Why Iran? - Page 14 - 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 01-07-2008, 03:10 PM   #196
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
A bit hypocritical. Why can't Iran research nuclear energy? Why can't Iran diversify away from oil and use nuclear energy.
You do understand that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two completely different things, right? No one is saying they can't diversify from oil, we're just trying to figure out if that's what they are doing or not...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:07 PM   #197
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Given the area Iran resides in, its neighbors and even its own provocative tendencies, I don't think it's a good idea for Iran to create all the nuclear bombs they want.
But it is okay for Israel to have all the bombs they want?
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:09 PM   #198
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You do understand that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two completely different things, right? No one is saying they can't diversify from oil, we're just trying to figure out if that's what they are doing or not...
No I know they are two completely different things. What i'm saying it is not a question of whether or not they are making nuclear weapons. Even if they were making nuclear weapons, it shouldn't be our business, IMHO.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:11 PM   #199
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Did I say that? Or anything like that?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:14 PM   #200
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
No, you didn't. But you were saying it is not okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons given that the area they are in. So I was trying to say that "Israel has nuclear weapons and they are also in that area, so why can't Iran?"
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:17 PM   #201
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Because adding more nuclear weapons to an area that unstable already is not a good thing.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 06:24 PM   #202
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
I understand that. So then why not we go to Israel and have them disarm? Why go to Iran even before they have any sort of nuclear energy, and threaten them, etc.? If having nuclear weapons in that area is not a good thing, shouldn't we force Israel to disarm the hundreds of nuclear bombs they have? After all, isn't Israel our ally? Shouldn't they cooperate with us if we ask them to?
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:21 PM   #203
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
I understand that. So then why not we go to Israel and have them disarm? Why go to Iran even before they have any sort of nuclear energy, and threaten them, etc.? If having nuclear weapons in that area is not a good thing, shouldn't we force Israel to disarm the hundreds of nuclear bombs they have? After all, isn't Israel our ally? Shouldn't they cooperate with us if we ask them to?
Why dont we ask ourselves to disarm? We should cooperate with ourselves too right?

The less the better. If we can keep new, additional and more countries from developing nuclear (especially those who claim to be our enemies) then yes,

less is more.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:31 PM   #204
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
I understand that. So then why not we go to Israel and have them disarm? Why go to Iran even before they have any sort of nuclear energy, and threaten them, etc.? If having nuclear weapons in that area is not a good thing, shouldn't we force Israel to disarm the hundreds of nuclear bombs they have? After all, isn't Israel our ally? Shouldn't they cooperate with us if we ask them to?
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has three pillars:

1) Non-Proliferation: Existing nations (five total) with nuclear weapons could continue to have them, but could not pass it on.

2) Disarmament: An admittedly vague section about easing tensions and "eventually" disarming.

3) Peaceful use of nuclear energy: Signatories were allowed to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, prohibited from ever creating nuclear weapons.

With that, only four nations are not signatories: India, Pakistan, North Korea (originally signed, later formally withdrew during its own recent nuclear controversy), and, yes, Israel. As such, although Israel's nuclear weapon capabilities are considered unconfirmed, even if they did have them, they are bound to no international law forcing them to disarm.

Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, and, as such, is bound to it. Iran does have the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but does not have the right to create nuclear weapons. Iran claims the former, but the international community does not believe it is telling the full truth. Plus, since Iran is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, due to its funding of Hezbollah, amongst other groups, there is extra concern over a nuclear-armed Iran, just as there was extra concern over a nuclear armed North Korea, which, yes, is also listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

As such, this is the background to our current international impasse.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 09:34 PM   #205
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
As such, this is the background to our current international impasse.

Not as I see it.

Imagine the furore if a Middle Eastern power had invaded Canada and was continually mounting forays into US air and sea space. Roughly speaking this amounts to the situation with regard to the manufactured controversy regarding Iran.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 01-07-2008, 10:14 PM   #206
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Why dont we ask ourselves to disarm? We should cooperate with ourselves too right?

The less the better. If we can keep new, additional and more countries from developing nuclear (especially those who claim to be our enemies) then yes,

less is more.
Good question. We should disarm ourselves before we ask others to. I don't think we should be telling Israel or anyone to disarm. I'm just saying that if we are going to tell Iran not to have nuclear weapons, we should tell Israel and others to disarm too. And yes, we ourselves should disarm.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-08-2008, 02:25 AM   #207
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Good question. We should disarm ourselves before we ask others to. I don't think we should be telling Israel or anyone to disarm. I'm just saying that if we are going to tell Iran not to have nuclear weapons, we should tell Israel and others to disarm too. And yes, we ourselves should disarm.
Yes in an ideal world we should all disarm, but this isn't going to happen, and it would be suicide to disarm first. As close as I am to being pacifist, even I could never agree to such a move.

I say we all disarm ourselves of all weapons but swords, and then we'll see if there is really a war worth fighting. We'd all be too lazy fight with just swords.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-08-2008, 02:44 PM   #208
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes in an ideal world we should all disarm, but this isn't going to happen, and it would be suicide to disarm first. As close as I am to being pacifist, even I could never agree to such a move.

I say we all disarm ourselves of all weapons but swords, and then we'll see if there is really a war worth fighting. We'd all be too lazy fight with just swords.


Yea i'm just saying that how can we go around telling people not to have nuclear weapons when we have more nuclear weapons than the entire world combined? I don't think we should be going around telling people to disarm or not arm or threatening people. The point i'm trying to make is that we're not the world police.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-08-2008, 04:59 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:40 PM
I think every country, whether it has nuclear weapons or not, should get involved in negotiations with countries that are (planning) to acquire nuclear weapons and try all they can diplomatically to prevent this from happening. Especially in cases like Iran, where just too many nuts are running the country.

The way Israel secretly, even by tricking the US and UN, acquired their nuclear arsenal without any reprimands, as well as holding Mordechai Vanunu captive, is certainly questionable, but one wrong doesn't make another wrong right, i.e. I wouldn't justify Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons with saying "But Israel does have some, either."


If they figured out a way to make sure that Iran really just used their nuclear power to produce electricity, well that would be a point to discuss, but as long as that is not possible I would rather be very cautious with that.
Just think of Paksitan, a nation that is in possession of nuclear weapons and at the same time a retreat for Taliban and al Quaeda terrorists, and far from being stable.

The US shouldn't act unilateral as the world police telling countries what they might do or not do, or might possess or not possess, but together with the international community and its allies it sure should use it's negotiating power to make sure that not even more countries start their own nuclear weapons programs.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-08-2008, 06:24 PM   #210
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 02:40 PM
But what if the U.S. did not have nuclear weapons and countries like Pakistan, Israel and Iran still did? And what if we started enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons and the world tells us to stop. Do you really think that we would stop? Everyone would say that all these other countries have nuclear power or nuclear weapons, so why can't we? I'm not advocating that Iran develop nuclear weapons. I hope they can develop nuclear power and nuclear energy. But I don't think we should be going around telling them not to do what they want.
__________________

__________________
Infinity 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 04:40 PM.


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