TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What Steps Should The World Take To Halts Irans Nucler Program?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

What Steps Should The World Take To Halts Irans Nucler Program?

There should be serious debate going on with this issue. Irans president has stated over and over that Iran is moving forward with its nuclear program. They have ignored, and it seems they are going to continue, ignoring sanctions and warning by the UN. They wont accept any options presented by the UN. They want to do things their way!!!!

So what measures should the world take to insure the Iran dosent reach the stage that it can produce nuclear weapons? Lets me just add, the problem its not the President of Iran but as always the ideology that this man holds a long with his political party. Now discuss

Step 1: Diplomatic Engagement.

Re: What Steps Should The World Take To Halts Irans Nucler Program?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover There should be serious debate going on with this issue. Irans president has stated over and over that Iran is moving forward with its nuclear program. They have ignored, and it seems they are going to continue, ignoring sanctions and warning by the UN. They wont accept any options presented by the UN. They want to do things their way!!!! So what measures should the world take to insure the Iran dosent reach the stage that it can produce nuclear weapons? Lets me just add, the problem its not the President of Iran but as always the ideology that this man holds a long with his political party. Now discuss

Who the fuck are you to deny the Iranians the right to develop nuclear power?

The search function is your friend. I am quite sure this topic has been debated before. Unless you have something new to add, it's a pretty useless thread.

i'd like to see stiffer penalties against TA users that can't spell.

I believe it is actually legal to enrich uranium no?

Anyways, the main honcho, the USA, has done nothing but sabre rattling making war almost inevitable. Iran is also a member of the IAEA. I think the first solution is leaving Iraq. Mr Bush and Mr admadinijad just keep pushing the bar higher and higher. Both need to be immediatly replaced.

But as the situation appears, Israel will be attacking Iran first, and protected by the Iraq buffer.

Iran deserves to have to Nuclear energy just like any other damn country.There is no proof anywhere that they are making a fuckin bomb to attack beloved Israel.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iran deserves to have to Nuclear energy just like any other damn country.There is no proof anywhere that they are making a fuckin bomb to attack beloved Israel.

true, but iran should definitely be more transparent in its nuclear plans, then perhaps the world wouldnt be worried so much? make no mistake- iran is certainly to blame for some of the bad press it has been receiving.

Re: What Steps Should The World Take To Halts Irans Nucler Program?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover There should be serious debate going on with this issue. Irans president has stated over and over that Iran is moving forward with its nuclear program. They have ignored, and it seems they are going to continue, ignoring sanctions and warning by the UN. They wont accept any options presented by the UN. They want to do things their way!!!!

They can't ignore sanctions - that's not a choice left up to them.

quote:

So what measures should the world take to insure the Iran dosent reach the stage that it can produce nuclear weapons?

Considering it's about 8-10 years away, that's a great amount of time to try and use sound diplomatic relations with a different administration who actually knows what the word "diplomacy" means until that time. Other than that, a continual pressure of economic sanctions is highly appropriate and shown to be effective historically as a means of deterrence for countries obtaining "nukular" power. The Duelfer Report on Iraq's WMD program made that abundantly clear.

quote:

Lets me just add, the problem its not the President of Iran but as always the ideology that this man holds a long with his political party. Now discuss

And should that ideology continue to entail a creation of a "nukular" bomb, I believe Israel is more than capable of handling its neighbor with the bombs she possesses, don't you think?



Added in Edit: Deja Vu all freaking over again:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i'd like to see stiffer penalties against TA users that can't spell.

I'd like to see a spell check on TA.:P

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iran deserves to have to Nuclear energy just like any other damn country.There is no proof anywhere that they are making a fuckin bomb to attack beloved Israel.

I am fairly certain that Iran's program, as they claim, is legal under the NPT.

That's the main argument that Ahmadinejad has been trying to make. He didn't come here to talk about gays and religion, he's trying to argue that his country is being treated unfairly under the NPT.

So I'm going out on a limb and saying that there is no need to halt thier program, as outlined by the Iranian administration to the rest of the world. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be monitored.

To halt thier weapons ambitions (any weapons) it would be a good idea to direct western foreign policy in a way that doesn't cause paranoia in other nations. Not until countries can live without fear of US intervention will they begin to let thier weapons procurment / development wane.

I mean I hear these phony things that Iran wont reach the capacity to be able to make Nuke weapons in X amount of years, YOU ARE LOST!
No one knows the current status of their prog! Here is the thing that you people tend to forget. Please dont echo this bs "Iran has the right to have a program" ok but great responsibility comes if you want to reach that stage. Has Iran demonstrated to the world, that they are responsible and trustworthy to have such program? The UN has presented in the past with similar programs to reach the so called objective and Iran claims " for peaceful purposes" but they have rejected it.

I mean Iran has not shown any seriousness to have such prog... here is why

1. They are promoting instability in the region by aiding terrorist
2. They have called for the destruction of Israel
3. They have this lunatic ideology of some religious phenomenon like Armageddon

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover 1. They are promoting instability in the region by aiding terrorist 2. They have called for the destruction of Israel 3. They have this lunatic ideology of some religious phenomenon like Armageddon

"they"? who the fuck is "they"? who do you think has caused the most instability in the middle east this century? hint: its not iran. lumping the iranians under one blanket statement is not only incorrect its also incredibly ignorant. yeah, let's bomb hawaii because of george bush's religious fundamentalism

you're a 19 year old with very little knowledge imo.

Re: Re: What Steps Should The World Take To Halts Irans Nucler Program?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 They can't ignore sanctions - that's not a choice left up to them. Considering it's about 8-10 years away, that's a great amount of time to try and use sound diplomatic relations with a different administration who actually knows what the word "diplomacy" means until that time. Other than that, a continual pressure of economic sanctions is highly appropriate and shown to be effective historically as a means of deterrence for countries obtaining "nukular" power. The Duelfer Report on Iraq's WMD program made that abundantly clear.

Speaking of the Deulfer Report..

"Shortly after the invasion, the coalition sent in a 1,400 member international team known as the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). Their sole purpose was to search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, any correlating research programs, and any infrastructure related to WMD development. The ISG picked up where the original UN weapons inspections teams (UNMOVIC) and IAEA left off. It must be noted that no inspections by the ISG, UNMOVIC, nor IAEA ever found weapons of mass destruction as alleged by the Bush Administration.
The findings of the ISG were reported on September 30, 2004 in the Duelfer Report (Duelfer, 2006). This final report on Iraq�s WMD programs indicated several things:

1. There was no active Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
2. No chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons were ever found.
3. Saddam�s main concern was mitigation of UN economic sanctions.

In January 2005, the ISG concluded its search stating, �We have not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003. There is a possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." (Cornwell, Russell, Penketh, 2004). The implications of the Duelfer Report are strong indications of a major intelligence failure in the United States, or of a criminal manipulation of intelligence data to suit the means for an invasion. "

Retrospection of Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN "they"? who the fuck is "they"? who do you think has caused the most instability in the middle east this century? hint: its not iran. lumping the iranians under one blanket statement is not only incorrect its also incredibly ignorant. yeah, let's bomb hawaii because of george bush's religious fundamentalism you're a 19 year old with very little knowledge imo.

"They" ? The Iranian government. You must understand the evolution that the ME is going through. For the first time the US is starting to know who are their true allies in the ME to achieve stability and combat extremist.
The problem here is not the USA, this is not Bushs war is the war of the USA. When we were attacked in 9/11 Al Qaeda was not the only problem. The problem is this ideology these groups have adopted and what they continue promoting throughout the region.

Iran is the other hand s echoing these hatred. I mean Iran has nothing constructive to assist on in instability, they promote it to weaken our policy. In the other hand, as we speak we are promoting a ME peace summit to resolve issues that are of interest to the US and more importantly to the ME

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover "They" ? The Iranian government. You must understand the evolution that the ME is going through. For the first time the US is starting to know who are their true allies in the ME to achieve stability and combat extremist. The problem here is not the USA, this is not Bushs war is the war of the USA. When we were attacked in 9/11 Al Qaeda was not the only problem. The problem is this ideology these groups have adopted and what they continue promoting throughout the region. Iran is the other hand s echoing these hatred. I mean Iran has nothing constructive to assist on in instability, they promote it to weaken our policy. In the other hand, as we speak we are promoting a ME peace summit to resolve issues that are of interest to the US and more importantly to the ME

What you have to realize is this ideology did not just spring out of the desert, or pop into osama bin laden's head one day, "Hey the west sucks, lets send suicide bombers for allah."

The reason why they hate us as stated plenty of times on here is because the west, particularly the US/UK has kept interfering in middle eastern issues. Hell, the UK monopolized the Iranian oil industry from 1906 and 60 years afterwards. With this in mind, you would think we have learned our lesson. But my feeling is, we continue on our old ways ..

George Washington said, "No entangling alliances."

Krypton,

Yes! The US has had a failed policy towards the ME. As I mentioned in another post we have acted upon a double morale and not the true principles to which we stand. We have supported leaders and oppress their people. We have in someway cultivated hatred, and by all means they should feel this way. In some way we have betrayed these people. But is that Bushs fault? Did he come up with this policy? This is an American policy that we must change to gain credibility. Right now we face the task to redo our image, and stand to the true principles we stand for and to the values me and you enjoy

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I'd like to see a spell check on TA.:P

Just the latest Firefox people....built in spell checker!
Use it!

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I mean I hear these phony things that Iran wont reach the capacity to be able to make Nuke weapons in X amount of years, YOU ARE LOST! No one knows the current status of their prog! Here is the thing that you people tend to forget. Please dont echo this bs "Iran has the right to have a program" ok but great responsibility comes if you want to reach that stage. Has Iran demonstrated to the world, that they are responsible and trustworthy to have such program? The UN has presented in the past with similar programs to reach the so called objective and Iran claims " for peaceful purposes" but they have rejected it.

Here is idea for ya to think about,how about we tell the U.S to remove its froces from the region specifically Iraq and all their battle ships,and their 2 gigantic aircraft carriers in the persian gulf.Then you might just get more results from Iran.

If was Iran I would be doing my best from preventing possible invasion to the country and they are doing just that right now.

quote:

1. They are promoting instability in the region by aiding terrorist

yup there is the smoking gun right there!!!nuke the fuck out of them,I mean the U.S has nothing do to with the instability in the region,I mean it is not like they are arming the Sunni fighters to fight the Shia fighters in Iraq.

quote:

They have called for the destruction of Israel

The are against the zionist regime,and alot of other countries in the region feel the same.What are you goin to do about them?

quote:

3. They have this lunatic ideology of some religious phenomenon like Armageddon

I can say the exact same thing about your lovely neocon ****s in the white house.

I am not a neocon

From the bottom of my heart I want a peaceful ME. For decades theres has been conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, but if we have a serious discussion and somehow try to reach common ground on some issues that are of interest for these two groups, peace can be achieved. We cant solve all their differences, but we can make progress on some of them and ease those tensions.

If we withdraw, is Iraq going to be a better place? Are the insurgents going to be peaceful and promoted stability and unity? Come on man you know better than that.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The problem here is not the USA, this is not Bushs war is the war of the USA. When we were attacked in 9/11 Al Qaeda was not the only problem. The problem is this ideology these groups have adopted and what they continue promoting throughout the region.

If this is the war on ideology then you must know that no force in this world can stop it,not even if you drop a nuclear bomb on them.

and why are you slowly bringing the whole 911/Al Quaeda crap into this discussion?Iran has nothing to do with Al Quaeda.Incase you have a short memory,Ahmadinejad did want to visit the ground zero on his visit.

quote:

Iran is the other hand s echoing these hatred. I mean Iran has nothing constructive to assist on in instability, they promote it to weaken our policy. In the other hand, as we speak we are promoting a ME peace summit to resolve issues that are of interest to the US and more importantly to the ME

you shouldnt be in the region to begin with,but now that you are,dont complain when others are getting fedup.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX The search function is your friend. I am quite sure this topic has been debated before. Unless you have something new to add, it's a pretty useless thread.

+1

Thread closed.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer If this is the war on ideology then you must know that no force in this world can stop it,not even if you drop a nuclear bomb on them. and why are you slowly bringing the whole 911/Al Quaeda crap into this discussion?Iran has nothing to do with Al Quaeda.Incase you have a short memory,Ahmadinejad did want to visit the ground zero on his visit.

uh...he requested it and it was met with a big fat goose egg of support from the NYPD...
(Not to mention the place would go ballistic).

quote:

Ahmadinejad request to visit Ground Zero gets short shrift Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Friday September 21, 2007 The Guardian A request by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for an official tour of Ground Zero while he is at the United Nations next week met a collective response that was classically New Yorker: Fuhgeddaboutit! The New York police department turned down Mr Ahmadinejad, citing security concerns and continuing construction at the scene of the September 11 terror attacks. But the White House and the state department were less concerned with sparing the Iranian leader's feelings. "I can understand why they would not want somebody who is running a country who is a state sponsor of terror down there at the site," President George Bush told a White House press conference yesterday.

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I am not a neocon From the bottom of my heart I want a peaceful ME. For decades theres has been conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, but if we have a serious discussion and somehow try to reach common ground on some issues that are of interest for these two groups, peace can be achieved. We cant solve all their differences, but we can make progress on some of them and ease those tensions.

and whats has been achieved throughout all there years with the U.S presents in the region?The U.S is obviously is fule to the fire in that fragile region.It is really tim for them to go.


If we withdraw, is Iraq going to be a better place? Are the insurgents going to be peaceful and promoted stability and unity? Come on man you know better than that. [/QUOTE]


Whats the worst that could happen really? they ll kill eachother more? We both know that the last thing in the U.S's mind is the stability in the region.The first thing for them is Israels survival and the second is oil.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I mean I hear these phony things that Iran wont reach the capacity to be able to make Nuke weapons in X amount of years, YOU ARE LOST! No one knows the current status of their prog!

So according to you, since we have completely failed with our intelligence to verify when a country has successfully produced enough weapons-grade uranium, we should go ahead and throw "strategic bombs" at them and damn the consequences?

What do you think those consequences COULD result in from Iran? And given our bogged down situation in Iraq with the SURGE! forces slowly redeploying until next summer, how pray tell, do you expect us to fight Iran should they retaliate in force?

Or is that what you're actually wanting?

And I'm sorry, but which is more "phony" -

1. Trying to gather intelligence on nuclear capability and giving viable estimates based on that said intelligence

or

2. Willfully lying about that intelligence in likely hopes to bolster a future conflict of sorts?:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6091302052.html

Which is more "phony" in logical terms?

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