What is the European view on nuclear-armed Iran?

[Grummgug]

.... Can't this same lame argument be used for every single country that has nuclear weapons?

Actually when the USSR collapsed and broke up, there was a huge concern for years afterwards about what would happen to their nuclear arsenal. Rumors ran wild but nothing happened. Just because none of their weapons fell into the hands of radicals doesn't mean it can't happen though.

[Dryade]

That's a stupid argument, it reflects back on yourself since America originated from Europeans (the scum and outcasts though). Pretty much every civilization can be seen was warmongering if you just look back far enough. It was normal back then, it isn't normal today.

Yet America continues to do it. That's the difference.

Do what??? The scum and outcasts?? I think you are getting America confused with Australia...

It was normal 40,000 years ago when tribes warred against each other and it will continue to be perfectly normal for man to war with ourselves, until our end or we evolve.

---------- Post added 2012-02-02 at 02:59 PM ----------

How can both sides be just as guilty in a situation where one side stole the other side's land and eventually set up an apartheid state where they commit horrible war crimes against the inhabitants? While you can certainly point to wrong things done by many Palestianian groups, you are creating a false equivalency.

Are you refering to the Jews who's land was stolen from them, then they took it back? Is that what you are talking about?

[Edison]

All i know is that here in sweden media is really protective about Middle east.

[Whitepepper]

I'm an Australian so I realise my opinion wasn't solicited, but I thought I'd give it anyway because I'm so generous that way.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I can understand why they want them.

Your Fox News loves to trot out variations of that "They hate our freedom and our liberty and they want to attack us!" line, but that's far from the truth. From Iran's perspective, they are trying to develop an active deterrent to prevent a hostile government on the other side of the world from exerting influence in their region.

...What would the United States do if you hypothetically didn't currently have nuclear weapons and China decided to blockade the Gulf of Mexico?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

[Deleted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

First, I just won't fall for that. As far as I know, it must be another video editing and manipulation from the american news programmes, since it would not have been the first time even lol. And just to explain definitly my view on Iran's nuclear power I will end with this statement:
Iran has the same right to have nuclear weapons as any other nation in the world. If it can´t have it, then America or Israel( we all know they have it) shouldn't have them aswell. And on another note, just to clarify another wrong notion:

Are you refering to the Jews who's land was stolen from them, then they took it back? Is that what you are talking about?

The jew's "promised land" is not only an excert taken off from a teological, and fantasy-based sacred book, which is the same as for the catholics to start claiming that the Tower of Babel did indeed existed and it must now be somewhere, hence they had the right to occupy it. And second and most importantly, the jew civilisation had their kingdom back in the old days, and they LOST IT fair and square to other civilizations! so for those claiming

It was normal 40,000 years ago when tribes warred against each other and it will continue to be perfectly normal for man to war with ourselves, until our end or we evolve.

then I think it becomes evident that Israel is a state created from American hypocrisy to succeed on their imperialistic agenda.

[styopa]

The US doesn't want Iran to have nukes for ONE reason.

They will lose ALL influence over the region and Israel will have to finally be diplomatic for once.

The US never has, and never will, pick a fight with a nation that has nukes... Seems to be a VERY good reason to acquire them, ASAP.

<--- american, btw.

Ha ha, sure. I'm sure the STATED GOAL of the Teheran government to destroy Israel is peripheral.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 05:16 PM ----------

Iran has the same right to have nuclear weapons as any other nation in the world. If it can´t have it, then America or Israel( we all know they have it) shouldn't have them aswell.

Sure, they're 'allowed' to have it if the other states that don't want them to have it can't take it from them. It's just about power. (shrug). There are no real rules in geopolitics; the things that people like to refer to in that context (using terms like 'should', 'legal', 'allowed', etc.) are only meaningful insofar as the states that even acknowledge them willfully submit to them. It's like playing a game of Candyland. Nobody can FORCE you to move according to the dice, but the game (as understood) can only continue as long as everyone willingly submits to the rules. Of course, if you decide to move as you want, whether others keep playing depends entirely on how much that bothers them and/or whether simply playing is worth more than quitting, even with a cheater in the game.

I'm amazed how few people really GET that.

And on another note, just to clarify another wrong notion: The jew's "promised land" is not only an excert taken off from a teological, and fantasy-based sacred book, which is the same as for the catholics to start claiming that the Tower of Babel did indeed existed and it must now be somewhere, hence they had the right to occupy it. And second and most importantly, the jew civilisation had their kingdom back in the old days, and they LOST IT fair and square to other civilizations! so for those claiming then I think it becomes evident that Israel is a state created from American hypocrisy to succeed on their imperialistic agenda.

Hilarious. You claim to be making an objective rational point, yet deliberately use as inflammatory, antagonistic language as possible. One might even accuse you of disingenuousness.

The fact that it's "promised" to them is indeed the subject of myth, but the fact that they were there originally (or, at least as far back as the word "originally" can be thought to be relevant) is historical fact.

It's more ironic that you assert the 'naked reality doctrine' (they had it and couldn't defend it, ergo, they didn't get to keep it), yet seem oblivious to its application to your own argument. First, the correction of fact: Israel wasn't the creation of "America" - it was solely the result of Zionist lobbying with the British Government, which finally found traction based on widespread guilt in the West over what happened to the Jews in Europe in WW2.
Second, using your own logic, the Israelis ARE entitled to be there basically because they chose better, more powerful friends that endure. The Arabs who had EVERY opportunity to inspire western sympathies (and in fact had them for a while) lost those sympathies by their complete intransigence, unwillingness to compromise, and (frankly) their continued Keystone-cop like incompetence trying to push the Israelis out.

Your failure seems to be in confusing descriptive reality (what happened or what is) with prescriptive dogma (what "should" happen or what "should" be). Might want to be careful about that if you want to be taken seriously.

[Calzaeth]

I can't presume to speak for all of Europe, but here is my view(norwegian):

I am against any theocracy having nuclear weaponry. This INCLUDES the superpower whose presidential candidates always must finish every speech with "God Bless America." Saying that religion isn't a deciding factor in your politics would be liek me claiming that hunger isn't a deciding factor in eating.

However, I also know why the current 'legal' owners should have SOME nuclear weaponry, for the simple "If you push the button, I push the button, and everybody dies"-reason. Sadly, Iranian officials seem more inclined to say "I push the button. F*ck you!"

So I don't want them to have nukes, and I am willing to put my "dismantle all nukes!"-wish on hold until the Iranian situation is settled.

Everything said in this post is personal opinion. Feel free to hate me for calling U.S.A a Themocracy :3

[Deleted]

we are more bothered by the possability of countries goiong bankrupt due to the Euro, and Bankers getting multi-million pound bonuses.
Iran going nuclear ? yeah could happen, but even if it did, I doubt they would be stupid enough to do anything with them, they would be turned into a glass parking lot before the hour was over.

[Deleted]

I'm from Portugal. This is my opinion.
Iran has tons of oil, the US and Europe want it.
The rest is bullshit to make it sound acceptable.
It's just capitalism in its full glory: wage war on the innocent so that the rich get richer.
And we in Europe (and the EU specially) are even worse than the Americans when it comes to this sort of crap,
even though we might like to think we're more "socialist". Yeah right.

[Deleted]

Ha ha, sure. I'm sure the STATED GOAL of the Teheran government to destroy Israel is peripheral.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 05:16 PM ----------


Sure, they're 'allowed' to have it if the other states that don't want them to have it can't take it from them. It's just about power. (shrug). There are no real rules in geopolitics; the things that people like to refer to in that context (using terms like 'should', 'legal', 'allowed', etc.) are only meaningful insofar as the states that even acknowledge them willfully submit to them. It's like playing a game of Candyland. Nobody can FORCE you to move according to the dice, but the game (as understood) can only continue as long as everyone willingly submits to the rules. Of course, if you decide to move as you want, whether others keep playing depends entirely on how much that bothers them and/or whether simply playing is worth more than quitting, even with a cheater in the game.

I'm amazed how few people really GET that.


Hilarious. You claim to be making an objective rational point, yet deliberately use as inflammatory, antagonistic language as possible. One might even accuse you of disingenuousness.

The fact that it's "promised" to them is indeed the subject of myth, but the fact that they were there originally (or, at least as far back as the word "originally" can be thought to be relevant) is historical fact.

It's more ironic that you assert the 'naked reality doctrine' (they had it and couldn't defend it, ergo, they didn't get to keep it), yet seem oblivious to its application to your own argument. First, the correction of fact: Israel wasn't the creation of "America" - it was solely the result of Zionist lobbying with the British Government, which finally found traction based on widespread guilt in the West over what happened to the Jews in Europe in WW2.
Second, using your own logic, the Israelis ARE entitled to be there basically because they chose better, more powerful friends that endure. The Arabs who had EVERY opportunity to inspire western sympathies (and in fact had them for a while) lost those sympathies by their complete intransigence, unwillingness to compromise, and (frankly) their continued Keystone-cop like incompetence trying to push the Israelis out.

Your failure seems to be in confusing descriptive reality (what happened or what is) with prescriptive dogma (what "should" happen or what "should" be). Might want to be careful about that if you want to be taken seriously.

Well, the only right thing you said in your crappy post is that in fact, and I apologise for the confusion, it was the brittish government who forcefully placed the jew people on palestinian soil. OH, and of course America aided them in the Partition Plan, just FYI. Now, please go play Candyland...

[greysaber]

Hilarious. You claim to be making an objective rational point, yet deliberately use as inflammatory, antagonistic language as possible. One might even accuse you of disingenuousness.

The fact that it's "promised" to them is indeed the subject of myth, but the fact that they were there originally (or, at least as far back as the word "originally" can be thought to be relevant) is historical fact.

It's more ironic that you assert the 'naked reality doctrine' (they had it and couldn't defend it, ergo, they didn't get to keep it), yet seem oblivious to its application to your own argument. First, the correction of fact: Israel wasn't the creation of "America" - it was solely the result of Zionist lobbying with the British Government, which finally found traction based on widespread guilt in the West over what happened to the Jews in Europe in WW2.
Second, using your own logic, the Israelis ARE entitled to be there basically because they chose better, more powerful friends that endure. The Arabs who had EVERY opportunity to inspire western sympathies (and in fact had them for a while) lost those sympathies by their complete intransigence, unwillingness to compromise, and (frankly) their continued Keystone-cop like incompetence trying to push the Israelis out.

Your failure seems to be in confusing descriptive reality (what happened or what is) with prescriptive dogma (what "should" happen or what "should" be). Might want to be careful about that if you want to be taken seriously.

so you think the american indians 'deserve' to have their land back, since they were here first?

for the record, i kinda do think that, btw...

[Cowt]

Has America not done enough in the Middle East by now?

Being at war is not acceptable. Cut it out.

[Clevername]

Has America not done enough in the Middle East by now?

Being at war is not acceptable. Cut it out.

Your reply to being asked your view on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is to criticize the US for their actions in the middle east?

[xishneiv]

Isnt one of the reasons why we dont want Iran to have nukes the fact that they could then in theory openly support and fund terrorism around the globe with no chance of anyone else being able to do anything about it?

[Deleted]

Isnt one of the reasons why we dont want Iran to have nukes the fact that they could then in theory openly support and fund terrorism around the globe with no chance of anyone else being able to do anything about it?

Yes. Yes, it is.

But people refuse to face reality because the States is the country that would likely lead the charge against the Ayatollah's regime.

[Adam Jensen]

how to spell embarassing is embarassing. (Thanks public education)

Just remember that there are two S's. . . . or was it two R's?

[Morogoth]

Any nuclear-armed country is a bad idea. So yes, I don't want Iran to have the nuclear bomb, but I'm not on the side of Israel neither.

Saying a country is strong because they have the nuclear bomb is completely ridiculous. I will be against any country who use it.

But I understand Israel to be afraid of Iran.

[Deleted]

Do people really believe Iran has Nuclear Weapons? After Iraq seriously?

I tell you what Iran does have however: Oil.

[Cowt]

Your reply to being asked your view on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is to criticize the US for their actions in the middle east?

Is Nuclear Iran a topic in Europe?
And if so, what is the opinion?
And how would Europe in general feel if US goes ahead and takes out the targets in Iran?

Seemed relevant to the topic.

[Morogoth]

Seemed relevant to the topic.

Yes it is

I started being interested in this conflict when every Republican candidates except Ron Paul started to be warmongers. They basically started the war in these debates.