Iran has Speeded Up Nuclear Projects

[dbermanmd]

According to the United Nations Iran has accelerated its nuclear program totally disregarding the UN's call on them to stop enriching uranium - here is one link - there are many.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1c686410-c2a8-11db...00779e2340.html

So, for all you UN lovers - what should be done by the UN? And if Iran continues to ignore the UN what should the US or other countries do if anything?

[Ichabod]

Why don't you use your best skill, and tell us what YOU think they should do?

I'll have a guess at your opinion though: Bomb the s**t out of them, rape their young girls and kill their families, and like this guy who's eligible for parole in 10 years, let the people who rape and murder get by with relatively light jail sentences. And then sit around and complain that they have no reason to distrust us and they should welcome our bombs with open arms. Because there's clearly no option but excessive force. None.

P.S. This post is sarcastic because I'm preempting discourse, which would have become impossible in this thread sooner or later anyway.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Feb 23 2007, 08:27 AM) [snapback]395110[/snapback]</div>

Why don't you use your best skill, and tell us what YOU think they should do?

I'll have a guess at your opinion though: Bomb the s**t out of them, rape their young girls and kill their families, and like this guy who's eligible for parole in 10 years, let the people who rape and murder get by with relatively light jail sentences. And then sit around and complain that they have no reason to distrust us and they should welcome our bombs with open arms. Because there's clearly no option but excessive force. None.

P.S. This post is sarcastic because I'm preempting discourse, which would have become impossible in this thread sooner or later anyway.
[/b]

My thoughts:
1. this will prove again to the total uselessness of the UN - especially in regards to the containment of nuclear weapons technology spreading out across the globe - and especially into the hands that most people agree should not have it.
1a. given the above - it will continue to amaze me that there are people that will continue to put their full faith into the UN and even at times wishing it take precident in controlling decisions concerning US vital interests
2. I would do the following in preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons:
- continue and strengthen the economic sanctions against iran
- attempt to keep oil prices down preventing them from acquiring the money needed to finance this project
- pressure iran via foreign policy moves against hezbollah, and other groups connected to it
- in terms of military force - NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND - i would if forced to, use air assets including stealth craft, cruise missiles and the like and destroy their nuclear facilities completely. I might consider at the same time eliminating their air force and other "strategic military assets".

got to go do a procedure.....

[eagle33199]

How would you "keep oil prices down"? In what way can the US lower the global price of crude oil? Please, i'm very interested in your response to this.

PS. Bombing a foreign country without UN sanction is a pretty damn stupid move - we already wasted all of our diplomatic credit with Iraq

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 23 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]395144[/snapback]</div>

How would you "keep oil prices down"? In what way can the US lower the global price of crude oil? Please, i'm very interested in your response to this.

PS. Bombing a foreign country without UN sanction is a pretty damn stupid move - we already wasted all of our diplomatic credit with Iraq
[/b]

i would be interested in your opinion concerning this topic. by the looks of it you would allow the UN to fail again to control the spread of nuclear weapons - this time letting a madman get his hands on them (fairly destabalizing - including to the price of oil)

ans: Saudi Arabia has a vested interest in not allowing either US troops to leave Iraq/the region and not allowing Iran to get its hands on nukes. they are/will increase output of oil and the US will induce other oil producing nations to do the same cause a supply and demand equation to kick into effect. we can also decrease the speed at which we are buying oil on the open market to fill our strategic reserve again leaving more oil on the table and forcing prices down.

we also will increase pressure on iran in its financial support of its allies like hezbollah - i would not be surprised to see a limited conflict between them and Israel in the short term future. iran will be forced like it is doing now to spend hundreds of millions of dollars rearming them from the last conflict last summer and rebuilding parts of lebanon not to mention keeping them up and running. other terror groups will have the same pressure applied to them.

bombing nuclear facilities is far less "stupid" than letting iran go nuclear. for you i would even give them a fair warning that destruction is on the way - give them a date for instance June 1, 2007 and say that any time after that we retain the right to destroy said nuclear facilities and those people that are in them are there at there own risk. i would obviously initiate military actions at night for lots of reasons, the least of which would be to minimize human casualties.

for a person who supposedly likes peace your stance on this issue is puzzling - letting a country currently ruled by terrorists whose culture idolizes martyrs to have the ultimate in WMD's - he is one instance where you wont have trouble finding where they are :P

[Ichabod]

In my own opinion, Bush should have been going after nuclear proliferation rather than Iraq. Years wasted, and a lot more by way of potential threats.

This is going to sound shocking, but I agree with some of what you said, dberman. The major point I differ on is your assertion that bombing nuclear facilities might be safer than not. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing as they may or may not attempt to develop nukes, but that further aggression seems the most likely way to encourage development of nukes.

From their perspective, they may simply want a deterrent, and I'm sure they know as well as anyone that if they were to develop nukes and then nuke Israel, Iran would be a radioactive wasteland within seconds.

For a moment, consider how you would feel if a larger, more powerful nation, with half a million troops occupying Mexico, demanded that the US dismantle all its nuclear facilities and weapons. It's not a really a 1:1 analogy with Iran, but it's clear that nukes=world-power, and they probably want in on that game more than they want in on nuclear war.

I know the response will have something to do with bloodthirsty muslim fanatics just aching to martyr themselves, but the race-hysteria, in my opinion, clouds the subject a little, and makes things a little too simple in the minds of some. That kind of thinking will lead to more bloodshed, and it makes americans look like bloodthirsty crusaders.

[eagle33199]

So, let me get this straight... Saudi Arabia can increase production anytime they want? They don't have limiting factors like capacity to deal with? The US is capable of more or less forcing other middle east countries to lower their oil prices? Lastly, you would have use decrease our purchases for our strategic reserve, thus decreasing our military readiness. Great ideas. Really, absolutely stellar.

Next, you would give them a deadline? You would give them time to take all of their equipment and move it to secret locations? Great plan!

Now, who do you refer to as a "madman"?

Ali Khamenei has led the way in Iran for increasing science (particularly stem cell research and therapeutic cloning), and is the largest proponent in the government for speeding up economic privatization. also suggested that ownership rights should be protected in courts set up by the Justice Ministry; the hope was that this new protection would give a measure of security to and encourage private investment. He wants to pursue nuclear energy because oil and gas reserves are a non-renewable resource - as everyone here well knows.

He has said that human rights is a fundamental principle underlying Islamic teachings, including the rights to live, to be free, to benefit from justice and to welfare.

He has even issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Has done a lot in the one year he's had to serve as president. His fiscal plan called for banks to grant more loans to low income families and small businesses in underdeveloped regions, as well as an increase in housing subsidies for low income families. He has come out against a proposal of limiting family size to just two children. He established a fund to help young people get started (find jobs, housing, etc). He's one of the countries biggest proponents of Women's rights.

In terms of nuclear proliferation, he emphasized that building a nuclear bomb is not the policy of his government. He has said that there was no such policy and that such a policy was "illegal and against our religion." He has been quoted as saying the peaceful Iranian nuclear technology would not pose a threat to any party because "we want peace and stability and we will not cause injustice to anyone and at the same time we will not submit to injustice."

His comments against Israel stem from the belief in the region that Israel was created to impose Us and UK control over the area. His comments that you have been spouting off here about destroying Israel are much disputed - depending on who is translating, and who is reporting. If you read the translated text of the speech, they want to remove the occupying regime... That sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? We just removed a regime in Iraq and you stood up and cheered.


You have no basis for your desire to attack Iran. There is no proof what-so-ever that they are attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Enriched uranium is also used in civil nuclear power plants, their stated goal. The leaders have publicly announced, on multiple occasions, that building nuclear weapons would be illegal.

Please, explain your desire to attack them and deny them the ability to produce renewable electricity.

[Jonnycat26]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 23 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]395174[/snapback]</div>

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Has done a lot in the one year he's had to serve as president. His fiscal plan called for banks to grant more loans to low income families and small businesses in underdeveloped regions, as well as an increase in housing subsidies for low income families. He has come out against a proposal of limiting family size to just two children. He established a fund to help young people get started (find jobs, housing, etc). He's one of the countries biggest proponents of Women's rights.
[/b]

Ahmadinejad is not a popular guy with the middle classes in Iran right now... just FYI. He was dealt a serious setback in the last round of elections (kinda like Bush II last November).

[huskers]

They have to speed up production. They don't want to miss out on Armageddon. <_<

[hycamguy07]

In a nut shell, The UN is weak....