Iran Won't Enrich Uranium

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-11-15 09:43pm

ok Degan, I 100% unconditionaly concede.
Now will you PLEASE answer the most important question. (the ONLY part of my post unanswered!)
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? Does Iran want nukes or not? (what, if anything, they plan to do with them is a different question conditional on the first answer being yes for the second question even having a meaning.)

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-16 12:36am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:ok Degan, I 100% unconditionaly concede.
Now will you PLEASE answer the most important question. (the ONLY part of my post unanswered!)
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? Does Iran want nukes or not? (what, if anything, they plan to do with them is a different question conditional on the first answer being yes for the second question even having a meaning.)

What I believe is immaterial. Until evidence that Iran is indeed engaged in a nuclear weapons programme emerges, accusations and inferences of such an effort are meaningless.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-11-16 09:19am

I don't buy what Iran says for a second. IAEA is still concerned about some undeclared activities, and I find it worrisome that Iran is further developing the Shahab-3 ballistic missile (which is based on the Norh Korean No Dong missile) which Iran possibly can massproduce (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 918203.cms). But, this declaration by Iran is a step forward, and hopefully the issue can be resolved.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-16 09:23am

Mange the Swede wrote:I don't buy what Iran says for a second. IAEA is still concerned about some undeclared activities, and I find it worrisome that Iran is further developing the Shahab-3 ballistic missile (which is based on the Norh Korean No Dong missile) which Iran possibly can massproduce (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 918203.cms). But, this declaration by Iran is a step forward, and hopefully the issue can be resolved.

Why are you worried about the Shahab-3? Do you think they'll launch a pre-emptive strike? If they did that, Iran would be gone and they know that.

The amount of irrational fear so many people have about Iran is just fucking stupid.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-11-16 09:29am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:I don't buy what Iran says for a second. IAEA is still concerned about some undeclared activities, and I find it worrisome that Iran is further developing the Shahab-3 ballistic missile (which is based on the Norh Korean No Dong missile) which Iran possibly can massproduce (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 918203.cms). But, this declaration by Iran is a step forward, and hopefully the issue can be resolved.
Why are you worried about the Shahab-3? Do you think they'll launch a pre-emptive strike? If they did that, Iran would be gone and they know that.

The amount of irrational fear so many people have about Iran is just fucking stupid.

Please explain why it's irrational fear? What happens if there is a change in leadership and Iran sits with these capabilities? Try to think forward BS.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-16 09:34am

Mange the Swede wrote:Please explain why it's irrational fear?

It's "irrational" until you can bring some proof to the table.

What happens if there is a change in leadership and Iran sits with these capabilities?

The fundies will get launch codes and nuke Israel probably.

Try to think forward BS.

Like Bush did, huh.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-11-16 01:26pm

BS (which you're full of

), do you actually trust Iran? Oh brother, you're more naive than I thought. The Shahab-3 missile for example, was developed with a little help from North Korea. Can you trust these countries with WMDs?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-16 01:37pm

Mange the Swede wrote:BS (which you're full of ), do you actually trust Iran?

I trust them not to destroy all the economic progress they've achieved since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. I trust them not to want to be bombed and fucked up by a multi national alliance.

Oh brother, you're more naive than I thought.

But you're as paranoid as I thought.

The Shahab-3 missile for example, was developed with a little help from North Korea.

So?

Can you trust these countries with WMDs?

They've given me no reason to think they'll go all pre-emptive, so yep, I do.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-16 02:10pm

BoredShirtless wrote:The fundies will get launch codes and nuke Israel probably.

Iran is the country that sent children into Iraqi minefields and machine gun nests singing religious songs during the Iran/Iraq war...soo.....

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-16 04:33pm

MKSheppard wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:The fundies will get launch codes and nuke Israel probably.
Iran is the country that sent children into Iraqi minefields and machine gun nests singing religious songs during the Iran/Iraq war...soo.....

Complete red herring, what the hell have the desperate lengths Iran went to fight a defensive war against Saddam’s Iraq (which was of course being supported by the the West at the time) have to do with the possibility of Iran starting a nuclear war with Israel?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-16 04:38pm

Plekhanov wrote:Complete red herring, what the hell have the desperate lengths Iran went to fight a defensive war against Saddam’s Iraq have to do with the possibility of Iran starting a nuclear war with Israel?

Well, you see, even when the Nazi regime was tottering, they just
issued Panzerfausts and machine pistols to the Hitler Youth and told
them to fight house to house in Berlin, instead of having them march
into machine gun nests unarmed singing for the Fuhrer!

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-11-16 04:40pm

I think Shep is making a point regarding Iran's ruling regime's long standing lack of respect for human life and that we shouldn't merely take their word for it.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-16 04:41pm

Oh man it gets better. The Iranians' formed childrens' brigades that were
sent out in front of the regular troops to clear minefields.

Allau Ackbar!

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-16 04:41pm

MKSheppard wrote:Well, you see, even when the Nazi regime was tottering, they just
issued Panzerfausts and machine pistols to the Hitler Youth and told
them to fight house to house in Berlin, instead of having them march
into machine gun nests unarmed singing for the Fuhrer!

Yes the current Iranian regime is worse that Hitler

and all that irrelevant bullshit means Iran will launch a first strike on Iran why exactly?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-16 04:42pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:Complete red herring, what the hell have the desperate lengths Iran went to fight a defensive war against Saddam’s Iraq have to do with the possibility of Iran starting a nuclear war with Israel?
Well, you see, even when the Nazi regime was tottering, they just
issued Panzerfausts and machine pistols to the Hitler Youth and told
them to fight house to house in Berlin, instead of having them march
into machine gun nests unarmed singing for the Fuhrer!

Gee... Another complete Red Herring.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-16 04:46pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:I think Shep is making a point regarding Iran's ruling regime's long standing lack of respect for human life and that we shouldn't merely take their word for it.

They might well have treated certain groups as cannon fodder as have many other elites in history, please do explain to me logically how you get from using kids as cannon fodder in a defensive war to launching an unprovoked first strike on Israel in the full knowledge that doing so would lead to Iran getting wiped off the map?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-16 04:56pm

Plekhanov wrote:please do explain to me logically how you get from using kids as cannon fodder in a defensive war to launching an unprovoked first strike on Israel in the full knowledge that doing so would lead to Iran getting wiped off the map?

When you use your nations' future (Literally) to clear minefields by
running ahead of your troops singing Islamic songs and blowing up to
clear the minefield, I'd say you're fucking insane, and that you'd probably
nuke Israel just for the hell of it.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-11-16 04:56pm

The idea that Shep is trying to get across here, is
"If they will do something to their children that is stomach churningly vile, what will they do to those they HATE?"

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-11-16 04:58pm

I was just trying to explain the point I though Shep was trying to make.

My actual belief is that they probably wouldn't attack Israel, but I like the idea of theorcracies with nukes even less than I like the idea of theocracies. We certainly shouldn't be doing anything to help them get nukes and should consider how far we should be willing to go to stop them.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-16 04:59pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:The idea that Shep is trying to get across here, is
"If they will do something to their children that is stomach churningly vile, what will they do to those they HATE?"

Not alot, with only a fraction of the centrifuges they would need. But hey. Let's throw out logic and reason for mashing the PANIC button and screeching out red herrings.

It is with some irony that I watch people do this on one side, and screech that 'The Left' is being a load of fearmongers in other threads.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-16 05:03pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:The idea that Shep is trying to get across here, is
"If they will do something to their children that is stomach churningly vile, what will they do to those they HATE?"

Yes. It's called a Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-11-16 05:12pm

MKSheppard wrote:When you use your nations' future (Literally)to clear minefields by running ahead of your troops singing Islamic songs and blowing up to clear the minefield, I'd say you're fucking insane, and that you'd probably nuke Israel just for the hell of it.

So that’s your argument is it? Because they hyped up a small portion of their nations kids and callously got them killed you assume that “they’ll nuke Israel just for the hell of it”? That’s just pathetic, just because you regularly indulge in onanistic fantasies about nukeing people “just for the hell of it” but that doesn’t mean that Iran’s leaders do.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-11-16 06:08pm

CJvR wrote:
sketerpot wrote:Couldn't they supply their nuclear power needs
Iran have some of the world's largest and cheapest oilfields, they have no nuclear power need.

I'm rather angry now.

Do some fucking homework dipshit. When Iran was the US' ally they were told (by the US) that they needed to construct 30 nuclear reactors to sustain their population which at the time was around 34,000,000. Their population is currently around 25,000,000 and their economy is almost totally based on oil exports. There's no fucking way they can sustain their energy requirements with oil while still keeping their economy going.

Veramocor · Post by **Veramocor** » 2004-11-16 07:05pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel

You seem convinced that a political solution won't work. Or at least Europe's current political solution wont. Do you have an alternative political solution?

If not that only leaves a military solution. Would such a solution have much more success than europes politcal solution or could it be potentially much worse?

How do you see your solution working, full invasion or just air/naval strikes?

Have you thought of how you'd handle complications such as Iran stirring up problems in Iraqs Shitte (sp?) majority, Iran controlling a large oil supply, and the potential of missing all of the nuclear weapon developement sites in a surgical air strike.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-11-16 08:01pm

Plekhanov wrote:Complete red herring, what the hell have the desperate lengths Iran went to fight a defensive war against Saddam’s Iraq (which was of course being supported by the the West at the time) have to do with the possibility of Iran starting a nuclear war with Israel?

Actually, Iran was only fighting a defensive war for the first year or so: Saddam started the war because he figured that Iran was so vulnerable after the revolution that he'd score an easy victory. When Iran's resistance was far stiffer than expected and Iraq became bogged down and started taking casualties, Saddam wanted out of the war he started, so in 1982 he went to the UN to arrange a ceasefire, and the one the UN drafted would basically have returned everything to the way it was before the war. Khomeni rejected this cease fire because he felt that the UN should have punished Iraq and Saddam severly for their aggression, and decided that he would have to punish Saddam himself, so he sent Iran's forces on the offensive, The next six years consisted of the stalemate that the Iran-Iraq war is best known for, with both sides launching largely innefective offensives and counter-offensives against each other...