IRAN: To the Principal's Office, Please - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 09-24-2005, 11:49 AM

TFP Presidents & Prime Ministers:

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts regarding The Islamic Republic of Iran seeking to step forward as a nuclear power in the Middle East. What is the World to do about Iran? Nothing? Anything? Do recent events make clear that Iran, as a sovereign nation, should simply be left alone and not meddled with? Are you concerned they might export their nukes for political agendas?

It's apparently become a significant enough concern for the IAEA to refer Iran to the UNSC for review. What would you like to see the UNSC do from here?

Quote:

Iran to be reported to Security Council
Watchdog agrees Iran resolution
Saturday, September 24, 2005; Posted: 12:28 p.m. EDT (16:28 GMT)

VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog has passed a resolution requiring Iran to be reported to the Security Council over a failure to convince the agency its nuclear program was entirely peaceful.

"The resolution was adopted," an IAEA spokeswoman told reporters.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) governing board approved it despite Iranian threats to begin enriching uranium if the U.S.-backed resolution, drafted by the EU's three biggest powers, that could eventually lead to U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran was passed.

With 22 votes for the resolution, 12 abstentions and only one vote against, the outcome highlighted the split between rich Western nations and poorer developing nations led by Russia, China, South Africa, which disagree with Washington and Europe on how to deal with Iran.

In what EU diplomats said was a victory for Western efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Tehran, both China and Russia, which had strongly opposed the EU's proposed resolution, abstained. Venezuela was the only country to vote against it.

India, which had opposed the EU resolution, voted for it.

Iran denies seeking atomic bombs and says its nuclear program is only for generating electricity. However, it concealed its atomic fuel program from the IAEA for 18 years.

Russia, which is building a $1 billion nuclear reactor at Bushehr in Iran and has much to gain from Iran's plans to develop atomic energy, has long been an opponent of referring Iran's program to the Security Council.

China, which needs Iran's vast energy resources for its own booming economy, also opposes the Western drive against Iran.

Both countries fear a U.N. referral will cause the standoff over Iran's program to escalate into an international crisis.

Watered down resolution
The EU resolution requires Tehran to be reported to the Security Council, but at an unspecified date -- watering down an earlier demand from the Europeans for an immediate referral.

This means Iran would most likely not be referred to the Council until the IAEA board meets in November, diplomats say.

The resolution, which diplomats said was prepared in close consultation with Washington, says Iran's "many failures and breaches" of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards Agreement "constitute non-compliance" with the pact.

It added there was an "absence of confidence" that Iran's atomic program was exclusively peaceful and this gave rise to questions "within the competence of the Security Council".

For two years, the EU's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany -- have tried to persuade Iran that it needed to abandon its enriched uranium fuel program to convince the world that its atomic ambitions are peaceful.

Last month, the talks collapsed after Tehran resumed uranium processing and rejected an EU offer of economic and political incentives if it scrapped its uranium enrichment program, prompting the EU trio to join Washington in calling for the case to be sent to the Security Council.

Tehran has threatened to retaliate.

On Friday, diplomats said the Iranian delegation had been showing some board members and IAEA general director, Mohamed ElBaradei, two unsigned letters informing the IAEA what would happen if the EU resolution is approved.

One letter said that Iran would begin enriching uranium, a process that produces fuel for atomic power plants or weapons, at an underground facility at Natanz. The second says Tehran would end short-notice inspections under a special NPT protocol.

Willravel · 09-24-2005, 12:08 PM

Is it hypocracy for the main nuclear weapon nations to force other nations to abaondon their nuclear weapon programs? Probably.

alansmithee · 09-24-2005, 12:29 PM

Obviously what this calls for is more resolutions /sarcasm.

What I'd like to see them do is impossible, because it would require the UNSC to have power, which it doesn't. So what I hope happens is the UNSC holds an international tea party, and forces the Iranian delegates to sit in a corner. I think they might be able to manage something like this, but I'm not sure. It does seem a bit aggresive for the UNSC.

ObieX · 09-24-2005, 01:28 PM

I don't care who gets a nuclear power plant or 10, i just don't want to see anyone else get the bomb.. there's already enough to blow up the entire planet a few times over, thats more than enough.

Charlatan · 09-24-2005, 02:11 PM

It calls for some serious diplomacy (this does not preclude a military response).

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer... regardless of how you view Iran, we should be getting as close as possible to them.

The problem is, Iran has some very real reasons to not trust the US. It isn't like the US has been all that good for or to Iran.

Lebell · 09-24-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

I don't care who gets a nuclear power plant or 10, i just don't want to see anyone else get the bomb.. there's already enough to blow up the entire planet a few times over, thats more than enough.

Do you really think that Iran, who sits on billions and billions of gallons of sweet crude needs a nuclear generating station?

Willravel · 09-24-2005, 02:31 PM

I'm sure they are as aware of the dangers of oil reliance as anyone else. Or maytbe they're waiting with torches. I'd want to get rid of oil on my land.

Charlatan · 09-24-2005, 02:31 PM

Additionally, given the different responses seen between Iraq and North Korea... If I was a "least favoured nation" on the "axis of evil" I'd be sure to get my nukes lined up super pronto.

samcol · 09-24-2005, 02:47 PM

The out of control United States federal government is more of a threat to the America than Iran is. I can't believe people are buying into this agenda AGAIN.

Arc101 · 09-24-2005, 02:56 PM

Unfortunately countries like Iran feel the need to have nuclear weapons in order to feel safe and not be invaded. It is also totally hypocritical for the worlds largest owner of nuclear weapons to criticize other countries who want these weapons, especially when America is developing new nuclear weapons i.e. bunker bustering nuclear weapons. Also I haven’t seen any pressure put on Israel to give up their weapons. One rule for one and another rule for someone else never works.

fightnight · 09-24-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arc101

Also I haven’t seen any pressure put on Israel to give up their weapons. One rule for one and another rule for someone else never works.

Good call. It irks me every time I see the specialy treatment Israel gets over anyone else in the Middle East. Basically it sends the message that if you're willing to unconditionally cooperate with the US, do what you want, in fact we encourage it.... but if you don't......

Charlatan · 09-24-2005, 03:18 PM

Wasn't Israel one of the nations that already had nukes when the non-proliferation treaty was signed?

Now that I think about it, does Israel have nukes... officially?

sprocket · 09-24-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arc101

Unfortunately countries like Iran feel the need to have nuclear weapons in order to feel safe and not be invaded. It is also totally hypocritical for the worlds largest owner of nuclear weapons to criticize other countries who want these weapons, especially when America is developing new nuclear weapons i.e. bunker bustering nuclear weapons. Also I haven’t seen any pressure put on Israel to give up their weapons. One rule for one and another rule for someone else never works.

Of course its pretty ironic that actually attempting to aquire such weapons will certainly get them invaded by the US and make them less safe. But acquiring nuclear weapons isnt primarily about safety. Its about leverage.

Charlatan · 09-24-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Of course its pretty ironic that actually attempting to aquire such weapons will certainly get them invaded by the US and make them less safe.

Tell that to North Korea...

sprocket · 09-24-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Tell that to North Korea...

I'll tell it to Saddam while im at it.. oh wait. I think hes already knows.

aKula · 09-24-2005, 06:15 PM

This is going to be a very difficult issue to resolve, especially with the new Iranian president. Now sanctions are an option but they tend to be rather ineffective, remember that a large percentage of Iranians are in favour of continuing down the nuclear course and see the West's efforts to stop it as hypocracy as Willravel said above. Having said that I think it is very important that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. The situation is rather volatile, what if Israel decides to bomb the reactor as they did to Iraq's?

Elphaba · 09-24-2005, 06:23 PM

The religious leader of Iran has called a fatwa on any use of nuclear power as a weapon. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in response to a Time interview that "When he gives a fatwa, nobody can go in that direction anymore. It means the parliament cannot pass any laws, and the government cannot reserve any budget for that sort of activity because it is considered illegal and also against the religion."

If Pat Robertson were given this sort of credibility, I would laugh my butt off. The Ayotallah is an entirely different matter in terms of the legitimacy of his "word."

aberkok · 09-24-2005, 06:53 PM

Like the rest of you, the hypocrisy of the U.S. is also making me sick. What I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain this to me, is

a) isn't it naive for Iran to believe that threatening to enrich uranium is going to improve their situation, and

b) given a way to accurately report peaceful nuclear development* to the U.N., shouldn't the west back off?

*I guess this is a far-fetched concept.

highthief · 09-25-2005, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wasn't Israel one of the nations that already had nukes when the non-proliferation treaty was signed?

Now that I think about it, does Israel have nukes... officially?

Yes, they have nukes, that is a fact. Isreal, India and Pakistan all have nukes, and have demonstrated them, and possibly/probably NK as well. South Africa is, I believe, the only country to ever voluntarily give up their nukes once they acquired them (outside of the mess that is the former USSR, at any rate, but that's a different discussion).

At any rate, I'd be looking at a diplomatic solution. While I am uncomfortable with any new nuclear power emerging, they do have a right to pursue nuclear weapons. So I'd want to convince them otherwise but I see no reason to go to war over it.

Charlatan · 09-25-2005, 03:12 AM

Did Iran sign on to the Non-proliferation Treaty? I know that India and Pakistan did not.

aKula · 09-25-2005, 07:13 AM

Yes Iran is a signatory of the NPT.

Xazy · 09-25-2005, 02:02 PM

Hmm we catch Iran giving arms to militants in Iraq... I wish we had the guts to do what Israel did to Iraq 20 years ago, and take out their facilities! Not that anyone ever will thank Israel for doing that..

Marvelous Marv · 09-25-2005, 03:00 PM

Has everyone else forgotten that NK got their Nukes from Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter?

powerclown · 09-25-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Has everyone else forgotten that NK got their Nukes from Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter?

Yes, I forgot to add these to the poll:

The policy of Appeasement (What MM is accurately referring to)
The policy of Bribes (Iran-Contra)

I don't think the question is IF the Iranians go nuclear, but WHEN. IMO, Iran has no business having nuclear weapons -- none. They are a known sponsor of terrorism (Hezbollah), their own parliament revels in the chanting of DEATH TO AMERICA!, while their GDP is less than Mexico's. Undeveloped countries with nukes are a serious problem (AQ Khan, anyone?). Undeveloped countries with nukes and oil are time-bombs waiting to blow.

Fortunately for the rest of the world, there's Israel.

Elphaba · 09-25-2005, 05:13 PM

The "policy of bribes" actually occured under the Reagan administration, even though he promised not to do business with terrorists. Magically, the Iranian hostages were released after Reagan replaced Carter. Iran-Contra was under Reagan's watch.

powerclown · 09-25-2005, 05:31 PM

You missed the point. NOTHING so far in US foreign policy towards Iran has worked. In fact, most - if not all - has backfired. Maybe its time to try something different?

--

Ironic Sidenote: I read the following headline just now, as I was listening to the Beach Boys "Good Vibrations":

Quote:

Israel Kills Militant Chief in Offensive

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - An Israeli aircraft fired missiles Sunday at a car driving along a coastal road in Gaza City, killing a top Islamic Jihad militant and wounding at least two other people, militants and Palestinian health officials said.

The attack hit a Mercedes carrying Mohammed Khalil, Islamic Jihad's top militant leader in southern Gaza, said a group spokesman known as Abu Abdullah.

...

This was in response to Hamas militants in Gaza firing 40 (FORTY) rockets into Israel -- a few weeks after Israel uprooted 10,000 Israeli settlers living in Gaza as a sign of a comittment to peace.

Which elicited this strangely perceptive response from the leader of Hamas:

Quote:

"The movement declares an end to its operations from the Gaza Strip against the Israeli occupation, which came ... in response to the assaults by the enemy," Zahar told reporters, adding Hamas would abide by a ceasefire declared in March.

The decision would ensure the safety of Palestinians in Gaza, he said.

Hamas's most senior leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar, announced his group's decision shortly after Israel killed an Islamic Jihad leader in an air strike in a resumption of its policy of targeting militants for assassination.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-25-2005, 06:46 PM

Israel is said to have 200 Nukes, not officially, but if you remember there was some whistle blower who just got released from jail because he spoke out.

I don't see the hypocrisy with this either. Iran signed the treaty saying they weren't going to pursue nukes, nor would they posess them. It doesn't matter that we have them; It doesn't matter that Israel has them, Israel isn't party to the treaty: Iran signed on the dotted line.

Sadly the situation isn't the same as 20 years ago when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor, that reactor wasn't functioning, Iran's are.

So here we go again. Another shady country, that signed a treaty, not living up to it. Now with International resolutions calling for action, anybody taking bets that jack shit gets accomplished here?

Elphaba · 09-25-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

You missed the point. NOTHING so far in US foreign policy towards Iran has worked. In fact, most - if not all - has backfired. Maybe its time to try something different?

I don't believe I have missed the "point" as you seem to believe. US intervention in Iran displaced the then current government with the Shah. That intervention led to the overthrow of the Shah and the hostage taking in the US Embassy. So what, exactly, do you think I am missing in your rightful criticism that nothing we have done there in the past has worked before?

powerclown · 09-25-2005, 07:40 PM

I was saying that appeasement didn't work with North Korea, and bribery didn't work with Iran. (And containment didn't work with Hussein). NK went on to build uranium bombs, and Iran went on to become a rabid, fundmentalist theocracy.

Interesting, your use of the term "terrorists" to characterize the Iranians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

...So here we go again. Another shady country, that signed a treaty, not living up to it. Now with International resolutions calling for action, anybody taking bets that jack shit gets accomplished here?

Unfortunately, the only thing I see getting accomplished is Iran going nuclear. For things to go any other way, China & Russia will need to hold Iran more accountable. It remains to be seen what the long-term strategy of these two are.

Elphaba · 09-25-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Interesting, your use of the term "terrorists" to characterize the Iranians.

It was Reagan's term, not mine, but I should have specified that.

Containment did work in Iraq, or have you found the WMD's?

Russia and China's support of Iran is not a mystery. My local paper (BFE) covers their interests on a regular basis.

If NK has developed nuclear weapons, it is due to the efforts of our current expedient "friendship" with Pakistan.

Iran is not a "rabid, fundamentalist theocracy" as you claim. Iran's secular and religious leadership is something we can only hope for now in Iraq.

To the mods, I apologize for responding in kind with short responses that would appear to be opinion only. I certainly wouldn't want to burden anyone with a lengthy list of supporting articles to support my opinions. /end sarcasm.

jorgelito · 09-26-2005, 01:29 AM

The probem is: Russia can't/won't put pressure on Iran because of the billions (I think that's the amount, not positive) of money they have invested in Iran.

China can't either because Iran, pardon the expression, has China by the balls. I believe they recently signed some mutual oil/energy agreement.

Quite honestly, we need to stop seeing China as the enemy. By pushing them away all the time, they end up colloborating with folk we would rather they didn't. We need to support China and be more engaging if we want "cooperation" from them. Yikes, what if they needed more oil and decided to trade arms etc to counries that have oil (most of which are not exactly US friendly)?

Charlatan · 09-26-2005, 04:01 AM

I find it interesting that the US is once more in the situation where their meddling has come back to bite them in the ass.

I wonder what a place Iran and the rest of the Middle East might be if the US sponsored ouster of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s had never taken place.

There would be no so-called "Fundamentalist Theocracy" in Iran if the US hadn't squashed their naescent democracy.

stevo · 09-26-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I wonder what a place Iran and the rest of the Middle East might be if the US sponsored ouster of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s had never taken place.

I wonder what the world would look like now if Great Britain and France didn't carve up the Middle East for their own advantage after WWI.

Oh to wonder...

Charlatan · 09-26-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I wonder what the world would look like now if Great Britain and France didn't carve up the Middle East for their own advantage after WWI.

Oh to wonder...

That too... I could have mentioned that but this discussion was more about the US having no luck at working things out with Iran... Is it any wonder considering how the US started its relationship with Iran.

You do recognize the irony don't you?

stevo · 09-26-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

That too... I could have mentioned that but this discussion was more about the US having no luck at working things out with Iran... Is it any wonder considering how the US started its relationship with Iran.

You do recognize the irony don't you?

I assure you, it is not lost on me.

powerclown · 09-26-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

The probem is: Russia can't/won't put pressure on Iran because of the billions (I think that's the amount, not positive) of money they have invested in Iran.

China can't either because Iran, pardon the expression, has China by the balls. I believe they recently signed some mutual oil/energy agreement.

Quite honestly, we need to stop seeing China as the enemy. By pushing them away all the time, they end up colloborating with folk we would rather they didn't. We need to support China and be more engaging if we want "cooperation" from them. Yikes, what if they needed more oil and decided to trade arms etc to counries that have oil (most of which are not exactly US friendly)?

Yes, quite true, unfortunately. Energy needs trump just about everything, don't they: Morals, politics, economics, religion. Like drug addicts protecting their dealers.

Regarding China, does the US really see China as an enemy at this point? I was under the impression that relations between the 2 were cordial, or at least far from hostile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I wonder what the world would look like now if Great Britain and France didn't carve up the Middle East for their own advantage after WWI.

Oh to wonder...

Right, and furthermore, why shouldn't the US and others have backed a progressive such as the Shah, a reformer and a moderate who had as his goals the economic and social modernization of his country in the mold of Ataturk of Turkey?

Charlatan · 09-26-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Right, and furthermore, why shouldn't the US and others have backed a progressive such as the Shah, a reformer and a moderate who had as his goals the economic and social modernization of his country in the mold of Ataturk of Turkey?

Oh I don't know... because the Iranians had democratically elected their first Prime Minister?

They did what the US and other nations did years ago and either got rid of or tempered their Monarchy with some democracy. The English didn't like it when the new Prime Minister decided to nationalize the oil industry (stop me if this sounds familiar). The English asked the US for help and the US organized the ousting of the PM by the Shah.

The Shah, ended up providing the nation of Iran with a represive regime that ultimately lead to the revolt in the 70s which brought Khomeni into power.

xepherys · 09-26-2005, 08:55 AM

I'm a bit suprised the the TFP majority, especially in this forum, would select diplomacy. How well has diplomacy ever worked in the middle east, especially in the long term? Diplomacy to them, as a whole, not individually, does not function. It hasn't for thousands of years. Have any of you actually TAKEN world history courses? I'm not trying to be inflamatory, but it just amazes me...

powerclown · 09-26-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Oh I don't know... because the Iranians had democratically elected their first Prime Minister?

They did what the US and other nations did years ago and either got rid of or tempered their Monarchy with some democracy. The English didn't like it when the new Prime Minister decided to nationalize the oil industry (stop me if this sounds familiar). The English asked the US for help and the US organized the ousting of the PM by the Shah.

The Shah, ended up providing the nation of Iran with a represive regime that ultimately lead to the revolt in the 70s which brought Khomeni into power.

A logical result of Cold War politics. The agenda at the time was fighting the spread of Communism, which I believe was the right thing to do. The subsequent collapse of the USSR speaks to its obsolesence as a political theory in the modern world.

powerclown · 09-26-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

I'm a bit suprised the the TFP majority, especially in this forum, would select diplomacy. How well has diplomacy ever worked in the middle east, especially in the long term? Diplomacy to them, as a whole, not individually, does not function. It hasn't for thousands of years. Have any of you actually TAKEN world history courses? I'm not trying to be inflamatory, but it just amazes me...

I wonder if those advocating Diplomacy realize there have been no diplomatic relations at all between Iran and the US for almost 30 years.

Or, maybe that is their point.

View Poll Results: How should the UNSC deal with Iran?
Sanctions	13	26.00%
Diplomacy	27	54.00%
Military Response	10	20.00%
Sponsor Internal Coup	7	14.00%
Nothing - Do Not Meddle	15	30.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

09-24-2005, 01:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I don't care who gets a nuclear power plant or 10, i just don't want to see anyone else get the bomb.. there's already enough to blow up the entire planet a few times over, thats more than enough. __________________ We Must Dissent.

09-24-2005, 02:11 PM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It calls for some serious diplomacy (this does not preclude a military response). Keep your friends close and your enemies closer... regardless of how you view Iran, we should be getting as close as possible to them. The problem is, Iran has some very real reasons to not trust the US. It isn't like the US has been all that good for or to Iran. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-24-2005, 02:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Additionally, given the different responses seen between Iraq and North Korea... If I was a "least favoured nation" on the "axis of evil" I'd be sure to get my nukes lined up super pronto. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-24-2005, 03:18 PM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Wasn't Israel one of the nations that already had nukes when the non-proliferation treaty was signed? Now that I think about it, does Israel have nukes... officially? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-24-2005, 12:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Is it hypocracy for the main nuclear weapon nations to force other nations to abaondon their nuclear weapon programs? Probably.

09-24-2005, 12:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Obviously what this calls for is more resolutions /sarcasm. What I'd like to see them do is impossible, because it would require the UNSC to have power, which it doesn't. So what I hope happens is the UNSC holds an international tea party, and forces the Iranian delegates to sit in a corner. I think they might be able to manage something like this, but I'm not sure. It does seem a bit aggresive for the UNSC.

09-24-2005, 02:31 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm sure they are as aware of the dangers of oil reliance as anyone else. Or maytbe they're waiting with torches. I'd want to get rid of oil on my land.

09-24-2005, 02:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	The out of control United States federal government is more of a threat to the America than Iran is. I can't believe people are buying into this agenda AGAIN.

09-24-2005, 02:56 PM	#10 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	Unfortunately countries like Iran feel the need to have nuclear weapons in order to feel safe and not be invaded. It is also totally hypocritical for the worlds largest owner of nuclear weapons to criticize other countries who want these weapons, especially when America is developing new nuclear weapons i.e. bunker bustering nuclear weapons. Also I haven’t seen any pressure put on Israel to give up their weapons. One rule for one and another rule for someone else never works.

09-24-2005, 06:15 PM	#16 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	This is going to be a very difficult issue to resolve, especially with the new Iranian president. Now sanctions are an option but they tend to be rather ineffective, remember that a large percentage of Iranians are in favour of continuing down the nuclear course and see the West's efforts to stop it as hypocracy as Willravel said above. Having said that I think it is very important that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. The situation is rather volatile, what if Israel decides to bomb the reactor as they did to Iraq's?

09-24-2005, 06:23 PM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The religious leader of Iran has called a fatwa on any use of nuclear power as a weapon. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, in response to a Time interview that "When he gives a fatwa, nobody can go in that direction anymore. It means the parliament cannot pass any laws, and the government cannot reserve any budget for that sort of activity because it is considered illegal and also against the religion." If Pat Robertson were given this sort of credibility, I would laugh my butt off. The Ayotallah is an entirely different matter in terms of the legitimacy of his "word." Last edited by Elphaba; 09-24-2005 at 06:26 PM..

09-24-2005, 06:53 PM	#18 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	Like the rest of you, the hypocrisy of the U.S. is also making me sick. What I don't understand, and maybe someone can explain this to me, is a) isn't it naive for Iran to believe that threatening to enrich uranium is going to improve their situation, and b) given a way to accurately report peaceful nuclear development* to the U.N., shouldn't the west back off? *I guess this is a far-fetched concept. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

09-25-2005, 03:12 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Did Iran sign on to the Non-proliferation Treaty? I know that India and Pakistan did not. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-25-2005, 07:13 AM	#21 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	Yes Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Last edited by aKula; 09-25-2005 at 08:17 AM..

09-25-2005, 02:02 PM	#22 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	Hmm we catch Iran giving arms to militants in Iraq... I wish we had the guts to do what Israel did to Iraq 20 years ago, and take out their facilities! Not that anyone ever will thank Israel for doing that..

09-25-2005, 03:00 PM	#23 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	Has everyone else forgotten that NK got their Nukes from Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter? __________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

09-25-2005, 05:13 PM	#25 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The "policy of bribes" actually occured under the Reagan administration, even though he promised not to do business with terrorists. Magically, the Iranian hostages were released after Reagan replaced Carter. Iran-Contra was under Reagan's watch.

09-25-2005, 06:46 PM	#27 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Israel is said to have 200 Nukes, not officially, but if you remember there was some whistle blower who just got released from jail because he spoke out. I don't see the hypocrisy with this either. Iran signed the treaty saying they weren't going to pursue nukes, nor would they posess them. It doesn't matter that we have them; It doesn't matter that Israel has them, Israel isn't party to the treaty: Iran signed on the dotted line. Sadly the situation isn't the same as 20 years ago when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor, that reactor wasn't functioning, Iran's are. So here we go again. Another shady country, that signed a treaty, not living up to it. Now with International resolutions calling for action, anybody taking bets that jack shit gets accomplished here? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-26-2005, 01:29 AM	#31 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	The probem is: Russia can't/won't put pressure on Iran because of the billions (I think that's the amount, not positive) of money they have invested in Iran. China can't either because Iran, pardon the expression, has China by the balls. I believe they recently signed some mutual oil/energy agreement. Quite honestly, we need to stop seeing China as the enemy. By pushing them away all the time, they end up colloborating with folk we would rather they didn't. We need to support China and be more engaging if we want "cooperation" from them. Yikes, what if they needed more oil and decided to trade arms etc to counries that have oil (most of which are not exactly US friendly)?

09-26-2005, 04:01 AM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I find it interesting that the US is once more in the situation where their meddling has come back to bite them in the ass. I wonder what a place Iran and the rest of the Middle East might be if the US sponsored ouster of the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s had never taken place. There would be no so-called "Fundamentalist Theocracy" in Iran if the US hadn't squashed their naescent democracy. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-26-2005, 08:55 AM	#38 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I'm a bit suprised the the TFP majority, especially in this forum, would select diplomacy. How well has diplomacy ever worked in the middle east, especially in the long term? Diplomacy to them, as a whole, not individually, does not function. It hasn't for thousands of years. Have any of you actually TAKEN world history courses? I'm not trying to be inflamatory, but it just amazes me...