Do you trust Iran

[musical marv]

Do you trust Iran with this policy being introduced by the key players in the disarmament of Nuclear stockpiles now?

 

[gropouce]

As a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN, this is the US's business.

No, this isn't the US's business.
This is the Security Council of the UN business.
But i know that sometimes, US cannot make the difference between those two sentences.

 

[gropouce]

The US might just as well given everyone in the area 5 nukes.

The United States is in trouble in which they are placed themselves since they lied outrageously in 2001 in UN to send missiles into Iraq.
Sorry to say, but it would have been nice if Colin Powell listen to what the French and other countries think.

The fight against terrorism and the protection of democracy takes place only in rich fossil fuels countries.
it will blow up...

 

[4Ryan6]

Since the Title of this thread has the word trust in it, how many of you out there still think all Americans have trust in our governments claims, or fear based strategies?

Seeing as how we now know we were lied to, regarding the Bush administrations claims of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

That was a total fabricated lie!

Americans were played as a bunch of chump fools, by the very idiots we put in office, so why believe them now!

So why should we now believe the present administration that has back pedaled it's own claims as well?

The president is just the puppet, some one else is pulling the strings.

If Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability, the closest to them, should have the greater concern!

IMO, the US is not the worlds police department, and should never sacrifice the first soldier over political reasons, that can after the fact, not even be justified!

That is a travesty beyond travesty, so presently I have to trust Iran over the US, between the 2, we know who has lied to us!

This is how I feel, and my only statement regarding it!

Ryan

 

[P1nnacle]

This recent decision will go down in history as one of the worst behind closed doors negotiation the US has ever made.

1. It has signicantly weakened the US's previous stong position regarding nuclear materials.

It closed down the ability for Iran to enrich Uranium past 5%, while helping to improve US/EU (this was a joint conference, remember)-ME relations.

2. It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power ... whether other feel so or not ... they do.

Yes, but does legitimizing them change the fact that they were already a nuclear power? You telling me that I can't fix computers, does not make me incapable of fixing computers.

3. It isolates Israel and empowers the more radical Islamic states.

Israel is a worse offender than most Islamic states, they routinely disregard UN directives, and act like spoiled brats. I would disagree with the concept of Iran being a "radical state". I'd also like to comment on the fact that you use "Islamic state". Why bring religion into this?

4. Saudi Arabia will now purchase nuclear warheads from Pakistan.

Ok, your line is missing. If you could put it back so I could connect the dots on this one, it would be greatly appreciated.

5. Syria will now work harder with Iran to destabilise the Sunni's.

Again, you're losing me on the concept of how a nuclear power treaty directly relates to destabilization of the region.

The US might just as well given everyone in the area 5 nukes.

How you draw the conclusion that Iran's ability to create nuclear power is even somewhat akin to giving all states in the ME 5 nukes is beyond me.

While I'm usually a Neorealist when it comes to IR, I think you slapped me all they way to Liberalism.

 

[P1nnacle]

As a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN, this is the US's business.

No, this isn't the US's business.
This is the Security Council of the UN business.
But i know that sometimes, US cannot make the difference between those two sentences.

I did not mean to imply that this was solely the US's business, rather that as a part of the P5+1 (Permanent 5 members of the UN Security council + 1 (Germany)) that met with Iran, the US could not be absent, and the decisions made at that meeting were directly influenced by the US, in addition to the other 4+1.

 

[iceclock]

I agree it's a un business. Us shouldn't have a direct contact with this stuff. Let un take care of it

 

[MikeEOD]

No, is my answer.

 

[P1nnacle]

I agree it's a un business. Us shouldn't have a direct contact with this stuff. Let un take care of it

What part of the US is a permanent member of the UN are you missing? I really want to help you, but I need to know what you're having problems with first.

 

[chunkymonster]

Since the Title of this thread has the word trust in it, how many of you out there still think all Americans have trust in our governments claims, or fear based strategies?

Seeing as how we now know we were lied to, regarding the Bush administrations claims of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

That was a total fabricated lie!

Americans were played as a bunch of chump fools, by the very idiots we put in office, so why believe them now!

So why should we now believe the present administration that has back pedaled it's own claims as well?

The president is just the puppet, some one else is pulling the strings.

If Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability, the closest to them, should have the greater concern!

IMO, the US is not the worlds police department, and should never sacrifice the first soldier over political reasons, that can after the fact, not even be justified!

That is a travesty beyond travesty, so presently I have to trust Iran over the US, between the 2, we know who has lied to us!

This is how I feel, and my only statement regarding it!

Ryan

Well said! +1!

 

[iceclock]

i know the us is part of the un. i meant if the us as an army got involved im not in agreeance with that.

 

[P1nnacle]

i know the us is part of the un. i meant if the us as an army got involved im not in agreeance with that.

Ah, well the US is continuing to downplay its role in the Middle East, and there isn't a large interest in going back anytime soon.

 

[iceclock]

excellent. thats what i likez to hear.

 

[musical marv]

This recent decision will go down in history as one of the worst behind closed doors negotiation the US has ever made.

1. It has signicantly weakened the US's previous stong position regarding nuclear materials.
2. It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power ... whether other feel so or not ... they do.
3. It isolates Israel and empowers the more radical Islamic states.
4. Saudi Arabia will now purchase nuclear warheads from Pakistan.
5. Syria will now work harder with Iran to destabilise the Sunni's.

The US might just as well given everyone in the area 5 nukes.

So you saying the U.S. made a bad deal with Iran and we should stay out for their business.

 

[iceclock]

yes i do actually. im half american sir.

 

[iceclock]

oh i agree. i meant the idea of the us going to iran is useless imo.

i know in iraq and ghanistan there will be there for a while.

and thats fine.

 

[P1nnacle]

Ah, well the US is continuing to downplay its role in the Middle East, and there isn't a large interest in going back anytime soon.

Going back anytime soon? Are you from the US or have family in the military at all?

We, the US, have thousands of soldiers, airmen, navy, and spe-ops "there". So, I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

As a proud member of the US Army, I do my best to stay up to date with current operations conducted by our country. We are withdrawing from the Middle East, no, it is not a complete withdrawal, as there will still be an American presence and I'm sure there will be plenty of unmentioned operations for years to come. We will continue to maintain a security presence in the region, but that is a major step down from our previous operational status.

 

[iceclock]

well p1nnacle times change, and resources go where there most needed.

 

[amdfangirl]

Iran just said, AMDfangirl needs to be wiped from the map.

Do you still trust Iran?

Saying isn't doing.

As long as Iran thinks it has more to lose than to gain, it won't try to attack the US.

I mean like sure, you might obliterate New Jersey, but... New Jersey 😛.

Iran would likely lose their entire country from an American counterattack. A king of dust isn't much of a king.

 

[gropouce]

We will continue to maintain a security presence in the region, but that is a major step down from our previous operational status.

A security presence ?
For who ??!!?!!


From the POV of a big part of the world: there is NOTHING to be proud being an american soldier.

 

[MikeEOD]

We will continue to maintain a security presence in the region, but that is a major step down from our previous operational status.

A security presence ?
For who ??!!?!!


From the POV of a big part of the world: there is NOTHING to be proud being an american soldier.

Ok ill bite, as a serving british soldier I dont normally like engaging in political "discussions" but you as a civilian just assume us in the military all do bad things. Remember there is no news like bad news, we do lots of things around the world that can make you proud of serving.

 

[gropouce]

Keep your teeth my friend. How can you know if i'm a civilian?
Read again, please. I don't talk about being a soldier. I'm talking about being an american soldier.

I know perfectly well that the falling tree makes more noise than the growing forest.
I also know that soldiers have the untouchable status in Anglo-Saxon countries. No luck I'm not anglo saxon. 😀
But when an army behaves with as much dignity as a dead oyster, she questions her values ​​rather than talks about pride.

 

[Reynod]

This recent decision will go down in history as one of the worst behind closed doors negotiation the US has ever made.

1. It has signicantly weakened the US's previous strong position regarding nuclear materials.

It closed down the ability for Iran to enrich Uranium past 5%, while helping to improve US/EU (this was a joint conference, remember)-ME relations.

Pffft ... so the agreement now includes an acknowledgement that they can ... previously it didn't. There is a difference.

2. It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power ... whether other feel so or not ... they do.

Yes, but does legitimizing them change the fact that they were already a nuclear power? You telling me that I can't fix computers, does not make me incapable of fixing computers.

You might want to try a different tack on this arguement ... A nuclear power is considered one which has nuclear weapons. Australia for instance has a few reactors ... but we don't enrich materials beyond medical isotopes. If we wanted we could ... but there is no reason to do so. We are not a nuclear power ... neither is Iran. North Korea is.

3. It isolates Israel and empowers the more radical Islamic states.

Israel is a worse offender than most Islamic states, they routinely disregard UN directives, and act like spoiled brats.
These Arab states around Israel have invaded them 5 times ... obviously again you don't read your history. Israel responds in kind ... an eye for an eye. So far they have not resorted to WMI's ... but they feel (because Iran has repeatedly stated publically they will wipe Israel off the map) that they are under threat.
I would disagree with the concept of Iran being a "radical state". I'd also like to comment on the fact that you use "Islamic state". Why bring religion into this?

Your clearly misinformed if you don't consider Iran a dangerous radical islamic state. I didn't bring religion into this- it HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT RELIGION.

4. Saudi Arabia will now purchase nuclear warheads from Pakistan.

Ok, your line is missing. If you could put it back so I could connect the dots on this one, it would be greatly appreciated.

Saudia Arabia backed the failed removal of the Syrian regime (Sunni vs Shia) and Iran and Syria are Shia. 5. Syria will now work harder with Iran to destabilise the Sunni's.

Again, you're losing me on the concept of how a nuclear power treaty directly relates to destabilization of the region.

Read the news and study the issues between the Shia and Sunni states. Sanction reductions on Iran and legitimising their program will empower them to act in this theatre in an increased capacity. The Allawites are basically Shia.

The US might just as well given everyone in the area 5 nukes.

How you draw the conclusion that Iran's ability to create nuclear power is even somewhat akin to giving all states in the ME 5 nukes is beyond me.

Well if the Arabic states all become nuclear armed how long before they nuke Israel or someoene else?

While I'm usually a Neorealist when it comes to IR, I think you slapped me all they way to Liberalism.

Thats ok ... I forgive you.

 

[ZionZA]

Interesting topic. Some of this might feel a bit off topic but here goes...

Iranian people are Persians. Not Arabs. So there is a bit of a distinction there that people need to be aware of.

The way I see it is that the US has every right to want to prevent them from gaining a nuclear missile. Iran isn't really the issue but the hate that comes from the Middle East towards the US and other Western countries is. Now maybe Iran has no issue with the US as long as the US leaves them alone, but the problem that comes up here is not Iran but the countries around Iran and the rebel and terrorist groups in the Middle East. You put a nuclear warhead in any of those countries and the national security of their enemies needs to be ramped up. Why would these groups not try to get their hands on these weapons when it’s basically at their doorstep...

I think this is the issue. It’s not that you can't trust one of these countries. It's not really the country that is in question, except maybe for North Korea which is off topic and I only see them as the little child in the world looking for attention. But the people and fanatical groups that live in these countries are the issue. Sadly I don't know enough about everything going on in the Middle east to really say what will happen. But that’s the thing, almost no one has any idea what will happen. Syria currently has a Civil war that’s still going on and has for years. Iran supports them. Israel wants to bomb anything that might be able to bomb them and then there are all these so called "terrorist" groups that are fighting for control over their own land and also trying to kill off as many "Infidels" as possible. If the Middle East and what’s going on there doesn't make you uncomfortable then maybe you should look at the picture a bit closer.

I'm not a fan of American politics and I'm not a fan of their bullying attitude at times and in general I'm not really in support of them. I don't trust the USA but I also have to say that I don't trust any country. All the countries in the world have something to hide especially the strongest ones. I'm also not into all of the "WW3" talk and paranoia but sadly, when looking at the past year, something has to hit the fan at some point. Things are just ramping up. It cools off for a while and then just ramps up some more etc.

A lot of people want to support Russia now for standing up to America with the whole Syria chemical weapons situation etc but keep in mind this is the same country that thrives on an extremely high oil price and they want it to be high. Most of their economy relies on it. So they will do what they need to do to make sure that oil is selling at a very high price. It’s actually just one huge "F*ck you" to the rest of the world. So I don't trust them either.

Trusting any country is a bad Idea. It might sound extremely paranoid and negative but look at the state of the world today. Things don't need to be so expensive etc. but they are and it’s all about money and control. I tend to ignore these things and try to live my life without worrying about these things. But it doesn't mean that they aren't there and when the basic cost of living has skyrocketed then maybe people need to start looking at these things.

My point is. No, Iran is not to be trusted and neither is any other country. The Middle East in general is one huge problem without any real solution and something needs to happen. But what I don't know.

A lot of what I say might seem off topic but I promise you all of it is linked in some way.

 

[Reynod]

Another concern is that within the US and any other nuclear carrying country: We don't know that they work anymore.
Would it not be a huge embarrassment that if the US launched a nuke, made the world aware, and then it didn't work? Do we fire off another and hope it works?

We haven't tested a nuclear weapon since.. 1981 or 1987 or something. Google will solve that question.

This would be like rebuilding your car's engine once every other year for 30 years, never once turning it on to verify it ever works. Then, one day you desperately need to get in your car and go somewhere. When you turn the key, does it start and run? Make things complicated another step, consider having 1 technician per decade being the one working on your engine.

Fact is, we don't know if they work. If Iran had one, they would likely use them as proxy terrorist groups like they did in Iran and somewhat in Afghanistan.

Nuclear weapons aren't like cars, and it's a bad idea to equate their effectiveness over time to that of a car's. For one, nuclear weapons are dead simple in terms of designs, and there really isn't much of a chance that the warhead itself fails to detonate.

Secondly, just because a missile is in a silo doesn't mean that maintenance isn't done on it. You can in fact, relate the missile itself to a car, and the missile does need upkeep. That said, they have mechanics for that. The upkeep itself isn't that complicated, less so than a helicopter or fighter jet would be.

If you need to check that a missile functions properly, you can spool it up as if you were going to fire it, run the systems checks, and power it off.

The US (and the UK) have both previously upgraded their weapons systems using the same core material for the initiator, and repackaging the weapon accordingly.

Short term maintenance included the battery to initiate the primary chemical explosives to compress the core;

Replacement of the tritium gas used for boosted fission devices (this is inserted into the elevated pit just prior to firing, on a dial a yeild device. Tritium has a half life of about 12 years so the supply needs to be replaced periodically ... plus it decays into He which is unhelpful.

Mid and long term maintenance includes replacing (repackaging in most cases) the older primary chemical explosives in early devices, along with repackaging for the shift to dry lithium (too hard to explain here) for larger two stage devices.

Testing of the firing circuits is simple and periodic.

The biggest issue is their interest in plutonium ... 5 (10kgs is a critical mass) kgs of that compressed as a boosted fission device (with tritium inside the pit) is 25KT.

You need a lot more weapons grade uranium to achieve a similar result - 50kgs ... usually split as a gun type device (60 or 70 if lower grade). Results are messy with lots of fallout ... the neighbours won't be impressed ... your mum probably won't speak to you again.

Simply do the math

 

[Reynod]

Keep your teeth my friend. How can you know if i'm a civilian?
Read again, please. I don't talk about being a soldier. I'm talking about being an american soldier.

I know perfectly well that the falling tree makes more noise than the growing forest.
I also know that soldiers have the untouchable status in Anglo-Saxon countries. No luck I'm not anglo saxon. 😀
But when an army behaves with as much dignity as a dead oyster, she questions her values ​​rather than talks about pride.

I don't think the Americans understand your sense of humour gropouce ... they may take you seriously.

Best not holiday over there ... they tend to like shooting first and then asking questions ... yes they are more unfriendly than a French waiter with stomach cramps from eating too much quail ... its the sauce.