UN chief warns of risk of 'war' in Iran nuclear row

Either Iran is allowed Nukes to ensure MAD is recognized.

Or Israel relinquishes it's Nukes and begins peace talks with Iran.

While I'm not for Iran making a Nuclear weapon. I have no problems with them using nuclear energy. I can understand why they don't want Russias enriched uranium. They don't want to be dependent on another nation. They want to be able to build al of their nuclear stuff in house. I get that.

One thing about not letting UN inspectors anywhere near their nuclear sites. During the Iraq inspections done by the UN to look for Saddam's nuclear weapon infrastructure it was well know that a good number of the "scientists" were actually US CIA, Military and Spies there to do espionage. So it sorta makes sense that they aren't letting anybody in the west take a gander at anything they are building nuclear wise.

I do have to say though that Iran with a nuclear weapon is a terrifying idea. What happens when they have the nuke and demand leverage in world affairs because of it. Is that what Israel is really afraid of. Not that they will get nuked but that other countries can then say to them, "no we aren't going to comply, what are you going to do about it, you and what army etc..."

reply to post by stumason


So it's okay that the rest of the world plays by the same rules but Israel is exempt? Why exactly? I'm curious.

reply to post by TrueBlood


I never said that, but technically Israel is playing by the rules. Nobody makes anyone sign the NPT and signers are free to leave provided they give 6 months notice, NK did so. Chance are though that some people will get upset as the goal is to limit proliferation, not encourage it. I totally agree that Israel should be under the same scrutiny as the everyone else though and face sanctions for not disclosing their nuclear stockpile, but that isn't the world we live in.

reply to post by Erbal


That will never happen as the US sits on the UNSC. Do you really think that the US would allow a resolution to pass that criticised them? Same goes for all 5 of the UNSC permanent members.

reply to post by miniatus


Same I answered you in the other thread.
If Russia offered them enriched Uranium as you say, it was at a price. Why would a country want to pay for it and be reliant when they could produce it themselves cheaper? When it comes to powering cities you want to go the cheapest route available. So that theory doesn't hold water.

Second, if it were for nuclear weapons they wouldn't use them, and it is a direct result of Israel. Israel has them so Iran wants them (not because Iran doesn't like Jews, they have a huge Jewish population, but because the Israeli government). As long as Israel has nukes (which they shouldn't, it should have been U.S. support, or illegal nukes - one or the other but Israel has it's cake and eats it too) there will be middle eastern countries that want them. Iran isn't going to use nukes, and be destroyed, and they certainly aren't going to produce a nuke to give to a terrorist group, AND I am sure they could have bought one by now.

I don't think there is a lot of pro Iranian support here on ATS, I just think you have a lot of people that are tired of the b.s. and eventually you call out the lies long enough and you watch a country be smeared with propaganda and you start to feel sympathy. That doesn't change that they have nutty leaders, and it doesn't change that the people could stand to be a lot more free (even though it's not nearly as bad as some make it out), and they need to give up some of their punishment methods, but there are many worse things happening in other countries. I don't support Iran in anyway shape or form, but I don't support what the western world has been up to in the last ten years at all either.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

The UN Security Council has an illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism. This is a flagrant form of dictatorship, which is antiquated and obsolete and whose expiry date has passed. It is through abusing this improper mechanism that America and its accomplices have managed to disguise their bullying as noble concepts and impose it on the world.

english.khamenei.ir...

Im pretty sure the awesome speech that the Grand Ayatollah just made at the NAM Summit has alot to do with it. Or the other way round.

The world is starting to openly call the UN out for what it is. Who could argue with him?

edit on 30-8-2012 by freemarketsocialist because: (no reason given)

Very true. If the US ended its membership, the UN would be over. Same thing as NATO. Both fronts, the "righteous" mask of imperialism.

reply to post by Gauss


I'm definitely not pro-Iran, but the UN should mind their own business unless/until Iran flubs up and nukes somebody.

In the USA we all complain that we don't want the UN to interfere with our sovereignity, so why should we condone the UN infringing on anyone else's?

The UN is quickly becoming something it was never intended to be- a power hungry beast that wants to rule the world. I understand there are still good people who are part of the UN but they are rapidly becoming the minority in the power grab sweepstakes.

If you don't want the UN telling you what you can and cannot do in your own country you shouldn't support them doing it in somebody else's country.

Originally posted by phroziac
Ill agree with the un on this as soon as they go to war in israel to take their nukes away.

If Israel did not possess nuclear weapons, they would not exist.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
While I'm not for Iran making a Nuclear weapon. I have no problems with them using nuclear energy. I can understand why they don't want Russias enriched uranium. They don't want to be dependent on another nation. They want to be able to build al of their nuclear stuff in house. I get that.
."

What you are ignoring is that they are enriching it beyond what is needed for fuel.....doesnt that concern you?

The UN over the last 30 years has helped keep peace by nations being able to get together to talk about problems between them, however the UK & USA decided to stop talking with the UN & other nations over the last 2 years and not just attack nations if they don't see eye to eye, in other words the UK prefer War War rather than Jaw Jaw, so yes indeed we are very close to WW3, closer than most think I'm sad to say, and if anyone thinks it wont go nuclear, you better think again because it will.

reply to post by ronnieray123


Yes it does. I don't want Iran getting a nuke. I don't think they actually intend to use it. Just hold the world ransom with it. That scares me.

Originally posted by TrueBlood

The problem is the UN is already basically the US military. If we are supposed to have a "United Nations", then let's see these other nations, that are supposed to be united, pony up the troops to go on their crusade.

Umm... You been online too much.




Countries Involved in Libya Conflict 2011:
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Denmark
France
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Romania
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Canada had the first planes to go in an drop bombs.


Afghan War:

United States – 90,000
United Kingdom – 9,500
Germany – 4,701
Italy – 3,986
France – 3,279
Poland – 2,420
Romania – 1,800
Spain – 1,596
Australia – 1,550
Turkey – 1,272
40 other countries


Iraq War 2003:
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Poland
Spain

With support from:
Iraqi National Congress
Peshmerga

I have never seen so many people in one place that have the power to make Chrissy from 3's Company the smartest person in the room....yet here you are. That is quite the accomplishment you should be proud.

reply to post by ronnieray123






But really....i haven't seen anyone on here address the fact that, as they constantly remind us, Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map...(and before someone drags out the old "no, they only want to wipe out Zionist oppressors...blah,blah" yes, they have used that exact language), and would, using their own rhetoric as a guide, use any nuclear weapons they possessed against Israel almost the second it rolled off the assembly line. Which is really the reason that i believe they haven't finished a viable nuke yet....

reply to post by miniatus

Iran with nuclear weapons is a HORRIBLE idea .. none of their neighbors want it ... Iran is dangerous enough as is .. and before someone starts saying "Iran hasn't started/been in a war in blah blah blah" .. they might not but they are actively engaged by proxy.. they fund groups, they arm groups that work against it's enemies..

Do you actually mean Iran or the CIA?

So MANY examples of America having a history of doing and continuing doing exactly what you condemn Iran of doing.

Israel runs a close second as well.

reply to post by miniatus


I dont think Pro-Iran is the right way to label it,
Maybe pro 'reason' or anti 'senseless, corporate murder & greed'

How about you, Pro what?

Seems to me that if '' we'' are to go to war with Iran then we had better deliver one of the most devastating first strikes of all time. Otherwise Iran will do one of the most impressive retaliation strikes of all time against Israel.

Israel has nukes purely for one reason, to stop its neighbours invading it. A job they've done pretty well.
They apparently had them back during Yom Kippur (something a lot of ATS'ers should maybe look up), but didn't use them, so they're far more responsible then their neighbours who constantly threaten to wipe them off the face of the planet.

It makes me agree.
They did this with Russia.
It stopt them from attacking Russia.
Iran would never use the Bomb unless they are over run by a enemy.
A enemy would never do that because they would have a bomb on their city like America did.

Why did America get any trouble over dropping a nuclear bomb on two civilian targets.
It Is a war crime which they got away with.