According to MSNBC Iran is now threatening U.N. Nations for sanctions against Iran. Ahmadinejad says sanction backers will soon regret their ‘superficial act.’ It seems Iran is wanting nuclear powers for military purposes, not just energy as they mentioned earlier.
Should U.N. countries attack Iran before they fully develop and test nuclear bombs? Should they wait, but it will be to late if Iran does plan to threaten countries with nuclear weapons? Why does the Middle East cause so many problems, why can't they just leave the western world alone since they hate it so much!?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16318472/
2006-12-24 10:38:41 · 13 answers · asked by JoNaThAn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The problem is not only with them having a nuclear bomb, but with them selling enriched Uranium to the highest bidder! I think that something will be done soon. Yet, I also think it will not be the UN that does it!
2006-12-24 10:44:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Preemptive strikes have long been debated. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike by Japan against the US and look how we feel about that. Killing people is serious business and this question as well as some of the answers indicates that most people not directly involved think that it is some sort of game or an opportunity to make a statement.
The people of Iran, for the most part, are intelligent and well-meaning people. One of the main reasons that Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad is flaunting the nuclear weapons program in the face of the West is to try and goad us into launching a limited military strike. Think about it for a moment. His form of government is on the way out. The youth in Iran are sick of the Theocracy and his callous and uncaring dealings with themselves. This last election demonstrated that. We also know that the best way to bring a divided country together is to have an outsider attack. This is especially true in the Arabic world. Launching a military strike on Iran would be foolish and it has nothing to do with our soldiers in Iraq. The US could stand off 1500 miles away and pound them with missiles and not risk even one American soldier.
Better to let Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad's own people take him out. They are fast learning that he is bad medicine for not only Iraq but also for many other Muslim nations. Also, one more point. The US not only supported the previous king, who was a murdering dictator but also armed Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 70's, the Iranians have cause to be suspicious of us and our intent.
You can't blame the whole of Iran because of a handful of evil men bent on Middle East domination any more than you can blame all of the US's policies on her citizens. Tread very cautiously when you start talking about killing people. I think the sanctions may be good if they cut off people and resources from their nuclear program but not if it is used to cut off food and medicines.
2006-12-24 20:11:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are many facets to your question. First let me deal with Iran, then the middle east.
The question in respect of Iran starts with whether Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to develop nukes. The answer is in the negative since Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty.
But note that under the Treaty, a nation can withdraw if it perceives that there are extraordinary circumstances that requires it to withdraw from the Treaty, just like what North Korea has done. In the case of Iraq, it may boil down to a circular argument that "UN imposes sanction on us, it is a threat to our security, therefore we are withdrawing".
The thing is Iran has emphasises that its uranium enrichment activities are only for peaceful use. Therefore, currently, there is less legal justification and political will from any country to attack Iran compared with Iraq, which repeatedly violated the Security Council's resolutions.
Evidence of Iranina nuclear weapons program is at best conjecture at this point in time, and one is reminded of the lack of actual evidence on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction to act based on mere conjectures. That is why the UN will have to build legal justification now by imposing sanctions.
Only if the sanctions are breached or becomes ineffective, and more concrete evidence emerge on Iran's nuclear weapons development, will there be military action.
As to the middle east, if one is standing in the shoes of the Middle Eastern people, they regard the west as condoning to the intransigence of Israel, a tumour within a Muslim region whom they can't remove because of US support. They express their disatisfaction in various ways. More moderate states do not "hate" the west per se, they want to co-exist and trade. It is only the extremists like Al-Qaeda who wants to rid of western influence in the Middle East so that their influence can take root.
Strategically, US supports Israel in order to strike a balance of power in the Middle East, so that US can continue to tap into the Middle Eastern oil, and contain extreme ideologies from taking root. It is not so much of the Middle East not wanting to leave US alone - it is the contrary.
The Bush Administration has been ambitious to want to convert the entire Middle East into a more democratic region, so that it would be easier to negotiate and trade with US. Too bad they fail badly in the "realistic" department.
2006-12-24 21:20:37 · answer #3 · answered by jedimaster 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sanctions do not work. They are a joke.
Iran's sole purpose is to buy time to develop nukes. First Israel goes then they go after the US. Since Iran is developing nukes for the purpose of attacking us, that is an act of aggression. We have the right to defend ourselves.
Iran does not want to leave the west alone because they want to impose their fascist ways on us.
2006-12-24 18:43:06 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well its all about who has power over whom. The US has nuclear power, so it seems a little wrong for us to demand other countries cannot have the same technology. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous, and in my opinion, no one should have that kind of power over the rest of the world. In the wrong hands, a leader of another nation could make threats to get the rest of the world to comply with their personal demands. Its a horrible scenario every single country is worried about. Iran sees the US and other western countries as a threat...what if we start making the demands? One tyrant is no better than the next.
2006-12-24 18:42:11 · answer #5 · answered by Destiny 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Its time for Iran to have a nuclear accident. Surely The CIA can arrange that.
2006-12-24 19:39:50 · answer #6 · answered by us citizen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe if the western world didn't have thousands of nuclear bombs aimed at Iran, they wouldn't be so interested in them.
2006-12-24 18:42:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
open a history book some time.america has been messing around in the middle east for hundreds of years.christianity for thousands.neither one was invited.how long do you think we would have put up with it.if your looking for peace in the middle east nuke the hell out it so no one can live there for a thousand years or we"white christians"need to mind our own business.no other country has ever nuked civilians except us.
2006-12-24 18:55:28 · answer #8 · answered by brian l 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What can they do now their troops are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan? Iran is taking advantage of this.
2006-12-24 18:42:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
unless we can clone the military there arent even enough soldiers to send to iran if it did attack...
but i dont see it as a threat
2006-12-24 18:42:58 · answer #10 · answered by pumpmar 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋