Iran?

[Gibsonfire]

Now i tried this a while back and the thread got closed as it was uncivil so again what do you think of the situation with Iran? Everyday it seems to get worse with the country. Now please keep it civil and if you have offensive strong feelings on the matter please keep them to yourself, thanks.

 

[Gopha]

true very true, destroying the whole of Iran is not a good way of doing it, neither wil bombing the country ,or the site as weve all seen what hapened in Chernobyl(and that wasnt even attacked, just a practice test gone wrong), i believe the best way to do it, evewn if it is the cowards way is to assasinate the people backing the programme, but only the ones who are completely anti west, but i do agree that racism only works 1 way :s

I know Ive said this before, but I want to make sure you understand my view

 

[Ronin Storm]

One thing I feel sure of throughout everything I've read... we have nothing even close to the full story from any side. It's a full scale propoganda war out there and finding "the facts" from mainstream media feels like iceskating uphill.

That said, to me, the propoganda war also seems to be heading to conflict, ultimately. Iran don't seem likely to capitulate over uranium enrichment. The US don't seem likely to let them continue.

How long 'til we're facing the US versus the Islamic Nations of the World? That can't go well.

When I talk of a propoganda war, we've had a few weeks of posturing on both sides. The US appear to be trying to legitimise their probable upcoming military solution. Iran appears to be both trying to undermine that and set up a facade of "you can't take us... see our submarine killing torpedos... know that we can hurt you where ever you are".

I think it's going straight to hell. I think it's going to go to a shooting war in the next three months. No good justification for that, I guess. Just a hunch.

 

[thatbloke]

The whole problem with Iram atm is that it is believed that they are developing nuclear technology not for power but for weapons. Until I see concrete proof that this is true, I have no reason to believe that they are not developing nuclear technology for power rather than weapons.

If it is just for power, why not let them do it? TBH, it's the way forward IMHO, a viable alternative to fossil fuels, as long as we dont see another Chernobyl.

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

like iceskating uphill.

How does that work?

developing nuclear techno for power is good but weapons is bad, however other countrys have nukes to defend themselves, so why should some countrys have them and others not, is it a matter of who you trust with a nuke?

if UK or US forces "invade" the country it will be like going up shit creek without a paddle, we havnt finished in iraq yet so we cant go picking fights

 

[Taffy]

developing nuclear techno for power is good but weapons is bad, however other countrys have nukes to defend themselves, so why should some countrys have them and others not, is it a matter of who you trust with a nuke?

The countries that have nukes use them as a deterant for other countries to stop themselves from being invaded. I am probably being very controversial here, but it is my belief that nuclear devices are the main reason why World War 3 hasn't and probably won't happen. But it could well happen if 'certain' countries got their hands on them.

if UK or US forces "invade" the country it will be like going up shit creek without a paddle, we havnt finished in iraq yet so we cant go picking fights

Ah yes, very true. War with Iran now would be suicide, as we don't have the numbers to fight well. You may say that our soldiers are so much better than theirs, so we'd win anyway, but you'd be forgetting that if you invade one Muslim countries, all or most other Muslim countries would declare War on you, as it would be percieved as an attack on Islam. The exception is Iraq, as it was generally accepted in the Middle East that Saddam Hussein was a crazy man that they didn't want to fight for.

 

[elDiablo]

...it is my belief that nuclear devices are the main reason why World War 3 hasn't and probably won't happen. But it could well happen if 'certain' countries got their hands on them.

Exactly how I feel. Yay for using them as deterants and all, but we have to think how the rest of the world sees us. We have nukes, and we tell other countries they can't have them, cos we don't trust them with nukes... If it was the other way round, I'm sure we would secretly build nuclear weapons, its that simple.

Having said that, until I see proof (and real proof, no "We think they have WMD hidden in the ground" type bits), I believe they are just using it for power, and they may as well! We are!

 

[BiG D]

if UK or US forces "invade" the country it will be like going up shit creek without a paddle, we havnt finished in iraq yet so we cant go picking fights

Let's pretend that the war in Iraq suddenly ended today, and all involved superpowers had their armies return to a pre-war state. good as new.

What makes you think a war in Iran would go any different than one in Iraq?

 

[MoTo^]

What makes you think a war in Iran would go any different than one in Iraq?

Because Iran would fight back with a lot more force than Iraq did. As it stands Iran has a much much stronger military than Iraq did, probably one of the strongest in the Middle East. Also Iraqis hated Saddam to begin with so they didn't want to fight for him, and even though it's true that most Iranian hate the government more than anything, they're probably not gonno sit back and watch a country like the US invade their country.
But even if they did invade, I don't think it'll turn into another Iraq simply because Iran is not multi-sectorial like Iraq and there would be no fighting between Shias and Sunnis and all the rest of it (Kurds etc.). So the aftermath is wouldn't be no way as bad as Iraq is now.

Also one thing to mention is uranium enrichment is only the very first step in making a nuclear weapon, at the moment Iran is years away from making a fully functional bomb.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Also one thing to mention is uranium enrichment is only the very first step in making a nuclear weapon, at the moment Iran is years away from making a fully functional bomb.

I dont think many people, aside from Iranians (and then only certain Iranians) know the true amount of progress they have made. Plus, even if they haven't made progress, who's to say they won't ever consider buying in components from Korea or China? Just buy the missile itself, and the warhead, and then plonk in your uranium and away you go. Whats more, that trade would probably be viewed as legal because no nuclear arms were traded, only missiles that Iran could claim were for their military.
Ok, thats kind of extraordinary situation. And uranium need a bit more than 'plonking in' but you get the jist of it.

Also, why did you argue that fighting Iran would be harder than Iraq, and then state that it wouldn't be as bad as Iraq? I dont quite ken your point there.

 

[MoTo^]

I said the aftermath of the war wouldn't be as bad, so when the war would be 'officially' over between the two militaries there wouldn't be bombs going of everyday killing hundreds of people like it has been in Iraq for months now.
But the war itself would be tougher and longer, that was my point.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

So, a harder battle but a better reward! In that respect, are you in support of war with Iran or are you content to leave them to it.

 

[MoTo^]

I didn't really mean a better 'reward' as such, wars always leave their mark behind and costs hundreds if not thousands of civilian lives, so I'm always against starting ANY sort of war. Iran's had its fair share of wars in the past and the last thing it needs is another.
I think a diplomatic way out is the best, eg. for the US to offer Iran some sort of economic incentive to stop their nuclear programme, not just to say shut it down because we say so.

 

[Taffy]

So, a harder battle but a better reward! In that respect, are you in support of war with Iran or are you content to leave them to it.

Against it. We don't have the available manpower, and theres no proof that Iran is making, or planning to nake, WMD's.

We should just get some spies in and see what happens. Easier said than done, yes, but always possible, especially where Mi6 is concerned *Plays patriotic music*

 

[Pestcontrol]

Iran is sitting on a rather large supply of oil. Yet they choose invest very large sums of money and a lot of effort in researching nuclear technology.

For power generation? Suuuuuuuuuuure. That's the second lamest excuse ever, after invading Iraq for it's alleged WMD's.

 

[Gopha]

Iran is sitting on a rather large supply of oil. Yet they choose invest very large sums of money and a lot of effort in researching nuclear technology.

For power generation? Suuuuuuuuuuure. That's the second lamest excuse ever, after invading Iraq for it's alleged WMD's.

OMG! Hes fuking right!

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

For power generation? Suuuuuuuuuuure. That's the second lamest excuse ever, after invading Iraq for it's alleged WMD's.

I thought that was quite a good excuse I mean after all, the emphasis nowadays seems to be prevention over limitation of damage. I will accept that Bush wants oyl, though. Lots of oyl. Olive oyl.

OMG! Hes fuking right!

How eloquent. Made me smile though

 

[MoTo^]

But that still doesn't refuse them the right to develope the technology for the future like so many other countries. As we all know the oil will run out one day, so why not start investing in the future now?
Even before the oil runs out nuclear power would be a more efficient method of supplying power to the country, so again why not research this technology?
Saying they have enough oil as it is is a weak arguement imho.

 

[Pestcontrol]

It's not about rights at all. Every nation has the right to do as it pleases within it's own borders, that's called sovereignity, but it's not very relevant in this discussion. I don't know about you, but i'd rather see an Iran without nukes than with them. Sometimes, things are very simple.

Anyway, Iran investing in the future? Have you seen the people who rule that nation? You've got to be kidding me. Iran has a strong ambition to become the dominant power in the region and Iraq sliding into anarchy and civil war is a godsent for them, combined with lots of income from expensive oil and a good push on the nuclear program, Iran is in a very strong position. And i'm not liking it at all, if only because of the decline of human rights and personal freedom in the middle east.

Besides, if Iran just wanted nuclear power for civil purposes there would've been far easier ways to achieve it. Several nations have already offered help for this.

 

[MadGinga]

Hmm this is a doozie of a debate.

I think that if Iran (or any other country) are that insitent on pursuing nuclear technology for power production, then we (the UK, USA, and other western countries), as responsible and fair democracies should lend our expertise to ensure there wont be another Chernobyl (or 3 Mile Island, everyone forgets that one...) and that way we would be able to ensure to some extent that they wont be developing nukes, or at least using the tech and info we've given/lent to do so.

If enough countries start using nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, especially if the west provides the help necessary (preferably with not too many disclaimers and/or provisos) then the main spark point betwen the arab and western world, oil, will fade in significance and hopefully will take some of the reasons that the arabs hate the west so much with it.