The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just thought I'd raise the topic of the seemingly impending war with Iran over its insistence in enriching its own nuclear materials.
My knowledge on the subject is fairly limited, but from what I understand, we (being part of the UN security council) have deemed it acceptable for Iran to use Nuclear power, but NOT to enrich its own nuclear fuels, in case these are used in the construction of weapons. As far as I'm aware there is no proof that Iran plan to use this material for use in weapons, and in my personal opinion, they should have the right to enrich nuclear fuels in the same way that we do and many other countries in the UN.
Some things that came to my mind is that if Iran is not allowed to enrich its own fuel, it would be forced to buy this fuel from other countries, meaning there is a motive here in the form of profit, to control Irans nuclear program. Aside from that, yeah it's easy to jump on the 'I hate Bush' bandwagon, but is he on a mission to alienate every single Islamic country in the world? Does he have a vendetta against the whole Middle East? It seems to be that way, and war with Iran is only going to fuel the divide between those who believe in an Islamic state and those who don't.
I have to admit when I heard about 'War with Iran?' on the news the other night it sickened me. It seems like the US led UN is bullying all the smaller nations of the world ... 'we say jump, you say how high' ... that sort of thing.
Yeah, it's not a completely well rounded arguement, but I just wanted to hear your views on it all. Are we going to stumble from one disasterous encounter (Iraq) into another ... ? What gives us the right to tell other nations how they can live, what they can and can't do? Who made us the world police? Let's have your views ... :)
My knowledge on the subject is fairly limited, but from what I understand, we (being part of the UN security council) have deemed it acceptable for Iran to use Nuclear power, but NOT to enrich its own nuclear fuels, in case these are used in the construction of weapons. As far as I'm aware there is no proof that Iran plan to use this material for use in weapons, and in my personal opinion, they should have the right to enrich nuclear fuels in the same way that we do and many other countries in the UN.
Some things that came to my mind is that if Iran is not allowed to enrich its own fuel, it would be forced to buy this fuel from other countries, meaning there is a motive here in the form of profit, to control Irans nuclear program. Aside from that, yeah it's easy to jump on the 'I hate Bush' bandwagon, but is he on a mission to alienate every single Islamic country in the world? Does he have a vendetta against the whole Middle East? It seems to be that way, and war with Iran is only going to fuel the divide between those who believe in an Islamic state and those who don't.
I have to admit when I heard about 'War with Iran?' on the news the other night it sickened me. It seems like the US led UN is bullying all the smaller nations of the world ... 'we say jump, you say how high' ... that sort of thing.
Yeah, it's not a completely well rounded arguement, but I just wanted to hear your views on it all. Are we going to stumble from one disasterous encounter (Iraq) into another ... ? What gives us the right to tell other nations how they can live, what they can and can't do? Who made us the world police? Let's have your views ... :)
Page:
Borat wrote:
> Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the
> technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have
> that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us
> that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like
> 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So
> what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self
> sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be
> trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...
Maybe the Cold War standoff was a wake up to the world of just how close we came to tipping over the edge and so it's wiser to avoid any type of similar situation happening again, which don't kid yourself Israel and Iran would be.
> To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think
> we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only
> have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue
> what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other
> nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the
> face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM
> leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was, will
> cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know full
> well they would be completely gone if they fired even a firework
> towards another country.
They fired a couple of warheads into the ocean quite pitifully yet are still here.
The point i'm debating is that a nation where its leader has said it wishes to destroy another nation isn't one i'd exactly be thrilled with of having nuclear weapons and actually be able to do so. For all the mistakes and hap-hazard way of doing things Bush has done in his handling of the Iraq war that is just a tiny drop in the ocean of the frenzy that would be unleashed if Iran possessed Nuclear Weapons.
> Well I wasn't really selecting them as a particular threat, more
> as a way of illustrating they are as good a target as any other
> country ... communist state, nuclear technology ... didn't do
> much for the Soviets ...
Heh having lived in China it's progressively getting about as communist as America. The Chinese are more than warming to the ideals of greed and capitalism don't worry about that.
> Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the
> technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have
> that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us
> that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like
> 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So
> what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self
> sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be
> trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...
Maybe the Cold War standoff was a wake up to the world of just how close we came to tipping over the edge and so it's wiser to avoid any type of similar situation happening again, which don't kid yourself Israel and Iran would be.
> To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think
> we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only
> have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue
> what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other
> nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the
> face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM
> leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was, will
> cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know full
> well they would be completely gone if they fired even a firework
> towards another country.
They fired a couple of warheads into the ocean quite pitifully yet are still here.
The point i'm debating is that a nation where its leader has said it wishes to destroy another nation isn't one i'd exactly be thrilled with of having nuclear weapons and actually be able to do so. For all the mistakes and hap-hazard way of doing things Bush has done in his handling of the Iraq war that is just a tiny drop in the ocean of the frenzy that would be unleashed if Iran possessed Nuclear Weapons.
> Well I wasn't really selecting them as a particular threat, more
> as a way of illustrating they are as good a target as any other
> country ... communist state, nuclear technology ... didn't do
> much for the Soviets ...
Heh having lived in China it's progressively getting about as communist as America. The Chinese are more than warming to the ideals of greed and capitalism don't worry about that.
Kawada wrote:
> Doesn't matter how small a nation is, any nation with Nuclear
> weapons is a danger, especially one that has already stated it
> wishes to wipe another from the map.
That's true ... but then America perfected the A-bomb first, I don't know the full chronology but the Soviet Union was certainly the next to develop the technology to the stage where it was a threat not only to America, but to the entire world. A stand off occured but no-one ever went through with 'pushing the button' as it were. Why? Well I like to think it's because, as warped as the human race can become, as extreme as some peoples views are, people just aren't stupid enough to destroy the whole world just to make a point. That may not be true, but I like to believe it is.
Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...
To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was, will cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know full well they would be completely gone if they fired even a firework towards another country.
> Pakistan and India, while
> only to a small degree, trade with each other, they co-exist, i
> can't see Israel and Iran doing that once Iran gains nuclear
> capabilities and it'd only be a matter of time before one of
> them is launching a missile over to the other. Maybe i'm wrong,
> maybe once they both have nuclear weapons they'll agree they
> don't both wish to be destroyed and then skip a merry ring a
> rosey together, however i doubt it
We just don't know that. No-one has ever had the stupidity to start a nuclear war, and with all these bullying tactics, it'll be us in the west that eventually push things too far, to the point where these smaller, repressed nations, have no option but to fight back.
> China ... surely they are a threat ...
>
> Why exactly?
Well I wasn't really selecting them as a particular threat, more as a way of illustrating they are as good a target as any other country ... communist state, nuclear technology ... didn't do much for the Soviets ...
> Doesn't matter how small a nation is, any nation with Nuclear
> weapons is a danger, especially one that has already stated it
> wishes to wipe another from the map.
That's true ... but then America perfected the A-bomb first, I don't know the full chronology but the Soviet Union was certainly the next to develop the technology to the stage where it was a threat not only to America, but to the entire world. A stand off occured but no-one ever went through with 'pushing the button' as it were. Why? Well I like to think it's because, as warped as the human race can become, as extreme as some peoples views are, people just aren't stupid enough to destroy the whole world just to make a point. That may not be true, but I like to believe it is.
Another nation wishes to test the nuclear water and use the technology itself, yet we step in and say 'Hey, you can't have that, you can't be trusted with it!' who was there to tell us that when we were dabbling with huge warheads, and terms like 'Mutually Assured Destruction' were being used? No-one. So what gives us the right to A) Deprive a nation of a self sufficient nuclear program .... and B) to say 'you can't be trusted with that, you don't share our views' ...
To me it's just down to a form of control. We like to think we're the most evolved society here in the west, but you only have to watch TV or read the news to see we haven't got a clue what we're doing. So who are we to force our beliefs on other nations like that? The guy may have said he'd wipe us off the face of the planet, but he knows full well that if one ICBM leaves his soil with no warning ... his country, as it was, will cease to exist. It's the same with North Korea. They know full well they would be completely gone if they fired even a firework towards another country.
> Pakistan and India, while
> only to a small degree, trade with each other, they co-exist, i
> can't see Israel and Iran doing that once Iran gains nuclear
> capabilities and it'd only be a matter of time before one of
> them is launching a missile over to the other. Maybe i'm wrong,
> maybe once they both have nuclear weapons they'll agree they
> don't both wish to be destroyed and then skip a merry ring a
> rosey together, however i doubt it
We just don't know that. No-one has ever had the stupidity to start a nuclear war, and with all these bullying tactics, it'll be us in the west that eventually push things too far, to the point where these smaller, repressed nations, have no option but to fight back.
> China ... surely they are a threat ...
>
> Why exactly?
Well I wasn't really selecting them as a particular threat, more as a way of illustrating they are as good a target as any other country ... communist state, nuclear technology ... didn't do much for the Soviets ...
Borat wrote:
> Criticism yes, but I can't see the US demanding Israel disarm
> immediately, can you? It seems to be one rule for one nation,
> another if you're allied to the UN or US.
No as like i said total disarment is out of the question, however they have criticised Israel many times in the past for their excessive actions.
> Like Pakistan and India? Do we start rattling sabres at them
> next? I can't see it ... Iran is, relatively speaking, a small
> nation, economically and from a military point of view. It
> seems like bullying to me ...
Doesn't matter how small a nation is, any nation with Nuclear weapons is a danger, especially one that has already stated it wishes to wipe another from the map. Pakistan and India, while only to a small degree, trade with each other, they co-exist, i can't see Israel and Iran doing that once Iran gains nuclear capabilities and it'd only be a matter of time before one of them is launching a missile over to the other. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe once they both have nuclear weapons they'll agree they don't both wish to be destroyed and then skip a merry ring a rosey together, however i doubt it
> China ... surely they are a threat ...
Why exactly?
> Criticism yes, but I can't see the US demanding Israel disarm
> immediately, can you? It seems to be one rule for one nation,
> another if you're allied to the UN or US.
No as like i said total disarment is out of the question, however they have criticised Israel many times in the past for their excessive actions.
> Like Pakistan and India? Do we start rattling sabres at them
> next? I can't see it ... Iran is, relatively speaking, a small
> nation, economically and from a military point of view. It
> seems like bullying to me ...
Doesn't matter how small a nation is, any nation with Nuclear weapons is a danger, especially one that has already stated it wishes to wipe another from the map. Pakistan and India, while only to a small degree, trade with each other, they co-exist, i can't see Israel and Iran doing that once Iran gains nuclear capabilities and it'd only be a matter of time before one of them is launching a missile over to the other. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe once they both have nuclear weapons they'll agree they don't both wish to be destroyed and then skip a merry ring a rosey together, however i doubt it
> China ... surely they are a threat ...
Why exactly?
Kawada wrote:
> What news sources were you watching/reading? All i ever heard was
> constant criticism of Israel for its actions.
Criticism yes, but I can't see the US demanding Israel disarm immediately, can you? It seems to be one rule for one nation, another if you're allied to the UN or US.
> But hey let's have Iran with Nuclear Weapons and have 2 nations
> which loathe each other having them pointed at each other ready
> to go past the point of no return, nothing wrong with that
Like Pakistan and India? Do we start rattling sabres at them next? I can't see it ... Iran is, relatively speaking, a small nation, economically and from a military point of view. It seems like bullying to me ...
China ... surely they are a threat ...
> What news sources were you watching/reading? All i ever heard was
> constant criticism of Israel for its actions.
Criticism yes, but I can't see the US demanding Israel disarm immediately, can you? It seems to be one rule for one nation, another if you're allied to the UN or US.
> But hey let's have Iran with Nuclear Weapons and have 2 nations
> which loathe each other having them pointed at each other ready
> to go past the point of no return, nothing wrong with that
Like Pakistan and India? Do we start rattling sabres at them next? I can't see it ... Iran is, relatively speaking, a small nation, economically and from a military point of view. It seems like bullying to me ...
China ... surely they are a threat ...
What news sources were you watching/reading? All i ever heard was constant criticism of Israel for its actions.
But hey let's have Iran with Nuclear Weapons and have 2 nations which loathe each other having them pointed at each other ready to go past the point of no return, nothing wrong with that
But hey let's have Iran with Nuclear Weapons and have 2 nations which loathe each other having them pointed at each other ready to go past the point of no return, nothing wrong with that
Kawada wrote:
>
> As i haven't heard him threaten to blow any of those nations off
> the map then no he hasn't.
No, he just went right ahead and did it instead ... Weapons of Mass destruction .... ah ... well ... we 'thought' they might have some ... oopsy ...
> Try and separate your obvious Bush hatred from the actual issue.
It's hard to when his foreign policy smacks of blatant racism and a complete disregard for the welfare of the nations he is claiming to 'fix'.
> Iran having Nuclear Weapons will make that region even more
> volatile than it already is
Perhaps, but then you could argue the same about Israel which is US backed. They didn't have a problem with levelling Beirut and killing thousands of people ... yet the whole thing was played down IMO ... Hezbollah kill a few hundred people with indirect rocket attacks and they are shown as evil godless savages. Israeli jets levelled whole cities killing thousands ... and hardly a smack on the wrist. Israel is a loose cannon, but will never get the rough treatment that places like Iran and Iraq do/did/will ...
>
> As i haven't heard him threaten to blow any of those nations off
> the map then no he hasn't.
No, he just went right ahead and did it instead ... Weapons of Mass destruction .... ah ... well ... we 'thought' they might have some ... oopsy ...
> Try and separate your obvious Bush hatred from the actual issue.
It's hard to when his foreign policy smacks of blatant racism and a complete disregard for the welfare of the nations he is claiming to 'fix'.
> Iran having Nuclear Weapons will make that region even more
> volatile than it already is
Perhaps, but then you could argue the same about Israel which is US backed. They didn't have a problem with levelling Beirut and killing thousands of people ... yet the whole thing was played down IMO ... Hezbollah kill a few hundred people with indirect rocket attacks and they are shown as evil godless savages. Israeli jets levelled whole cities killing thousands ... and hardly a smack on the wrist. Israel is a loose cannon, but will never get the rough treatment that places like Iran and Iraq do/did/will ...
Sucre bleu! Le poisson! Aiiiiiii!
Pah, the moment one of those fish washes up on the beach they love to blow up they'll be surrendering in a heartbeat :-D
Kawada wrote:
> So exactly when was that pre-emptive strike on France then? I
> missed that
France has nukes.
There's your difference. :D
> So exactly when was that pre-emptive strike on France then? I
> missed that
France has nukes.
There's your difference. :D
Borat wrote:
> Aye well that's fair enough, but (and please don't think I'm
> picking on the US here, it's just that, well let's face it ...
> they're leading pretty much any current conflict you can name),
> the US leader and his rag tag bunch of high noon headcases ...
> have said things far more frightening to me than any Kim Jong
> Il, Saddam Hussein or (forgive my ignorance) the Iran president
> has said ...
As i haven't heard him threaten to blow any of those nations off the map then no he hasn't.
Try and separate your obvious Bush hatred from the actual issue. Iran having Nuclear Weapons will make that region even more volatile than it already is
> Aye well that's fair enough, but (and please don't think I'm
> picking on the US here, it's just that, well let's face it ...
> they're leading pretty much any current conflict you can name),
> the US leader and his rag tag bunch of high noon headcases ...
> have said things far more frightening to me than any Kim Jong
> Il, Saddam Hussein or (forgive my ignorance) the Iran president
> has said ...
As i haven't heard him threaten to blow any of those nations off the map then no he hasn't.
Try and separate your obvious Bush hatred from the actual issue. Iran having Nuclear Weapons will make that region even more volatile than it already is
Page: