http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6956598

Well, they sure showed us! We've said for years that Iran was pursuing nuclear technology, but no one believed until Iran fessed up. With every "agreement" reached between the EU and Iran we've said that the proof will be in the pudding, knowing that Iran would only come up with something new.

But Iran sure has shown us for the suckers we are, haven't they? They've proved that no matter how much we whine, cojole, beg, demand, or entice Europe will always consider nuclear technology in Iranian hands not such a bad thing.

Or, are we really the suckers? After all, it's a much shorter flight time from Tehran to Paris, Madrid, and Berlin.

So, at the risk of getting absolutely no response at all:

1) What, if anything should be done about Iran? Does she have a sovereign right to nuclear technology, even a nuclear bomb? (I vote yes.)

2) If so, why is Europe trying to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons? If not, what steps should Europe take to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons? How far should Europe press the issue; all the way to war, sanctions that impoverish and destroy Iranian civilian lives?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

The right to have a nuclear bomb. Hmm. Do you mean in a moral sense or in a international law and treaty sense.

1) Good idea that Iran has nukes? Don't know. On one hand having less nukes in the world is better. On the other hand only one party, state, group, whatever having nukes is a bad idea. Total destruction against total control. Trust Iran's political stability ... nah, i vote no nukes in Iran. Nuclear power, sure, if it's safe.

2) Europe needs something to bargain with. Economic sanctions are usually good for that. War, Europe, can't see it happen, not as europe, maybe with the UN. Anyway, if the UN would do nothing, we always have our trigger happy friends across the atlantic.

__________________

Either
What gives you the right (moral or legal) to say that Iran can't have nukes?
Economic sanctions usually impact the civilians much more than the ruling class. So, you're suggesting that we punish the Iranian people for a decision made by their leaders? That's seems pretty cruel.

Also, we've seen how effective UN sanctions are at changing minds. What makes you think it would work in this case?
So, you would support your government and allow it to send troops in a UN mandated war against Iran? What if the UN did not authorize military force, would you still be in favor of war should diplomatic solutions fail? If so, how long is a reasonable time to try diplomacy?
That's interesting. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Is it good that Europe can stay on its moral high horse while the US answers world threats? Or, would you rather the US simply stay out of it and allow the EU and UN to handle whatever problems arise? If those problems are not resolved, will you hold the EU and UN accountable, or will you simply blame the Americans for, once again, not coming to your aid soon enough?

What would make you consider the US "trigger happy"? If no action were taken by the UN over 12 years and the US acted unilaterally (with 40 other nations, but not the all (self)important French)? Would it have to be longer before you would consider us not "trigger happy"?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

My beliefe is that NO Country or Nation should possess Nuclear bombs. There are other ways to fight a war...as the US has proven time and time again!

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

Do you consider the sanctions against Cuba to be cruel?

As for you question... Morally, Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons. Based on the simple fact that other countries do. Legally, however, it does not. There is a thing called Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has Iran's signature underneath.

__________________

@Giggley_Girl - So, what should be done? Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

@Aether - I think all sanctions against Cuba should be lifted.

I'll pose the same question to you, again, what should be done about Iran? Just as my suspicions lead me to believe that Iran really doesn't give two shakes whether some people believe nukes shouldn't exist, I also get the feeling Iran wouldn't worry too much about a 30 year old piece of paper. What legal recourse does the world have should Iran build a bomb? Should they be allowed to build the bomb first before any of these legal ramifications come into play?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Uhh..I no believe Iran has any

*flashback to iraq*

@fatboy; i'll repond by number.
1&2)Well it is not legal as put forward by Aether. There are more UN resolutions supporting the NNPT. Morally it is up to my morals isn't it. The question I put to myself is, what are the risks. I think that if Iran has nukes, the chance that nukes will be used in the world increases (i sort of argued that before). There are enough nukes around the world to ensure mutual fear, so that is no reason why Iran should have nukes. The actual morals behind that are using nukes is bad and having a nation with too much power in the world is bad. The rest is more practical.

3) I am sure that europe would rather not, because of, as you said, who you are actually hurting and also because a boycot hurts on both sides (more on Irans side ofcourse). But the problem is that nukes are very, very dangerous, they kill by the millions. So what leverage does europe have. A boycot of Iran is not the goal. So maybe boycot for a short while, just to show europe is not kidding. Then lift them at the first excuse.

4) All depends on the situation. The actual danger (not created fear) presented by Iran. Invasion with the UN (or some huge coalition) probably, without almost certainly not.

5) I imagine you noticed the sarcasm. Well again all depends on the situation, not on the time it takes to find a solution. I can imagine a situation where i would be grateful for a US invasion, like a day before the nukes are actually flying. On the other hand i would like to think that the world can arrange it's problems (if necessary with a widely supported invasion) without one nation deciding what is right for everyone, based on shameless manipulation of facts and public opinion. The latter is pretty insulting in my opinion.

__________________

What if its a setup to invade ay?

*flashback to Ira - n = Ira + q*