• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iran Gives U.N./the world the Finger (1 Viewer)

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iran just turned a U.N. Nuclear Inspection Team away from their nuclear enrichment site, and the word from a CNN reporter in tehran says that Iran is expected to make their decision about continuing its nuclear program as early as 1000 this morning.

The U.N. has offered an incentive package to entice iran to give up its nuclear program; however, Iran has given absolutely NO indication that it has considered such a move at all! In fact, Iran has continuously declared defiantly that it will NOT give up its right not only for nuclear power but for acquiring/making its own nuclear weapons!

Iran has also viewed the pathetic cowardice - its lack of desire/ability to deal forcefully in the 2001 or latest Israel-Hezbollah conflict as a 'Green light' to go ahead with its nuclear aspirations! Strength is power in that part of the country, and Iran views the U.N.and the majority of the nations that make it up as pathetically weak and unwilling to stop them! They see the U.S. , the U.K. and Israel as the only ones strong enough and - more importantly - willing to stand in their way, which is why they hate us so! They will continue to create nuclear weapons because they know the U.N. has neither the resolve or courage to do anything at all and that if we choose to do anything militarily on our own again so soon after Iraq, which is almost physically impossible, we will REALLY alienate ourselves from the rest of the world.

Iran also knows that if it shuts off its oil pumps in retaliation for any U.N. sanctions, oil prices will soar up to $110 a barrel, the whole world will be affected negatively,.....and we just set the U.N., France, russia, and others up for more criminal activity like more Black marketing and another Oil-for-Cash scandals, as iran has surely seen how easily the U.N. can be bought!
 
What can I add to that Easy? You said it all bro. You said it all.

The UN is a toothless kitty cat. Absolutely worthless.
 
It just a matter of time before they lob a missle at Israel. Our only hope is we turn the entire area into a glass factory before they have time to launch a second.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
It just a matter of time before they lob a missle at Israel. Our only hope is we turn the entire area into a glass factory before they have time to launch a second.

We need to strike them down before they launch a missle at Israel. Iran is a terrorist state and they cannot be allowed to posess such weapons.

I have long favored the "irradicate Iran" option. I would love to see the mullahs and the Ayetoiletbowl beheaded on national TV. (Pardon my crude babarity)

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
We need to strike them down before they launch a missle at Israel. Iran is a terrorist state and they cannot be allowed to posess such weapons.

:mrgreen:


Most definetly ......... BUt the UN is never going to do anything about them. Which essentially knowcks out Germany and Russia... France is per usual a non-entity when it comes to global affairs that have a cost. You'll get the UK and some smaller nations..... It's going to be Iraq again, just bigger explosions....

The fact is these countries are a danger to everyone, no matter how far. They refuse to move forward with there thinking, except for weapons. And refuse to allow other to move forward with theres. Erradication is the one option that is permenant....I like it ....
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Most definetly ......... BUt the UN is never going to do anything about them. Which essentially knowcks out Germany and Russia... France is per usual a non-entity when it comes to global affairs that have a cost. You'll get the UK and some smaller nations..... It's going to be Iraq again, just bigger explosions....

Yeah, I know. Russia and China are useless anal-whores that need to get their heads out of the arses!

The UN needs to grow some balls! :)

:mrgreen:
 
We need to strike them down before they launch a missle at Israel. Iran is a terrorist state and they cannot be allowed to posess such weapons.

Nice sentiment, darth, but who is gonna stop them?

The U.N. is too full of wuss countries who are more interested in making a buck or peace at any cost - even if you have to sacrifice a few small countries to get it.

The U.S. is too spread out/weak right now...

The U.K. would only be in on it if we did.....

as most of the other countries who could be counted on as lesser-partners.
 
Last edited:
Vader said:
Yeah, I know. Russia and China are useless anal-whores that need to get their heads out of the arses!

The UN needs to grow some balls! :)

:mrgreen:

The UN needs to pack up and move to france as we hand them our resignation. Then can formally ask us for help after they have talked situations to death and they have gotten worse. At which point we can put an up front dollar amount on the cost of our involvement to offset costs to the US taxpayers. The request has to be done on major networks carried accross the world. If however action is deemed needed by the US the UN should be notified at least 4 days after the initial attack occurs. hat way they can get there stories staright and there hate faces on
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Most definetly ......... BUt the UN is never going to do anything about them. Which essentially knowcks out Germany and Russia... France is per usual a non-entity when it comes to global affairs that have a cost. You'll get the UK and some smaller nations..... It's going to be Iraq again, just bigger explosions....

The fact is these countries are a danger to everyone, no matter how far. They refuse to move forward with there thinking, except for weapons. And refuse to allow other to move forward with theres. Erradication is the one option that is permenant....I like it ....
Are you suggesting air strikes or occuping Iran?
 
Hobbes said:
Are you suggesting air strikes or occuping Iran?

Anything it takes to keep this nation from attaining the ability to ignite millions of people in a ball of fire at one time. Or the ability to give that technology to a person, or group willing to do it for them. Airstrikes, spec op demo.... whatever it takes, because talking isn't going to cut it. It's just going to give them more time. This candle will get lit. Whether today or next week or 5 years from now... It is going to become the problem people are frightened of
 
Kinda like the guy holding the dirty oil filter...."You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
 
easyt65 said:
We need to strike them down before they launch a missle at Israel. Iran is a terrorist state and they cannot be allowed to posess such weapons.

Nice sentiment, darth, but who is gonna stop them?

The U.N. is too full of wuss countries who are more interested in making a buck or peace at any cost - even if you have to sacrifice a few small countries to get it.

The U.S. is too spread out/weak right now...

The U.K. would only be in on it if we did.....

as most of the other countries who could be counted on as lesser-partners.

We (US/UK) can hit Iran with MASSIVE air strikes and wipe out their nuke sites and the city of Terhan.
 
US forces may be thin, but why is a preemptive air strike led by Israel or the US out of the question?
 
easyt65 said:
The U.N. has offered an incentive package to entice iran to give up its nuclear program; however, Iran has given absolutely NO indication that it has considered such a move at all!
This sentence is misleading, because the incentive package is actually meant to support Iran's nuclear program. It includes the supply of light water reactor technology, for instance.

easyt65 said:
In fact, Iran has continuously declared defiantly that it will NOT give up its right not only for nuclear power but for acquiring/making its own nuclear weapons!
No, this is not true. Actually, it would be consequently to leave Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, when declaring this.

easyt65 said:
They see the U.S. , the U.K. and Israel as the only ones strong enough and - more importantly - willing to stand in their way, which is why they hate us so!
This aversion has more historical reasons, I guess.
 
I do not think Iran's present leaders care much about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- if they did (IMO), they wouldn't have much reason to forbid U.N. inspectors from inspecting their sites...if all they are doing is working on a nuclear energy program.

One of the major problems with attacking their facilities, though, or should I say several of the problems would be:

1. Such a strike would only delay Iran developing nukes...unless the strike totally broke their will/desire to continue. I don't see that happening, especially when talking about guys who are willing to strap bombs on themselves to kill us. Otherwise, we would have to destroy their plants/locations entirely, destroy their nuclear material, kill off all their scientists who know how to and can rebuild/start over, etc....If they want it bad enough, an air strike might delay their pursuit for a long time, but it would not entirely stop it.

2. Such a strike by us/a western power or Israel will inflame the Islamic/Muslim world more ('How dare the US impose its will on us/tell any country what they can and can't do').
 
All right, I know you guys are having a tough time with this issue, but things like 'Bargaining' and 'Negotiations' are things countries really do (just not ours).

Iran has nuclear technology (though not necessarily nukes). We don't want them too.

Obviously, we want to barter them down while they barter us up. They want to keep as much technology as possible, we want them to have the least as much as possible.

It can be a long process, and one all you people who want to watch another war from your living room may not have the patience for.
 
QUESTION:

Hezbollah is a terrorist group.

We have proof that Iran funds, supplies, trains, arms, and mans Hezbollah - a terrorist group, not to mention assisted the prepetrators of 9/11, has called for the destruction of Israel. and has declared they are at war with israel and the U.S.(shased of Boin Ladden '95), and declared the key to success would be getting rid of Israel 1st....which makes them if nothing else a terrorist-enabler/supporter.

It is U.S. policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists, aside from the fact that Madeline Albright recently stated she thought the U.S. should sit down with Israel and HEZBOLLAH to negotiate for peace....

So why are we being encouraged so much to sit down with Iran?

As I said, I have heard the Libs scream for years now that we never had to use force, that the U.N. is the greatest thing since sliced bread (despite/aside from all the crimes & scandal -- Hmmm, sounds like the clinton Presidency), and that we should leave such matters as tyrants, dictators, terrorists groups attacking democracies, and rogue nations developing nukes to the incredibly capable hands of the U.N. (again, despite their woeful track record).

I think it is time we give the Libs and the U.N. one last shot here to prove this theory/course of action can ever get the job done.

Couple problems with this, however:

1. This culture that we have come to a head with views negotiating in many instances as 'weakness', and they despise weakness.

2. This little social experiment, which has failed so many times before, has ever growing risks/implications! The U.N. tries to talk Iran out of making nukes and fails, we get a suitcase bomb going off somewhere in the U.S., courtesy of Iran, the U.N., and all the libs who still have a pre-9/11 mentality.

3. The U.N.'s negotiating track record! Clinton negotiated with North Korea and ended up giving them the very nuclear material they needed to build their nukes. The U.N. has been negotiating with them for years, pressuring China to rein them in....meanwhile, they have built a nuclear bomb test facility. You usually don't build one of those unless you plan to use it. Not to imply NK definitely has one right now, but it is reported that there are a lot of vehicles going in and out of that NK facility, and several Intel sources say they are getting ready to test a nuke. In the 'win/loss' U.N. Negotiations Column, i think I would write down a big ol' 'L'!
 
Joby said:
All right, I know you guys are having a tough time with this issue, but things like 'Bargaining' and 'Negotiations' are things countries really do (just not ours).

Iran has nuclear technology (though not necessarily nukes). We don't want them too.

Obviously, we want to barter them down while they barter us up. They want to keep as much technology as possible, we want them to have the least as much as possible.

It can be a long process, and one all you people who want to watch another war from your living room may not have the patience for.


Your the UN... A lot of talk that never works....

And then a lot of crying about what it takes to fix the situation you allowed to happen.

If you don't have the stomach to do what it takes then just say so. But hiding behind the "Barter" Bullsh.it is an excuse. If you believe these animals that arm terrorist care a rats as.s what we want or think, then your living in a dream world.

So lets barter with them for the next decade as they stall us, and continue on there merry way. Then 10 - 14 years later when you might be thinking it's a lost cause. They can announce to the world they have working nuclear device they will be testing. That they will be arming all those fun groups we didn't want having weapons like this in the first place. And then when the big mushroom clouds start popping up, you can complain that nobody did anything about it....
 
easyt65 said:
QUESTION:
We have proof that Iran funds, supplies, trains, arms, and mans Hezbollah - a terrorist group, not to mention assisted the prepetrators of 9/11, has called for the destruction of Israel. and has declared they are at war with israel and the U.S.(shased of Boin Ladden '95), and declared the key to success would be getting rid of Israel 1st....which makes them if nothing else a terrorist-enabler/supporter.

Proof that Iran helped al-Qaeda with 9-11, please.
Oh, and Saudi Royals, Jordanian Millionares, and Egyptian Extremists have all helped and funded the call to destroy Israel.

Oh, and how many Iranians actively participated in 9-11? I don't recall any Persians flying planes- all the terrorists came from our the bushies best buds in the region...

It is U.S. policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists, aside from the fact that Madeline Albright recently stated she thought the U.S. should sit down with Israel and HEZBOLLAH to negotiate for peace....

The US negotiated with Sinn Fein while everyone knew they supported the IRA. Remind me how that political/religous struggle turned out.

So why are we being encouraged so much to sit down with Iran?

Because at the moment, it is our best tactic. You know, make it really look like a last resort to war for possible friends. (much unlike our last little rush to war). Would you really want, say, Pakistan to feel threatend and dump us off, maybe even start to make a deal with Taliban forces?


I think it is time we give the Libs and the U.N. one last shot here to prove this theory/course of action can ever get the job done.

I think it's time we give the conservatives one last year-long shot in Iraq to see if their way is any better.

1. This culture that we have come to a head with views negotiating in many instances as 'weakness', and they despise weakness.

No, they hate negotiating out of weakness. That's why the dumbass Bush dipshits who keep saying Iran will be destroyed if they don't comply with our every demand NEED TO SHUT THE ***** UP. We need to make it clear we are on equal terms with Iran in any talks (if it's not too late)
Bush sees negotiating as weak. Did you hibernate all of 2003?

2. This little social experiment, which has failed so many times before, has ever growing risks/implications! The U.N. tries to talk Iran out of making nukes and fails, we get a suitcase bomb going off somewhere in the U.S., courtesy of Iran, the U.N., and all the libs who still have a pre-9/11 mentality.

Whoa! Don't get me wrong, I'm not that trusting. Iran should be taken out (or their reactors, at least), if they get that far down the road. But, this shouldn't be a self fulfilling prophecy.

3. The U.N.'s negotiating track record! Clinton negotiated with North Korea and ended up giving them the very nuclear material they needed to build their nukes. The U.N. has been negotiating with them for years, pressuring China to rein them in....meanwhile, they have built a nuclear bomb test facility. You usually don't build one of those unless you plan to use it. Not to imply NK definitely has one right now, but it is reported that there are a lot of vehicles going in and out of that NK facility, and several Intel sources say they are getting ready to test a nuke. In the 'win/loss' U.N. Negotiations Column, i think I would write down a big ol' 'L'!

WRONG!

Clinton negotiated with North Korea and got them to stop enriching plutonium, and only uranium. North Korea then got NO WHERE on their nuke capabilities.

Bush the cowboy, decided to be tough and ended that aid-for-you-not-doing-anything deal. And what happened? NK (according to CIA)-GOT NUKES! With, what metal was it? oh yeah, Plutonium.
 
easyt65 said:
...Iran has continuously declared defiantly that it will NOT give up its right ... for acquiring/making its own nuclear weapons!
Could you please offer any example where Iran has said something of this nature?

Whats so bad about the unvarnished truth? Aren't things drastic enough for you without adding erroneous details?
 
Joby said:
WRONG!

Clinton negotiated with North Korea and got them to stop enriching plutonium, and only uranium. North Korea then got NO WHERE on their nuke capabilities.

Bush the cowboy, decided to be tough and ended that aid-for-you-not-doing-anything deal. And what happened? NK (according to CIA)-GOT NUKES! With, what metal was it? oh yeah, Plutonium.

A wise man advised that youshould keep quiet when people call you stupid lest you open your mouth and probve them right....

If you won't believe me, and are obviously too lazy to do your own research, maybe you will listen to Madeline Albright:

Clinton Deal Gave N. Korea 100-Nuke-Per-Year Capacity
http://guilfordchairman.blogspot.com/2006/02/for-my-clinton-friends.html
Light water nuclear reactors provided to North Korea under a 1994 deal negotiated by the Clinton administration have the capacity to generate enough nuclear fuel to produce
almost 100 nuclear bombs.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/4/125750.shtml
Albright admitted that North Korea had duped the Clinton administration, and that Kim Jong Il began to acquire nuclear weapons on her watch.

...Albright admitted that North Korea had duped the Clinton administration, and that Kim Jong Il began to acquire nuclear weapons on her watch.

"What they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating," she told NBC's "Meet the Press." :shock: :roll:
"The worst part that has happened under the Agreed Framework," Albright explained, was that "there [were] these fuel rods, and the nuclear program was frozen."

But because of North Korea's cheating, she said "those fuel rods have now been reprocessed, as far as we know, and North Korea has a capability, which at one time might have been two potential nuclear weapons, up to six to eight now, we're not really clear."



Eegads - CHEATING?! Say it ain't so! Surely insane tyranical dictators owuldn't make an agreement then go back on it! :doh DOH!

Clinton's Foreign Policy:

Bin laden declares war on the U.S. - Ignore!

Terrorists kill Americans in the Kobar Towers - Ignore!

Terrorists kill Americans on USS Cole - Ignore!

Terrorists kill Americans in 2 African Embassy Bombings - Ignore!

Terrorists kidnap and kill American Marine General - Ignore!

North Korea demands nukes - Clinton gives them nuclear capability after 'masterful negotiations', admit later 'they never expected Kim Jong Il to lie!

Clinton sells Chinese Military the technology which FINALLY enables them to strike the U.S. with its nukes, technology they did not have before!

Oh yeah, let's not forget how, after all this time out of office, Albright declares in an interview that the united states should sit down with Israel and the TERRORIST GROUP Hezbollah, the militant terrorist arm of Iran who has sworn the complete and utter destruction of Israel followed by our own destruction, to negotiate another round of delays and rebuilding for Hezbollah while simultaneously elevating this terrorist group to some political status it should not have WHILE re-writing U.S. foreing policy of negotiating with terrorists!

Please, the best thing the Clinton administration could do for foreign policy and the U.S. is to GO AWAY!
 
uhhhhhh.....

all right dip. did I say NK didn't try to make nukes under Clinton? No.

With the abandonment of its plutonium program, North Korea began an enriched uranium program. Pakistan, through Abdul Qadeer Khan, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missile technology around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

This program was publicized in October 2002 when the United States asked North Korean officials about the program, [2]. It is worth noting that the added claim — "they acknowledged they had a secret nuclear weapons programme involving enriched uranium," — was never substantiated.

Although the Agreed Framework specifically prohibited then-existing plutonium programs, not uranium, the U.S. argued North Korea violated the "spirit" of the agreement. In December 2002, the United States terminated the 1994 Agreed Framework, suspending fuel oil shipments.

North Korea responded by announcing plans to reactivate a dormant nuclear fuel processing program and power plant north of Pyongyang. North Korea soon thereafter expelled U.N. inspectors and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Wikipedia

As I said before, it was only with the plutonium made before and after the 1994 agreement that NK actually got nukes. Not the capability. If they had the capability, why weren't they going anywhere?

Oh, and of course they were "cheating". but we were happy when they were 'cheating' and still failing, unlike playing by the rules and launching nukes into the Pacific.

Clinton's Foreign Policy:

Bin laden declares war on the U.S. - Ignore!

Terrorists kill Americans in the Kobar Towers - Ignore!

Terrorists kill Americans on USS Cole - Ignore!

Terrorists kill Americans in 2 African Embassy Bombings - Ignore!

Terrorists kidnap and kill American Marine General - Ignore!


On August 21, 1998, President Clinton ordered a strikes against two suspected Afghan terrorist training camps and a suspected Sudanese chemical factory. President Clinton cited terrorist attacks against U.S. Embassies as the reason for ordering the missions.



Clinton sells Chinese Military the technology which FINALLY enables them to strike the U.S. with its nukes, technology they did not have before!

And Bush said in early 2001 China could build larger missiles if they felt threatend by our Nation Missile Defense Shield. hahahahahahahahahahaha
and then you say Clinton wasn't worried about terrorists-but endangered us to our #1 trading partner! Bush and Reagan have what, wasted $50 billion on the shield, while Bush ignored al-Qaeda warnings?

Bush was personally told by the CIA al-Qaeda could use planes in an attack on US soild, then trimmed the hedges? :confused: hahahahahaha

The only way we're going to war with China is if we listen to dumbasses like you who want to nuke Iran. Let somebody with a sense of geopolitics who doesn't need his hand held by Dick and Condi take over.
 
easyt65 said:
I do not think Iran's present leaders care much about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- if they did (IMO), they wouldn't have much reason to forbid U.N. inspectors from inspecting their sites...if all they are doing is working on a nuclear energy program.
Well, according to Mehr News two inspectors have been in the Natanz facility for a few days the week before. I don't know about the reasons they did not let them in later, maybe it was some political power play.

easyt65 said:
One of the major problems with attacking their facilities, though, or should I say several of the problems would be:

1. Such a strike would only delay Iran developing nukes...unless the strike totally broke their will/desire to continue. I don't see that happening, especially when talking about guys who are willing to strap bombs on themselves to kill us. Otherwise, we would have to destroy their plants/locations entirely, destroy their nuclear material, kill off all their scientists who know how to and can rebuild/start over, etc....If they want it bad enough, an air strike might delay their pursuit for a long time, but it would not entirely stop it.
A long time would be three to five years in this case.

easyt65 said:
2. Such a strike by us/a western power or Israel will inflame the Islamic/Muslim world more ('How dare the US impose its will on us/tell any country what they can and can't do').
Yes, this would be a logical effect.
 
Volker said:
Yes, this would be a logical effect.

Or China would get very angry that we attacked their #1 source of oil and **** us. Something they could easily do economically, thanks to our leaders shopping spree for war.
 
Joby said:
Or China would get very angry that we attacked their #1 source of oil and **** us. Something they could easily do economically, thanks to our leaders shopping spree for war.
Saudi-Arabia made it to the #1 oil supplier this year with 17 % of Chinas oil imports. Iran has 11 %. Both countries are thinking about building a pipeline to China through Pakistan. 90 % of the oil China needs come by ship, 80 % of it cross the Strait of Malacca. China has an oil reserve for about one month.

There are talks about a natural gas pipeline from Iran to China, too, the value of the contract about South Pars reserves is estimated to 100 Billion $ over the next 25 years.

I expect China to evaluate the pro and cons when it comes to economy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom