Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Luxury Hotels in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Welder needed in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Why is it not okey for Iran to have Nuclear Weapon?


Lionheart Iran a soveriegn nation is being denied the same thing that Isreal, US, Britian and many other nation around the world have... right to posses nuclear weapon and neclear energy technology. The so-called UN has no problem with Isreal who has threatened and attacked its neighbors many times to posses over 200 nuclear war heads with any inspections. But a peaceful country like Iran is not allowed to posses the same weapon its enemies posses to defend itself. Isn't this kind of like a slavery were the master won't allow his slaves to have the capability to defend themself.
Liban The US is an ally of Israel. The EU wants a good relation with the US. Most countries (out of fear) appease the Americans. The IAEA (for example) is a US tool. Are we done? 'Cause I hope we are since I can't be any clearer on why is such a "bad" thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons... :roll: Oh hey, did anyone ever hear of Operation Masada? Yes, well interesting little plan. Read up on it.... Hypocritical world. Liban We gave them the knowledge of the Quran and of God. They should be in our favor for that! sniper420 cos when they get one they will avenge what arabs have done to em.........nuke arabs and u guys dream of unision will fail so.... US is doing u a favor sniper420
yeah right they were coerced most of em that's one of the reasons parsies community are outside Iran Liban
What is a parsie community? Lionheart
Stupid
Arabs have been invaded, embargo and sanctions imposed them, demonized, by the West and Isreal not Iran. If anything Arabs should help Iran establish a nuclear weapon weapon and economic independence its trying to establish. Iran unlike the little pet dictators runned by Arab countries is not bowing down to Western slavery in the Mid east. Arab need to worry about Isreal and the US possesing NUkes, not Iran.
Sniper this is what you are
Lionheart
Don't let this fool turn you against the muslim brethrens in Iran. Shia read the Qoran, believe in Allah and his last messenger MOhammed(pbuh), whether little difference we after that is minor. Liban Did I ever say that I am against Iran?
On the contrary, while I do not want Iranian hegemony over the Arabian Gulf area because these are Arab lands and part of a NAtion that stretches to the Atlantic, I also want Iran to have the bomb as a deterrant against the Jewish bomb and the American and Western arsenal. Lionheart
You misread what I wrote...I said don't let sniper turn you against the brethrens in Iran..

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
arniegang Lionheart Can i request you reduce the size of your signature picture of the 2 mosque's please. It makes reading your posts quite off putting and annoying. It also causes distraction. Many Thanks Wafaey Last yr I was NYC and I met in JFk airport guy that works in IAEA and the Iran crisis was just starting and El Brad3y was just elected again. I asked him the same question u r asking Lion and he replied with one sentence. "Only the victorious writes history" sniper420 Well Lionheart I talked to u with respect and I expect same from u else I am quite good at repartees and swift insults. It's Easter so I dont wanna spoil the festive mood. Anywayz walk in the streeets of Tehran and ask ppl what do they think of Arabs most of em bring back the incident or battle waged by the caliph Umer on the Persian country. Umar selected his ruthless generals and many atrocities were commited which explained mass exoodus of Persian community present even today called Parsees. It is one of the least documented incidence which u dont hear in Arab states. Yes there is so muchlove between the Arab states that there was recent 10 yr war between the Persians and the Arabs. Yeah so mcuh love that Persian troops were sent on a vacation to islands of Uae and are still enjoying their stay there. OS much love is seen when u walk in any expatriate persian community centre that they bring the good old days of Arabs and Persians. So much love ..... :roll: Chocoholic Well it's really very simple. If the Iranians are going to use nuclear fuel for power and power alone then that should be fine and if they're honest about it there should be no need to object to an inspection. The issue comes when you have a hardliner in power who constantly says he wants to blow another nation off the face of the planet - he did it again last week! So of course alarm bells will start ringing, it's not exactly rocket science! To say you want the most powerful source of energy in the world for peaceful purposes in one thing, but to say you want to destroy another nation in the same breath is quite something else. The whole point about having nukes was that people have them, but no-one has the balls to use them. But the current Iranian president has some very worrying views and so of course people will be suspicious. Chocoholic Lionheart it's impossible to reason with you. You're views are always onesided and you never take a round look at anything, so I give up. By the way all the Iranians I know hate the guy! kanelli There is already a discussion on this topic in this forum. Please search for existing topics and contribute there. It will get very annoying to have all the same discussions over and over again. Torvalds You have a point Lionheart! This issue is enough to really raise some eyebrows from the superpowers like the US, et al. Everybody has a right of course to advance their technology but the right thing to for Iran to do is subject itself to inspection. You say its a peaceful country, if so, it has nothing to worry about being inspected. About sovereignty, they have the sole right that nobody should interfere with its own affairs. But the right thing to do is submit to this demand to erase all doubts. arniegang could you repeat your post again please Chocs :lol: :lol: :lol: Torvalds That's exactly right Choco. I believe I said that first. But anyway, if Iran wants ta have nuclear capability it better face the responsibility of acquiring such immense power at their disposal. It's not a bad idea to prepare yourself for war but you have to do it in the name of peace. "Sic vis pacem para bellum." Latin If you want peace, prepare for war.
Lionheart
"Well it's really very simple. If the Iranians are going to use nuclear fuel for power and power alone then that should be fine and if they're honest about it there should be no need to object to an inspection."
Iran has every right to develop Nuclear Fuel and Nuclear Weapon...its not up to US/UK to police Iran when they themself have 1000 of Nuclear Weapons and they have invaded and they destroyed a country based on lies. Iran has never invaded its neighbors, it has never done any terrorist attack against any country, but on the other hand Iran has been attacked by the Iraq with encouragement of the US, Iran has faced terrorist attacks from the US for the last 30 years..example the American missile that brought down Iran civilian airplane about to land in Iran, killing in the process all the passengers( +200 passengers killed). No General or Marine was ever charged with the murders of +200 civilians.
[qoute]The issue comes when you have a hardliner in power who constantly says he wants to blow another nation off the face of the planet - he did it again last week! So of course alarm bells will start ringing, it's not exactly rocket science![/qoute]
Iran leadership was democractically elected, Ahmed was elected as moderate leader not as hardliner the West is making him out to be. Isreal does not recognize the Palastinians, but yet they are allowed to have some 200 Nuclear weapons, they have attacked and threatened all their neighbors, but yet they are allowed to have Nukes, they have broken 67 Un resolutions if they mean anything, but yet they are allowed to have Nukes. Why is it that Isreal has free will to threaten, break International laws, enslave Palastinians, and no one questions their nuclear program?
Communist China is allowed to have Nuke, while threatening Taiwain with invasions.
warmongering Britian is allowed to have Nuke, why can't Iran a peaceful country have Nukes to deter attacks from invaders.
Warmonger US with maniac leader like at the healm is allowed to NUkes, why can't Iran to deter this maniac from invading their land not allowed to have Nuke. North Korea wasn't invaded because they had Nuke.
Russia Who abuses, oppresses Cheynians is allowed to have Nukes, why can't Iran.
India and Pakistan who are at war path are allowed to have nuke, why can't Iran who is at peace with all of its neighbors.
[qoute]To say you want the most powerful source of energy in the world for peaceful purposes in one thing, but to say you want to destroy another nation in the same breath is quite something else.[/qoute]
Isreal is the only nation in Middle east that has destroyed a nation, robbed people out of their land, hostile and threatens its neighbors all the time. Isreal has said and done things you are accusing of Iran.
BS; Why didn't Europe, especially Germany and Austria give part of their land to suffering Jews, instead of shipping them to Middle east and giving them the land of Palastinians who were not responsible for the suffering and murder of 6 million Jews. Why are Palastinian paying for the crime Europe has committed against the Jews? kanelli Lionheart, did you see the latest Doha Debates programme on BBC? Very interesting. It featured Dr. El Baradai, Director General of the IAEA who took questions from the audience about Iran its nuclear intentions, as well as Iraq and WMD etc. He is a really classy guy who knows more about this issue than any of us do because he is on the front lines. One of the things that I like best about what he said was that the world needs to come up with a better security solution and better conflict resolution so that countries don't feel the need to obtain nuclear weapons as protection from other countries. He said that insecurity was the main reason why many countries like North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India have all sought nuclear weapons. In addition he talked about the hypocrisy of some countries who say they want to stop nuclear proliferation, yet continue to fine-tune their own nuclear weapons (a.k.a. USA!) . He likened it someone telling others to stop smoking while they have a cigarette dangling from their mouth. :) One young woman asked him if he felt conflicted as an Arab Muslim trapped between and East - West conflict. He said that he is a citizen of the world and feels comfortable in both the West and the East. It is his wish that all everyone would live together as world citizens and forge better relations with each other, which would help fight the sense of insecurity that many countries feel now. EDIT: Oops! forgot the link - Liban The US, Israel and their cohorts have the nuke. Rogue countries like North Korea have the nuke. Nations bent on destrying each other like India and Pakistan have the nuke. We have more to worry about than some small player getting a weak version of a nuke in 8-10 years and even at that, few means of actually deploying it... Lionheart
I feel the same way about you Choco...
[qoute]By the way all the Iranians I know hate the guy[/qoute]
Have you been to Iran? if not than you don't know Iranians. But anyway didn't the dissedands Americans/British listen to say that Iraqis would welcome them with sweetes and flowers if they invaded Iraq and removed Saddam?
Choco... You need to except that the leader of Iran (Ahmadinejad) was democratically elected..with more support than Bush or Blair. Lionheart Choco... I have question In your opinion are there any country Mid east which is allowed to develop Nuclear Technology and Weapon to deter West Influence? Saud Arabia Jordan UAE Oman Egypt Libya Syria Iran( the only real democracy in Mid east, along With Hamas) Iraq( does not exist anymore) Yemen Algeria Tunisia Etc Dubai Knight
I'd just like to point out that Algeria, Tunisia and Libya are not technically Middle East countries Lionheart. They all have coastlines on the Mediterranean and are actually on the African Continent. Can I suggest that once more you seem to confuse countries that are Islamic as being 'East' and all others as being 'West'. I also note with interest that you omit Morrocco. Are they too far 'west' to be considered 'east' for you?
In answer to your question to Choco...no country should have nuclear weapons, including the ones that have them already. Unfortunately it is very hard to 'unlearn' something once it has been learnt.
Knight Liban The true Middle East region persae, incorporates the following Arab countries: - Egypt - Palestine - Lebanon - Syria - Iraq - Jordan - Saudi - Kuwait - Bahrain - Qatar - UAE (duh!) - Oman - Yemen The remainder of the Arab lands are in the Maghreb area (Western part of MENA - Arabia): - Libya - Tunisia - Morocco - Algeria Then you have countries that speak Arabic and adhere to Arab customs, values, and culture. However, racially and geographically they do not fall into the larger Arab zone known as MENA (Middle East North Africa): - Sudan - Mauritania - Comoros Then, common mistake is to clump Turkey, Iran and perhapes Afganistan into the Middle East region. These are simply Muslim countries but are by no means Arab. Israel is part of the Middle East but is an artificial formation and is not part of the greater Arab fabric at this point in time. arniegang I would like to point out at this point not one single country listed has the ability to produce a Nuke without WESTERN help or technology. So i dont really see the issue here. On one hand Lionheart is winging about the Islamic Brotherhood blah blah, then he hypothesise's about "what if" Nuke production in the ME. So to conclude, its NOT ok to have western influence ie Burger King, but it is OK to want to have Nukes. mmmmmmmmmmm :roll: :roll: Liban I agree. Even Israel and Turkey which do (the former) or can (the latter) have nukes, did so with Western (France, UK, USA) help. The Algerian nuke program dismantled in the 80s was with the blessing of France. The Iraqi (remember that country) nuke program of the 70s was with American help. The Egyptian one of the 50s and 60s was with Soviet help. The Libyan one was with Pakistani and North Korean help as well as Russian input. (Of course we know China and Russia aided the former and latter suppliers). This list is endless. Western influence has its trademarks all over the MENA and greater Islamic World. But lets be honest, Arab and associated cultures have their imprint on the West too... I mean hummos is a common household name in the US!!! 8) The kind of influence most Arabs disagree with is Western influence in their governments: - Cropping up dictatoryships in Egypt or Saudi for example - Boycotting the elected governments of Palestine or Iran for example Thats all. As for the rest, its a consumer society people. Love it or hate it!! We got their Mickey Dees and they got our falafels and shawarmas :D Chocoholic I can't be bothered to answer your question Lionheart as you don't listen. But I'll agree with DK and say no country should carry Nuclear weapons, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Liban To know that humanity has the power to destroy the world 10 times over but has not been able to iradicate poverty makes me sick to my stomach. Chocoholic Exactly, it's so stupid! kanelli I totally agree with DK, Choco and Liban in their latest posts. Lionheart, why on earth should any country have nuclear weapons? Have you not read the history about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - have you not seen the pictures? The same thing for chemical weapons - they should be abolished. If every country got rid of weapons of mass destruction then this world would be a safter place for everyone. What a shame that we have starving people, insecurity, and evironmental degredation happening on this planet - yet these are low on the priority list for most countries! Instead they are worried about having the most money, or taking revenge on other countries, meddling in other countries affairs etc. Some people would do better to think of themselves as WORLD CITIZENS and take action to make the WORLD a better place. Instead, so many cling to ethnic, religious and political groups and cause destruction in the name of petty rivalry and selfish intentions. shafique Interesting views expressed on the subject recently. I think there will always be a need for national defense - imagine the fate of the world if Germany went unchallenged in the 2nd world war. The fact that the world already has nuclear weapons now means it will be practically impossible to rid the world of these - I mean the US refuses to even follow enviromental agreements such as Kyoto - so what chance of nuclear non-proliferation being honoured (let alone nuclear disarmament). Whilst there are nations who are viewed as potential agressors against a country's national interest, it will make utmost sense to any leader to seek to protect their national interests. They will be doing their people and country a dis-service if they didn't. As much as we may not like it, the position of North Korea speaks volumes. It is one of the most oppressive regimes on this planet - with reports, for example, of millions of N Koreans starving due to lack of food and uber-control of everything. They saber rattle with the best in history and yet nothing is done against them. Hmm. China is a dictatorship - not a democracy - and is currently occupying another country and repressing the people there (Tibet). Human rights aren't really high on the agenda.. they have the nuke and also are an economic power that the Western nations are scrambling to do business with the nation. Hmmm. Iran, on the other hand, hasn't been an aggressor to any nation for centuries. (I know this argument has been outed many times before, so will not say more) In my mind, Iran's 'sin' is to not bow down in worship of the USA and dares to strike it out alone. Hmmmm. Shafique kanelli Yes, of course the whole situation is hypocritical on the part of nations who have nuclear weapons. Why weren't they taking serious action when other countries like North Korea obtained nukes , and why are they keeping their own nuclear weapons, and in the case of the US - developing them further? However, the fact remains that two wrongs don't make a right. No country should have nuclear or chemical weapons, period. If the US attacks Iran over alleged nuclear weapons development, I will be seriously pissed and seriously vocal. :evil: Countries arming themselves to the teeth only makes tensions worse and they put the emphasis on military action instead of diplomatic action. This is a recipe for disaster! If I had my way, militaries would only be allowed to fight like in the old days. Hand to hand combat and limited firearms and short-range cannons. It sounds silly, but there would be less war and less meddling in other countries' affairs if this was the case. Unfortunately, it is far too easy nowadays for foreign militaries to conduct air bombing raids where only one side sees death and destruction. kanelli Shafique, it is all about money and power - like it has been through the ages. Liban It just fuels the notion that the Christian world (basically the US for all intents and purposes) is against the Muslim world (Iran being singled out).... Whether its true or not is without regard in this matter. The perception is how I said it. kanelli What would give that perception? The US and other Western countries are far more multicultural than most Muslim countries, and you can find many different religions there. Christians and people of other faiths have no concept of Jihad (as the Muslim extremists use it, which I know is incorrect) and there has been no movement on the part of religious leaders (e.g. the Pope etc.) to rouse their religious followers to fight Muslims and attack Muslim countries. It is only in Islamic countries where some people are turning the current world political issues into an issue of religion. Please don't bring up the crusades, because that was eons ago. If some Muslims want a crusade against Christianity or the West just because it is mostly non-Muslim - then they too are in the dark ages and haven't progressed much. arniegang K You haven't by any chance adopted a Rotweiller have you ?? :lol: :lol: :lol: Dubai Knight The whole political gamut is 'Playground Politics'. The bullies in the playground will always try to oppress the weaker players and surround themselves with admirers and supporters. They form gangs and vie for dominance in their own, small territory. Once dominance is obtained, the gangs become large enough and powerful enough to move outside the playground and threaten gangs from other playgrounds. They identify themselves by wearing certain colours or styles and following different fashions and trends. To belong to one 'tribe' is a strong bond required by a social culture such as ours. And so the cycle escalates... The human psyche is built around aggression, posession and territory due to our origins as a 'hunter gatherer' species. It is deeply ingrained in our genetic code and we are a long way from evolving out of it. For millenia we have fought and struggled over this pice of land, for that particular political belief, to defend our tribal territories...religion is now being 'worn' as just another 'colour' by the bullies and the gangs from both sides to seal the tribal bond. Microcosm examples: Soccer teams are fiercly partisan about their teams, their players, the songs they sing, their team colours...even having the team names tattooed on their bodies. ReadDr. Desmond Morris 'Peoplewatching' The musical West Side Story is a contemporary re-write of the classical Romeo and Juliet theme. The original story deals with the rivalry between the Montagues and the Capulets...tribal territorial posession. If one tribe develops a weapon that is more powerful than the other tribes, the race to achieve equality is a pure emotional surge to feel 'protected'. The bullies have moved out of their international playgrounds for years and we are in the midst of a manufactured global quarrel that, if you strip it down to its bare human emotions, should and could be resolved by common sense and tolerance. Unfortunately, this does not suit the ulterior motives of the bullies from all the tribes and thus we a thrust into endless conflict and threatened by escalation from both sides. There is no simple solution. In a perfect world (L. Ron Hubbard discusses this in various of his allegorical novels) the people of all nations...the 'citizens' would exercise the voice of reason through mass simultaneous communication, but requires the 'state' to exist to channel the result. In doing so, the state controls the voice and we return to a tribal conflict. WMD either nuclear or chemical are morally wrong no matter what colour, creed, tribal group you belong to. But we have them and we cannot be rid of them, therefore someone has to take responsibility of controlling them. Would anyone want to see that global control in the hands of Isreal or Iran or North Korea or any nation or state that did not have a relatively stable society? I think not. For now, and probably for the rest of our lives, we live with the Sword of Damocles hovering above our heads. All we can do is use our voices, united, in the hope that sense will prevail. Knight Lionheart
You are right Tunisia, Algeria and Morroco are not Middle eastern Geographically, but technically they refer themself as Middle Eastern and they are also recognized as being part of the Middle East. This maybe because all the countries in Northern Africa speak Arabic and vast majority of its citizens refer to themself as Arabs.
No I don't consider Morroco as being part of the West, I simply left them out because I didn't have the time to list all the Arab middle eastern countries, that is why I put at the end etc. I also left Sudan, Maurtania and Lebanon from the list.
[qoute]In answer to your question to Choco...no country should have nuclear weapons, including the ones that have them already. Unfortunately it is very hard to 'unlearn' something once it has been learnt.[/qoute]
I totally agree with you that no country should be allowed to have nuclear weapon. The problem is that the countries that have nuclear weapon and one of them used nuclear weapon populated city are know telling another countries not to develop Nuclear weapon...don't you think its hyprocricy when you tell others not to have what you have. Lionheart
If they can't produce NUKES without western help than why was Iraq invaded and Why is Iran pressured to stop their Nuclear activities? Iran never recieved Western help for the development of their NUclear plant. Lionheart
Choco...Petition to your government to dismantle their nukes if you are soo concerned about countries having Nukes. arniegang
WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Background
The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960 under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.
By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil a day, compared with about 4 million barrels (640,000 m³) daily today.
President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle". The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."
The Bushehr project
The Bushehr Nuclear Power Facility is located 17 kilometers south of the city of Bushehr (also known as Bushire), between the fishing villages of Halileh and Bandargeh along the Persian Gulf.
The facility was the idea of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out. He said that, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn." Instead, he wanted a national electrical grid powered by clean nuclear power plants. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz.
In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk-Union A.G., a joint venture of Siemens AG and A.E.G Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the nuclear power plant. Construction of the two nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp AG, and was to have been completed in 1981.
Kraftwerk-Union was eager to work with the Iranian government because, as spokesman Joachim Hospe said in 1976, "To fully exploit our nuclear power plant capacity, we have to land at least three contracts a year for delivery abroad. The market here is about saturated, and the United States has cornered most of the rest of Europe, so we have to concentrate on the third world."
Kraftwerk-Union fully withdrew from the Bushehr nuclear project in July 1979, after work stopped in January 1979, with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete. They said they based their action on Iran's non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments. The company had received $2.5 billion of the total contract. Their cancellation came after certainty that the Iranian government would unilaterally terminate the contract themselves, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which paralyzed Iran's economy and led to a crisis in Iran's relations with the West.
In 1984, Kraftwerk-Union did a preliminary assessment to see if it could resume work on the project, but declined to do so while the Iraq-Iran war continued. In April of that year, the US State Department said, "We believe it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr." The spokesperson also said that the light water power reactors at Bushehr "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." The spokesman went on to say, "In addition, we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel."
The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes between March 24, 1984 to 1988. Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear program was stopped until the end of the war.
In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed.
In 1995 Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the half complete Bushehr plant. The construction is being done by the state-controlled company Atomstroyexport (Russian for Atomic Construction Export), an arm of Russia's atomic energy ministry, Minatom. The Russians assert that because the reactor will be used for civilian purposes only, their contract is legitimate under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It was not until 2002 that the USA began to question Iran's nuclear intentions after the MKO (an anti-government guerrilla group) revealed the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities.
source :
a fairly reliable source dont you agree Lionheart
:lol: :lol: Lionheart
[qoute]Lionheart, why on earth should any country have nuclear weapons? Have you not read the history about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - have you not seen the pictures? The same thing for chemical weapons - they should be abolished. If every country got rid of weapons of mass destruction then this world would be a safter place for everyone.[/qoute]
The same country that dropped Nuclear Weapon on Nagasaki and Hiroshima...still has over 2000 Nuclear warheads...and is still threatening to drop atomic bomb on Iran. I don't understand how a country that used nuclear weapon civilians, went to illegal war can tell another not to develop Nuclear Weapons. No should be allowed to have Nuclear, but when the most dangerous country in the world has them, than its only fair for other peaceful countries to have them for defensive purposes.
[qoute]What a shame that we have starving people, insecurity, and evironmental degredation happening on this planet - yet these are low on the priority list for most countries! Instead they are worried about having the most money, or taking revenge on other countries, meddling in other countries affairs etc.[/qoute]
Finally we have agreement Kanelli... Lionheart
If this is case than why is the West worried about Iran's capability of producing Nuclear Weapons..afterall they assisted them and should know what Iran is capable of and what they are not capable of. arniegang But YOU said i quote "Iran never received Western help for the development of their Nuclear plant" Lets discuss your incorrect facts first Lionheart or has the West taken taken over control of Al Jazeera :lol: :lol: :lol: Like Kanelli says Lionheart, we can all play the cut and paste game, and when we do, it starts putting some of your theories and so called "facts" into the garbage can :D Lionheart
If this is the case than Western countries have nothing to worry about...since they helped Iran develop their nuclear technology as you claim. They should what Iran is capable of and what they are not capable of. If Iran is incapable of developing nuclear technology with the west...why not stop assisting them in developing nuclear technology and let them develop their own nuclear technology without Western assistance like present day. Why all this threats if Irans are incapable of developing this technology...why the worry.
You could cut and past all you want...I have no problem with that, just please don't complain when the other side is shown...as nothing more than propoganda. Lionheart Kanelli... If Iranians are incapable developing their own nuclear technology than why all the threats? Isn't better if West stops assisting Iran withs Nuclear technology instead of threats of War? arniegang Lionheart With the greatest of respect i do not paste propoganda. I take from reliable sources and with further respect i take things from one of the most trusted Islamic Sites there is, not some numpty blinkered extemists web site. arniegang
You need to "actually" read what i posted Lionheart. The west no longer assist Iran, the russians are now helping them to complete their power stations.
And if you read the website, Al Jazerra in fairness to them, puts a very balanced viewpoint. It states the Americans case of why they do not need Nuclear Power.
In summary, they state that because of their huge oil and Gas reserves and the fact they burn off enough wasted gas to supply x 4 Nuclear power stations, they are wasting money and resources in going the N. Power route.
That arguement is fairly convincing and reasonable dont you think?
All the input from the West ceased in 1980 when the American Embassy and staff were taken hostage after the Ayatolah came into power. Lionheart
What extremist site do I get my information from? and what is the trusted Islamic site you get your information from? Aljazeera is not a Islamic site.
All My information is either from Anti-War sites, Iraqi sites that report things your media wouldn't report...Iraqi casualities and American abuses of Iraqis... and Some of the stories that I posted which you labelled propoganda were reported on some western media outlets..Example BBC. So please before you label my information extremist check out the link. Lionheart
Again if that is the case than Russia is the country UN needs to put pressure on...not Iran.
[qoute]In summary, they state that because of their huge oil and Gas reserves and the fact they burn off enough wasted gas to supply x 4 Nuclear power stations, they are wasting money and resources in going the N. Power route.[/qoute]
Canada has more Oil reserves than any country in this world..so why don't they use their Oil reserves to for energy instead of developing Nueclear energy. Russia also has plenty of Oil reserves, why don't they also use their Oil to generate energy instead of developing Nuclear power plant. So this question could be asked other countries with plenty of oil reserves, but have developed nuclear power for energy.
Actually by developing nuclear power they are providing cheap energy to their citizens, while exporting their Oil at maximum rate. So therefore they are improving their economy by advancing rather than hurting it. arniegang Your posts display a total lack of knowledge regarding Nuclear Energy Lionheart. Considering you started this thread, i am amazed you know so little on the subject. If you actually knew what you were talking about, or did some homework on FACTS, you would learn that many western counties like the UK, are in fact decommissioning their Nuclear Power Stations for 2 reasons. Safety and.. Cost. Remember Chernobyl and Long Island !!! Lionheart
I thought we were discussing why Iran needs Nuclear weapon..not the reason why west is getting ride of their nuclear power plants.
[qoute]Safety and..
Cost.
Remember Chernobyl and Long Island [/qoute]
I think its up to Iran to worry about the safety, the cost of Nuclear Power plant in their country not the UN or any other country in the West.
Question
Why does Canada and Russia need Nuclear power plants when they have huge reserves of Oil and gas like the countries in Mid east? shafique There are many that now argue in favour of Nuclear power plants now - saying that they are kinder to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and are much safer than the first few generations of plants (Chernobyl, Long Island). This is why the British government is looking seriously at building new plants despite the fact that those in power were previously dead against Nuclear power. I've listened to both sides of the arguement and have to say that the pro-nuclear lobby have a sound and logical set of arguments for their views. The anti-lobby, eg Greenpeace etc, tend to focus on other alternatives and changing of behaviour to be less energy dependant, but they don't actually dispute the main arguments put forward by the nuclear lobby. Zak Goldsmith is a charismatic and eloquent spokesperson for the anti-lobby (which I have to say is where I would naturally place myself). Anyhow - the point I'm making is that the world agrees that nuclear power generation is a legitimate activity - may be undesirable ecologically in some people's minds, but not illegal. Just thought I'd throw that in... as always, happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken. Cheers, Shafique Liban
There is no reasoning with you. Even when I answer you directly you do not comprehend. ITs just too bad... :roll: Liban If the proper safeguards are in place, nuclear power plants can be a cheap and efficient source of energy.
But I stress on the words proper safegaurds .
I also agree that all nations have the right to nuclear energy but NOT nuclear weapons.
Canada has nuclear plants and it sits on the largest deposits of oil in the world (though not as accessible as Saudi's). But Canada has quite strict methods of nuclear energy generation and that is what all countries need to have if they wish to use this power. Liban Lionheart, My brother, the West aided Iran because back then the Shah wass an ally of the West. Today the West is worried because it lost its ally to people who they do not necessarly like for their nationalism and their religious pride. Lemmi give you a historical fact. In 1952 Mossadeq (an Iranian national) took over power from the Shah to form a secular and democratic Iran, the US overthrew him and put the Shah back in place and then rewarded the Shah for being pro-US by giving him the basis of nuclear technology a few years later. Today, Russia is closer to Iran not for the love of Islam but rather because Russia is a show of its former self and will do next to anything to regain its rightful place on the world stage. kanelli
Excuse me, but I never said anything about Iranians being incapable of developing their own nuclear technology. Why are you attributing those comments to me? Please read carefully and address the correct people when posting. kanelli
You haven't even explained yourself Liban. All you posted was that Muslims perceive the issue to be one of religion - pretty much a one-liner. What is so wrong about what I just wrote? Do you disagree with my comments? Are you agreeing that this should be a religious war? Liban Look at my post here Kanelli: &postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30 As for my disagreeing with your comments... What do you think?? :roll: As for the religious war thing, what do you think? I find your approach towards me quite childlike. kanelli Liban, you call me grasshopper and other condescending names as a passive aggressive way to assert your dominance over me. The fact remains that even if we disagree, I am an intelligent and assertive woman who can stand up to whatever comes my way. 8) shafique Kanelli, I think the argument that this is an issue of religion is not that another religion is rallying against Islam, but one of non-Islamic countries treating Islam as an enemy/foe/baddy/bogey-man. There aren't many non-Muslim theocracies out there, but there are many secular nations who (as some theories go) need to provide an enemy to their people to maintain their grip on power. What Liban has expressed is factual - most Muslims see a systematic attack against Islam/Muslims/Arabs. This impression is based on what is happening in this region in particular and in the rest of the world in general since 9/11. I would also caution against generalisations about Muslim countries too (that they aren't multi-cultural) - you may want to use 'Arab countries in Mid East instead. The most populace Muslim country in the world is Indonesia which is quite multicultural and includes regions such as Bali which are predominantly Hindu. Egypt, Lebanon, Malaysia are similarly multi-cultural and have complete freedom of religion - with indiginous Christians etc within them. Ironically, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was very secular and now is in danger of becoming radicalised - Tariq Hussein, the former Foreign Minister, for example, is a Catholic and met with the Pope before the invasion... What I'm saying is that generalisations can work both ways... now I'll step out of the way and allow you and Liban to continue to slug it out :) Cheers, Shafique kanelli I'm well aware that Indonesia is mulitcultural, but North America is still far more multicultural. That was my thought when posting at the time. If there is a war and Muslims want to make it a religious war - so be it. Let the most powerful side win. shafique Kanelli - sorry, had to jump in here - 'North America is far more multicultural' than Indonesia? Hmmm - Certainly in the major cities of the US and Canada, but overall more multi-cultural than Indonesia? The bulk of the US is so mono-cultural that they view people from the next state as strange! The Bible belt is a scary place to be when you realise people's entrenched views aren't going to be changed by a little thing called 'facts'. I would certainly agree with you that Europe is multicultural, but I would qualify any such statement for the USA! (Don't get me wrong, most Americans I have met abroad and there are very generous, kind-hearted people). From your last statement above it seems I haven't got the point I was trying to make across. If +others+ are casting muslims as the enemy and lumping together the adherents of Islam as the bad guys, it is them that has made this 'war' into a religious war - I don't think I saw anyone saying that it is the 'Christians' etc who have it in for the Muslims, for true Christians are very peaceful. (Now the subject of Israel is another matter altogether, but let's leave this for now). Kanelli, do you agree that if Islam, or rather it's followers, is targeted as the enemy - then it becomes a religious war - because the religion is being attacked. (Please note I've used 'if' in the statements above) Cheers, Shfaique kanelli Yes, some areas of North America have a higher concentration of people of certain backgrounds than others. The government, however, makes laws and the country has a cultural fabric that is created from all areas of the country - so it is still my assertion that North America is a great example of multicultralism and tolerance of people from other cultures. Terrorist groups have attacked in the name of Islam. This is why there is less tolerance since Sept. 11 - people are afraid of Islamic terrorists and they are buying into sensational stories about what goes on in Islamic countries, like the stoning of women, honour killings, polygamy etc. This is wrong and shouldn't be happening. The Arab countries are easier to push around because they aren't as powerful as China and North Korea, for example. The Middle East has a lot of oil, which especially the US wants for its continued economic success. Big business has its hands in the political affairs. This is why I am saying that religion has nothing to do with the original underlying causes of the problems between the East and West at the moment. Islam is being used as an excuse to fight the West, and the West in turn is demonising the religion. There have always been some misunderstandings about Islam because it has been tied to cultural practices that are part of a region or country and not really related to Islam at all. Education is what is needed to fight this, not supporting terrorism and wishing the West death and destruction. Liban
This post shows your true nature. The mere fact you even posted shows you have something to prove.
Keep on doing your thing and one day you will make it... 8) Liban
Muslims want to make it into a religious war?
You are generalizing. Also your true colors are coming out. You speak of openness and tolerence then you post this???? Contemptable. shafique
The majority of the US, by area, is mono-cultural.

Some may argue that America was targetted +because+ it was demonising Islam and working against muslims.
I agree that education is needed to fight ignorance - on both sides.
I disagree that Islam is being used as an 'excuse' to fight the West. No one, to my knowledge, among the Al Qaeda etc is waging war on Switzerland or the Nordic countries.
These Western countries are as Christian as the US is. So I disagree it is about religion - in terms of the attacks/hatred against the US and her allies.
It isn't.
It's about what the US and allies have done and are doing to Muslims and how this is perceived. Its a reaction against real and perceived injustices committed against Muslims that has provoked this reaction.
However you look at it, the issue of the sub-human treatment of Palestinians who face death down the barrels of US made/provided weapons will continue to be a cause of anger in the eyes of all humanitarians. When Palestinian women and children are killed by artillery attacks, it would be heartless to have no reaction to these atrocities.
Yesterday's suicide bombing by Islamic Jihad was un-condonable and evil, but they said it was a reaction to last weeks artillery attacks that killed women and children. I condemn both.
Humanitarians condemn Israel more, as they are the occupying power and they have killed thousands more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. However the US supports the occupiers over the oppressed. Hence the reaction.
Therefore, I would contend that the assertion you made that Islam is misunderstood and demonised +because+ of terrorist attacks is a little bit facile. There is an argument that the West is being targeted because of its attacks against Muslims - and even if you don't agree with this analysis, I would hope you concede that is how these people see it.
(BTW, I know many muslims who live in Switzerland and also Norway - they don't have issues in these countries)
It's not one religion fighting another - its one set of people who feel oppressed and demonised lashing out.
sigh - so much for not getting involved ..
Cheers,
Shafique Liban
A better example is Lebanon where all kinds of religious (16 to be exact) co-exist in government and are protected by the consitution.
North America may have laws, but on the sociolical level it is more homogeneous and closed off than my example... Outside the major urban areas... ie. Saskatchewan or Utah.... Liban Kanelli, why is it that you fail to understand what everybody is telling you. You keep rehashing the same tired old arguments without actually reading what people post. Yet you claim to hold the superior moral and intellectual ground. Quite hypocritical. Liban Sorry Shaf, You had a double post for the last item you wrote to Kanelli. I was forced to delete the copy. Thanks for your understanding, Liban shafique Kanelli - no offense was meant in my posts... I abhor all violence and you come across as a very sincere compassionate person. Whilst I may disagree with some of your opinions/analysis - I enjoy our exchanges, it certainly gets me thinking. cheers. Shafique kanelli Shaf, thank you. Some of my arguments might be facile at the moment because I am still reading up on the issues, and still trying to understand. I try to put myself in other people's shoes, but I don't know what it is like to be a Muslim or Arab/Muslim or Palestinian or Israeli etc. I can't comprehend why some people think that just because the US and some other countries are complete hypocrits on the nuclear issue, that Iran is fully entitled to develop nuclear weapons. That isn't logical to me. There seems to be more effort on some people's parts to demonise one group or another without much effort trying to make some positive change. This is primarily why I get upset at people like Lionheart who post on here. The expats who live here are the perfect group of people to have a dialogue with because many move back to their home countries and they can educate people about what the Middle East is really like and dispel some of the propaganda on both sides. Unfortunately, some people would rather spend their time hating and disseminating propaganda. Lionheart
[qoute]Terrorist groups have attacked in the name of Islam. This is why there is less tolerance since Sept. 11 - people are afraid of Islamic terrorists and they are buying into sensational stories about what goes on in Islamic countries, like the stoning of women, honour killings, polygamy etc. This is wrong and shouldn't be happening. [/qoute]
Americans have always been intolerant to people of different color or religion. This intolerance did not start Sep 11. What Sep 11 did was bring all the terrorist attacks Americans have been committing against the muslim world right at their door step and you know what American government knew Sep 11 was going to happen and they let it happen, cause the attack gave them imperlist platform to invade and terrorize countries in Mid east. I kind of finded hard that terrorist could only be muslim who kills only ten, while American solidier who carpet bombs city killing 1000's of civilians at time gets medal of honor for his actions. In Sep 11 3000 people died, to avenge their deaths Americans went to iraq killed over 10000 civilians without killing, capturing or injuring Osama Bin Laden. They went then into Iraq a country that had nothing to with Sep 11 killing over 30000's civilians. The actions of Americans is as equally terrorist actions if not worse than Al-qeada's actions on Sep 11, matter fact Americans helped Al-qeada justify their actions when they went into Iraq.
[qoute]The Arab countries are easier to push around because they aren't as powerful as China and North Korea, for example. The Middle East has a lot of oil, which especially the US wants for its continued economic success. Big business has its hands in the political affairs. This is why I am saying that religion has nothing to do with the original underlying causes of the problems between the East and West at the moment. [/qoute]
I have been saying this for a long time. Arabs are weak, because they are divided, they have dictators who put their interest ahead of the interest their people and land. The only way to solve this is if Arabs went back to Khalifah rule, the way the map was before the British imperlist divided the Arabs and Muslims into nations that did not exist before.
[qoute]Islam is being used as an excuse to fight the West, and the West in turn is demonising the religion. There have always been some misunderstandings about Islam because it has been tied to cultural practices that are part of a region or country and not really related to Islam at all. Education is what is needed to fight this, not supporting terrorism and wishing the West death and destruction[/qoute]
You are right Islam being used by the likes of Osama Bin Laden to get his recruites to fight the west, but has also chosen to demonise Islam long before Osama Bin Laden came on the scene. Whenever terrorist attack is committed by a muslim individual.....the whole religion is targeted by the Western media by labelling the attack as Islamic terrorism..have you ever heard the media labelling Eta or Ira attacks as Christian terrorism or Tamil Tiger attacks as Hindu terrorism...or better yet American air strikes against civilians as American terrorism. When I hear the Western media use the Islamic terrorism...I see that as attack against the whole religion not the individual who committed the crime. kanelli
Liban, if Muslims all over the world see military action in the Middle East as an attack on their religion, and a war between Muslims and non-Muslims breaks out - what can I do about it at that point? The strongest side will win, whoever that is. I might be generalising, but my comments were also hypothetical, since no one knows if a war will break out or not.
Let me show you a contemptible post Liban,

Now we can see your true colours I suppose.
8) Liban You enjoy posting the same old things don't you? Well young grasshopper you keep doing just that. Whatever tickles your fancy. Your broken arguments against me fail to sway even my biggest cynics and your attempts to ridicule me will fall on deaf ears (namely mine). As for your comments on war breaking out and your doubt on whether this can happen or now... Wake up young one... Stop being an osterich and look around you, watch the news, ick up a paper. War has already broken out. Just becuase it is not nuclear, one should not belittle the situation. Bush is to blame for the currunt conundrum. US foreign policy since WWII is to blame for the atmosphere that built till today. Defend the US all you want but remember this well, if one knows his history, one will know where the fault lies. Liban Kanelli, do you have nothing to say to Lionheart's last post? Or is it you wish to ignore it so that you can focus better on your vendetta against me...? Understand this my young grasshopper, I will not be silenced by you. I have spoken rationally as of late and will continue to do so. You think you can look good by trying to "one up me" but fail miserably in that field. Focus on this discussion. Do not repeat the same tired argument and do not pull up the same old posts from days gone by. Smart people do not do that sort of thing. Consider my words wisely Kanelli. Open your eyes. You may yet learn something from this thread (and others like it). kanelli :lol: kanelli Liban
Thats your response?
Well we all have our limitations I guess.... :shock: dave_w_uk america dont want iraq to have nuclear capabilities due to the poor realtions between iran and itself! all nuclear weapons should be destroyed, although a nuclear attack will probably(with all my heart i hope) never happen again. down to the simple fact that it would break down into an all-out nuclear free for all! and will someone tell george bush the WMD's are in his own country!



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