Nuclear Iran

[Shavend]

Please, continue on why you think America is the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying it isn't, I would just like to hear you support your point.

[Eluvatar]

Actually under the Nuclear non-proliferation agreement, to which Iran is a signatory, Iran has the right to nuclear power.

The question where there are disagreements are what kind of reactors it is to have-- certain more powerful reactors also have the side-effect of needing enriched fuel. Europe and the United States are reluctant to see Iran enriching its own fuel because that is a major step in bomb-making. As for invading Iran, I believe that that would be an insanely bad decision for the United States to make at this time.

Additionally, I suspect that the election of Ahmadinejad may be somewhat blamed on the United States' failure to embrace the previous reformist Khatami. There was a certain level of disillusionment as a result in Iran. If I remember correctly though, Ahmadinejad is likely to lose the next election, in part due to his antics.

Interestingly enough, Iran is one of the more democratic nations of the region, although the striking of 1/3 of candidates off the ballot by the religious branch a few years ago demonstrated that it is nowhere near as democratic as one would like.

[Delfos]

I begin this post to say I'm very proud of you all, we finally came back to the Iran discussion.

I have a suggestion for I-S, try not to double post, it's not about posting, but it breaks allot of the reading, I'm waiting to see an answer and i get you replying a second or third time. Just a suggestion.

About the invasion of Iran, I want to ask about the future, there's a very thin possibility that USA actually makes a successful operation in Iran, if it does, what will come next? Perpetuate history and put a puppet in power to be overthrown some time later or to become a dictator?

On other possibilities, do you acknowledge that if USA looses a war with Iran or if it turns into another Iraq it will damage allot of the already damaged image?

When USA failed in Somalia, it broke through the message that a superpower can be beaten by small armed groups. That's what gave strenght to Al Qaeda. if USA fails again...terrorist attacks will probably become stronger and with shorter periods of time between them and reach the heart of 'the west'.

I think an incursion in Iran will be worse for everyone.

About links to Al Qaeda, I have my doubts if this isn't just an excuse. Why not strike Al Qaeda directly instead of making others suffer. The French special forces already had Bin Laden in sight and Americans didn't gave the order to shoot. I'm not really sure what they want to do to Al Qaeda. Same goes for Afghanistan. Taliban were always there, even before Al Qaeda as far as i know. They are tribesmen, why should NATO bomb Afghan villages if Al Qaeda isn't present? Oh rather bomb 100 villagers to kill 3 Taliban because they have links with Al Qaeda? Does that make sense? No wonder people around there don't like what US forces are doing, specially in Iraq. USA is very influent in the image of 'the west'. They drag everyone else to their causes. But for what? War on terror, well seems more a war on tribesmen.

LETS FREE MIDDLE EAST, LETS FORCE THEM TO OUR DEMOCRACY! very reasonable!!! hey i love the hippo flapping the hears.

[Tacolicious]

About the invasion of Iran, I want to ask about the future, there's a very thin possibility that USA actually makes a successful operation in Iran, if it does, what will come next? Perpetuate history and put a puppet in power to be overthrown some time later or to become a dictator?

On other possibilities, do you acknowledge that if USA looses a war with Iran or if it turns into another Iraq it will damage allot of the already damaged image?

When USA failed in Somalia, it broke through the message that a superpower can be beaten by small armed groups. That's what gave strenght to Al Qaeda. if USA fails again...terrorist attacks will probably become stronger and with shorter periods of time between them and reach the heart of 'the west'.

I think the story of small being able to overcome big has been around for a while, be it in the form of David and Goliath, or in barbarian tribes defeating Rome.

If the US were to attack Iran those would be the only two options left to them, you can't knock a building down to it's foundations and expect it to rebuild itself from the rubble in an even better form. I'd also say that given the way most of the world sees the US right now any further damage to it's image would be the equivalent of flogging a dead horse.

I think an incursion in Iran will be worse for everyone.

Agreed.

About links to Al Qaeda, I have my doubts if this isn't just an excuse. Why not strike Al Qaeda directly instead of making others suffer. The French special forces already had Bin Laden in sight and Americans didn't gave the order to shoot. I'm not really sure what they want to do to Al Qaeda. Same goes for Afghanistan. Taliban were always there, even before Al Qaeda as far as i know. They are tribesmen, why should NATO bomb Afghan villages if Al Qaeda isn't present? Oh rather bomb 100 villagers to kill 3 Taliban because they have links with Al Qaeda? Does that make sense? No wonder people around there don't like what US forces are doing, specially in Iraq. USA is very influent in the image of 'the west'. They drag everyone else to their causes. But for what? War on terror, well seems more a war on tribesmen.

I can see why the Americans wouldn't just want him killed in the field, they'd want to bring him to trial to make a good show of all the progress they're pretending to make in the war against a concept.

The war makes no sense, but how many wars really do when you start looking at the human cost. The fact that those tribesmen stand in the way of economic development of an area which has resources vital to the continued running of the western economy has far more to do with the war then terrorist plots ever will.

(click to show/hide)

Just to go back to a topic of freedoms in democracy. I thought this was a cute couple of articles:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20925632-38200,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20500790/
http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=8056

There's also been quite a few incidents of people being barred from travel or suspended from school just for the simple act of wearing a t-shirt. Such is the protected right of free speech.

[Kyleslavia]

Interestingly enough, Iran is one of the more democratic nations of the region, although the striking of 1/3 of candidates off the ballot by the religious branch a few years ago demonstrated that it is nowhere near as democratic as one would like.

Honestly, Iran isn't really democratic at all. The people have absolutely no power to influence the decision making process. Rather, the supreme leader who has the power to veto any decision by the government and decide who can run in elections, has ultimate power. Also, there are other countries such as Lebanon, Israel, Qatar, and the UAE, which have at least some democratic practices which can be seen far greater than Iran's.

[Delfos]

Yes, we have allot of power with the modern democracy. We put someone into power and they do whatever they want. Bush is the right icon for that, great example of democracy. President A only does the same thing others do. And i believe he wont stay for long, or if he does, he will loose power to his 'government'.

Do you know how Greek democracy was? How can we call it democracy now? oh right, practically only aristocrat males were 'citizens', that have changed, but now it's a balls contest. Whoever looks stronger and with bigger balls gets the seat.

[Gecko1]

Interestingly enough, Iran is one of the more democratic nations of the region, although the striking of 1/3 of candidates off the ballot by the religious branch a few years ago demonstrated that it is nowhere near as democratic as one would like.

Honestly, Iran isn't really democratic at all. The people have absolutely no power to influence the decision making process. Rather, the supreme leader who has the power to veto any decision by the government and decide who can run in elections, has ultimate power. Also, there are other countries such as Lebanon, Israel, Qatar, and the UAE, which have at least some democratic practices which can be seen far greater than Iran's.

Still America's fault for getting rid of those principals. It is still America's fault for keeping those principals from retrning. If they had rather just kept out of Britains little plot to return their petrol reseves then perhaps Iran wouldn't be where it is today, also the whole Iran prisnoers thing from the 1980s has not been put back into public veiw, shows people care more about other things than Iran right now.

[Bender1968]

If everyone gets nukes and if it prevents war, then I'm all up for it.

What if someone decides to use their nukes?  Then everyone is screwed.  Everyone having nukes to maintain a balance of terror is not a good thing.  Someone is going to prove that they would use them and their people would rather be radioactive dust than have the warring country live.  If you think I'm wrong, look at the middle east for the past 6 years. 

To get back on track, what leader would allow a multi-national organization to be a watchdog over their nuclear program?  Look at all the problems the UN had with Hussein after Desert Storm.  No one will allow it. 

[Delfos]

then i think we have to rely on good faith.

[Tacolicious]

Honestly even with UN regulation and oversight a nuclear program still has a lot of holes and the people doing the overseeing are as corruptible as anyone.

If nuclear power were the only viable solution, a tightly watched program could be justified, but considering green alternatives remain; building a geographically suited program could benefit Iran with sustainable power and other countries as a field for continued energy research. I don't see how nuclear is a risk worth taking in this situation.

[Bender1968]

Nuclear power by itself, no.  The problem is what a nuclear reactor makes.  The by-products are what make nuclear weapons.

[Tacolicious]

Exactly, and no matter how tight we may make the security there's going to be ways to slip enriched uranium or other materials past inspectors or to get them off site. Considering the horrible security of nuclear sites in the US and Canada I can't see the Iranian nuclear sites being safe enough to warrant taking the risk on allowing nuclear power within Iran.

[Aquatoria]

I learned something in class a few days ago. Maybe, for the greater good, dictators like Saddam and the Iranian president are truly what the Middle-East needs. I mean when Saddam was in power, he kept the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds under control. There was no fighting between the three groups. True, Saddam did kill some of them, but for the greater good, it kept everyone under control. But when the Americans invaded Iraq, all that control Saddam had on the separate groups went to hell and now we have the mess that we are dealing with now. Democracy will never work in the Middle-East and it never has. To invade Iran will create an unstable Middle-East, but to have someone strong and who can control the people's personal wraths on each other will create a peaceful Middle-East. Call it horrible, call it murder and genocide, but if it is for the greater good, for the benefit of the Middle-East, isn't it best to leave it alone. Demcracy doesn't work every time.

[Prydania]

Honestly even with UN regulation and oversight a nuclear program still has a lot of holes and the people doing the overseeing are as corruptible as anyone.

If nuclear power were the only viable solution, a tightly watched program could be justified, but considering green alternatives remain; building a geographically suited program could benefit Iran with sustainable power and other countries as a field for continued energy research. I don't see how nuclear is a risk worth taking in this situation.

You're right, but the problem lies with the fact that in all likelihood President A doesn't want nuclear power for Iran's energy needs, he wants it to build a bomb. The energy story is just a cover.
So saying "solar or wind power would be better" is a mute point. He wants a bomb, plain and simple.
If the US, UN, or anyone else offered him the means of establishing a "green" energy system he would turn it down and offer up a convoluted excuse as to why he NEEDS nuclear power.

Please, continue on why you think America is the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying it isn't, I would just like to hear you support your point.

Who are you again?

Anyway let's see....
Option 1) USA; The nation that revitalized democracy as a viable form of government and would allow me to practise the religion I was raised in or.....
Option 2) Islamic Extremists; People who advocate the destruction of the nation I consider the Holiest place on Earth, and would hang me for not being a Muslim.

I understand that there's different strokes for different folks, but I'll stick with Option 1, thank you.
Of course we could go back to the good old days of the US vs the British Empire, and things would be so much simpler. That's not the world we live in though. We live in a world where we have to make peace with out older enemies to combat an enemy we both have in common. Further, we need to recognize the similarities we have with that older enemy.
Judging from your previous posts, you're a Yank. Would you rather stay in the US or move to Iran? Same question.

I learned something in class a few days ago. Maybe, for the greater good, dictators like Saddam and the Iranian president are truly what the Middle-East needs. I mean when Saddam was in power, he kept the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds under control. There was no fighting between the three groups. True, Saddam did kill some of them, but for the greater good, it kept everyone under control. But when the Americans invaded Iraq, all that control Saddam had on the separate groups went to hell and now we have the mess that we are dealing with now. Democracy will never work in the Middle-East and it never has. To invade Iran will create an unstable Middle-East, but to have someone strong and who can control the people's personal wraths on each other will create a peaceful Middle-East. Call it horrible, call it murder and genocide, but if it is for the greater good, for the benefit of the Middle-East, isn't it best to leave it alone. Demcracy doesn't work every time.

You bring up a very good point.
I liken it to Russia. They spent hundreds of years under the Tsars, and 74 years under the Communist regime. Then they try to turn the place into a capitalistic democracy overnight, and the system crashes. Only now, when Putin starts acting in an authoritarian manner, is Russia recovering. So maybe after centuries of authoritarian and totalitarian rulers, Russians are just used to that kind of rule. Maybe democracy isn't for them.
The same would go for the middle east. First the Romans, then the Byzantines, the Ottomans, then the British and French colonial rulers. Maybe this is a group of people who doesn't want democracy.
I would definitely agree with Iraq. Saddam may have been a brutal dictator, but he kept the country in line, much like Tito did in Yugoslavia. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone, he just wanted to consolidate his power within his own borders. Given the alternative, various tribes killing one and other, Saddam should have been kept in power.
Iran, I kind of agree with you. Maybe a dictatorship of some kind is needed. I wouldn't say President A is the man for the job though. He's threatening the well-being of the world. Whereas Saddam confined himself to Iraq, President A is threatening the entire world.
If Iran can only be ruled by a dictator, I can respect that. Just find one who isn't a total nut job. 

[Aquatoria]

I think if anyone besides President A should run Iran, it should be returned to the Iranian Imperial Family. The Emperor and Empress were well-known and respected, not to mention that they had advanced Iran into a powerful and proud state. Perhaps the Imperial Family should return to Iran, because they still care for the well-being of the nation, I mena the Crown Prince even asked the Iranian government if he could fight in the Iraq-Iran War.