Iran and a Tiny Nuke?

Should Iran be prevented of obtaining nukes?


  • Total voters
    97
Whomp said:
What I do know is 150,000 Iranian professionals leave the country each year, one of the highest rates of "brain drain" in the Middle East. I don’t think the U.S. has ever had this type of exodus.
That's true, and I've got a couple of mates who belong in this group - Iranian Kurds with some pretty advanced university degrees, socialism on their sleeves, and an intense dislike for 1.) Islam, 2.) the Iranian Mullahs, 3.) just generally Iranians and Iran, despite being products of its university system.

Fact is also, and a testament to Iran being a modern society, Iran keeps churning out highly educated professionals on a yearly basis to such an extent that it can possibly handle a 150.000/year brain-drain. No other country in the ME could prolly do that.

For all the lack of freedom, publishing critical scholarly and scientific books, Iranian originals or translated western literature, is perfectly possible. Doesn't matter if it's communist, atheist, satanist or whatever. It gets published.

These guys I know read all the pomo-French-socialist writers in Farsi/Persian. They get translated in a flash in Iran, and nobody seems to get in trouble.

Which is kind of the point of Iranian opression. Like all good dictatorships, who gets railroaded is at times pretty inconsistent. Sometimes the system will descend on the ass of some unlucky university teacher, but mostly they get to mind their own business, as long as it's not displayed in public.
 
Japanrocks12 said:
What about executing civilians for being Russian spies based on inexistant evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenbergs

What about making several thousand people lose their jobs because of ideology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
According to Soviet records they were spies, and it was thus perfectly legal to execute them for treason. Whether you agree that's a correct punishment or not is irrelavent, the fact is their civil rights were not violated and they were tried and executed fairly and within the US justice system.

I would think you would be a whole lot more enraged about all the gays being beheaded now even though they didn't commit any crime than over some Communist spies executed half a century ago. But I suppose that shows how illogical your entire argument is.

As for McCarthy - so what? Perhaps it's just me, but I would rather be falsely accused of being a communist and lose my job than get my head cut off by fanatics. But perhaps that's just me.

I'm not saying that Iran is more tolerant than the United States. I merely said that the Iranian record is very recent in comparison the United States, where such intolerance has continued for well over a century. This is what I meant as "extensive".
So because America did some bad things in the past, we're evil, but because Iran is doing worse things now they're all right? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Your entire argument is incomprehensible.
 
Verbose said:
That's true, and I've got a couple of mates who belong in this group - Iranian Kurds with some pretty advanced university degrees, socialism on their sleeves, and an intense dislike for 1.) Islam, 2.) the Iranian Mullahs, 3.) just generally Iranians and Iran, despite being products of its university system.
Everything I've read about the Iranian youth is impressive. Considering they are not as religious as their parents gives hope. 70% of them are under 30 so I can only maybe they will shift the country in the right direction.
 
After watching the news and reading the press the last few days, i don't know when it will happen but i know it will eh.

It looks the US, EU and Russia are together this time.. They won't allow Iran to continue their research program and we can only wait for the worse to happen. :(
 
Bugfatty300 said:
4,000 people executed for being gay since the 1980.
I'd like to see your source for this.

Bugfatty300 said:
....120,000 political execution since 1980? I mean come on your assertion that Iran is more tolerant than the US is laughable.
Political executions are political, they have nothing to do with intolerance.

Bugfatty300 said:
Huh? Iran (Persia) has existed for thousands of years. How tolerant was Iran in 1776? How tolerant was Iran in 1107? You have no way of knowing what you're talking about.
Actually Iran was much more tolerant in 1107 than it is now.

nonconformist said:
I might just throw in to this conversation, for context, that Iran's current state is a result of US foreign policy.
Than You!
 
nonconformist said:
I might just throw in to this conversation, for context, that Iran's current state is a result of US foreign policy.
If we didn't knock Mossadegh out, he would've caused a lot more damage and the Iranians would have eventually hung him (like they should have.)
 
Xshayathiya said:
I'd like to see your source for this.

Sure. There are more all over google. Homosexuality in Iran is a capital offense.

http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2005/August/London/index.html

Political executions are political, they have nothing to do with intolerance.

Intolerance of people with oposing political view points.

If you support or where involved with so and so's outlawed party then you can be excuted or imprisoned. Sounds like intolerance to me.
 
rmsharpe said:
If we didn't knock Mossadegh out, he would've caused a lot more damage
Maybe to the US and UK's economies, but not to Iran.

rmsharpe said:
I'd like to see the source for your McCarthy quote.
I didnt quote McCarthy

Bugfatty300 said:
Sure. There are more all over google. Homosexuality in Iran is a capital offense.

http://www.iranian.com/BTW/2005/August/London/index.html
Iranian.com is hardly a reliable source. I'll have to take your word for it, but i've never heard of anything like that in my whole life.

Bugfatty300 said:
Intolerance of people with oposing political view points.

If you support or where involved with so and so's outlawed party then you can be excuted or imprisoned. Sounds like intolerance to me.
I'm fairly sure ethnic and religious intolerance were the ones in question. But if you want to talk about political intolerance, Iran is hardly the worst.
 
rmsharpe said:
If we didn't knock Mossadegh out, he would've caused a lot more damage and the Iranians would have eventually hung him (like they should have.)
A democratically elected president replaced by an authauratarian tyrant?
Pull the other one.
 
Xshayathiya said:
Iranian.com is hardly a reliable source. I'll have to take your word for it, but i've never heard of anything like that in my whole life.
Reported today.
Iran: Amnesty International calls for end to death penalty for child offenders
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130052006
Spoiler :
On 3 January, 18-year-old Nazanin was sentenced to death for murder by a criminal court, after she reportedly admitted stabbing to death one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj in March 2005. She was seventeen at the time. Her sentence is subject to review by the Court of Appeal, and if upheld, to confirmation by the Supreme Court.


Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct (a public hanging)
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm
Spoiler :

On Sunday, November 13, the semi-official Tehran daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian government publicly hung two men, Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar Square of the northern town of Gorgan.
The government reportedly executed the two men for the crime of "lavat." Iran’s shari`a-based penal code defines lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty. Non-penetrative sexual acts between men are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are punished with death. Sexual acts between women, which are defined differently, are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are also punished with death.



Here's an human rights overview of Iran today.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/iran9803.htm
 
I'm not so much worried that Iran would use them, but that they would "allow" them to fall into the hands of terrorists.
 
Xshayathiya said:
Iranian.com is hardly a reliable source. I'll have to take your word for it, but i've never heard of anything like that in my whole life.

You never heard of those two gay teenagers that where executed not long ago? The 4,000 estimate comes from anesty international. That was just a site carrying the story. There are other sources if you search google.

Its pretty well established that such "immoral" things such as homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, carry the death penalty in Iran.

A judge not long ago had a 16 year old girl hanged for "having a sharp tongue" in his court room.

Thanks to whomp for providing more sources.

I'm fairly sure ethnic and religious intolerance were the ones in question. But if you want to talk about political intolerance, Iran is hardly the worst.

No its not the worst but Iran is one of the worst in the Middle East for these kind of religious and political persecution next to Saudi Arabia and maybe Oman. But that’s not the point. When I gave those numbers I was responding to posts claiming America was no better than Iran.
 
la cosa nostra said:
A nuclear weapon in the hands of religious psychos is always a daunting prospect ...

Exactly. It's just a bad idea.

la cosa nostra said:
which is why the USA is a worry too ..

We don't allow religion to interfere with military politics or strategy in any way, shape, or form. Only a country of religious revolutionary terroristic psychos would allow it. We use the most effective strategy to win, during a war, conventional tactics work best. During a war dealing exclusively in defense (i.e. Vietnam) or police actions, conventional tactics don't work so well.

Vietnam wasn't an offensive war, because we, for the most part, defended S. Vietnam. We didn't invade the North.
 
"God spoke to me and he said George go free those people!"

Or something to the effect.....
 
nonconformist said:
A democratically elected president replaced by an authauratarian tyrant?
Pull the other one.
Democratically elected? Are we talking about the one that held a rigged referendum, demanded full control of the army, suspended the parliament, tried to remove the Shah, and tried to force himself as the head of state?

Nobody in Iran elected Mossadegh to be dictator-for-life.
 
No, I'm talkimng about the one who the UK and US disliked becaus ehe didn't fit into their economic plans, and so used the CIA to stir dissent, eventually being deposed by a UK-US backed coup resoponsible for many deaths, and the whole destablisation of Iran and the mddle east.
 
Illini Rule said:
while you have a giant pile of nukes, you should never tell someone that they cant have any
Nonsense!

Here is the IAEA[International Atomic Energy Agency]

ARTICLE II: Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.
If u deny legitamacy of the IAEA,then i cant agrue with you no more

Here is the UN[United Nations]

Article 1


The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace
If u deny the legitamacy of the UN,then i cant argue with you no more

and recent news of the UN in regarding the Iranians flirting with the idea of having nukes.
Secretary-General urges Iranian nuclear negotiator to avoid escalation

Kofi Annan
12 January 2006 – Responding to Iran’s decision to end its suspension of uranium enrichment activities, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today urged Tehran’s key nuclear official to find a negotiated settlement and later briefed key countries on his diplomatic efforts.

Mr. Annan, who also spoke extensively today with Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told reporters that he is “extremely concerned” about the situation.

While enriched uranium can be used for peaceful purposes such as generating energy, it is also used to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons and insists that its programme is solely for civilian energy production, but the IAEA wants to clarify Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Mr. Annan said he called Ali Larijani “to urge him to avoid any escalation, to exercise restraint, to go back and give the negotiations a chance, and that the only viable solution lies in a negotiated one.”

The Secretary-General added that the Iranian negotiator “affirmed to me that they are interested in serious and constructive negotiations, but within a time frame.”

Asked how the issue should be dealt with, Mr. Annan said: “First of all, I think we should try and resolve it, if possible, in the IAEA context.”

He noted that Mr. ElBaradei is working to find a solution. “Once that process is exhausted, it may end up in the [Security] Council and then I would leave it to the Council, to decide what to do, if it were to come here,” the Secretary-General said. “I wouldn’t want to pre-empt them.”

Mr. Annan said he would pursue his personal efforts as well. “I have been talking to all the parties, doing whatever I can to encourage a negotiated settlement and really keeping people at the table and trying to discourage escalation, and I will continue to do that,” he said. “My good offices are always available; if I need to do more, and the parties so wish, I will do it.”

The Secretary-General later met with representatives of France, the United Kingdom, and Germany – the so-called “EU-3” – as well as the Russian Federation and the United States to brief them on his conversation with Mr. Larijani.

In a statement issued later Mr. Annan said “the interest of all concerned is for a constructive process that will give diplomacy a chance.”

Earlier this week, IAEA inspectors reported that Iran had broken Agency seals at the Natanz facility and two related storage and testing locations, Pars Trash and Farayand Technique.

The previous week, Iran had requested that the IAEA lift the seals, which covered centrifuge components, special steel, high strength aluminium and centrifuge quality control and manufacturing equipment, as well as two cylinders containing UF6 located at Natanz. UF6 is uranium hexafluoride, which flows through the centrifuges in the enrichment process.

The seals also covered some process equipment at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz.

Iran’s Safeguards Agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) authorizes the IAEA to “apply its seals and other identifying and tamper-indicating devices” as needed.

Iran suspended all uranium enrichment and reprocessing in 2004 in the so-called Paris agreement for talks with the EU-3 to resolve issues arising out of the disclosure that it had for almost two decades concealed its nuclear activities in breach of the NPT.
I dont understand that some of these 'people' can justify in thier right mind and reason that it is justifiable that a regime [Iranian Mullahs]that is so aggressive and atagonistic in that given region of the world should have the right to obtain nukes?

We already have enough bullies with nukes in the world,that is the reason some of these organizations exist.
 
It's not out of the question that they already have acquired nuclear weapons, either from Pakistan, former SSR's, or maybe even Russia itself (wouldn't surprise me). Meanwhile, holding that card close to their chest, they want their own weapons production capability so they can produce more, and supply themselves with nukes in the future.

There's only two possibilities that I can discern as to why they're being so blatant. 1, they have high confidence, in that they already have 'the bomb', thus if anyone really wants to give them a hard time, they can already defend themselves, or 2, they're simply trying to bait the Bush administration into a full-scale Jihad, involving the majority of the Islamic world.

In any case, the U.S. gov't needs to play it cool, and proceed exactly as they have been. Unilaterally - as much as possible. Unfortunately, sanctions will not stop anything, and time is critical. It would seem they are very close to production capacity. So, if you really want to stop them from reaching that capacity (and again, they may already have a secret cache), now pretty much is the time to do something about it, if you're ever going to.

We really need Putin to step up to the plate. This is bascially Russia's sphere of influence. I guess, with whatever step (if any) Russia takes next, well really see just how genuine Putin's desire to buddy-buddy up to the U.S./West really is, or whether it's just been an act, with a series of gestures.

If they want nukes, they're going to get them, though. And personally, I'd be surprised if they haven't already. :nuke:
 
Back
Top Bottom