Conquer Club

I have missed arguing on here, but i also actually want to know what our transatlantic cousins think about Iran. What needs to go down and why?

You missed the option, "let them have nukes to keep U.S. Imperialism somewhat in check..."

lol to last poster

Honestly although the situation is potentially dangerous, and probably more dangerous than Iraq, its important to realize people within the country are not impressed with the rhetoric coming from the top. If anything the harder the hardline stances that are taken by the Iranian gov, will probably only draw them more ire from the developed world.

If anything we should either continue with sanctions or perhaps step up efforts to get iran involved more into the greater globalizing economic picture. Countries who trade together dont like to bomb each other, so the more energy that is spent helping iran to develop its economy, and this means letting some of the sanctions off, since if uranium is used for the right means it is helpful, so that Iran can move forward toward putting on the same golden straitjacket that much of the rest of the world continues to put on.

Get them integrated into the system, instead of trying to bludgeon them with a stick...and if they dont want in...live and let live.

I don't exactly agree with any of the options your poll offered.

First off, I think Iran (and every country) has a right to nuclear power. While I recognize nuclear power's potential dangers, it's more cost effective, safer, and more environmentally friendly than traditional fossil fuels, and it has the capacity to provide the Earth with all the energy it needs in a way that other "green" energy sources don't, at least until significant technological improvements are made. So between here and cold fusion, I'm down with nuclear energy.

Iran is UNDOUBTEDLY using its nuclear program to pursue viable commercial energy production. It already has several research reactors and a commercial reactor is now nearly complete.

However, I am very willing to believe and the evidence does possibly suggest that Iran is also pursuing nuclear weapon capabilities. While I wholeheartedly believe that Iran is in a big way (though not completely) run by CRAZIES, LOONIES, AND PSYCHOS, pursuing nuclear weapons is not totally unreasonable in an unstable region that is full of them (Israel, Pakistan, India) and in a world where your biggest enemy has thousands of them.

That said, I am against nuclear proliferation. Who, in a country that has nuclear weapons, isn't? I would prefer if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons and I think that every country in the world benefits in trying to prevent proliferation in any country in the world. So I think the United States and everyone should try to prevent Iran from developing real nuclear weapons. How?

Well, the US has to back off from the "no nuclear research, period" position. It's become a point of national pride in Iran that it's their right to have nuclear power. Iran is telling the world, and its own people, that it's not pursuing nuclear weapons. The IAEA doesn't believe the US's accusations about Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities. I think at this point continued diplomacy is the most logical response. The US needs to demonstrate to Iran that if it is truly only interested in nuclear power, it has nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to be defensive about.

Iran has undergone massive social and structural changes in the past 10 years, becoming an increasingly open and just society. The debate on Iran's nuclear program takes emphasis away from the bigger issues of the continued human rights abuses in Iran and the nascent buddings of democracy and liberalism there. These are the real issues that affect Iranians lives everyday and that need more attention from the US, other liberal democracies, and international civil society.

Of course, none if this is going to happen under the present US administration, but I expect big things out of the Richardson Presidency starting in '09.

got tonkaed wrote:perhaps step up efforts to get iran involved more into the greater globalizing economic picture. Countries who trade together dont like to bomb each other, so the more energy that is spent helping iran to develop its economy, and this means letting some of the sanctions off, since if uranium is used for the right means it is helpful, so that Iran can move forward toward putting on the same golden straitjacket that much of the rest of the world continues to put on.

Yes, I totally concur.

How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

unriggable wrote:How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

A teacher told me once that we ( the US) have enough nukes to blow up the entire world 4 or 5 times. I dont know if i should beleive it though. He was kind of an idiot

pitbull 993 wrote:

unriggable wrote:How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

A teacher told me once that we ( the US) have enough nukes to blow up the entire world 4 or 5 times. I dont know if i should beleive it though. He was kind of an idiot

I thionk at the height of the cold war we had enough to blow the earth over ten times.

unriggable wrote:

pitbull 993 wrote:

unriggable wrote:How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

A teacher told me once that we ( the US) have enough nukes to blow up the entire world 4 or 5 times. I dont know if i should beleive it though. He was kind of an idiot

I thionk at the height of the cold war we had enough to blow the earth over ten times.

wouldnt doubt it

Nuclear wars would be like playing escalating card games

unriggable wrote:How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

this really doesn't matter. All they need is a few to, in effect, destroy the country. (perhaps bomb Washington, New York, and LA)

for dummies wrote:

unriggable wrote:How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

this really doesn't matter. All they need is a few to, in effect, destroy the country. (perhaps bomb Washington, New York, and LA)

And the ships to send the bombs...we'd get an alert very soon, and we'd dispatch fighter planes to stop them.

btownmeggy wrote:Of course, none if this is going to happen under the present US administration, but I expect big things out of the Richardson Presidency starting in '09.

...as in Bill Richardson from New Mexico?

beezer wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Of course, none if this is going to happen under the present US administration, but I expect big things out of the Richardson Presidency starting in '09.

...as in Bill Richardson from New Mexico?

That's right. http://www.richardsonforpresident.com

This mostly makes sense and I keep agreeing. Is no one going to be rabidly arcist, or go off on some misplaced rant about 'arabs'? When is god going to come into this?

btownmeggy wrote:]Iran has undergone massive social and structural changes in the past 10 years, becoming an increasingly open and just society. The debate on Iran's nuclear program takes emphasis away from the bigger issues of the continued human rights abuses in Iran and the nascent buddings of democracy and liberalism there. These are the real issues that affect Iranians lives everyday and that need more attention from the US, other liberal democracies, and international civil society.

I couldnae agree more. But it DOES seem as though the rantings of Ahmedinijad [sp? no idea] and ayatollic insanity are overshadowing the progress you mentioned. It's propaganda, of course, and people do fall for it - i don't mean Ahmedinininijijiad isn't certifiable, just that, as you say, there is no slavering, brainwashed populace ready to invade jerusalem. I don't think. Iran is being made to seem a lot more dangerous than it is.

Anyway, no one attacked israel when Vanunu blew the whistle, did they?
I always used to imagine Kruschev and Kennedy on the hotline, about to blow the world and everything in it to smithereens, and it would get REALLY tense until one of them went: "this is MAD, isn't it?" And then they would both collapse with giggles and we would all be saved.

unriggable wrote:

for dummies wrote:

unriggable wrote:How many weapons could Iran develop with its technology? We'll still be the big nuclear power: I think we (US) have 80,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

this really doesn't matter. All they need is a few to, in effect, destroy the country. (perhaps bomb Washington, New York, and LA)

And the ships to send the bombs...we'd get an alert very soon, and we'd dispatch fighter planes to stop them.

Or more to the point, the US would very probably not be the primary targets of any Iranian bombs.

Remember, Iran is in a tough neighbourhood when it comes to nuclear weapons - Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel, to say nothing of the submarine-borne weapons of others. It makes sense from a strategic point of view for them to arm up as well.

Not that I'm saying they should simply be allowed to arm up - but Israel & the US rattling sabres is surely hardly going to help.

EDIT: Where is the gfy option?

btownmeggy wrote:Of course, none if this is going to happen under the present US administration, but I expect big things out of the Richardson Presidency starting in '09.

Don't you mean the UNRIGGABLE ADMINISTRATION!!!!!! That's right, tonight, my friends, you are witnessing history in the making! I am announcing my candidacy, with Backglass as my running mate! I'd like to thank...[turns off TV]

First they're probably only a couple of bombs away from the stone age so that'll never work.

This pole needs more opshuns. Missing choices in addition to Stopper's sugestion include.

1.Try to make that sand into a giant mirror and light the moon brighter.

2.They want nukes lob some over there, they can try to salvage the ones that don't go off.

3.Islam is a religion of peace what could go wrong letting them build nukes?

2dimes wrote:3.Islam is a religion of peace what could go wrong letting them build nukes?

Oooof! That'll set the cat among the pigeons.

uh oh for people agree with me! tghe worlds gonna end starting with iran!
i want to know who picke dthe first one cause you guys rock

Sammy gags wrote:Nuclear wars would be like playing escalating card games

that was good i am going to use that for my sig

only if the cards started at like 4000. speaking of which did you see the game where they broke 50,000 armies on the board?

Blueoctober wrote:only if the cards started at like 4000. speaking of which did you see the game where they broke 50,000 armies on the board?

That's against the law.

Heavycola, perhaps you could state the poll another way?

What should IRAN do?

Bomb the fat yanks back to the stone age
23% [ 6 ]
Crank up the tension and hope for a revolution
11% [ 3 ]
"air strike" a prominent building
30% [ 8 ]
leave them alone - who are we to resist an imperialist aggressor?
19% [ 5 ]
leave them alone - it is only our oil they want
7% [ 2 ]
give North Korea the nod (and a load of suicide bombers)
7% [ 2 ]