Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

M.Dancer · January 18, 2009

^ very good points.
i'll also ask again; if iran does end up with nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of the NPT. would it make it okay if they pull out of the NPT? kind of like india, pakistan and israel?

Israel India and Pakistan never pulled out of the NPT.

M.Dancer · January 18, 2009

has iran attacked any country in the past century?

Yes. As a state sponsor of terrorism they have attacked numerous countries.

wulf42 · January 18, 2009

Well the one factor you can be sure of...as soon as Iran gets close to making a Nuke Israel is going to smoke 'em but good!

JerrySeinfeld · January 18, 2009

Why can't Iran have a nuke? This is the "discussion"?

Gee. 20 years ago when only "crazies" like Reagan had nukes, then the left was all hot and bothered by it, making movies like "the day after" etc.

But of course, in the new age progressive world, now that prefectly sane (sic) countries like Iran or North korea want 'em, we're all cool with it, is that how it goes?

Sickening. Threads like this don't deserve a reply.

dub · January 19, 2009

Why can't Iran have a nuke? This is the "discussion"?

actually, the original poster asked; why can't iran have nuclear power and not "a nuke".

then the discussion shifted to some people spreading more double standards. why can israel, who is militarily aggressive and who has not only threatened many countries but it has actually attacked other countries have nuclear weapons and other countries cannot?

Gee. 20 years ago when only "crazies" like Reagan had nukes, then the left was all hot and bothered by it, making movies like "the day after" etc.
But of course, in the new age progressive world, now that prefectly sane (sic) countries like Iran or North korea want 'em, we're all cool with it, is that how it goes?

Sickening. Threads like this don't deserve a reply.

so why are you okay with "crazies" like israel having nukes?

your double standard and unwillingness to discuss an obvious flaw in your politics is sickening.

JerrySeinfeld · January 19, 2009

actually, the original poster asked; why can't iran have nuclear power and not "a nuke".
then the discussion shifted to some people spreading more double standards. why can israel, who is militarily aggressive and who has not only threatened many countries but it has actually attacked other countries have nuclear weapons and other countries cannot?

so why are you okay with "crazies" like israel having nukes?

your double standard and unwillingness to discuss an obvious flaw in your politics is sickening.

It's obvious Israel is on it's own in facing the entire world's double standard as it applies to palesitians' consistent acts of war on Israel.

Then Israel finally retaliates and the palistinians cry us a river.

pullleeeeeease.

The animals in gaza and the rest of the middle east are lucky israel has some restraint. After all, we all know that if this truly was a war and not a mild retaliation, then Israel woud have nuked the bastards.

IranianPride · January 19, 2009

Then Israel finally retaliates and the palistinians cry us a river.

JerrySeinfeld,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg

Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members

Edited January 19, 2009 by IranianPride

Mr.Canada · January 19, 2009

I may support Iran having a nuclear reactor. It would help that country address its energy problems. Why is it that the west wants only the west to have nuclear energy. It doesn't seem very fair to me.

trooper · January 19, 2009

I may support Iran having a nuclear reactor. It would help that country address its energy problems. Why is it that the west wants only the west to have nuclear energy. It doesn't seem very fair to me.

Because they don't want Iran to be another Pakistan.

US knows Bin Laden is in Pakistan, the CIA knows it, Bush knows it and even Obama knows it. Yet, they send billions of dollars in aid to the nation instead of sending troops in and capturing Bin Laden their #1 Enemy. Why? Nuclear weapons makes them show 'respect' to avoid the use of it.

No wonder Iran wants a nuclear weapon to get the same benefits as Pakistan.

dub · January 19, 2009

Because they don't want Iran to be another Pakistan.
US knows Bin Laden is in Pakistan, the CIA knows it, Bush knows it and even Obama knows it. Yet, they send billions of dollars in aid to the nation instead of sending troops in and capturing Bin Laden their #1 Enemy. Why? Nuclear weapons makes them show 'respect' to avoid the use of it.

No wonder Iran wants a nuclear weapon to get the same benefits as Pakistan.

i somewhat agree with that. i don't agree that iran will ever become friendly with bin laden or other sunni's, but it does want the respect nuclear power gives to nations. mostly because U.S. has nuclear weapons in their submarines pointing at iran in the persian gulf and they also know that israel is a bit of an emotional and trigger-happy country.

iran is a bit like the way israel felt in the 50's, 60's and 70's with all the arab nations, who are pretty much all tamed now, surrounding it, threatening and complaining about the treatment of the palestinians. except that there was a big difference; back then, the arab nations were not powerful militarily. the smaller israel had more infantry than all the arab countries combined and israel also had top of the line weapons supplied by america. whereas now, U.S. has the most powerful military in the world and israel has the 5th most powerful military.

bush_cheney2004 · January 19, 2009

.... mostly because U.S. has nuclear weapons in their submarines pointing at iran in the persian gulf and they also know that israel is a bit of an emotional and trigger-happy country.

Nope...that's not how it works. SLBM's aren't "pointed" at anything until spun up on a myriad of target choices.....even Canada! :lol:

the smaller israel had more infantry than all the arab countries combined and israel also had top of the line weapons supplied by america. whereas now

Iranians are not "Arabs"....they are Persians. Such an insult means death by stoning.

marcinmoka · January 19, 2009

Keystone, as (and I presume) a Canadian, do you want Iran to have easier access to Nuclear weapons?

Would it be in your best interest? Would it make the world a safer place?

dub · January 19, 2009

Iranians are not "Arabs"....they are Persians.

either i didn't make my point clear enough or you didn't pay attention to what i said. i was comparing israel and arab countries' military strength when they fought decades ago.

Such an insult means death by stoning.

it is an insult, but it doesn't lead to stoning. perhaps you can use this piece of knowledge so that next you get the urge to utter misinformation, you can prevent yourself from doing it.

Edited January 19, 2009 by dub

dub · January 19, 2009

Keystone, as (and I presume) a Canadian, do you want Iran to have easier access to Nuclear weapons?
Would it be in your best interest? Would it make the world a safer place?

as a canadian, i wouldn't feel any safer with israel having the only nuclear power, aka the trump card, in the region. israel is a big reason for keeping the region unstable.

whether iran has nuclear weapons or not it wouldn't make a difference. if they ever used them, they'd be attacked immediately by U.S. ships, submarines and planes that are surrounding them. as fanatical as the mullahs are made to look, i don't think they're going to risk losing power over this by shooting missiles around. they need a bad guy just as much as the israeli and the U.S. governments do in order to hold onto power. even kim jon who is a well-known lunatic has managed to keep its fingers off the trigger. he also doesn't feel as much pressure as iran at the moment.

Edited January 19, 2009 by dub

marcinmoka · January 19, 2009

as a canadian, i wouldn't feel any safer with israel having the only nuclear power, aka the trump card, in the region. israel is a big reason for keeping the region unstable.

That's not what I asked. So once again, is it in your best interest for Iran to have access to the nuclear weapons?

jbg · January 19, 2009

as a canadian, i wouldn't feel any safer with israel having the only nuclear power, aka the trump card, in the region. israel is a big reason for keeping the region unstable.

Are you saying if Israel would just shrivel up and die that part of the world would have peace and prosperity?

dub · January 19, 2009

That's not what I asked. So once again, is it in your best interest for Iran to have access to the nuclear weapons?

my answer to your question is that iran having a nuclear weapon would not be any worse than israel having it. iran would ever be a threat to canada or canadians.

dub · January 19, 2009

Are you saying if Israel would just shrivel up and die that part of the world would have peace and prosperity?

not sure how you got that from what i said.

i think if iran had nuclear weapons, it's quite possible that israel would not be waving its guns at all directions like they have been doing. it would make them think twice before they start on bombing campaigns over their borders like they did in lebanon and they've done in gaza. israel is a bully right now and they have been getting away with whatever they've wanted.

i think ideal would be that neither countries had nuclear weapons, however, we know that israel would not give up their weapons. so the next best thing is for iran to bring some balance into the region by acquiring nuclear weapons.

DogOnPorch · January 19, 2009

i somewhat agree with that. i don't agree that iran will ever become friendly with bin laden or other sunni's, but it does want the respect nuclear power gives to nations. mostly because U.S. has nuclear weapons in their submarines pointing at iran in the persian gulf and they also know that israel is a bit of an emotional and trigger-happy country.
iran is a bit like the way israel felt in the 50's, 60's and 70's with all the arab nations, who are pretty much all tamed now, surrounding it, threatening and complaining about the treatment of the palestinians. except that there was a big difference; back then, the arab nations were not powerful militarily. the smaller israel had more infantry than all the arab countries combined and israel also had top of the line weapons supplied by america. whereas now, U.S. has the most powerful military in the world and israel has the 5th most powerful military.

Nonsense. The Arab nations...in particular, Egypt and Syria were armed with the latest Soviet weapons for free. The Yom Kippur had the largest tank battles since Kursk where modern Soviet made T-55s and T-62s fought it out with Israeli WW2 era Super Shermans. Note how the Israelis were vastly outnumbered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Superior command & control. Sadat fired the only good general the Arabs ever had besides Tell right during the battle.

:lol:

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

It's a Daisy.

Wild Bill · January 19, 2009

JerrySeinfeld,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg

Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members

There we have it - the difference in values!

"Almost stopped completely"? What the hell does that mean? "Gee Mrs. Goldman, sorry that rocket landed on your house where your children had been sleeping. Still, the rockets had almost stopped!"

ONE rocket launched at innocents is a vile, disgusting terrorist act!

To me, someone claiming virtue for "almost stopping" killing innocents as their main target is incomprehensible. It illustrates the difference in core values and is why Hamas and similar groups perpetuate the western notion that Arab protesters are "mad dogs" that cannot be reasoned with.

M.Dancer · January 19, 2009

.... the smaller israel had more infantry than all the arab countries combined

Well, at least it isn't just the Geneva conventions you are ignorant of....

Israel has 176,500 personnel in all branches...Air, Navy and Army

Egypt alone has 450,000 in the Army ALONE....

Happy to help improve your slack and idle thinking.

jbg · January 20, 2009

i think ideal would be that neither countries had nuclear weapons, however, we know that israel would not give up their weapons. so the next best thing is for iran to bring some balance into the region by acquiring nuclear weapons.

So if Ahmenajad gets some command from Allah everyone's incinerated?

jbg · January 20, 2009

Happy to help improve your slack and idle thinking.

Well, duhb. Edited January 20, 2009 by jbg

dub · January 20, 2009

Well, at least it isn't just the Geneva conventions you are ignorant of....
Israel has 176,500 personnel in all branches...Air, Navy and Army

Egypt alone has 450,000 in the Army ALONE....

Happy to help improve your slack and idle thinking.

i was talking about the 1948 war.

you still haven't told me exactly where i'm ignorant when it comes to the geneva convention.

dub · January 20, 2009

So if Ahmenajad gets some command from Allah everyone's incinerated?

if ahmadinejad was going to get a command from allah, he would have received it by now. iran's shahab missiles are capable of hitting israel.

regardless, as i've already mentioned, iran would not attack israel since there are weapons pointing at it from the U.S. from many different directions.

an intelligent person is not going to be scared like you because they understand the logic of the situation.