14 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIran does not need nuclear arms.
I personally still think nuclear power is a bad way to boil water considering it leaves toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. I think it's unwise for ANY country to rely on it for any part of their energy needs. Nonetheless, many countries do and I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be "allowed" to if other countries are.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHInteresting statement.
I believe everyone on the planet should be as armed as they care to be, and it especially holds true for nations.
Once everyone knows that everyone else is armed, people become much more polite.
The same way we dont want weapons in the hands of kids and immature irresponsible adults, the same applies to immature and irresponsible nations. Freaky is wrongly assuming that all nations are the same.
If you arm Iran, they will destroy Israel. You arm North Korea, they will destroy South Korea. You arm Pakistan they will destroy India. There are many irresponsible nations all over the world that are too immature to possess nuclear arms.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMost of the targets of drive-bys are armed with the same weapons as the ones doing the drive by. That is why they drive by. If thier targets were not armed they would stop, get out, shoot the guy and then get back in their car and drive away. I guess then they would have to call them stop by shootings.
Believe this: if every drive-by pissant knew that every pedestrian was armed to the teeth with counter-measure weaponry, those drive-by folks would have to do so with so much haste, they'd likely miss their intended targets, or -surprise!- just not do it at all.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis reasoning is so bad, I just don't know were to start. By this reasoning there would never be war unless you had some weapon that you knew was vastly superior to your opponent. The Germans blew across Poland and Belgium and France with superior tactics, the blitzkrieg, no vastly superior weapons. Although it did turn out that the Panzers and Tiger tanks were superior, this was not their reason for going to war. The Japanese attacked the US with very similar weaponry that the US had. In fact the Zero was a copy of an American trainer. During the American War Between the States both sides had the exact same weapons. Southern tactics kept them in it for a few years until Northern resources out-weighed them. There was never a weapon superiority issue.
Put it this way. Let's say you had an hankering for firing at my neighbor, but you had to fire across my land to get at him.
If you knew I was fully equipped with enough fire power to cause you damage, and that I was very likely to return fire in whatever direction it comes, would you think twice about firing across my stretch of land?
Sure, you would. ...[text shortened]... he better-armed folks.
In short, arm everyone, and watch politeness return to society.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat is a false statement. It's been well known since the 70's that Iran had a civilian nuclear program. Some details were not revealed in the interest of national security: Israel snuck attacked an Iraqi facility in 1982 (and was condemned by a UN Security Council resolution for doing so), so those national security concerns were well-founded. Despite your paranoia and the pseudo-paranoia of the right wingers in the West, there is no tangible evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. I believe El Baradei has made numerous statements to that effect.
The Us, Israel, many European powers, Japan, Russia and China distrust Iran, partly because it had kept its nuclear research secret for 18 years before it was revealed in 2002.
Why has Iran done this ?
14 Jan 06
9 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "That is a false statement."
That is a false statement. It's been well known since the 70's that Iran had a civilian nuclear program. Some details were not revealed in the interest of national security: Israel snuck attacked an Iraqi facility in 1982 (and was condemned by a UN Security Council resolution for doing so), so those national security concerns were well-founded. Despite y ...[text shortened]... to develop nuclear weapons. I believe El Baradei has made numerous statements to that effect.
No, it is not. You are again erring.
"The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm
Hence the distrust I was talking about. Iran does not have a clean record at all.
More proof of the correctness of my claim concerning the distrust about Iran in the International Community:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/elbaradei_3-18.html
MARGARET WARNER: Just a sort of common sense question. If, if the Iranians aren't doing this for weapons uses and it's really just to generate electricity, why would they have kept it secret for 18 years?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI: Well, their answer -- and again I'm repeating their, their story -- that they have been under sanction for 18 years. If they would have declared it to us 18 years ago, they would not have been able to get the equipment they wanted.
Mind you, I mean we now discover that they got all this equipment through the black market, through underground, and the argument is that if we would have declared it at that time, you know, that, that source of supply would have been completely dried up before we got the stuff.
" ....... "
"MARGARET WARNER: What impact do you think the U.S. invasion of Iraq had on Iran's willingness to cooperate with the IAEA?
In other words, the existence of the system came to light, I think exiles revealed it in August of 2002, just as the U.S. was building up for the Iraq war. Is there a connection?
et etc.
As you can see on the basis of the facts, you are again erring, marauder ...... or lying ..... if I use the maraudian jargon.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/elbaradei_3-18.html
It should surprise nobody that the International Community has doubts about the sincerity and straightforwardness of the Iranian regime in this matter. You cannot dismiss the international concern by claiming the US or the "West" is paranoid, like you do marauder.
marauder: "I believe El Baradei has made numerous statements to that effect."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/elbaradei_3-18.html
El Baradei: " ...... What I do is check the facts, verify the uranium program, and so far I haven't seen any concrete proof that what Iran is doing is directly linked to the weapon program, and that's why I am saying we are not in a position to say Iran is developing a weapon program, but at the same time I'm not yet in a position to say everything in Iran is exclusively for peaceful purpose. The jury is still out, it's a work in progress and I'd like to finish the work as early as I can."
"The jury is still out ....." according to El Baradei ... let's remember this, marauder. It is important.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI respect your right to your opinion. And (for once) I agree with it.
Ivanhoe: " Iran does not need nuclear arms."
It is my opinion .... and I am not alone in this.
However, opinions are not the basis of rights. Just because you don't think
Iran needs it, doesn't mean Iran doesn't. And, if she decides that she does
need them because of Pakistan or wherever, that remains her decision.
Unless you want to deny the autonomy of nations, the right for them to decide
their own paths, then you really don't have a right to impose your opinion upon
them.
That having been said, you and your nation have the right to refuse to deal with
Iran, to give them money for their exports or to buy their products. This would
be an expression of your position which does not violate the rights of Iran.
Nemesio
14 Jan 06
If you arm Iran, they will destroy Israel. You arm North Korea, they will destroy South Korea. You arm Pakistan they will destroy India. There are many irresponsible nations all over the world that are too immature to possess nuclear arms.[/b]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Pakistan does have nuclear weapons.
14 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Just because you don't think
I respect your right to your opinion. And (for once) I agree with it.
However, opinions are not the basis of [b]rights. Just because you don't think
Iran needs it, doesn't mean Iran doesn't. And, if she decides that she does
need them because of Pakistan or wherever, that remains her decision.
Unless you want to deny the autonomy uld
be an expression of your position which does not violate the rights of Iran.
Nemesio[/b]
Iran needs it, doesn't mean Iran doesn't. And, if she decides that she does
need them because of Pakistan or wherever, that remains her decision."
The fact is that Iran's president himself has stated publically Iran does not need nuclear arms.
Nemesio: "Unless you want to deny the autonomy of nations, the right for them to decide
their own paths, then you really don't have a right to impose your opinion upon
them.
I'm not "imposing my opinion". Iran must meet its international obligations under the NPT. Iran's secretive actions in the past have given the International Community doubts about Iran's straighforwardness and sincerity regarding the nuclear issue.
Iran has not got the "right" to develop and produce nuclear arms under the NPT. If you think they have please show the evidence on which you base such an assertion.
14 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lukemcmullanUnless anything has changed in the last year, so does North Korea:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Pakistan does have nuclear weapons.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/index.html
Despite the September agreement, apparently it hasn't changed:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/05/opinion/edramberg.php