• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran orders more enrichment, prompting US to call for the world to stand together

Is it time for NATO to take military action against Iran?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 30.2%
  • No

    Votes: 27 62.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.0%

  • Total voters
    43

MetalGear

In a house by the river
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
197
Location
Denmark, Grena
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked the country's nuclear chief to begin enriching uranium to 20%.

The move comes amid a worsening stand-off over a Western offer for Iran to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel.

The West fears Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons - and have threatened new sanctions. Iran insists its programme is peaceful.

The US defence secretary urged the world to "stand together", saying there was still time for sanctions to work.

"Pressures that are focused on the government of Iran, as opposed to the people of Iran, potentially have greater opportunity to achieve the objective," Robert Gates said during a visit to Italy.

In London, the Foreign Office said Mr Ahmadinejad's announcement was "clearly a matter of serious concern".

"This would be a deliberate breach of five UNSCRs [United Nations Security Council Resolutions]," it said in a statement.

BBC News - Iran makes new uranium enrichment challenge

Now choose the option you feel appropriate in the poll.
Do you think an armed assault by NATO is due? Surely such a thing is inevitable, if this hard liner insists on dragging down Iran with him.
 
Last edited:
I voted no but I'd vote 'other' on a second thought.

Military action should be the last resort, right now the western powers should strike Iran with massive sanctions.
 
Military action should never be pre-emptive. Look at the mistake we made in Iraq that we are still having to deal with.
 
Military action should never be pre-emptive. Look at the mistake we made in Iraq that we are still having to deal with.
Not all of the pre-emptive wars through the history of the modern warfare were failures.

Some were actually absolute successes.
 
Nato is going to do nothing to Iran


Perhaps France and the UK, but that is it.

Turkey will not take part, (unless it undergoes a military coup bye bye democracy)
 
I voted no but I'd vote 'other' on a second thought.

Military action should be the last resort, right now the western powers should strike Iran with massive sanctions.

I haven't seen any evidence in my life time, ever, to suggest sanctions work. Name me a single regime which has collapsed economically due to sanctions? Regimes just turn to isolationist economic policies and always seem to get along just fine. Look at Cuba for instance, or what the UN tried to do to Cyprus, unjustly or not. In fact, they fair far better than us when we come to our knees every decade because of inevitable capitalist market failures.

Military action should never be pre-emptive. Look at the mistake we made in Iraq that we are still having to deal with.

I think NATO should do what the Jews done and what NATO done to Yugoslavia. Just some large scale air strikes here and there into Iran and sabotage to disengage known nuclear plants. I wouldn't want to see a single western foot soldier deployed in the ME again for at least half a century for reasons of war once Iraq/Afghanistan is over.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any evidence in my life time, ever, to suggest sanctions work. Name me a single regime which has collapsed economically due to sanctions? Regimes just turn to isolationist economic policies and always seem to get along just fine. Look at Cuba for instance, or what the UN tried to do to Cyprus, unjustly or not. In fact, they fair far better than us when we come to our knees every decade because of inevitable capitalist market failures.



I think NATO should do what the Jews done and what NATO done to Yugoslavia. Just some large scale air strikes here and there into Iran and sabotage to disengage known nuclear plants. I wouldn't want to see a single western foot soldier deployed in the ME again for at least half a century for reasons of war once Iraq/Afghanistan is over.
South Africa, sanctions worked on South Africa

It gave up nuclear weapons, and stop its regime regime
 
Nato is going to do nothing to Iran


Perhaps France and the UK, but that is it.

Turkey will not take part, (unless it undergoes a military coup bye bye democracy)

Why France and the UK? Thats an interesting observation, please elaborate.

A coup? To be honest, i believe it will only take the AKP to loose elections for it to take part. Its not public Turkish policy to support war criminals like the Sudanese leader or Ahmedinejad.

Anyway, logic would have it a war between the West and Iran would suit Turkey and a half.
 
Why France and the UK? Thats an interesting observation, please elaborate.

A coup? To be honest, i believe it will only take the AKP to loose elections for it to take part. Its not public Turkish policy to support war criminals like the Sudanese leader or Ahmedinejad.

Anyway, logic would have it a war between the West and Iran would suit Turkey and a half.

The UK because they have become bootlickers of American policies

France because of its president

A coup because I doubt the AKP will lose in mid 2011 ( it would probably have to form a coalition government), and that should the US or Nato decide to attack, it will likely be before then anyway


Generally because the second leg downward on this economic trainwreck will have occured by then, and no european country will have money to launch another war.
 
Last edited:
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked the country's nuclear chief to begin enriching uranium to 20%.
Uranium for a typical nuclear power plant is enriched to 3-5 percent U-235 to ensure fission. I think North Korea was the exception here at 10%.

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons, containing 85% or more of 235U is known as weapons grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable)
Uranium-235 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Why does Iran not have the right to pursue nuclear weapons?
Because Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
 
I haven't seen any evidence in my life time, ever, to suggest sanctions work. Name me a single regime which has collapsed economically due to sanctions? Regimes just turn to isolationist economic policies and always seem to get along just fine. Look at Cuba for instance, or what the UN tried to do to Cyprus, unjustly or not. In fact, they fair far better than us when we come to our knees every decade because of inevitable capitalist market failures.
Well they aren't that successful either.
Sanctions could work if the ones that impose them know what they're doing.

Besides, I do not see many other option except going into an all out war.
 
Why does Iran not have the right to pursue nuclear weapons?

Nuclear proliferation in unstable governments run by unstable people, (in this case an Islamic Government which supports terrorism and who's rhetoric clearly states the killing of the Jews) is a recipe for disaster.

You're question obviously wasn't serious, but I thought I'd answer anyway. Obviously Iran has the right to nuclear power though... strictly observed, controlled and monitored until such time Iran can show the rest of the world it is stable... ie., like Britain, France, and other nuclear country's have in the past. This isn't just about Iran though... Pakistan is a concern as is North Korea a bigger concern.
 
Because Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

True, but they can simply withdraw from that. Nations withdraw from treaties all of the time.
 
Nuclear proliferation in unstable governments run by unstable people, (in this case an Islamic Government which supports terrorism and who's rhetoric clearly states the killing of the Jews) is a recipe for disaster.

You're question obviously wasn't serious, but I thought I'd answer anyway. Obviously Iran has the right to nuclear power though... strictly observed, controlled and monitored until such time Iran can show the rest of the world it is stable... ie., like Britain, France, and other nuclear country's have in the past. This isn't just about Iran though... Pakistan is a concern as is North Korea a bigger concern.

My question was serious. Why should any nation not pursue weapons technology that benefits them? It seems foolish to voluntarily decline the best defensive weaponry available.

Iran has the same right to nuclear power that we do. As for your argument that they must somehow prove to the rest of the world that they are "stable"... how does a nation prove they're stable? Define "stable."

There are many people on this planet, quite reasonable and intelligent, who would say the US is unstable. And if you look at the number of military personnel and bases we have scattered around the world it would seem they have a case. Especially when you add in the fact that we have taken very aggressive military actions throughout the world in the last few decades.
 
True, but they can simply withdraw from that. Nations withdraw from treaties all of the time.
Certainly they can withdraw. But then the "peaceful purposes" charade would be plainly exposed. They would become a nuclear rogue state like North Korea. Quite unlike NK, the Iranians are very sensitive about their global reputation.
 
It's interesting that no one has mentioned China yet, which is the last SC power unwilling to move forward with a non-military, non-negotiated action against Iran. They say diplomacy can still work. Any idea what they mean? (That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious about how Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing nuclear weapons and fully complying with IAEA requirements.)

I voted "no" in the poll, but we have to make SOME progress of some kind at some point.
 
It's interesting that no one has mentioned China yet, which is the last SC power unwilling to move forward with a non-military, non-negotiated action against Iran. They say diplomacy can still work. Any idea what they mean? (That's not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious about how Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing nuclear weapons and fully complying with IAEA requirements.)

I voted "no" in the poll, but we have to make SOME progress of some kind at some point.

First

Why are you sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons ( all evidence so far presented has been faked)

Secondly China tends not to support foreign intervention in any countries internal affairs through the US. Bad memories from the late 1800 and early 1900 when it suffered under the drug pushing UK and other nations
 
My question was serious. Why should any nation not pursue weapons technology that benefits them? It seems foolish to voluntarily decline the best defensive weaponry available.
It seems prudent to deprive Iran nuclear weapons, not foolish.

Iran has the same right to nuclear power that we do. As for your argument that they must somehow prove to the rest of the world that they are "stable"... how does a nation prove they're stable? Define "stable."

They prove their stability over decades - showing they are not threatening to other country's, they do not support terrorist organizations, that their internal population is content with their leadership and function. That Iran's leaders & rhetoric does not call for the destruction of any other country and that Iran has an open and accessible society and borders as well as an open diplomatic channel where both political allies and detractors.

Let me make it easy... when people and governments from any country can travel to and from Iran like they can with Britain, France, Japan, Australia or if you'd like.... Egypt, Jordan, Turkey... and where trade and diplomacy works like they do in those other country's as I described... then Iran will prove themselves "stable".


There are many people on this planet, quite reasonable and intelligent, who would say the US is unstable. And if you look at the number of military personnel and bases we have scattered around the world it would seem they have a case. Especially when you add in the fact that we have taken very aggressive military actions throughout the world in the last few decades.

Define "many" - since you're into calling out subjectivty. However, a prolific military which is used by the way, with the cooperation of both the U.N. and NATO and NOT as a single country simply acting on it's own, defines your "many reasonable and intelligent" not as you say, but as fringe critics. Got some links to these people? I'd be interested in gauging their intelligence for myself. Were your claim of "reasonable and intelligent" claim accurate - the support and membership of the United States would have diminished and fallen away over time. That obviously has not happened, therefore the majority of opinion is not as you say --- which means you put forth a false choice. Either your claim of "intelligent and reasonable" are not intelligent or reasonable OR the rest of the world is apparently stupid.

Were I a betting man... Iran is not seen as intelligent, reasonable, open, or stable. Why don't you start a poll... ask the question:

"Do you consider Iran a "stable" country in the World?"
- Yes
- No
- Other

I'd be interested in public opinion on this. I already know the answer but perhaps you would benefit by it.
 
Last edited:
BBC News - Iran makes new uranium enrichment challenge

Now choose the option you feel appropriate in the poll.
Do you think an armed assault by NATO is due? Surely such a thing is inevitable, if this hard liner insists on dragging down Iran with him.

I think we should stick with the French option.. Diplomacy.. And then if that doesnt work and Iran develops nuclear weapons, then we nuke the country. :shock:
 
BBC News - Iran makes new uranium enrichment challenge

Now choose the option you feel appropriate in the poll.
Do you think an armed assault by NATO is due? Surely such a thing is inevitable, if this hard liner insists on dragging down Iran with him.


My guess is that the chance of NATO intervention is between remote and non-existant.

Iran has been active with it's nuclear pursuits for quite a while. The rest of the world chatters and squawks but that is about it. Don't really see Obama taking sunstantial action, and without the US involved no one in Europe is going to move forward. Israel would probably address the situation on their own, but doubt that it is any longer possible to surgically take out the Iranian facilities from the air.

So Iran will just keep the centrifuges spinning. And before too long this will all become a moot point for discussion.



.
 
Israel will probably strike before anyone else has a chance to.
 
South Africa, sanctions worked on South Africa

It gave up nuclear weapons, and stop its regime regime

Is one regime all you could name? There are currently tons of regimes with UN sanctions. North Korea probably the most obvious one, and look, they are sending rockets to space.

The UK because they have become bootlickers of American policies

And with the public opinion on Iraq with the Iraq inquiry, do you think Britain will ever be able to garner enough Parliamentary support to declare war on Iran? To be honest, i highly doubt a UK and French offensive would ever be successful anyway. The UK and France would never even consider war with Iran (or any other European power for that matter) without going in side by side with the Americans.

I also cant see Americans being so vocal on the issue and actually not touching a war in the event it did break out.

France because of its president

What about him? France isnt nearly as vocal or pressing on the issue as Germany and there hardly American bootlickers.

A coup because I doubt the AKP will lose in mid 2011 ( it would probably have to form a coalition government), and that should the US or Nato decide to attack, it will likely be before then anyway

I dont know but i heard the last elections where disastrous for them.



Generally because the second leg downward on this economic trainwreck will have occured by then, and no european country will have money to launch another war.

Conspiracy theory or bad assumption with no significant evidence.
 
Last edited:
I believe "surgical airstrikes" by NATO like Yugoslavia is as close to conflict NATO will get with Iran.
 
Back
Top Bottom