<p>I believe they should not. Not when they've threatened Israel to "wipe" it off the map. Nuclear weapons are their intentions.</p>
<p>ummmmmm, no.</p>
<p>you arent gonna create much of a debate with that question... not many people think they should..</p>
<p>how about this: how far should the US go to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?</p>
<p>I don't think any nation should have nuclear weapons. The only point of having nuclear weapons is to intimidate another country or to get away with something. </p>
<p>But what I find more disturbing is that countries like the US are trying to intimidate Iran into giving up its nuclear ambitions when they have hundreds of nuclear weapons of their own. Iran is going to become a nuclear power whether we like it or not. It is surrounded by 4 countries (India, Israel, Pakistan and Russia) that have nuclear power, so you can bet they aren't going to rest until they get their own. But we shouldn't worry about it. Only the most evil of nations would ever even think of using a nuclear weapon on another.</p>
<p>Perhaps, Alexandre, but wouldn't you say that President Ahmidinejad is on the extreme side? Has he not been rumored to have beliefs that global apocolypse would lead to world Islam?</p>
<p>If Mahammad Khatami were still president, or another moderate was, perhaps it wouldn't be as serious... but considering that between the Council of Guardians and the Fahqi that the theocracy has far more of a hold on Iran's governance than the Majlis or other secular bodies, I'd say Iran is a less stable country to be trusted with nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>For countries that have a vested interest and a reasonable stance--nuclear weapons aren't even an option to ever be used. Ideological considerations, however, usually blur that reasonability.</p>
<p>I would include within ideological not only religious, but include Cold War doctrines in a belief of global doom if the Soviet Union spread. However, religious tends to be the least contrained by logical interest and the least deterred by the concept of MAD.</p>
<p>Under different circumstances and regime? Yes. And I don't even mean a pro-Western state--I mean a government that cannot be vetoed by mullas.</p>
<p>Iran obtaining the weapons, of course, is impossible to stop. It is theirs for the taking whenever Pakistan provides it. Besides, they already have the infrastructure and knowledge to create centrifuges. The most difficult part then is already complete. The remaining steps to create a nuclear weapon (crude, perhaps, but nevertheless effective) could be completed by a high schooler with the correct tools and a step-by-step manual.</p>
<p>Allorion, ALL countries are equally reasonable. To assume that one country is more reasonable than another is racist. Just because Iran has a different style does not make it less reasonable. Their system works for them and will develop in its own way. That does not mean that it will go nuking other countries if it had nucealr capacity.</p>
<p>what was the point of this question. No one SHOULD have nuclear power, hell the world would be a lot better if they never existed. </p>
<p>And why does it matter if WE believe whether they should or should not. Hell, who are we to say? WE have nuclear power. </p>
<p>But let's say we don't think they should. SO what? It's not like our government will take it into consideration.</p>
<p>If you want proof, look at north korea.</p>
<p>Sigh, propoganda...so simple yet so effective... ingenius, really.</p>
<p>Sharing is caring.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Allorion, ALL countries are equally reasonable. To assume that one country is more reasonable than another is racist. Just because Iran has a different style does not make it less reasonable. Their system works for them and will develop in its own way. That does not mean that it will go nuking other countries if it had nucealr capacity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, but that logic implies that this is a perfect world when in reality it isn't. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map. If they get nukes, they very well may carry out their threats. Therefore, under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Sure, other countries have nukes, but none of these countries are threatening to nuke their neighbors just because they do not share the same fanatical religion.</p>
<p>Sorry Alexandre, but moral relativism is garbage. Iran is a theocracy, and doesn't protect freedoms and rights of its citizens. It is in no way reasonable. I believe that countries that value freedom should stop Iran from getting nukes by any means possible, including pre emptive nuclear strikes.</p>
<p>Hmm, preventive war..the bain of our existence. Take a look at Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq...all examples at our attempts of early action. No, that's not the answer with Iran. What has happened to diplomacy in our country? Did I hear correctly when the media announced that the US received a letter from Iran open to negotiations? And what did Condalezza do...shrugged it off. We have a Secretary of State for a reason, to engage in diplomatic relations with other nations. But in the Bush administration, the Secretary of State has become more or less a figure head, while the duties of "diplomacy" are handed over to the Pentagon, the CIA, and other, purely action-seeking agencies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map. If they get nukes, they very well may carry out their threats. Therefore, under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Sure, other countries have nukes, but none of these countries are threatening to nuke their neighbors just because they do not share the same fanatical religion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I whole-heatedly support Iran building up its nuclear program. And nutcases like you won't stop them!</p>
<p>What makes this world a sad place is that people like you talk about issues you have no idea about. Next time before you call Islam fanatical, please care to read the Koran or talk to a real Muslim. Assumptions simply reflects your ignorance. btw, where's Bin Laden? LOL...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Iran is actually a blend of theocracy and democracy. I dont know where you get your information from, but the rights of women are actually increasing (even though their rights are not yet equivalent to men). Go read some reliable sources or better yet, ask an Irani yourself. Women are becoming educated and are actually taking part in politics. Alot of women are also religious leaders and some even undergo commercial activities. HOWEVER, to be honest, I dont think things will improve under the conservative Ahmedinejad, who has other priorities as the Irani president. The only think Iran needs to be freed from is Western influence. I agree with Alexandre that different ideals are suitable for different places. The citizens have spoken by electing Ahmedinejad, and we must respect that in the name of democracy. If the citizens feel oppressed, they are always free to leave Iran, which I dont see most doing :)</p>
<p>As far as nukes are concerned, I dont think Iran will really use them to nuke countries. Ahmedinejad's talks are all "child's play," that is whatever he says shouldnt be taken seriously. Iran has no real incentive to nuke Israel, and nuclear energy is beneficial to Iran in terms of development only. Also, most Iranians, although oppose a Zionist state, are vehemently opposed to warfare with Israel. Islam is nothing about this. Islam is a Semetic religion itself, and most educated Iranians recognize Israel.</p>
<p>Quote:
Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off of the map. If they get nukes, they very well may carry out their threats. Therefore, under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Sure, other countries have nukes, but none of these countries are threatening to nuke their neighbors just because they do not share the same fanatical religion </p>
<hr>
<p>haha, last time I checked, the United States and their fanatical Christian religion went after Iraq because of their religion (if you don't know what I mean, like Pimp said, read the Koran)</p>
<p>Agreed with the above 2 posters..</p>
<p>What gives the US the moral right to judge whether Iran is responsible or not? What makes fanatical christians any less scary then fanatical muslims?</p>
<p>And if you are talking about abuse of power, the US should be the first country to disarm - just a few examples would prove this. Vietnam, Cuba, Congo, Iraq, etc. How is bush any better as a president then the so called "fundametalists" in Iran?</p>
<p>Before the US passes any moral judgements and thinks that it needs to do the world a favour and stop iran from getting nukes, they need to realise that its not within their jurisdiction to start off with.</p>
<p>The United States has absolutely no right to play ruler over the world. There are established organizations, such as the UN, that have been created to work with these countries for peace. Oh and last time I checked, it was the US that gave Iran weapons in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that countries that value freedom should stop Iran from getting nukes by any means possible, including pre emptive nuclear strikes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Silly person, have you never watched Dr. Strangelove?</p>
<p>im not sure that I'm even opposed to seeing the apocalypse. i think itd be an interesting event to witness. and living at the pinnacle of human existence would also be interesting...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I whole-heatedly support Iran building up its nuclear program. And nutcases like you won't stop them!</p>
<p>What makes this world a sad place is that people like you talk about issues you have no idea about. Next time before you call Islam fanatical, please care to read the Koran or talk to a real Muslim. Assumptions simply reflects your ignorance. btw, where's Bin Laden? LOL...</p>
<p>Quote:
Originally Posted by w1cked
Iran is a theocracy, and doesn't protect freedoms and rights of its citizens. It is in no way reasonable. I believe that countries that value freedom should stop Iran from getting nukes by any means possible, including pre emptive nuclear </p>
<p>Iran is actually a blend of theocracy and democracy. I dont know where you get your information from, but the rights of women are actually increasing (even though their rights are not yet equivalent to men). Go read some reliable sources or better yet, ask an Irani yourself. Women are becoming educated and are actually taking part in politics. Alot of women are also religious leaders and some even undergo commercial activities. HOWEVER, to be honest, I dont think things will improve under the conservative Ahmedinejad, who has other priorities as the Irani president. The only think Iran needs to be freed from is Western influence. I agree with Alexandre that different ideals are suitable for different places. The citizens have spoken by electing Ahmedinejad, and we must respect that in the name of democracy. If the citizens feel oppressed, they are always free to leave Iran, which I dont see most doing </p>
<p>As far as nukes are concerned, I dont think Iran will really use them to nuke countries. Ahmedinejad's talks are all "child's play," that is whatever he says shouldnt be taken seriously. Iran has no real incentive to nuke Israel, and nuclear energy is beneficial to Iran in terms of development only. Also, most Iranians, although oppose a Zionist state, are vehemently opposed to warfare with Israel. Islam is nothing about this. Islam is a Semetic religion itself, and most educated Iranians recognize Israel.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>wow, just wow... i don't know where to start...</p>
<p>first... as to your argument about women's rights... here's something for you to gander at...</p>
<p>Iranian woman to hang
07/01/2006 13:24 - (SA)</p>
<p>Tehran - An 18-year-old Iranian woman has been sentenced to death for killing the man she says tried to rape her. </p>
<p>Iran's Etemad newpaper reports that the woman, identified as Nazanin, claimed self defence after she had stabbed a man to death in March 2005. </p>
<p>Nazanin, 17 at the time, had been out with her niece and their boyfriends in Tehran when two men started harassing them. She said the men tried to rape them after their boyfriends had run away. </p>
<p>Nazanin told the newspaper: "I committed murder to defend myself and my niece, I did not mean to kill him. I did not know what to do because nobody came to help us." </p>
<p>The European Union and international human rights groups have been pressuring Iran to stop executing convicted minors. </p>
<p>The United Nations general assembly has adopted a non-binding resolution denouncing the practice. </p>
<p>Iran's judiciary says minors are not executed in the republic. It has also proposed a law prohibiting the death penalty or flagellation for those who were minors at the time of the crimes. </p>
<p>In Iranian law, a boy can be executed from the age of 15, and a girl from the age of nine. However, the execution is carried out when the offender is over 18 years old. </p>
<p>The Iranian press reported a disabled man had been executed in public on Friday. </p>
<p>At least 81 people were executed in Iran last year. Amnesty International reports at least 159 people were executed in Iran in 2004.</p>
<p>Two gay teens executed for being gay:</p>
<p>Girl executed for committing "acts incompatible with chastity":</p>
<p>Iranian girl hanged for 'acts incompatible with chastity'</p>
<p>Atefeh Rajabi (name sometimes spelt Ateqeh), a 16-year-old girl, was executed in northern Iran in August for "acts incompatible with chastity". Reportedly, she was publicly hanged on a street in the city centre of Neka.</p>
<p>According to reports she was not represented by a lawyer during her trial and the judge is said to have severely criticized her dress. It is alleged that Atefeh Rajabi was mentally ill both at the time of her "crime" and during her trial proceedings. </p>
<p>The case is said to have attracted the attention of the Head of the Judiciary for the Mazandaran province, who ensured that it was heard promptly by the Supreme Court. In Iran, all death sentences have to be upheld by the Supreme Court before they can be implemented.</p>
<p>The death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court, and Atefeh Rajabi was publicly executed on 15 August. According to the Iranian newspaper Peyk-e Iran, the lower court judge who issued the original sentence was the person who put the noose around her head as she was taken to the gallows. </p>
<p>It was further reported that although Atefeh Rajabis national identity card stated that she was 16 years old, the Mazandaran Judiciary announced at her execution that her age was 22.</p>
<p>An unnamed man, also accused in the case, was reportedly sentenced to 100 lashes. He was released after the sentence was carried out. </p>
<p>The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child strongly recommended that Iran "take immediate steps to halt and abolish by law the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under 18".</p>
<p>I like Holden's philosophy</p>