So how long until Iran has nukes? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2004, 06:33 AM   #1
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Normal So how long until Iran has nukes?

I would guess it's just a matter of time before Iran has nuclear weapons. They are CLEARLY following Iraq's model of delay, delay, delay because they know time is on their side. They know that if they can keep the UN member states fighting with the US long enough, they'll be able to put one together. And once they have one, as proven with North Korea, it's blackmail time.

This just proves the incompetence of the IAEA and the UN in this area. If a nation is determined to build the bomb, there is little the IAEA will be able to do to stop them because they can't seem to get that many countries to agree on one thing (except that they hate George Bush) which makes the IAEA not only ineffective, but a danger to the world.

ps-Any new news on the oil-for-food scandal? I really like how the UN is cooperating with the investigation.
__________________

__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 07:10 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Iran will have nukes about a day before the IAF launches a raid against their nuclear facilities in full, levelling anything that they have with a full arsenel of bunker busters and other less delicate tools.

Seriously though Iran is probably going to get nuclear weapons and lives will be lost because of it. What many cannot comprehend is the sheer hatred that these states hold towards the west and the lengths that they will go to to ensure destruction. If we look at nuclear proliferation globally we can see that there is a clear domino effect that is occuring from Pakistan, first the Pakistanis get the bomb. Now you have Quadeer Khan admitting a full blown smuggling ring for nuclear technology. Iran is almost certainly a recipiant of it as well as Libya and North Korea. You also have the busts made in Malaysia, all of these and many more point to a global trade in nuclear technology that will inevitably lead to terrorists and rogue states obtaining these weapons. This is not the cold war where each country was under the leadership of relatively pragmatic indivuals and had the vision to see Mutually Assured Destruction, this is a new war with new paradigms. Islamism (This is not Islam, I repeat Islamism = Bad, Saudi Wahhabism style extremist political/social ideology, Islam = Religion practiced by over 1 billion people) is an insidious ideology that has no problem in killing non-Muslims to furthur their goal of a global Islamic Superstate, they would use Nuclear Weapons if they were given the opertunity and the way things are going this is a distinct possibility.

We need to crack down on these regimes in the harshest possible ways, if all out war is neccissary to prevent rogue states from obtaining such weapons (a last resort of course, but certainly an option that is out there) then that is a price that we should be willing to pay. Nuclear Weapons are very dangerous devices and you must never, ever underestimate the damage that they could do in the hands of madmen who you cannot negotiate with.

North Korea is a different case if anyone was going to bring it up because it seems they need the weapons to secure the regime, that is a lot more tricky than Iran because there you would have hundreds of thousands dead off the bat from artillery strikes in the event of war, that is a situation where each party seems willing to negotiate a solution to the problem in exchange for some guarantees, you do not see this same willingness from Iran or Syria or your terrorist organizations, they are the new paradigm because they are a risk and they must be dealt with but preemptive force is a legitimate means of self defence from them.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 10:26 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Iran has plenty of dissidents. One of them won the Nobel Peace Prize last year. The conservatives screwed the reform people in the elections, but I don't think the liberals just went away. They're still there. I wonder if their liberals want nukes? Another thing that makes Iran unique among Muslim countries is that it's currently the only Shia state. This could change if Sistani gets his way in Iraq, it could also become a Shia state. This would be interesting!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 10:43 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Iran wouldn't have half of its nuclear capabilities, if it weren't for Russia's assistance. So, by the Bush Doctrine, shouldn't we be declaring war on Russia now? Then he could go down in blazes like the last two world leaders who tried to invade Russia. And, yes, what about Pakistan? Like Saudi Arabia, the best thing they could have done to help their survival was to "ally" with the United States on the "war on terror," because then these nations can get away with murder.

And the U.S. can't attack Iran, because, frankly, we've overstretched ourselves; and it is all the more delicate of a situation because Iran isn't like Iraq. Take the ayatollahs out of the equation and the people of Iran are one of the most educated and progressive in the Middle East. Last polled, something like 75% of Iranians had a favorable view of the United States. But, as we know, the balance of power isn't with the Iranians; it's with the clerics, and, at least at this point, it is unknown as to how capable the public is to topple the government. There is one thing for sure, though: Ayatollah Khomeini will have to die someday, and maybe that'll be enough to bring Iran forward. They are really that close, IMO, and the *worst* thing that can be done probably is to invade Iran like Iraq, because not only will you destabilize the nation, but the people will become as desperate as the Iraqis. Taking Saddam out of the equation like the ayatollahs, the Iraqi people were also once one of the most progressive in the Middle East.

It is very difficult to say what should be done, because the knee-jerk reaction is to want to blow up what we don't like. However, we did this tactic before back in the 1950s with Iran and we certainly destabilized the nation. Had we not intervened, Iran might very well be like Turkey: a secular Islamic nation. I guess Kemal Ataturk had a luxury that other nations didn't have: he revolutionized during the 1920s, before the Cold War and before all the Western meddling.

So, overall, I don't know what should be done, but we should be very very very cautious about what we do, because the short term fix might be disastrous in the long term.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 10:54 AM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 06:38 AM
Melon, what you said, I have nothing to add to. Nor anything to take issue with, as they are exactly my thoughts.



Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 11:20 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Excellent post melon.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 11:38 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Iran will have nukes about a day before the IAF launches a raid against their nuclear facilities in full, levelling anything that they have with a full arsenel of bunker busters and other less delicate tools.
Yes, the IAF seems to have accomplished more than the UN.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 04:14 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:38 PM
To many in the rest of the world this is part and parcle of the mideast nuclear question.




Zionists Blocking Efforts to Establish WMD-Free Zone in Middle East

By M. A. Saki

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is scheduled to visit Israel today along with an IAEA delegation to hold talks with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission director general, Gideon Frank, and his senior aides.

ElBaradei is visiting the Zionist regime to discuss the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. He will propose that Israel agree to begin talks for establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. The delegation is accompanied only by three news agency reporters.

ElBaradei has already urged Israel to dismantle all its nuclear weapons in order to create an atmosphere of tranquility in the Middle East. He told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in December that such weapons were not "an incentive for security". He also said Israel should sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He even warned that the belief that Israel was safer because it possessed such weapons was false since other Middle Eastern countries felt threatened by the Israeli nuclear arsenal. "Frankly, I am not happy with the status quo, because I see a lot of frustration in the Middle


East due to Israel's sitting on nuclear weapons or [its] nuclear weapons capability, while other parties in the Middle East are committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.


the rest of the article is here
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 08:04 PM   #9
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 05:38 AM
I believe we were talking about Iran, the country run by Muslim extremists and sworn enemy of America and Israel lying to the international community to obtain nuclear weapons, not the free, democratic Israel already having nuclear weapons. That is a different issue.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 09:49 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:38 PM
Israel's nuclear weapons is probably the one thing that has kept their enemies from launching full scale attacks.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 01:09 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Lets look at it this way, Israel obtained its nuclear weapons in the mid 60's. Since it obtained nukes and people began to assume that they did (This occured in the early 70's, obviously after Yom Kippur War) there has not been a single all out war in the ME. This past 30 years of peace is due solely to the fact Israel has nuclear weapons which are used as a detterent. Give any Islamic country in the Middle East nuclear weapons and I guarantee you that that peace would be upset and millions of people would die. I like the way that the Iranians say that the Zionists are the ones who are obfuscating efforts because as we all know Zionist is codeword for Jew. Could anybody imagine what would happen if Israel or any Liberal Democracy said that the Muslims were a threat to peace in the region.

Two fun little articles about what Iran has been doing to fight against the evil Amerikans and the treat that they have been preparing in their nuclear reactors to give to Israel.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124835,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14070
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 03:17 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 06:38 AM
When will Iran have nukes? The answer is probably "never". As A_Wanderer suggested, Israel would simply never let it get that far. They'd never, ever let another power in the region have them and they're not shy either. My bet is that if Iran keeps moving forward, post-US elections the focus will shift there. Either a political/economic push from the UN/US/UK or a swift little bombing raid care of Israel. They can refill in Iraq now!
Either way, it just won't happen. Could be an easy, painless lesson dealt to Iran, or it could be deadly.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 03:32 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 03:08 AM
there is no excuse for having nukes, I don't care if it's a deterant or not.

every country, powerful or not, should destroy them

of course, I know that is an idealistic approach. Nobody will disarm because nobody trusts anybody else in this world

The less nuclear weapons on this earth the better though, even if you have to sacrifice some security.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 07:11 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Not that simple, US and Russia are willing to disarm most of their stockpiles however many two-bit dictatorships seek to obtain nuclear weapons as means of leverage against greater powers or as a means to shift the balance of power in their own region. There is no problem with countries like the USA, Russia, UK, France, Israel, China having nuclear weapons because they are pretty stable politically and have relatively level headed leadership. When you have nuclear weapons somewhere like Pakistan you are in a much more dangerous situation because there could be a coup that brings these weapons into the hands of an Islamist regime, and that would not be a good thing for anyone. As this technology spreads throughout the middle east you are risking all out war because I have no doubt that those regimes would use nuclear weapons against Israel in a heartbeat, they do not desire peace and they will not stop their pursuit of WMD's until the Jews are wiped off the face of the planet and they are able to threaten the western world on equal terms. Basically unless they are stopped millions or even billions of people will die, hence we must stop these states from obtaining these weapons.

Encouraging Disarment of smaller countries is a good start and reducing the strategic arsenel of the major powers is also good but we should never assume that just because we want peace and freedom our enemies share the same goal.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 07:28 AM   #15
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:38 AM
Can you remember that many Arab countries wanted a WMD-Free Mid Eeast?
Of course other countries feel the need for WMDs as soon as some people in the region have them.
If you want to build the a-bomb it would be foolish to copy mr. husseins attemts.
Look at North Korea or Pakistan than you know how you can do as a dictator without being invaded.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com