Iran to punish west

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100628/tts-uk-iran-nuclear-ahmadinejad-ca02f96.html
It seems a very immature thing to say for a president of a country, just how exactly is delaying talks a punishment?
should people with that frame of mind really have nukes? I dont blame them one bit for imposing sanctions

Its like primary school all over again
You stole my football so im gonna nuke you!

 

Delaying the talks would prevent progress being made with Iran and prevent any possibility of negotiations as to it's nuclear enrichment policies (this being what most western countries are trying to work towards). And whether the word "punish" is used or not, that is exactly what the western sanctions against Iran are; punishment.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons (or, at least, has not been proven to), the sanctions are because the west believes that they are intending to build them (Iran claims that its nuclear enrichment program is for providing power). Did you even read the article?

When did Iran threaten to launch a nuclear attack? How are they going to launch a nuclear attack without even having the means to build the weapons yet? Did you even read the article?

 

I know, and I don't think that Iran should be allowed the necessary standard of uranium to build weapons either. But the inconsistencies with reality and the double standards which appear to show in his initial post are unfair regardless. And yes, NK is run by an unstable lunatic whom seems intent on starting a war before he snuffs it.

 

The way that he aggravates other nations for seemingly no purpose is incredible to me. Things like filming tanks roming around representations of South Korean streets and then making the footage available to the world is so unbelievably brazen and stupid that it's obvious that all the unconscionable, constant praise that he forces his people to give him him has clearly deluded his view of his own power to the point that he believes himself beyond anyone's control. I petty the son that is to inherit his position, he'd better not show any weakness; or he'll pay for his father's actions.

 

Even if he starts the war, no country would join him ;D Even if someone joins, it would be two or three country against the entire world ;D

 

The problem isn't the likelihood of NK winning a war that they may start; it's the amount of damage they could cause before they could be stopped. The fatal retaliation that he would be faced with after launching an attack would possibly make any attack carried out by NK even more senselessly destructive. Perhaps the other NK politicians would care about the consequences even if Kim Jong-il doesn't (or perhaps his ego doesn't even allow him to), and remove him from power forcibly before he could take NK beyond the point of no return : /

 

Well Said!! Thats my point too,just wanted to say that in a short phrase ;D

 

yes and i read a few others too, Iran could have a nuclear weapon ready for 2012, do some research. That is, afterall why the sanctions are in place..........

inconsistencies and double standards? where? you just answered exactly as i put my post, iran shouldn't have nukes/uranium and its run by an unstable lunatic.
what did i put? -

so, i think thats about the same.
why do you always have to try pull someones opinion to pieces? You basically slagged me off then repeated what i said.
If you dont get what i write in the future why dont you ask me to explain before you start calling me?

oh, and this part -

Can you not see what i meant there? did you not make that joke at school for childish people or was is just in the 80's?

 

They could build a weapon in the future were they to create or acquire weapons-grade uranium. Iran hasn't threatened to launch a nuclear attack, Iran hasn't got the means to do so anyhow. The nearest Iran has come to threatening a nuclear attack is saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map" (which I think was intentionally vague, put forth as an opinion). My point still stands.

You called Iran imature for saying that it was "punishing" the west, you implied that the use of the word "punishment" is childish; and Iran's leader isn't in the right frame of mind because he used it (and shouldn't be allowed "nukes"; by which I presumed you mean nuclear weapons. But I've already covered that). In your next sentence, you state that you think that Iran deserves to have sanctions placed upon it by the west and prohibited from enriching uranium. I pointed out that the sanctions by the west are punishment, just like Iran refusing to have talks with the west are punishment; yet you think that Iran are childish, not the west? Incidentally, this "childishness" isn't confined to the actions of Iran; this is how most countries conduct themselves in negotiations.
And you didn't say that Iran shouldn't be allowed weapons for any reason other than that their leader phrased the description of Iran not having talks with the west in a way that sounded idiotic to you. If you'd have said that their leader's past statements and actions and Iran's backing and funding of terrorism and militant activity were good reasons for it not being allowed weapons-grade uranium, and that Iran's leader was being childish for refusing talks in a way that benefits neither itself or the west, then I would have agreed with you.

I see the joke that you were making. Again, how Iran refusing to negotiate more childish to you than the west imposing sanctions on it for not complying with its demands? I could just as easily say that the west has kicked Iran out of its house because it keeps colouring pictures in the wrong colour with its crayons. And there is currently no proof that Iran has, or will build, nuclear weapons.

 

because the west HAS a good reason to impose sanctions. (punishment)
As you said yourself, people like that shouldn't have nuclear weapons, until we know for sure and they cooperate we dont know. thats not childish, thats just trying to stop war.
Their response to this is to throw their dummy out the pram, threaten retaliation if we try to discover they have nukes.
they want to punish the west because they themselves refuse to cooperate, does that still not seem immature?
Iran could just cooperate and sanctions would be removed, providing of course they are telling the truth and have no nukes.

 

It is the country that has nukes should be banned ;D

 

I think Kim jong-il doesn't want to win, i think if North Korea is going down, he'll take as many lives as possible with his demise. Why can't all communist be like China, destroying countries using economical ways.

I support nuclear programs, for energy purposes, but as long as its being the dictator of peace and war, I condemn it to hell.

 

Iran would lose face if it were to roll over to western demands for its nuclear materials to be investigated. Iran's leadership is balancing on a knife's edge; it can't afford to lose the support of the many right-wing citizens that viciously defend it and beat back challenges to its power. Iran's political leadership has backed itself into a corner by constantly demonizing the west to its populace; they (as well as the religious leaders) could see any compliance with the west over this issue as treachery. Iran's relationship with other countries with shady nuclear enrichment schemes could also be compromised were they to back down to the west.
Iran has many more reasons to refuse nuclear inspections other than childish spite.

 

Once it becomes possible then one country might say "what the heck? I don't like you so I am going to delete you off the planet" and they probably will, it's like high school repeating itself.