Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

[Chris in KW]

Actually, Saddam had been a "bad guy" long before that. See "Gulf War I".

Of course Saddam was a bad guy. My point is that that has nothing to do with why the US attacked Iraq.

Of course "We" can, and have done so on several occasions. Has nothing to do with morals.

ok.... and because we've done it, it's right??

Following such logic, Americans should still hate Japan?

Ok.... this scenario is a LITTLE bit different from World War 2. For one thing, the US attacked Iraq without the support of most its allies, and against the advice of many of them. There simply was no good reason to attack Iraq. That's VERY different from the Pearl Harbor attacks that brought the US into World War 2.

Also, the United States did not attack Japan, remove a strong-man dicator, then leave the country with a power-vacuum and new leadership that is viable only when propped up by US troops.

If you think the war in Iraq is over (and won?!?), you'd better think again. If the US withdraws troops in the next few years, there will be a massive civil war in Iraq, which will be a direct result of the power vacuum left by the US. The US may have won every battle they fought, but the long-term result of that war will have been massive destabilization of a country that was fairly stable when the war started.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course Saddam was a bad guy. My point is that that has nothing to do with why the US attacked Iraq.

False....it has everything to do with why the US/UK/AUS/POL attacked Iraq..going all the way back to original surrender instruments. President Clinton and PM Blair sanctioned, bombed, and strangled Iraq for years....with Canada's blessing and support.....for.....drum roll please.....WMD!

ok.... and because we've done it, it's right??

Irrelevant...that wasn't the question. We can...so we do when it suits our interests.

Ok.... this scenario is a LITTLE bit different from World War 2. For one thing, the US attacked Iraq without the support of most its allies, and against the advice of many of them. There simply was no good reason to attack Iraq. That's VERY different from the Pearl Harbor attacks that brought the US into World War 2.

Guess again....the UK and Australia were and still are US allies...as are the other willing partners. Iraq had been attacked for years....maybe you mean "invasion"?

Also, the United States did not attack Japan, remove a strong-man dicator, then leave the country with a power-vacuum and new leadership that is viable only when propped up by US troops.

When did the US leave Iraq? Or Japan for that matter (see Okinawa)? Or Korea? Or Germany?

If you think the war in Iraq is over (and won?!?), you'd better think again. If the US withdraws troops in the next few years, there will be a massive civil war in Iraq, which will be a direct result of the power vacuum left by the US. The US may have won every battle they fought, but the long-term result of that war will have been massive destabilization of a country that was fairly stable when the war started.

I think you have just contradicted your post above...or I am misunderstanding your point. In any event, tell me the great plans for Afghanistan when Canada "withdraws" in 2011.

[bush_cheney2004]

Double Post...Eat at Joe's

Edited February 11, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Chris in KW]

I think you have just contradicted your post above...or I am misunderstanding your point. In any event, tell me the great plans for Afghanistan when Canada "withdraws" in 2011.

My point is not that we "can't" invade other countries.... Obviously, the US military is all over the place. Canada has more or less taken part in it. And once you've started a war, withdrawal is not always a great solution.

The point I was trying to make is that attacking Iran (as I see it, the only way to stop them from making nuclear weapons) is not worth it. It creates huge problems that stick around for many years, and there is no political will to fix those problems.

And despite all the posts in this thread about Iran being Nazi-lovers, I don't think they're really planning to use nuclear weapons.

[M.Dancer]

The point I was trying to make is that attacking Iran (as I see it, the only way to stop them from making nuclear weapons) is not worth it. It creates huge problems that stick around for many years, and there is no political will to fix those problems.

And despite all the posts in this thread about Iran being Nazi-lovers, I don't think they're really planning to use nuclear weapons.

!) you are making the assumption that an attack must be an invasion. Quite the opposite realy

2)No one has ever had weapons they didn't plan to use.

[bush_cheney2004]

My point is not that we "can't" invade other countries.... Obviously, the US military is all over the place. Canada has more or less taken part in it. And once you've started a war, withdrawal is not always a great solution.

That's what what so significant about Iraq...nor only could the US invade...but it could do so with impunity. Canada's position was poltically and militarily irrelevant. As Dancer points out, an attack can take many forms.

The point I was trying to make is that attacking Iran (as I see it, the only way to stop them from making nuclear weapons) is not worth it. It creates huge problems that stick around for many years, and there is no political will to fix those problems.

Oh..it's worth it allright....for Israel, the Saudis, even Iraq. France wants a piece of the action too, and has stated as much.

And despite all the posts in this thread about Iran being Nazi-lovers, I don't think they're really planning to use nuclear weapons.

Has nothing to do with Nazi lovers.....the so called "Arab Bomb" scare now includes Persian mullahs.

[DogOnPorch]

Chris in KW: And despite all the posts in this thread about Iran being Nazi-lovers, I don't think they're really planning to use nuclear weapons.

Nobody said Iranians were 'Nazi lovers'. Iran during the 1960s for example, was a model of forward thinking progress in many 'civilized' areas such as women's sufferage (even if The Shah was a little old fashioned himself ).

What was generally said was that The Shah's father was a Nazi sympathizer. This plus a few other important factors (Barbarossa, oil, lend-lease supply lines) resulted in the 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran where The Shah we're familiar with was put on the throne.

This is not to commend the ol' Shah too much, as towards the end of his run he was quite the despot. Savak was spending most of its time pistol-whipping fellows like Mr Ahmedinnerjacket. Now the Revolutionairies have the Savama which apparently is just as brutal.

As for not planning to use nuclear weapons...perhaps ...perhaps not. I think Iran would like to enjoy regional military parity with Israel so that attacking them via conventional means (traditional armies) is once again a possibility. But a few things get in the way of this.

1. A secular 'pro-Western' Turkey.

2. Iraq under American-Allied control and a staunch ally with Israel.

3. No nuclear weapons to counter Israel's apparent atomic stockpile.

These things need to be sorted out in order for Iran's and Syria's militaries to join and take another kick-at-the-can. Thus, the strategic location of Iraq becomes apparent (in the way). As well, a friendly Turkey (optional route...also in the way).

Destabilizing Turkey would probably be a lot harder than turning Iraq back into a upside down mess. Once the US/UK et al reduce their presence in Iraq, I suppose anything is possible...old enemies and all.

-------------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[jbg]

If you think the war in Iraq is over (and won?!?), you'd better think again. If the US withdraws troops in the next few years, there will be a massive civil war in Iraq, which will be a direct result of the power vacuum left by the US. The US may have won every battle they fought, but the long-term result of that war will have been massive destabilization of a country that was fairly stable when the war started.

Better ask Kuwait, the Kurds and the Shiites about how good the stability was?

[WestViking]

My point is not that we "can't" invade other countries.... Obviously, the US military is all over the place. Canada has more or less taken part in it. And once you've started a war, withdrawal is not always a great solution.

The point I was trying to make is that attacking Iran (as I see it, the only way to stop them from making nuclear weapons) is not worth it. It creates huge problems that stick around for many years, and there is no political will to fix those problems.

And despite all the posts in this thread about Iran being Nazi-lovers, I don't think they're really planning to use nuclear weapons.

The gulf war was never over. There was a cease-fire which ended the shooting, but Saddam Hussein never complied with its terms. The United Nations sanctioned a blockade of Iraq which the US and allies, including Canada was enforcing. The blockade was in place because the UN was not satisfied that Iraq had disposed of its WMDs.

In past, when the US has taken military action against an enemy, she has stayed on keeping the peace and assisting in reconstruction. There is no need for this to continue. If it should become necessary to attack the nuclear capability in Iran, the US can employ bombers and cruise missiles to neutralize the threat and never land a soldier in Iran - or assist in any way following the attack.

Edited February 12, 2009 by WestViking

[IranianPride]

Of course any site that has Iran in the address can't possibly be biased....

Of course an article by a right wing Jewish Zionist can't possibly be biased... Of course you'll accept at face value, an article by a guy who's made a career out of writing books about how every one from IBM, to the Arabs to Iran was an anti-semite.

Iran nazi past is well known.

***

Without denial, they would have to come to grips with the hideous reality.

No it isn't, no one except you and Edwin Black thinks that Iran has a nazi past. You're a racist idiot.

Edited February 12, 2009 by IranianPride

[GostHacked]

Of course Saddam was a bad guy. My point is that that has nothing to do with why the US attacked Iraq.

Yep, he was the US's bad guy in the 80's. Rumsfeld payed Saddam a few visits during that time. And If WMDs was the case, why not invade Iraq right after the gassing of the Kurds? Why wait for the reason that was Kuwait to invade??

The difference here is oil. The kurds in the north of Iraq have none, while Kuwait is very rich in oil. Or is it the dollar value of the oil that was threatened?? I know another oil market would make the Sausdis and the Americans quite unhappy. Saddam wanted to go that route, same with

Iran. When you understand this .. all this claptrap hypnotizing bullshit that is spewed all over the airwaves is meant to distract the people from the real problem or real reason why an invasion happens.

ok.... and because we've done it, it's right??

Us Them

Freedom fighters ----------------Terrorists

POWs - ---------------------------unlawful combatants

Hard Interrogation - ------------Torture

Political Prisoners ---------------hostages

No matter what side of the fence you are on, you always look at it from the US side.

It always seems to come down to this. Having a little morality in yourself. People see the hypocrisy when the high road is claimed but the low road is taken. I know it does not matter to people like BC who claim might is right, and that having morals means nothing. Then why do we say that those other people are bad if we have no morals??

If you think the war in Iraq is over (and won?!?), you'd better think again. If the US withdraws troops in the next few years, there will be a massive civil war in Iraq, which will be a direct result of the power vacuum left by the US. The US may have won every battle they fought, but the long-term result of that war will have been massive destabilization of a country that was fairly stable when the war started.

They are gonna stay in Iraq long enough to stage the attack/invasion of Iran. Or give a close ally the secret green light.

[M.Dancer]

The kurds in the north of Iraq have none,

You might want to research that then edit accordingly....

Not a good sign when a post starts off with such a clanger...

[jbg]

The difference here is oil. The kurds in the north of Iraq have none, while Kuwait is very rich in oil.

The Kirkuk area, which is at least half Kurdish, has lots of oil.

[kactus]

You might want to research that then edit accordingly....

Not a good sign when a post starts off with such a clanger...

Except the fact that they (the kurds) do not have enough ENOUGH oil or shall we say as much oil as the kuwaitis and saudis coulped with the fact that there's another reason for US to stay away from the kurdish region not to piss off a proxy ally called Turkey (remember the turkish troop incursion into kurdish area last year). The rationale here is that militarisation of countires around the 'Persian Gulf' such as saudi arabia by the US. It has a two tier advantage:

1- Profitiering the american arms manuafacturers

2- Combating the vertical influence of russians from the north

That's where I would put my 50 cent/ toman/ rial or shekel.

[GostHacked]

You might want to research that then edit accordingly....

Not a good sign when a post starts off with such a clanger...

Hmm, looks like I am wrong about the oil part. Thanks, I learned something today, glad I am not above that !!!

However.

Like the clanger of WMD's that Iraq supposedly possessed?

I guess we both know bullshit when we see it.

[M.Dancer]

Like the clanger of WMD's that Iraq supposedly possessed?

Iraq did possess WMDs. What they actually did with them though is anyone's guess.

What they didn't do with them is acount for them under UN supervision.

[kactus]

Whether Iraq had WMDs or not is irrelevant. Sadam had by then reached its expiry date and had to be removed irrespective of WMD or no WMD.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Iran, as you know, wants to have nuclear power, and has taken steps in that direction.

Much of the rest of the world is trying to stop them, despite the fact that Iran has given many assurances that they are not going to build nuclear weapons with the technology.

Does the world have the right to try to stop them. Should they stop them? On what grounds?

Yea. A nation basically floating on oil and a publically stated goal of nuclear annihaliation needs nuke power for ENERGY.

What a joke.

[KeyStone]

Iraq did possess WMDs. What they actually did with them though is anyone's guess.

What they didn't do with them is acount for them under UN supervision.

Let it go already. I guess it's easier to deny, deny, deny than admit you were wrong since proving the inexistence of something beyond doubt is pretty much impossible.

Do you remember when the US first went in there?

They claimed that none of the Iraqi scientists would cooperate because they feared for their lives from Saddam.

They claimed that they couldn't find them because they didn't have unfettered access to the royal palaces.

Well, those excuses are gone now. Saddam and family are dead.

Do you not think that there is ONE SINGLE PERSON in all of Iraq who could come forth with irrefutable evidence of WMD, considering that the US would likely have no problem richly rewarding that person? And yet, no one has. No one has been able to do it, causing even the Bush administration to admit that there weren't any WMD. So, just give it up already and stop flailing for wild excuses about the weapons going to Syria etc.

[M.Dancer]

Let it go already. I guess it's easier to deny, deny, deny than admit you were wrong since proving the inexistence of something beyond doubt is pretty much impossible.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. It is an undeniable fact they had WMD. They used them against Iran and the Kurds. They had them in their stocks in the 1990s. These are facts that are not indispute.

The other fact not in dispute is we don't have an accounting for those weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except the fact that they (the kurds) do not have enough ENOUGH oil ....

.....they have enough oil for Canadian oil services contractors. LOL!

[M.Dancer]

Except the fact that they (the kurds) do not have enough ENOUGH oil or shall we say as much oil as the kuwaitis and saudis

Most oil producing nations don't so that is neither here no there

coulped with the fact that there's another reason for US to stay away from the kurdish region not to piss off a proxy ally called Turkey

The US has been in Iraqi Kurdistan since day one of the occupation

The rationale here is that militarisation of countires around the 'Persian Gulf' such as saudi arabia by the US. It has a two tier advantage:

1- Profitiering the american arms manuafacturers

You might want to look up the definition of profiteering

That's where I would put my 50 cent/ toman/ rial or shekel.

Overpriced

[dub]

1) No one has said they did violate it

2) They were prempted from violating the neutrality

3) Ha Ha!

so what you're trying to say is that iran was not collaborating with the nazis and they were a neutral country as they declared themselves to be.

then why have you been posting otherwise?

i don't know why you keep contradicting yourself. is there really a point having a discussion with a person like you?

[KeyStone]

When some posters replied in contest, evidence was provided. Is there a problem?

I think the problem is the suggestion was that Iran couldn't be trusted because they had ties to the nazis.

But as other posters have pointed out, I'm pretty sure Germany had ties to the nazis (not 100% sure, will try to find a link), but they are allowed nuclear energy.

I don't think having nuclear power is the issue, rather nuclear weapons. Why would Iran want to seperate U-235 from U-238, otherwise?

That's a brilliant observation. It's handy to have a nuclear physicist like yourself on hand here to point these things out to us.

Since the Candu reactors seperate the U-235 as well, it seems a no-brainer that the UN should impose sanctions on Canada, to quash Canadian nuclear weapon ambitions.

In actual fact, U-235 is far more stable, and is far more common in nuclear reactors than U-238.

Do some research, and hopefully this will cause you to question your source.

In other debates on this and other boards, I've seen posters say 'such & such is ancient history' (and thus apparently irrelevant) then turn around and talk about 1967 borders or what-not...apparently NOT so-called 'ancient history'. Fact is, all history is relevant right down to the tiniest detail.

Well, there is a pretty big difference between:

a) Suggesting that the character and trustworthiness of a nation be judged on events eighty years ago.

Asking that land be restored to its previous owners based on events eighty years ago.

Surely, just because we disregard the characterizations and judgements of the people of Iran based on something that happened that long ago doesn't mean that we have to throw out all past events and history entirely.

[dub]

Iraq did possess WMDs. What they actually did with them though is anyone's guess.

What they didn't do with them is acount for them under UN supervision.

you're not an honest person.