TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What to do with Iran?
Pages (7): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

What to do with Iran?

What do you all think about the current Iranian situation?
What do you thinhk is the correct course of action?




In my opinion I would:
Go to the UN and attempt impose sanctions.
If sanctiosn fail, launch a massive one night military strike taking out Irans nuclear and balistic capabilities.

Bah I'm so dyslexaic, I can't even ask a poll question grammatically:
"What were you do about Iran?" should be "What would you do about Iran?"

I would seriously let them make nukes its none of my business and if their nukes are used against any country or if they sell nukes to terror organizations I would than put sanctions on Iran. But I prefer a slow death rather than a fast death from a nuke. The Iranian people would suffer and than hopefully the people will smarten up and overthrow their extremist government.

Let the Iranians have their nukes, point all of ours at them and see if they have the balls to shoot. The tension will build and build until somebody finally decides to chill the fuck out.

That is unless they truly are doing this only for electricity, then everything will be ok unless they fuck up and meltdown.

I'm not saying this as a serious recomandation but more on a personal level, the whole ordeal could be quite entertaining, I'm one of those kids who enjoys watching shit hit the fan. That and I have this crazy notion in my head that the more widely available this destructive power becomes the more people might wise up and decide they are better off without it(terrorists being the exception, they don't show any sign of wising up about anything).

If it were my responsibility I would certainly not handle it like that, it is just they way I would enjoy seeing it. The idea that radioactive material might fall into terrorist hands through Iran is indeed quite scary and that would keep me from just letting them have it, but I also don't want another war, Iran would probably make one that is quite bloody.

Re: What to do with Iran?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What do you all think about the current Iranian situation? What do you thinhk is the correct course of action? In my opinion I would: Go to the UN and attempt impose sanctions. If sanctiosn fail, launch a massive one night military strike taking out Irans nuclear and balistic capabilities.

Ideally, I would agree with this course of action.

But thanks to Bush and our lovely Iraq debacle, we really don't live in such an environment where ideal thoughts like this are realistic.

Judging by the comments of the other European countries who's talks with Iran have failed, I don't think we're gonna have any problems imposing sanctions on Iran. My problem is I don't think even sanctions are gonna slow this Iranian nutbag down from building a nuke.

But as for thinking about the next step should sanctions either fall through or not be enough, I really don't know if we'll have enough muster to launch a strategic strike. There's a lot of factors at play here - our credibility, our capability, the rest of the U.N. coming in with us and making this a multilateral attack, understanding the possible consequences of Iran's retialiation (i.e. Israel would likely be the target, IMO), and so on.

Hard to think that far down the road. But as of right now, I'm fully supportive of strict and harsh sanctions.

No matter what you do (impose sanctions or not), they are going to have their nukes, and nothing can stop them (except pre-emptive strikes on nuclear facilties). And if their is any strike on their facilities than I think it has a major possibilty of blowing into full scale war this time.

so give em what they want or full scale war? Is it better we fight now or after the death star is operational? (sorry)

I bet a modern full scale war would be quite horrifying, what does Iran want? Is war inevitable at his point?

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 so give em what they want or full scale war? Is it better we fight now or after the death star is operational? (sorry) I bet a modern full scale war would be quite horrifying, what does Iran want? Is war inevitable at his point?

You never know wether they genuinly want Civilian nuclear technology or they want nukes.

If you look at Iran, they are highly dependent on oil for their energy needs. They just want to get rid of their dependence on oil at present. I think making nuke comes much later on their mind. Whole world thinks they open up the facilities and Booom their they have nuclear bomb now. Its not like that. Let them go ahead with their plan to build Civilian nuclear facilities and infrastructure right now.

Maybe later on they will 'try to' make nukes, but you never know whether they will be successful at it or not.

Maybe they have success in making nukes and test fire it and it works! But than again they will never be stupid enough to use it, Israel is too close and 'they know' that any nuke strike on them will effect them too. They just want nukes to show Israel that they got one too, so better Israel behaves properly. Nuclear Bombs are more of a strategy nowdays than an actual war weapon. And Bush knows that Iran will get an upper edge over world politics after having nukes.

Any pre-emptive strike on Iran is like over-doing this whole thing.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid if their nukes are used against any country or if they sell nukes to terror organizations I would than put sanctions on Iran.

Really.............

Some Lackey: Holy F*cking Sh*t Mr. President/Prime Minister/Who-ever. An Iranian nuke just detonated in our most populous city killing millions upon millions of innocent people.

Leader Dude: They did? Well dang, guess we better impose some sanctions on them. Hopefully the UN's bureaucracy can find a solution to this problem.

...
...

quote:

Originally posted by Purple You never know wether they genuinly want Civilian nuclear technology or they want nukes.

You obviously have not kept up with the news on this whole issues. After recent developments (Iran's refusal to accept the Russian proposed uranium enrichment scheme) you have to be naive as a baby to believe Iran has no intent to develop this as nuclear weapons.


To the rest of you: If Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons and was open and honest about it this is one thing. But the way they have approached it and insulted the international community is another. If Iran remains defiant of the consensus of the world and the world appeases its sense of outrage because of it and does nothing, then the world order we have today has indeed failed.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You obviously have not kept up with the news on this whole issues. After recent developments (Iran's refusal to accept the Russian proposed uranium enrichment scheme) you have to be naive as a baby to believe Iran has no intent to develop this as nuclear weapons.

Iran has one of world's largest oil resources but still they are dependant on outside world for their oil suply need. Why? Because they dont have large scale oil distillation technology. If US rapes Iran than Iran's petrol pumps will be the first to run out of gas.

So they are dependent on countries who import oil from them and than export it back to Iran in refined form.

This Russia uranium enrichment scheme is exactly the same thing. They will be dependant on Russia all their lives for providing enriched uranium to them, to run their facilities and economy.

Things dont work like this. You are running a country and not a company where you outsource your processes to other countries.

Who will gaurantee them enriched uranium when Russia goes blank like they did with Ukraine recently? Or you want Iran to sit without electricity and energy till Russia starts enriching uranium again for them.

Iran wants to be independant, and have an independant and reliable source of long term energy demands which is growing everyday.

Look at what santions did to Iraq, thousands of kids killed by starvation/lack of medical supplies etc. I don't think sanctions would really work and they'll have horrible consequences like Iraq. Military strikes? Are you out of your f'n mind?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Look at what santions did to Iraq, thousands of kids killed by starvation/lack of medical supplies etc. I don't think sanctions would really work and they'll have horrible consequences like Iraq. Military strikes? Are you out of your f'n mind?

Exactly, a sanction will only do bad to the innocent ppl, it wont hurt the ppl in power... And a war is obviously out of the question too as long as they don't attack some other country...

Plus I think sanctions would hit pretty bad on the western world too, as Iran has quite a lot of oil...

So yeah, just send them a mean mean letter in my opinion... But it's hard cause it gives a signal that it's okay for countries like Iran to develop nuclear weaponds...

quote:

Originally posted by Purple Iran has one of world's largest oil resources but still they are dependant on outside world for their oil suply need. Why? Because they dont have large scale oil distillation technology. If US rapes Iran than Iran's petrol pumps will be the first to run out of gas. So they are dependent on countries who import oil from them and than export it back to Iran in refined form.

This is true with most Arab oil/arab nations too. Saudi Arabia does nto refine its crude, it is done mostly elsewhere. However Saudi is not building nuclear plants. Why does Iran not build refiners before nuclear weapons if that is important for their economy?

The real arugment for nuclear energy would be to allow Iran's economy to shift from oil to nuclear so they could sell their oil at high prices to the rest of the world while using renewable and fairly affordable energy at home.

Contraty to the above however, Iran is a net exporter of oil, not a nex importer.

quote:

This Russia uranium enrichment scheme is exactly the same thing. They will be dependant on Russia all their lives for providing enriched uranium to them, to run their facilities and economy. Things dont work like this. You are running a country and not a company where you outsource your processes to other countries. Who will gaurantee them enriched uranium when Russia goes blank like they did with Ukraine recently? Or you want Iran to sit without electricity and energy till Russia starts enriching uranium again for them. Iran wants to be independant, and have an independant and reliable source of long term energy demands which is growing everyday.

Thats one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. Iran has limited natrual uranium deposits, therefore it depends on other nations for uranium ore. In addition, Iran imports most of the computers, technology, machinary, parts, concrete, steel, and knowledge needed to run an operate nuclear facilities. Having Russia supply low-level enriched uranium is a compromise that should be acceptable. If it is price or additional supply that Iran is worried about it should have raised that issue, not cut open the IAEA seals!

Further the Russian proposal "was based on the establishment of a "joint Iran-Russia company on Russian soil"1 thus ensuring Russia the inability to play prices wars with Uranium ore as Iran could justifily seize those facilities.

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005122...annuclearrussia

In short, the supply chain for nuclear energy is much greater than simply enriched ore; in one way or another Iran will always depend on other nations for its nuclear program.

If Iran were any other nation, Spain, Greece, Turkey, New Zealand for example none of the world would have any trouble abotut them enriching uranium on their soil. However since Iran is what it is; fanatically, sabre rattling, in bed with terrorist, reppressive, and very unstable in the geopolitical realm, the world asks of it to be forthright and accept a compromise on what it can do.

The fact that Iran has reject such a demand prove that it has no intention of soley creating a nuclear energy program but a nuclear arms program. I'm not exactly sure why you want to be in denial over this matter...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Look at what santions did to Iraq, thousands of kids killed by starvation/lack of medical supplies etc. I don't think sanctions would really work and they'll have horrible consequences like Iraq. Military strikes? Are you out of your f'n mind?

Yes, that was one consequence. However sanctions did work in Iraq - they did not have a working WMD program. Sanctions might embolded the citizens to uprise agains their government to avoid such atrocities as Saddam allowed to happen in his Iraq.
It is not the fault of the world, or the Iranians that Iran chose courses of action which left the world with little choice to place sanctions due to Iran's nuclear arms ambitions. If Iran would have wanted to avoid these sanctions and still does, they can come back to the negotiating table and be reasonable. Otherwise they have no one to blame but themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Exactly, a sanction will only do bad to the innocent ppl, it wont hurt the ppl in power... And a war is obviously out of the question too as long as they don't attack some other country...

Firstly sanctions might embolden the people to topple such a stupid government. Iranians are smart, there is growing discontent within Iran about the decision to walk away. It is not going down easy in this country. Without the threat of sanctions or war you ensure that Iran will not comply, why should they? Would you?!

quote:

Plus I think sanctions would hit pretty bad on the western world too, as Iran has quite a lot of oil...

Eh, the world proved it can afford $60 a barrel. Plus we can just all buy Exxon stock However sometimes politics matter a lot more than short economic gain: a nuclear detonation in the one of the capitals of the western world will have a much larger economic impact then not being able to buy oil from Iran.

And to clarify: proposed sanctions only really mean that no nation will be allowed to sell ARMS or TECHNOLOGY to Iran. They can still buy all the oil they want, as long as Iran still wants to sell it (which they will unless they want to collapse their economy).

We are talking about arm sanctions here people, not oil for food.

quote:

So yeah, just send them a mean mean letter in my opinion... But it's hard cause it gives a signal that it's okay for countries like Iran to develop nuclear weaponds...

How about we play dead and roll over? No, fetch? yea fetch!

Writing a letter would be something this country would usually do. So I voted for the last option. Somehow I don't see the US attacking a country without the needed evidence. So a letter is fine.

Blow it up

I'm going to sound like a douche, but I say let the EU handle it.

We've already gotten our ass handed to us once (from the international community) for our actions with Iraq, so I say "fine," let them deal with it this time. I don't know for sure if Iran currently has nuclear weapons, but I do know that they don't have intercontinental balistic missles capable of delivering whatever they do have the the United States. They probably could detonate a device in Europe or Israel (which I think would be a huge mistake, because Israel wouldn't hesitate to turn Iran/the Middle East into a radioactive wasteland if attacked first), so let the countries on the front line handle things.

I'm not saying the situations are perfeclty analagous, but Europe allowed Hitler to push them around through treaties and talks until it was too late, we'll have to see if the same mistake is made this time around.

The "World Community" didn't like how the US reacted to Iraq in similar circumstances, let them handle things when Iran does the same.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium Writing a letter would be something this country would usually do. So I voted for the last option. Somehow I don't see the US attacking a country without the needed evidence. So a letter is fine.

i seriously hope that is sarcasm

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 i seriously hope that is sarcasm

Of the poorest quality.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium Of the poorest quality.

in that case nice one

First off New Zealand would never allow nuclear power in their country - remeber the 80's prob not, but the rainbow warrior was sunk in Auckland by the french coz they were trying to prevent french nuke testing in the attols. Also the american warships that are nuke powered were prevented from entering NZ waters.

Secondly, if a vote goes to the UN, it stand to reason russia would veto the vote beacause then they can sell uranium to iran. it is an economic decision.

i think Iran has as much right to decide on nuke power as anyone else, the problem lies in the extreme beliefs of the reigeme. They want to wipe out the Jews still... when will these people learn?
Sure russia could do the enriching for iran, but iran would still have enriched uranium wouldn't they! Then there is the issue oftransport and its hazzards.

I would think that the US already has a plan in place to destroy the facilities and has probably had it since B4 the 'axis of evil' address by georgy boy.
They just have to order the strike...

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e First off New Zealand would never allow nuclear power in their country - remeber the 80's prob not, but the rainbow warrior was sunk in Auckland by the french coz they were trying to prevent french nuke testing in the attols. Also the american warships that are nuke powered were prevented from entering NZ waters.

Right, therefore the world would care about umm not at all if they developed nukes for eneregy...

quote:

Secondly, if a vote goes to the UN, it stand to reason russia would veto the vote beacause then they can sell uranium to iran. it is an economic decision.

If sanctions are not threatened (as in Russia does not agree to go to the UN) on Iran than Russia will lose economically in the nuclear business (still can sell arms). Russia right now has a deal where it will enrich uranium together with Iranians in Russia for the Iranians. This will ensure that either uranium is bought from Russia (Iran has limited uranium deposits of its own) or that at least Russia benifits in some economic way be enriching the uranium. Where as Iran were to go it alone it would enrich its small unranium quanities to no benifit at all of Russia.

quote:

i think Iran has as much right to decide on nuke power as anyone else, the problem lies in the extreme beliefs of the reigeme.

No they don't. If Iran were a democratic, free, and stable country, without any warmongering threats, yes they would be entitled to nuke power. However, because they are one of the most fanatical and messed up governments in the world today, I don't think the world should stand by and just say, "Go ahead mullahs. Have fun! You can P.O. Box the results to Paris!".

quote:

They want to wipe out the Jews still... when will these people learn?

It stands to reason that if the people will not learn from diplomacy, dialogue, and conversation, perhaps they will learn when the world uses its other tools....

quote:

Sure russia could do the enriching for iran, but iran would still have enriched uranium wouldn't they! Then there is the issue oftransport and its hazzards.

No. The issue is not over an energy program but an arms program. You need only low-level enriched uranium to produce energy from uranium. You need high-level enriched uranium to product nuclear weapons. Think of it as like diseal and jet fuel. Russia will make sure they will only produce diseal with the Iranians. If Iran wanted to enrich its own stuff, it could very well produce jet fuel and diseal.

quote:

I would think that the US already has a plan in place to destroy the facilities and has probably had it since B4 the 'axis of evil' address by georgy boy. They just have to order the strike...

I'd hope so. The military should have a plan for evertyhing, and they usually do. However, I wonder how good of a plan it is... Obviously if its an old plan (pre Axis of Evil speech as you claim) it will take a lot of time to revise it.

I regards to the WMD discussion, Iran should not be allowed them, but nor should the U.S. In my opinion the U.S. has proven itself more incapable to have power and weapons in their hands, yet they are the one's telling other countries whether they can have WMDs or not.

The U.S. has enough problems, political, econimically and more important reputational to deal with.

When a dog provokes another dog and it turns out to bite them in the ass they learn to stfu when they see another dog. When the U.S. tries to invade another country and they fail miserably, they find another country to do the same shit in. The great modern evolutionary empires of today, run by idiot monkeys that are intellectually inferior to the 'lesser' species of this planet.

US is the main source of all the current problems in this world.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple US is the main source of all the current problems in this world.

So its the USA's fault that Iran and North Korea are developign WMD?
Let me guess? Because the USA and not Russia and China sold them nuclear secrets and technologies? Of course, we must not forget it is also the US's fault that Osama Bin Laden decided to fly 2 american airliners into the WTC....



Saying its the USA's fault just allows you to easily scapegoat the issue and avoid actually applying thought into it..

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.