is, you're acting as if I am pro UN or something. I said something needs to happen in terms of monitoring Irans nuclear facilities. As the UN is still viewed as the international "government", it would probably come in relation to them, with the support of China and Russia. Please properly read my post before you make mis-guided statements. :?

[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.?

 

 

 

What was wrong about my post? The last sentence, which I should have specified, was what Ahmadinejad has said time and time again, in relation to the nuclear program, which is what this topic is about. Anyways, keyword in my sentence was "if".

 

 

 

Why are you talking about Israel when we are discussing Iran's nuclear policy in particular? We all know how Iran feels towards Israel, no need to point that out :roll: Are you implying Iran wants nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Do you really think Iran wants to attack Israel with nukes, causing M.A.D.? :?

 

 

 

Did I specifically say that UN sanctions will fix everything? I am against the Security Council as it is, you're acting as if I am pro UN or something. I said something needs to happen in terms of monitoring Irans nuclear facilities. As the UN is still viewed as the international "government", it would probably come in relation to them, with the support of China and Russia. Please properly read my post before you make mis-guided statements. :?

 

 

 

1) Yes I do believe that the President would nuke Israel to take them off the map. He has an army of suicide bombers waiting to be deployed and the things he has said in the past make it sound as though he believes the utlimate martyrdome would be to nuke Israel.

 

 

 

2) I'm sorry if you didn't mean the UN when you talk about regulationas, but you had mentioned the UN the sentence before and you mentioned the countries that are making it difficult for the UN to act. If you don't want me to make assumptions like that then don't make the implication.

 

 

 

3) And to your first point, about your last statement being what the President said. I firmly believe that we shouldn't believe anything that man says when he is explaining his nuclear intentions. He should not have the ability to even have nuclear intentions.

[Bmw]

Ok, hopefully things were cleared up there.

 

 

 

My opinion is a bit different though, I don't necessarily believe Ahmadinejad's intentions are to create nuclear weapons. It's amazing how everyone acts like he's a complete idiot or something. Yes, he has made extreme statements in the past, and yes he is a bit of an extremist himself, but he is not a stupid man.

 

 

 

True, he has what was it, 52 000 signed and ready to attack the US in acts of Martyrdom if a war was to happen, but I don't see how that makes him crazy. Call me an idiot, but I honestly don't. If I felt threatened by another country, I'd do the exact same. Bravo to him for admitting that. I'm not saying killing innocent people is good, so don't confuse the two. I'm saying his admittance of the martyrdom program was a commendable act, in my view.

 

 

 

Of course he's not a man to be trusted, by the western world. Why would/should we trust him? But in my opinion, it's the west who constantly makes mistakes, not Iran. Constantly extending Irans period to end uranium enrichment with new proposals...it's ridiculous. Obviously Iran won't stop.

 

 

 

In terms of Iran wanting to nuke Israel, can you clear something up for me? I am unaware of the geographical damage a small nuclear weapon produces. Iran is a small piece of land in the middle of arab dominated nations. Wouldn't a nuclear bomb produce after effects into these nations? :?

 

 

 

After all of that, my stance still stands on what I think should be done to handle Iran...forcing China and Russia to act.

[pianofrieak2]

Why are you talking about Israel when we are discussing Iran's nuclear policy in particular? We all know how Iran feels towards Israel, no need to point that out :roll: Are you implying Iran wants nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Do you really think Iran wants to attack Israel with nukes, causing M.A.D.? :? [/qutoe]

 

 

 

If Iran's president has made repeated comments about wanting to eliminate Israel off the map, why would you NOT take him seriously? Besides, Iran has survived so long without nuclear power...why the sudden change? It's so expensive and the technology is so hard to do...

 

 

 

Did I specifically say that UN sanctions will fix everything? I am against the Security Council as it is, you're acting as if I am pro UN or something. I said something needs to happen in terms of monitoring Irans nuclear facilities. As the UN is still viewed as the international "government", it would probably come in relation to them, with the support of China and Russia. Please properly read my post before you make mis-guided statements. :?

 

 

 

The Security Council IS the United Nations. It's called "Veto Power." Anyway, Iran has kicked out lots of nuclear testers from the UN. Anything that would do that could be corrupted or ignored. Besides, China and Russia are pro-Iran and won't do anything.

 

 

 

Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike if this continues much further. Then if the Arab world goes crazy, the US will defend Israel.

 

 

 

The last paragraph is what I think though so don't take me that seriously.

[Bmw]

Why are you talking about Israel when we are discussing Iran's nuclear policy in particular? We all know how Iran feels towards Israel, no need to point that out :roll: Are you implying Iran wants nuclear weapons to destroy Israel? Do you really think Iran wants to attack Israel with nukes, causing M.A.D.? :?

 

 

 

If Iran's president has made repeated comments about wanting to eliminate Israel off the map, why would you NOT take him seriously? Besides, Iran has survived so long without nuclear power...why the sudden change? It's so expensive and the technology is so hard to do...

 

 

 

Did I specifically say that UN sanctions will fix everything? I am against the Security Council as it is, you're acting as if I am pro UN or something. I said something needs to happen in terms of monitoring Irans nuclear facilities. As the UN is still viewed as the international "government", it would probably come in relation to them, with the support of China and Russia. Please properly read my post before you make mis-guided statements. :?

 

 

 

The Security Council IS the United Nations. It's called "Veto Power." Anyway, Iran has kicked out lots of nuclear testers from the UN. Anything that would do that could be corrupted or ignored. Besides, China and Russia are pro-Iran and won't do anything.

 

 

 

Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike if this continues much further. Then if the Arab world goes crazy, the US will defend Israel.

 

 

 

The last paragraph is what I think though so don't take me that seriously.

 

 

 

Ok, stupid to say the Security Council is the United Nations because of the veo and all of that. I did an essay about this not too long ago, the UN is so much more than the Security Council. In a presentation which was originally geared as an anti-UN speech, I had to change every "UN" to "Security Council". The UN is so much more than just that, but let's not argue about them, I'd really rather not.

 

 

 

China and Russia are on Irans "side", which is why it should be up to them to act. Maybe they won't do a thing, but if they were to as I'm suggesting, it could help things positively. As for Iran nuking Israel, again, I don't see it happening.

[Kryptic]

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?

 

 

 

Not irrational. Trying to be funny. Just pointing out that none of this wouldve happened if we didnt make nukes in the first place. If we didn't have nukes, you think anyone else would think they should have them too? - NO! Thats not irrational is it?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Ok, hopefully things were cleared up there.

 

 

 

My opinion is a bit different though, I don't necessarily believe Ahmadinejad's intentions are to create nuclear weapons. It's amazing how everyone acts like he's a complete idiot or something. Yes, he has made extreme statements in the past, and yes he is a bit of an extremist himself, but he is not a stupid man.

 

 

 

True, he has what was it, 52 000 signed and ready to attack the US in acts of Martyrdom if a war was to happen, but I don't see how that makes him crazy. Call me an idiot, but I honestly don't. If I felt threatened by another country, I'd do the exact same. Bravo to him for admitting that. I'm not saying killing innocent people is good, so don't confuse the two. I'm saying his admittance of the martyrdom program was a commendable act, in my view.

 

 

 

Of course he's not a man to be trusted, by the western world. Why would/should we trust him? But in my opinion, it's the west who constantly makes mistakes, not Iran. Constantly extending Irans period to end uranium enrichment with new proposals...it's ridiculous. Obviously Iran won't stop.

 

 

 

In terms of Iran wanting to nuke Israel, can you clear something up for me? I am unaware of the geographical damage a small nuclear weapon produces. Iran is a small piece of land in the middle of arab dominated nations. Wouldn't a nuclear bomb produce after effects into these nations? :?

 

 

 

After all of that, my stance still stands on what I think should be done to handle Iran...forcing China and Russia to act.

 

 

 

I never said he was stupid. He has clearly made statements that indicate he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. If radical Muslims agree that suicide bombs are a good way to destroy infidels, then why would he not see nuking Israel off the planet as a good thing despite it hurting surrounding nations? Those people would just be dying for the cause of Islam and destroying Israel.

 

 

 

I think you underestimate what he is really saying.

 

 

 

1) He implies he supports dying for the sake of killing infidels by admitting he is ready to deploy suicide bombers.

 

 

 

2) He says he wants Israel wiped off the map entirely.

 

 

 

3) He won't stop developing nuclear power.

 

 

 

You put those together and it pretty much looks like he is willing to do anyting to take Israel out, and believes that dying for that cause is worthy. Is this not the same man who said he believes the end times are coming and that's why he believes he was elected? To destroy Israel?

 

 

 

This is clearly a man who is not afraid of his own death if it means destroying Israel. And if it's his ultimate aim to destroy Israel, why else would he be developing nuclear technology?

 

 

 

You give him too much credit because you seem to be ignoring a lot of what he says.

[Bmw]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that you were calling him stupid.

 

 

 

I do pay pretty great attention to what he says, it seems to be a matter of interpreting it from different points of view here. You see the acts of martyrdom as negative, while I don't necessarily. Those are volunteers btw, but they do know that their families will probably be paid compensation. However in terms of the nuclear effects on surrounding nations, it's completely different. They aren't in total agreeance to all suddenly deal with the horrors of nukes in order to remove Israel from the map. They aren't prepared to deal with the consequences either. I don't believe we can say that

 

 

 

1)He is pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place

 

and

 

2) He would attack Israel if he had them. If Iran had nukes, I would view it as a scare tactic rather than actual implementation.

 

 

 

I agree that Iran won't stop developing nuclear power. I agree that something needs to be done. I think we've lost sight of the topic, on what to do about Irans nuclear policy :-k

[Kryptic]

Radicals are crazy people. From what Iran has said, expect something big from them. I dont think they will use their technology on Israel, but I do see them bombing cities just as Hezbollah did.

 

 

 

Still a question, where the hell did Hezbollah get their weapons?

[Tigra00]

Radicals are crazy people. From what Iran has said, expect something big from them. I dont think they will use their technology on Israel, but I do see them bombing cities just as Hezbollah did.

 

 

 

Still a question, where the hell did Hezbollah get their weapons?

 

 

 

Iran and Syria.

[chris1216]

I think that by now it is clear what happens if an entire country decides to dance with Israel- they get torched.

 

 

 

Israel, pound for pound, is the most dangerous country on the planet to mess with. And in the end, I can say that Iran is not dumb enough to even consider the idea of nuking Iran, seeing as how the reaction from Israel and the rest of the world would cause Iran to cease to exist as anything more than a giant parking lot.

 

 

 

I guess this could potentially end up being a moot point- after all, Israel used air strikes to stop Iraq from gaining nuclear tech, so they might do it again against Iran, even if it means a conventional war that they might not win. The question could very well become, how the heck do we stop Israel from going beserk about extending their security beyond their borders?

[Barihawk]

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?

 

 

 

Not irrational. Trying to be funny. Just pointing out that none of this wouldve happened if we didnt make nukes in the first place. If we didn't have nukes, you think anyone else would think they should have them too? - NO! Thats not irrational is it?

 

 

 

Actually, it's quite irrational. If Germany had come up with the first atomic weapons, the other remaining powers would scramble to come up with thier own.

 

 

 

Same scenario, different players.

[____]

Let them kill each other and be done with it. If they want to start shooting nuclear weapons elsewhere, just nail them with the US supply. There wont be an Iran or Isreal (or middle-east) left to really fight for, or protect from after that.

 

 

 

Or the US could lunach a pre-emptive nuclear strike into major cities in Iran. I'm sure they'll think differently after something like that.

[SLOWSTORM]

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?

 

 

 

Not irrational. Trying to be funny. Just pointing out that none of this wouldve happened if we didnt make nukes in the first place. If we didn't have nukes, you think anyone else would think they should have them too? - NO! Thats not irrational is it?

 

 

 

Just to put it in perspective, none of this would have happened if Werner Von Braun, working with the Germans in World War II, had not developed the rocket engine idea everyone uses in missiles, either. But either way, if you want to live in the past, talking about how it's the U.S.'s fault, go ahead. It won't save you from a problem that is happening today. Iran is a problem today. As a side note, in your past posts, you kept referring to nukes as "toys." They are not toys, and it's that mindset that gets small children killed playing with guns. You do not allow a small child to have a gun, and you don't allow President Ahminijad to have nuclear technology. That would be irrational.

[Kryptic]

Iran and Syria.

 

 

 

Cant be. Hezbollah hit Israel with such accuracy there is another country involved with aiding Hezbollah. Just wondering/speculating who might be supplying them with their arms. World War III?

[darkmage099]

Hey, guess what? THis WHOLE argument is based on assumtions and possibilties and really hasnt gone anywhere. some believe Iran will use the nuke while others dont. There is no way to tell. I'm pulling out of this one...it has gone no where

[Tigra00]

Iran and Syria.

 

 

 

Cant be. Hezbollah hit Israel with such accuracy there is another country involved with aiding Hezbollah. Just wondering/speculating who might be supplying them with their arms. World War III?

 

 

 

It's a fact. Iran and Syria are probably the most powerful countries in that area. They have all the oil, thus they have all the money, thus...Power.

 

 

 

I'm amazed that some people think that middle east = muslims running around banging on drums and throwing spears. They may not be as advanced as the USA, but they're still advanced.

 

 

 

Watch the news sometime. We will probably end up getting into a spat with Iran soon. The USA has been testing missle defense recently and I don't think it's "just because".

[chris1216]

NMD is a miserable failure- we probably couldn't even stop them if they floated the nuke over on a blimp.

 

 

 

 

 

I think a problem with many of the people that post in this thread is that exactly none of them realize the implications of their "lets just bomb the hell out of them" ideas. Are you really so clueless as to realize that those decisions KILL other people? Then again, I guess if its not Americans dying, it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

Heck, not even Americans dying. 2 thousand+ soldiers dead in Iraq, and it's still YEAH LETS BOMB FTW.

 

 

 

Next time, don't be so flippant about toying with OTHER people's lives.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Watch the news sometime. We will probably end up getting into a spat with Iran soon. The USA has been testing missle defense recently and I don't think it's "just because".

 

 

 

Of course it's not "just because." All of those defense tests started up against when North Korea started testing it's missles.

[____]

I think a problem with many of the people that post in this thread is that exactly none of them realize the implications of their "lets just bomb the hell out of them" ideas. Are you really so clueless as to realize that those decisions KILL other people? Then again, I guess if its not Americans dying, it doesn't matter.

I don't think we're that stupid. Me, I see it that they're killing each other SLOWLY and generally painfully. Drop a nuclear bomb in a city and they're all dead with very little suffering and pain. And it probably wipe out 20 years of civilian and military death by suicide bombers.

 

 

 

So when you put some obscure twist on it all, we're only speeding up what's already happening.

 

 

 

Heck, not even Americans dying. 2 thousand+ soldiers dead in Iraq, and it's still YEAH LETS BOMB FTW.

 

 

 

Next time, don't be so flippant about toying with OTHER people's lives.

I don't care if American troops die either. Probably be a good thing. The US government should just wipe New Orleans off the map with a missle, the place is pretty screwed up and I'm willing to bet no one is going to do anything about it happening again.

[chris1216]

I guess that means there's no reason not to drop a few nukes on brisbane either then.

[____]

Brisbane isn't in a state of war where people are being killed by another country on a daily basis :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading and comprehension > you

[Kryptic]

Iran and Syria.

 

 

 

Cant be. Hezbollah hit Israel with such accuracy there is another country involved with aiding Hezbollah. Just wondering/speculating who might be supplying them with their arms. World War III?

 

 

 

It's a fact. Iran and Syria are probably the most powerful countries in that area. They have all the oil, thus they have all the money, thus...Power.

 

 

 

I'm amazed that some people think that middle east = muslims running around banging on drums and throwing spears. They may not be as advanced as the USA, but they're still advanced.

 

 

 

Watch the news sometime. We will probably end up getting into a spat with Iran soon. The USA has been testing missle defense recently and I don't think it's "just because".

 

 

 

I definently dont under estimate Middle Eastern people. The weapons Iran and Syria have are that good? I remember seeing on television there might be another country involved, due to the extreme accuracy Hezbollah had. I dont know - just thought.