Should Iran be pulled from the World Cup?

#1
There is a suggestion that as a sanction against Iran for their current stance on Nuclear development, they should be expelled from the Football World Cup.

Is this punishing the voiceless majority, or an excellent pain-free way of making the point?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#2
I think it more likely that they will be expelled from the World.....

No matter what the Guardian may say, the Iranians CANNOT be allowed to get nuclear weapons. And they won't.
 
#3
compus_mentus said:
There is a suggestion that as a sanction against Iran for their current stance on Nuclear development, they should be expelled from the Football World Cup.

Is this punishing the voiceless majority, or an excellent pain-free way of making the point?
Dont think thats right, what we need to do is expel, Germany, Spain, Italy, France.................
 
#4
On a more sensible note, and yes I can be, is it really fair for the worlds of sport and politics to collide yet again? Individuals will make their own minds up whether to play in these games rather than be dictated to by the World Police (America). I agree that yet another unstable Nation cannot be allowed to become a Nuclear Power but is the football the right place to take the arguement?
 
#5
who is allowed to say that iran can't develop nuclear weapons? the "guardians of the free world" as the americans like to call themselves were not elected into that role, they took it on as THEY are the holders of the biggest nuclear arsenal so it's ok for them to have nukes but not for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them?
 
#6
I heard Jack Straw waffle about why he opposes Iran and Zimbabwe being excluded from Sporting Events on the R4 this a.m.

Personally I am all for it, a country is in breach of a UNSCR it should be barred from all sporting events.

It is a good punishment, why?

Because it is:

- Cheap,
- Likely that the population will see through whatever the government excuse for the expulsion is,
- It is not going to significantly affect ICC/FIFA revenues since countries in breach of UNSCR tend not have large TV audiences that sponsors what focus on...
- Focus the mind of tourists/potential visitors, on whether they really want to be give Hard Currency to dodgy regimes..

- Finally, they are one less banana skin for the England Cricket/Football team to slip on....
 
#7
Ali_Gee said:
who is allowed to say that iran can't develop nuclear weapons? the "guardians of the free world" as the americans like to call themselves were not elected into that role, they took it on as THEY are the holders of the biggest nuclear arsenal so it's ok for them to have nukes but not for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them?
Err. Ali_Gee is this a waahhhhh or what? I'll bite. Considering Irans rather interesting and exciting recent history do you seriously feel comfortable with them having Nucs? And if you argue that they should be free to have nucs because the US has nucs then are there any countries in the world you wouldn't allow them; and why?
 
#9
Hang on. We have Nuclear weapons and energy, as have US, Pakistan, India etc. You cannot hold back technology. We have no legitimate reight to stop another country doing something we do. Remember the Luddites? We are hypocritical in the extreme. If the weapon is used, then that is entirely a different matter, and would be treated that way.
 
#10
in all seriousness, why bring sport into politics, have sanctions yes but what good would it do to stop competitions?

The UN has ceased top be an effective tool on the world stage because they've made too many hollow threats in the past, Sanctions weren't effective in iraq for 12 years so something with more clout is needed, knowing the middle eastern mentality we could buy the nukes off them - cheap and quick solution!
 
#11
Birdie_Numnums said:
Ali_Gee said:
who is allowed to say that iran can't develop nuclear weapons? the "guardians of the free world" as the americans like to call themselves were not elected into that role, they took it on as THEY are the holders of the biggest nuclear arsenal so it's ok for them to have nukes but not for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them?
Err. Ali_Gee is this a waarrr or what? I'll bite. Considering Irans rather interesting and exciting recent history do you seriously feel comfortable with them having Nucs? And if you argue that they should be free to have nucs because the US has nucs then are there any countries in the world you wouldn't allow them; and why?
Why not? The government of Iran has been significantly more stable that its neighbour Pakistan. Further it spent 10 years in a war, where it was the victim of WMD use. You will note that it did not retaliate.

It is worth noting that the Iranians are concerned about sustainable growth. They recently introduced new fuel economy guideline for vehicles, which are more demanding than the USA. If they want Nuclear Power good on them, if they Nuclear Weapons who is to say they should not have them, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and N Korea seem to have got away with developing them.
 
#12
I think they should be banned from the world cup and Scotland should be entered in their place. It's the only way we will ever qualify............

Yes a depressed Scotsman

Tazzer
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#13
Remove countries from sporting events and they will become even more isolated and make it even easier for there own propaganda machines to justify their "we must stand against oppressors" stance.
 
#14
Emphasis on the word EVER. Unless Iran blows up the world leaving 32 countries left
 
#15
Jailorinummqasr said:
Birdie_Numnums said:
Ali_Gee said:
who is allowed to say that iran can't develop nuclear weapons? the "guardians of the free world" as the americans like to call themselves were not elected into that role, they took it on as THEY are the holders of the biggest nuclear arsenal so it's ok for them to have nukes but not for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them?
Err. Ali_Gee is this a waarrr or what? I'll bite. Considering Irans rather interesting and exciting recent history do you seriously feel comfortable with them having Nucs? And if you argue that they should be free to have nucs because the US has nucs then are there any countries in the world you wouldn't allow them; and why?
Why not? The government of Iran has been significantly more stable that its neighbour Pakistan. Further it spent 10 years in a war, where it was the victim of WMD use. You will note that it did not retaliate.

It is worth noting that the Iranians are concerned about sustainable growth. They recently introduced new fuel economy guideline for vehicles, which are more demanding than the USA. If they want Nuclear Power good on them, if they Nuclear Weapons who is to say they should not have them, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and N Korea seem to have got away with developing them.
Just because some other countries have them, we should allow any dodgy mullah to have them? Sounds like a plan...

A plan leading straight to an exchange of Thermo-nuclear warheads!

Iran, have a habit of causing instability in the region and have attacked their neighbours, sponsored terrorism and proclaimed a desire to drive the only democractically elected country into the region (Isreal) into the sea. Can you see why it would be a BAD idea to let them have the bomb?
 
#16
Let them have the bomb? The Yanks have the bomb and have destabilised the region a tad more than the Iranians. It is a moot point however as as soon as the Iranians become close to production, we will see Osirak MkII (with a helpful Yank air corridor to help)
 
#17
Surely we should be encouraging the use of nuclear energy in a world in which the pressure on fossil fuels is becoming increasingly problematic and likely to be a source of increased tension. What we should be preventing them from developing is the technology to develop a delivery system.
 
#18
Smithy,

What country has Iran attacked directly?

I think you will find that some 50-60% of Arab/Muslim countries still have the vision of an Israel free ME as a stated Government Policy. Not everyone signed up to the Oslo agreement.

Seriously, I am more worried about Pakistan having Nukes than Iran.

Simply put a Nuclear Iran can only offer a MAD exchange with Isreal.

That said, the current PM is barking about he was loosely democratically elected. - Compared with the rest of the Middle East.
 
#19
A_S

Like it or not , Israel is not the only democracy in the ME . The international observors had no complaints about the Lebanese or indeed Iranian elections. Surely you're not discounting the Iraqi democratic elections?
 
#20
Agent_Smith said:
Iran, have a habit of causing instability in the region and have attacked their neighbours, sponsored terrorism and proclaimed a desire to drive the only democractically elected country into the region (Isreal) into the sea. Can you see why it would be a BAD idea to let them have the bomb?


The US never destabilised the region then?
Same again - Iraq and Afghanistan
Getting to be a habit, - The US sponsored the Taliban
Now who are we talking about
 

Similar threads

Top