War in Iran?

[Mohi]

It seems that the subject is moving from war in Iran to religion? As far as religion goes I will write this - Islam and Judaism are two religions that have much more in common than separate them.

The problem is is not between the the Jews vs Muslims. It's the Israeli - Palestinian issue but unfortunately as is the case with most politicians they have turned it into a religious divide - which is not the case.

In the case with Iran - they say they have the right to nuclear energy (rightfully so), the issue is now can the International Community make sure that Iran stands by what they say? I believe that only through dialogue can there by systems and procedures established to keep the concerns of the UN at bay.

This comes down again to the heads of both countries wanting to reach a compromise and not playing games.

Currently both countries are being unreasonable but the main fault is with the Bush Administration for refusing to talk directly to the Iranian.

 

[Centurion]

Personally I'm fed up with the US government's inteference policy. From what I have read or seen there has been absolutley no clear evidence that Iran might launch a missile with a nuclear war head against the US. Therefore I find it really silly that the US is preparing for a nuclear war like it's the Cuban missile crisis or something.

Yes the current leader of Iran might be an "instable" man but I really doubt that he would actually aggrevate Bush and his crew by lanuching a cute little missle towards them. I'm sure that he has unlike Usama bin Laden not lived in a cave the latest 2 years and seen what happened to Sadam and his regime. With that being said he would probably not even dare to throw a stone at an ameican hip.

Additionally the western world allways find non democratic nations to be instable and not in control over themselves and whould there for not aquire weapons of mass destruction. Although the US is a democracy the government hasn't held an election were the citizens have had the options to choose if they want to be protected by nuclear weapons or not.

 

[SDNR]

I don't think they are worried so much about Iran attacking the US - it's more about Iran attacking Israel - remember Iran's president said he wants to "push Israel into the sea".

 

[Bozzor]

Israel's geographic location has exacerbated problems with Arabs who largely happen to be Muslim. But it is not necessarily a conflict with Islam as Mohi says: Turkey has had fine relations with Israel for many years and before 1979, Iran and Israel also enjoyed very good relations under the Shah. Israel vs the Arabs is much like Russia vs Germany vs France vs Britain for the past few hundred years...

 

[Michael]

Turkey has had fine relations with Israel for many years and before 1979, Iran and Israel also enjoyed very good relations under the Shah. Israel vs the Arabs is much like Russia vs Germany vs France vs Britain for the past few hundred years...

Of course they enjoyed a good relationship with the Shah. The Shah was politically placed in Iran by the US(Britian). In those times the US was really good friends with the Shah and Iran. They were such good friends that F-14 tomcats were sold to them in which I have heard has not been done with any other country. In addition to this our President at the time gave the Shah and his government a money press? or something to that effect which is very very rare.

In relation to the posts before Boz's, I don't think the US is worried about Iran launching a missle towards them but rather towards Israel like many of you have said.

The UN will never be able to do anything in my opinion. Whether it be with Iran, Iraq, etc. it has to be given more power which no one will give to it becuase it constitutes given up your countries sovereignty in order to protect yourself and the world.

Iran in theory does deserve to have nuclear weapons and so do many other countries for that matter. If you look at it from a very simple and basic perspective then it makes sense for Iran to have nukes. Why not? Israel has them and so do other countries. Why not Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, etc? It's only fair. Unfortunately the world has never been fair. From a realist's perspective--which is the perspective that the Bush administraion, Condi, and others in the US share--you must secure your security with pre-emptive actions; never trust anyone; and assume that the world is against you. I have obviously portrayed the realist in a very negative many. Why? Well for the cheer fact that at times I don't agree with it. Nevertheless, should the US be an idealist in nature and truly support an international community which does not suffice with the needs of the world? An idealist that will trust in other countries words, while they assist vandales, drug dealers, etc.? I am not to sure about that. So this really poses an issue for countries like the US which seem to have power which has been there(or at least they think it has) since the Cold War.

There is no doubt about it that the US's actions, views, and plans seem unfair and at times unjustifiable. Nevertheless, when you have a man like the President of Iran saying things--whether we agree with it or not--that are truly dangerous, scary, and threaten the security of another nation, you must take some sort of initiative. If he, since day one, showed some sort of maturity--in every sense of the word-- then maybe the US, and others as well, would not be apprehensive to their idea, "right", or want of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, no one here should look over the fact that the US is not alone in opposing Iran's ambitions:

"...the five permanent council members were united in not wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapons capability." (BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4970904.stm)

However like many if you have said:

"...China and Russia are yet to support such a resolution and are opposed to sanctions against Iran."(Same link as above)


This is not about religion per se but about anger that has been repressed for years. Many arabs and muslims--which is not the same and some people which are ignorant like to tie them together or even worse rule out muslims as people who are terrorist--do not believe in a holy war, or terrorism against the "west."

This situation is just a situation that has a lot of complex variables, that can be looked from many different perspectives.

 

[LaArtist]

yep the nuke is from the start a very ugly creation..but now that we have it..either anyone with the knowledge and the money to make em should be allowed to have them.. or no one should have them..
who are the US to tell ppl things.. go and clean up your home before you clean up the world..
domestic problems is what they should concentrate on.. and lord knows there are many

 

[Michael]

yep the nuke is from the start a very ugly creation..but now that we have it..either anyone with the knowledge and the money to make em should be allowed to have them.. or no one should have them..

I don't agree with you. In the US there are gun laws. In order to have a gun you need to meet certain criteria's. I think the same applies to a country trying to acquire nukes. They cannot have nukes unless they have proven to be a mature and respectful of other countries political, ideological, and religious views; have not said things that can be concluded to be threats; and have had a stable government for several years. Come on man! if you and I live on the same block or the same apartment and you have a right to a gun because there are guns in the market but yet you are a respectable and decent guy that can be trusted most of the time compared to me a crazy guy that screams and says that I am going kill you or better yet, you should not exist etc. would you want me to have a gun?

 

[warot]

I don't agree with you. In the US there are gun laws. In order to have a gun you need to meet certain criteria's. I think the same applies to a country trying to acquire nukes. They cannot have nukes unless they have proven to be a mature and respectful of other countries political, ideological, and religious views; have not said things that can be concluded to be threats; and have had a stable government for several years. Come on man! if you and I live on the same block or the same apartment and you have a right to a gun because there are guns in the market but yet you are a respectable and decent guy that can be trusted most of the time compared to me a crazy guy that screams and says that I am going kill you or better yet, you should not exist etc. would you want me to have a gun?

you are right, I agree with that analogy. But, the fact is, it's just not right for the US to say that it's ok for this country to have nukes and not this one. I just don't believe that the US has the right to decide on this matter.

 

[LaArtist]

does india and pakistan make that list of repectful and mature countries..
my parents are from pakistan..let me tell you a little thing about pakistan..the afghans are treated worse than dogs..and the same goes for hundus in pakistan...
if a christian comes to your home or a restaurant they eat out of other plates..and after they have eaten they throw away those plates..
india and pakistan have threatned each other..

so man these rules does not apply to all who have nukes today..
and once again who says that the US doesent make threats.. to me the US is the one threatning .. and the fact is that the US is the only nation that have used nukes ever..that should tell you something

 

[Michael]

you are right, I agree with that analogy. But, the fact is, it's just not right for the US to say that it's ok for this country to have nukes and not this one. I just don't believe that the US has the right to decide on this matter.

Thank you for acknowleging this. One thing I want to clarify is that I have never said that the US has the sole power. That sole power lies with the nations of the world and they all meet at the UN. So with that said, the main powers in the UN do not want to see Iran with Nukes and I quoted the BBC saying this.

I don't think one country solely (US) has the right or power to say which country has the right to have X and which one does not. I understand that completely. Nevertheless we need to remember that the US and other countries can voice out their opinion which should not be prohibited by any means.

 

[Michael]

does india and pakistan make that list of repectful and mature countries..
my parents are from pakistan..let me tell you a little thing about pakistan..the afghans are treated worse than dogs..and the same goes for hundus in pakistan...
if a christian comes to your home or a restaurant they eat out of other plates..and after they have eaten they throw away those plates..
india and pakistan have threatned each other..

so man these rules does not apply to all who have nukes today..
and once again who says that the US doesent make threats.. to me the US is the one threatning .. and the fact is that the US is the only nation that have used nukes ever..that should tell you something

I don't see what the Pakistani and Indian situation reflect what we are talking about. I will let it be for now and concentrate on something else you said.

In reference to the US having nukes that answer is yes. Them using it is also true and and twice for that matter.

Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument whether someone has used a nuke or not it doesn't mean anything. I don't think the US is dumb enough, especially the way the situation is in the world, for them to use or even threaten to use nukes because it would just turn everyone against them. Not only that because they have used nukes twice in the history of warefare how wold they constitute as a threat?

and once again who says that the US doesent make threats.. to me the US is the one threatning .. and the fact is that the US is the only nation that have used nukes ever..that should tell you something

I know I know...it seems like everyone is against the US; says they like them but really don't; or truly believe in their neo-conservative views.

 

[LaArtist]

the pakistan india thing that i brought up shows that far from all country with nukes (accepted by the rest of the world) matches those qualifications you wrote in your previous post..

PS
Well i heard something about a nuke attack with some kind of new nuke that goes underground and blasts off there.. didnt the US gov say that all possibilitys are open if they dont stop making nuclear power..

But still i see your point and i aint saying that its wrong..but i stand by my previous statement .. either everyone should be allowed to have em.. or no one..

 

[Michael]

Well Artist I respect your opinion but I have to stand by mine--there are some people(countries) that cannot have certain things. Period.

In reference to the US saying that all options are available I think that is correct. Nevertheless, like you said, I don't think that the US will submit themselves to such actions. They have their hands full with what they are doing in Iraq. I doubt it would be smart for them to go into Iran. But hey you never know!

 

[Mohi]

I just want to add something - in the case of India and Pakistan, for years they have been at each other and by both nations being equal in military capabilities, they are able to keep the balance.

This was the case during the cold war as well. In the case of Iran, the Iranian president has said things which no one agrees with (including the Iranian leadership council) but so has President Bush.

Israel also posses nuclear weapons, so if Iran gets them too then balance will be restored and clears the way for talks of equals and peace easier to achieve.

Currently there is no balance in the Middle East in relation to Israel, both militarily and Western political support.

Remember one major point as well. Geographically Iran and Israel are extremely close to one another. Any nuclear strike by either will come back in a major way due to the radioactive windfall.

Another suggestion is make Israel nuclear free and the problem is solved. Why is that option not being considered?

 

[SDNR]

you are right, I agree with that analogy. But, the fact is, it's just not right for the US to say that it's ok for this country to have nukes and not this one. I just don't believe that the US has the right to decide on this matter.

Lets not get excited worot - the US has every right to voice it's concerns - just like any other country ....the United Nations is highly concerned about Iran's nuclear program - funny how many of the same people who criticize the US for ignoring UN conventions (with regard to Iraq) defend Iran when it does the same thing.

 

[SDNR]

Thank you for acknowleging this. One thing I want to clarify is that I have never said that the US has the sole power. That sole power lies with the nations of the world and they all meet at the UN. So with that said, the main powers in the UN do not want to see Iran with Nukes and I quoted the BBC saying this.

I don't think one country solely (US) has the right or power to say which country has the right to have X and which one does not. I understand that completely. Nevertheless we need to remember that the US and other countries can voice out their opinion which should not be prohibited by any means.

Exactly BMWFREAK - (I hadn't read this post before submitting my previous post) - we are thinking along similar lines here.

 

[Michael]

This was the case during the cold war as well. In the case of Iran, the Iranian president has said things which no one agrees with (including the Iranian leadership council) but so has President Bush.

Woah! ALright. Let me say first and foremost I do not like Bush, but like I have said over and over again I don't think unfounded comments are necessary. Unless you think Osama Bin Laden is the best thing since sliced bread, then nothing that President Bush has said compares to what the President of Iran has said. Period. I don't think Bush has ever said any comment in reference to getting rid of a ethnic group, race, or a country.

Israel also posses nuclear weapons, so if Iran gets them too then balance will be restored and clears the way for talks of equals and peace easier to achieve.

I don't think there will be any balance. Israel is not threatening anyone with those Nukes and if there were I would condemn that. I don't think that Iran having nuclear weapons will restore some balance, however. You need to understand that the US has Israel by a leesh. They will not tolerate Israel moving to make a Nuclear attack. So Israel having nukes is pointless, which brings me to my next point.

Another suggestion is make Israel nuclear free and the problem is solved. Why is that option not being considered?

I agree with you. Israel doesn't need nukes and they have them.

 

[Osnabrueck]

I'm not going to bat for Isreal by any means, but there's some ovbious reasons why it's dangerous for Iran to get its hands on nukes.

Most angles have already been covered in this thread but in a nutshell, Iran is doing the rogue nation routine. If you couple that with anti-west sentiment fueled by radical theocratic elements that would love nothing less than mushroom clouds over New York and Tel Aviv, there's good justification for paranoia.

Nobody in the Bush regime has intimated military confrontation - that's just been projected by people and groups who don't know better. However, with Iran doing the rope-a-dope "Sure thing, we'll do that... oh and F-you" act one can only paint a grim picture of where we're headed.

China and Russia are being passively antagonistic. Europe needs to balls up and become more proactive.

 

[Michael]

China and Russia are being passively antagonistic. Europe needs to balls up and become more proactive.

IMO this is correct.

 

[LaArtist]

so the question is..
should there be a war just cause Iran refuses UN folks to check out their nuclear development..??

i think it seems like a high price to pay..what if the US almost destroys half of iran and kill alot of their own and others.. and then find out..that ohh they where not making nukes.. what then??

a such senario will play out very badly for the US.. will they fall back on the fact that its not their fault..and its the iranians cause they didnt let UN ppl in??.. will they justify the war with that reason??..
and if so will anyone buy that BS??