| |
|
|
There's been an awful lot of talk about Iran by the United States lately.
What's your stance on it?
Let them go on with their nuclear programs? Maybe they are peaceful.
Take them out while we have the chance?
Make peace with the Islamic Persians?
I have a feeling none of these are possible, theses people haven't left Iran since before it was Iran, they're well defended.
No Conservative will make peace with Mahmoud, not if this Administration has anything to say about it.
And no one wants to run the risk of them obtaining a nuclear weapon.
I'll talk about my views more later on, what're yours? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the issue of what to do with Iran is a global issue. It's been a subject of much debate at the UN over the past several months, and is not an issue to be taken lightly.
It's known that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and was in large part, behind the massive influx of Hezbolah into Lebanon prior to the recent short-lived Israeli-Lebanese war which ended with a shaky cease-fire last month. As well their President Mahmoud Amadenijad has spoken about wanting to wipe Israel off the planet.
Knowing this, can anyone say that they're ok with Iran possessing even just the capacity to develop nuclear weapons? I cannot, for fear that they would pass one off to a terrorist organization. I don't believe, if that scenario ever were to become a reality, that it would reach the US, but I wouldn't want to see it detonated somewhere in the eastern hemisphere either.
I believe that complete nuclear disarmament ought to be a goal of every nation on the planet which possesses nuclear weapons; however, I have no faith that this will ever happen, especially during my lifetime.
I don't see the US or any country, with the possible exception of Israel, going to war with Iran to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons (which, it is pretty much accepted that they're after them). With the US bogged down in Iraq, and no other country really with the capacity or will to take Iran on, I just don't see it happening. The UN, I believe, is on the verge of threatening Iran with sanctions, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would accept that sanctions are somehow going to scare Amadenijad into giving into UN demands that they discontinue their nuclear ambitions.
I can't say that I would support going to war with Iran because for the moment, there is no imminent threat. Also, from what I've heard, they are several years away from actually producing such a weapon, and I'm frankly, along with much of the American public, burned out with this war business. I may regret saying such later on if we're burned, but thats how I feel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I would like iran to be past tense. |
______________________________________
J A PAN!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I would like to see us get rid of our nuclear program before we start telling other countries that they can't have one. |
______________________________________
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/lebatte/***pink.png[/img]
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, they ill not give it to a terrorist organization for the same reason that Russia or the US wont give a nuke to anyone. When you loose control of something you cannot be sure that it wont be used against you. A Nuke is only good for one thing, and that is to make it impossible for other people to use nukes against you, there is no other reason to have one, and it's a totally founded theory.
Name one country which has Nuclear capability that has engaged in a conventional war with another country on it's own soil.
It's NEVER happened, ever. Now obviously, the first time that it does happen is going to make a new and dangerous precident, but the fact is, nukes stop wars. You can't make war on someone with a nuke because you dont know they wont use it.
Now before someone goes and mentions military actions defined as terrorist attacks, Ill point out that an attack does not constitute a war, and terrorism is not 'regular' warfare.
So, with the above stated, it doesn't surprise me Iran is developing Nukes, and it also doesn't scare me. I also don't think the UN will stop them because China and Russia really like the oil that Iran provides them (And they have Veto Power) So that leaves NATO the option of destroying the Nuclear testing facilities which, oh yeah, Iran built them INSIDE towns with lots of civilians around. Yeah. There's a good Idea.
What we have here is a standoff which will probably end with Iran announcing that they have a nuclear device in a secret location and with the threat that should they come under attack they will give it to a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of the US/Isreal. Hell, that's what I'd do if I was in charge of Iran. |
______________________________________
If you have enjoyed this post, or posts like it, please do not hesitate to click on This Link and take a look at my Story. The link is to a page that's already on this forum.
Chaos Lt, twice voted best writer by a pannel of experts (Well alright, the Repubies). Click the link to find out why!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nukes, contrary to popular belief, are for defense - not offense.
I don't exactly understand why the US thinks it has the power to say who has nukes and who doesn't. I'm sure it has to do with some non-proliferation treaty or something, but isn't that the UN's job?
I'm getting really tired of all this war. We already have two in Afghanistan and Iraq. And already the troops are spread thin. I can't even imagine a war in Iran (and let's not forget North Korea...). |
______________________________________
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that�s no matter�tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And then one fine morning�
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
-Nick Carraway, "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used in offense, not defense. I could just be seeing it from a different angle.
Has the US even agreed to all the IAEA and non-proliferations' requirements?
I have to say I agree with Sar and the Lt. the most, and see only Lt.'s scenario really happening. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been wrong about this middle east conflict thingy yet.
You can probably go back and see where I posted something about the reimergence of the Taliban and the Secterian Violence before either of those respective wars even started.
Now, see, if I was in Iran, I would already HAVE a nuke, or at least enough nuclear material to make a few nasty dirty bombs so that if there was the threat of attack I would already have the leverage to stop it. That's just me though, I don't pretend to have the same mindset as a radical islamic funtamentalist world leader, but I know a thing or two about leverage.
And yes, Heroshima and Nagasaki WERE used in offense but they were not used against another Nuclear capable country. The theory still holds true. |
Last edited by Chaos Lt. : 09.07.06 at 17:42:24.
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah the theory, or MAD, is kind of a no brainer. but it doesnt mean that nukes are defensive weapons. they are simply weapons, and giving a crazy mother ****er a weapon in never a good idea.
as for the u.s. giving up its nukes. theres no ****ing way. we've been slowly trying to reduce our capacity. if iran does get nukes, it means we will turn around and ****s up everything that has been going on since the end of the cold war.
We have the big guns, theres no way we are going to let anyone catch up. you guys need to be a little more realisitc when it comes to this stuff. |
|
|
|
|
| |
