World Issues

[Abyssinian]

I just though it would be nice if we had a place to discuss some of the issues around the world going on around lately. And seeing i didn't see a thread like this around, i decided to make one.

For example, the 'problem' of Iran resuming the uranium enrichment program... And Bush a few days ago using the same language as he did before attacking Iraq, using the excuse you all know of (No pun intended to any who voted him or sympathize him). But still, when i think about these things, my mind just focuses on something like, what if the 'world' forced the US to get rid of it's nuclears? What would they do then? I personally think they want to be the only ones who would posses a superior military arsenal than the rest of the world, and if this keeps up, I suppose they might find an excuse to make europe give up on theirs.... But I don't know.... Any thoughts?

Another thingy.... What do you think about Mac's cooperation with Intel? I think i won't work well... seeing people already have their opinioin regarding macs as 'machines that are hard to use' or something, so... i think it won't improve the situation much...


(My first topic! >.<)


EDIT: 5 minutes after making it... it seems to have replaced arrsenal (without an r) with a *beep* thing :P ...Probably the word filter...

[AA]

i dont see what the problem is with iran, inspectors HAVE been in and found no evidence of weapons being produced, so why shouldnt they have the right to use nueclear power for energy. this is just the American goverment yet again scare mongering and villifying the middle east, in some part i believe because of there beliefs, americans are scared because the average middle american thinks that all people of Arabian decent are card carrying terrorists.

i think America should start to reduce its neuclear capabilities, if only as a gesture of good will, or even to try to lead by example, the sooner the age of neuclear weapons is over the better for all of the world, though even if iran did have neuclear weapons, why would they launch them? has the American government forgotten the reason why s full scale neuclear war never happened with the USSR? ive got three letters for you.. M-A-D.

[Camus the Noble]

I'm of Iranian descent, and what's going on in Iran seems very suspicious. First of all, President Ahmadinejad is a lunatic. He is a religious fundamentalist who thinks he is chosen by God to lead Iran into a Golden Age. He has denied that the Holocaust ever happened. He has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He has censored all Western music in his country. He says he prays for Ariel Sharon's death. There are reports that he funds the Chechen rebels while trying to improve relations with Russia.

While Iran certainly has the right to peaceful nuclear technology, I'm wary about even a step towards nuclear weaponry. Such weapons in the hands of this lunatic would be a catastrophe.

I agree that the United States needs to massively scale down its own nuclear weaponry, to try to lead by example, as aydas arrow said. It really would make our "you can't have nukes" arguments more credible if we didn't have more of them stockpiled than any other nation.

The difference between Iran and Iraq is that Iraq was not even a potential threat, nor had Saddam Hussein called for foreign countries to be "wiped off the map." Iran should have nuclear technology only if the program is under constant surveillance until they get a more reasonable President.

[Filipe]

[Vextor]

The issue with Iran is very complicated. First of all Ahmadinejad is a lunatic, but Iran's pursuit for nuclear technology did not start with him--it was being pursued under Khatami as well. Ahmadinejad, being a fundamentalist lunaic, sure does make it easier for the US (and other powers) to isolate Iran, and possibly rally enough international support to preempt an attack.

Ahmadinejad's comments so far have been barbaric and devoid of any real grasp of reality (seriously, he says he hears "voices," and that he felt an aura surrounding him when he was giving some speech--the guy is out of it). Even conservative clerics within Iran have been voicing concern on his actions. To me, it seems like Iran is trying to move towards removing Ahmadinejad.

However, Ahmadinejad being removed will not end Iran's nuclear ambition. Every nation wants to have nuclear weapons; it's an excellent political trump card and a defensive deterrence. For example, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly. Once they had them, it basically became impossible to stop them from keeping them. Siding with the US after 911 also helped Pakistan from getting politically isolated.

Nations that already have nuclear weapons will never get rid of them. There's no political incentive now that there's no cold war.
The USA getting rid of their nukes will not be taken as a "show of good will." It will simply be thought if as a sign of weakness. Because the USA has the most powerful and sophisticated military force in the entire world, nations will always find reasons to hate them; this is natural. For USA to escape this predicament, another superpower needs to be created for a new cold war.

[Goldy]

But will Military action be taken? Russia have a $1bn building contract there and the ever growing and ever emerging China get their Oil from Iran, two of the main countries with a veto in the UN.

I doubt they will want economic sanctions, let alone Military Action.

They only way i can see Military Action happening is if Ahmadinejad declares war if the UN do anything......and would you put it past him.......

[Camus the Noble]

[Goldy]

No point in showing Good Will to either Iran or North Korea at this stage. Good Will might work better and be more effective if there was a sane person leading these countries.

[Vextor]

Well, the UN Security Council just came to an agreement that Iran must abandon all of their nuclear activities (that is, USA, UK, France, Russia, and China). So basically, Ahmadinejad is on his own. If China and Russia want a piece of Iranian pie, then they would certainly be interested in "extreme" action. That way they can negotiate for a better deal. Considering the fact that the USA is already overextended militarily, any military action against Iran would have to be fronted by other UN nations.

Unless the UN can show real force, Ahmadinejad would have nothing to fear other than some airstrikes from Israel or USA.

Perhaps Ahmadinejad was exactly the person the "powers" wished to have Iran. It would have been difficult to attack Iran under a moderate like Khatami, but the world would have less qualms with a military campaign against Ahmadinejad. Major petrol companies would surely be happy with such a prospect.

[Goldy]

Wow....everyone in agreement.

So is it a waiting game now? Sanctions first if Ahmadinejad does not comply?

How far down the road do you think military action could be?

[John Layfield]

The United States don't have the military to occupy Iran right now, everything is stretched enough as it is and Iran would be much harder to take and hold than Iraq ever was.

Also, the United Nations are sure to be slow about backing the U.S. on anything after that wonderful lesson on alienating the world that George W. Bush seems to excel so much at.

It looks like sanctions to me, for now.
_________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.

[Vextor]

Personally, I think it is whether Iranians will overthrow Ahmadinejad, or international politics will force his removal. Ahmadinejad has a big mouth, but politically a lot of his measures have been derailed due to lack of support.

In Iran, the President is not the highest authority. Their commander-in-chief is the "Supreme Leader" who is not elected. Usually, this position is filled by some ayatollah or some sort of religious authority. The Supreme Leader has powers over the armed forces, special forces & intelligence, radio, national TV, etc. He also appoints 6 out of 12 members of the Council of Guardians, who sort of act as an oligarchy to make decisions for the country. The President exsits more as a mere head of the executive branch (I think). Basically, Ahmadinejad doesn't have that much power himself. Iran just revised the rules for the Expediency Council (a body that interprets the constitution), allowing them to audit the office of the President. This order came directly from the Supreme Leader, which shows that theres some interest in controlling the strange actions of Ahmadinejad.

[iscalio]

[Nimble Jack]

First off, another cold war would suck. Second, I think that it is very likely that sanctions or no, if Iran continues with nueclear enrichment programs that Isreal will air raid whatever Iran gets together into ablivion. If that happens then it could cause the Iranian government to unify against Isreal and to approve military action. Another affect the air raid could cause would be that the Arab world would revert back to their hatting of Isreal and start trying to kill them again. If both of these things happened and Iran and the rest of the Arab Nations organized a treay of some sort and invaded Israel then the US would get involved and that could bring about a full scale war. I know that that was a string of hypothetical situations but I don't think that any of it is really all that farfetched.
An interesting point to bring up is that the president of Iran was also in charge or connected somehow to the hostage crisis in Iraq in the 80's. Wasn't he?


How is the "Supreme Leader" appointed anyway? Cause if the current one was to die, or resign, or whatever, and Ahmadinejad got to appoint the new "Supreme Leader" then wouldn't that guy be just as crazy as Ahmadinejad, or even crazier?
_________________
"Not everything is possible, but there are an infinite number of possibilities."