Iran Is Stepping Up Nuclear Work

Iran does not deserve anything of the sort. Please provide links showing Iran is intending to engage in nuclear warfare with the US. Also please provide links proving all the people of Iran a helping terrorists. After all, saying "Iran is helping terrorists!" because of a few rogue groups is like saying "All white Americans hate black people" because of the actions of the KKK. Any proof that Iranian nukes would be used as anything but a deterrant to Israel(nuke capable)and the US(nuke capable) in future conflicts would be good too. And please, find some websites outside the US that support your view, rather than propaganda. I look forward to continuing our discussion.

This subject of attacking Iran should not even come up until they have launched an attack on US troops directly or US citizens on US soil with support from the Iranian polliticians. All this pre-emptive strike crap is ridiculous. Why not just nuke every other country in the world just in case they ever have aspirations of attacking the US? Why has the US become such a blood thirsty country? Is this the result of mental conditioning and the propaganda campaign the media is undertaking? Really, I can't believe some of the comments I am hearing.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by orthisguyoverhere]

I have a bunch of friends in the armed services (GOD BLESS THEM) and they have all told me that they do believe they are doing good in Iraq and the few that have gone to Afghanistan believe the same is true. In Iraq they have told me that the Iraqis are determined and well armed. They are being supplied by another country, that is definate. Our government tells us that Iran is supplying them and I see no reason to believe otherwise. Iran is the reason that Iraq has not met stability, they are training and arming the Iraqi militias, and their agenda is simple since that have told us straight out, they want to destroy all Zionist countries and allies of Zionist countries. Israel is considered a Zionist country. Based off these conclusions we know that we are targets as well as Israel. And based off their speedy, reckless development of Uranium we know they are not planning to use the Nuclear Technology solely for energy reasons.

1). When you develop fast it is not safe
2). If all you wanted to do was stabilize your energy, why would you risk human life?
3). Now given that they can careless about human well-being some would argue why care about these people, well I say they would just because people with knowledge of Nuclear knowledge are not easily replaced.
4). So why risk your upper 5% of educated people?

I can draw only one reasonable solution, why worry about tomorrow if you wanted to end the world, right?

And to address the people that say the U.S. has no right to inspect the world. I say did your country end (or help) two World Wars and become take on the financial and military job of guarding the world from all that is evil?

In conclusion we (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) have proven ourselves to be noble and just, if we do something it is in the best intention of the world, but if your country doesn't have enough backbone to stand up and do something to stop the events unfold then you are no better than terroists, criminals or satan. (We are all on this earth and we need to come together and do what is right even if the consequences are not all good, and if everyone thinks we are doing something bad then they need to all stand up and say something too)

I leave you all with the statement that is IRAN is evil and action needs to be taken.

Thanks for the links or lack of. by the way Iran said it wishes to destroy the Zionist REGIME in Israel. Not destroy Israel. As for your friends in the Military, they will believe what they are told because it makes them more determined to fight and put their lives on the line. As for who is supplying insurgents, it's good to see you have researched this claim before jumping to conclusions. So I will leave you with this. Iran is not evil. People wishing to attack other countries on a whim and with manufactured or non existant evidence are. That means you if you support conflict in Iran. Don't worry, you are not evil by choice, it is the way you have been conditioned. By the way, who was making sure the US weren't developing nukes too fast? I think it was a race with Germany and Russia. It is said to see the way some of you guys are thinking. Propaganda really does work.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by orthisguyoverhere]

quote "And to address the people that say the U.S. has no right to inspect the world. I say did your country end (or help) two World Wars and become take on the financial and military job of guarding the world from all that is evil?

In conclusion we (THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) have proven ourselves to be noble and just, if we do something it is in the best intention of the world, but if your country doesn't have enough backbone to stand up and do something to stop the events unfold then you are no better than terroists, criminals or satan. (We are all on this earth and we need to come together and do what is right even if the consequences are not all good, and if everyone thinks we are doing something bad then they need to all stand up and say something too)"

Firstly, yes Australia was there too. Whilst the US did take on the financial and military job of stabilizing Germany it did not take on the role of the world police man. That is probably why the US isn't liked that much in the rest of the free world. Also that was in the 1940's, It's now 2007 and you guys think this is still the case. Also evil is a relative term, evil people don't think they're evil. Secondly, when have Americans proven to be noble and just. I'm sure the torture in Abu Graihid and Guantanomo Bay, entire civillian villages wiped out in Vietnam, nuclear testing on 100,000 US soldiers is noble and just. Please, all you have proven is that the winning side writes history after a world war. You are simply regurgitating the propaganda that has been fed to you for 60 years. Links to support your view would be nice. Oh by the way, people who are noble and just don't go around telling everybody how noble and just they are. They simply act nobly and justly. We have this news station called SBS. When they show a news story you usually get both sides of the story. I am not in any way anti US. I am however anti US attitude to the rest of the world.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by orthisguyoverhere]

hi,

I am new to these boards and I know I'm jumping in here but what no one seems to be considering is the impact a nuclear armed Iran would have on the middle east. It would cause an arms race among neighbouring middle eastern countries. Do you think all the middle eastern countries are all lovey-dovey with each other? It's that Shia vs Sunni thing. If religious differences can fuel what's happening in one country (Iraq), imagine that on a larger scale.

Arguing that just because one country has nuclear power/arms then all countries should have it is a weak argument full of holes. The real problem is who has the nuclear power and what is their agenda. A repressive totalitarian government that is well documented for persecuting and executing its citizens on the flimsiest excuses, whose president believes in the 12th Iman legend and who has publically talked about the destruction of a neighbouring country (Israel) is not the sort of country that should have nuclear capacity. Given the oil reserves why the desparate need for nuclear power?

Iran has an agenda, there is no doubt -it has exerted influence in Syria, Lebanon and is trying to exert control over Iraq. It's hatred of Israel is well-known - have you guys forgotten the anti-holocaust cartoon competition organised by Iran last year? Holding an international competition to deny and mock the holocaust is much more than just disagreeing with the policies of a "zionist government" - it is a deliberate attack on all jewish people and in particular the establishment of Israel as a nation. So you can't say wanting the removal of a zionist Israeli government is different to calling for the destruction of Israel. It's one and the same.

I also cannot agree with the argument that the US has no moral standing whatsoever on nuclear weapons given it used them in WW2. There is much info about how the use of them (dreadful as it was) shortened the war and thus ended the war sooner, saving Japanese lives. Would you prefer they were never used and all the major Japanese cities were firebombed like Dresden?

"1). When you develop fast it is not safe
2). If all you wanted to do was stabilize your energy, why would you risk human life?
3). Now given that they can careless about human well-being some would argue why care about these people, well I say they would just because people with knowledge of Nuclear knowledge are not easily replaced.
4). So why risk your upper 5% of educated people?"

This is not for you to worry about. It is Iran's problem. It was your problem in the 1940's. Even if they are building weapons it is not for the US to say they can't. Notice how you guys haven't heard from North Korea for a while? It's because they now have a deterrant to invasion. The US will not invade North Korea now unless they are prepared for a nuclear conflict. This is what Iran is seeking. Its kinda like a safety chain on your front door, right? Is North Korea evil? No but Kim Jong Il maybe. There may be quite a few evil people in North Korea. It doesn't mean its time to invade. What would you do if the Russians came up with a weapon 10x more powerful than a nuke and told the US they couldn't have it? You'd put your heads down and your arses up untill you had the same technology. It is the way of the world.

I'm certainly going to have to disagree with you there, NoWarningShots.

Yes, I also believe that Iraq is getting their weapons elsewhere, however, I do not believe any one country is responsible, rather, they have merely hired gun-runners.

Gun-runners are notorious for getting arms to places that are willing to pay for them, without getting noticed. This is of course their job, right down to the definition.

You made it clear that we don't know where it's coming from, yet you immediately blame Iran. Do you call this justice? Guilty, because we say so?


On the topic of Iran not permitting inspectors in, it really doesn't matter if they do or not. Saddam Hussein gave inspectors free reign to wander about Iraq and look for WMD's. He produced reports on where and how every weapon from the past had been dismantled and destroyed.

Did it matter? No. The US attacked anyways, completely contradicting the findings of the inspectors.
Did they find WMD's? No.
Were there WMD's? No.

The US has proven that they don't give a rats ass what the facts and inspections show, they believe what they want to believe and act on it regardless.


Knowing that inspections would have little effect on whether or not Iran gets attacked, Iran would rather just be independent and not have to bow down to another nation, simply because they say so.


Iran does require nuclear technology to power it's country for future generations. Should it answer to anyone for it? No. Absolutely not.


And they didn't state that they want to destroy Israel.
Everyone keeps taking that comment out of context, and it's really proving just how ignorant the people can be, thanks to the media.

The whole discussion went something to the effect of :
"We will attack over 200 key installations in Iran."
"Oh, well then, If you attack us, then we will wipe you off the map."

It wasn't a statement made about nuclear weapons, it was simply a statement that if Israel attacks Iran, then Iran will counter attack.


As for Iran being evil?
What's your definition of evil?
I mean, have you EVER met someone who woke up in the morning and decided "Im going to do the WRONG thing today"

Please, give me a break.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by johnsky]

CrispyChicken, who decides which countries can and can't have nukes? Would Australia be ok because we were your allies in ww1, ww2, vietnam, iraq1, iraq2, etc? Who decides which nations will live in fear of nuke attack for the rest of eternity? Which country has been approached by EVERY other country in the world and asked "We can't handle this responsibility! Please could you make all the decisions for us?" As for fire bombing like Dresdon please don't try to compare a nuclear blast to a firebomb. No bombs at all would be preferable. As far as saving Japanese lives - thats a nice assumption. How many lives did it save again? 1? 100? 1000? 10000000000? Truth is, you don't know. How many lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Now there's a figure that is real and not a fairy tale to make your citizens feel better.

there seems to be some sort of moral relativism going on here:
Quote: As for Iran being evil?
What's your definition of evil?
I mean, have you EVER met someone who woke up in the morning and decided "Im going to do the WRONG thing today"

Of course an evil person doesn't go around calling themselves evil. Did Hitler think he was evil? No, he thought he was this amazing visionary leader and gungho for creating this ayran empire. But what he did was pure evil.

Evil men and evil leaders are judged by their words and deeds, not what they personally think about themselves. Evil is not a self-esteem issue!

Is Iran evil? Stupid question. The inability to recognise evil when it's slapping you in the face is a sad indictment of your mis-education and lack of any moral backbone. Here's a clue: Hanging women from cranes for so called "crimes against chastity" has never been considered... um... good.

As for SBS television in Australia, it is rather left-wing in many of its views. It is certainly not 100% objective (what media organisation is?) so please don't try to say it's free of bias to international readers who do not know of it.

As for Iran's links with terrorism, it has close ties to Hezbollah. www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Crispy_Chicken]

First of all I am enjoying this discussion a lot because no one has stooped to insults (apart from me being told that I am as bad as a terrorist because I don't want to invade another country). This is a healthy discussision and I apllaud the thought that is going into each and every post. One question i might ask is : When was the last time conflict between 2 nuclear armed countries turned military? Mutually Assured Destruction is a good deterrant.

Crispy, are you a Muslim? No. Therefore you may consider it evil to hang people from cranes but to a muslim this may be justified? So is it your job to define evil? No. I'm sure a lot of things that are done in non Muslim countries such as prostitution, drug abuse and alcahol consumption and abortion are viewed as evil. The fact is, it is not your place to decide what is evil and what is not. Only the CIA, NSA etc have the uncensored versions of what goes on in other countries. By the way, I beleive that any act of agression towards another country is evil unless the country's future and citizens are under direct military threat.

By the way when was the last time Hesbollah launched an attack on American soil? Shock and awe = terror. It could be argued Us Marines are terrorists. You only know what you have been told about Hesbollah. It's good to see you have such concrete feelings about a country you have never even seen.

The whole point I am trying to make in this thread is to label a country as evil you are disregarding their religion, their customs and culture and their way of life in general. War is a very serious business, a lot of thought and debate needs to go into deciding whether to go to war or not. It is not a decision that should be made lightly. If the US was attacked by Iran, bang, push the big red button of death, agreed BUT....after the Iraq debacle I seriously feel that no country has the right to invade another unless directly and imminently threatened. Please rest assured that as an Australian I would support US troops in any conflict. I would not however support the motives and reasons given by a corrupt administration. Please people, we need to rediscover our humanity.

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
CrispyChicken, who decides which countries can and can't have nukes? Would Australia be ok because we were your allies in ww1, ww2, vietnam, iraq1, iraq2, etc? Who decides which nations will live in fear of nuke attack for the rest of eternity? Which country has been approached by EVERY other country in the world and asked "We can't handle this responsibility! Please could you make all the decisions for us?" As for fire bombing like Dresdon please don't try to compare a nuclear blast to a firebomb. No bombs at all would be preferable. As far as saving Japanese lives - thats a nice assumption. How many lives did it save again? 1? 100? 1000? 10000000000? Truth is, you don't know. How many lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Now there's a figure that is real and not a fairy tale to make your citizens feel better.

Well, I'm not doing much for the next few weeks, so I'm happy to volunteer to decide who gets to have nukes....

But seriously, I think you're trying to say that every country has the right to autonomously decide it's own internal "energy infrastructure development/major weapons upgrade" free of any comment or interference by any one else. So does this desire to respect the complete autonomy of every country extend to every conceivable situation?

When genocides and ethnic cleansings occur, should the entire world respect that country's autonomy and let them get on with the slaughter?

When a country decides to embark on a course of action that has serious short term and long term implications for the security of it's neighbours and wider afield to the rest of the world, and serious implications for economic stability than yes, the rest of the world has the right to comment on what that country is doing.

As for your comment about just how many Japanese lives would've been saved by Hiroshima and Nagasaki versus continued firebombing. Well it's self-evident. The longer a war drags out the more lives are lost. A quick look for statistics shows that Germany lost 11% of its population in WW2 (military & civilian) while Japan lost 3.6%. Yes Japan entered the war later and was not really invaded but it does give you some perspective. It's not just Japanese lives that were saved, but allied lives and the lives of those in Japanese POW camps and the lives of those in countries invaded by Japan. By your reckoning, no atom bombs should've been dropped and Japan should've been bombed and invaded - in a bitter fight to the death until it finally surrendered. Approximately 72 million people died in WW2. Would you have liked the number to be 75million? 80 million? 85million? Just as long as no atom bombs were dropped, right? Sorry to go off topic here!

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
Crispy, are you a Muslim? No. Therefore you may consider it evil to hang people from cranes but to a muslim this may be justified? So is it your job to define evil? No. I'm sure a lot of things that are done in non Muslim countries such as prostitution, drug abuse and alcahol consumption and abortion are viewed as evil. The fact is, it is not your place to decide what is evil and what is not. Only the CIA, NSA etc have the uncensored versions of what goes on in other countries. By the way, I beleive that any act of agression towards another country is evil unless the country's future and citizens are under direct military threat.

I am not a Muslim and I have no desire to have my life micromanaged, thanks. Your claim that muslims find hanging people from cranes justifiable is repellent and very sad. It's also extremely offensive to muslims. Do you not realise that there are muslims who hate this as much as non-muslims?

Again you are showing that you completely fail to accept the premise that not all cultures are equal. A culture that is mysyognistic and represses its female population is simply not as good as a culture that treats its females fairly and with respect. By damaging 50% of its population in this way it is incapable of really advancing or progressing as a civilisation. There are men and women in Iran who want to change this and are hounded by their government - would you like to tell them that they are wrong? That there is nothing wrong with their culture and society? You are living in a Western society, enjoying its fruits: free to read, think, write, associate with anyone, believe anything without repercussion. Who are you to tell activists in Iran that they've got it all wrong? That they can't have what you have?

It is up to each and everyone of us to recognise evil for what it is. How do you think anything is ever changed?

Just a quick update here folks. Apparently John Bolton is calling for some extreme action against Iran.

John Bolton


I hope every one has their Prius on order as gas is going to go through the roof.

Lakewood

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
By the way when was the last time Hesbollah launched an attack on American soil? Shock and awe = terror. It could be argued Us Marines are terrorists. You only know what you have been told about Hesbollah. It's good to see you have such concrete feelings about a country you have never even seen.

I meant to reply to this before: 1996 was the last time Hezbollah attack the USA by bombing a military complex in Saudi Arabia. Since then it's been mostly Osama and his lads. You could argue that US Marines are terrorists but that would be idiotic. I thought terrorists threatened or used violence against civilian populations in order to coerce governments for the terrorist's own political or ideological agenda. Relating that to the marines is rather far fetched and laughable IMO.

Yes, I only know what I have been told about Hezbollah. (Why, are you hinting you know more? Please do tell.) And that's not just reading about them but reading their charter written by... Hezbollah! Now if I can't believe the charter of Hezbollah, written by actual Hezbollah people, what am I supposed to believe? I have lots of concrete feelings about many things. These are interesting times we live in and it is necessary to pay attention.

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
They are not letting the US inspect facilities because it is none of the US's business what they do in THEIR country.

To my knowledge the US is not asking for US inspections….just those by the UN. On that note, nations with an equal vote to the US have supported sanctions....no?

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
Whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not is Irans business only.

No, none of what you have said is true…take time to read the NPT.

The filler between is pure crap except from the above execpt skipping to the following:

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
Since when did any other nation on the face of the planet nuke 2 heavily populated cities?

A different day and age my friend…perhaps history is not your strong subject; take the time to anchor your comments.

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
Maybe it's the US that shouldn't be playing with matches and be subject to inspections.

Yes the old evil US..:@@typically boring)…"Atoms for Peace" and all that was pure bs…of course do not hold anyone elses feet to the fire (it may actually cause enlightenment)...pfft.



mg

It matters not what goes on in Iran, as long as it doesn't directly affect US citizens it is none of the US's concern. When genocide is being commited to a people of a country and that country asks for outside help, send in the marines. The US is free to make suggestions but that is all until asked. Your opinion of other cultures is just that, an opinion. If Iran does get invaded I hope the consequences such as the military being spread even thinner accross the globe, billions of dollars PER DAY spent, more vital emergency equipment leaving the US to support troops, more US troops lost, fuel prices through the roof, the economy grinding closer to a halt etc are all carefully weighed and measured against any benefeits. If the US does invade Iran I know there will be a public outcry in Australia.