Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium? ...POLL...

Iceman · 01-11-06, 01:11 AM

Just a crazy... Kapitain...."no offense intended really"....type poll.

What do you guys think of what Iran is doing in regards to it's nuclear ideas or intents.I believe a country should be able to do what it wants and don't really understand where the world came up with it's ideas of "Who" exactly really should posses them...Doesn't seem like "Any' of us are responsible enough to posses them anyways either...I.E. 3 mile isle and Cherynobyl is a pretty lame azz track record for the Two biggest players in the world.....

I don't know if I feel any safer with North Korea having em...but has the world just accepted this now?...but seems like Iran having a guy who seems very hostile twords Isreal...I don't know what really to think about this...seeming like he is very clear about his intentions....I dont know if the world should sit back and wait to see what he is going to do....I don't think Isreal will either....Seems like she, "Isreal", can claim the same as the US did in a pre-emptive strike and be justified in doing so...

I know this may be a can- o- worms and don't want to make anyone mad really, but believe it or not I really value all the different opinions here being we are all from the planet just living in a different place on it.

Vote in the poll but your written opinions are worth more than any poll can say.Thank you in advance for your time.

Happy Times · 01-11-06, 03:49 AM

Yeah , let them have it, they are nice people.. It seems no one is going to stop them. Like to see Finland starting a program if this becomes a trend.

Seriously, if no one is going to stop them, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is as good as dead. And i see no reason why any country , including my own, wouldnt have the right to protect itself.

Kapitan · 01-11-06, 05:17 AM

diesel submarine in littoral water is a bad thing but a nuke

iran is not what we call a democracy and thier latest threat about wipeing isreal off the face of the earth is anything to go by then no they shouldnt be allowed to enrich uranium.

U.N america should stop them but there to busy pulling thier plonkers debating how many more politicaly correct things to add so we dont offend the muslim minority in the west.

disgusting

Konovalov · 01-11-06, 06:00 AM

Answer to the question. NO.

August · 01-11-06, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

I.E. 3 mile isle and Cherynobyl is a pretty lame azz track record for the Two biggest players in the world.....

Dunno about the Russians but 3MI hardly consititutes a lame ass track record.

Should Iran have the bomb? No way.

Hitman · 01-11-06, 08:40 AM

It all depends upon you point of view: USA and western democracies consider that their ideas are right, and that they have the right to prevent other countries from doing what they want. Iran and other muslim states think that it's the USA and his allies who is wrong, that they do not understand the true faith and that they are being opressed. In fact, the question is only which side can force through the use of military disuasion the other to follow his point of view, and currently that's USA and western allies. It can't be really argued that the US and the NATO have the right to have nuclear weapons and Iran not. The argument of Iran using evetually those weapons to attack the US and NATO force them to accept their ideas is just exactly what the US and western democracies are doing today: Force others to accept their ideas thanks to nuclear and military menace.

My answer to the question is thus not represented here, so I voted yes under UN control. My idea is that any country has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful deveoplement of civil energy to improve the living conditions of his citizens. So as long as Iran accepts any control measures and inspections the UN demands to ensure that the use of nucelar is peacufl, my vote is YES

Don't misunderstand me, if one or the other idea with no justification has to be forced with military strenght, I prefer it to be the USA instead of Iran who determines who and when does what,

, I just wanted to highlight that there is no rational justification for one idea being imposed to others.

TteFAboB · 01-11-06, 01:39 PM

No.

Chernobyl was a primitive plant, built on a rush with structural failures on the project, below the high ethical standards of the Soviet Union, supervised by a political agent who was not an expert in nuclear energy, and to say the least, wasn't the brightest of the Soviet agents.

We need a nuclear arsenal to fire on Asteroids in the event of an emergency and we need to keep them balanced, but we don't need nuclear weapons in the hands of people who, if they could, would wipe out an entire nation, its people and their religion, now I don't actually believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would nuke Israel, because without Israel he becomes irrelevant, disposable, unnecessary, he needs Israel alive, healthy and active, but I'm sure there are other presidential candidates who wouldn't mind taking the idea forward.

The Iranian president can have his nuclear energy if he build his plant out of the most transparent glass (figure of speech).

Onkel Neal · 01-11-06, 01:55 PM

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.

tycho102 · 01-11-06, 01:58 PM

I have absolutely no problem with Iran having full nuclear-fuel-cycle capability.

But the Muslims are going to stand together against the Jews, they might as well fall together, too.

Ducimus · 01-11-06, 02:17 PM

personally i think the idea of nuclear capabilties in a nation that threatens/promotes genocide is very disturbing.

porphy · 01-11-06, 03:08 PM

I think nukes are disturbing whoever has them...

Cheers Porphy

Abraham · 01-11-06, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.

Sure, the International Atomic Energy Agency can be closed down (savers money) and Condy Rice would deliver the nukes on a goodwill trip around the Axis of Evil, which could then be called the IAEA, the International Atomic Evel Axis...

But I think mini-states like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco etc. should only get five nukes & delivery systems.
And the Palestineans get only nukes if they swear that Hamas will never have the opportunity to fire them.
:rotfl:

TLAM Strike · 01-11-06, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.

Sure, the International Atomic Energy Agency can be closed down (savers money) and Condy Rice would deliver the nukes on a goodwill trip around the Axis of Evil, which could then be called the IAEA, the International Atomic Evel Axis...

But I think mini-states like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco etc. should only get five nukes & delivery systems.
And the Palestineans get only nukes if they swear that Hamas will never have the opportunity to fire them.
:rotfl:

And most importantly 'Hans Island' should be given nukes!

Abraham · 01-11-06, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tycho102

I have absolutely no problem with Iran having full nuclear-fuel-cycle capability. As long as:

1. The United States of America has a SSBN in the Indian Ocean, 365 days out of the year.

2. Within 30 minutes of the first nuke detected in Israel, that SSBN will nuke:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. Tehran
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

If the Muslims are going to stand together against the Jews, they might as well fall together, too.

@ tycho102:
As a moderator I have a problem with your posting.
I think it could trigger a nasty discussion that might lead to editing measures.

I understand that you find the thought of Iran having a military nuclear capacity very disturbing, as many people do, just as you can envisage a nuclear threat to Israel, as many people do.

But people with a different sense of humor may take offense of you advising the US to retaliate for a nuclear attack on Israel by more or less nuking the complete Middle East - including Muslim holy places - without discretion. And remember we have Muslin participants in our forum, who might even be more than a little disturbed by your less than measured response...

Could you live with limiting your target list to target # e?

Abraham
(with moderator cap on)

01-11-06, 04:22 PM

It's up to Iran. It's their country..........but I wonder if one day the Middle East will become one big sheet of glass??????

View Poll Results: Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium?
No Way!	24	43.64%
Sure...Join the Nuclear Club!	6	10.91%
Undecided...	3	5.45%
No ones business but there own...	7	12.73%
Up to the U.N.	6	10.91%
Can't be prevented either way...	9	16.36%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

01-11-06, 01:11 AM	#1
Iceman Ace of the Deep Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mesa AZ, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,253 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Should Iran Be Allowed To Enrich Uranium? ...POLL... Just a crazy... Kapitain...."no offense intended really"....type poll. What do you guys think of what Iran is doing in regards to it's nuclear ideas or intents.I believe a country should be able to do what it wants and don't really understand where the world came up with it's ideas of "Who" exactly really should posses them...Doesn't seem like "Any' of us are responsible enough to posses them anyways either...I.E. 3 mile isle and Cherynobyl is a pretty lame azz track record for the Two biggest players in the world..... I don't know if I feel any safer with North Korea having em...but has the world just accepted this now?...but seems like Iran having a guy who seems very hostile twords Isreal...I don't know what really to think about this...seeming like he is very clear about his intentions....I dont know if the world should sit back and wait to see what he is going to do....I don't think Isreal will either....Seems like she, "Isreal", can claim the same as the US did in a pre-emptive strike and be justified in doing so... I know this may be a can- o- worms and don't want to make anyone mad really, but believe it or not I really value all the different opinions here being we are all from the planet just living in a different place on it. Vote in the poll but your written opinions are worth more than any poll can say.Thank you in advance for your time.

01-11-06, 03:49 AM	#2
Happy Times Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 2,950 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Yeah , let them have it, they are nice people.. It seems no one is going to stop them. Like to see Finland starting a program if this becomes a trend. Seriously, if no one is going to stop them, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is as good as dead. And i see no reason why any country , including my own, wouldnt have the right to protect itself. __________________

01-11-06, 05:17 AM	#3
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,130 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	diesel submarine in littoral water is a bad thing but a nuke iran is not what we call a democracy and thier latest threat about wipeing isreal off the face of the earth is anything to go by then no they shouldnt be allowed to enrich uranium. U.N america should stop them but there to busy pulling thier plonkers debating how many more politicaly correct things to add so we dont offend the muslim minority in the west. disgusting __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

01-11-06, 06:00 AM	#4
Konovalov Ocean Warrior Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: High Wycombe, Bucks, UK Posts: 2,811 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Answer to the question. NO. __________________ "In a Christian context, sexuality is traditionally seen as a consequence of the Fall, but for Muslims, it is an anticipation of paradise. So I can say, I think, that I was validly converted to Islam by a teenage French Jewish nudist." Sheikh Abdul-Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter)

01-11-06, 08:40 AM	#6
Hitman Pacific Aces Dev Team Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Spain Posts: 6,109 Downloads: 109 Uploads: 2	It all depends upon you point of view: USA and western democracies consider that their ideas are right, and that they have the right to prevent other countries from doing what they want. Iran and other muslim states think that it's the USA and his allies who is wrong, that they do not understand the true faith and that they are being opressed. In fact, the question is only which side can force through the use of military disuasion the other to follow his point of view, and currently that's USA and western allies. It can't be really argued that the US and the NATO have the right to have nuclear weapons and Iran not. The argument of Iran using evetually those weapons to attack the US and NATO force them to accept their ideas is just exactly what the US and western democracies are doing today: Force others to accept their ideas thanks to nuclear and military menace. My answer to the question is thus not represented here, so I voted yes under UN control. My idea is that any country has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful deveoplement of civil energy to improve the living conditions of his citizens. So as long as Iran accepts any control measures and inspections the UN demands to ensure that the use of nucelar is peacufl, my vote is YES Don't misunderstand me, if one or the other idea with no justification has to be forced with military strenght, I prefer it to be the USA instead of Iran who determines who and when does what, , I just wanted to highlight that there is no rational justification for one idea being imposed to others. __________________ One day I will return to sea ...

01-11-06, 01:39 PM	#7
TteFAboB Admiral Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,247 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	No. Chernobyl was a primitive plant, built on a rush with structural failures on the project, below the high ethical standards of the Soviet Union, supervised by a political agent who was not an expert in nuclear energy, and to say the least, wasn't the brightest of the Soviet agents. We need a nuclear arsenal to fire on Asteroids in the event of an emergency and we need to keep them balanced, but we don't need nuclear weapons in the hands of people who, if they could, would wipe out an entire nation, its people and their religion, now I don't actually believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would nuke Israel, because without Israel he becomes irrelevant, disposable, unnecessary, he needs Israel alive, healthy and active, but I'm sure there are other presidential candidates who wouldn't mind taking the idea forward. The Iranian president can have his nuclear energy if he build his plant out of the most transparent glass (figure of speech).

01-11-06, 01:55 PM	#8
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,383 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	I think maybe we should give up on the non-profil goal and issue every nation 10 nukes plus delivery systems. That way, everyone is equal.

01-11-06, 01:58 PM	#9
tycho102 Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,100 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I have absolutely no problem with Iran having full nuclear-fuel-cycle capability. But the Muslims are going to stand together against the Jews, they might as well fall together, too.

01-11-06, 02:17 PM	#10
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	personally i think the idea of nuclear capabilties in a nation that threatens/promotes genocide is very disturbing.

01-11-06, 03:08 PM	#11
porphy Commodore Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 603 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	I think nukes are disturbing whoever has them... Cheers Porphy __________________ "The only remedy for madness is the innocence of facts." O. Mirbeu "A paranoid is simply someone in possession of all the facts." W. B.

01-11-06, 04:22 PM	#15
U-552Erich-Topp Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	It's up to Iran. It's their country..........but I wonder if one day the Middle East will become one big sheet of glass??????