The main reason a country wants Nuclear weapons is two fold, one to get a seat at the big table and two to be able to slough off most threats as the world generally tries only political measures with countries that have nukes, When countries do not have nukes they are fair game for invasion.Iran is only trying to protect itself, it doesn't want to make a nuke so they can use it, its for protection.
Is a nuclear Iran bad for the world?
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Protection from who? There neighbors or US?...
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, hence they have agreed to not have nuclear weapons. By enriching Uranium to weapons grade, they are in violation of that treaty. By law, the treaty, they should not have nuclear weapons.
from anyone that would want to invade or kill them. Who else?
Part of that treaty is disarmament, but yet you don't see that happening, so I guess since every country is in violation, Iran figures it will just go with the flow.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Hell no... They have a history of breaking agreements...
So if you are using history as a proxy on future actions, what makes you think they will attack anyone? They haven't made an aggressive move against another country for like 215 years.
That would be like the 18th century, when the USA was still in its beginnings.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
I understand the killing part, but who in the fuck would want to invade Iran nowadays? What do they have that anybody would want other than to take there nukes away?I believe Iran is the country that would like to invade others. Personally there is nothing there I would want...
Pretty Sure Iran is the 4th largest producer of Oil in the entire world, not positive though.
well played!..i AGREE with YOU!!
desert dude
Well-Known Member
In that case, I am going to have to rethink my position as it must be wrong.
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
It could be said that a nuclear armed Israel, another gang of zealots in my opinion , is bad for the world. Any country that possesses nuclear weapons is bad for the world for that matter. At least Iran will open it's nuclear program to international inspection, something that Israel refuses to do. Denying a nation the ability to develop nuclear technology in today's world is unsustainable, as the reliance on fossil fuels is proving obsolete and a major cause of global warming. What is needed is the continuation of monitoring by international agencies to make sure those programs don't veer off into military purposes. Developing nations will never be able to truly take advantage of the benefits available with nuclear technology otherwise, and somehow I don't think that many will be condescending enough to the will of the few that have that technology, to essentially give up their rights as a member of the world community to stay complacent forever. Every country has that right, to take advantage of the benefits of nuclear power for medical and energy needs, even Iran and Israel. This is called progress.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
That is great, now if they would spend there money more wisely it would mean something..We don't need there oil..I guess we better look at the people that need there oil and keep eye on an invasion...
aren't these the same people who took american hostages?..yeah, i don't like these people..sorry..even with inspections..they can move shit around
The Iran hostage crisis, referred to in Persian as تسخیر لانه جاسوسی امریکا (literally "Conquest of the American Spy Den,"), was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students supporting the Iranian Revolution took over the US Embassy in Tehran.[SUP][1][/SUP] President Carter called the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy," adding that "the United States will not yield to blackmail."[SUP][2][/SUP]
The crisis was described by the western media as an entanglement of "vengeance and mutual incomprehension."[SUP][3][/SUP] In Iran, the hostage taking was widely seen as a blow against the United States and its influence in Iran, its perceived attempts to undermine the Iranian Revolution, and its longstanding support of the recently overthrown Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran. Following his overthrow, the Shah was allowed into the U.S. for medical treatment. The Iranians wanted the United States to return the Shah back to them for trial of the crimes committed by him during his reign on ordinary citizens with the help of his secret police, the SAVAK. In Iran the asylum granted by the U.S. to the Shah was seen as American complicity in the atrocities meted by the Shah on the Iranian people. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as an outrage violating the principle of international law granting diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds' inviolability.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]
The episode reached a climax when, after failed attempts to negotiate a release, the United States military attempted a rescue operation off the USS Nimitz. On April 24, 1980, Operation Eagle Claw resulted in a failed mission, the deaths of eight American servicemen, one Iranian civilian, and the destruction of two aircraft.
On July 27, 1980, the former Shah died; then, in September, Iraq invaded Iran. These two events led the Iranian government to enter negotiations with the U.S., with Algeria acting as a mediator. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the day after the signing of the Algiers Accords, just minutes after the new American president Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.
Considered a pivotal episode in the history of IranUnited States relations,[SUP][6][/SUP] political analysts cite the crisis as having weighed heavily on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's presidency and run for reelection in the 1980 presidential election.[SUP][7][/SUP] In Iran, the crisis strengthened the prestige of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the political power of those who supported theocracy and opposed any normalization of relations with the West.[SUP][8][/SUP] The crisis also marked the beginning of U.S. legal action, or economic sanctions against Iran, that further weakened ties between Iran and the United States.[SUP][9][/SUP]
[h=2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis[/h]
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I'd be surprised if you were even alive when that happened
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
echelon1k1
New Member
Yeah why would you like "these people" referring muslims... Did you know why Iran was in that situation?
echelon1k1
New Member
she must be confusing it with her dependence stick... I suppose bigotry is okay as long it's aimed at muslims.
echelon1k1
New Member
To everyone against a nuclear Iran; you have been played - hook, line, sinker by the House of Saud.
That is all.
That is all.