Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Ulvena]

Currently, a big issue for the 2012 U.S Presidential Elections is who can suck up to Israel the most. Right now, Mitt Romney is really sucking hard and stated that the, "US would give Israel unilateral support in Iran strike." [1] Considering that the United States is having a field day in the Middle East and have been having fun in the Middle East since 2003, of course they'd focus on Iran. But is it right?

No, it's not. Currently, Israel is doing whatever it wants to the Palestine people [2][3] and even as Israel itself creates nuclear weapons, nobody seems to care. They have a powerful lobbying group in the U.S [4]. They bombed an Iraqi nuclear POWER PLANT [5]. Now, Israel may be in its rights to do whatever it pleases because it's a Middle Eastern superpower. Or it's America's allies like that gives a nation an excuse to break international law.

But maybe, maybe the Israelis are justified. Just maybe. I can see a decent counter argument about the crimes towards Palestinians because of Black September and such. A not so decent counter argument could also be made about them doing whatever they want in the Middle East because of Self Preservation. And the AIPAC could be justified since every corporation and a few large nations are doing it, why not Israel?

However, Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides. America is siding with the nation that everyone in that region hates. Bush even went as far to call two of the nations in the Middle East to be evil [6]. So what? So what is that Iran deserves the nuclear bomb. After the Indo-Pakistan war and after Pakistan created the nuclear bomb, you see conflict in that area begin to lessen. North Korea is a special case as China is backing them, not to mention they have no interest in attacking South Korea head on due to the tremendous damage to infrastructure. After all, who'd want a dead nation. Adding Japan into the mix makes things even more difficult due to previous hostilities between the Korean peninsula and Japan and Japan being supported by the U.S.

In any case, Iran deserves the nuclear bomb. I bring you to South Korea [7] in the 1970s. Allies of the U.S. Didn't want the U.S to sell them crap at high prices with the threat of removing U.S troops from the area. Created nukes. Nuclear weapons bring forth fairness to a region than one sided conflicts. It's time for Iran to be a representative of the Muslims in the Middle East and actually make the Middle East an independent region rather than have the U.S screw around with everything with their Israeli buddies.

Most Heard Counter Argument: Ahmadinejad is crazy! He'll destroy Israel!

Nope and nope. Ahmadinejad is first and foremost a leader. He's not crazy. He's not butchering his own people for fun or starving them. He's not destabilizing the world's economy like Bush. And definitely, he cares enough about his own hide to not bomb Israel unless the U.S attacks Iran.

Your opinion on this?

[1] http://www.rt.com/news/romney-unilatera ... y-aid-371/
[2] http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis7.html
[3] http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine50.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Evil
[7] http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php ... 0203&cpv=0

[North Calaveras]

Iran with nukes only spells Iranian influence swelling across the region(which is a BAD thing)

[Typhlochactas]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

[Ridicularia]

Currently, a big issue for the 2012 U.S Presidential Elections is who can suck up to Israel the most. Right now, Mitt Romney is really sucking hard and stated that the, "US would give Israel unilateral support in Iran strike." [1] Considering that the United States is having a field day in the Middle East and have been having fun in the Middle East since 2003, of course they'd focus on Iran. But is it right?

No, it's not. Currently, Israel is doing whatever it wants to the Palestine people [2][3] and even as Israel itself creates nuclear weapons, nobody seems to care. They have a powerful lobbying group in the U.S [4]. They bombed an Iraqi nuclear POWER PLANT [5]. Now, Israel may be in its rights to do whatever it pleases because it's a Middle Eastern superpower. Or it's America's allies like that gives a nation an excuse to break international law.

But maybe, maybe the Israelis are justified. Just maybe. I can see a decent counter argument about the crimes towards Palestinians because of Black September and such. A not so decent counter argument could also be made about them doing whatever they want in the Middle East because of Self Preservation. And the AIPAC could be justified since every corporation and a few large nations are doing it, why not Israel?

However, Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides. America is siding with the nation that everyone in that region hates. Bush even went as far to call two of the nations in the Middle East to be evil [6]. So what? So what is that Iran deserves the nuclear bomb. After the Indo-Pakistan war and after Pakistan created the nuclear bomb, you see conflict in that area begin to lessen. North Korea is a special case as China is backing them, not to mention they have no interest in attacking South Korea head on due to the tremendous damage to infrastructure. After all, who'd want a dead nation. Adding Japan into the mix makes things even more difficult due to previous hostilities between the Korean peninsula and Japan and Japan being supported by the U.S.

In any case, Iran deserves the nuclear bomb. I bring you to South Korea [7] in the 1970s. Allies of the U.S. Didn't want the U.S to sell them crap at high prices with the threat of removing U.S troops from the area. Created nukes. Nuclear weapons bring forth fairness to a region than one sided conflicts. It's time for Iran to be a representative of the Muslims in the Middle East and actually make the Middle East an independent region rather than have the U.S screw around with everything with their Israeli buddies.

Most Heard Counter Argument: Ahmadinejad is crazy! He'll destroy Israel!

Nope and nope. Ahmadinejad is first and foremost a leader. He's not crazy. He's not butchering his own people for fun or starving them. He's not destabilizing the world's economy like Bush. And definitely, he cares enough about his own hide to not bomb Israel unless the U.S attacks Iran.

Your opinion on this?

[1] http://www.rt.com/news/romney-unilatera ... y-aid-371/
[2] http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis7.html
[3] http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine50.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Evil
[7] http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php ... 0203&cpv=0

The case studies basically boil down to one good scenario and one bad scenario. Not good odds, I say. Maybe there is an argument for them to get the bomb (not that I subscribe to it), but it isn't this.

[Alyakia]

Ahmadinejad is first and foremost [the 13th most powerful man in Iran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUbqbpBX1Us (hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

[Caninope]

My opinion is that fairness and the independence of the Middle East don't matter to me.

Far more important are the ramifications for the US, and the stability of the system. While some people (most notably Kenneth Waltz, for who I hold the utmost respect) has argued otherwise, my personal opinion is that the US should attempt to stop such a situation from arising.

[Farnhamia]

Deserves? No. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By the treaty, “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”. So, no. Now, if Iran would like to rescind its agreement, I suppose they can do so.

As for the Muslim countries uniting behind Iranian leadership, that's not about to happen, given the age-old distrust of Sunnis for Shi'ites.

[Costa Fiero]

Firstly, Russia Today isn't a very good news source as it routinely uses the opinions of a well known conspiracy theorist as fact. Secondly, Imadinnerjacket, like the rest of Iran's leadership, is batshit insane. And the reason why there are sanctions is because of gross human rights violations. We're talking about a government that endorses the stoning of rape victims for "adultery".

Also, any nuclear weapons will not bring equality but create an arms race. The only reason there hasn't been any all out war against Israel is because the Arab states and Iran know that it has the power to turn their dictatorships/theocratic hellholes into steaming craters. Iran doesn't need the nuclear bomb any more than Saudi Arabia does.

[Vetalia]

Iran is an enemy of the United States in an extremely vital position; the more we can do to weaken them and contain their influence, the better. Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to that goal.

That's the same reason why Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction; I can only imagine what would've happened if Iraq had nuclear weapons during the Gulf War, let alone the Iran-Iraq War...

[Caninope]

Deserves? No. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By the treaty, “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”. So, no. Now, if Iran would like to rescind its agreement, I suppose they can do so.

As for the Muslim countries uniting behind Iranian leadership, that's not about to happen, given the age-old distrust of Sunnis for Shi'ites.

Farn, would you like to take a guess at who one of the biggest enemies of Iran, and it's nuclear program, is?

[Alyakia]

My opinion is that fairness and the independence of the Middle East don't matter to me.

Far more important are the ramifications for the US, and the stability of the system.

Hey, at least you're honest!

While some people (most notably Kenneth Waltz, for who I hold the utmost respect) has argued otherwise, my personal opinion is that the US should attempt to stop such a situation from arising.

Could you explain how it would threaten the stability of the system without mentioning Israel going crazy?

[Alyakia]

Iran is an enemy of the United States in an extremely vital position; the more we can do to weaken them and contain their influence, the better. Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to that goal.

That's the same reason why Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction; I can only imagine what would've happened if Iraq had nuclear weapons during the Gulf War, let alone the Iran-Iraq War...

Yes. Iran getting a nuke would make the whole "suppress Iran for our own interests" thing a tad harder. I wonder why they want one?

[Ulvena]

Ahmadinejad is first and foremost [the 13th most powerful man in Iran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUbqbpBX1Us (hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

That's why I put counter argument since that's what EVERYONE is saying. Besides, Iran is an Islamic REPUBLIC. It isn't a dictatorship. It's a theocratic republic.

Iran with nukes only spells Iranian influence swelling across the region(which is a BAD thing)

Why is it a bad thing, may I ask?

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

Well currently, Israel is breaking humanitarian laws and Iran isn't creating nuclear weapons at the moment. They're creating nuclear reactors. But then again, the U.S built nuclear reactors in Vietnam and it was all good. The problem with the world right now is: If the U.S does it, it's okay. If anyone else does it, it's not right. Iran being a Middle Eastern heavyweight may actually make the Middle East MORE stable due to the shift in power so Israel treads more carefully.

[Farnhamia]

Deserves? No. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By the treaty, “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”. So, no. Now, if Iran would like to rescind its agreement, I suppose they can do so.

As for the Muslim countries uniting behind Iranian leadership, that's not about to happen, given the age-old distrust of Sunnis for Shi'ites.

Farn, would you like to take a guess at who one of the biggest enemies of Iran, and it's nuclear program, is?

Is it ... Israel? Your turn. Guess who never signed the NNPT?

[Vetalia]

Yes. Iran getting a nuke would make the whole "suppress Iran for our own interests" thing a tad harder. I wonder why they want one?

And that's why we should prevent them from getting one. Iran's going to hate us regardless of what we do, so we might as well keep them from hating us and having a nuclear weapon.

[Costa Fiero]

Farn, would you like to take a guess at who one of the biggest enemies of Iran, and it's nuclear program, is?

I thought Saudi Arabia was obvious.

[Alyakia]

Iran's going to hate us regardless of what we do, so we might as well keep them from hating us and having a nuclear weapon.

Naturally, those craaaaaaaaaaazy Iranians. Maybe we need another 1953?

[Alyakia]

Yes. Iran getting a nuke would make the whole "suppress Iran for our own interests" thing a tad harder. I wonder why they want one?

And that's why we should prevent them from getting one. Iran's going to hate us regardless of what we do, so we might as well keep them from hating us and having a nuclear weapon.

"My opinion is that fairness and the independence of the Middle East don't matter to me.

Far more important are the ramifications for the US"

why does iran not like me i do not understand

[Typhlochactas]

Well currently, Israel is breaking humanitarian laws and Iran isn't creating nuclear weapons at the moment. They're creating nuclear reactors. But then again, the U.S built nuclear reactors in Vietnam and it was all good. The problem with the world right now is: If the U.S does it, it's okay. If anyone else does it, it's not right. Iran being a Middle Eastern heavyweight may actually make the Middle East MORE stable due to the shift in power so Israel treads more carefully.

1: I don't know if Iran is developing WMD right now or not. What I am saying is that they would be violating a treaty they signed if they did, which is what the OP is calling for.

2: I do not care about what the United States or Israel are doing.

[Vetalia]

Naturally, those craaaaaaaaaaazy Iranians. Maybe we need another 1953?

Sure, if we could successfully engineer a coup and place a pro-American puppet in place that'd be great. Especially if it doesn't cost us a lot.

[Allrule]

Farn, would you like to take a guess at who one of the biggest enemies of Iran, and it's nuclear program, is?

I thought Saudi Arabia was obvious.

Costa, I think you're a pretty cool guy in general, but, really, you can do better than this. Here's a map of the NPT by country:



Light green = signed and ratified. Notice how both the US and Iran are in light green?

So if Iran's ratification of the NPT means they can't have nukes, why don't we say the same for America?

[Ulvena]

Iran is an enemy of the United States in an extremely vital position; the more we can do to weaken them and contain their influence, the better. Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to that goal.

That's the same reason why Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction; I can only imagine what would've happened if Iraq had nuclear weapons during the Gulf War, let alone the Iran-Iraq War...

And that's why everyone hates the U.S. The Iraq-Iran War was in 198-1988. Iraq and Iran are close to each other. Iraq only had a nuclear reactor. In fact, Iraq NEVER had weapons of mass destruction in their possession. And don't cite Kuwait. Nuke that nation and the fallout would damage Iraq just as much, if not more.

The U.S needs to be fair and even handed. Currently, the U.S is about to lose the alliance between South Korea and them because of the U.S being dicks to South Korea. Currently, every Middle Eastern nation hates the U.S because the U.S is siding with Israel.

Deserves? No. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By the treaty, “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”. So, no. Now, if Iran would like to rescind its agreement, I suppose they can do so.

As for the Muslim countries uniting behind Iranian leadership, that's not about to happen, given the age-old distrust of Sunnis for Shi'ites.

Of course, Vietnam signed that agreement and so did the U.S. Iran is creating nuclear reactors at the moment and it's such a crime. But the U.S builds reactors in Vietnam and it's fine. That's another reason Iran needs to take it further. To make sure the U.S isn't as hypocritical as they are now.

I never said Muslim nations would unite under Iran. I'm saying a bit more stability would come to the Middle East due to Iranians having leverage when dealing with Israel. The Shia Sunni conflicts won't leave and I never said they would leave.

[Alyakia]

I thought Saudi Arabia was obvious.

Costa, I think you're a pretty cool guy in general, but, really, you can do better than this. Here's a map of the NPT by country:



Light green = signed and ratified. Notice how both the US and Iran are in light green?

So if Iran's ratification of the NPT means they can't have nukes, why don't we say the same for America?

the keyword is "proliferation"

[Ulvena]

Well currently, Israel is breaking humanitarian laws and Iran isn't creating nuclear weapons at the moment. They're creating nuclear reactors. But then again, the U.S built nuclear reactors in Vietnam and it was all good. The problem with the world right now is: If the U.S does it, it's okay. If anyone else does it, it's not right. Iran being a Middle Eastern heavyweight may actually make the Middle East MORE stable due to the shift in power so Israel treads more carefully.

1: I don't know if Iran is developing WMD right now or not. What I am saying is that they would be violating a treaty they signed if they did, which is what the OP is calling for.

2: I do not care about what the United States or Israel are doing.

Of course, the U.S is creating nuclear weapons themselves and so is Israel. The U.S is breaking the treaty and it's not even a blip on the radar. Yet Iran does it and it's the biggest crime of the century.

[Costa Fiero]

Well currently, Israel is breaking humanitarian laws and Iran isn't creating nuclear weapons at the moment.

Iran is also breaking humanitarian laws also. Does this mean Israel is justified to maintain their nuclear arsenal?

Iran being a Middle Eastern heavyweight may actually make the Middle East MORE stable due to the shift in power so Israel treads more carefully.

Firstly, Iran is not a Middle Eastern heavyweight. It likes to think it is, but it isn't. That lies with Saudi Arabia, which detests the regime in Tehran immensely. They hate Iran as much as they hate Israel (probably because the Iranians are of a different sect of Islam to Saudi Arabia) and have openly stated that they will acquire nuclear weapons if Iran does. Which will push other nations there to do so also and create an arms race. As I already have said.

And the Saudis already have the weapons (albeit outdated ones) to strike Tehran with ease.