embargo on Iran

[hagi_baba]

Yesterday, the oil embargo on Iran had started.
This is the most far-reaching step that was ever been taken by the international community against Iran.
However, it looks that it doesn’t effects the Iranians.
Official in Iran present a united front, and say that Iran will not change its policy and will not stop enriching uranium.
The embargo will raise the oil prices and everybody will have to pay.
Wouldn’t it be much better to attack Iran, and destroy all the atomic staff in there?
It is possible if several of countries will do that together.

[Nurizeko]

I call bot but if we can get a discussion out of this all the better.

With that in mind how do you guys feel about this Iranian oil embargo, what ways can it push and pull the regime, to our desired outcome or further from what the west and Arab world want?

Raising oil prices seems a bit of a non-issue seeing as most of the west gets its oil from elsewhere than Iranian sources, and the OPEC countries agreed to raise output if I am not mistaken.

[Alliance Navy]

as an Iranian I think it's like giving guns to kids to let mullahs get their hands on those bombs so despite the fact that these sanctions are fucking my economic life up I'm fine with them but if Israel or someone bombs the nuclear sites and causes a ecological disaster or make a Chernobyl out of Iran I wouldn't mind holding an AK and marching to Tel-Aviv I hate mullahs and Israelis equally

[Rivy]

I don't like anybody making weapons at all, but what makes it okay for one country to have nukes while they don't let anyone else have them ?
If every UN country disarmed its nuclear arsenal I'd agree with this.

[Alliance]

Hey Alliance Navy, You've got some balls. I'm all against bombing nuclear plants, but come a time when it's either one little patch of desert or a potentially glassed israel, I'd be willing to stand out in a field and pop you as you raise your head into range.

[Ramrod]

I don't like anybody making weapons at all, but what makes it okay for one country to have nukes while they don't let anyone else have them ?
If every UN country disarmed its nuclear arsenal I'd agree with this.

This. I'm all behind safe nuclear energy. I cannot say the same about nuclear weapons, and I'm a bad person. What does that say about nukes, if even I don't like them?

[Guilliman]

I have to agree with Alex on his point about who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. There's a part of me that would much rather see Iran (or any nation governed by religion) not have nuclear capabilities. Then again, you don't have to have a religious inspired government to be totall batshit insane.

People will never learn though, unless something goes horrible wrong. Let them have nukes, and if they use them. Wipe their government and military out.

[Sentinel]

The problem with Iran having nuclear capabilities isn't just about the threat they may or may not pose. As a nation they probably wouldn't ever use a nuclear weapon, but they have got connections to terrorist organisations who could potentially use a WMD without the fear of mutually assured destruction.

Let them have nukes, and if they use them. Wipe their government and military out.

Too bad for whoever they use them on right? The western world will never use a nuclear weapon in anything other than a retaliatory response to another nuclear attack. We simply don't have the disposition to do it any more. Can the same be said of "extremist" nations?

[Starfisher]

Yes. If Iran actually cared about destroying Israel to the point where they'd do something as stupid as attack with a nuclear device, they'd be mass-manufacturing their ballistic missiles with the range to hit major Israeli cities and fill them with readily available chemical weapons. North Korea actually HAS the capability to devastate South Korea right now, and actually attacks South Korea with some regularity. Yet they haven't done anything that would result in a MAD scenario.

I simply don't buy the "they're crazy" bullshit. Crazy would have resulted in a lot more damage by now. Lunatic idiots don't successfully repress a country of millions for decades; they have to be reasonably rational, and since they're in power, they're by definition the sort that wants power. That means they'll try to keep it, not squander it. They've already demonstrated that this is their strategy ever since they claimed power, so giving them a nuke isn't going to suddenly and radically alter anything except their ability to bargain internationally.

Mod hat: Keep it civil guys. I know this is a contentious topic, so we'll be snipping posts as needed to keep it level headed.

[Sentinel]

Right, but like I said, it's not Iran having the nuke that's the issue, it's who they give it to. I don't think there's anyone crazy in Iran or NK, but I still wouldn't trust them with WMDs.

[Rivy]

I don't buy the theory of Iran giving out nukes anymore than I believe the US hands out bombs to governments they want to support. My point being it's not anyone else's fucking business.
Iran giving nukes to terrorists sounds made up, so does terrorists using nukes just for shits and giggles (this is not Tom Clancy).
To be absolutely honest, the nations I trust the least with weapons are the ones that use them (by making them go boom or by displaying them as a deterrent), and those are the US and European countries. I'm not saying I believe they will drop a bomb on me, but they are the ones sticking their noses (and tanks and planes and bombs) everywhere, so if Iran wants to build mouse traps to keep the mice away I say they have every right to.

[Alliance Navy]

@Alliance
As the other guy said mullahs are not "too" crazy they love the luxuries they have right now they wouldn't ruin it by attacking Israel or occupied Palestine as they call it as for me I don't care which one of you wins the war and in fact I dislike Islamists even more than you so if jews win it's better but then again if you go ahead and do something like causing a nuclear disaster in Iran my grand kids will be born mutated. so trust me there will be a lot of angry Iranians at your gates.AGAIN let's just hope the situation will end at least remotely peaceful like a coup or something.A lot of Iranians are tired of fighting for Arabs who ironically consider us a lesser nation.

[Sentinel]

I don't buy the theory of Iran giving out nukes anymore than I believe the US hands out bombs to governments they want to support. My point being it's not anyone else's fucking business.
Iran giving nukes to terrorists sounds made up, so does terrorists using nukes just for shits and giggles (this is not Tom Clancy).

Iran is known to support and equip Hamas and Hezbollah. Gadaffi had connections with acts of terrorism all over the world, including links with the IRA. Is it such a huge stretch of the imagination that Iran might also give the nutjob extremists a nuke to use on Israel?

It is absolutely our business. I'd like to know who has access to the big red button thanks, and I'd rather my allies have access than an open door to anyone with the cash. Nuclear weapons being used affects the whole world, so of course they're our business, regardless of how you feel about the past wars.

[ÜberJumper]

Iran nuking Israel doesn't make sense. That's Muslim holy ground as well, and any fallout would land on muslim countries (jordan, the west bank, etc).

See this presentation for more info.

The Iranians (and North Koreans etc) want nukes for defense against the USA (The Great Satan) and others who would threaten them. Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.

[Madgrenade]

When an Iranian polititician promises to nuke Israel, it's a bit like when a politician in the west says he's gonna cut taxes or promote manufacturing. He isn't actually going to do that. He just says he will so morons will vote for him.

This is indeed a fractious issue that needs a proper adressing. So how should we adress this issue between soveriegn nations? Before the insanity we would refer to this quaint idea called the law. The nuclear non proliferation treaty, to which Iran, the USA, Great Britain and France are signatories of states that all signatory nations have the legal right to develop a civilian nuclear reactor program.

So by building a reactor and enriching fuel Iran has broken no law. Despite numerous provocations, such as a total encirclement by the US MIC and the assasination of many scientists by the Mossad the Iranians have not developed any nuclear weapons. No serious intelligence has come through that the Iranians are developing nukes. The only people accusing Iran of having nukes are American and Israeli politicians with no credible sources.

By rewriting the rules after the fact and claiming Iran can't enrich is undermining the authority of the UN globally, as it shifts position from suspected western patsy organisation to confirmed propagandists and imperial pressure group.

(The Mullahs wouldn't be in this mess if they had just bought reactors and fuel from France rather than having the temerity to develop the technology off their own backs.) This is even slightly misleading because we did sell them some nuclear secrets back when the Soviets were the big bad wolf and not the "islamists" (Who it turns out are a bunch of wahabbist nutjobs funded by Saudi and the US anyway, see Libya, Syria)

Just like when Rumsfeld sells Saddamn a buch of chemical warheads and other assorted goodies, then uses that as an excuse to invade. Like the gunstore selling you an M16 then reporting you to the Police as a menace to society. So we sent the troops to **** em up and find the weapons we sold 'em, but crafty Saddamn had already scrapped 'em all, as reported by intelligence services (who needs real intelligence when you have Alistair Campbell?) . Shame it couldn't save his country. Or his neck.

So it makes me sad to see people online talking about an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel like its actually gonna happen. I think it's time we all made a concious effort to start telling the difference between war propaganda and the truth.

And before people ask why Irans nuke facilities have to built in secret in hardened bunkers underneath mountains it's because they have already lost one reactor in a unlilateral strike by Israel*

*Another war legalism, for those who care about such things, is that is illegal under international rules of war to conduct a strike a reactor that has fuel in it, for reasons so obvious I don't need to explain them. Suffice to say any strike on an active Iranian nuclear reactor, regardless of whether or not Iran had a nuclear weapon, would constitute a war crime. The Israelis got away with it before by bombing the reactor before it was hot. Not the case now.

The same kinds of people who blew up the economy for profit want to blow up the middle east for profit too. And we can all play the east versus west game until it gets us all killed for all they care, cos it won't be their sons dying on the battlefield.

So I recommend some people pull their head out of teh elitist zeitgeist if were gonna survive this one. WW3 cant happen if we refuse to fight it.

Strategically the Iranians have played this one very well (as well as a totally encircled country on the verge of getting invaded by the largest army ever can play it) by going all defence and alluding to them maybe already have nukes thus making sure they don't get attacked. You see the European elites don't wanna recognise that Persia has a place in the future and want to finish them once and for all in one massive holy engineered firestorm from hell.

Don't get me wrong I am British I love Britain and the values of common law, capitalism and oppurtunity and would love to see these values applyed in my own country and elsewhere.

But when I was a little kid I was taugt that invading soverign nations and slaughtering people wholesale was wrong. That it was something called facism and that facists were something to be resisted. I was taught that we had to reslove our differences through diplomacy and that that was the function of the UN to avoid a massive thermonuclear war (which is what can and will happen. You think China doesn't see us taking aim at their energy supplier?)

So anyone who thinks that Iran is the one threaening Israel and the US please go and avail yourself of a map and an appraisal of the strategic situation and have a good think about who is threatening whom.

And just in case you have forgotten lets remind ourselves of all the idyllic utopias created in the last ten years by wetern occupation.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Yemen. Somalia. Libya. Syria. Pakistan. Uganda. Bahrain.

Jolly places of peace and democracy where nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever. You wanna add Iran to this list? Do me a favour.

[Sentinel]

Uber, I haven't read that presentation fully, as there's a fair bit too it, but from what I did read it seemed to indicate that a 20KT or 50KT Nuclear weapon's fallout wouldn't expand beyond the borders of Israel itself, although a 50KT would hit the West Bank.
Why is an "equaliser" needed? No Western nuclear power would ever use a nuclear weapon offensively. It's never going to happen.

@Madgrenade, I never meant to imply that Iran nuking Israel was a certainty, I honestly don't believe it would ever happen, but why take a chance like that? I'm perfectly fine with the restriction of WMD's, because the less people that have them, the less likely they are to be used.

So anyone who thinks that Iran is the one threaening Israel and the US please go and avail yourself of a map and an appraisal of the strategic situation and have a good think about who is threatening whom.

And just in case you have forgotten lets remind ourselves of all the idyllic utopias created in the last ten years by wetern occupation.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Yemen. Somalia. Libya. Syria. Pakistan. Uganda. Bahrain.

Jolly places of peace and democracy where nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever. You wanna add Iran to this list? Do me a favour.

Was this for me? I'm against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I have no interest in adding Iran to any list. I'd like to keep them on the "we don't have any nukes" list though.

[ÜberJumper]

Sentinel:

Depends on where the weapon lands and the yield, but it's fair to say that any nuclear explosion "west" of the west bank is going to have fallout raining on Palestinians in the west bank. Large explosion/closer to Jordan/Syria/Egypt (depending on prevailing winds etc) and it's falling on other neighbors as well.

Nuclear weapons are one of the only weapons the superpowers fear fear (any WMD really). Until a nation state has them, the superpowers can effectively win military conflicts with smaller nations via conventional weapons. As soon as a nation state gets nukes, it becomes a situation of "oh, better not hit him, he might nuke me".

If you're losing a fight (and in the case of warfare between nation states when a nation is in danger of losing itself), there's no reason why you'd not pull out all the stops.

[Sentinel]

Why do we want them having weapons to do that? Does the ultimate prevention of war not remove accountability? Aside from economic embargoes which will have little effect on an oil nation, what threatening action is there?

[Starfisher]

It's somewhat telling that once a nation acquires nuclear weapons, they basically stop fighting wars with anyone else who has them.

[Madgrenade]

"@Madgrenade, I never meant to imply that Iran nuking Israel was a certainty, I honestly don't believe it would ever happen, but why take a chance like that? I'm perfectly fine with the restriction of WMD's, because the less people that have them, the less likely they are to be used."

Don't get me wrong on this point either. I am not advocating the proliferation of Nuclear weapons.

However you are missing the point of the law, which is based on the principle of being innocent until proven quilty. Wheras we have launched an embargo of a nations primary export based upon mere suspicion and political conjecture. Accroding to todays valid intel Iran has no nuke and doesn't want to develop a nuke. At the moment all of Irans defence budget is going on anti air.

It's kind of like me saying you can't have electricity in your house because you might use it to electrocute someone.

When enforcing law you have to have proof. It's one of those pesky principles we uphold.

But even if there was viable intelligence that they were deeloping a nuke the power plant and the enrichment plant would still be protected by law from an attack. Because it is a live nuclear site. Infact the only thing we can be certain that Iran has developed is the worlds hardest concrete.

Lets put it another way. Iran and Israel

One country is a standup member of the international community who has never invaded a soverign nation and has signed up to the non proliferation treaty and has no nuke we know of.

The other country is a roque state in possesion of multiple nuclear warheads, refuses to sign international treaties, including non proliferation, and has repeatedly launched military strikes against soverign nations sharing borders and also brutally oppresses native peoples in their own lands.

Can you quess which is which?

Never though there'd be a day where I'd be an Englishman trying to convince an Irishman about the evils of colonialism and war

Its also worth adding a historical note that if Britain and the US hadn't murdered Mosedeque and overthrown the only democratically elected head of state in Irans history for having the gall to nationalise his nations oil reserves, and installed the mad mullahs ourselves then we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

Iran is a very old country with just as much right to soverignty and diplomatic respect as any other. It makes me sad to be a westerner when we railroad countries in this manner and cast out the very values we pledge to uphold, the same values which make people around the world want to adopt western systems in the first place.

For shame.

[Jondu]

@Madgranade, are you implying that countries you listed are worse off because of something "west" has done in the past 10 (or 20) years? Propagating some kind of "western guilt" are you? I will just say that i disagree strongly and completley with what you said or implied to.
Nobody in the "west" is trying to blow up Persia or punch it out of competition for great future.
Tyrants who currently rule Iran are a threat to everything we hold dear, and im sorry but i would rather not lay down and die to make them happy.

Anyway, I just hope they wont get nukes, i don't have any ideas of how it would be best to make sure of that. Military intervention would be unfortunate, perhaps even unlikely. I think or hope that they still have strong enough voices in the government that oppose making nukes and are able to influence the decision making process.

[Madgrenade]

Im not trying to propagate western quilt. I am merely pointing out an alarming tendancy over the past decade for overthrowing "tYRANTS" that we set up in teh first place.

How is Iran threatening all we hold dear?

I hope they don't get nukes either. The world would be a better place if our armies just put down their guns for a bit and went and did something productive, like terraform the Sahara.

And if you think there is no long running plot against Iran just type in "US bases around Iran map" into a search engine.

You disagree strongly with what I said or implyed. Then unfortunately sir you disagree strongly with the facts as presented by paid intelligence operatives who we employ to find this stuff out for us.

I quess its more comfortable to believe the facts as presented by rabble rousing politicians like Notayahoo and Mech Romney.

You disagree that Iran has a legal right to develop a civilian nuclear program as guarenteed under the NPT

You disagree that Israel has refused to sign said treaty, along with any other treaties.

You disagree that Iran is a soveriegn nation with a right to diplomatic respect.

You disagree that Iran has never invaded a soverign nation while under treaty with the UN

You disagree that no credible intelligence has been presented which proves Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

You disagree that Israel already has nukes and has attacked it's soverign neighbours

You disagree that the British and US assasinated the leader Mosedegue and overthrew his democratically elected government.

You disagree that the listed countries have been turned by us into jolly places of peace and democracy where nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever. (here we agree)

I'm afraid the fact disagree with you, sir, and so must I.

We really need to take back our foreign policy before we all end up dressed in black uniforms with skulls on the caps shooting people in pits.

[Ewokz]

Is it not worth pointing out that a nation with nukes is a danger due to there increased threat level? Surely if Iran was to obtain nukes it could occasionally mess up Israel with immunity as long as they didn't do it to often, similar to what's happened with NK for god knows how long. No ones going to start an all out war with a nuclear power at the end of the day.

The point Sentinel has raised about terrorist groups is also something worth considering.

[Madgrenade]

Yes a country with nuclear weapons is more dangerous than a country without.

But again there are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes flying around here.

What gives us the right to destroy a country without proofs?

Remember back ten years ago when we were told that Saddamn Hussein was the epitome of all evil, that he was building weapons of mass destruction and was going to wipe out Israel?

Anyone remember back then?

Do you remember when they found the gigantic stockpiles of deadly chemicals and biologicals afte the war was over? If you do I'm concerned cos it never freakin' happened.

What did happen was we invaded and dropped hundereds of tonnes of depleted uranium over the country, destroyed the entire infrastructure and ignited a sectarian war that continues to this day.

We also killed hundreds of thousands of people, lost thousands of men and bankrupted the western world.

Are we learning yet?

[Akranadas]

Question for Madgrenade: Why does Iran need civilian nuclear power?

If they are getting sanctions from the international community over their pursuit of nuclear power, why not just switch to a cheaper option and have the sanctions lifted?

Isn't this move by Iran to continue to pursue nuclear power simply to a big 'fuck you America and Europe, we do what we want' in order to show that they can do... whatever they want regardless of sanctions?

Is Iran's hated for Israel justified in the 21st century and is that really a credible reason for Iran to arm itself with the potential for nuclear power?

[Ewokz]

bankrupted the western world.

Yeah I'm pretty damn sure that's not related.

Personally having read a little more on the subject I'm more willing to side with Madgrenade, there appears to be no evidence to support any accusation that Iran is developing WMD's. Mind I have only skimmed the edges of the area, but it appears to be a subject on which numerous governments, experts and news agencies have voiced their opinions with very little facts to back up their claims. The claims that they do back seem insubstantial at best, and others not even being relevant.

Each country has the right to nuclear energy, so its not a matter of asking why Iran wants it before its allowed. They already have the freedom to do it without international issue; or at least they should.

[DeafMute]

Im one of those that sees Iran isnt the GREAT EVIL!!! the western media loves to make out. This is simply bullying tactics forced by Israel through the USA. Israel or the USA have been killing Iranian scientists for awhile now aswell if anyone didnt know. Btw there has been a chain effect going on for awhile now, first it was Egypt, Libya, Sudan now Syria next will be Iran. Western powers knocking out countries that arnt playing ball the way western powers want them to.

I do hope Iran gets nuclear power cause I highly doubt they are crazy enough to be launching nukes, it would be simply to stop other countries from doing this kinda international bullying.

[Ewokz]

I thought Egypt was playing ball up until the protests? and I wouldn't assume what's going on in Syria is anything to do with the west, people in a country don't just rise up to fight the government unless (they think) their situation is pretty bad.

Your right though it does seem like the west (in the form of media and government) is bullying Iran.

[Akranadas]

Btw there has been a chain effect going on for awhile now, first it was Egypt, Libya, Sudan now Syria next will be Iran. Western powers knocking out countries that arnt playing ball the way western powers want them to.

It's a bit rich to call the Arab Spring protests a Western backed assault on the Arab world, sure the West helped with Libya more so than any of the other revolutions but that was UN backed no fly zone. This has more to do with a high number of educated poor youth having no future prospects within their own country and disliking the way their country has been ruled then the west attempting to take down governments they dislike. Especially considering Eygpt, Lybia and Yemem Governments per-revolutions were largely cooperative with the Western world. It's only after those nations began to turn on their own people and slaughter civilians that the West has attempted to intervene in the situation, which they should.

It's even suggested that a large number of these revolutions are a result of Iranian Protests in 2009 due to the backlash against the last election in which many believe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who is more or less responsible for Iran's portrayal in the West) rigged the results to regain power.

Each country has the right to nuclear energy, so its not a matter of asking why Iran wants it before its allowed. They already have the freedom to do it without international issue; or at least they should.

No, asking why is a pretty reasonable question.

The only reason I can see for Iran pursuing the construction of a nuclear reactor is because: a) The had a half built one before the Iranian Revolution b) Nuclear power is perceived as a developed nation trait c) Nuclear power is seen as a sign of strength for a nation d ) To annoy the west. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems intent on using Iran's attempt at gaining Nuclear power as a sign that the West is ultimately powerless for all their talk.

Israel (and by extension, the United States) has valid concerns when it comes to Iran obtaining Nuclear power, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made countless speeches about how much he hates Israel and wants them wiped from the face of the globe. If Iran had a leader less prone to outbursts about random Zionist Conspiracies (he has claimed Israel was behind September 11), verbal attacks on other nations, threats of violence and generally being less insane I really doubt Iran having Nuclear power would be any type of issue here in the West or the United States.

[DeafMute]

Western nations dont always get involved when countries are massarcing its population, only when there is something to gain they act for "the good of the people".
Take Syria for instance, recently was reported that a Russian vessel tried sneaking weapons into the country to help government forces. Russia isnt blind it knows the US is playing a global game of chess. the US is on the "rebel" side, haha.

I slag the US and Israel off alot cause once you take a step back you see things alot clearer. Ive nothing against the people of either nation, just there governments.
edit- I love how whenever you bring up Israel in any critical light you are instantly branded an anti semite. Hilarious smokescreen.

[GeoffS]

And just in case you have forgotten lets remind ourselves of all the idyllic utopias created in the last ten years by wetern occupation.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Yemen. Somalia. Libya. Syria. Pakistan. Uganda. Bahrain.

Jolly places of peace and democracy where nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever. You wanna add Iran to this list? Do me a favour.

When did the West occupy Yemen in the last 10 years? Or Somalia? Or Libya? Or Syria? Or Pakistan? Or Uganda? Or Bahrain?



Edit: @Deafmute, I don't see anybody being branded an anti semite anywhere in the thread, perhaps you can point it out for us?

[Gorb]

Question for Madgrenade: Why does Iran need civilian nuclear power?

If they are getting sanctions from the international community over their pursuit of nuclear power, why not just switch to a cheaper option and have the sanctions lifted?

Isn't this move by Iran to continue to pursue nuclear power simply to a big 'fuck you America and Europe, we do what we want' in order to show that they can do... whatever they want regardless of sanctions?

Is Iran's hated for Israel justified in the 21st century and is that really a credible reason for Iran to arm itself with the potential for nuclear power?

And then we complain because they're not power-efficient enough? Or that they're using the oil reserves in the area? That they're contributing to the industrial causes of 'global warming' (a la China and the other related developing nations with a large industrial presence).

Nuclear power is safe, efficient and incredibly long-lived, with only issues surrounding the disposal of the used rods (and perhaps the coolant water? Been a while since I studied how a nuclear plant works).

I don't see how the point about "hate" is even related. A lot of countries seem to "hate" another country; Israel itself would be a great example of that - a country that armed itself (with Western help, originally, as we established the nation after World War 2) because of the apparent "hate" between it and its neighbours. You'd be better off sticking to nuclear power and the problems it presents instead of talking about something as intangiable as "hatred". Even the perceived threat of a nuclear Iran is a more tangible object.

[DeafMute]

@GeoffS You are right no one has done that in this thread, I should have made it more clear. Its when you are on a public platform, speaking to the mainstream media that you are then branded an Anti Semite. As for what Madgrenade is saying, think hes pointing out at how western nations interfear with smaller countries in the name of Democracy yet leave it in a worse state as time goes on.

[Akranadas]

@Gorb: When I say

Is Iran's hated for Israel justified in the 21st century and is that really a credible reason for Iran to arm itself with the potential for nuclear power?

I mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he is the public face of Iran. Ahmadinejad hates Israel.

[GeoffS]

Its when you are on a public platform, speaking to the mainstream media that you are then branded an Anti Semite.

I'd like to see some examples of this happening in relation to the discussions of Iranian oil embargo please. Otherwise it looks like you are doing exactly what you claim is being done by those opposed to your view, attacking the person based on unsupported generalisations rather than discussing their opinions.

[Gorb]

@Krandy: then he's a problem that may need to be addressed. But he is not the country, nor is he the army, the citizens, the workers. I'd also tentatively agree with Madgrenade's statement that politicians say whatever they need simply to get the votes.

What about the issue of nuclear power?

[Misiok]

As a random bystander, to me Iran's government looks like its being run by religious zealots. And the last time zealots got ahold of nuclear power the Imperium of Man got created...


I mean, any country that still stones raped women and homosexuals to death for whatever reason and doesn't realize that women are people too, is to mee unfit for any nuclear capability and would be on my 'to keep watch' list.

[Gorb]

Is America on the "to keep watch" list then? Because that has a long history of racial segregation and discrimination against women (as most developed nations do, I think. Someone more educated than me would be able to detail the history of 'suffragettes' in the USA; I only know a modicum of their history in England).

I'm also intrigued at the link between sexism and the ability to launch nuclear missiles. The ability to rationally decide military targets and whether nuclear force (considering the deterrents and/or probability of mutual destruction) is applicable to those targets doesn't seem at all linked to punishing women for a crime as laid down in their holy texts, or at least their interpretation of their holy texts (note: I am not condoning the horrific action of stoning a person to death, I am just being respectful peoples' religious views so this thread doesn't turn into too much of a trainwreck).

[Akranadas]

@Krandy: then he's a problem that may need to be addressed. But he is not the country, nor is he the army, the citizens, the workers. I'd also tentatively agree with Madgrenade's statement that politicians say whatever they need simply to get the votes.

He's the voice and face of Iran when it comes to international relations and the way the West views Iran on issues, particularly nuclear power. It's due to his behaviour, especially the way he comes across as a anti-semitic and anti-democracy religious zealot that Israel and the rest of the west don't want Iran to have any access to nuclear material, civilian or otherwise. If he was a charismatic and friendly guy who only wanted to have peace in the middle east, I seriously doubt Iran would be the topic of any discussions regarding anything nuclear.

Algeria has a Nuclear reactor, Turkey is planning to build a nuclear reactor for civilian use, no one in the west is opposing them having one because their not lead by a crazy man who thinks the holocaust didn't happen. The only reason the west cares about Iran's Nuclear ambitions is due to the way Ahmadinejad is using it as a way to show the world the west is rubbish. This issue has never been about Iran obtaining nuclear power, but rather the reasons why and who is ultimately in charge of it.

[Sinogrim]

I'm on Misiok with this one. Any nation that doesn't respect human rights, should not be entitled to nuclear technology. That includes the USA and Israel btw.

What I've always wondered about this however is why do they soo dearly desire nuclear energy? A lot of European nations seem pretty eager to get rid of their powerplants in the coming years and isn't the supply of uranium slowly running out anyway? To me, a nation that has a lot of open space and deserts, couldn't they just install solar parks or other renewable energy sources instead of relying on nuclear power just so they can flip the finger to the western world?

[Gorb]

Fair points Krandy. I forgot he was the guy who denied the Holocaust ever happened

@Sinogrim: why? You can agree all you want, but there is no explanation.

With regards to nuclear energy, it has bad press due to the recent meltdown of the Japanese reactor (which survived one of the worst earthquakes in how many decades, subsequent high-strength aftershocks and a tsunami - IIRC the tsunami is what prevented personnel from reaching the reactor in time to deal with the overheating of the core?). Thus it became a centrepoint of certainly German politics (I think) leading to the winning party declaring the decommisionning of all nuclear plants across the country. A very short-sighted move, in my opinion.

I would ask for a source of the "supply of uranium running out", because I figure it'll last us a lot longer than our non-renewable sources (oil, gas, coal: nuclear power is technically non-renewable - fission that is; I think fusion is technically infinite in that regard).

Solar energy is massively inefficient and nobody seems to be investing the right amount of money required to develop the technology (the last I read on the subject anyhow; I'll see if I can find more on it). Wind farms are more efficient in terms of the power obtained, I think, but the size required for a decent wind farm is obscenely large (there were plans to build some out on the North Sea? Perhaps? Might have even been built by now).

[Misiok]

@Gorb - what I meant - if you can't show some basic human rights, which is a basic thing on the moral scale, then how can you be trusted with nuclear power? Not to mention using religion blindly for your relations with other people, governments and the world.
Also, I believe nuclear power is getting bad rep because of nuclear scare and that Japanese reactor blowout. If you use nuclear fusion with proper equipment and safety standards it's relatively safe.

[Sinogrim]

why? You can agree all you want, but there is no explanation.

Well, to me it pretty much comes down to common sense. If a nation cannot even respect the rights of it's own citizens/other nation's citizens, then why would you ever trust them with the most powerful weapons known to us? Honestly, I don't trust anyone government with nuclear weapons, but countries like NK, Iran and Pakistan are amongst the least I'd trust with them. Simply cause their leaders aren't exactly known to be the most sane "politicians" walking around.

I would ask for a source of the "supply of uranium running out", because I figure it'll last us a lot longer than our non-renewable sources (oil, gas, coal: nuclear power is technically non-renewable - fission that is; I think fusion is technically infinite in that regard).

I read an article about it a few years ago, but I cannot seem to find it and it might be outdated information at this point anyway.
According to wikipedia, estimates are that it'll last for another 70-100 years, which is a lot longer than our oil reserves will last and I have to admit, a lot longer than I was expecting.

As for solar energy, you're absolutely right, it's pretty shitty technology, but as with all technologies, if nobody invests money in it, it'll always remain "inefficient". However, the wind mill parks (at least to me) sounds like a pretty decent idea for a nation like Iran. They have plenty of open space to put down wind farms and while they only produce a fraction of the power produced by nuclear energy, it'd probably give Iran a much better image in the world today.

Then again, if you have the U.S. breathing down your neck all the time, pretty much straight up committing acts of war against you, it's pretty reasonable for Iran to keep pursueing it's nuclear program and even developping nuclear weapons.

[Gorb]

@Gorb - what I meant - if you can't show some basic human rights, which is a basic thing on the moral scale, then how can you be trusted with nuclear power? Not to mention using religion blindly for your relations with other people, governments and the world.
Also, I believe nuclear power is getting bad rep because of nuclear scare and that Japanese reactor blowout. If you use nuclear fusion with proper equipment and safety standards it's relatively safe.

Well, to me it pretty much comes down to common sense. If a nation cannot even respect the rights of it's own citizens/other nation's citizens, then why would you ever trust them with the most powerful weapons known to us? Honestly, I don't trust anyone government with nuclear weapons, but countries like NK, Iran and Pakistan are amongst the least I'd trust with them. Simply cause their leaders aren't exactly known to be the most sane "politicians" walking around.

What does human rights have to do with the nuclear deterrent that is mutual destruction? Self preservation is the most important of a human's instincts (at least, I think it's higher than reproduction).

Just because you draw a line between "oh this guy has no compunctions about allowing sexist crimes" and "oh this guy has no compunctions about starting a nuclear war which will definitely get him killed", doesn't mean that that line exists. Allowing the crimes doesn't impact his quality of life or the position he has constructed for himself. Launching a nuclear missile would.

I read an article about it a few years ago, but I cannot seem to find it and it might be outdated information at this point anyway.
According to wikipedia, estimates are that it'll last for another 70-100 years, which is a lot longer than our oil reserves will last and I have to admit, a lot longer than I was expecting.

As for solar energy, you're absolutely right, it's pretty shitty technology, but as with all technologies, if nobody invests money in it, it'll always remain "inefficient". However, the wind mill parks (at least to me) sounds like a pretty decent idea for a nation like Iran. They have plenty of open space to put down wind farms and while they only produce a fraction of the power produced by nuclear energy, it'd probably give Iran a much better image in the world today.

Then again, if you have the U.S. breathing down your neck all the time, pretty much straight up committing acts of war against you, it's pretty reasonable for Iran to keep pursueing it's nuclear program and even developping nuclear weapons.

Well, naturally, I did concede that nobody is investing in solar power. That said, I wonder how efficient they can get it (and the same with wind power - for example, there physically isn't enough space to power the UK with wind farms alone, and the sunshine isn't regular or even existent to a level that would make solar power ever viable). Maybe we need something that converts cosmic radiation into useable energy

The problem with wind farms is that they destroy the local environment (and yes, a desert has a complex and detailed ecosystem) - a major point in deciding to build them out on the high seas (arr).

[Methuselath]

Uh, Krandy, before you go off along the 'wiped of the map' line, you should know that that bit was actually mistranslated see here. The holocaust denial part is completely correct though. In any case all these embargo will not hit the people who are in power but rather hit the ones who are not doing the 'bad' stuff. The Iranian currency have been dropped regularly for the past few months and my friends in Malaysia have been suffering due to it. Need money? Well fuck you Iranians, your money have no value cause we say so and if you want exchange you are limited and even then get peanuts for it. And you wonder why Iranians, despite their flaming hatred for their government and the fat mullahs is even more pissed with USA and their gun-totting drive-by killing allies.

Now I have no love for Iran (religious differences, friends in Iran suffering) but as far as I remember, Iran have never been on an offensive war for the past 200 or so years. Even the one with Iraq, the latest bit of bloodletting was a defensive one. Before anyone complains about terrorist support then well... *cough*afghanistan*cough*CIA*cough*al-Qaeda*cough*. Sorry, seem to have got a cold.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Well, to me it pretty much comes down to common sense. If a nation cannot even respect the rights of it's own citizens/other nation's citizens, then why would you ever trust them with the most powerful weapons known to us?

It worked fine with the PRC and USSR. Also the USA really, since at the time they developed theirs they were running internment camps for their Japanese citizens.

[Sohtaraz]

Sorry partly off topic but why was Afghanistan brought up in this topic to begin with? It was invaded by the east, and with or without western powers involvement in the area the state of fuckedupness(Yes its a technical term) would still be dire for all parties involved.


And I'm sorry when you say you have a democratic elections behind closed doors, its not democratic election its a dictatorship and the country as a whole after that should be treated as one.

And I think the situation as a whole has more to do with russian (directly or indirectly trough other soviet countries, china comes to mind) then the 'threat' of MWD's. Sure the actual development of them will make the situation worst for Iran in terms of being a threat that can't be dealt with politically in my honest opinion.

The questions over Iran needing nuclear power for civilian usage is an excellent question, remember that countries with far greater expertise in this area exist as it is and at the moment were at a state where a Stuxnet is something that can be found in the developed systems in that country is quite worrying. Clearly someone is having disagreements over their nuclear program and without knowing exactly who is behind is a bit worrying for a civilian project at least.

The question that I have to ask everyone who is discussing in this topic is: "Is it right for a trade partner of a western world to be disregarding human rights?" if the answer is no, how is the trade-embargo a bad thing?

[Akranadas]

Uh, Krandy, before you go off along the 'wiped of the map' line, you should know that that bit was actually mistranslated see here.

I am quite aware of that Methuselath, I even linked to a article with that information on it. Still doesn't change his hate for Israel though.

[Sinogrim]

What does human rights have to do with the nuclear deterrent that is mutual destruction? Self preservation is the most important of a human's instincts (at least, I think it's higher than reproduction).

Well, if history has taught me 1 thing, it's that people who don't enforce human rights and outright threaten other nations/ethnic groups, aren't exactly the sort of people you'd trust. Same thing happened in 1935 when Hitler publicly anounced to increase the size of Germany's military. The UK also thought "What's the worst that can happen, right?" back then.

Also, just to make sure, I don't trust half of the countries who possess nuclear weapons either. Does it mean we should straight up kick in the door on Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? No. IMO, they're probably a lesser threat when it comes to nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hand or being used than Pakistan. However, just because there are a bunch of kids on the block who have guns, don't mean you should give the paranoid religious zealot kid a gun aswell, even though there are probably kids who should be trusted even less with them.

[Gorb]

You didn't just Godwin this debate, did you?

Nazi Germany (as in, its management) was stringent in enforcing a high quality of life for everyone they considered German. They simply hated anyone who wasn't German (with a special stigma for the Jewish faith). Is that wrong? Yes. Should they have had a military? Probably not (but then where would we be now, 'we' being Western civilisation. Heck, where would Russia be?).

Is that even at all related to nuclear power? Not really, considering the main nuclear deterrent is getting hit by one in return. Germany didn't fear hitting someone with an army because they wagered their army would take out the opposition (and it did). You can't easily hit a nuclear missile with another one (and then think of the fallout) with one missile beating the other in some kind of air-based combat before continuing onto its objective unharmed.

It's fair that you don't trust nuclear power in certain hands. That's perfectly fine. It's fair that you don't trust a delusional maniac with the Big Red Button. But to deny Iran nuclear power flat out simply because you think their religious views are unfair to women? That's not really fair, in my opinion.