Iran To Face U.N.

[soulxtc]

<p> China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed on to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog to transfer the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions or take other harsh action. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Foreign ministers from those nations, plus the United States, Britain and France, also said the Security Council should wait until March to take up the Iran case, after a formal report on Tehran's activities from the watchdog agency. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers discussed Iran at a private dinner at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. After the four-hour meeting, which spilled over into the early hours Tuesday, a joint statement called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to report the Iran case when it meets in Vienna on Thursday. </p>

Read the complete article (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6122/IRAN+TO+FACE+UN/)

[Fudge Tunnel]

Now come on Iran play fair- if you get nuclear weapons how are we (the west) supposed to exploit you?

[Mels_Smileys45]

This is just not the right place to post such things. Sorry soulxtc. The forums even has ploblems handling this type of subject

[Pathtek24]

Yeah, that makes alot of sense...We see how well the UN did with Iraq and Hussien...Do ya think Iran really cares if they get sanctioned? Doubt it. Once they get their Nuclear arms, they can just blackmail everyone anyway...and then kiss Israel goodbye..

[lifehacker]

Yeah, that makes alot of sense...We see how well the UN did with Iraq and Hussien...Do ya think Iran really cares if they get sanctioned? Doubt it. Once they get their Nuclear arms, they can just blackmail everyone anyway...and then kiss Israel goodbye..

Israel already has the most nuclear weapons in the middle east so it would retaliate if attcked, but Israel is out of range of a nuclear attack from Iran.

[soulxtc]

Israel already has the most nuclear weapons in the middle east so it would retaliate if attcked, but Israel is out of range of a nuclear attack from Iran.

Actually no, thanks to those nuts in North Korea, the new Shahab-3 can reach Israel with a nuclear tipped warhead, The Shahab-3 reportedly has a range of between 1,300 and 1,500 kilometers and is capable of carrying a 1,000-760 kilogram warhead.


SHAHAB-3 BALLISTIC MISSILE (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-3.htm)

Thats why once it's clear that Iran has a nuclear warhead developed, it will have no choice but to preemptivelty strike Iran just as it did with Iraq in the mid-1980's...............


Plus thety are allegedly close to finishing the Shahab-4 with a range of 2,200-2,896k (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm)m capable of reaching southern europe, thats why they're starting to trip out and take a hard stance alongside the US.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/map-long.gif

[lifehacker]

Interesting I didnt know that.
Soultxc what kind of attack do you think Israel will launch if it does make a preemptive attack?

[boogiedan]

and so they should!!

no disrespect to any iranian's but this type of activity should be
tottaly not allowed

now , now , keep in check soldier's

[peersurfer]

Q1: SHOULD IRAN BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY?
A2: Yes, all nations should be allowed to have peaceful nuclear technology technology. There are two main counterarguments against this that are illogical:

Counterargument 1) "Iran has a lot of oil/gas, why do they need nuclear power?"
Reply 2) A country cannot rely solely on burning fossil fuel to produce electric power, especially considering the pollution it creates. Tehran, Iran's capital, is already one of the most polluted cities in the world. Also, China is moving to have the majority of its energy supplied by nuclear fuel in the coming decades, so there’s no reason why the Iranians shouldn’t either.

Counterargument 2) "Russia has offered to manufacture nuclear fuel for Iran, the fact that the Iranian's don't accept this is a sign of wanting to develop nuclear technology."
Reply 2) No, not necessarily. No country wants to rely on another country for its energy. If political relations with Russia ever went bad in the future, the Russians could threaten to cut off Iran's nuclear fuel supply as a bargaining chip. Or they could jack up the price 4x and threaten to cut off the supply if they don’t pay, as they recently did with supplying Gas to the Ukraine. Also, President Bush himself, in the latest state of the union address, similarly wants to reduce American reliance on Mid-East Oil (though this is more rhetoric than anything, since only 20% of American Oil comes from the Mid-East)

Q2) SHOULD IRAN BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
No, and neither should any other nation in the world. But since other nations aren't going to give up their weapons, it’s intrinsically hypocritical to not allow the Iranians to have weapons.

Counterarguement 1) "But Iran is a part of the 'axis-of-evil,' we can't trust them with a nuclear weapon."
Reply 1) Iran's threat of actually using a weapon is no worse than Pakistan, Korea, or the US (the only country to actually use it on a civilian population in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If they were to acquire weapons, they would be used as a deterrent to be invaded. It's the image of having one that's important, not using it.
Reply 2) Even if you assume that Iran's political leadership is unstable than any other country with nuclear capacity, ask yourself why that is? BECAUSE OF THE US!!!
In 1953, Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT was overthrown by the US CIA in a covert coup d'etat. Why? Because he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil industry in order to stop the West from raping Iran and its resources. The US & UK, of course, wouldn't stand for that, so who did the US put into place? A pro-western MONARCH that used his secret police to crush all political dissent and torture/kill anyone that spoke out against him. The US/UK didn't care though, they were happy with getting their oil cheaply again. However, the Iranian populace got pissed off at their pro-western puppet leader, and the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1973 where an (understandbly) anti-western backlash occurred and the current theocracy was established.

When the US says they want to "spread democracy to the Middle East" that's a crock of shit. If they wanted to spread democracy, why did the US secretly overthrow a DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT and replace him with a MONARCH? (For more on this, read the book "All the King's Men" which was written in 2003, after the CIA declassified all its files on its coup d'etat 50 years after the fact).

Also, the world needs to understand that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the Iranian people DO NOT support their government and want change. Over 50% of the country is under the age of 30 and were born after the revolution, and desperately want democracy again. That's why there is such a huge brain drain occurring, Iranians are the MOST EDUCATED minority group in America, according to the 2004 US Census Data, because all the educated/ambitions young Iranians have left.

Iran is a beautiful country with a proud history that has been reduced to shambles due to Western Interference, Islam, and the lack of separation of church and state. Continuing to punish Iran with sanctions is not going to put political pressure on the rich leadership, its going to make the disaffected populace suffer even more.

The West needs to get off its moral high horse and stop being hypocritical about nuclear power. Iran and every other nation has a right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and while nuclear weapons shouldn't be sought, nuclear-holding nations cannot be hypocritical about this when they have weapons themselves and are responsible for putting into place Iran's current leadership.

P.S. If you look at the tests, the Shahab-3 is a notoriously inaccurate weapon. It’s blown up mid-air during many test flights. They’re obviously not going to stick a nuclear warhead on one of these things and have it fail, pouring nuclear fallout over their own country. Missile testing is a tough-guy political maneuver to deter other nations from invading.

[lifehacker]

No, and neither should any other nation in the world. But since other nations aren't going to give up their weapons, it’s intrinsically hypocritical to not allow the Iranians to have weapons.
However America isint threatening other countries and saying that they should be wiped off the map (Israel)

If you look at the tests, the Shahab-3 is a notoriously inaccurate weapon. It’s blown up mid-air during many test flights. They’re obviously not going to stick a nuclear warhead on one of these things and have it fail, pouring nuclear fallout over their own country. Missile testing is a tough-guy political maneuver to deter other nations from invading.
Nobody's threatening Iran. If Pakistan or India would get nuclear weapons that would be understandable and could have a self protection reason behind it. Im not saying that I would support Pakistan or India if they set up a nuclear weapons program but countries that have enemies who have been threatened have the right to mobilize. Correct me if Im wrong but nobody threatended Iran other than Bush who called it part of the "axis of evil" and its very unlikely that Bush will get enough support to start another war with the problems he is facing in Iraq.

No, and neither should any other nation in the world. But since other nations aren't going to give up their weapons, it’s intrinsically hypocritical to not allow the Iranians to have weapons.
That I agree fully with. The world would be a much better place these days if there would be no nuclear weapons at all.

[tsafa1]

It seems to me that we can respond now by targeting all their nuclear facilities for destructions at the cost killing a few thousand people in Iran and what ever vengfull terrorist attacks they do in return.....or.....we can wait until after they create a bomb and use it, in which case they will kill a few million people in our cities and we have to completly exterminate them..... I don't know its a toss up.

[lifehacker]

we can wait until after they create a bomb and use it, in which case they will kill a few million people in our cities and we have to completly exterminate them

Not in our cities but in Israeli cities. But Israel after all its gone through should get America's support (which it in fact is getting being America's most important ally in the middle east). I hope the UN does something to stop Iran before it is too late.

[tsafa1]

I don't think they would try to send a nuke anywhere ballisticly. It has too big of a chance being shot down and even if it was not everyone would know where it came from. The better way would be to truck it in or ship it in and then deny everything. They could ship it to Isreal, Europe or any port in the US.

[tsafa1]

If they do...pay back is gona be a bitch