Viewing Thread:
"Irans Nuclear "Faux Pas""

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 ... :)

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.

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.

You see the crucial fact here, and one that a lot of people miss, because it's all been done on the sly .. is that in this day and age .. you're guilty until proven innocent. It's the same whether you're a suspect in the dock, or a country with a nuclear program ...

I'm not a fan of Iran but trying to blow them up should be the last resort. Unfortunately the guy in charge is a retarded cowboy. Bombs away

You see the difference here is you're arguing FOR your country, where as I'm arguing that all nations should be treated equally, regardless of how much of a muppet their leader is ...

So exactly when was that pre-emptive strike on France then? I missed that

Kawada wrote:
> So you can't see anything wrong with a country, where its leader
> has already stated in the past he wishes another to be wiped off
> the map, possessing nuclear weapons?

No more than I can see something wrong with a country who's leader says 'If you are not with us, you are our enemy'

Ah Sweeney, what a show that was

So you can't see anything wrong with a country, where its leader has already stated in the past he wishes another to be wiped off the map, possessing nuclear weapons?

* Has thoughts of George Bush *
"You Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag, Ahmadinejad, you're f**king nicked mate!"