Iran Approves 10 Uranium Enrichment Sites
- Thread starter kelvin070
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
14Replies
-
423Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Kinda strange really. When I post some crap there is alot of debate, drama, accusations, views etc but when I post some serious stuff nobody is debating. Anyway I posted this thread in another forum at the same time and there were some good solid arguements which I am posting here.
Attack the US ..LOL ..with what? do they have ICBM's at their disposal?
Iran's intent, was and is Nuclear Weapons. It didn't "stray" into it, it's just building a power plant or two as a necessary prerequisite/cover.
There are many ways a nuclear-armed Iran could harm the U.S., even if it didn't directly attack the U.S. The most obvious is that it could seize control of the vital Strait of Hormuz, choking off shipping of oil. It could use its nuclear umbrella to provide insurance to terrorist groups with whom it is allied so as to deter significant retalation against those groups.
Iran would not need ICBMs to attack the U.S. If it were to attack the U.S., it could attack U.S. forces in the Middle Eastern and central Asian theaters. It could use its proxy Hezbollah to launch attacks in the U.S. That terrorist group has international reach, including in the U.S.
Aside from those matters, Iran is a revolutionary state. It is not committed to stability in the Middle East but creating a new Middle Eastern order compatible with its "Islamic Revolution." Hence, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a profound development with broad regional and geopolitical implications affecting Middle East stability, access to oil, the Shia-Sunni rivalry, among other matters.
The US isn't committed to stability in the ME either. We have no business being there.
But hey, as long as we are there and continue to stick our noses in the affairs of others, expect to get bloodied
If the U.S. had no interests or allies in the Middle East, one could make a case for abdication from its Middle Eastern participation. However, that is not the reality. Furthermore, maintaining open access to the Strait of Hormuz through which a disproportionate share of the region's oil is shipped is a direct and vital U.S. interest.
Isolationism is inherently flawed, because it rests a country's interests strictly on the good will of other states and non-state actors. Implicit is the assumption that other states and non-state actors will act in a benign fashion with respect to the isolated state. Tragically, history has not borne that out.
Not every state, non-state actor, or leader desires stability. Not every state, non-state actor, or leader respects the interests of other states. To revolutionary leaders bent on dominating land, locking up access to natural resources, spreading an ideology, or some other foreign policy area in which other states' interests are affected, isolationism--partial (e.g., foreign policy abdication, only) or complete (foreign policy, economic, cultural, and political)--is read as weakness. Weakness is exploited.
Finally, the world has never resided in a "perpetual peace." Hence, it is par for the course that a state will get "bloodied" from time to time as it seeks to protect its interests. Isolationism would not change that. Hence, the notion that there is a simple formula that would prevent such an outcome is not consistent with world affairs. Barring a dramatic change in human nature, seeking to reduce the risk of a major conflict (nuclear or conventional) is a far more realistic objective than bringing about an end to bloodshed altogether. A pragmatic Realist foreign policy that combines a balance of power and legitimizing principles offers perhaps the best approach for pursuing that objective. Isolationism contributes nothing and may actually augment the risk given the signal of weakness it transmits.
It all boils down to oil ..tsk, tsk
At last check, the world consumes 84.8 million barrels of oil per day. The U.S. consumes 18.7 million barrels per day. Oil remains an integral component of the world's energy supply. Until that situation changes, access to oil will matter greatly.
(Aside from those matters, Iran is a revolutionary state. It is not committed to stability in the Middle East but creating a new Middle Eastern order compatible with its "Islamic Revolution.)
These are hollow claims not played out by any facts or recent developments. It is the USA and other western nations who have launched aggressive wars and shattered the stability in the Middle East. It is us who have toppled governments, occupied nations and created millions of refugees, refugees which have flooded into countries like Iran.
Destroying the stability of the Middle east and creating a new "pro-western" order was the dream of every neo-conservative in Washington and it is what guided US foreign policy for 8 years. The Iranians in this time looked primarily to protect themselves from US aggression, they have offered on numerous occasions to engage in talks with no pre-conditions, all of which were rejected by the Bush administration. The groups they support in the Middle East are hugely popular within their own countries, and look to Iran primarily for guidance, the support which they receive form Iran can at best be described as modest in the grand scheme of things. The US in contrast supplies huge amounts of weaponry, money and military training to several countries in the Middle East, many with abysmal human rights records. If any country is looking to "transform" the Middle East and destroy the stability there it is the USA, after all, Americans won't have to stay there forever like the Iranians do. The only irony of the entire situation is that it is many of the the "democratic" reforms originally demanded by the Bush administration which have benefitted groups which you may term pro-Iranian.
("...The Iranians in this time looked primarily to protect themselves from US aggression, they have offered on numerous occasions to engage in talks with no pre-conditions, all of which were rejected by the Bush administration)
This is completely Untrue/a mockery.
'Negotiations' have been going on for years thru Many rounds. With many countries/groups/Agencies.
This is Iran's Tactic.
DELAY
I posted this same thing YEARS ago and nothing has changed.
Except Iran is winning with the tactic and playing client states Russia/China against everyone else.
Three years ago the EU offered Iran FREE Off-site enrichment for nuclear power.
Of course, OFF-site enrichment, would make diversion of weapons grade materials almost impossible, so Iran Refused this Windfall which would have ended the crisis.
So much for 'power'. And confirmed by the latest... now staggering centrifuge project.
(as if this low tech Oil/Gas Giant needs to risk/expense/get-sanctioned for a nuclear plant or two for 'power generation' anyway. Ironically, Iran has gasoline shortages! because they don't have enough refineries. Hey, there's an idea for legitimate energy infrastructure building!)
Every negotiation ends in Failure-- sanctions are enacted, or larger ones threatened and Iran "Calls for New Talks".
More DELAY.
Oh! a new offer of "talks/breakthrough" by some Iranian Govt lackey.
And so it goes for 5+ Years. Completely transparent nonsense.
Everyone, it seems, knows the game by now except the above.
I think this is enough for now cuz it will take 10 pages to post all as the comments keep coming in.
Attack the US ..LOL ..with what? do they have ICBM's at their disposal?
Iran's intent, was and is Nuclear Weapons. It didn't "stray" into it, it's just building a power plant or two as a necessary prerequisite/cover.
There are many ways a nuclear-armed Iran could harm the U.S., even if it didn't directly attack the U.S. The most obvious is that it could seize control of the vital Strait of Hormuz, choking off shipping of oil. It could use its nuclear umbrella to provide insurance to terrorist groups with whom it is allied so as to deter significant retalation against those groups.
Iran would not need ICBMs to attack the U.S. If it were to attack the U.S., it could attack U.S. forces in the Middle Eastern and central Asian theaters. It could use its proxy Hezbollah to launch attacks in the U.S. That terrorist group has international reach, including in the U.S.
Aside from those matters, Iran is a revolutionary state. It is not committed to stability in the Middle East but creating a new Middle Eastern order compatible with its "Islamic Revolution." Hence, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a profound development with broad regional and geopolitical implications affecting Middle East stability, access to oil, the Shia-Sunni rivalry, among other matters.
The US isn't committed to stability in the ME either. We have no business being there.
But hey, as long as we are there and continue to stick our noses in the affairs of others, expect to get bloodied
If the U.S. had no interests or allies in the Middle East, one could make a case for abdication from its Middle Eastern participation. However, that is not the reality. Furthermore, maintaining open access to the Strait of Hormuz through which a disproportionate share of the region's oil is shipped is a direct and vital U.S. interest.
Isolationism is inherently flawed, because it rests a country's interests strictly on the good will of other states and non-state actors. Implicit is the assumption that other states and non-state actors will act in a benign fashion with respect to the isolated state. Tragically, history has not borne that out.
Not every state, non-state actor, or leader desires stability. Not every state, non-state actor, or leader respects the interests of other states. To revolutionary leaders bent on dominating land, locking up access to natural resources, spreading an ideology, or some other foreign policy area in which other states' interests are affected, isolationism--partial (e.g., foreign policy abdication, only) or complete (foreign policy, economic, cultural, and political)--is read as weakness. Weakness is exploited.
Finally, the world has never resided in a "perpetual peace." Hence, it is par for the course that a state will get "bloodied" from time to time as it seeks to protect its interests. Isolationism would not change that. Hence, the notion that there is a simple formula that would prevent such an outcome is not consistent with world affairs. Barring a dramatic change in human nature, seeking to reduce the risk of a major conflict (nuclear or conventional) is a far more realistic objective than bringing about an end to bloodshed altogether. A pragmatic Realist foreign policy that combines a balance of power and legitimizing principles offers perhaps the best approach for pursuing that objective. Isolationism contributes nothing and may actually augment the risk given the signal of weakness it transmits.
It all boils down to oil ..tsk, tsk
At last check, the world consumes 84.8 million barrels of oil per day. The U.S. consumes 18.7 million barrels per day. Oil remains an integral component of the world's energy supply. Until that situation changes, access to oil will matter greatly.
(Aside from those matters, Iran is a revolutionary state. It is not committed to stability in the Middle East but creating a new Middle Eastern order compatible with its "Islamic Revolution.)
These are hollow claims not played out by any facts or recent developments. It is the USA and other western nations who have launched aggressive wars and shattered the stability in the Middle East. It is us who have toppled governments, occupied nations and created millions of refugees, refugees which have flooded into countries like Iran.
Destroying the stability of the Middle east and creating a new "pro-western" order was the dream of every neo-conservative in Washington and it is what guided US foreign policy for 8 years. The Iranians in this time looked primarily to protect themselves from US aggression, they have offered on numerous occasions to engage in talks with no pre-conditions, all of which were rejected by the Bush administration. The groups they support in the Middle East are hugely popular within their own countries, and look to Iran primarily for guidance, the support which they receive form Iran can at best be described as modest in the grand scheme of things. The US in contrast supplies huge amounts of weaponry, money and military training to several countries in the Middle East, many with abysmal human rights records. If any country is looking to "transform" the Middle East and destroy the stability there it is the USA, after all, Americans won't have to stay there forever like the Iranians do. The only irony of the entire situation is that it is many of the the "democratic" reforms originally demanded by the Bush administration which have benefitted groups which you may term pro-Iranian.
("...The Iranians in this time looked primarily to protect themselves from US aggression, they have offered on numerous occasions to engage in talks with no pre-conditions, all of which were rejected by the Bush administration)
This is completely Untrue/a mockery.
'Negotiations' have been going on for years thru Many rounds. With many countries/groups/Agencies.
This is Iran's Tactic.
DELAY
I posted this same thing YEARS ago and nothing has changed.
Except Iran is winning with the tactic and playing client states Russia/China against everyone else.
Three years ago the EU offered Iran FREE Off-site enrichment for nuclear power.
Of course, OFF-site enrichment, would make diversion of weapons grade materials almost impossible, so Iran Refused this Windfall which would have ended the crisis.
So much for 'power'. And confirmed by the latest... now staggering centrifuge project.
(as if this low tech Oil/Gas Giant needs to risk/expense/get-sanctioned for a nuclear plant or two for 'power generation' anyway. Ironically, Iran has gasoline shortages! because they don't have enough refineries. Hey, there's an idea for legitimate energy infrastructure building!)
Every negotiation ends in Failure-- sanctions are enacted, or larger ones threatened and Iran "Calls for New Talks".
More DELAY.
Oh! a new offer of "talks/breakthrough" by some Iranian Govt lackey.
And so it goes for 5+ Years. Completely transparent nonsense.
Everyone, it seems, knows the game by now except the above.
I think this is enough for now cuz it will take 10 pages to post all as the comments keep coming in.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
It's nice that you've found another place to play. I wish you well. :waving:
dt3, you really think we're justified in yet another preemptive strike?
dt3, you really think we're justified in yet another preemptive strike?
Not playing really. Every forum is different. Each has its own culture, strengths and weaknesses.
Justification is subject to interpretation. What would it take to justify this strike? Would the UN have to ok it for it to be justified? If we just sit back and let Israel do it, does that absolve us of the responsibility of having to justify it?
Should we even have to justify it in the first place? The way I see it, this is a threat to our national security. It's been known for decades and proven countless times that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. If we wait until they can make a bomb to do something, it may already be too late. How easy would it be for them to smuggle one across the border and set it off near the Green Zone in Baghdad?
I don't think it's our place to tell them they can't use nuclear power peacefully, that's their decision and right as a soverign nation. BUT I think it should be done under the close scrutiny of UN inspectors and other regulatory agencies. If they aren't willing to do that, then I don't see any reason to trust them not to use this technology for the wrong reasons.
You'll notice I didn't even mention their leader who's sworn to destroy Israel as soon as they have nuclear weapons. That doesn't make it our fight, imo. If Israel were to launch a preemptive strike tomorrow, I think it would be totally justified. If we were to use this as a reason for us to do it, I would disagree. I think there are enough compelling reasons for us to step in and do something that we don't even need to play the Israel card.
yeah, i was thinking the other day i should ground my daughter because i just know she could do something bad anyway...lol
so yeah, we should just blow everyone off the map just in case...lol
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I don't give 2 shits about the UN ... fucking corrupt snake's nest if you ask me. Israel can do what they feel is necessary. They have a bigger dog in this hunt than we do.
I can't support a preemptive strike. It just doesn't fit wth my view of America.dt3 said:
The UN has shown time and again that they don't have the balls - or probably even the desire - to say or do anything even if Iran had a nuclear parade down their Embassy Row. I don't know why you'd accept their oversight.dt3 said:
We agree about Israel anyway.dt3 said:
Believe it or not, we agree about the UN too. I think it's a worthless organization that has completely failed at it's intended purpose and shouldn't receive any more money from us. I just used them as an example to see if you thought UN approval would justify action on our part 
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, we agree about the UN too. I think it's a worthless organization that has completely failed at it's intended purpose and shouldn't receive any more money from us. I just used them as an example to see if you thought UN approval would justify action on our part
Aha!This president's not going to approve a preemptive strike anyway. When we have such politically focused, incompetent leadership hampering any military action, the best thing for the troops is just to come the fuck home. Lives are just being wasted right now.
Meirionnydd
Active Member
Quite difficult. Come on, it’s not like anything is going to get through the massive security cordon surrounding the Green Zone... Oh wait. Okay, scratch that.
But, how is attacking the Green Zone in Baghdad a threat to the national security of the United States? By the time Iran would be able to make and deploy a nuclear weapon; I don’t think that there would be a sizeable US military presence in Iraq anyway.
Besides, WHY would Iran set off a nuclear weapon in Iraq? I know the regime is completely fucking crazy, but they’re not stupid. Setting off a nuke in Iraq would not be a sound or even a logical option for the Iranians, either militarily or diplomatically. Assuming that I’ve misinterpreted your statement and you meant that Iran would give the weapon to terrorist groups, and then they would do their dirty work for them; I don’t think Iran would be willing to hand over their most advanced weaponry to a bunch of insurgents.
But if your scenario turns out to be true, you could probably say goodbye to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The US would gain a caucus belli for attacking Iran, and could justifiably use retaliatory nuclear strikes. Furthermore, Iran would completely be alienated from the rest of the world. I don’t think fellow Muslims would take kindly to the murder of their own kind in such a matter, either.
I agree, during the Shah’s reign, the Iranians became a signatory to the NPT, which allowed the Iranian’s to pursue nuclear power for civilian use, (The only countries allowed to lawfully build nuclear stockpiles are: PRC, United States, France, USSR and the UK). However, I don’t think the Iranian’s can be trusted, so I support the UN to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities.
On a somewhat related note, Israel is not permitted to have nuclear weapons, as they are not permitted under the NPT to do so, nor are they a signatory to the treaty. But as we all know, Israel does actually have a stockpile of roughly 400 nuclear warheads.
He never actually said that. The only country, who has ever threatened to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is Israel, during the Yom Kippur war they hinted at a nuclear strike on the Syrian capital, Damascus, if the Syrian’s did not commit to a ceasefire.
I’m not entirely sure if the Israeli’s would be justified in attacking Iran. The Israeli’s however, attacked an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1983 in Operation Opera. Although at the attacks were condemned internationally at the time, years later the attacks were supported, as it was thought that the operation prevented the Iraqi’s from using radioactive weaponry during the Gulf War.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iran has already been known to provide the insurgents with advanced weaponry, from EFPs to UAVs. Iran is a widely known sponsor of terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. I don't think Iran would openly use a nuclear weapon, but I see no reason to assume they won't give it to one of these groups who will.
You're also right that Iran has never said they'll nuke Israel, I believe the exact words were "wipe them off the map". Maybe he was referring to using a rather large broom, but I doubt it.
You're also right that Iran has never said they'll nuke Israel, I believe the exact words were "wipe them off the map". Maybe he was referring to using a rather large broom, but I doubt it.
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members