It appear that Iran is going to challenge the world over their Nuke program almost the same way NK tried to.
Maybe they feel that we nor anyone else would attack them after the Iraq War.


Iran Seeks to Blunt U.N. Censure on Nukes (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Yes, BV it would be wonderful, we can now attack two countries, and over stretch our military even more. Because you know, that’s not an issues to Bush.

It’s so ironic, we are shipping more troops to Iraq, more then what Bush planned for, and you are saying we should attack Iran or that we could. It’s just so reckless to put our military on that much stress.

You know how our troops are having to stay longer then planned, their bonuses were cut, and the military officials said we were overstretching our army, but yet you think we can handle Iran?

Oh and your “Ignorant Fool” under you icon, just reminds me your immaturity and your inability to “let things go”

So now I cant have a sense of humor?

OD I put it there as a joke, not making fun of you, or making a statement. I am not a person who wants to always make a point sometimes I make jokes as well.

Anyway Iran is not a country we would attack, Israel will just send a flight of bombers over and take out the reactor if they feel threatened. By the way the resolution is not from us. Strange huh?

Momentum is building at a 35-nation conference to take Iran to task for hindering a U.N. probe of its nuclear agenda.


More of the story


Support Building for Censuring Iran Over Its Nuclear Ambitions (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBFBA15GVD.html)

Just out of curiosity BV, do you think it's right for the U.S. to maintain a stockpile of nukes, while we impose sanctions upon other countries who try to develop nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Just out of curiosity BV, do you think it's right for the U.S. to maintain a stockpile of nukes, while we impose sanctions upon other countries who try to develop nuclear weapons? good question you vile pagan you.....lmao

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Just out of curiosity BV, do you think it's right for the U.S. to maintain a stockpile of nukes, while we impose sanctions upon other countries who try to develop nuclear weapons?
Yes I do, Iran has said that they would use these weapons against Israel and others. I would like to see all nukes go away but that is not going to happen. But to allow another nation who has backed terrorism and still does is a big mistake.

Dog gone Overdose, I think you went a little overdosen there friend !!! GEES LAUWEES

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Yes I do, Iran has said that they would use these weapons against Israel and others. I would like to see all nukes go away but that is not going to happen. But to allow another nation who has backed terrorism and still does is a big mistake.

As the only country that has actually used nukes on someone else, I don't see us having the moral high ground on that issue...does the fact that you wrote "another nation who has backed terrorists" mean that if you've backed terrorists you shouldn't have nukes?

I know we are going to go down that path of we backed terrorist so we shouldnt have them either. Well if you look at the article we are not one of the backers of the resolution.
And yes, I said Iran shouldnt have them and I meant it. Much like India, Pakistan or any nation that has a very unstable government and large amounts of terrorists being trained by their government.
Yes we are the only country to use them in combat, and of course that makes us bad guys and gives us no right to say anything ever again right?
I am sorry Vile, but if Iran builds weapons the region will be in real trouble. I dont trust religious leaders with nukes.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I know we are going to go down that path of we backed terrorist so we shouldnt have them either. Well if you look at the article we are not one of the backers of the resolution.

Listen you...how do you know what path I was going to go down?

And yes, I said Iran shouldnt have them and I meant it. Much like India, Pakistan or any nation that has a very unstable government and large amounts of terrorists being trained by their government.

I don't think I want Iran or North Korea or a lot of other countries to have nukes, but the proverbial genie is out of the bottle, and nothing is going to force it back in.

Yes we are the only country to use them in combat, and of course that makes us bad guys and gives us no right to say anything ever again right?

Nope, never said we were bad guys for nuking Japan. We were at war and in my opinion the Atomic Bomb was neccessary and desirable in that situation. I see no moral difference between killing civilians with nukes and killing them with conventional bombing.

I am sorry Vile, but if Iran builds weapons the region will be in real trouble.

Perhaps, but I don't think the US is in a good position to be the nuclear cop for the world. If Iran's neighbors want to do something about it, then we should help.

I dont trust religious leaders with nukes.

You mean religious leaders like GWB?
:D

Vile I know the set up and spike game...... SO I know that you were attempting to set me up on that point. Anyway no not religious leaders like GWB, I was thinking like the Clerics, Pope and those leaders.....

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I was thinking like the Clerics, Pope and those leaders.....

Hmmm, what if the Pope had nukes?

Well I would say that Attorneys might be in trouble.... And of course Baptists.

Iran signs up 8000 suicide bombers and yet we arent supposed to tell them that they cant have nukes?
By the way it appears that the government of Iran was involved in the sign up of the bombers. I will find out more if I can, just heard it on CNN.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Iran signs up 8000 suicide bombers and yet we arent supposed to tell them that they cant have nukes?


No doubt we will tell Iran, and other countries what methods they can use to defend themselves. The question still remains, do we have that right?

Are we supposed to allow a country that participated in mass killings (the U.S.) to have nukes and then tell another country they can't, because we, the great and powerful U.S., doesn't approve of their human rights record?

Our policy regarding nuclear non-proliferation is just another example of our growing arrogance to the rest of the world. We have two sets of rules, one for us, and one for everyone we don't like. We tell countries like Iran, North Korea, and others, that they can't have nukes because they are a threat to us, and yet we are the most threatening nation on the planet. Are we not a threat to Iran? Do they not have as much right to defend their country with the same methods as we defend ours?

It is this policy of arrogance that poses the most danger to this country. If we insist on imposing our will on countries like Iran, at some point one of these countries will get a nuke and they will use it, because they will have nothing to lose by doing so. We had an ongoing dispute with the Soviet Union for many years, but we didn't nuke each other because both countries understood the consequences. By continuing to force other countries to bend to our will, one of them, sooner or later, will decide that the consequences of using a nuke are preferable to continuing servitude to the U.S.

Another consequence of our arrogance is our policy of overthrowing governments we don't like, and installing governments favorable to the U.S. The people we install typically get rich off American dollars while the people of the country continue to suffer. After this goes on for awhile the country is wracked by a popular uprising and a new, radically anti-American government comes to power. Sound a little like Iran? What happens when one of these governments has nukes, or procures them? If Iran is a threat to us, it is largely our own doing, and what we must do is drop this policy of arrogance, and start treating these people like equals.

pagan, the great moral relativist. Iran and USA having nukes are the sme! they have a right to them just as much as we do! :rolleyes: again arrogance is just as bad as terrorism. again its our own fault people hate us, not anything to do with them. if it wernt for us they would be happy and love all of humanity. man shut up already pagan, you give me a headache.

if it wernt for us they would be happy and love all of humanity --Trav

Following that logic, every American should be supremely happy and love all of humanity.

*looks around*

I dunno... I'm not seeing it. :(

so you dont love all of humanity and are not happy?

Originally posted by Travh20
pagan, the great moral relativist.

I'm no great fan of moral relativism, but neither do I agree that there are universal concepts of good and evil. There are some behaviors that have been almost universally accepted as evil, like murder, but that is based on biology more than philosophy.

Iran and USA having nukes are the sme!

Didn't say that.

they have a right to them just as much as we do!

I didn't say that either, I questioned that belief, and obviously you can't tell me why you believe that Iran doesn't have the right to defend itself, or you would have.

again arrogance is just as bad as terrorism.

No Trav, that's not what I said either. The point I was trying to make is that our arrogance leads to policies that result in terrorism being perpetrated against us.

again its our own fault people hate us, not anything to do with them. if it wernt for us they would be happy and love all of humanity.

Trav, you believe that Iran hates us because they are "evil", and the reason you believe that is because it's easy to believe, and requires no thought on your part. Further, it allows you to perceive the U.S. through the eyes of a child, and makes the world conform to your naive ideas of good and evil. In short, it comforts you to live in a black-and-white world of "us versus them", and allows you to feel superior to those with whom you disagree.


man shut up already pagan, you give me a headache.

An excellent example of your childish outlook on the world. Take an aspirin.

Tell me Trav, since you don't believe in moral relativism, what is the source of our knowledge of good and evil?

Is the U.S. supposed to tell the rest of the world what's right and wrong?

How can we be considered to be the moral arbiters for the world when we have a history of screwing over the citizens of other countries, merely to foster the interests of our country overseas?

ppagan, if you say we create terrorism through arrogance that is the same as saying arrogance is as bad as terrorism, fro how can you call the product worse then the casue, fi you truly believe what you ay you have to say american arrogance is worse then terrorism since its turning normal people into terrrorists, so really you are saying that or poilcys are worse then terrorism. Also, I did not say every single iranian was evil, but I do say terrorists and those who support them are evil, no matter what may have casued them to tun that way. There are lots of people who did not turn into terrorists. its the same argument as the one that says poverty is the casue of crime in the US, which is BS because the vast majority of poor people dont commit crimes.

Originally posted by Travh20
ppagan, if you say we create terrorism through arrogance that is the same as saying arrogance is as bad as terrorism, fro how can you call the product worse then the casue, fi you truly believe what you ay you have to say american arrogance is worse then terrorism since its turning normal people into terrrorists, so really you are saying that or poilcys are worse then terrorism.

I think your logic is flawed, and I see little point in trying to determine which is worse, terrorism, or the policies that produce it.

Also, I did not say every single iranian was evil, but I do say terrorists and those who support them are evil, no matter what may have casued them to tun that way.

I can agree that acts of terrorism are evil, as are those who support them.

There are lots of people who did not turn into terrorists. its the same argument as the one that says poverty is the casue of crime in the US, which is BS because the vast majority of poor people dont commit crimes.

The point is Trav, that our policies create an atmosphere where terrorism can flourish openly, because even those who would not perpetrate such acts themselves are in such a desperate state that they can be convinced that terrorism is a viable option.

I notice you ignored the questions I asked. You accused me of moral relativism, have you no opinions on the subject?

Once again we arent the sponsors of the resolution. But I am forced to resort to the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules :D

Sorry Vile but I am of the belief that since certain countries have unstable governments and have gone as far as to recruit terrorists then they shouldnt be allowed to posses nukes.
Short List of Countries that Can Have Them.

1. U.S.
2. Britain
3. France
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. Japan (yes I know)
7. Germany
8. Turkey
9. Spain
10. Egypt(at the moment)

I do not believe that Israel should have them either, they have not always shown a great restraint with neighbors.
And I know that some countries on my list will never have them nor want them. But the list reflects countries who are stable and have enough controls not to use them as a first strike weapon.

The question still remains BV, who appointed the US as the judge of who can or cannot own nuclear weapons?

Giving us a seat on the UN Security council with Veto power, the founding member of NATO and many other treaty orgs. Along with the fact that we have been appointed to that role by most of the free world.
But again I say WE DID NOT sponsor the resolution. So maybe you should ask who appointed Britain, France and Germany.

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Senior diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency refused to back down from a tough statement rebuking Iran for nuclear cover-ups even after the Iranian president warned of retaliation.


The text, drawn up by European's three leading nations and made available to The Associated Press, is meant to keep pressure on Tehran as the agency probes nuclear activities uncovered two years ago after 18 years of secrecy.

Iran is yelling more, and threatening retribution. Is this the actions of a country who is using the program to generate electricity? I am not.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The question still remains BV, who appointed the US as the judge of who can or cannot own nuclear weapons? you are absolutely right vile, what gives us the right to be the moral police. the un involves a lot of countries.......countries we just spat in the face by doing what george bush wanted......why do you think that this shit is causing so much trouble. beirut will say because people dont know how to secure a country, but the fact of the matter is, we dont know what they know, so we cant answer from anything but speculation, and guessing. WE! ARE THE ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK !! regardless of how much time you spent in the service, we will NEVER know what they know !!

A Rattlesnake approches a child. A desision must be made.
Shall I kill the Rattlesnake before he strikes, or should I sit and wait to consider the snakes side of the situation?
He rattles a warning! His fangs are barred!
I have 2 choices. I can hope the Rattlesnake will become suddenly a (good) snake and go away. Or I can use my experience and common sense and think that the snake will harm the child. As I sit and ponder this situation the snake grows closer to the child. Soon I must act. Should I wait for the strike?
Hoping that emergency services can save the child. Should I move first, and save the anguish of the child? If I go after the snake I might be bitten. Is the child more important than me?
Am I his protector? As I ponder the snake moves closer.
What will animal rights people think of me if I harm the snake?
The snake moves closer.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
A Rattlesnake approches a child. A desision must be made.
Shall I kill the Rattlesnake before he strikes, or should I sit and wait to consider the snakes side of the situation?
He rattles a warning! His fangs are barred!
I have 2 choices. I can hope the Rattlesnake will become suddenly a (good) snake and go away. Or I can use my experience and common sense and think that the snake will harm the child. As I sit and ponder this situation the snake grows closer to the child. Soon I must act. Should I wait for the strike?
Hoping that emergency services can save the child. Should I move first, and save the anguish of the child? If I go after the snake I might be bitten. Is the child more important than me?
Am I his protector? As I ponder the snake moves closer.
What will animal rights people think of me if I harm the snake?
The snake moves closer. good analogy dan.....makes a good point

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
A Rattlesnake approches a child. A desision must be made.
Shall I kill the Rattlesnake before he strikes, or should I sit and wait to consider the snakes side of the situation?
He rattles a warning! His fangs are barred!
I have 2 choices. I can hope the Rattlesnake will become suddenly a (good) snake and go away. Or I can use my experience and common sense and think that the snake will harm the child. As I sit and ponder this situation the snake grows closer to the child. Soon I must act. Should I wait for the strike?
Hoping that emergency services can save the child. Should I move first, and save the anguish of the child? If I go after the snake I might be bitten. Is the child more important than me?
Am I his protector? As I ponder the snake moves closer.
What will animal rights people think of me if I harm the snake?
The snake moves closer.

If this is an analogy of the question being discussed here, it raises several questions.

Is the "snake" supposed to represent Iran? If so I have to wonder at your comparison of another group of people with an animal that most humans have an instinctual fear of.

I would like to point out also, that under normal circumstances, humans have little to fear of the rattlesnake. This situation changes if you step on the snake however. And if you do step on the snake, can you blame the snake for defending itself?

Again, assuming this is an analogy of the Iran/Nuclear weapons question, who does the child represent?

Vile I think you are reading too much into the analogy. I would think that Dan uses a snake to represent Iran as they have struck at us many times in the past and we have to walk caustiously around them.
And of course the child maybe the EU as Iran has a delivery system that can reach western Europe.
I agree with the analogy and it is a possible scenario with a government whose leaders believe in Jihads and are from the radical side of Islam.
I am sure you recall the article I posted awhile back that said one of the Iranian Hostage takers was appointed the head of the Iranian State TV, so maybe they are not as far from their former selves as we would like to think.

One thing is pretty sure : nobody in this forum (I guess) wants Iran to get the nuclear weapon.

IMO the biggest issue nowadays is Pakistan. This country has backed up terrorism much more than Iran (especially the Talebans) and it is always on the verge of starting a war with India. Pakistan should have been stopped from getting the bomb before it was too late.

Originally posted by astrapol2
One thing is pretty sure : nobody in this forum (I guess) wants Iran to get the nuclear weapon.

IMO the biggest issue nowadays is Pakistan. This country has backed up terrorism much more than Iran (especially the Talebans) and it is always on the verge of starting a war with India. Pakistan should have been stopped from getting the bomb before it was too late.

As long as wee keep Musharaf in power things should be safe with Pakistan. If fundamentalists succeed in over throwing him we could have a potentially dangerous situation...particularily between them and India.

Wonder what will happen now that FOX NEWS has got down on Iran. Showing exclusive photos today of possible construction site of Plutonium processing plant.

One thing that never seems to be mentioned in the discussion of Iran getting nuclear weapons, is their reasons for wanting them.

The development of nuclear weapons is a very expensive proposition for any country, and for a relatively poor country, the development program represents a significant expenditure of resources that could be used for many other purposes. This fact can be used by us the gauge how important Iran thinks it is for them to have such weapons.

Why do they want to go to such expense? There can be but a few reasons for aquiring such weapons. The first reason, and the one that seems to be the most popular, is that they want to use them to destroy the decadent "Great Satan", the U.S. I find this suggestion to be rather absurd. The U.S. has far more nuclear weapons than Iran will ever have, and our delivery systems are light years ahead of theirs. The simple truth is that if Iran ever used a nuke on the U.S., we would retaliate and there would be few Iranians left to weep over the cinder that once was Iran.

Another reason might be so they can give them to terrorists to strike at the U.S. Again, I think this highly unlikely, largely for the same reasons I gave above.

A third reason, and the one I think more likely, is that the Iranians want nuclear weapons to defend themselves from us, and to get out from under our nuclear thumb. When one looks at the recent events in Iraq and North Korea, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that while the U.S. stated that it attacked Iraq because they were attempting to aquire nuclear weapons, the U.S. did not attack North Korea because they allready have them. It certainly could be the reason why Iran is so keen to aquire nukes, and if true, I can't say I blame them. We have demonstrated in the past our willingness to enforce our will upon other countries by the force of arms, and this can only be a powerful motivator for other countries to want nuclear weapons.

To put it as succinctly as I can, we strongly desire to end nuclear proliferation, yet our foreign policy decisions tend to make this proliferation more, rather than less, likely.

If we don't want other countries to develop nukes, we have to show them that we will treat them with respect, as equals, and not force them to do our will at the point of a gun. If we don't, nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and at some point, somebody will use another one.

My guess is that Iran wants nuclear weapons because Israel already has some. It's the same problem than Pakistan and India, and USSR and USA in 1945 : once your enemy has it, you have to get it, or you're potentially defeated in any confrontation. Hopefully the fate of all these nuclear weapons will be the same : only deterents and never really used.

Originally posted by astrapol2
My guess is that Iran wants nuclear weapons because Israel already has some. It's the same problem than Pakistan and India, and USSR and USA in 1945 : once your enemy has it, you have to get it, or you're potentially defeated in any confrontation. Hopefully the fate of all these nuclear weapons will be the same : only deterents and never really used.
As I said earlier I am not fond of Israel having them either. Iran is a country that would use them against many of its neighbors, Israel might if pushed hard on the subject of a sovereign Palastine, so I guess I will say only this; Iran should not be permitted to posses these weapons and the UN should do everything in their power to stop them.