Young Writers Society

Home » Forums » Community » Serious Discussion and Debate

Iran nukes

Post a reply
User avatar
32 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 1292
Reviews: 32
Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:52 pm
pettybage says...




Under new management, please check back later.
Last edited by pettybage on Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.




User avatar
187 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 1062
Reviews: 187
Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:43 pm
Blues says...



*sigh*

I don't know what to say about this. I mean, Iran's point is completely correct - if Israel has nukes, then they should have too. I don't blame them. Israel HAS invaded Arab countries twice, and none of them have ever tried to develop nukes. Israel was close to using them against Egypt when they were trying to reclaim their own land in 1973 in the Yom Kippur war. Not entirely fair. I don't blame them at all, and I actually support them in a sense - because most other countries try to be good and please America, doing all things good. Like obeying them etc. Which isn't far.

Although, I disagree with nukes in general. They shouldn't have invented it at all.

Only us, and Russia, Britain, France, India and Pakistan have the right to have nuclear weapons. No one else does.

No offence but this makes you sound a bit... arrogant in a way (as in the USA). It's not a good thing to say in a political letter like this. It'd only aggravate them more.

Now, I see that you are going to go and use the ‘invasion’ card, but that ain’t strictly right.

Who on earth would they invade? They can't invade Israel. They're of no threat to anyone. They wouldn't invade Iraq because of the religion similarities and Syria's an ally.


we’re always doing it for their own good. It ain’t right calling it an ‘invasion’,

This isn't exactly correct. There's a massive controversy here in the UK about how the government 'sexed up' intelligence to make them seem a threat. Also, there was no WMDs in Iraq and certainly none that could be launched in 45 minutes. Rather, it appears to be clear that it's a war for oil or anything else except removing the WMDs. Why didn't they invade North Korea for example?

That's called 'democracy' and 'stability'; I don't expect you to understand.

Few issues here.1. Iran is technically a democracy. There's been no 100% undeniably-true evidence that elections were rigged but there's been suspicion. They've had proper elections before.
2.If you think about it, if you change your government a lot, then it's obviously unstable.

You just gotta stop developing them nukes. Only us, and Russia, Britain, France, India and Pakistan have the right to have nuclear weapons.

They've not publically admitted the fact they're developing nukes. Plus, you missed out Israel (which a president has confirmed and scientists too have confirmed their nuclear capability). India and Pakistan had sanctions placed upon them when they developed nukes so I'm not sure America would count them. That's why Australia wasn't sure whether to sell uranium to them, because there was a law banning them to sell Uranium to India, from 1998.

My other main issue, is that this isn't exactly written how the president would write would they? Perhaps some 'big' words would help.

I hope I helped. I know it's for fun but I thought it'd help... :) (Hope I wasn't harsh!)




User avatar
185 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 1096
Reviews: 185
Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:18 pm
View Likes
inkwell says...



Iran is technically a democracy. There's been no 100% undeniably-true evidence that elections were rigged but there's been suspicion. They've had proper elections before.


It's nice that you're being cautiously skeptical but come on, the election was obviously rigged. Mousavi was ahead 54-39. The results? 63% - 34%!!!!!! He even lost his home district! And now Russia could be the latest rigging...

The Iranian regime is a religious, sadomasochistic, and maniacal one. If ANYONE should not have access to nuclear weapons, the case can easily be made that it's them. On top of this, there's the threat of an arms race. You think Saudi Arabia is gonna stand by and watch this happen? But perhaps they're just harnessing different energy, I'm not convinced either way.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." — Einstein




User avatar
36 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 13373
Reviews: 36
Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:57 am
View Likes
tr3x says...



@: Sarcasm, learn to detect it.

In any case, inkwell has pretty much said it. I can't really think of a worse country with the ability to weild nuclear power.
A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
- Terry Pratchett

Si non confectus, non recifiat - If it ain't broken, don't fix it.




User avatar
185 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 1096
Reviews: 185
Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:33 am
inkwell says...



Hahah, poor Ahmad. I think sarcasm does not belong in this forum. v.v
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." — Einstein




User avatar
56 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 11665
Reviews: 56
Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:07 pm
Attolia says...



I've been following this topic and most of the news in the Middle East religiously. Inkwell and tr3x - do you guys think continued covert action is the way to go? The US seems pretty firm on this, at least for the time being, but Israel (naturally) is pretty divided.
well you'll work harder
with a gun in your back!
for a bowl of rice a day




User avatar
187 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 1062
Reviews: 187
Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:26 pm
Blues says...



Sarcasm? Oops. Didn't notice.

Serious Discussion and Debate


My excuse to cover up the fact I fail at life generally anyway..

Pffft, Egypt aren't gonna let this happen either. They might do something about it, but clandestinely. Iraq would too, if Saddam Hussein was alive.




User avatar
32 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 1292
Reviews: 32
Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:49 am
pettybage says...



Some are of the paranoid opinion that the US gov is not 'withdrawing' troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather 'freeing them up', and will when ready say 'Oh gosh, this was totally unexpected and unplanned, but they have forced our hand. By an incredible stroke of luck, we have this pile of army here just ready to go...'

Me, I wish Iran good luck. Russia and China and Vietnam and Cuba also looked 'dangerous' and also had an ideology to 'destroy their enemies' (the evil capitalist pigs, in their case), and also developed tech in order to survive among the wolves, and also downed American spy airplanes, but in the end war neither as threat nor as a horrific reality was the answer in neither case.

Countries in dangerous positions, with a fortress mentality (to which the US can increasingly relate), view themselves as surrounded by blood enemies, and that the only way to survive is to become 'too big to fall', (not unlike a certain corporate bank system), and in our interconnected world it'll take Iran just another decade to keep evolving into an increasingly softer fascist system in the aforementioned Russia, China, Vietnam molds. War, on the other hand, even very limited war, will freeze it in its current incarnation (like it did Saddam's Iraq for a decade), and will wipe the chances of the internal opposition to gradually win half a percent of freedom here, half a percent of freedom there.

Iraq is Iran's neighbor. Perhaps Iran really is 'just paranoid'. Perhaps just because Iraq was invaded, and Israel and the Saudis and the American hawks keep pressuring for an invasion of Iran, this doesn't mean that one should feel threatened... In a world of sugar, spice, and everything nice, that is.