Forums > Personal > The Iranian Nuclear Threat

forum rss feed
Author

Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 11:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Assuming all diplomatic attempts to stop the development of the Iranian nuclear program fail, will you support a preemptive military action in order to eliminate the new threat?

If you can, please explain your answer.


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 12:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

No, I will not. Although I do not support Iran the slightest bit, I do not trust the US any more, and they will undoubtedly take it upon themselves to carry out such a 'heroic' strike.

Iran will not use these weapons, they will at best intimidate others with them, as they are very much aware that their country will be literally flattened the minute they use nuclear arms.


There are a few more countries in the world, other than the US, with the ability to conduct an operation like that. I do think, however, that the countries bothered the most with Iran will carry out an attack only if the US agrees.

Let me start by saying I know what you think of Israel. That said, Iran's current president has declared in various opportunities his aim is destroying Israel. Also, we all know Iran does not favour the western world. Since the nuclear program brings Iran one step closer to achieving the mentioned goal, we should be concerned.


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
Maruga user not visiting Queenzone.com
Maruga
Royalty: 1705 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 12:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

NO.

Military action doesn't need.

If USA remove their nuclear wheapons, Iran and others countries should do it too.

Cheers.


Life Is A Bitch...

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 12:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I know only one country what have used once nuclear weapon... Japanese Queen fans know this country too...

Anyway my answer is no. Why? I won't explain because if this is poll - then I don't want someone to explain why explaination was wrong, if it's not poll - I don't want it anyway.

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 12:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Double post, sorry

Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 13:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:

I know only one country what have used once nuclear weapon... Japanese Queen fans know this country too...

Anyway my answer is no. Why? I won't explain because if this is poll - then I don't want someone to explain why explaination was wrong, if it's not poll - I don't want it anyway.


Look, I don't want to turn this into another anti-USA thread. I didn't mention the USA in my question because of what I told Thomas - it's not the only country with the ability to carry out such an attack.

I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of people from all over the world... It would be kind of boring asking my fellow classmates.

Barry © wrote:

Nope, a few countries have nuclear arms so why pick on them? The moment they try to use them yes but not until then. That's if it's not too late. ;-)


Because Iran has a tyran, extremist & fanatic regime. Most other countries with nuclear power don't.


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
pma user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 13:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, and while "they" are at it. Nuke China!



"I think now I can make love to your anus without making God angry"



Registered: Friday, January 18, 2002



John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 13:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I find this so problematical, but NO - I would NOT support such a preemptive strike.

As a resident of the UK, I take many things for granted. Not only nuclear arms or power, but also things like everyday conveniences - cars, electrical goods, Medicare etc.

Many developing countries are denied these luxuries, because we in the ‘West’ rather selfishly have decided that these peoples are ‘undeserving’, and unless there is a fast buck to be made, are not interested in assisting these cultures.

Why is it that ‘our’ countries are allowed a ‘civil defence’ but those who are not ‘worthy’ denied a similar right? What other rights are we to deny? I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change.

Now (and this is NOT anti-US) but isn’t this a tad hypocritical? That the world’s greatest gas guzzling consumers over the last 75 years or so, now object to the Chinese, in case they MAY draw upon the same limited resources? (I say may as no-one really knows what energy reserves are available to the Chinese).

In sum: No I do not object (in priciple) to Iran having these arms – if they are used for defensive purposes, as they too deserve a modicum of security for their people, regardless of their politics.

As for your title: 'The Iranian Nuclear Threat' is that fact, or Western paranoia?

I do not believe anyone or any country would be stupid enough to develop these arms as a means of aggression – as we all know this aggression would spell ‘Total annihilation’ in retaliatory strikes.



"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 14:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote:

I find this so problematical, but NO - I would NOT support such a preemptive strike.

As a resident of the UK, I take many things for granted. Not only nuclear arms or power, but also things like everyday conveniences - cars, electrical goods, Medicare etc.

Many developing countries are denied these luxuries, because we in the ‘West’ rather selfishly have decided that these peoples are ‘undeserving’, and unless there is a fast buck to be made, are not interested in assisting these cultures.

Why is it that ‘our’ countries are allowed a ‘civil defence’ but those who are not ‘worthy’ denied a similar right? What other rights are we to deny? I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change.

Now (and this is NOT anti-US) but isn’t this a tad hypocritical? That the world’s greatest gas guzzling consumers over the last 75 years or so, now object to the Chinese, in case they MAY draw upon the same limited resources? (I say may as no-one really knows what energy reserves are available to the Chinese).

In sum: No I do not object (in priciple) to Iran having these arms – if they are used for defensive purposes, as they too deserve a modicum of security for their people, regardless of their politics.

As for your title: 'The Iranian Nuclear Threat' is that fact, or Western paranoia?

I do not believe anyone or any country would be stupid enough to develop these arms as a means of aggression – as we all know this aggression would spell ‘Total annihilation’ in retaliatory strikes.


This has nothing to do with 'the third world'.

Iran is non democratic. It has been supporting terror in almost every possible way for nearly 30 years. Its current president has said Israel must be destroyed (= threat, not "western paranoia").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah ("The group is headed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and is financed largely by Iran and Syria")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing ("Hezbollah is believed to be behind the attack, with backing from Iran.")

Because of its history, I don't trust Iran to use nuclear weapons as defensive measures only.


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 15:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Guy: I do see your point, but any chance you can re-make it without the use of 'wikipedia', because as we all know, anyone can change whatever they like on that site to suit their own particular dogma. I think such a move would carry more weight.

As for the Israeli's they have nuclear weapons too.

This is similar to the Pakistan/India situation - in that we seem to support one side or another, YET Pakistan legitimately claim, they only need such weapons because their neighbours do.

The middle east is very complicated, and, I think if one country has them, that means they have a very strong advantage over their neighbours. On the other side of the coin, if they all had them, it would surely redress the balance of power, so either no-one has them, or they all have them.

It could be argued that such weapons have held the peace over the last 60 years, but in the face of Korea, Afghanastan, Vietnam, Falklands, etc, it could also be argued that they do not.

But I am just an idealist on a music internet site, I am not really qualified to say, as I do not live in such places, nor do I deal with their politics on a daily basis.

What I do see over the next one hundred years is that developing countries like Argentina, China, Singapore, and large parts of Russia and Africa, will continue to develop inspite of the west, while more established nations like the UK, and the USA will undoubtedly see a deteriation in both standards of living and quality of life, and I think it would be better to be 'on-side' with these countries rather than face economical and ecological differences.

As for Iran, we need to cultivate some sort of trust their too, otherwise your nightmare scenario of nuke them all - may well be the only thing left if all offers of diplomacy fails.

And if that happens - what next - nuke Canada because they impose a grain embargo against the US?


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 15:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote:

Guy: I do see your point, but any chance you can re-make it without the use of 'wikipedia', because as we all know, anyone can change whatever they like on that site to suit their own particular dogma. I think such a move would carry more weight.

As for the Israeli's they have nuclear weapons too.

This is similar to the Pakistan/India situation - in that we seem to support one side or another, YET Pakistan legitimately claim, they only need such weapons because their neighbours do.

The middle east is very complicated, and, I think if one country has them, that means they have a very strong advantage over their neighbours. On the other side of the coin, if they all had them, it would surely redress the balance of power, so either no-one has them, or they all have them.

It could be argued that such weapons have held the peace over the last 60 years, but in the face of Korea, Afghanastan, Vietnam, Falklands, etc, it could also be argued that they do not.

But I am just an idealist on a music internet site, I am not really qualified to say, as I do not live in such places, nor do I deal with their politics on a daily basis.

What I do see over the next one hundred years is that developing countries like Argentina, China, Singapore, and large parts of Russia and Africa, will continue to develop inspite of the west, while more established nations like the UK, and the USA will undoubtedly see a deteriation in both standards of living and quality of life, and I think it would be better to be 'on-side' with these countries rather than face economical and ecological differences.

As for Iran, we need to cultivate some sort of trust their too, otherwise your nightmare scenario of nuke them all - may well be the only thing left if all offers of diplomacy fails.

And if that happens - what next - nuke Canada because they impose a grain embargo against the US?


As you asked, John:

http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6631-2004Sep8.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4426970.stm

Anyhow... You're aware Israel is a democratic country surrounded by non-democratic countries, right? And you're also aware Israel was dragged into wars many times, right (sometimes with some sort of support from Iran & Iraq)? So giving Iran the ability to obtain nuclear power, regardless of her neighbours, will be a grave mistake.

It's well known that Israel was in a state of panic during the Yom Kippur War (1973), and that the prime minister considered using nuclear power. As we all know, that never saw the light of day (I'd like to mention this was the most serious war Israel had ever took part in). Therefore I believe we can trust Israel a tiny bit more than Iran, which has proven to have a more sensitive trigger finger, if I may say so.

In conclusion, could I make a small comparison? Nazi Germany was working on the atom bomb, and Hitler hated Jews in particular and the West in general. The same happens with Iran, and quite frankly, I don't want to be a victim of the next holocaust.


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
jcrawford79 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 762 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 16:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote:

I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change.


That is very interesting. Where did you read that? It seems odd because our current administration has the worst environmental protection record of any president. While this is merely my opinion and NOT statistical fact, it is a commonly held view by Americans. So, obviously, the reason behind this has nothing to do with the environment, I would be curious to know what the real interests are in preventing acquisition of motor vehicles by the Chinese middle class.

Lisser user not visiting Queenzone.com
Lisser
Deity: 4794 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 17:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I am an American and I am not against a "new Chinese middle class" or their appetite for sportscars, etc. As far as I am concerned any citizen of any country can have whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm other people.


Wo ist das kamerahhhhhhhhhhh!!!



NJ!!!























Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 17:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Personally NO COUNTRY in the entire world should have nuclear weapons. Of course, the appetite for destruction (no G'n'R' reference intended) of our world leaders is the one thing that's making us turn against the other, and justify violence and destruction as the only way to find freedom.

No wonder why Oppenheimer and Einstein felt so dissapointed of how their intellect was used to make the world a worse and far scarier place to live.

I do not agree one bit with the policies of North Korea, Iran, or Sudan. However, diplomatic talks and economic embargos are the first thing the international community should try in order to bring opossition to ruthless regimes.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 17:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Guy, why always make Israel look like the victim in the middle east conflict? I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Palestinians or Israelis have been worse? The truth of the matter is that both sides have been wrong for the past 50 years. Now it seems like some small progress is being made towards achieving peace, and let's hope that it remains that way.

Personally, anyone who takes sides in the middle east conflict is a fuckin' idiot. Peace and freedom for both sides is what should be in everybody's mind, not some dumb excuse to bomb each other.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
flash00. user not visiting Queenzone.com
flash00.
Royalty: 1424 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 19:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

imo i think most nations not just the states are very concerned about iran and there statements about wiping isreal of the planet, i believe they will eventualy strike against isreal, if they dont co-operate with the UN.. talks, i wonder what will happen?


oo la la
Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Dec 05, 23:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr.Jingles wrote:


I do not agree one bit with the policies of North Korea, Iran, or Sudan. However, diplomatic talks and economic embargos are the first thing the international community should try in order to bring opossition to ruthless regimes.

Guy, why always make Israel look like the victim in the middle east conflict? I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Palestinians or Israelis have been worse? The truth of the matter is that both sides have been wrong for the past 50 years. Now it seems like some small progress is being made towards achieving peace, and let's hope that it remains that way.

Personally, anyone who takes sides in the middle east conflict is a fuckin' idiot. Peace and freedom for both sides is what should be in everybody's mind, not some dumb excuse to bomb each other.


I said "if all diplomatic efforts fail", didn't I...?

I don't think I made Israel look like a victim. It wasn't my intention, anyway. John said "Israel has nuclear weapons too", implying Iran should have the right to defend herself as well. I merely said Israel had been attacked many times in the past, including a very serious war (at least for us), yet we never used nuclear weapons. Moreover, we never declared we would completely destroy another nation. That's why I think the fact we have nuclear power has nothing to do with Iranian nuclear power.

I can't really see any progress towards peace. The peace process seems to be stuck, and it has been stuck for the past 25 years. Each time either Israel or the Palestinians make a step forward and then two steps backwards.

It's not about sides. I'd say the same if any other hostile country acted as Iran did. Not that it's a coincidence that a country ruled by Muslim fanatics is declaring the destruction of "the Zionist entity"...


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Dec 05, 07:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As I said - we have explainations why our explainations of our opinion were wrong...

Fairy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 902 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Dec 05, 08:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If nothing else works, yes.
Sept. 11 should teach us a lot.



“If the house crumbles... I’ll just build it again”

King Freddie



http://miracleblog.queenzone.com/
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Dec 05, 08:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Fairy wrote:

If nothing else works, yes.
Sept. 11 should teach us a lot.


Terrorist attacks started in Moscow in 1994 - we've lost few thousands people in them (only in Moscow, Russia is not only Moscow, to be honest...), therefore Sept. 11 taught me nothing, except "It could happens with anyone!". Ask guys in Israel, Spain, Ireland etc. - what Sept. 11 taught them? Maybe for some lucky countries Sept. 11 was like a revelation, but it's only because of lack of TRUE information about what is going on on the Earth.