Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

What say you?

Should they have it?

Should they have nuclear weapons?

Can they be trusted?

Will the be a threat to anyone else other than the "evil west"?

How do you know?

Iran is less of a threat to the world than North Korea and has certainly caused less upheaval than the USA's military exploits.

Iran hasn't invaded any country in my memory and hasn't broken any international laws.

Regardless of whether we think they should have nuclear capabilities or not, there is a growing consensus that there is no practical way the international community can stop them if they wanted to.

I wonder why everyone does not believe Iran when they say they don't want to develop nuclear weapons?

Will they be a threat if they have nuclear weapons? I can't see them being a threat to any country - Israel has a nuclear arsenal and Ahmedinijad doesn't strike me as a mad person. Kim Il Jon on the other hand...

Oh - Iran hasn't threatened the 'Evil West', but has been called part of the axis of evil. Unfortunately the guy who called them part of the axis of evil was certain Saddam had WMD and harboured al Qaeda

Many agree with Ahmedinijad when he says that the main cause of trouble in the MidEast is Israel.



Cheers,
Shafique

Iran has every right to develop nuclear power.

I can't say I am comfortable with any country owning nuclear weapons, but the US is completely hypocritical to say that Iran shouldn't have them, especially when the US still has them and continues to develop the technology. The US is also the only country to have used them on an enemy, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

In one way, Iran having nukes might keep the US in check. If Iraq had nukes the US would never have invaded. As you can see, the US doesn't touch North Korea with a barge pole, so having nukes can be a significant influence on foreign policy.

If Israel gets nuked it has to ask itself if it should have tried harder to negotiate peace and pay attention to UN resolutions...

kanelli - you said it better than I could. Agree with you 100%.

I still think that countries should start de-comissioning their nukes.. using one would be unthinkable and I struggle to see what a threat of a nuclear attack could achieve if the world rallied round to put pressure on the aggressor.

Let the UN hold the nukes and have a mandate to attack anyone who uses their nukes first.

shafique wrote:Regardless of whether we think they should have nuclear capabilities or not, there is a growing consensus that there is no practical way the international community can stop them if they wanted to.

Yes there is: ask Iraq (1981)

I'm just glad I won't be living within range of their weapon - just in case Iran get any ideas If individual suicide (bombers) can be instilled in people then perhaps national suicide isn't far behind

Iran has learnt from Iraq in 1981 - if they could have targetted Iran's nuclear facilities by aerial bombardment, they would have done so already.

Don't you remember the certainty with which the UK and US told us they knew where all the WMD was in Iraq! No one is fooling themselves that they know where Iran has secreted all its nuclear research sites.

I completely agree with you that you should not be worried about Iran's militiary threat to you - there is no evidence at all that they are a military threat to anyone (other than in the rhetoric we hear out of Washington and Tel Aviv.

What you should be worried about is the millions of people around the world who are aggrieved at perceived injustices committed and abetted by the 'evil west' - they're the ones more likely to target you in your home country.

Anyway, glad to see we agree with each other

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I completely agree with you that you should not be worried about Iran's militiary threat to you - there is no evidence at all that they are a military threat to anyone (other than in the rhetoric we hear out of Washington and Tel Aviv.

I didn't say I wasn't worried I just said I am glad I won't be within range. Now the UAE, IRAQ, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. .... would be withing range but since they are muslim brothers they should not be worried (right?) Wait and see. I would guess there will be an exodus to the "evil-west" by those "patriotic to the middle east" if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Just wait and see...

shafique wrote:Iran has learnt from Iraq in 1981 - if they could have targetted Iran's nuclear facilities by aerial bombardment, they would have done so already.

Don't you remember the certainty with which the UK and US told us they knew where all the WMD was in Iraq! No one is fooling themselves that they know where Iran has secreted all its nuclear research sites.

I supposed each learned its lesson. Let see who prevails. I'm not a betting person but if I were, I might not bet on Iran

Concord - all we can do is wait and see

What do you base your fears of Iran on - it can't be precedence. A genuine question, why do you think Iran is a threat to it's neighbours?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
What do you base your fears of Iran on - it can't be precedence. A genuine question, why do you think Iran is a threat to it's neighbours?

Never said it was But won't be around to find out whether it is

I think that Iran is only a threat to Israel. It isn't that stupid that it would attack the US.

Iran certainly believes Israel is a source of trouble in the Mid East and Iran helps those who are resisting any illegal action/occupation by Israel.

If supporting resistance fighters is a crime, then many countries in the past and today are guilty.

But Iran being a threat to Israel? Why?

Ahmadinejad hasn't said Iran would invade Israel nor has he made any threat against Israel. He does believe Israel should not exist and in October last year said it should be 'wiped off the map'. In December he said it should be moved to Europe.

Is he entitled to these views? Is it more than rhetoric? Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan both said similar statements and then went on to recognise Israel.

Iran hasn't broken international law and hasn't threatened (let alone invaded) its neighbours.

Casting Israel as Hamlet's mother - 'me thinks the lady doth protest too much'.

Cheers,
Shafique

However Shaf, Iran's presidents comments that he would like to 'wipe Israel off the face of the planet' I think is enough reason for concern.

Plus as I have posted before on this subject, Iran says it intends to use nuclear technology for fuel and power purposes only, if that is that case they would need to build at least 5 nuclear power plants to make any kind of difference to the country's energy structure. So far they've only issued plans for 1. Does this not then also raise suspicions that Iran is only intending to build nuclear weapons? Many feel that it does.

Not only that, time and time again Iran has refused to let inspectors in, and another deadline has just past, with it's Government refusing to budge. As I've said before, if you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem.

Sorry, no I don't trust Iran one bit

Shaf, you already said it. Iran says that Israel should be wiped off the map. No, you can't be president of a country and say those things, then wonder why people see you as a threat to Israel. He can have whatever opinions he wants - everyone else does. He might want to be more careful about what he says to the public, because it can influence other countries' stance towards Iran.

Chocs & Kanelli - I think you are both overlooking the fact that other Arab leaders have said similar statements and even launched wars against Israel, but then went on to make peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan).

Iran, as far as I can tell, is guilty of supporting resistance movements and of making speeches. It hasn't broken any international laws, but has violated a UN resolution. It hasn't invaded any country, nor has it threatened to invade any country.

Emotions aside, I am struggling to see the substance behind the hype.

Or am I missing something?

Kanelli - in terms of inflamatory statements by heads of state, it reminds me of the famous quote by Golda Meir when she was PM:

"There are no Palestinians"

Much later she retracted the statement - but at the time she was commenting on opposition to Arabs being disenfranchised (i.e. being kicked off their land).

Cheers,
Shafique

I don't think it is an absolute that Iran would nuke Israel if it had the chance. I just think it is a possibility.

I too agree that there is a lot of hype. In any case, no countries have a moral leg to stand on by opposing Iran developing nuclear technology, because other countries have done it and other countries have gone further to develop or buy nuclear weapons.

North Korea is completely screwed up country that has the potential to be very dangerous, yet the world isn't panicking over them. I can see the hypocrisy in panicking over Iran while that other beast lurks in the mist.

In fact, the US is the most dangerous country to world peace and they have used nukes before, so the US should be under tighter scrutiny than Iran.

clarification, the quote from Mrs Meir was apparently a 'misquote' she said in 1974 - the original quote was from 1969:

There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees . (Meir wrote in “The New York Times” on January 14, 1976 that the often cited and controversial “There are no Palestinians” statement attributed to her is a misquotation, the “London Sunday Times” of June 15, 1969.)


As for your last post above kanelli, again I find myself agreeing with you totally

kanelli wrote:
North Korea is completely screwed up country that has the potential to be very dangerous, yet the world isn't panicking over them. I can see the hypocrisy in panicking over Iran while that other beast lurks in the mist.

The only reason is that Iran would be a more messy place to wipe out (i.e. a few "friendly neighbors). Whereas North Korea is a cake walk!

North Korea would be a cake walk? They would decemate South Korea if attacked by the US. Why should the South Korean's suffer?

'cake walk' ?

Some cake, some walk ! (apologies to fans of Winston Churchill )

If anything, the international communities response to NKorea's posturing and sabre rattling is a clear point in favour of having nuclear weapons. The argument goes: "Iraq didn't have weapons and by many measures had a less oppressive regime and look what happened to it!"

I'm with kanelli - the guys we should really be worried about are those who sit in the White House - they have the potential to do the most harm (and similarly the most good).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'm with kanelli - the guys we should really be worried about are those who sit in the White House - they have the potential to do the most harm (and similarly the most good).

What should they start doing any good now After all, apparently all they do is evil so it is in their being Like I said, glad I won't within range!

Now back to Iran - same holds true. Why should the "evil-doer" USA treat them any different. The USA will be accused of being evil anyway so might as well flex some muscle

As you know, I don't like it when the US is criticised as the source of all evil; however, I also have no problems criticising the US when it deserves it.

They have an agenda for the Middle East that is about oil, not bringing democracy or crushing evil regimes. They constantly support Israel even when Israel acts in atrocious ways, and they antagonise the Muslim countries. They paint all Muslims like terrorists and make the American public afraid. The root of it all is oil, nothing else.

The US has supported Hussein and other Middle Eastern governments when it suited them, and now turn on them as dangerous enemies when it also suits them. The US has no right to meddle like they do.

I find it hard to believe that some Americans are buying the idea that terrorism is the root cause and that the US is all about freedom and democracy. The US is making terrorism more prevalent by its policies, not stopping it. The US is selective about who it likes to bring freedom and democracy to - just look at all the countries, especially in Africa, that are sitting there with tyrannical leaders. Curious that the US is only keen on helping countries with a lot of oil.

Well said kanelli - echoes my feelings totally.

The US does have it in itself to do good sometimes - the intervention in Kosovo by Clinton springs to mind. However, it seems to be the exception when it comes to foreign policy.


Cheers,
Shafique

I think there is quite a difference between the foreign policies of the democrats and republicans. Bring back the democrats!

Read all your post and I say everyone's opinion is justified.

As for mho, Iran should be given all the right to enrich its uranium plant. A lot of country's doing it, why not them? And who gives the right to the US to ask them to stop? Feeling super power eihh!

Present situation: For sure Iran is not going to stoop down to what US is asking for, and US will not stop until they get what they want.
Result of this all ? chaos? peace?

Really all we can do is sit and enjoy life and sing ...
"Ill see you when you get there...see you when you get there"

my reply will probably spark off another controversy....

If the US, UK, etc can have nuclear weapons, why not Iran or any other country?

zaidinamdar wrote:my reply will probably spark off another controversy....

If the US, UK, etc can have nuclear weapons, why not Iran or any other country?

This is not that controversial - you will find the same views expressed a few times in this thread already. kanelli a few posts up says something similar (there being no moral ground for anyone having nukes).

Cheers,
Shafique

Concord wrote:What say you?

1.Should they have it?

2.Should they have nuclear weapons?

3.Can they be trusted?

4.Will the be a threat to anyone else other than the "evil west"?

5. How do you know?

1. Maybe.

2. No.

3. The people, probably. The goverment: No.

4. I believe so - weren't they involved in an 8 year war with their neibhbors recently?

5. Can't know for sure but I will go on the presumption that at least the president is capable of acting on his rethoric (viz-a-viz destruction of Israel, etc.).

Concord, don't you agree that the US is more of a threat for using nukes than Iran is? The US has murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki using nukes, and they are currently invading countries under false pretences, like Iraq. They help countries like Israel bomb the snot out of civilians in Lebanon. There are many more examples of misconduct and actions that could be perceived as a threat to the Middle Eastern countries. Who is more dangerous - I ask you honestly? If Israel is worried about getting nuked by Iran, they can avoid any attacks by getting their asses to the negotiation table a.s.a.p. and making some major changes that have been asked of them from the international community and neighbours for years.