Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?


View Poll Results: Oil Sanction
Is the West right to impose sanctions -Morally -Legally 5 29.41%
Is the West wrong to impose sanctions-Morally -Legally 4 23.53%
Will this cause War 1 5.88%
Will this force/persuade Iran to negotiate Nuke Program 1 5.88%
Iran will find other markets-India-China etc 7 41.18%
This will lower the price for Iranian Oil exports 3 17.65%
Is this a positive step by the West 7 41.18%
Is this a negative step by the West 3 17.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Goober
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

My what big teeth you have Grandma.

Can a myth about a myth be the best example to use in this situation? How about, can OPEC blackmail a fellow member? Or, can OPEC cross a picket line where that goods in question are not classified as a 'humanitarian aid' Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi would be declaring war on Iran if they crossed a line that Iran called a blockade on, those same Nations voted to curb Iran's right to sell oil on the open market. Would they have voted that way if they were also told that defending the tankers that come to their ports will be at their expense? So the first blow in the war with Iran would be a 20% reduction of oil available to the world and that oil would also be considerably more expensive and there could be a big drop in availability for the first few years once the bullets started to fly. That doesn't sound like Iran is getting the worst of the deal. Try this, Iran offers their oil at a 20% (non-US funds only) discount to any Nation not aligned with NATO, who is going to close the Strait down then?

Curbing their right, no. Countries can purchase from whatever country they wish to. It is not a blockade as that is an Act of War.
Many in the West do not trust Iran, neither it appears does the UN, IAEA either believe they are gaining all the facts from Iran.
The decision to make a nuk was during the Iraq- Iran War.

The West I believe would be prepared to offer security guarantees, much like Cuba recieved from the US.
But they do not want a Nuk armed Iran.
 
Cliffy
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Curbing their right, no. Countries can purchase from whatever country they wish to. It is not a blockade as that is an Act of War.
Many in the West do not trust Iran, neither it appears does the UN, IAEA either believe they are gaining all the facts from Iran.
The decision to make a nuk was during the Iraq- Iran War.

The West I believe would be prepared to offer security guarantees, much like Cuba recieved from the US.
But they do not want a Nuk armed Iran.

Really, who cares what others think. I doubt Iran does. If they are in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, it would seem justified considering the amount of hate propaganda coming from the west. It would be seen as a threat to their sovereignty. I may no like nukes but I sure as hell understand why they think they would need one, if in fact that is what they are doing. But like many other things that are going on, we are captive to our own personal and media bias.

Yup, Iran is an insane theocracy! Well, I got news for ya. So is the US. It is just not commonly known what that theocracy is, but you might start looking at the Pentagon for that answer.
 
MHz
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Curbing their right, no. Countries can purchase from whatever country they wish to.

I'm not sure if it currently works like that. Can OPEC boycott another member country and make money off the affair or would they have to waiver collecting the 'rewards' of higher oil prices because of their political 'beliefs'. If Iran's membership was cancelled as part of a boycott that saw her ability to sell oil to feed her people then would she come under the same 'rule' that Iraq did, all oil coming and going was on the books of a foreign Nation's military and corporations entities. The same oil for food program that Iraq saw would be the very best that Iran could hope for should she again come under control of US lead doctrine.
END WAR: Madeleine Albright Says Deaths Of 500,000 Iraqi Children Is Worth It; UN Sanction Genocide - YouTube (external - login to view)
In the end, the sanctions against Iraq hurt the lest powerful of the population, the same would be no different with Iran other than Iran would not have been disarmed to for all intensive purposes like Iraq was after Gulf I.

Quote:

It is not a blockade as that is an Act of War.

I'm pretty sure even saying military force use by 'your side' is considered an act of war and as such action can be taken against that threat.
How can the UN support a boycott of Iranian oil when the Iranian Govt can show that the income is spent on the needs of the population in terms of health and prosperity. That comes with first having an abundant supply of electricity, perhaps even enough to export some. If the N-Option was the real issue some alternative would have been floated around by now so a deeper root cause is Iran is meant to be kept in poverty by the collective that the US runs with. That isn't a choice that has to be allowed to happen.

Quote:

Many in the West do not trust Iran, neither it appears does the UN, IAEA either believe they are gaining all the facts from Iran.
The decision to make a nuk was during the Iraq- Iran War.

In the last 100 years who has lied to the world more, the US or Iran? You must be referencing the 'laptop' that was found some months back. How long did the US have custody before it's contents were revealed? How many days did the IDF have control of the burned out flour-mill before rifle casings were found on the roof? Both questions have the same answer, without some tests that match the casings to a specific weapon or a specific slug the 'evidence' is suspect at best. If the 'tests' showed the casings belonged to a bullet that hit an IDF person when they were in view of that tower then the case for the tower being a sniper-tower. If no such injuries happened or the casings could be traced to a another location then the case for the destruction of the flour-mill was unjustified and compensation and repairs are due.

Quote:

The West I believe would be prepared to offer security guarantees, much like Cuba recieved from the US.

Isn't Cuba still under some sort 'ιmbargo' by the US Gov for events that happened back in 1960? Perhaps the US should offering alternatives to N-fuel for Iran, and even offering to pick up a good portion of the costs. No alternatives have even been suggested including new refineries to make better use of the local products or develop an engine that will run on the local product so they do not have to import gasoline. If the US had reservations about it's support it should have said so back when it supported Iran having nuclear power when it was under the thumb of their Shaw, squawking about it later and offering no solutions is a deception for being as pissed off as they are at Cuba in that the affair is not forgotten by the American side. If you call that equality then you need a new definition for who a human is in 'human rights'.

Quote:

But they do not want a Nuk armed Iran.

'They' being the ones that have more than enough nuclear weapons themselves, ....... to use on you should you be much weaker than they are and they decide you have something they want under their conditions. Let them have an open defense/offense nuclear facility manned and supplied by Russian or Chinese Forces if threats from the US and Israel go on unabated. Protection while having a 3rd party have a key to the launch command. Iran might be a bigger threat to the cash strapped West by having electricity and money once the two reactors are running close to capacity. Tourism in Persia could include an Alibaba Ski Resort that has a capacity to host 10,000's daily under conditions that modern Europe would find 'liberal' while keeping that whole scene away from the local populations (ultra conservative) which would be involved in the accounting ad servicing the mechanical aspects of the industry. The ones that would be the 'aids' to would be migrant workers that come from the same nations as the tourists themselves.
The West doesn't want a vibrant and thriving Iran either especially one that offers a 40 day tour of a skiing facility where you sleep at a different facility every night and travel between facilities is by skiing for the person and monorail for your bags and such. The same mag-lev monorail that picks you up at a sea-side retreat just a few hours earlier.
 
darkbeaver
#94
A definition of the west is needed.
 
ironsides
+1
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

.

Who said anything about "world domination"? Iran is the N. Korea of the Mid-East, just a loose cannon that must be plugged.
 
Cliffy
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Who said anything about "world domination"? Iran is the N. Korea of the Mid-East, just a loose cannon that must be plugged.


And who is controlling the US canon? The US is the loose canon of the world. Who is going to pug that puppy up?
 
earth_as_one
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Iran has just fired its so called 1st nuclear capable rocket. They will be stopped soon, just not sure just how yet. But before they can hurt others.

Yeah right. Iran also has nuke cable airliners, transport trucks and tugboats too.

Iran has a right to space program, just like they have a right to a peaceful nuclear program.


Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I asked where you would stand..... who would you support. You still have not answered.

I'm a proud patriotic Canadian, but I disagree with getting closer to Israel and encouraging more US conquests. I don't support Canada getting involved in a shooting war with Iran. The middle east's problems aren't our business.

If Iran shuts down the Persian gulf, Canada as an energy exporter would benefit. Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...
 
ironsides
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And who is controlling the US canon? The US is the loose canon of the world. Who is going to pug that puppy up?
[/FONT]

Name one place we are in without UN sanction at this moment?

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Yeah right. Iran also has nuke cable airliners, transport trucks and tugboats too.

Iran has a right to space program, just like they have a right to a peaceful nuclear program.


I'm a proud patriotic Canadian, but I disagree with getting closer to Israel and encouraging more US conquests. I don't support Canada getting involved in a shooting war with Iran. The middle east's problems aren't our business.

If Iran shuts down the Persian gulf, Canada as an energy exporter would benefit. Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

yup you can watch my back anytime.
 
Goober
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Yeah right. Iran also has nuke cable airliners, transport trucks and tugboats too.

Iran has a right to space program, just like they have a right to a peaceful nuclear program.


I'm a proud patriotic Canadian, but I disagree with getting closer to Israel and encouraging more US conquests. I don't support Canada getting involved in a shooting war with Iran. The middle east's problems aren't our business.

If Iran shuts down the Persian gulf, Canada as an energy exporter would benefit. Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

Deflection again, and as per the norm hate the Jews. My opinion- Iran would be Freaks with Nukes.
 
MHz
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Please explain why Canadians should get their panties in a knot over higher global energy prices...

You first, on Jan 1st you get your new heating bill $500/room. A 3br with kitchen and dining and living would be $3000/mo. Your response, .......

Mine would be to insulate the floor to the max and move everything into the basement where it is an R-60 roof and walls. Move back to those other rooms as the summer months returned.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

My opinion- Iran would be Freaks with Nukes.

Is that from an cold analytical mind or do you have human emotions involved?
 
Cliffy
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Name one place we are in without UN sanction at this moment?


It is pretty funny that most of the time the UN is a useless, corrupt organization, to most people on here, until they can be used to justify aggressive action. Nothing happens at the UN without US approval. They just veto everything else. Palestinian sovereignty comes to mind.
 
earth_as_one
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

Name one place we are in without UN sanction at this moment?


yup you can watch my back anytime.


You aren't obligated to stick up for your "friend" if he swaggers into a Hell's Angel's club and exclaims, "Any of you ***** bikers want to fight?".

Unlike the US and Israel, Iran hasn't started any unprovoked wars and they are compliant with the mandatory parts of the NPT. Canada is under no obligation to take any action against Iran. Maybe if Iran is found guilty of something serious, Canada could take action, but until then US/Israeli allegations about Iran's nuclear weapons remain as unproven as their allegations about Iraq's WMD stockpiles. How many times can the same sources get caught in a lie before suckers like you finally become skeptical?

Canada never asked the US to start an unprovoked war in Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and made millions more homeless refugees. We rightfully stayed out of that conflict, just like we should stay out of a similar unprovoked war with Iran.

Canada has no obligation to support Israel's injustice, oppression and creeping ethnic cleansing. If we had balls and a sense of justice, we'd do the right thing and criticize Israel's gross human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Canada is under no obligation to support yet another unprovoked war based on false allegations.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 2nd, 2012 at 08:14 PM..
 
Goober
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post


You aren't obligated to stick up for your "friend" if he swaggers into a Hell's Angel's club and exclaims, "Any of you ***** bikers want to fight?".

[/FONT]

Is Iran compliant with the IAEA?

Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

You first, on Jan 1st you get your new heating bill $500/room. A 3br with kitchen and dining and living would be $3000/mo. Your response, .......

Mine would be to insulate the floor to the max and move everything into the basement where it is an R-60 roof and walls. Move back to those other rooms as the summer months returned.


Is that from an cold analytical mind or do you have human emotions involved?

Both - Those boys at the top are scary as hell.
 
Cliffy
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Is Iran compliant with the IAEA?



Both - Those boys at the top are scary as hell.

I'm pretty sure if the fundie Christians were to get control of the US military, they would make the loonies in control of Iran look like kindergarten bullies.
 
Goober
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I'm pretty sure if the fundie Christians were to get control of the US military, they would make the loonies in control of Iran look like kindergarten bullies.

Ya think that is going to happen?

Note - Iran has that situation you describe.
 
Cliffy
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Ya think that is going to happen?

Note - Iran has that situation you describe.

And why is that? Do you think it might have had something to do with US meddling in their internal affairs? Could it be that all this sanction BS has to do with the Iranians kicking out the US pretty boy Shaw?
 
Goober
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And why is that? Do you think it might have had something to do with US meddling in their internal affairs? Could it be that all this sanction BS has to do with the Iranians kicking out the US pretty boy Shaw?

Sanctions against Iran a balancing act for U.S. | Investing | Financial Post (external - login to view)

MORE SCALPEL THAN AXE

The new U.S. measures target both private and government-controlled banks, including central banks, and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period depending on the transactions.

U.S. officials acknowledge that allies such as Japan have concerns, and have built in several provisions designed to make the new law more of a scalpel than an axe.

The law allows Mr. Obama to exempt institutions in a country that has significantly reduced its dealings with Iran. He may also grant waivers deemed to be in the U.S. national security interest or otherwise necessary for energy market stability.

Mr. Obama would need to notify Congress and waivers would be temporary but they could be extended.
White House officials declined to say which countries have sought waivers or how they expect the sanctions to impact U.S. relations with Iran’s oil customers.

China, the No. 1 customer for Iran’s oil, and Russia have both resisted additional sanctions on Tehran and are unlikely to be swayed by the new U.S. law, analysts said.

But for countries such as Turkey, which gets about 30% of its oil from Iran, or India, which gets 11 percent, the prospect of a U.S. waiver could reduce anxieties over the sanctions and consolidate support for Washington’s aggressive stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There is increased frustration from many of these nations when they see that previous rounds of sanctions haven’t done what they were intended to do,” said Trita Parsi, an Iran expert and head of the National Iranian American Council.

“Part of the administration argument going into an election against a Republican candidate is that Obama has been able to create a much stronger international coalition against Iran. You can’t make that argument if you end up in a conflict with some of those allies.”

Waivers also could be selectively granted for humanitarian reasons or for institutions that have forward contracts with Iranian companies – blunting the immediate impact of the new law, while retaining the threat of full implementation.

TENSIONS AND TALKS

The new U.S. sanctions came at a moment of increasing tension with Tehran, which in recent days Iran has tested long-range missiles and staged 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf. Iran also warned it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of world oil is shipped, if sanctions were imposed on its crude exports.

Tehran already is subject to four rounds of U.N. sanctions because of its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities and faces more pain if the European Union follows the United States and bans imports of Iranian crude oil.

Tehran signalled during the weekend that it was ready to resume talks on its nuclear program with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany that stalled in January.

 
Cliffy
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Sanctions against Iran a balancing act for U.S. | Investing | Financial Post (external - login to view)

MORE SCALPEL THAN AXE

The new U.S. measures target both private and government-controlled banks, including central banks, and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period depending on the transactions.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************* (etc.)

Tehran signalled during the weekend that it was ready to resume talks on its nuclear program with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany that stalled in January.

So much posturing and political double speak. Oil is king and those that got it are gods. Like the cold war, there is nothing of substance here but it serves well to keep the sheeple trembling in their boots.
 
Goober
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

So much posturing and political double speak. Oil is king and those that got it are gods. Like the cold war, there is nothing of substance here but it serves well to keep the sheeple trembling in their boots.

Do you think that other countries in the Mid East will or will not go nuclear when Iran does?
 
earth_as_one
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Is Iran compliant with the IAEA?...

The IAEA is an agency, not an agreement. Iran signed the NPT. They did not sign the IAEA.

The IAEA has a mandate regarding the NPT and it doesn't include demanding NPT compliant nations prove they aren't planning to build nuclear weapons. That the IAEA would demand that Iran prove a negative (a logical impossibility) as per US/Israeli demands indicates its objectivity has probably been compromised. Certainly the IAEA has acted outside their legal NPT mandate with respect to Iran:

...the role of the IAEA, as agreed with the Iranian government, is limited to applying and monitoring safeguards on fissionable material and related facilities within the territory of Iran, with the purpose of assuring that no such fissile material is diverted from peaceful nuclear activities to military purposes. The IAEA is given no authority to inquire into or to examine activities within Iran that are not directly related to fissile materials, even if they may possibly relate to the development of a nuclear explosive device. Again, the IAEA has a limited legal mandate that does not include being a general nuclear weapons watchdog. Thus, in conducting these investigations into technologies other than fissile materials and producing this report, the IAEA is acting wholly outside of its authority pursuant to its safeguards agreement with Iran....
http://jurist.org/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php
 
Goober
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

The IAEA is an agency, not an agreement. Iran signed the NPT. They did not sign the IAEA.

The IAEA has a mandate regarding the NPT and it doesn't include demanding NPT compliant nations prove they aren't planning to build nuclear weapons. That the IAEA would demand that Iran prove a negative (a logical impossibility) as per US/Israeli demands indicates its objectivity has probably been compromised. Certainly the IAEA has acted outside their legal NPT mandate with respect to Iran:

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]http://jurist.org/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php

Gotta stay current

IAEA Board Adopts Resolution on Iran (external - login to view)

At the end of deliberations beginning 17 November, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of the UN Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The resolution expresses deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions. It also stresses the need for Iran and the Agency to "intensify their dialogue" aiming at the urgent resolution of all outstanding substantive issues for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding those issues.

The resolution urges Iran once again to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, and to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors. Expressing continuing support for a diplomatic solution, the resolution calls on Iran to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It further requests the Director General to include in his progress report to the March 2012 meeting of the Board of Governors an assessment of the implementation of this resolution.

The resolution on the implementation of safeguards in Iran was adopted by a majority.

-- by Rodolfo Quevenco, IAEA Division of Public Information
 
earth_as_one
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Do you think that other countries in the Mid East will or will not go nuclear when Iran does?

At this time, no evidence exists that proves Iran intends to build nuclear weapons.

The nuclear countries in the region include Israel, Pakistan and India.N one of these countries signed the NPT, let alone open their nuclear facilities up to IAEA inspections.

Iran has signed the NPT.
Iran allows the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities.
The IAEA has found no evidence which proves Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapon technoilogy.
 
Goober
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

At this time, no evidence exists that proves Iran intends to build nuclear weapons.

The nuclear countries in the region include Israel, Pakistan and India. Unlike Iran, none of these countries signed the NPT, let alone open their nuclear facilities up to IAEA inspections like Iran has and does.

2 easy questions - Yes or no.

Has Iran cooperated fully with the IAEA - The UN Police for Nukes?

Will other countries in the Mid East go the Nuke Wpns route if Iran does?
 
earth_as_one
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Gotta stay current

IAEA Board Adopts Resolution on Iran (external - login to view) ...

The IAEA is acting outside its mandate. Iran respects the parts of the NPT that they signed. Therefore Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology. The IAEA's mandate includes assisting Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The IAEA has no mandate to interfere with Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The UNSC can pass all the resolutions they want. It still does not change the fact that Iran has a NPT defined right to peaceful nuclear technology.
 
Goober
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

The IAEA is acting outside its mandate. Iran respects the parts of the NPT that they signed. Therefore Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology. The IAEA's mandate includes assisting Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The IAEA has no mandate to interfere with Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The UNSC can pass all the resolutions they want. It still does not change the fact that Iran has a NPT defined right to peaceful nuclear technology.

Not according to the UN -

As to the UNSC - When they pass what you agree with, they are right, when they do not, they are not relevant. Gotta stay consistent.

Iran has signed disclosure agreements with the IAEA - The Agency that policies the NPT - Iran has not cooperated fully.

One question partially answered. Please research what the IAEA can or cannot do before coming to the table with personal opinion.

2nd question. Answer for that, still waiting.
 
earth_as_one
#116
Iran respects the mandatory parts of the NPT.

Iran respects the voluntary confidence building parts of the NPT that they signed.

Iran has no obligation to respect other "voluntary" confidence building NPT protocols until they agree to them.

When are the US, Russia, China, the UK and France going to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals as per the "mandatory" parts of the NPT? Until these nations comply with the mandatory parts of the NPT, they are being hypocritical regarding their demands that Iran respect all the additional voluntary confidence building NPT protocols.

Also, Iran's NPT obligations aren't retroactive. Their obligations came in force on the day they agree, not before. Therefore Iran was not obligated to declare their nuclear enrichment activities until after they agreed to that voluntary confidence building measure, which they did in 2003.

The only part of the NPT that Iran doesn't respect is that they don't notify the IAEA during the planning stages, which is voluntary, not required. Iran does notify the IAEA at least 1 year before installing any nuclear technology in the new facility. Yes Iran was digging a hole and they didn't tell the IAEA about it until a year before the first centrifuge was planned to be installed. A hole in the ground is hardly a reason to go to war.

Let me know when you have proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Until then, all the US and Israel has are unsupported allegations, similar to their unsupported allegations that Iraq had WMD stockpiles....
Last edited by earth_as_one; Jan 2nd, 2012 at 09:46 PM..
 
Goober
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Iran respects the mandatory parts of the NPT.

Iran respects the voluntary confidence building parts of the NPT that they signed.

Iran has no obligation to respect other "voluntary" confidence building NPT protocols until they agree to them.

When are the US, Russia, China, the UK and France going to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals as per the "mandatory" parts of the NPT? Until these nations comply with the mandatory parts of the NPT, they are being hypocritical regarding their demands that Iran respect all the additional voluntary confidence building NPT protocols.

Also, Iran's NPT obligations aren't retroactive. Their obligations came in force on the day they agree, not before. Therefore Iran was not obligated to declare their nuclear enrichment activities until after they agreed to that voluntary confidence building measure, which they did in 2003.

The only part of the NPT that Iran doesn't respect is that they don't notify the IAEA during the planning stages, which is voluntary, not required. Iran does notify the IAEA at least 1 year before installing any nuclear technology in the new facility. Yes Iran was digging a hole and they didn't tell the IAEA about it until a year before the first centrifuge was planned to be installed. A hole in the ground is hardly a reason to go to war.

Let me know when you have proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Until then, all the US and Israel has are unsupported allegations, similar to their unsupported allegations that Iraq had WMD stockpiles....

Again with not answering - Iran signed legal agreementa that they have not kept - as such they are in contravention -
Now will other countries go the Nuke route when Iran does?
 
earth_as_one
#118
Iran has met all their agreed NPT obligations. If you believe otherwise, please give an example of an agreement that they signed and subsequently broke.
 
L Gilbert
#119
My reaction? It's a shrug.
 
Cliffy
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Do you think that other countries in the Mid East will or will not go nuclear when Iran does?

Why do you care? To have nukes is insane. Those that have them are just as dangerous as those you fear having them. In the overall picture of the Universe, it is inconsequential what happens to this insignificant planet or our insignificant species. If you are going to spend your life worrying about crap you have no control over, you will lose control over your life. You may as well be dead already. The only important question for humanity is, are we to get rid of the stupid things or continue this insane game of "you are either in the club or you are not? If you are not then, you suck." The pettiness of this stupid game is not really worthy of wasting any time on. I obviously have too much time on my hands.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts