john5746 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Iran No Nukes Looks like the carrot/stick approach works with Iran. Maybe there is hope in that region after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Given that oil is a finite resource, what are you going to do? Tell them, "No you have to burn wood to power your electrical generators and build your own dams and put up a lot of wind turbines"? I agree, it is a sensitive situation, but the clock is ticking and U.S. domination of other countries' energy policies is only going to last so long. On the flipside, it's only a matter of time before they do develop a nuke, if they really really want to. Who really wants to kill off so many friendly neighbors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Given that oil is a finite resource, what are you going to do? Tell them, "No you have to burn wood to power your electrical generators and build your own dams and put up a lot of wind turbines"? I agree, it is a sensitive situation, but the clock is ticking and U.S. domination of other countries' energy policies is only going to last so long. On the flipside, it's only a matter of time before they do develop a nuke, if they really really want to. Who really wants to kill off so many friendly neighbors? What can't they invest in solar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Because they have a population of 70 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 What can't they invest in solar? Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that US doesn't really have the authority for force Iran to invest in solar and stop them from developing atomic energy. Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority, not even in his own country, to start a nuclear war even if they had the means or the desire (they have neither, at least right now). Also, if Iran ever had a real threat of nuclear weapons and the real threat it was going to use them, you can be sure Israel would take them out, just like it did in Iraq. The perceived Iran threat is highly overblown, IMO, and is probably just an excuse to continue a lucrative war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 It's important to remember that it's Iranian statements, not American ones, that have produced the current fears over Iranian nuclear weapons. Which makes the story pretty odd if true -- why would Iran deliberately mislead the world into thinking it had a more advanced program than it really has? What has it gained by doing so? It seems to me that it's probably hurt them, but is it possible that they gained something that's not immediately obvious? Or is it just that they pushed this PR agenda because they THOUGHT it would get them somewhere, or that anti-American sentiment was so ripe that they could push these buttons and the world would back off, drop sanctions, etc, in order to appease them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 It's perhaps a page out of the "Kim Jung Il - Book of Silly Dictatorship Values," whereby a bunch of saber rattling forces the rest of the planet to engage you diplomatically. I'm just throwing this out there. Perhaps it's the old "squeaky wheel" getting the grease, or "you hear the ones who yell the loudest" methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 It's important to remember that it's Iranian statements, not American ones, that have produced the current fears over Iranian nuclear weapons. Which makes the story pretty odd if true -- why would Iran deliberately mislead the world into thinking it had a more advanced program than it really has? What has it gained by doing so? I was thinking that too, but wasn't sure whether I had my facts straight re Iran being the one to claim that they had/were developing nukes rather than the US. It seems to me that it's probably hurt them, but is it possible that they gained something that's not immediately obvious? Or is it just that they pushed this PR agenda because they THOUGHT it would get them somewhere, or that anti-American sentiment was so ripe that they could push these buttons and the world would back off, drop sanctions, etc, in order to appease them? In claiming they have or are developing nukes, they put themselves in the public spotlight. If I'm not mistaken, claiming that you are developing nukes is a very bad idea if you intend to complete the development, because it would result in pressure or even military action to stop the program. Hence, a claim that they are developing nukes would seem to me a gimmick to get people to negotiate or at least talk to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 They don't (usually) claim they're developing nukes. They claim they have the technology to develop them, scream that it's their right to do so, casually mention the thousand accelerators they're building, and then talk about how the Holocost was faked. And if Barrack "Let's just take off and nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure" Obama were in the White House, we'd have already done something about this, and it wouldn't have involved sitting around and asking them politely. Liberals would be saying "well sure peace is great until you've got a guy pointing a gun at you", and conservatives would be saying "hey I thought we didn't want to interfere in foreign affairs!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Surely Iran's intention (apart from the energy issue) is to join the nuke club? You know, the one they don't let you in unless you've (secretly) developed NWT (the door pass)? They have observed certain doors open for India, Pakistan (which country could be more of a worry as a nuclear-capable state with an uncertain political status), and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Oddly enough, the administration and its neocon cohorts have been playing up a nuclear scenario in Iran, while Pakistan possesses both real, tangible, demonstrated nuclear weapons and an unstable government. Oh, and America counts Pakistan as an ally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Oddly enough, the administration and its neocon cohorts have been playing up a nuclear scenario in Iran "Neocon cohorts" is an interesting way to refer to France. "We will not accept that such a bomb is made," Kouchner said. "We must prepare ourselves for the worst," he said, specifying that that would be war. He did not elaborate on what kind of preparations that could entail. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/17/europe/EU-GEN-France-Iran-Nuclear.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Could it be that the Iranian government know that the US and Russians have spy satelites capable of reading the newspaper headlines? perhaps they realise the the US and Russians will know perfectly well whether they have nuclear weapon technology or not. They lie about it, not to mislead the superpowers, nor even the smaller countries (who are likely to find out from ther former superpower allies), They are trying to fool their own people. To me this looks like a good bit of propaganda. "Look! We, your mighty government spit in the eye of the US aggressor- we will not bow to their demands that we don't make these bombs. We make them anyway!. The US says "Bluff! you never have made any." The Iranian Govt says "That's what you think". Everyone ends up believing what they want to. The people of Iran take pride in their country's abillity. The West relaxes thinking it's just those nutters bluffing again. The only way to find out would be to declare a nulcear war on Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Guess it's still business as usual for Bush: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/iran.nuclear/index.html THIS CHANGES NOTHING! Of course the venerable bastion of alleged liberalism, the New York Times, had this to say: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html "Rarely, if ever, has a single intelligence report so completely, so suddenly, and so surprisingly altered a foreign policy debate here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 A question (because I *really* don't know, so don't kill me here) uhm.. aren't the same agencies that today say Iran has no Nukes also were the same to ignore the warnings for 9/11? I dunno.. I'm a bit skeptical about the ability of Intelligence Agencies in america (in our current day) to analyze these subjects of the Middle East.. But again.. I'm not too well versed in the processes / agencies so -- please correct me if I'm wrong here. Another thing here -- The process of developing nuclear weapon has a lot of stages in it. As far as I read, Iran failed with the centrifuge, but is still enriching uranium. It still has a long-range missile, aswell (why would they need one without the *intent* of having a bomb, too?)... I am very worried about these things, I think we should keep this in mind. I don't see an *IMMINENT* threat from Iran, but I can't help but wondering if that kind of report won't lead to a kind of 'drop of guard' on the western-world's part, which is just another version of "the other extreme".. I think even though Iran probably doesn't possess a threat *today* (which I doubt it does) we should still keep an eye on it.. they do have the INTENT on the weapons.. the missiles and attempts to create centrifuge (thougth failed attempts) seem to prove it.. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Another thing here -- The process of developing nuclear weapon has a lot of stages in it. As far as I read, Iran failed with the centrifuge, but is still enriching uranium. It still has a long-range missile, aswell (why would they need one without the *intent* of having a bomb, too?)... I am very worried about these things, I think we should keep this in mind. I don't see an *IMMINENT* threat from Iran, but I can't help but wondering if that kind of report won't lead to a kind of 'drop of guard' on the western-world's part, which is just another version of "the other extreme".. I think even though Iran probably doesn't possess a threat *today* (which I doubt it does) we should still keep an eye on it.. they do have the INTENT on the weapons.. the missiles and attempts to create centrifuge (thougth failed attempts) seem to prove it.. ~moo I don't think they would be quick to use it themselves though even if they do happen to create one. It is far more useful to them as a deterrent than to suddenly fire it. The real worry is what would happen if someone like Al-Qaeda were to aquire that uranium. Even though they may not be able to create a bomb per se, there's a lot of harm that can be done with radioactive material in general... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 A question (because I *really* don't know, so don't kill me here) uhm.. aren't the same agencies that today say Iran has no Nukes also were the same to ignore the warnings for 9/11? No expert here either, but I think missing 9/11 was more due to ageniceis not communicating and acting together more so than an intelligence failure. There was knowledge of a possible threat. The Iraq WMD situation might be a better fit. I dunno.. I'm a bit skeptical about the ability of Intelligence Agencies in america (in our current day) to analyze these subjects of the Middle East.. Yes, If the reports said Iran has WMD, would anyone believe them? I think even though Iran probably doesn't possess a threat *today* (which I doubt it does) we should still keep an eye on it.. they do have the INTENT on the weapons.. the missiles and attempts to create centrifuge (thougth failed attempts) seem to prove it.. Iran's major concern until 2003 was Saddam. He supposedly had WMD, a bluff that apparently worked. Currently, they would be worried about Israel and the US and possibly Pakistan. The more countries that get the bomb, the more likely it will be used. Especially since MADD becomes much less of a possibility. Other than the loss of life in Iraq, the costliest mistake would be to become to lax with security and try to return to the Clinton era. Ironically, Clinton appears to be the least likely to do that of the top democrats, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yes, If the reports said Iran has WMD, would anyone believe them? Probably not, but it would still scare the $H!T out of the Iraninans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Iran has stopped its direct weapons-building program, yes, but it continues to run its enrichment program specifically designed to produce weapons-grade fuel. I think they got their bomb-building program to the point where they knew they could do it, then stopped because they had to focus on the last technical hurdle -- enrichment. No point in building bombs if you have nothing to put inside them. The Democratic presidential candidates are all running around saying how this is just like Iraq. I share that concern, but can I just point something out? We haven't invaded Iran. Nor has the claim been made that Iran already has the bomb (unlike the situation in 2003 with Iraq, though it turned out to be wrong wrt WMDs, the claim was made that they were there). The point being that pressure must continue to be applied to Iran. EVERYONE should agree on this, REGARDLESS of how you feel about the present US administration, REGARDLESS of what you feel are more important threats in the world. This is a dangerous nation and we must continue to pay attention to its doings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The point being that pressure must continue to be applied to Iran. EVERYONE should agree on this, REGARDLESS of how you feel about the present US administration, REGARDLESS of what you feel are more important threats in the world. This is a dangerous nation and we must continue to pay attention to its doings. That's funny... that's what Iranians probably think of the US. One of the reasons I think Ahmadinejad is in power is because the Iranian people think he'd be a strong leader in the face of an American invasion. I'm sure there's some propaganda going on in Iran to blow up US agression, but it isn't coming from nowhere. Yes, we should pay attention to Iran, but I'm not sure how much good imposing sanctions, etc. is doing. If anything, it's just turning public opinion further against the US, and solidifying Amadinejad's support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 That's funny... that's what Iranians probably think of the US. One of the reasons I think Ahmadinejad is in power is because the Iranian people think he'd be a strong leader in the face of an American invasion. I'm sure there's some propaganda going on in Iran to blow up US agression, but it isn't coming from nowhere. Yes, we should pay attention to Iran, but I'm not sure how much good imposing sanctions, etc. is doing. If anything, it's just turning public opinion further against the US, and solidifying Amadinejad's support. Actually I hear that most Iranians are usually pro-US. But otherwise, yeah, Iran is pretty much overrated in terms of "threat" level, nuclear or otherwise. I think Russia (and the other former Soviet states, where the majority of the nukes are) and our own arsenal is far more of a concern, even if most people aren't aware of it in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'm sure there's some propaganda going on in Iran to blow up US agression, but it isn't coming from nowhere. You're right, it's coming from the US media =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now