Iran Reported to Security Council

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 13:41

Sirrel Squirrel said:
I don't trust them at all, I mean their country is basically an oil field so wtf do they need nuclear power for

Maybe the answer is in the question. The fact that they have all that oil makes them a prime target for US invasion in future when world oil supplies start getting really tight. Having nukes would be a deterrent - the same reason we have them.

Treefrog · 4 Feb 2006 at 13:47

PhilthyPhil said:
Has it actually be confirmed that they are trying to enrich weapons grade uranium or is everyone just jumping to that conclusion?

IAEA report said:
Recalling that in reports referred to above, the Director General noted that after nearly three years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

It means that they aren't convinced. Although how they could definitely conclude that "there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" is beyond me.

Matblack · 4 Feb 2006 at 13:49

Treefrog said:
It means that they aren't convinced. Although how they could definitely conclude that "there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" is beyond me.

Like saying there are no wepons of mass distruction in Iraq, crazy

MB

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 13:52

Anyway I expect sanctions against Iran will soon follow which will end up hurting the innocent Iranian people while the Iranian leaders aren't affected at all. Sounds oddly familiar :rolleyes:

Stringy · 4 Feb 2006 at 13:52

The middle east is certainly going to be 'fun' this year.

I picked the wrong year to join the forces

Duke · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:26

Iran to halt snap nuclear checks
The Iranian president has ordered his country's nuclear agency to halt snap United Nations checks of its nuclear facilities from Sunday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4681932.stm

Sirrel Squirrel · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:30

Iran really are going the wrong way about this whole thing, why can't they just cooperate with the other countries.

serlex · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:33

after the war, there will be news saying Iran had no nuclear weapons blah blah. couple years later 'syria has nukes' blah blah

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:34

Maybe Iran doesn't like being dictated to by other countries about whether it can build a nuclear power station or not, or even whether it can have nuclear weapons or not. What gives us the right to dictate to them exactly.

Sirrel Squirrel · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:38

We don't have the right but if they are part of the UN (don't know if they are?) they should comply with their guidelines/regulations etc, just to make the rest of the world feel at ease.

Chronos-X · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:38

So we've had the nuclear enrichment crisis, Hamas succeeding to government, furore over cartoons - is it me or are we on the cusp of some big **** going down? WW-3 anyone?

malfunkshun · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:38

VIRII said:
A state that has virtually unlimited oil supplies and has expressed a desire to wipe another state off the face of the map wants the potential for weapons grade uranium and has consistently ignored the rest of the worlds concern is no reason to worry about anything , honestly.

nothing like unlimited (7% of the worlds proven reserves) and without exporting most of what they remove from the ground they would have almost no exports. So, they need to sell as much as possible and as such find another means of generating power.
While I do agree with the concerns and think it likely that weapons grade enrichment would take place I cant see how they can legitimately be stopped from developing the power generation side of things. There are options for externals to refine the Uranium for them, most notably Russia, but that would add a rather large expense, in fact more thna rather large if the recent Russian money-grabbing schemes are anything to go by.

serlex · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:38

when was the last time a nuke was used? (seriously)

Sirrel Squirrel · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:41

serlex said:
when was the last time a nuke was used? (seriously)

in war it was WW2 by the Americans, obviously theres been testing and stuff since then though

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:44

Sirrel Squirrel said:
We don't have the right but if they are part of the UN (don't know if they are?) they should comply with their guidelines/regulations etc, just to make the rest of the world feel at ease.

Like the US and UK did what the UN wanted when they illegally invaded Iraq you mean

Oh that's right, they knew the UN didn't approve but they ignored them and did it anyway. So Iran is just copying our example. Or are we saying "do as I say, not as I do" yet again.

Skunkworks · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:49

dirtydog said:
Maybe Iran doesn't like being dictated to by other countries about whether it can build a nuclear power station or not, or even whether it can have nuclear weapons or not. What gives us the right to dictate to them exactly.

Because we all have to live on the same planet, and the possession of nukes changes a country from a potential local problem to a potential global problem.

If I’m sitting in a room, and a small child starts playing with a loaded handgun, guess what I’m going to do? But hey, who am I to decide who has a gun?

I don’t have a problem with Iran having nuclear power, but their actions and rhetoric suggest they have another agenda.

singist · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:50

Just a matter of time methinks ..... whilst there is a lot of ordnance in the area and they continue to be ruled by a rabid regime ......

watches with interest ........

Sleepy · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:52

dirtydog said:
Like the US and UK did what the UN wanted when they illegally invaded Iraq you mean Oh that's right, they knew the UN didn't approve but they ignored them and did it anyway. So Iran is just copying our example. Or are we saying "do as I say, not as I do" yet again.

Remind me when was the last time a leader of the US/UK said that a certain country didn't have the right to exist and proposed driving its citizens into the sea?

Do you not see the potential problem here?

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:52

Skunkworks said:
Because we all have to live on the same planet, and the possession of nukes changes a country from a potential local problem to a potential national problem.

If I’m sitting in a room, and a small child starts playing with a loaded handgun, guess what I’m going to do? But hey, who am I to decide who has a gun?

I don’t have a problem with Iran having nuclear power, but their actions and rhetoric suggest they have another agenda.

Not really a fair analogy because children have less rights than adults. Iran on the other hand is a sovereign nation with a legitimate government which has the right in international law to have nuclear power or weapons if it wants.

Imagine if the situation was reversed and Iran and its allies started dictating to us, what would we say? "Alright then, whatever you say sir"? No we'd be outraged.

Sirrel Squirrel · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:52

True but we didn't say lets wipe another country off the map, and for that reason I don't feel safe with Iran having Nuclear weapons if they make them or any country for that matter