The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Thanks for telling me what i'm debating about, there was me thinking i was just seeing something slightly wrong with a country where the leader has already stated he wishes to wipe another off the map having nuclear weapons and being able to potentially achieve that goal.
I've already stated in the past that no country should have nuclear weapons, however some do and there's no way you're getting a total nuclear disarment from them.
I've already stated in the past that no country should have nuclear weapons, however some do and there's no way you're getting a total nuclear disarment from them.
Kawada wrote:
> Thanks for telling me what i'm debating about, there was me
> thinking i was just seeing something slightly wrong with a
> country where the leader has already stated he wishes to wipe
> another off the map having nuclear weapons and being able to
> potentially achieve that goal.
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 ...
(New world order, the aforementioned 'if you don't agree with me you're against me) sounds disturbingly facist ...
> I've already stated in the past that no country should have
> nuclear weapons, however some do and there's no way you're
> getting a total nuclear disarment from them.
Too true, unfortunately ...
> Thanks for telling me what i'm debating about, there was me
> thinking i was just seeing something slightly wrong with a
> country where the leader has already stated he wishes to wipe
> another off the map having nuclear weapons and being able to
> potentially achieve that goal.
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 ...
(New world order, the aforementioned 'if you don't agree with me you're against me) sounds disturbingly facist ...
> I've already stated in the past that no country should have
> nuclear weapons, however some do and there's no way you're
> getting a total nuclear disarment from them.
Too true, unfortunately ...
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
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
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
Sucre bleu! Le poisson! Aiiiiiii!
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 ...
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:
> 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 ...
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?
Page: