Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Cheap Cars for sale in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Dubai Villas Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Iran and nuclear power


Concord 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?
shafique 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 :shock: Many agree with Ahmedinijad when he says that the main cause of trouble in the MidEast is Israel. Cheers, Shafique kanelli 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... shafique 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. Concord
Yes there is: ask Iraq (1981) :roll:
I'm just glad I won't be living within range of their weapon - just in case Iran get any ideas :wink: If individual suicide (bombers) can be instilled in people then perhaps national suicide isn't far behind :shock: shafique 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 '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 Concord
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?) :roll: 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... Concord
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 :roll: shafique 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

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
Concord
Never said it was :roll: But won't be around to find out whether it is :wink: kanelli I think that Iran is only a threat to Israel. It isn't that stupid that it would attack the US. shafique 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 Chocoholic 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 kanelli 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. shafique 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? shafique 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 kanelli 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. shafique 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 :)
Concord
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! kanelli North Korea would be a cake walk? They would decemate South Korea if attacked by the US. Why should the South Korean's suffer? Concord
What should they start doing any good now :roll: After all, apparently all they do is evil so it is in their being :shock: 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 :wink: kanelli 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. shafique 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 kanelli I think there is quite a difference between the foreign policies of the democrats and republicans. Bring back the democrats! zam 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! :twisted: 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 ... :wink: "Ill see you when you get there...see you when you get there" zaidinamdar my reply will probably spark off another controversy.... If the US, UK, etc can have nuclear weapons, why not Iran or any other country? shafique
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
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.). kanelli 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. Concord
Here is the big difference; the USA has nuclear weapons (more than a few) and if it wanted it could use them now as it did once which ended WWII (pacific theater, etc.).
And The USA has over the past 60+ years demonstrated restraint as it has not to use these weapons again. Pretty good record if you ask me. Now if the USA is such and "evil" country what prevents it from sending a nuclear bombs toward, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. It certainly isn't to get "good press" as it doesn't have it anyway. So maybe that should be done! Now we don't know what countries like Iran would do with nuclear weapons and I for one don't really want to find out.
If a goverment or its people condone individual suicide bombers (by using explosive & vests) then perhaps the suicide of a whole country by launching nuclear weapons is a possibility (suicide becuase there would be retailiation for sure and inahilation of the whole country - and radiation for years). May sound far fetched but while would the USA now be the "nice guy"! kanelli Currently the US has had sufficient troops and airpower to conduct military operations in the Middle East without needing to use the nukes. If they decided to attack Iran and thought there were going to be too many American casualties or their resources are stretched too thin, who is to say they wouldn't use a nuke? That is why they nuked Japan... because they didn't want to be drawn into a long ground combat and lose so many troops. If they made that judgement before, who says they can't make that judgement again? And what is with this "pre-emptive" striking that the US likes to use to protect itself. Don't you think that is a dangerous precident? What if Israel decides to make pre-emptive strikes against its neighbours "in case they want to wipe Israel out"? Should Iran be allowed to make pre-emptive strikes on the US or Israel, in case they decided to attack Iran? Concord
I think that is the reason it would not be a good idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons? In that case somoene is bound to pull the "nuclear' trigger and as it stands now it is unlikley to be the USA. But it is not bad for them to have that option. When push comes to shove... shafique Concord - some people argue that Iran is the more mature and civilised nation when comparing the US and Iran. We are talking here about how the nations act towards other countries - i.e. foreign relations / policy. The argument goes that Iran has not started any wars or attacked another country, other than in response to an invasion by Iraq. Both countries give support to other countries, including arms. The argument usually concludes that Iran, on all objective measures, is the party less likely to misuse armaments, and states that it is actually spin and hype that is casting Iran as the 'bad guy'. The facts though are that Iran is a much more liberal democracy than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, it has a credible government that speaks it's mind and does good in the region. It is not a threat to its neighbours (despite what Israel says) and has enough oil reserves to have some economic independence. Rhetoric about Iran along the lines that it is a state sponsor of Terrorism ring hollow when the memory of US made bombs falling on Lebanon are fresh in everyone's minds. Equating desperate measures by suicide bombers to what a government would do if they were military strong is, to be frank, laughable. It's like saying that Tim McVeigh represents the US Government. It's an emotive argument by false analogy. The ex-President of Iran is currently on tour of the US and is speaking peace (and making a lot of sense) over there. It appears that there are diplomatic avenues being pursued in the States...but we will need to wait and see. Cheers, Shafique shafique Oh, another fact, Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel refuses to sign. kanelli Yes, Iran has signed it, and hopefully that means they won't develop nuclear weapons. I don't think they will and hope I am right about that. I still wouldn't call Iran a more civilised place than most Western countries. I mean, they don't exactly treat their own people well. Canada has quite a few immigrants that fled Iran after being held prisoner for many years and tortured. I'm still really upset that a Canadian woman was arrested for taking pictures and then beaten to death (and possibly raped) in custody. Her name was Zahra Kazemi. Concord
My mistake, I thought we were talking about the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons and any threats by them (real or perceived) :roll: I'll click the search button for that topic :wink: kanelli It will take you to this thread Concord. We are still on the same subject. I think that any country could at some point feel compelled to use nuclear weapons, so that is why none should have them! The US especially, since they have used them before. So far there is no evidence that Iran has developed nukes or certainly will. Also, even if Iran hates Israel, it doesn't mean it will nuke Israel at first opportunity. You can't assume that. shafique Interesting link kanelli - it shows that a lady photographer was arrested, beaten, tortured and raped and finally killed whilst in custody. It also shows that there were trials for the crime. You bring up this horrific case as evidence that Iran may not be as 'civilised' as many countries in the West. I think you are saying that this event is somehow a reflection of status of free-speech, women's rights, prisoner abuse in Iran and that this is worse than many western countries. You may be right. This may be an example that shows how ruthless and oppressive the Iranian regime is. On the other hand, you may be wrong and this is a crime that is not typical of the regime. As we are trying to compare Iran with the West, we need to see whether there are any comparable controversial deaths in custody or incidents of torture and murder by governments. Well, on the deaths in custody - the US and UK (who I know about) have a long list of controversial and suspcious deaths. Continental Europe also has it's own cause celebres in each country. (anyone remember Rodney King?) On the torture front - renditions and allegations of sending suspects to be tortured in Eastern Europe are a current hot topic of human rights organisations.. a stance which is just as bad as actually torturing people yourself - renditions are basically saying 'we know this is wrong, but we are going to export the problem to 'friends' who will torture on our own behalf'. Another example is Guantanamo Bay - this is torture according to most people. Therefore, could not a rational person make a good arguement for Iran being more civilised than the USA? Cheers, Shafique shafique Comparing internal human rights record, it is interesting to see what AI say about the Iran and the USA:
Iran has it's problems - and there are human rights abuses there.
However I don't see why Iran would be classified as less civilised than the US - especially, as I have argued, when you look at foreign policy - which is what this thread is about (unless there are concerns Iran will develop a nuclear bomb to use on itself)
Cheers,
Shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy