Iran Reported to Security Council

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 19:53

Sleepy said:
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?

Hmm well they do label entire countries as 'evil' and threaten or instigate violence against them if they don't do as they're told. I don't see us as having a moral superiority here.

Sleepy · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:04

dirtydog said:
Hmm well they do label entire countries as 'evil' and threaten or instigate violence against them if they don't do as they're told.

Label - Yes
Threaten - Yes
Instigate - State sponsored terrorism, so Yes

I don't see us as having a moral superiority here.

Off course we do. Anyway forget ethics for the moment. It comes down to do you trust them enough not to attack us in the future? I don't, nor do Pres. Bush and Blair (and other western governments) So the moment to take action is now when any casualties will be (1) Iranian and (2) be infewer number than a nuclear exchange.

serlex · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:11

what about N korea, they have nukes and leader is a real nuter (team-america

) is it because they dont have oil?

CLICK ME what the ****, real news?

Treefrog · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:26

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.

Well, they're complying with the UN in exactly the same way that the US did, so what's your problem? How about the US getting rid of its (actual, not supposed) nukes to make the rest of the world feel safer instead? Or are you going to argue that what's right in one case is wrong in another?

Sirrel Squirrel said:
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.

But you feel safe with Israel having them after developing them in secret and refusing to confirm or deny their possession? They still occupy parts of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon and refuse to give them back. It's very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black here IMO.

Sirrel Squirrel · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:28

I don't feel comfortable with any country having nukes, don't think I made that clear in my other post though

serlex · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:32

lets report America to UN, oh **** UN is America

Treefrog · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:35

serlex said:
CLICK ME what the ****, real news?

From this link:

For our survival, North Korea and Iran, the axis of evil, have to be taken out. If the United States lets these rogue countries strike first, it will be the end of the world as we know it now.

We should furnish South Korea with an atomic bomb and all the necessary materials needed and the firm OK to take North Korea out.

And this man calls himself a Christian? Maybe someone forgot to tell him about the 6th Commandment :rolleyes:

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:36

Hmm maybe he skipped revelations or something

.

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:41

They should be allowed to develop their nuclear program under the strictest of UN inspection imho. If they only want the technology for power as they say then they should not really have a problem with it.

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:47

They're practically floating on oil. No matter what they say, there's no immediate need for them to have nuclear power tbh.

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 20:56

Phnom_Penh said:
They're practically floating on oil. No matter what they say, there's no immediate need for them to have nuclear power tbh.

Do you wait until it rains before fixing the hole in your roof? Or do you do it on a sunny day?

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 21:14

Regardless of the energy crisis the members of the security council have no right in my opinion to halt the development of any infrastructure development in a country if it is supervised properly by the UN.

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 21:30

dirtydog said:
Do you wait until it rains before fixing the hole in your roof? Or do you do it on a sunny day?

? The amount of oil iran has will last them for atleast 60 years. Starting nuclear power now isn't exactly at the last minute (If the next rainy day was 60 years away I wouldn't be fixing my roof for a while). Maybe you haven't noticed but Iran has a slight hate problem with Israel (and also the USA, calling it an Axis of Evil). And the fact that they're enriching U235, which is the stuff they use in bombs, would lead most people to believe that they're more interested in nuking Israel rather than powering lightbulbs.

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 21:39

You have to take the wailings of Dubyah and Israel with a big pinch of salt.

Israel has a big thing with hating Palestein and Iran too but seems they are pretty much free to develop what they wish.

Power generation by oil would be very expensive for Iran given that the amount needed to power a country in place of nuclear would be much better sold on the foreign market.

It is odd that they specifically wish U235 for power generation when a fast breeder would do the job and use U238.

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 21:48

Thats true, although for once they could be right, Iran aren't exactly topping the who to trust list. Not that the US are. Israel can do what they want because they seem to have a love thing going on with the US. While cheaper, it still doesn't stop Iran being potentially dangerous with nuclear weapons.

I'll agree it's odd that they chose U235, U238 would do fine for power (and weapons :\).

loopstah · 4 Feb 2006 at 21:49

Matblack said:
The thing about having nukes is it provides the dubious 'assurance' of MAD or mutually assured distruction, its pretty tenious though to be honest.
MB

For some odd reason I can see the glory of nuking Israel and dying as martyrs in nuclear fire when they retaliate as a slight wobble in the MAD scenario if Iran obtained nukes.

dirtydog · 4 Feb 2006 at 21:55

Phnom_Penh said:
? The amount of oil iran has will last them for atleast 60 years. Starting nuclear power now isn't exactly at the last minute (If the next rainy day was 60 years away I wouldn't be fixing my roof for a while). Maybe you haven't noticed but Iran has a slight hate problem with Israel (and also the USA, calling it an Axis of Evil). And the fact that they're enriching U235, which is the stuff they use in bombs, would lead most people to believe that they're more interested in nuking Israel rather than powering lightbulbs.

And what do they do in 60 years? (even if we take the 60 year figure at face value) I'm not aware that Iran has a thriving non-oil export industry. It will take years to get nuclear power up and running. Every drop of oil that Iran uses for its own consumption is oil that it cannot sell for hard cash on world markets. Once the oil is gone, it's gone forever.

Iran may or may not intend to make nuclear weapons but it is nonsense to say they have no legitimate reason to want to create nuclear energy now.

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:01

Phnom_Penh said:
Thats true, although for once they could be right, Iran aren't exactly topping the who to trust list. Not that the US are. Israel can do what they want because they seem to have a love thing going on with the US. While cheaper, it still doesn't stop Iran being potentially dangerous with nuclear weapons.

I'll agree it's odd that they chose U235, U238 would do fine for power (and weapons :\).

Well I wouldn't say Iran were dangerous, its pretty much insane to actually use nuclear weapons in open warfare and is likely to only be a safeguard to invasion, which is fair enough every other developed nation has that and nearly every other nation is aiming for a nuclear program.

What would be harder to control is state sponsored terrorism; even if Iran does such a thing, there is no real hard evidence to suggest so but that is why I think the UN should be a hell of a lot more stringent on Iran to make sure a large proportion of material does not go missing.

VIRII · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:04

William said:
Well I wouldn't say Iran were dangerous, its pretty much insane to actually use nuclear weapons in open warfare and is likely to only be a safeguard to invasion, which is fair enough every other developed nation has that and nearly every other nation is aiming for a nuclear program.

Is it? What would happen if Iran did have ICBMs and nuked Israel?
Israel would be wiped out but what would the rest of the world do about it ?

Beansprout · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:05

VIRII said:
Is it? What would happen if Iran did have ICBMs and nuked Israel?
Israel would be wiped out but what would the rest of the world do about it ?

Draw a cartoon depicting the events.