Miles D

The country of Iran recently broke a UN / IAEA seal on nuclear materials and resumed processing Yellowcake / Uranium 4 to get it ready for Uranium 6: Fuel for a nuclear reactor. And the world body is very alarmed at the recent events.

The European countries in Europe are very angry with Iran about this, and sent them a letter expressing how displeased they are. But never mention turning Iran over to the UN Security Council if Iran fails to stop uranium enrichment and, in turn, it's nuclear program by a proposed September Deadline.

So, do you believe this is most problematic (They could put nukes on people and send them abroad)? Or just a way for Iran to succeed in giving it's people another source of electricity?

And if this is a problem, how should the world community deal with it?

Your position please.

Please note... this is not a debate about the Iraq war, but rather the true intentions of the Iran Nuclear Policy. Thanks.

trigun7469

So, do you believe this is most problematic (They could put nukes on people and send them abroad)? Or just a way for Iran to succeed in giving it's people another source of electricity?

So we let Iranians come to the US, The US pays for them to major in nuclear fusion and send them back to Iran and expect them to become what? Nuclear cooks? Sooner or later they will run out of oil so is it really wrong of them to look ahead? In this case I think the money would be better invested in education, hospitals, roads, ect…. It still could possibly cut their foreign dependency.

I think Iran not buying nuclear weapons from the US & E.U. has posed them to threat status. So the US & E.U. proclaims them as a threat and doesn’t matter that unstable countries that already have atomic bombs Israel, Egypt, or Pakistan has nuclear weapons and makes WMD but because they buy some from America and European Union its ok. Bare in mind these countries are a threat and its clear, that Israel sells US technology to China (are rival) and both Pakistan and Egypt have terrorist groups, terrorist camps and unstable governments (some of the 9/11 terrorist where both Pakistan and Egyptian). Pakistan has the highest amount of poverty due to the money going to their politician’s pockets and the rest going into debt due to there big amount of weapons bought from the US. The government in Pakistan is easily described as what you see in the Congo. So we can spread the joy selling more WMD’s but be mad at other countries for not buying from us. The U.N. having sanctions is as big joke its like the EU constitution, its more pages then needed and not legitimate. I think the U.S. , E.U. , Japan, China and Russia should put an economic sanction on Iran, take are investment out and put the investment in Africa where the new oil is tapped, US should stop paying for Iranians to come to this country for free and receive everything for free including education. After that government falls then they can institute new government and we can revaluate trade regulations. If you cut off the higher end Iran politicians from their daily caviar and Expensive champagne they will leave the country.

Rust in peace

I don't care if Iran has nuclear weapons or not. It would be rather ignorant to think they are stupid enough to actually use them, cause it would be suicide. Personally I can't see a reason why the US should be trusted with nuclear weapons more than Iran.

Miles D

IIRC, Iran / Iranian citizens is getting help from Russia and China. Not just the U.S. Source.

Ominously, Iran's pressing ahead with it's Nuclear Program. And a statement from President Bush explained force may be a necessary last resort to prevent them from developing nuclear bombs.

Diamon

So you think that if Iran has (or obtains) nuclear weapons they would never be used? I guess nukes are just global collectibles now. No one will ever use them but thay want them just to have them, because countries don't have anything better to waste their money on like feeding their people.

DhammaSeeker

Whether you or I care if Iran has nuclear weapons or not will have no effect on the reality of Iran having nuclear weapons or not.
It would be rather ignorant to think they (or someone they may sell a nuclear weapon to) would be unwilling to actually use it. To the contrary. Strapping explosives to your back and detonating them on a bus or train is suicide, yet, it's happened (Israel, London, etc.). Piloting commercial airplanes into office towers is suicide, yet, it's happened (NYC). Suicide (whether on an individual or national scale) is not a deterrent to those whose faith assures them that they are acting for the glory of god and they will receive their reward after death. I'm not saying that Iran will necessarily attack the U.S. or any other non-Muslim nation with nuclear weapons, should they succeed in fabricating them, but it is Pollyanna-ish to assume they would not.
This is a very good point.

As for President Bush's statement "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country.", I'd think that a preemptive strike by the U.S. against Iranian nuclear facilities would be a very poor decision--quite on par with other very poor decisions made by the U.S. government in the past.

Oscy

If I was President of Iran I'd be doing nuclear stuffs too. If the West get to have them for defence, why can't we? And there's the small matter of our (asshole) next-door neighbour being invaded by a western country.

Elias

Iran has enough of their own oil (virtually for free compared to the costs of building and operating nuclear power) that it really should raise eyebrows when they start developing nuclear capabilities. It would be one thing if they were just operating the one plant they have that could pretty much supply the whole country's needs. But why do you think they really have Russia and china building a half dozen more plants?

The only foreign countries Iran seems to be dependent on are Russia, China and North Korea - for weapons and materials to produce weapons. Remember when they scoffed at US aid for response to the big earthquake a couple of years ago? If they were really in need of hospitals and schools, why not trade their oil to North Korea for such, instead of ballistic missiles? That ought to make a person wonder. It does with most European governments and the US. Especially when their new president was purportedly the chief of the hostage takers in '79.


It is unthinkable that the US or Britain or France would like to sell nukes to Iran. Well, maybe France would. But that doesn't mean France WILL, once they realize that the Iranians won't sign any agreement to never use the nukes against France herself!

Israel may or may not be a bullying and agressive nation, depending on whose perspective you're looking at it from, yet they have shown restraint in many difficult situations that I'm not sure I could have if I were king. They are hardly unstable and there is no proof that they purchased the unofficial nukes they officially don't have from any other nation. Its entirely possible that NATO just turned a blind eye to their development of nukes during the cold war.

There is no proof or serious speculation that Egypt has nuclear weapons. If they do, they got them from the Soviet Union, not the US or Britain or France.

Pakistan, India and North Korea are the new kids on the block with nukes. All of them developed their capabilities on their own with stolen technology from other countries and/or with assistance from China. Pakistan actually manufactures and sells products to North Korea and China for uranium enrichment. All three could prove to be unstable and irresponsible with their nuclear capabilities, but my money is on North Korea.

So Israel sells nuclear technology to China. Never knew that. I find that interesting though, since China is a major trade partner with nearly every Middle Eastern country that has vowed to "push Israel into the sea."


You're definitely right about the UN. It is a huge joke and hardly worth paying attention to anymore, let alone paying period.

Now this make a lot of sense. Yet, I doubt Russia or China will ever go along with it. And France, seeing a chance for monopoly would just backdoor the rest anyway.

The best policy would be for the countries who are smart enough to see the inevitable with this situation to cause us all to wake up one day and turn on our TV's to find that undebated unilateral decisions have been made to not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapon capabilities. As you've stated, they're bleeding themselves dry with the program now. They won't be able to do it a second time. They'd be overthrown by a pro-western democracy movement if they tried after that. Having it happen might force a revolution anyway.

DhammaSeeker

Is that code for "let's blow up the nuclear facilities"?

trigun7469

Bush should start focusing on Americans not on making people in Jerusalem happy. This situation sounds all so familiar when Bush says,


Scratch secures our country and put Israel. Israel should go ask china for help we have done an enough for them.

[OUOTE]Personally I can't see a reason why the US should be trusted with nuclear weapons more than Iran.[/QUOTE]

Your right no country should be trusted, yet the U.S. and E.U. find that they most cater to the corporations in their country that make the WMD by selling them overseas and to other countries. I don’t think that is a way to promote democracy do you? I think the U.S. should first finish one job and instead of taking three at a time. It was reported on Fox News that they are requesting 33,000 troops to send to the Middle East so maybe this will start 3rd conflict in the Middle East at the same time. Bush is rating is between 40 and 50% I don’t think its going to help. Iran could probably spend the money for this project in better ways but so could the EU and US.