Nuclear Iran

[Prydania]

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.

I would like to see that happen. Many Iranians who don't identify with the current fundamentalist Islamic regime fly the flag of the Imperial era (the green, white, red tricolour with the golden lion). So I could see any new government, established by internal revolt or a US invasion, asking the Imperial family to return.

[Delfos]

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

Good assumption but not more than that.

I would like to see that happen. Many Iranians who don't identify with the current fundamentalist Islamic regime fly the flag of the Imperial era (the green, white, red tricolour with the golden lion). So I could see any new government, established by internal revolt or a US invasion, asking the Imperial family to return.

I would rather have President A or another solution than puppet Imperial family again. And i think those who support the return Imperial family in Iran are minority. But what you say is true, more and more people are against or not in favor of the current fundamentalist Islamic regime.

[Prydania]

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

Good assumption but not more than that.

That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?

I would like to see that happen. Many Iranians who don't identify with the current fundamentalist Islamic regime fly the flag of the Imperial era (the green, white, red tricolour with the golden lion). So I could see any new government, established by internal revolt or a US invasion, asking the Imperial family to return.

I would rather have President A or another solution than puppet Imperial family again. And i think those who support the return Imperial family in Iran are minority. But what you say is true, more and more people are against or not in favor of the current fundamentalist Islamic regime.

President A wants to destroy another sovereign state. Anyone else, Imperial puppet or not, is a better choice.
Besides, I don't see what's so wrong with establishing a democratic, secular regime in Iran, and inviting the Imperial family back to serve as a figurehead monarchy, like we see in Europe today. No real power, just to serve as a national symbol.

[Gecko1]

If the Imperial family agrees with U.S. demands. If the U.S. was to bring them back to power it would take an indirect path so that its already bad imperialist reputation won't be brought to a new low, as in order to do this direct bribery of the Iranian people would ensue either that or the U.S. openly denounces any form of democracy that doesn't suit it. (like that's a suprise) Second, if this was to happen the rest of the Shiite Islamic world would be up in flames as Iran is not the weakling nation it was in the 60s. Any change in government without a HUGE Iranian majority (that doesn't exist) would end in failure or have to take place in a big regional war. Third, Israel is a big enough burden, Don't Feed The Animals.

[Bender1968]

Quote
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

Good assumption but not more than that.

then i think we have to rely on good faith.

Are you serious?  An assumption?  "Good faith" when you are playing nuclear chess?  There is plenty of desert, why not build wind farms since there is a constant wind moving?  Why not build gas plants since where there's oil, there's natural gas(propane)?  Why does it have to be nuclear? 

I'd like you to either look up how a nuclear reactor works (other than it turns water into steam and steam turns the generator turbines) or come right and say that you want to see Iran become a nuclear power. It seems like you want Iran to have a bomb really bad.  There is no such thing as a reactor that doesn't make weapons grade materials.

[Tacolicious]

Yes, that is why the assumption is that Iran wants nuclear power to build a bomb and the power it would create would just be a nice little bonus. I agree that green energy projects are the way to go (not so much on more fossil fuel burning though, we don't need more greenhouse gases floating around up there), if it is just for the bomb then maybe it would be turned down but that doesn't mean we should try offering it instead of just skipping directly to a war or to starving the Iranian people of electricity.

War is supposed to be a last resort, something the Americans seem to have lost sight of.

That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?

The assumption is that the war cries are being shouted for all that black gold. Ultimately it's wise to assume nothing and look over the situation and the evidence at hand and then draw a flexible conclusion.

[Prydania]

Yes, that is why the assumption is that Iran wants nuclear power to build a bomb and the power it would create would just be a nice little bonus. I agree that green energy projects are the way to go (not so much on more fossil fuel burning though, we don't need more greenhouse gases floating around up there), if it is just for the bomb then maybe it would be turned down but that doesn't mean we should try offering it instead of just skipping directly to a war or to starving the Iranian people of electricity.

War is supposed to be a last resort, something the Americans seem to have lost sight of.

That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?

The assumption is that the war cries are being shouted for all that black gold. Ultimately it's wise to assume nothing and look over the situation and the evidence at hand and then draw a flexible conclusion.

You're right, war should be a lats resort. That's a double sided blade though. Yes, we must work to make sure we don't jump the gun on any military action prematurely; on the other hand we can't be afraid to attack when that becomes the only realistic option.

Yes, as far as Iran's energy needs go green methods would be my top choice to. No one would debate that (save Esso and Shell).
We have to all be realistic here. We're not dealing with someone who's playing with a full deck of cards. President A, if he acquires a nuclear bomb, will use it against Israel as soon as possible. So time is very much a factor.
Why waste time offering him green technology that in all likelihood he will turn it down, probably dragging out the process of turning it down to give his nuclear team more time to develop a weapon?
Given that time is a factor, I don't want to see time wasted on attempts at peace that in all likelihood won't work. When time is a factor you have to act on the most likely scenario.
I don't give a shit about Iran's oil. I just want that fundamentalist regime gone.

[Bender1968]

I just want that fundamentalist regime gone.

Don't worry we're(the US) going into Iran in about 5 months.  Bush's speeches are filled with the same language and mannerisms 5 months before we went into Iraq.  Just another reason why I don't want to Iran to have nuclear weapons.

[Gecko1]

Wow Bush is already trying to treat Hillary like his maid. "Mommy I broke the Middle East."

[Delfos]

like we see in Europe today. No real power, just to serve as a national symbol.

To serve as VIP status, not even national symbol? the national symbol is the crown, not who has it. Even Spanish monarchy is challenged today, more and more people want to stop it. Monarchy is for loosers :p not really but it's for those states that need monarchy as front for nationalism and have money to sustain it. Monarchy sucks large amounts of money for 1 man or woman. What for? Iran doesn't need monarchs.

I agree there's other ways to fill the need of other energy sources for Iran, those who say nuclear power is better than clean power shouldn't have a problem with it, nuclear power will help Iran to develop everything and everyone, probably to become a world power (ooooh, that's why!). As i said before:

I think they need Nuclear power to develop their society, i hope to something better. Nuclear power has the power to make this things, that's how Ukrain and Russia Progressed...well not the best examples but look at them, not exactly stone age. I don't like Nuclear power, and i support the Portuguese government decision to stay out of it, i also agree with Taco about clean energies should be the step to the future instead of Nuclear Plants, but how can we demand it to a place of the world so exploited and divided and marginalized? Can we? by force?

That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?

Yes, always good to assume ALL possibilities. That's one in many, and it isn't true before it really happens or it's prooved. Don't you agree?

We are in NATO for good faith, we help our allies for good faith, the day we stop to have faith in other nations might lead to the third world war.

[Bender1968]

Nuclear power has the power to make this things, that's how Ukrain and Russia Progressed

That is not how Russia and the Ukraine progressed.  Back in 1917 there was a revolution in Russia.  In 1922 all the provincial regions were brought under the banner of 1 country called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Soviet Union of you like.  Russia and the Ukraine were part of it.  Russian power plants are sub-par building and have been known to explode and dump a massive amount of radiation in central and northern Europe(look up the Chernobyl nuclear accident that occured in 1986).  Since then the Soviet Union has fallen and has no natural resources or goods it can trade with in the western world.  The existing reactors have not been dismantled and rebuilt since they do not have the funds to fix or replace them.     

We are in NATO for good faith, we help our allies for good faith, the day we stop to have faith in other nations might lead to the third world war.

NATO= North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Portugal is doing more that pledging good faith by signing a treaty.  You're pledging that you will stand by the other nations, no matter what.  That's a lot more than good faith.

nuclear power will help Iran to develop everything and everyone, probably to become a world power

Why on God's green earth would you ever want Iran to be a world power? 

[Delfos]

It's not what i want, it's probably what they want. And why not? As far as i know, they are large enough to support that, if they had Nuclear Power it would be a step further for awesome stability, probably to develop much more social rights and stuff like that. And probably be a world power, who knows. I don't care if they get to be a world power or not, if they do, good for them, but it shouldn't be us who decide who has the right to be a world power or not, nor to deny the access of nuclear power to anyone...although the creation of nuclear weapons is a risk, we either get a solution for that or we can't do much more than sit and watch. If you want to go to Iran to stop it, sure go ahead. Just don't drag the 'western world' behind.

True what you say about NATO, we had to deploy troops in Afghanistan because of NATO, and US force high ranks ask NATO allies to drag more troops into it, no thanks. We didn't start this whole thing. We only send Peace Keeping forces and engineers and stuff like that, and wherever we go there's not much of a struggle. Specially in Kosovo the Portuguese forces had done great job, rebuilding schools and maintaining order. You have to admit, struggle goes wherever the Americans go. We had a force in Kabul a week or so later some Americans got killed, there was no struggle against the Portuguese forces. I mentioned this before. You must see that they are not against NATO, they are only against US forces. We try to help, if US makes it worse by going in Iran, how do you want us to continue helping? France already said is ready for a war with Iran, but Germany is apprehensive. I doubt any other European nation wants or is ready for a war with Iran. I'm sure, when it comes to the table, Portuguese committee will disapprove any incursion in Iran.

[Shavend]

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.

Do you mean the Sha? I actually have no idea how that's spelled...

[Aquatoria]

NATO is an American alliance and it has lost it's use. It was originally created to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and now it is used in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. But NATO is a fraud, it is just another way for the United States to control it's allies. Think about, when has there ever been a NATO Supreme Commander that was either a European or a Canadian. None, all of them from the creation of NATO to now have been Americans. The United States may have had good intentions when the alliance was formed, but now it is used as just another tool of the growing American Empire. And don't say that the United States isn't an empire. You don't need an emperor to have an empire. Think about the United States has bases all over the world, in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle-East. Trust me, NATO should be disbanded. But the only way for it to be disbanded is if Europe decides to leave. If Canada, who cares? It not like we actually contribute alot to the NATO Alliance, but if the nations of the European Union left, then the United States would have to disband it. Cause if Europe left, then Canada would leave and then there would be no NATO.

[Prydania]

NATO is an American alliance and it has lost it's use. It was originally created to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and now it is used in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. But NATO is a fraud, it is just another way for the United States to control it's allies. Think about, when has there ever been a NATO Supreme Commander that was either a European or a Canadian. None, all of them from the creation of NATO to now have been Americans. The United States may have had good intentions when the alliance was formed, but now it is used as just another tool of the growing American Empire. And don't say that the United States isn't an empire. You don't need an emperor to have an empire. Think about the United States has bases all over the world, in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle-East. Trust me, NATO should be disbanded. But the only way for it to be disbanded is if Europe decides to leave. If Canada, who cares? It not like we actually contribute alot to the NATO Alliance, but if the nations of the European Union left, then the United States would have to disband it. Cause if Europe left, then Canada would leave and then there would be no NATO.