Register | Login
Views: 19364387
Main | Memberlist | Active users | ACS | Commons | Calendar | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat
11-02-05 12:59 PM
0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate.
Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - What is Iran trying to do? | |
Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
BlackDays

Red Tektite
Level: 16

Posts: 57/77
EXP: 16399
For next: 3857

Since: 03-23-04
From: The United Nations ... wait, thats not a country?

Since last post: 235 days
Last activity: 229 days
Posted on 02-24-05 05:26 AM Link | Quote
I'm sure that those of you who watch CNN are already aware that Iran is developing nuclear technology which could very well be used in the development of nuclear weapons. Several countries in Europe have joined with the United States is putting pressure on Iran to stop its development of these technologies. The U.S. has also put pressure on Iran's partner in the matter (Russia) to stop providing nuclear fuel to Iran and stop cooperation with Iran on this program.

Bush said that there would probably be no military action against Iran, but will not rule out the option completely. He said on Tuesday, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table." Iran has said that not only would an attack by the United States would fail, they would successfully repel it. Now does this mean that Iran is comfortable with the idea of war with the United States? If Iran goes to war with the U.S., will Russia join them?

Here are the links to some articles that discuss this matter on CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.russia/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/10/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/22/bush.iran.ap/index.html

I would like to know what some of you think of the matter... what do you think the outcome of a war with Iran would be? Do you think an actual Nuclear War could be in the not-so-distant future?
alte Hexe

Star Mario
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me
"But Joe you're ten years dead!"
"I never died" said he
"I never died!" said he
Level: 99

Posts: 3086/5458
EXP: 9854489
For next: 145511

Since: 03-15-04
From: ...

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
Posted on 02-24-05 05:42 AM Link | Quote
Russia will stay neutral. If Iran has the bomb, the US will have taught Middle Eastern nations an important lesson. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Colleen
Administrator
Level: 136

Posts: 6994/11302
EXP: 29369328
For next: 727587

Since: 03-15-04
From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
Posted on 02-24-05 07:17 AM Link | Quote
Bush doesn't have much time to TAKE military action against Iran in the first place, especially with Iraq still not a settled issue yet.

If nothing happens within a year, then nothing probably will happen. Second-term presidents don't have that long to make major decisions.
BlackDays

Red Tektite
Level: 16

Posts: 58/77
EXP: 16399
For next: 3857

Since: 03-23-04
From: The United Nations ... wait, thats not a country?

Since last post: 235 days
Last activity: 229 days
Posted on 02-24-05 07:29 AM Link | Quote
That's true, and Iran knows it is. They might take advantage of Bush's inability to take any real action..
alte Hexe

Star Mario
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me
"But Joe you're ten years dead!"
"I never died" said he
"I never died!" said he
Level: 99

Posts: 3090/5458
EXP: 9854489
For next: 145511

Since: 03-15-04
From: ...

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
Posted on 02-24-05 07:33 AM Link | Quote
Inability to take action? The president doesn't need to institute a full scale siege on Tehran. That would be horrifyingly stupid. Now, to incite a "people's army" into "revolution" for "liberty"...That's the US's usual weapon of subjugation.
Colleen
Administrator
Level: 136

Posts: 7001/11302
EXP: 29369328
For next: 727587

Since: 03-15-04
From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
Posted on 02-24-05 08:17 AM Link | Quote
Oh, they could do something along those lines without getting directly involved, but it's still pretty risky.

I can't see a full-scale invasion though. Bush's legacy is pretty much assured with the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, and it's not like the States could realistically afford another war.
alte Hexe

Star Mario
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me
"But Joe you're ten years dead!"
"I never died" said he
"I never died!" said he
Level: 99

Posts: 3092/5458
EXP: 9854489
For next: 145511

Since: 03-15-04
From: ...

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
Posted on 02-24-05 08:18 AM Link | Quote
They're already in debt, why not dive a little deeper? They don't have to pay anyone back as the current economic super-power on a divine crusade.
MathOnNapkins

Math n' Hacks
Level: 67

Posts: 1475/2189
EXP: 2495887
For next: 96985

Since: 03-18-04
From: Base Tourian

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 32 min.
Posted on 02-24-05 10:47 AM Link | Quote
darn tooting. yee haw
Gavin

Fuzzy
Rhinoceruses don't play games. They fucking charge your ass.
Level: 43

Posts: 508/799
EXP: 551711
For next: 13335

Since: 03-15-04
From: IL, USA

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 13 hours
Posted on 02-25-05 09:34 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Colleen
Oh, they could do something along those lines without getting directly involved, but it's still pretty risky.

I can't see a full-scale invasion though. Bush's legacy is pretty much assured with the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, and it's not like the States could realistically afford another war.


you're missing the point. His foreign policy team is made up of some very staunch convservtives with some very specific views of how the world should work. This cabinet, more than any other, is willing to act to protect what it sees as the moral integrity of the world. Frankly i could see members of his team, especially those like Wolfowitz, giving precedent to The Project for the New American Century (which many Bush cabinet members are involved in) and the ideals and actions that would logically follow.
Heron Ctesibius
Newcomer
Level: 3

Posts: 1/3
EXP: 81
For next: 47

Since: 02-26-05

Since last post: 249 days
Last activity: 249 days
Posted on 02-26-05 03:39 PM Link | Quote
We can only hope that he wouldn't try anything stupid. If the Bush Administration has any reason (unfortunately they don't) they will see that Ayatollah Khomeini would never use any nuke that his country may produce. I don't know if anyone else has watched him speak, but I saw his address to his Air Force to commemorate the 26th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. He talked about his why he believed that Iran was better under a single powerful ruler(him) than under the peoples' rule. He cited multiple examples such as the French Revolution leading to the rule of Napolean(apparently not seeing himself as Napolean, but the all powerful ruling figure that will prevent the rule of a dictator). He justifies his rule to the people in a way that will suit his needs. I believe that he a sensible man that would never resort to nuclear weapons. He's just another Catherine the Great. He nows what's right, but is not willing to give up power. The people of Iran are also sensible people. Despite how often "Death to America" is said in Iran, when it comes down to it Iranians are only opposed to the American government, not the people. I heard a news reporter state that she was attending an anti-American rally in Iran (in which they were burning American flags, etc) and she talked to one of the men participating in the rally. He asked her what country she was from and she responded "America". He told her exactly what I just said, "the majority of Iranians aren't really against Americans, just the government." She also said that during her entire visit she felt completely safe. It would due the Bush administration much more harm to go to war with Iran than just to leave them alone. If Bush wants to cause change in Iran the solution would be to show them what a real election can be in Iran. Another example of when violence from an external power is not the answer.


(edited by Heron Ctesibius on 02-26-05 06:40 AM)
Kitten Yiffer

Purple wand
Furry moderator
Vivent l'exp����¯�¿�½������©rience de signalisation d'amusement, ou bien !
Level: 135

Posts: 8195/11162
EXP: 28824106
For next: 510899

Since: 03-15-04
From: Sweden

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 4 min.
Posted on 03-02-05 03:17 AM Link | Quote
The cold war did restart now or what? And didn't North korea say for awhile ago that they did have nuclear weapons?

Is there any other countries than thoose two that could be nuclear threats for US?

Somehow, I just see the weapons is just used as a "protection". Just to not make the big brother of the world to attack them. I doubt that Iran would use nuclear weapons without any reason, especially against a powerful nation like US.

I think there is higher probablity that terroorists attack with nuclear weapons than Iran, and even then. Nuclear weapons dosen't last forever, so old weapons wouldn't have that much of an impact. And they're aren't easy to do... so if terrorists would do a bomb. It would be a dirty one...

And well, it's the next president issue to payback the costs. Not Bush, right?
iamhiro1112

Armos
Level: 35

Posts: 298/487
EXP: 259927
For next: 20009

Since: 03-27-04
From: sd

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 7 days
Posted on 03-28-05 03:57 PM Link | Quote
I don't think getting a nuclear attack from terrorist is much to worry about. The materials to make a nke are pretty hard to come by in the 1st place.

From what I can recall, sometime in the 80's I believe a number of terrorists doing various plane hijackings were coming from Iran. So this is obviously a Terrorist producing Place. You obviously don't want a terrorist producing country to have possession of nuclear weapons. I guess there isn't so much that we can do physically cause I don't think we can tie up our army in any kind of war right now. Plus GW's popularity is waning compared to when he started the Iraq war. So he won't have the support for military action like he did before. I guess the only thing that can be done is to continue the pressure on Iran until they crack. It is dangerous for a country to become too alienated. The reason US is so powerful is because we have many allies. Nearly every civilzed nation has some sort of allience with US.
Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - What is Iran trying to do? | |


ABII


AcmlmBoard vl.ol (11-01-05)
© 2000-2005 Acmlm, Emuz, et al



Page rendered in 0.011 seconds.