Iranian Nuclear Technology

[ForkRobotik]

Do Americans support their government's labelling of Iran as part of some "axis of evil?" Also, do they think it's right to try to shut down Iran's Nuclear Energy Program? If so, why? It seems to me that Iran gets really bad press in the media, almost as bad as Saddam did when he was in power. Is america gearing up for another war, and do americans support possible military action inside Iran?

[Karzand]

I think it's in the world's best intrest to keep nuclear weapons away from a terrorist supporting nation.

[ForkRobotik]

At 3/26/07 10:26 PM, Karzand wrote: I think it's in the world's best intrest to keep nuclear weapons away from a terrorist supporting nation.

Who are the terrorists they support? If it's hamas then shouldn't we force Russia to denuclearize for supporting them as well?Also Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization according to the UN...OR do you mean the shiites in Iraq, which the USA claims Iran is getting them to commit terror acts and providing them with weapons/training? This accusation hasn't been proven though...

[Boltrig]

At 3/26/07 10:24 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Do Americans support their government's labelling of Iran as part of some "axis of evil?" Also, do they think it's right to try to shut down Iran's Nuclear Energy Program? If so, why? It seems to me that Iran gets really bad press in the media, almost as bad as Saddam did when he was in power. Is america gearing up for another war, and do americans support possible military action inside Iran?

Well Im Scottish, and Id support any millitary action agains Iran unless they return our marines and sailors now. I also think that there is no reason for Iran to continue nuclear weapons development. Nuclear power yes, but thats a short step to convert it to military use. Until they can prove they are a stable state, they shouldnt be allowed to continue development.

[hongkongexpress]

speaking of Iranian nuclear technologly. I was watching youtube.com one time, and Adajimibad (sp) or however his name is, were giving medals to the scientists involved in the project. Of course he says it's for peaceful purposes. But that's what India said also!

[Begoner]

Of course Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons as a counterbalance for unwarranted American intervention in the Middle East.

[Eoewe]

They are incapable of the type of the responsibility that is needed.

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 06:09 PM, Eoewe wrote: They are incapable of the type of the responsibility that is needed.

The same applies to the US. To prevent an egregious abuse of power (ie, the invasion of Iraq), a bulwark needs to be fashioned to resist an American incursion. The optimal choice would be a nuclear-armed Iran. It's not a choice between good and bad; it's a choice between bad and worse.

[Boltrig]

At 3/27/07 06:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

The same applies to the US. To prevent an egregious abuse of power (ie, the invasion of Iraq), a bulwark needs to be fashioned to resist an American incursion. The optimal choice would be a nuclear-armed Iran. It's not a choice between good and bad; it's a choice between bad and worse.

I might be missing the point, but are you implying that you'd be happy with Iran developing and deploying nuclear devices against your countrymen in any future conflict?

I know not all of America wanted the Iraq conflict, lord knows neither did the UK, but allowing a nation in an unstable position to aquire nuclear arms cant be logical. They would be looking at the international situation and getting jittery with American forces so close. Then, they snatch coalition troops from a ship (apparently in Iraqi waters).

Thats done nothing to calm matters. Surely they cant be trusted with nukes when they'd rather inflame a situation rather than defuse it?

[Korriken]

At 3/27/07 06:06 PM, Begoner wrote: Of course Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons as a counterbalance for unwarranted American intervention in the Middle East.

damnit begoner, do you REALLY believe a nuke would solve anything? if iran DID nuke america, israel, iraq, or anyone really, they would be a smoldering crater in no time. them having a nuke would solve nothing. if they aimed a nuke at us and made a demand, we would aim 20 bigger nukes at them and say, "take the first shot"

the nuclear difference between america and iran is,
America has the capability but not the desire to use.
Iran has the desire to use, but not the capability.

put them together and its a sure cause for disaster.

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 06:19 PM, Boltrig wrote: I might be missing the point, but are you implying that you'd be happy with Iran developing and deploying nuclear devices against your countrymen in any future conflict?

No, I am implying that I'd be happy with averting future conflicts through Iran's development of an effective deterrent. The concept of MAD (on a smaller scale, granted) will apply and military action will no longer be an option.

Thats done nothing to calm matters. Surely they cant be trusted with nukes when they'd rather inflame a situation rather than defuse it?

Iran detained several armed, British soldiers who illegally entered the country; however, it did not harm them. The US and the UK, on the other hand, illegally invaded a sovereign nation, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Who do you trust with nukes, again?

[Boltrig]

At 3/27/07 06:38 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 3/27/07 06:19 PM, Boltrig wrote: I might be missing the point, but are you implying that you'd be happy with Iran developing and deploying nuclear devices against your countrymen in any future conflict?

No, I am implying that I'd be happy with averting future conflicts through Iran's development of an effective deterrent. The concept of MAD (on a smaller scale, granted) will apply and military action will no longer be an option.

Korriken above your post makes a good point on this.

Thats done nothing to calm matters. Surely they cant be trusted with nukes when they'd rather inflame a situation rather than defuse it?

Iran detained several armed, British soldiers who illegally entered the country; however, it did not harm them. The US and the UK, on the other hand, illegally invaded a sovereign nation, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Who do you trust with nukes, again?

"...but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters."

With military grade GPS, I cant see the coallition forces being off course and straying into Iranin waters. There has to be a border somewhere, and if youre going to detain people for being near it then I cant say it seems like behaviour becoming of an aspiring nuclear power.

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 06:48 PM, Boltrig wrote: Korriken above your post makes a good point on this.

He suggested that the Iranian power structure is suicidal. That's not a good point, but rather patently false. Iran is equally likely to use a nuclear weapon as India, Pakistan, Israel, or North Korea (perhaps less likely than Israel).

"...but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters."

According to the British government, the same people who were certain that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. I don't really trust what they say.

With military grade GPS

Are you sure? I have seen nothing to suggest that the inflatable vessels on which the soldiers were performing their duties were equipped with GPS. In either case, the Iranians were more experienced with the territory and were more knowledgeable regarding the location of the border.

if youre going to detain people for being near it then I cant say it seems like behaviour becoming of an aspiring nuclear power.

Israel consistently violates Palestinian territorial sovereignty in order to illegally kidnap whomever they choose (not to mention much more abhorrent offenses, war crimes, and crimes against humanity), yet Israel is a nuclear power. Iran, on the other hand, is a much less belligerent nation. It should have the power to protect itself from a rogue regime such as Israel's (and the US).

[Demosthenez]

At 3/27/07 06:38 PM, Begoner wrote: The concept of MAD (on a smaller scale, granted) will apply and military action will no longer be an option.

I find it ironic you are not for nuclear disarmament. Instead you propose even more nuclear armed states? You are nuts. Never forget this is against the same international system you back in certain circumstances but apparently ignore here.

I still have a tremendous time taking you seriously because of this, you bend rules and break your beliefs to suit your anti-Western bias.

Iran detained several armed, British soldiers who illegally entered the country; however, it did not harm them. The US and the UK, on the other hand, illegally invaded a sovereign nation, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Who do you trust with nukes, again?

What do you know, Begoner is trapped in another logical fallacy. Who woulda guessed.

And to answer your question. . .

[USMC-Ryan]

How can one gear up for another war when your still involved in one. Whats going to happen is the current war in IRaq isn't going to increase or decrese untill the next president decides to do something. Im not saying this president is bad which he is not, im saying that the rising conflict in Iran is the last thing on peoples minds and the war in Iraq needs to be delt with ,wether your for the war or against, first.

[JakeHero]

At 3/27/07 06:06 PM, Begoner wrote: Of course Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons as a counterbalance for unwarranted American intervention in the Middle East.

Your batshit craziness never ceases to amaze me. Iran is a dictatorship ruled by a fatalistic theocracy. Anybody with half-brain would know that this is simply unacceptable. Even if Iran did possess nuclear weapons they couldn't use them against the US because not only would the US retaliate with nuclear arms, but other nation would also get into the nuclear fray.

The only reason you're for these religious idiots and psychopaths having such WMDs is to spite the US.

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 07:12 PM, Demosthenez wrote: I find it ironic you are not for nuclear disarmament.

I am for nuclear disarmament. However, the one thing that I despise more than nuclear weapons is the unilateral distribution thereof. I don't like machine guns, either; however, if Nazi Germany started mass-producing them, you bet your ass that I'd want the US and the UK to do the same.

What do you know, Begoner is trapped in another logical fallacy. Who woulda guessed.

Perhaps I should have written a novel to document all the transgressions committed by the US and Iran. Or, maybe, I could simply state that the most flagrant violations of the peace have been perpetrated by the US. Oh, and would you shut up with the logical fallacies? This isn't a scientific paper; there's no need to be so pretentious.

And to answer your question. . .

If I recall correctly, my question was not, "Does Ahmadinejad have a big mouth?"

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 07:56 PM, JakeHero wrote: Iran is a dictatorship

It is a democratic republic in which the people elect the president. Granted, there are certain totalitarian aspects in the system; however, there is no such thing as "pure" democracy anywhere in the world, so you can't complain.

[uhnoesanoob]

At 3/27/07 07:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

"...but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters."

According to the British government, the same people who were certain that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. I don't really trust what they say.

But you would rather trust Iran...... you fool. Iran has not really been the most truthful country, but hey, if you have such a wacked out mind, I do not know what to say. Are you sure your loyalties lie with America and the UK, or Iran? What are your parents feeding you? Propaganda-O's?

[Memorize]

At 3/27/07 07:59 PM, Begoner wrote:

Perhaps I should have written a novel to document all the transgressions committed by the US and Iran. Or, maybe, I could simply state that the most flagrant violations of the peace have been perpetrated by the US.

Truth be told, you can do that with literally any nation. You could dig up more on Britain considering how long they've been around. But honestly, you're comparing what a nation used to be to what Iran/Iraq/Pakistan are today.

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 08:03 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Iran has not really been the most truthful country

In what respect? Can you name several false assertions stated by the Iranian government?

[uhnoesanoob]

Yes I can! There is THIS. Oh and, THIS ONE IS KINDA A BIGGY TOO.

[Demosthenez]

At 3/27/07 07:59 PM, Begoner wrote: However, the one thing that I despise more than nuclear weapons is the unilateral distribution thereof.

Then your not for nuclear disarmament. You in fact are for nuclear proliferation and your statements as such prove so. You cant have your cake and eat it to, bro.

I don't like machine guns, either; however, if Nazi Germany started mass-producing them, you bet your ass that I'd want the US and the UK to do the same.

Machine guns cant end the world as we know it. Guess what can.

Perhaps I should have written a novel to document all the transgressions committed by the US and Iran.

Maybe you should have.

Or, maybe, I could simply state that the most flagrant violations of the peace have been perpetrated by the US.

I was trying to decide which fallacy this fit best (it really does cover a number of fallacys) and in the end I decided this was the best. Im no expert in this by any means but it doesnt take a genius to figure out your humongous generalizations and statements of truth on so many subjects (despite your continual lack of evidence) are fallacious on so many levels.

Oh, and would you shut up with the logical fallacies? This isn't a scientific paper; there's no need to be so pretentious.

You dont seem to respond well to what I have said before so I will continue to document the fallacies you do all the time. You are welcome to do the same for me.

If I recall correctly, my question was not, "Does Ahmadinejad have a big mouth?"

If you dont get my point there is no reason to debate you further. You believe what you want to believe (Iran being a responsible nation that deserves the rights to nuclear arms despite the unilateral world opinion otherwise [the Securty Council voted 15-0 to approve these preliminary sanctions]) regardless of evidence or overwhelming world opinions. Whatever.

"This resolution sends an unambiguous signal to the government and people of Iran ... that the path of nuclear proliferation by Iran is not one that the international community can accept," said British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry.

[bcdemon]

Personally I don't think anyone should have nukes. But considering there are a handful of nuclear countries out there, and there is really only one way to defend against nukes, MAD. Considering the aggressive actions of the US in the middle east this decade, and the labeling of Iran as an axis of evil, there really is only one way to stop the US from a future invasion on Iran, acquire a deterrent.

[Korriken]

At 3/28/07 09:22 AM, bcdemon wrote: Personally I don't think anyone should have nukes. But considering there are a handful of nuclear countries out there, and there is really only one way to defend against nukes, MAD. Considering the aggressive actions of the US in the middle east this decade, and the labeling of Iran as an axis of evil, there really is only one way to stop the US from a future invasion on Iran, acquire a deterrent.

do you honestly think iran having a nuke would prevent america from beating its ass if it had to?

consider that a nuclear missile has to have a silo, either under or above ground. either way the silo would have to be big, and I mean huge to house the missile, aim the missile, and launch the missile.

it would also require electricity to power the computers and machines that aim and launch the nuke, this would probably be done using a giant generator. that generator would put off a lot of heat to generate that much power. also, you would have to build the silo in an unpopulated area to prevent massive civilian deaths if something bad went wrong. of course iran very well might build its silo in the middle of the city to prevent other nations from destroying it, then crying like a bitch when civilians die when it does get destroyed.

so you have this huge silo in the middle of nowhere. they would have to have some damned good anti air defenses to stop something like a b-2 bomber from destroying it with a bunker buster.

the idea of a nuclear deterrant is a moot point. also they would be insane to just set up a silo and not test it, that would easily give away its location.

[Korriken]

At 3/27/07 07:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 3/27/07 06:48 PM, Boltrig wrote: Korriken above your post makes a good point on this.

He suggested that the Iranian power structure is suicidal. That's not a good point, but rather patently false. Iran is equally likely to use a nuclear weapon as India, Pakistan, Israel, or North Korea (perhaps less likely than Israel).

apparently it is. a war with Israel = a war with the US and a war with the US is suicide.

also you said that iran should be allowed to have a nuke, AND you're for nuclear disarmament... sounds a little hypocritical.

[Crue]

At 3/26/07 10:24 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Do Americans support their government's labelling of Iran as part of some "axis of evil?" Also, do they think it's right to try to shut down Iran's Nuclear Energy Program? If so, why? It seems to me that Iran gets really bad press in the media, almost as bad as Saddam did when he was in power. Is america gearing up for another war, and do americans support possible military action inside Iran?

I think Bush, as hard as he's tried, is losing it. He's doing all he can to keep his head from exploding. I think he wasn't ready for the job, but like I said, he's trying, and he believes Iran is A-bomb capable. The reason we want it shut down is to protect ourselves. Since I don't live in Iran, I could care less what we do to them!

[2r0x0rs4you]

The INT is not a good thing, but at least if they do produce a nuclear weapon, the USA can pretty much say that we are immune. WE have 2600 more nukes than damn anyone else. Those Iranians can kiss our asses if they think we're not going to nuke them into 5000 A.D. if they shoot at us. Or any of our allies. If I were president, I'd let them continue, but I'd keep a damn close eye on them.

[Begoner]

At 3/28/07 09:51 AM, Korriken wrote: also you said that iran should be allowed to have a nuke, AND you're for nuclear disarmament... sounds a little hypocritical.

Let's try another example. I don't like guns being brought into schools. However, if one kid sneaks one in and starts massacring the student body, I'd be in favor of calling the cops to take him down. Would that be hypocritical because it would be bringing additional guns into the school? Hell, no. The same principle applies here.

[Begoner]

At 3/27/07 08:26 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Yes I can! There is THIS. Oh and, THIS ONE IS KINDA A BIGGY TOO.

No, censorship is not a "lie." Furthermore, Ahmadinejad's statement that the Holocaust did not exist is equivalent to Bush's statements that global warming is not a serious threat; although false, it is not a particularly harmful or egregious lie.