Iran-Nuclear Weapons

[Aimster]

Please Vote
Thanks

 

[Harvey]

Iran should not be allowed to devolp nukes. The IAEA decision confirms that's what a strong majority of other nations believe, along with us. I decline to vote on the other two questions because they're way too premature. Let's hope this gets resolved by other means without having to consider attacking them. The possible collateral fallout is far too severe to be contemplating, at least until that becomes a very last viable option.

 

[tommywishbone]

Yes/No/Yes.............fwiw

 

[Aimster]

I voted:

Yes, they have a right but not with the current regime
Yes, they should attack the nuclear sites + Iranian regime
Yes they have a right to fight back if attacked

 

[BrownTown]

I say they have no right to develope nukes, this regime is not responsible or stable enough to handel nuclear weapons, allowing them to ahve them is a threat to the region and the rest of the world. HAving said that, the US cannot and should not do anything, if Isreal wants to do something about it then that is their problem (Iran is in the same region as Isreal anyways, why should we attack if they would not?). But of course any country, even Iran has the right to retaliate if attacked. Id say they have 100% the right to kill any Isreal soldier in their territory, but I don't think they have the right to attack Isreals territory over this. Although I have to say that I'd be mroe then happy if ISreal and IRan duked it out, basically two countries with ****** human rights records killing each other doesnt really concern me. Hopefully one would kill the other and then we have 1 less shithole country to deal with.

 

[jpeyton]

Iran is not asking for the right to develop nuclear weapons, only nuclear power.

 

[BrownTown]

yes, of course that it what they are asking for, but why do you think they ask it?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is not asking for the right to develop nuclear weapons, only nuclear power.

Well the U.S actually allowed Iran to have nuclear power during the Shah regime. The same goes for Europe.

20+ contracts were out for nuclear power plants. All were supposed to have been built by now.

The problem is nobody feels comfortable with Muslim nations having their hands on nuclear power. Iran is an Islamic State. The Shah's Iran was not Islamic.

 

[raildogg]

Anyone here actually thinking from a pro-American or even an American perspective? Or are you all looking at this as internationlists and citizens of other countries? Do you really care for America's interests?

 

[maddogchen]

Yes, even though they have been shown to support terrorists, they have the right to nukes and the right to use them against the United States or any other country for that matter. And I hope they drop it on some of you.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Yes, even though they have been shown to support terrorists, they have the right to nukes and the right to use them against the United States or any other country for that matter. And I hope they drop it on some of you.

Cuba is waiting for you

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Iran should not be allowed to devolp nukes. The IAEA decision confirms that's what a strong majority of other nations believe, along with us. I decline to vote on the other two questions because they're way too premature. Let's hope this gets resolved by other means without having to consider attacking them. The possible collateral fallout is far too severe to be contemplating, at least until that becomes a very last viable option.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. My impression of the referral is that it will become a slap on the wrist and then endless talk about how its "bad" while most of the UN will support Iran through inaction.

You could look at the referral as appeasing the US to the point that further action wouldn't be viewed as legal or required. After all if the UN is talking about Iran then that'll prevent them from making and using Nuclear Weapons. :roll:

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is not asking for the right to develop nuclear weapons, only nuclear power.

Are you naive, stupid, or both. Those are the only three possibilities.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Iran is not asking for the right to develop nuclear weapons, only nuclear power.

Why dont you take your head out of the sand already. Clearly they have other goals with their enrichment program. If they didnt, then they would have taken Russia up on their offer to provide fuel for their reactors.

 

[fragged]

Of course they have the right to have nuclear power.

Ahmadinejad quotes "the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power."

That quote itself is harmless.

Ahmadinejad also quotes "Israel should be wiped off the map."

Now, couple the first quote with the second one. Would you say he should be in control of nuclear power?

 

[Tab]

Thank god the majority here isn't in charge of the country, we do not need another war.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If Muslim extremists burn down embassies over cartoons, are you willing to give other Muslim extremists nuclear weapons and trust them not to use them?

Aside from the president of Iran's stated desire to "wipe Israel off the map" all it will take is for someone in a Norway bookstore to drop a quran on the floor or for Salman Rushdie to write another book and **BOOM**

There are many Muslims who don't act like savages, but they stand by and do nothing while the extremists bomb, burn, and behead. Since they do nothing to stop the terrorism, it's up to the West.

( :music: America Fvck Yeah! :music: )

 

[imported_Tango]

Of course they have the right. As a sovereign country they have right to build every weapon not banned by the geneva convention. This doesn't mean I would love them to, just that law is on their side, expecially because naive or not they are formally only building nuclear energy, not weapons. Namibia just announced they are looking into the possibility of building their first nuclear plan in a complete international community silence. If you react violently to Iran's project while allowing Namibia you clearly discriminate a country over another. Same would be with weapons: Israel, France, the UK or the US have no right to have a weapon that other countries cannot have.

Of course you can invade them to prevent their projects, but it would be enforcing your own interests, not international law.

 

[RichardE]

Let us look at other countries that have nukes...

China... Communist country slowly buying America's dept and implementing a long term economical warfare model vs the United States, they sell us 10$ pants
India... Vows to destroy Pakistan..in a nice lil cease fire right now..but they do take out call centers
Pakistan Vows to destroy India... I suppose we need software programers though....
North Korea.... Bush and Co would get there ass handed to them like in Vietnam..so we will leave them alone
France... Publicly state the will use Nuclear Weapons if they are attacked...
Israel... With the mentality of "I am taking you all with me if I go down" should they really have nukes?


I mean common guys...If the US is going to become the schoolyard supervisor on the nuke issue, lets make sure we are consistant so we don't look like a bunch of gun toting cowboys in the ME who are intent on securing oil and the good ol greenback domination!

 

[musicman87]

its ridiculous to say that we shouldn't discriminate in which countries are allowed to produce nuclear weapons. I'm sure all the residents of Miami would love to have nuclear weapons on Cuba. For those who complained about the US not having international support for Iraq, no we have it and you're still too much of a pvssy to do something, and Iran is much more of a threat. Perhaps everyone should have nukes. The US is a super power, regardless of what anyone says, and therefore we have a responsibility to make sure extremists don't posses nuclear weapons.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: musicman87
its ridiculous to say that we shouldn't discriminate in which countries are allowed to produce nuclear weapons. I'm sure all the residents of Miami would love to have nuclear weapons on Cuba. For those who complained about the US not having international support for Iraq, no we have it and you're still too much of a pvssy to do something, and Iran is much more of a threat. Perhaps everyone should have nukes. The US is a super power, regardless of what anyone says, and therefore we have a responsibility to make sure extremists don't posses nuclear weapons.

You are right, and therefore should get right on China and especially North Korea for pocessing nuclear weapons! I mean.. get rid of the extremist right......

 

[eits]

Yes, they have a right but not with the current regime
No, they have no right to attack
Yes they have a right to fight back if attacked

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Anyone here actually thinking from a pro-American or even an American perspective? Or are you all looking at this as internationlists and citizens of other countries? Do you really care for America's interests?

Pot meet kettle. You always look at world events from the perspective of an Israeli.

 

[EatSpam]

Yes, they have the right to build nuclear weapons. If Israel didn't have nukes, I might say no to this.

US should not attack, Israel can if they want to. Iran is Israel's problem, not ours. And we shouldn't rush to Israel's aid if they attack. After all, they will have started it. Their war, their problem. Personally, I would rather Israel didn't attack, because a destabalized Iran would push oil prices way up.

Iran has the right to respond, no doubt about it. Any nation has the right to retaliate after being attacked, even ones unpopular to the Bush Regime and Israel.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Iran has the right to respond, no doubt about it. Any nation has the right to retaliate after being attacked, even ones unpopular to the Bush Regime and Israel.

Is Iran "popular" with you? just curious... you seem to pawn their evil nature off on the President and Israel, but how do YOU feel about Iran?