Iran Successfully enriches Uranium

[scramjet]

Years after the U.S. bombings in Iran, the former Iranian president is questioned on his responses to the attacks.

Reporter: So, Mr. Former President, what was the first thing you did after you heard the explosions.
Khatami: Well, I-Ran!

(groan, ok that was cheesy but that just popped into my head)

[expoITHscohen]

Well when you have some crazy Jack ass take controll of a government and brags of how his country can enrich Uranium, not many people are going to like you. The big thing is that Iran posses a threat to a big allie (Israel) to many big name countries. Israel and it's allies pretty much controll the UN meaning that the UN is going to turn against Iran. What I don't get is this. Everyone thinks whatever the UN does is the right thing to do. My opinion is this, if the UN went into Iraq with the US and England, eaisly most of Europe would have supported the war. This however was not the case.
When the UN supports this war (Since they are already well aware of Iran producing illegal WMD and is posing a threat to Israel) you will see many people for the war. (Not war in general but for the cause) The UN is already leaning into the war side when they requested sanction of Iran.

[Star Alliance]

This is kinda (by kinda I mean extremely), but it is nice to see the majority of JP agreeing on a topic like this for once!

[expoITHscohen]

What I don't get is this. I would think it wouldn't be that difficult to take out a leader of a country and then restore a different type of government (Haiti) but if you look at all the times we tried (Cuba, Iraq, Philipeans, Vietnam, etc...) it seems awful.

One big difference is that most of the time, we have help from the UN when it is succesful. Maybe Iran can go under the succesful list.

[Crunk415balla]

Does this guy want to pick a fight with one of the world's best run army and allie to the world's strongest army?

From what I've seen, as long as he can harm people in Israel, he doesn't care what happens to him. I'm sure the majority of people in the country would rather not start a war, but he's the idiot in charge.

[expoITHscohen]

This only makes it worse

"Iran President Again Lashes Out at Israel"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel_12

Does this guy want to pick a fight with one of the world's best run army and allie to the world's strongest army?

[Star Alliance]

I don't mean to start an argument, but genocide is occuring in Sudan. As the sole superpower in the world, we need to show the world what we really believe in and that we aren't just taking action for our selfish reasons. And besides, aren't we in Iraq for the people now since there is no WMD?
Again, no offense, just my point of view.

Scram, I DEFINATELY see where you are coming from; genoside is never pleasant, and you'd think that humans would have learned to accept people over things as petty as skin color, or in Sudan's case, descent (or is it social caste?) . I think that that should for sure be on the agenda for the future, but we have alot on our plate right now, and I think we need to finish some of that business before we start into anything new. Just my opinion .

[B757300]

The Iran situation has a real danger of getting out of hand.

Obviously the Iranian leadership is either unwilling or unable to grasp the dangerous situation they are creating.

It could easily come to a point where the United States is forced to deploy some B-61-11 bunker busters in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities.

This reminds me of something that was popular during the Cold War.

Current Time: Seven Minutes to Midnight.

[Crunk415balla]

I agree with you Scramjet, the genocide in Sudan does need to be stopped. But as Usair said, we need to get our priorities in order. As I said in my last post, before we can go into Sudan, we need to take care of the threat that directly affects us and our allies, and that threat is Iran. Once that is taken care of, then we can talk about helping end the genocide in Sudan.

[scramjet]

I don't agree with this, Scram. Sudan is not a direct threat to the US or any of our allies. I do support our president, but nevertheless, I think that we really need to get our priorities in order.

I don't mean to start an argument, but genocide is occuring in Sudan. As the sole superpower in the world, we need to show the world what we really believe in and that we aren't just taking action for our selfish reasons. And besides, aren't we in Iraq for the people now since there is no WMD?
Again, no offense, just my point of view.

[Crunk415balla]

I don't agree with this, Scram. Sudan is not a direct threat to the US or any of our allies. I do support our president, but nevertheless, I think that we really need to get our priorities in order.

I agree on this one, although there is a problem in Sudan, we need to take care of the conflict thats effecting us and our allies before we think about going into a country like Sudan.

[Star Alliance]

Let this one be solved diplomatically. Where we really need some sort of action is Sudan. Peaceful solutions have been tried there and failed. It is time to make the president live up to his promise not to let genocide "occur on his watch."

I don't agree with this, Scram. Sudan is not a direct threat to the US or any of our allies. I do support our president, but nevertheless, I think that we really need to get our priorities in order.

[scramjet]

Let this one be solved diplomatically. Where we really need some sort of action is Sudan. Peaceful solutions have been tried there and failed. It is time to make the president live up to his promise not to let genocide "occur on his watch." We can't even confirm the extent of Iran's nuclear process and they would have to be stupid to even think about launching a traceable nuclear attack against our $400 billion a year military might. They're not some scattered apart organization like bin laden's group.

[ATLcenter]

It'd be wonderful if this could be solved diplomatically, but I doubt President Nutjob of Iran would back down. I find it hard to believe that the world would condone a country that has overtly threatened to destroy another would be permitted to construct nuclear silos-er "powerplants". If diplomacy fails to work, I feel that we should depose Ahmadinejad and put in place another lovely puppet who is totally incapable of leadership.

I think the EU and perhaps even the UN would back the United States on this one. Given Iran's comments toward Israel, which receives generous support from pretty much the entire Western World among a number of other reasons, the EU may grow up this time and do what needs to be done.

Every nation has a "right" to build nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean their right to do so won't be challenged. If Iran can convince the opposition (by way of words or tanks) that they should have weapons-er powerplants, then so be it. But I don't think this is one to just let go.

[screaming_emu]

*looks into crystal ball* ahh WW3...f***in great. I dont think its quite time to abandon dimpolmacy just yet. He is crazy, but so is our good buddy Kim in North Korea. We're willing to give him all the time in the world to negotiate, but nobody else. Granted, I do see Iran as a bigger threat to safety. But holy crap would this be a really bloody war. Not only that, attacking yet another country that is primarily Islamic will help Al Qaieda win more recruits...whichis not at all what we want.

Yeah, we will probably get support on this, but not nearlly as much as we would need to pull this off. One big force could go about doing this much better than the combined forces of a bazillion countries. That being said, we're busy getting blown up in Iraq.