Michael

I am going to respond fast because I am short on time.

There are several things to consider:
1. Iran is admitting to enriching uranium for "peaceful" purposes.
2. The US and other countries HAVE NOT made any claims that they have weapons but do have the intention to make them
3. The IAEE has gone in or is going to to evaluate them and they are saying that they will not change their position no matter what they say

I don't think the US is trying to go to war with Iran but I may be wrong. I think Iran is just trying to....well you know what, they seem crazy enough to go to war with Israel...or let me not say crazy enough but passionate and motivated enough to do such a thing.

I think the only problem we see is inconsistent, politicall incorrect, and dangerous comments coming from Iran. Their intentions only mean harm. I don't know if you don't realize that Artist but the point is that Iran has made some very scary comments that would make me worry about letting them have nukes.

I truly think that this problem, like many out there, can be resolved without war. I don't like war, and when I say that war should be the last resort I mean that.

I think diplomacy should be taken more serious by both ends of the spectrum. Europe has to get guts to stand unified on what they believe. If they do not want Iran with nukes then full steam ahead with diplomatic actions.

Let me ask you something. What happens if the UN passes sanctions against Iran? They don't need Russia or China to necessarily agree with sanctions for them to be passed. What if Iran doesn't obey them? What then?
You really feel that Iran would be perfectly fine with nuclear weapons--if that is their intention?

Curb Zone

 

Osnabrueck

Actually Artist, the question isn't should there be a war. That's not on the table, even if Iran continues along its current path.

The question is weather or not China and Russia will eventually go along with the rest of the UN security council and approve sanctions against Iran if they refuse to cooperate in the near future.

If not, the rest of the world has to sit on their hands and figure out what's to be done.

The Artist

yep gotta agree with you both..
now to every muslim (or atleast me and the ones i know) the state of israel causes many problem for us.. and i feel its missplaced and actually i dont even see it as a real state.. if im allowed to be honest..

BUT ( and this is a big one).. the year is 2006 and we have to deal with situatuon that is.. to wipe out a whole nation as the irani dude says..is just freakin stupid to be honest.. if you make such claims then ofcourse ppl will get alarmed about your intentions with anything let alone nuclear power..

so imo if the iranis does not co oporate with the UN there should be sanctions..

PS
Note imo listening to the UN or doing what they say is not the same thing as doing what the US says (or atleast i like to belive so)..
and just to be clear.. i still belive the US has other intention with a iran war than just guarding their land and israel

Hypersonic

I hear this propaganda a lot - but it is completely untrue. The United Nations is not run by the US - if anything, the current Secretary General (Kofi Annan) quite obviously cannot stand the Bush administration. What you said Artist is absolutely untrue - Iran is part of the UN itself for gods sake.

As far as sanctions go .....well we are just going down the same path as Iraq .......sanctions will only further isolate Iran ...and that in turn, will continue to fuel radical Islam and it's hatred of the west.

The Artist

i think you missunderstood me roberto.. i was saying that i belive that the UN is not run by the US.. and then i just added atleast i like to belive so..

PS
well if sanctions will fuel radical islam and hatred towards US.. what will the a War do?? i think even more damage..
so i dont know how they will solve this problem.. your point is very vaild to..
so i guess the only thing we can do is to sit back and hope that no blood is spilled..

Hypersonic

Oh sorry Artist - I did misunderstand. I have heard lots of people recently saying the US runs the UN ........I think they would like to..it would make things much easier for the Bush government if they did run the UN.

I think Donald Rumsfeld probably wishes those planes on September 11 had flown into the UN building instead of the World trade Center.

The Artist

yeah man ..who wouldnt wanna run the UN.. imagene the crap you can get away with if you get the approvement of the UN..
well i guess we are lucky that its still free and not ran by any specific country

Hypersonic

Yes, that is the dichotomy here Artist. Sanctions will only hurt the innocent citizens of Iran (I know some Iranians....they are very nice people), the Iranian government has no respect for the UN and doesn't want the UN's nuclear council (or whatever it's called) to be the inspectors of their nuclear plant.

I am not anti-Iran at all, I think countries do have the right to make decisions for their own benefit - but the necessity for nuclear power is very hard to understand in a country that has massive fuel reserves - Iran has no need for nuclear power ......so it's obvious they want weapons.

I agree with you guys about Israel - it's just scary that Israel has nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race was based on the [rather illogical] premise that those weapons were a "deterrent" - the unspoken understanding was that the US and the USSR could destroy each other in half an hour ....but nobody would ever actually be the first to "push the button" ...which kind of begs the question, why did they keep producing more and more weapons when they already had enough to kill every single person on the planet in just a few hours?

...but the world has changed considerably since the Cold War - the largest nuclear weapons will [almost certainly] never be used, but we are now living in an era where the actual deployment of small nuclear weapons is not so much a possibility ....but only a matter of time.......it scares the shit out of me actually ...have we learned nothing from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl?

warot

I'm with you guys that Iran might be doing this for attention, they might not, but either way, a nuke is a nuke. What I am going to say is though, for the sake of the US, I hope they don't go down the path that they did with Iraq. Not that the cause was bad, because Saddam Hussein is a criminal, but because they are increasingly isolating themselves from the world. The war on terror at this pace will never end, because for every terrorist you kill, another one will exist. My point is, the war on terror should not be something that Bush should be involved in.

I hope you guys realize I'm not anti-American (as I live in Virginia right now actually). But what I've realized in my college campus is that people here (and here I mean the campus, not necessarily all of America) is that isolating yourself from the world might do more harm than good.

Bozzor

I do see that the situation with Iran will result in a military exchange of some kind, but I do not know where or how it will end. That's why my portfolio now is heavily weighted with oil, gold and defense/munitions based investments.

Curb Zone