NationStates Jolt Archive

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran, threatened with referral to the U.N. Security Council over its atomic ambitions, is still five years away from developing a nuclear weapons capability, a London-based think tank said on Tuesday.

"We estimate, if everything goes right, if they throw all their effort into solving their problems, they might be able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear weapon within five years," Gary Samore, editor of a new report, told BBC radio.

Samore, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, added, however, that it was more likely Iran would try to accumulate production capability over a longer period -- 10 or 15 years -- before deciding whether to acquire weapons.

The IISS's assessment of Iran's weapons programme comes just two weeks before the U.N. atomic watchdog is due to discuss whether to send the Islamic state to the Security Council, a move which could prompt sanctions.

The United States and European Union suspect Iran wants to use a civilian nuclear programme as cover for arms development, a charge Tehran denies.

Last month, Iran restarted uranium reprocessing work, bringing two years of talks with the EU trio of Britain, France and Germany to the brink of collapse.

The IISS report said it was unlikely Tehran had significant stocks of undeclared nuclear weapons-usable materials, essential for acquiring nuclear arms.

The ability to design and make a nuclear weapon from such material, a second criteria for arms capability, was less easy to assess, it said.

The IISS warned the consequences for international non-proliferation and regional security could be severe if Iran were to acquire a nuclear arms option or weapons.

"At worst, it could lead to a long-term erosion of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as additional countries sought to hedge their bets by acquiring latent nuclear weapons capability under the guise of dual use fuel cycle programmes," it said.

It said Iran's Arab neighbours may react by pursuing nuclear weapons, although technical and political constraints could inhibit the emergence of additional nuclear-armed states in the region for many years.

Britain believes the earliest Iran could develop a nuclear weapons capability would be the end of the decade and the latest U.S. intelligence estimates have put the date at 2015, later than previous forecasts.

Thoughts?

If I were Iran I'd want nuclear weapons too. That way the US would think twice about invading me.

If I were Iran I'd want nuclear weapons too. That way the US would think twice about invading me.

I hope they aquire nuclear tech. Probably the idealist in me- but they might just possibly want it to power the country (and make even more of a mint off of the oil reserves then).

Meh... either way, they have the right to do what they want- they're a sovereign nation like anyone else and should be treated like anyone else.

Meh... either way, they have the right to do what they want- they're a sovereign nation like anyone else and should be treated like anyone else.

Too bad some people think that possessing nuclear power is a blank check to a nations sovereignity.

Too bad some people think that possessing nuclear power is a blank check to a nations sovereignity.
would Iraq have been invaded if they possesed intercontinental missiles?
I Think not.

Is Neville Chamberlain the head of IISS?

Meh, once they've got a nuclear reactor up and running, generating electricity, they will be 6 months from a nuclear weapon. Doesn't mean they will build one.

It doesn't mean they will build a nuclear weapon. Having said that, if Iran is persuing nuclear technology for any other reason than to build weapons, it is one of the most backward, inefficient efforts I've ever heard of.

Too bad some people think that possessing nuclear power is a blank check to a nations sovereignity.

Too bad some people think that possessing nuclear power is a blank check to bully other sovereign nations... ;)

Iran 5 years from nuclear arms capabilityso?

If I were Iran I'd want nuclear weapons too. That way the US would think twice about invading me.
The US won't invade them. If they keep working toward nuclear weapons though, we might decide to bomb them into the stone age.

No putting the nuclear genie back in it's bottle. So, bully for Iran! I hope they enjoy their nuclear weapons as much as US taxpayers have.

No putting the nuclear genie back in it's bottle. So, bully for Iran! I hope they enjoy their nuclear weapons as much as US taxpayers have.
Will you still be saying "Bully for Iran" when they use their nuclear capability to negate Israel's nuclear deterant and allow another invasion of Israel by it's barbaric neighbors, thereby igniting a regional nuclear war in the place where much of the world's oil supply is to be found?

The US won't invade them. If they keep working toward nuclear weapons though, we might decide to bomb them into the stone age.
So, that would be a war of aggression, then? :rolleyes:

So, that would be a war of aggression, then? :rolleyes:Think of it as a preemptive strike. I just hope we're harsh enough on them to deter others from trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Think of it as a preemptive strike. I just hope we're harsh enough on them to deter others from trying to develop nuclear weapons.

In other words "We like being the bully".

Think of it as a preemptive strike. I just hope we're harsh enough on them to deter others from trying to develop nuclear weapons.
At the end of the day, America will have nuked a country before a single soldier, aircraft, missile or artillery shell had left its borders, and bluntly, will be scum. A pre-emptive strike means starting the war, it means being the bad guy.

And FFS will people quit with all the OMG NOES the Arab world will invade Israel! It's bullshit Israeli paranoia. Name a country which would. Syria no longer has a viable army. Neither does Egypt, and it is busy reforming anyway. Iran, LOL, you think having achieved nuclear power and good terms with Russia, China and most of the EU, they would commit suicide? They're all militarily weaker than they were in the 1960s.

In other words "We like being the bully".
No, in other words, we don't want an Iranian nuclear weapon arriving on our shores or starting a nuclear war in the middle east. Iran is run by religious lunatics. MAD doesn't work on people who think that death brings them paradise, so you have to stop them BEFORE they get WMD, not after.

Iran is run by religious lunatics. MAD doesn't work on people who think that death brings them paradise, so you have to stop them BEFORE they get WMD, not after.
Erm, and the US isn't? The members of the US government don't believe the same? Oh, I forgot, only black people are fundamentalists when they are religious. :rolleyes:

Iran is a constitutional theocracy. It is a valid, stable form of government, irrespective of whether you agree with its tenets. And there is nothing wrong with them having nuclear weapons. Would you have nuked India and Pakistan in the 1990s, and killed a billion and a half people, because they were close to having nuclear weapons, both believed that death leads to paradise, and had long-running religious conflicts? :rolleyes:

At the end of the day, America will have nuked a country before a single soldier, aircraft, missile or artillery shell had left its borders, and bluntly, will be scum. A pre-emptive strike means starting the war, it means being the bad guy.

And FFS will people quit with all the OMG NOES the Arab world will invade Israel! It's bullshit Israeli paranoia. Name a country which would. Syria no longer has a viable army. Neither does Egypt, and it is busy reforming anyway. Iran, LOL, you think having achieved nuclear power and good terms with Russia, China and most of the EU, they would commit suicide? They're all militarily weaker than they were in the 1960s.
Israel is a tiny sliver of land. Their military is vastly outnumbered by the military forces of the enemies that surround them. Nuclear weapons are their only real defense against constant aggression by their neighbors. If their enemies are armed with nuclear weapons Israel shall cease to be. Saudi clerics and members of HAMAS and Hezbollah have made it an article of their faith that Israel must be fought and destroyed. What makes you beleive that they won't try to carry Israel's destruction out if they have a chance?

Iran's national slogan seems to be "Death to America". Why should we trust a nation that wants us destroyed with the weapons that could potentially get the job done? If it's a choice between even one American city destroyed or the entire nation of Iran, I'll vote to destroy Iran.

Erm, and the US isn't? The members of the US government don't believe the same? Oh, I forgot, only black people are fundamentalists when they are religious. :rolleyes:

Iran is a constitutional theocracy. It is a valid, stable form of government, irrespective of whether you agree with its tenets. And there is nothing wrong with them having nuclear weapons. Would you have nuked India and Pakistan in the 1990s, and killed a billion and a half people, because they were close to having nuclear weapons, both believed that death leads to paradise, and had long-running religious conflicts? :rolleyes:
Pakistan, yes, absolutely. India, no. They're a democracy and a responsible member of the world community. Still, you've jumped to the conclusion that we'd use nuclear weapons. Conventional bombs would destroy Iran's nuclear assets and make an example of their nations just as well.

EDIT: So what's with the thing about black people? You've decided a while back that you would slander me by calling me racist. I've never said a bad word about black people EVER here on NS. I've tried to correct you, and you ignore it. I guess you're just fucking libelous.

Israel is a tiny sliver of land. Their military is vastly outnumbered by the military forces of the enemies that surround them.
Erm, in 1967, 1973 and 1981 they did a perfectly competent job without nuclear weapons, against forces which outnumbered them, and forces which are today far far weaker. Your argument is invalidated by history itself.

Conventional bombs would destroy Iran's nuclear assets and make an example of their nations just as well.
A conventional strike on a nuclear facility becomes a nuclear strike by default.

Erm, in 1967, 1973 and 1981 they did a perfectly competent job without nuclear weapons, against forces which outnumbered them, and forces which are today far far weaker. Your argument is invalidated by history itself.
Saudi Arabia has M1 Abrams tanks, F16 aircraft, and other state of the art US weapons. So does Jordan. If the region ganged up on Israel it may survive as it did in the past, or it might fall to the much larger numbers of enemies. Why should Israel be forced to take that chance?

A conventional strike on a nuclear facility becomes a nuclear strike by default.
That's absurd. Hitting a nuclear plant with a conventional bomb doesn't cause a nuclear explosion.

I want an apology for the frequent and libelous accusations of racism you've leveled at me.

good for the iranians i guess

would Iraq have been invaded if they possesed intercontinental missiles?
I Think not.

Maybe, but that was the excuse that was used no? And since enough people supported the idea, the statement does apply correct? Whether the leadership will or will not go through with the idea is a different matter altogether.



Too bad some people think that possessing nuclear power is a blank check to bully other sovereign nations...

Quite right. Let me see. Assuming the total number of nuclear weapons and capacity translates to muscle/size for a person in schoolyard terms, let us identify the biggest person in the field. Hmmm, why, I do believe it is a toss up between the former Soviet Union and the USA. Then, let us see who gets around to bullying other sovereign nations more.

Hmmmmmm, curious. It seems that the schoolyard anology is closer than I thought. ;)


Will you still be saying "Bully for Iran" when they use their nuclear capability to negate Israel's nuclear deterant and allow another invasion of Israel by it's barbaric neighbors, thereby igniting a regional nuclear war in the place where much of the world's oil supply is to be found?

As it stands right now, Israel has the capacity to act with impunity wherever and however it wants in it's region. With a balance of nuclear powers, we might be seeing people actually sitting down and talking things out rather than shouting at each other and pointing phallic objects ne?

Besides, no statesman/leader would ever sanction the start of WWIII. Because if they do, they die. And unlike the "martyr" mentality that you would probably try to assign to the religious leadership, I would have to point out that there is no correlation between that particular line of thinking and physical reality.

When was the last time you saw a Mullah or other charismatic leader advocate martyr actions and setting the example? I don't know. Maybe never?

Because it's not THEM dying. If leaders were forced to fight wars on the front lines with any regularity, you'd have a real shortage of politicians. Heads of state don't usually have to do that, so it is not surprising to see them advocating extreme actions and call for sacrifices that they will never make.

But with nuclear exchange, you don't get the comfort of sitting it out in the safety of your borders while making armchair decisions. You get either of the following. You ride it out in a bunker, you get reduced to your component atoms or the radiation gets you. Either way, you lose. No more country, no more government, no more power.

And no head of state wants that. No politician wants that. No religious fruitcake of a leader wants that. They want to got their jobs because they wanted the power that went with it. Mutually Assured Destruction would take that all away. The Soviets didn't want that. But they built nuclear weapons anyway. Why? Because they didn't want to be the only ones to suffer in nuclear war.

That's why the other powers want them. They want to make sure that if they lose, everybody loses. And I can't say that I'd blame that for that attitude. The going down with guns blazing mentality is also richly embraced by just about any other society, Americans included.

Of course you might claim that Iran will probably supply a terrorist organization with nuclear weapons. I also claim this to be nothing more than scaremongering. The idea behind supporting 3rd party proxies is to ensure that they can never be traced back to you. That is why arms shipments to terror organizations are usually of the compact sort and their nation of origin usually hidden. Nuclear weapons cannot be treated the same way. All it would do is trigger a great big game of Russian Roulette, except with random targets and all chambers loaded.

Again, everybody loses. But this time, the aggressor has instigated that loss. Would they not be able to forsee this coming? If they managed to get to become a political/religious leader, it would be downright foolish to assume that they cannot.

That's absurd. Hitting a nuclear plant with a conventional bomb doesn't cause a nuclear explosion.

But it does create fallout if you strike a working plant and breach the core. Hence a nuclear strike. You just didn't use your own bombs in this case.

I want an apology for the frequent and libelous accusations of racism you've leveled at me.
No.

You keep posting the same stuff about the Arab world being aggressive and expansionist, for months now. Look above, you even level the same accusation at long-time western allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan. I mean c'mon, you even write in your own post that your own country armed them! You have bases in those countries for god's sake, which are being used in the War on Terror! What next, NATO member Turkey will perform air strikes on Israel too?

I see no logical explanation for your hostility to the Arab world, other than racism. Or perhaps hostility to Islam, that is also a possibility. I say this without any particular malice, because I am well aware that the General Forum does contain numerous individuals who hold such opinions, and are debated on them without breaking the rules of flaming and provocation. :)

Now responding to your most recent points...I point you to Chernobyl as an example of a large explosion at a functioning nuclear facility. That is a nuclear 'dirty bomb' by anyone's standards. That is what a conventional strike on a fuelled Iranian reactor would be.

As for Israel being forced to take the chance...they will have to take the chance like any other civilised member of the international community. South Korea has so far held back from invading North Korea. China, India and Pakistan have not launched pre-emptive strikes on each other. They are all in dialogue. That is what a civilised nation does, it reaches compromise. A fundamentalist attitude of "my values are superior, you are not having this!" does not belong in the international community. Nations which take that line are rogue states, and enemies of the world. If North Korea or Iran were to attack a neighbour, I would fully expect their obliteration. I would expect Israel to be held to the same standard.

Maybe, but that was the excuse that was used no? And since enough people supported the idea, the statement does apply correct? Whether the leadership will or will not go through with the idea is a different matter altogether.




Quite right. Let me see. Assuming the total number of nuclear weapons and capacity translates to muscle/size for a person in schoolyard terms, let us identify the biggest person in the field. Hmmm, why, I do believe it is a toss up between the former Soviet Union and the USA. Then, let us see who gets around to bullying other sovereign nations more.

Hmmmmmm, curious. It seems that the schoolyard anology is closer than I thought. ;)



As it stands right now, Israel has the capacity to act with impunity wherever and however it wants in it's region. With a balance of nuclear powers, we might be seeing people actually sitting down and talking things out rather than shouting at each other and pointing phallic objects ne?

Besides, no statesman/leader would ever sanction the start of WWIII. Because if they do, they die. And unlike the "martyr" mentality that you would probably try to assign to the religious leadership, I would have to point out that there is no correlation between that particular line of thinking and physical reality.

When was the last time you saw a Mullah or other charismatic leader advocate martyr actions and setting the example? I don't know. Maybe never?

Because it's not THEM dying. If leaders were forced to fight wars on the front lines with any regularity, you'd have a real shortage of politicians. Heads of state don't usually have to do that, so it is not surprising to see them advocating extreme actions and call for sacrifices that they will never make.

But with nuclear exchange, you don't get the comfort of sitting it out in the safety of your borders while making armchair decisions. You get either of the following. You ride it out in a bunker, you get reduced to your component atoms or the radiation gets you. Either way, you lose. No more country, no more government, no more power.

And no head of state wants that. No politician wants that. No religious fruitcake of a leader wants that. They want to got their jobs because they wanted the power that went with it. Mutually Assured Destruction would take that all away. The Soviets didn't want that. But they built nuclear weapons anyway. Why? Because they didn't want to be the only ones to suffer in nuclear war.

That's why the other powers want them. They want to make sure that if they lose, everybody loses. And I can't say that I'd blame that for that attitude. The going down with guns blazing mentality is also richly embraced by just about any other society, Americans included.

Of course you might claim that Iran will probably supply a terrorist organization with nuclear weapons. I also claim this to be nothing more than scaremongering. The idea behind supporting 3rd party proxies is to ensure that they can never be traced back to you. That is why arms shipments to terror organizations are usually of the compact sort and their nation of origin usually hidden. Nuclear weapons cannot be treated the same way. All it would do is trigger a great big game of Russian Roulette, except with random targets and all chambers loaded.

Again, everybody loses. But this time, the aggressor has instigated that loss. Would they not be able to forsee this coming? If they managed to get to become a political/religious leader, it would be downright foolish to assume that they cannot.
You say that Israel can act with impunity in the region, but I don't see them operating outside their borders except in the West Bank and Gaza. If they can operate with such impunity why aren't the Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia who call for muslims to enslave the Israeli's women and kill their men suddenly being blown up or shot?

Do you really think that an Iranian bomb wouldn't soon become a Hezbollah bomb and then an Islamic bomb? Do you really think that they won't share the technology with those who share their enemies? The more nations have nuclear weapons the closer the world comes to nuclear war.

Iranian mullahs don't blow themselves up to kill a handfull of enemies, but don't doubt their faith. They don't beleive in this life, but the next. They'll blow themselves up gladly if they think it means the death of millions of their enemies.

Hey, I can see it now:

Iraq Take 2

-Hey, let's bomb the hell out of Iran because they might have WMDs, now or in a few years!

(A few months of bombing and wanton destruction later...)

-Erm... Mr. President, it seems they had no WMDs building project, only civilian nuclear power plants.
-Oh, what the heck, let's say it was just to kick the hell out of the religious nutters and bring democracy to everyone. Oh, and by the way, let's give all our rebuilding contracts to Halliburton!

Heh. :D

No.

You keep posting the same stuff about the Arab world being aggressive and expansionist, for months now. Look above, you even level the same accusation at long-time western allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan. I mean c'mon, you even write in your own post that your own country armed them! You have bases in those countries for god's sake, which are being used in the War on Terror! What next, NATO member Turkey will perform air strikes on Israel too?

I see no logical explanation for your hostility to the Arab world, other than racism. Or perhaps hostility to Islam, that is also a possibility. I say this without any particular malice, because I am well aware that the General Forum does contain numerous individuals who hold such opinions, and are debated on them without breaking the rules of flaming and provocation. :)

Now responding to your most recent points...I point you to Chernobyl as an example of a large explosion at a functioning nuclear facility. That is a nuclear 'dirty bomb' by anyone's standards. That is what a conventional strike on a fuelled Iranian reactor would be.

As for Israel being forced to take the chance...they will have to take the chance like any other civilised member of the international community. South Korea has so far held back from invading North Korea. China, India and Pakistan have not launched pre-emptive strikes on each other. They are all in dialogue. That is what a civilised nation does, it reaches compromise. A fundamentalist attitude of "my values are superior, you are not having this!" does not belong in the international community. Nations which take that line are rogue states, and enemies of the world. If North Korea or Iran were to attack a neighbour, I would fully expect their obliteration. I would expect Israel to be held to the same standard.
My criticisms have been of prevailing attitudes in Arab culture and in some sects of Islam, like the Saudi Wahhabi. Not of Arabs as human beings. I've never said that they were inferior, nor have I said that they were incapable of achieving what other people have achieved. Also your statement in this thread accused me of being racist against blacks. You're a liar, and you're attacking me on totally baseless grounds. I hope others read this thread and realize exactly the kind of person you are.

I've never said that they were inferior, nor have I said that they were incapable of achieving what other people have achieved.
I was referring not to overt expressions of racism, but what appears to inform your hostile attitude. Which is a different thing.

It's like if someone keep going on and on and on about how everything is Bush's fault, maybe you begin to suspect that the person isn't really that interested in those issues, but is motivated by a hatred of Bush. Another common one is someone who keeps going on and on and on about how Israel is oppressing the Palestinians, occupying Syrian land, conspiring to steal people's water, maybe you begin to suspect that they are interested less in the details of those issues than having a grudge against Israel.

So when you keep bashing the Arab world, I have to ask, are you really that concerned with the minutae of the IAEA's mandate and oversight, or do you just have a grudge against that part of the world in general?

I hope others read this thread and realize exactly the kind of person you are.
Heh, I'm not the one whose name ends with 'deleted' and lives on the verge of a DOS order.

Heh, I'm not the one whose name ends with 'deleted' and lives on the verge of a DOS order.
No, you're the kind that tries to provoke others into flaming and being deleted because he disagrees with their opinions.

No, you're the kind that tries to provoke others into flaming and being deleted because he disagrees with their opinions.
Pfft. On a board this size, where would I begin? Waste of time.

People always bring it upon themselves. If I flamed back every time someone baited me, I'd be IP-banned by now. Individual responsibility, self-discipline, that's the secret to a peaceful retirement, not blaming loss of one's own control on others.

[/End hijack] Time for dinner.

But really, back to the point, all this preemptive stuff is pretty stupid.

Sort of "thoughtcrime" straight from 1984:

-Hey, they might be thinking of building WMDs someday, so let's bomb the hell out of them immediately!

While you're at it, why not outlaw everyone because they *might* become a rapist/murderer/whatever someday, hey just about everyone can do it. Then, let's just call it a "pre-emptive action". :rolleyes:

I don't understand, what right has another country got to tell another one :

-Nope, you can't have nuclear capabilities.
-But, why not? You do.
-Yes, but i'm not run by religious fundamentalists.
-Islamist fundamentalists?
-Yeh, them.
-But its ok for Christian fundamentalists to have the bomb. :rolleyes:
-....

Iran has a legit govt. A legit system of governance that the people want- just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less valid. And if the people didn't want it badly enough- they would overthrow it (re Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Cuba etc).

Aw, tough. Another country wants to protect itself from marauding Western armies, can you blame them!?

Iran has to give up its pretensions of being leader of the Ummah and stop the game of plausible deniability that they play the help of their proxies, the Hizbollah (and Hamas, to an extent).

A US/Israel and Iran reconciliation will go a long way towards peace in ME and the extended neighborhood.

...

Iran has a legit govt. A legit system of governance that the people want- just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less valid. And if the people didn't want it badly enough- they would overthrow it (re Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Cuba etc).

...
That's a bit simplified--no one has overthrown anybody in Uzbekistan, and Iran has the army, the secret police and, probably, the Revolution Guards (Do Basij exist now, BTW?)

As for Iran... It is illegal for them to build nuclear weapons owing to the fact that Iran signed the NPT. However, the same treaty allows them to pursue the development of nuclear power, and the difference between civil and military nuclear fuel cycle is that of intent...

Let us assume that the Iranian bomb is ready. Will the leadership attack Israel and/or the US and lose its power and its country? The answer IMO is a qualified 'No'--there is a certain risk of having someone not unlike Fidel Castro (most fortunalely, it wasn't his finger on the nuclear trigger in October 1962) or Admiral Radford (the one who, if we are to believe Stephen Ambrose in his 'pre-celebrity' days, advised Eisenhower to use nukes in 1954... and did it five times) in the highest echelon of the Iranian power structure.

Heh, I'm not the one whose name ends with 'deleted' and lives on the verge of a DOS order.
No need for personal insults. It just degrades the thread.

At the end of the day, America will have nuked a country before a single soldier, aircraft, missile or artillery shell had left its borders, and bluntly, will be scum. A pre-emptive strike means starting the war, it means being the bad guy.

And FFS will people quit with all the OMG NOES the Arab world will invade Israel! It's bullshit Israeli paranoia. Name a country which would. Syria no longer has a viable army. Neither does Egypt, and it is busy reforming anyway. Iran, LOL, you think having achieved nuclear power and good terms with Russia, China and most of the EU, they would commit suicide? They're all militarily weaker than they were in the 1960s.
You are wrong, at least about the Egyptian military. The Jordanian military is not weak either. Israel recieves the most military aid from the US per year followed very closely by Egypt.That aid buys peace, for now, and keeps oil from Persian Gulf and Red Sea ports moving through the Suez Canal. All of the countries that border Israel have reason to consider a strike first sort of doctorine and vice-versa. The 'peace' ,for lack of a better word, between Israel and the Arab nations of the Middle-East is uneasy at best and in bad times makes the Cold War look like two timid schoolgirls argueing on the school-yard. I know most Europeans think that Israel is the cause of most of this, but look past your bias to see the situation for what it is. It isn't as bad as it was during the past few decades, but it isn't the non-issue you seem o think either.

I don't understand, what right has another country got to tell another one :

-Nope, you can't have nuclear capabilities.
-But, why not? You do.
-Yes, but i'm not run by religious fundamentalists.
-Islamist fundamentalists?
-Yeh, them.
-But its ok for Christian fundamentalists to have the bomb. :rolleyes:
-....

Iran has a legit govt. A legit system of governance that the people want- just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less valid. And if the people didn't want it badly enough- they would overthrow it (re Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Cuba etc).

Aw, tough. Another country wants to protect itself from marauding Western armies, can you blame them!?
re: Iraq as well? Iraqis loved Sadaam right? If not they would have over-thrown him, correct? Sham elections and stability at gun-point do not make a legitimate government, anywhere.

Iran isn't like Iraq. If Iraq had nukes there would be another cold war. If Iran had nukes it would be like the present situation with Pakistan.

Let us assume that the Iranian bomb is ready. Will the leadership attack Israel and/or the US and lose its power and its country? The answer IMO is a qualified 'No'--there is a certain risk of having someone not unlike Fidel Castro (most fortunalely, it wasn't his finger on the nuclear trigger in October 1962) or Admiral Radford (the one who, if we are to believe Stephen Ambrose in his 'pre-celebrity' days, advised Eisenhower to use nukes in 1954... and did it five times) in the highest echelon of the Iranian power structure.

Well actually the Iranian mullahs in power are of the self-preserving kind. Despite the rhetoric and some statements of destroying Israel with nukes by Rafsanjani, they won't be launching nukes from Iran in a first strike and invite obliteration.

HOWEVER,

They can use their proxies and claim plausible deniability, thus not crossing the redlines of the US.

For ex,

let's take two scenarios.

1. Hizbollah detonates a dirty nuke in a Israeli city. Signatures are inconclusive. Iran will use the plausible deniability tactics. What happens next?

2. Camps in Iran train militants who cross over to Iraq and carry out terrorist attacks. This is not happening now, but may happen, if there is a full blown civil war with sunnis gaining upper hand over shias. Iran will say that the claims of camps are part of evil zionist imperialist conspiracy and that it will use nukes if there is an attack against the camps, since it is an attack on its sovereignity. What happens next?

In short, a nuclear Iran may very well become like a nuclear Pakistan - a state which brazenly endorses terrorism as a state policy and escapes retaliation.

re: Iraq as well? Iraqis loved Sadaam right? If not they would have over-thrown him, correct? Sham elections and stability at gun-point do not make a legitimate government, anywhere.

Re: any country. If the people want freedom bad enough they'll get it themselves. Otherwise they don't 'deserve' any form of govt then they already have.

That's a bit simplified--no one has overthrown anybody in Uzbekistan, and Iran has the army, the secret police and, probably, the Revolution Guards (Do Basij exist now, BTW?)

Let us assume that the Iranian bomb is ready. Will the leadership attack Israel and/or the US and lose its power and its country? The answer IMO is a qualified 'No'--there is a certain risk of having someone not unlike Fidel Castro (most fortunalely, it wasn't his finger on the nuclear trigger in October 1962) or Admiral Radford (the one who, if we are to believe Stephen Ambrose in his 'pre-celebrity' days, advised Eisenhower to use nukes in 1954... and did it five times) in the highest echelon of the Iranian power structure.

I agree- i over simplified a complex situation. But i stick by my point that because from your point of view (not necessarily YOU mind :D) a form of govt does not meet Westernised democracy doesn't invalidate it any more. The UAE in particular has blended aspects of Western democracy with its own cultural norms- in effect creating a Middle Eastern version of a workable democracy- and the people there do not want US led democracy and are perfectly happy with their own.

Iran has every much the right to develop nuclear technology as any other country. To the US they might be a threat- but to Iran, the US is a threat and they deserve the means to defend themselves. If that means the 'bargaining' chip of "do we or don't we have nukes"- then so be it.

Give Iran a bit more credit- they ain't as dumb as people make out. And they aren't Arabs- they are Shias, they don't speak Arabic, they speak Pharsee (sp) and do not like to be likened with Arabs.

<snip>
let's take two scenarios.

1. Hizbollah detonates a dirty nuke in a Israeli city. Signatures are inconclusive. Iran will use the plausible deniability tactics. What happens next?

2. Camps in Iran train militants who cross over to Iraq and carry out terrorist attacks. This is not happening now, but may happen, if there is a full blown civil war with sunnis gaining upper hand over shias. Iran will say that the claims of camps are part of evil zionist imperialist conspiracy and that it will use nukes if there is an attack against the camps, since it is an attack on its sovereignity. What happens next?

In short, a nuclear Iran may very well become like a nuclear Pakistan - a state which brazenly endorses terrorism as a state policy and escapes retaliation.

Hezb'allah are Lebanese- i think you might mean Hamas et al.

I agree about the training camps bit. But i think that the theocracy, despite the rhetoric, is more 'realpolitik' then people give them credit for. They would have nothing to gain by attacking Israel- there population is now massivley made up of the U-25 age group. Less radicalised against Israel, more educated and more middle class.

They leave the world alone, the world leaves them alone- seems to be the motto they are trying to get out....

...either that or i'm just a wishful dreamer :D :D

Hezb'allah are Lebanese- i think you might mean Hamas et al.

I agree about the training camps bit. But i think that the theocracy, despite the rhetoric, is more 'realpolitik' then people give them credit for. They would have nothing to gain by attacking Israel- there population is now massivley made up of the U-25 age group. Less radicalised against Israel, more educated and more middle class.

They leave the world alone, the world leaves them alone- seems to be the motto they are trying to get out....

...either that or i'm just a wishful dreamer :D :D
Hezbollah are Shiite, funded, equipped and trained by Iran as well as Syria. They exist in Lebanon as Syria and Iran's proxy army.

Hezbollah are Shiite, funded, equipped and trained by Iran as well as Syria. They exist in Lebanon as Syria and Iran's proxy army.

Syria? Really? Oh didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
But they've been quiet since Israel withdrew from Lebanon a few years ago -apart from that.... Farms (can't ....remember....name.. :mad: ). Didn't think they were on the radar as much these days.

Meh, getting away from the threads point.

Hezb'allah are Lebanese- i think you might mean Hamas et al.

Hamas is predominantly sunni and gets funded by everyone. But Hizbollah is shiite and is an Iran proxy.


I agree about the training camps bit. But i think that the theocracy, despite the rhetoric, is more 'realpolitik' then people give them credit for. They would have nothing to gain by attacking Israel- there population is now massivley made up of the U-25 age group. Less radicalised against Israel, more educated and more middle class.

Yes, Iran is not the state that it is made out to be in American media.

Their leadership is pretty rational than most muslim leadership. Their society is in a better shape than most other muslim societies in the region.

If only they can give up this proxy game and there is a reconciliation between the US/Israeli and Iran, it would be great for both Iran and for the region. But the islamic constituency in Iran needs to be pandered to and no Iranian leader can break that constituency, however affluent and modern they become.

You see, once a state declares itself as a islamic state, it is usually a one-way ticket to increasing radicalisation and islamisation. It happened with Pakistan. It will happen with Iran. But we can thank Allah, that they are shias and not sunnis. It would have been heck of a lot worse with a sunni theocratic Iran.

They leave the world alone, the world leaves them alone- seems to be the motto they are trying to get out....

...either that or i'm just a wishful dreamer :D :D

They have their own battles with the sunnis. Iran is kinda the last muslim country I would be worried about. I am an advocate of engaging Iran constructively. Give assurances of no attack on their sovereignity in exchange for no nukes and no support to proxies against Israel.

A shia Iran can be an ally against pan-islamism, since shias are also in the pan-islamist list of "to be killed".

Other than that, I would rather prefer letting them endlessly wait for the promised Mahdi in occultation instead of riling them up unnecessarily. :D

Syria? Really? Oh didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
But they've been quiet since Israel withdrew from Lebanon a few years ago -apart from that.... Farms (can't ....remember....name.. :mad: ). Didn't think they were on the radar as much these days.

Meh, getting away from the threads point.
No, you're wrong. They've recently been setting off bombs in Christian neighborhoods in order to cause enough unrest to justify the return of the Syrian army to Lebanon.

I know most Europeans think that Israel is the cause of most of this, but look past your bias to see the situation for what it is. It isn't as bad as it was during the past few decades, but it isn't the non-issue you seem o think either.
I really don't see much tension between Israel and the Arab governments. The ritual mutual condemnation is just that - ritual. Looking past the rhetoric they are obliged to maintain to keep public opinion on side, they have recognised each others' right to exist, economic ties are OK, and there is more chance of a war between the Arab nations over water rights, than there is between the Arab nations and Israel over whose god is the True Way.

More to the point, the Arab countries now have sufficient economic ties to the EU to wish to avoid placing that relationship in danger. The UK for example recently gave Jordan 400 First Gulf War era main battle tanks as a gift...no doubt the start of a profitable defence export business relationship. The First Gulf War is ample precedent to demonstrate that only a foolish leader abuses such patronage. So Saudi Arabia isn't likely to declare a holy war either. And especially not Egypt, which is doing its best to diversify its economy into textiles and tourism, again for the European market.

Basically, for the Arab world, a war against Israel does not make economic sense, so they are never going to be the aggressors. For the Americans and Israelis, in a war they have nothing to lose . . . unless one of those nations has nuclear weapons. Which is why it makes sense to have one. Not to declare war, but to strike a balance which is currently absent, in spite of what the 'Arab hordes' propaganda says.

No, you're wrong. They've recently been setting off bombs in Christian neighborhoods in order to cause enough unrest to justify the return of the Syrian army to Lebanon.

ok, chill. I meant quiet regarding attacks on Israel. :(

You see, once a state declares itself as a islamic state, it is usually a one-way ticket to increasing radicalisation and islamisation. It happened with Pakistan. It will happen with Iran. But we can thank Allah, that they are shias and not sunnis. It would have been heck of a lot worse with a sunni theocratic Iran.

Definetly agree 100% there. I don't know how they could get back from the Islamic Revolution- it would have to be via the youth uprising and significantly taking over. But they are happy enough to have there voice by voting in the presidential elections... so its hard to forsee.

Iranians are a different breed from the rest of the Middle East- i wish people would stop treating them as the same as Arabs.

ok, chill. I meant quiet regarding attacks on Israel. :(



.
Sorry, I've got nothing against you. I'm just still a little angry about another poster on this thread accusing me of racism and I think it's making me a bit snippy.

Sorry, I've got nothing against you. I'm just still a little angry about another poster on this thread accusing me of racism and I think it's making me a bit snippy.

Ahhhh, the faceless morass of the internet eh?
Ain't anonimity a b*tch. Its all too easy to get carried away and uber personal :p
:fluffle:

Will you still be saying "Bully for Iran" when they use their nuclear capability to negate Israel's nuclear deterant and allow another invasion of Israel by it's barbaric neighbors, thereby igniting a regional nuclear war in the place where much of the world's oil supply is to be found?

Probably, yes.

Israel is just as barbaric as it's neighbors, and I find it interesting that we call one nation's nuclear arsenal "deterrant" and that another nations fictional nuclear arsenal is grounds for condemnation of genocide.

At least you recognize the inevitability of nuclear proliferation when you say "when" they get this nuclear capability, though.

Probably, yes.

Israel is just as barbaric as it's neighbors, and I find it interesting that we call one nation's nuclear arsenal "deterrant" and that another nations fictional nuclear arsenal is grounds for condemnation of genocide.

At least you recognize the inevitability of nuclear proliferation when you say "when" they get this nuclear capability, though.
I still hold on to the hope that the US will bomb the hell out of them just before their reactor comes online, but we may not have an agressive enough leader then.

DCD,

Israel has a stated policy of denying nuke weapons to other countries in the ME including Iran.

Even if US does not start bombing Iran, Israel would do it anyway.

Santa barbara,

Israel is just as barbaric as it's neighbors, and I find it interesting that we call one nation's nuclear arsenal "deterrant" and that another nations fictional nuclear arsenal is grounds for condemnation of genocide.

Yes. Since Israel's stated and unstated policies and past behavior indicates that its nukes are for deterrance, we can call it that.

Since Iran has not given up their terrorist proxies yet and atleast one leading cleric (Rafsanjani) has stated that they would use nukes on Israel, it is cause for concern, no?

and who made any genocide reference here?...

and who made any genocide reference here?...

Drunk Commies Deleted said "bomb them back to the stone age". That's as near genocide as makes no odds.

Drunk Commies Deleted said "bomb them back to the stone age". That's as near genocide as makes no odds.
It's an expression. I would think that punishing the nation with some serious bombing of all their military and some of their commercial facilities might deter others from trying to develop nukes.

Yes. Since Israel's stated and unstated policies and past behavior indicates that its nukes are for deterrance, we can call it that.

Since Iran has not given up their terrorist proxies yet and atleast one leading cleric (Rafsanjani) has stated that they would use nukes on Israel, it is cause for concern, no?

You know, we have "leading clerics" in America who say we should nuke the WHOLE MIDDLE EAST. Is that cause for concern?

Personally, I'm not at all concerned. There are more important things to me.

Bombing Iran and making it an example will only drive the quest for nuke bombs underground. Also, the success of such a bombing campaign is doubtful. This is not as simple as Osirak. Iran is a huge mountainous country which can conceal facilities easily. And to top that, US has zero intelligence on Iran. Heck, US intel on Iran is probably controlled by Iran (Chalabi episode).

Iran needs to be co-opted and offered guarentee of protection of their sovereignity in exchange for no-nukes and no more proxying around. This would necessitate a recognition of Isreali statehood by Iran, which no Iranian leader has the political capital or guts to do, however rational and realpolitik the Iranian leaders are.

I hope there won't be an exchange of blows on this, but I fear that that is where the situation is heading.

You know, we have "leading clerics" in America who say we should nuke the WHOLE MIDDLE EAST. Is that cause for concern?

If the "clerics" who said that in America have their finger on the nuke button, it is a cause for concern.



Personally, I'm not at all concerned. There are more important things to me.

Good. Duck and cover and hope the radiation fallout will go away. :)

Iran isn't like Iraq. If Iraq had nukes there would be another cold war. If Iran had nukes it would be like the present situation with Pakistan.

Erm, Iraq *was* indeed supposed to have WMDs, that was the first reason for the war (which wasn't quite "cold"), remember? So, nope, no cold war here.

If the "clerics" who said that in America have their finger on the nuke button, it is a cause for concern.

How about if their money funds the politicians who do?




Good. Duck and cover and hope the radiation fallout will go away. :)

You say that as if if only I typed, "I'm really worried about it," my options in the event of a nuclear war would have changed. ;)

Re: any country. If the people want freedom bad enough they'll get it themselves. Otherwise they don't 'deserve' any form of govt then they already have.

That's an absurd notion and I'm surprised this thread has gone on as far as it has without you being called on it. No citizenry of any nation that I know of has ever changed their form of government without having the confidence and support of an allied nation. Support has traditionally been strategic and militaristic.

To move on, as many as 40 nations are estimated to have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, Chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview. In context of calling for an updated and expanded version of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ElBaradei noted that “under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities…or even to possess military-grade nuclear material,” he said. If one of these countries should choose to break its commitments under the NPT, it “could produce a weapon in just a few months,” or just as easily transfer materials to terrorist groups.

The United States as well as all "first world nations" has a responsibility to stem wholesale proliferation, but simultaneously prepare for the perhaps inevitable possession of nuclear armed ballistic missiles by ‘rogue’ states and terrorist groups.

Something you all may be interested in: missles of the world (http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/index.html)

As for Iran... It is illegal for them to build nuclear weapons owing to the fact that Iran signed the NPT.what a bunch of morons..why did they sign that?

I would have never signed it.

How about if their money funds the politicians who do?


Depends. Do you think Bush would nuke Iran in a first strike because Pat Robertson thinks that is a good idea?

The likes of Pat Robertson hold power over the administration and it is cause for concern, but the power is limited to only domestic issues (abortion, gay rights etc).

OTOH, Rafsanjani did have the power to do what he says. He served as president before and was a candidate in the current elections too.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.


You say that as if if only I typed, "I'm really worried about it," my options in the event of a nuclear war would have changed. ;)

Maybe not. WTH, in the long run, we all die anyway. :D

That's an absurd notion and I'm surprised this thread has gone on as far as it has without you being called on it.

Really?! Shucks, better rewrite the ol' political philosophy books then! Because that was a stalwart section to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty :eek: :eek: And he makes a damn good reason to back it up- i thoroughly encourage you to read up on it.

No citizenry of any nation that I know of has ever changed their form of government without having the confidence and support of an allied nation. Support has traditionally been strategic and militaristic.


REALLY!??!?!!?

Ireland.

South Africa (debatable given sanctions i'll agree)

Cuba

USSR

Kenya

What Mill was trying to say was this
Mill ("Notes on Intervention" Collected Works) argues for a policy of self-determination: that other people be allowed to make their own mistakes, and hence forge their own paths to freedom; intervening paternalistically on their behalf will not be conducive to their learning the value of freedom in its own right

In other words- how can they be expected to achieve successful freedom if they did not achieve it (and struggle thereby knowing its sacrifice and importance) on their own.

Two years, five years, it doesn't matter. Iran is developing them, and that is dangerous. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the time for idealism is over. The time for raw, hard realism is now, and it is this: every loose bit of nuclear material can get into the black market, and there are several people, from al-Qaeda to organized gangs, that want their hands on them. It may seem unfair, but the current amount of nuclear powers, being eight, needs to be maintained at just that. These eight should do everything in their power to secure their stockpiles, and should work together in non-proliferation. Otherwise, the unthinkable may happen. And if a nuclear device goes off, especially in North America, Europe, or Asia, there will be hell to pay in a number of ways.

Iran has as much rights as Israel.

Think of it as a preemptive strike. I just hope we're harsh enough on them to deter others from trying to develop nuclear weapons.


Yes people you need to remember We The Great US are the only ones allowed to have nuclear weapons or power...oh and if we like you, you can have whatever you want but if we don't you can't have it or we will bomb you!!!

Really?! Shucks, better rewrite the ol' political philosophy books then! Because that was a stalwart section to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.
In other words- how can they be expected to achieve successful freedom if they did not achieve it (and struggle thereby knowing its sacrifice and importance) on their own.

You're right, how can I debate the ancient philosophical theories of empericism and utilitarianism. The citizenry of oppressive and authoritarian nations will gain the valuable experience and knowledge needed to make the ethical decision to embrace freedom. How can they not since they have all the access to the same information that we enjoy.

As far as the nations you listed, I would have to first assume that my form of government is better, which I do, none of them changed to the oppressive governments they are, or were, without assistance or confidence from known allies.

You say that Israel can act with impunity in the region, but I don't see them operating outside their borders except in the West Bank and Gaza. If they can operate with such impunity why aren't the Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia who call for muslims to enslave the Israeli's women and kill their men suddenly being blown up or shot?

Why did Israeli fighters bomb locations in Syrian territory without appropriate retaliation? They claim it was terrorist camps as their targets, but if any such organization was ever bombed on American soil, it would have been a declaration of war. And don't say that America never sponsored terror organizations.

There's your impunity. Israel performed an act of war without repurcussions.


Do you really think that an Iranian bomb wouldn't soon become a Hezbollah bomb and then an Islamic bomb? Do you really think that they won't share the technology with those who share their enemies? The more nations have nuclear weapons the closer the world comes to nuclear war.

I can only think that you've got a good case of Islamophobia. An Islamic bomb? When did religion ever become a scientific and industrial powerbase on its own capable of producing nuclear weapons? You keep going on and on about how Islam is going to be the end of us all the same way you complain about Bush bashers being narrow minded to the point of blindness.

And furthermore, I don't see the Hezbollah with tanks, advanced RPGs and other munitions that would be more effective in their operations that Iran possesses. Iran has no interest in providing such groups with advanced weaponry simply because they can be traced back then. Iran will not supply Hezbollah with nuclear weapons for the same reason why America didn't supply the mujahedeen with their own nuclear stockpile in the 80s. Because they didn't want to see a nuclear war breaking out.


Iranian mullahs don't blow themselves up to kill a handfull of enemies, but don't doubt their faith. They don't beleive in this life, but the next. They'll blow themselves up gladly if they think it means the death of millions of their enemies.

Are you an Iranian Mullah? Do you claim to know their minds? No, you can't. All you have are their actions. And their actions clearly show that while they don't care if somebody else blows themselves up to strike at someone they don't like, they're sure as hell not going to risk their own positions and power in a nuclear exchange. Where are the Iranian Mullah suicide bombers? Where are they in the front lines? I don't see them walking the talk. Just like any other politician. They won't gamble it all away on a ballsy game of nuclear tit for tat where everybody loses.

All you've got is your Islamophobia. Nothing concrete to back up your claims.

Will you still be saying "Bully for Iran" when they use their nuclear capability to negate Israel's nuclear deterant and allow another invasion of Israel by it's barbaric neighbors, thereby igniting a regional nuclear war in the place where much of the world's oil supply is to be found?
I pray everynight that iran gets them and uses them on the illegal state of isreal, its been stated that isreal can,t withstand nuculear blasts and maybe iran can,t ether so its a win win situation for us, no more JEWS no more TOWEL heads in iran,but it does,t matter what i think or what any of you think, the real world situation is iran has or wil have them soon, and why don,t the JEWS bomb them if they even know where there sicentists are or any reserch is being conductated

An Islamic bomb? When did religion ever become a scientific and industrial powerbase on its own capable of producing nuclear weapons?

Islamic bomb = bomb that one Islamic country has that other Islamic countries can count on to use.

Since the alliance between the nations is based on nothing but a notion of Islamic brotherhood, the bomb possessed by the Islamic country is called Islamic bomb.

There is already an Islamic bomb. But I hear that it is now under kafir control. It is the reason for much indigestion in certain countries.

Islamic bomb = bomb that one Islamic country has that other Islamic countries can count on to use.

Since the alliance between the nations is based on nothing but a notion of Islamic brotherhood, the bomb possessed by the Islamic country is called Islamic bomb.

What kind of politically ignorant dummy would ever allow their most powerful weapons be used for another's cause?

And bah, if Islamic brotherhood was all it was cracked up to be, the problems between the Sunnis, the Shias and the Wahabis wouldn't exist. Hell, no religion is without it's own factionalism.


There is already an Islamic bomb. But I hear that it is now under kafir control. It is the reason for much indigestion in certain countries.

I don't know, but I've been informed that Kafir means of African origin i.e. black skinned. Corrections?

Or do you mean Pakistan? I don't see them slipping their nuclear weapons to anybody but themselves.

NAS,

Islamic bomb is not an idea imagined by people suffering from islamophobia.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the brains behind that idea.

Under the patronage of Saudi King Faisal, Bhutto hosted the 1974 Islamic Summit in Lahore, Pakistan. It was here that Bhutto, Faisal and Qaddafi sealed a deal by which these countries would contribute substantial sums of money to Pakistan’s nuclear program in return for Pakistani transfer of nuclear know-how at a future date. Bhutto even convinced the Shah of Iran to contribute up to $500 million.

A grateful Bhutto named Lyallpur city as Faisalabad and the largest cricket stadium in Pakistan after Qaddafi and crushed the Balochi resistance which was threatening to erupt in Iran (Balochis are a community which exist in the southern border districts of Iran and Pakistan)

What kind of politically ignorant dummy would ever allow their most powerful weapons be used for another's cause?

The kind of politically ignorant dummies that one can find dime a dozen in islamic countries..

I don't know, but I've been informed that Kafir means of African origin i.e. black skinned. Corrections?

Kaffir/kafir/kufr = unbeliever in Arabic.


Or do you mean Pakistan? I don't see them slipping their nuclear weapons to anybody but themselves.

LOL.

NoKo, Iran, Libya have received the tech and material in varying levels. Libyans were taken for a ride with faulty centrifuges. A pissed off Qadaffi spilt the beans. Iran also got the faulty centrifuges, but the smart Iranians figured out another way. NoKo got a bomb itself, albeit without the codes. Saudis were under Pakistani nuclear umberalla. Don't ask me for open source info for these.

Sometime back Gen. Beg of Pakistan proposed a Iran-Pakistan strategic alliance wherein Iran would come under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.

"Islamic bomb" - is not something that is caused by islamophobia, it is the idea that islamists came up with.

Hummm....
Something for all of you to think about...
If you have the tech to build a nuclear power plant, all you need to
do, Is to do the enrichment of the stuff... thats it...its not very hard and i am sure that they know how to do that...
5 years...ha ha ..thats funny,Its an no brainer to build a weapon like
that... for them anyway...for the rest of us just look in your encyopidies
that your parents bought back when you where a kid..
As far as the rest of it, Bush wont be happy untill he has all the oil..
{gee..i wonder if he has read 1984...}
Hail...Ceaser....

You're right, how can I debate the ancient philosophical theories of empericism and utilitarianism. The citizenry of oppressive and authoritarian nations will gain the valuable experience and knowledge needed to make the ethical decision to embrace freedom. How can they not since they have all the access to the same information that we enjoy.

Of course you can argue with it- don't be so dismissive by calling it 'absurd'-makes you look silly ;). Achieving freedom has nothing to do with information- my (and his) point was if a people are oppressed enough- there is nothing that can stop them- no secret police, to torture, no killings - just look at the Battle for Algeria and the FLN.(great film by the way) It is only the people themselves who can decide wether they want to be free- they cannot have that forced on them-

1) because at that rate it comes from an 'ally' helping out in a failing revolution- then the 'democracy' and 'freedom' would not naturally survive without outside interference (and that is not true freedom then)

2)If the 'ally' stays there to make sure 'democracy' and 'freedom' stay- they become 'occupiers' instead of liberators- see Vietnam for such an instance. Then 'freedom' is gone at any rate.

3) The revolution succeeded without the ally's help- therefore the help was never needed and democracy will flourish because the people themselves wanted it so bad, they fought tooth and nail to get it, on their own.

As far as the nations you listed, I would have to first assume that my form of government is better, which I do, none of them changed to the oppressive governments they are, or were, without assistance or confidence from known allies.

EH!?!?!? :confused: Pray tell, when was Ireland an oppressive country?! And what 'ally' did they have in fighting for independence!

Yeah your right, Nelson Mandela is such an oppressive tyrant alright.
:rolleyes:

Kenya had her Mao Mao rebels to fight for her with no assistace that i know of.

Castro was backed by the people against a brutal corrput dictator- frying pan or fire. With the peoples backing you have a mandate.

(Little known fact: Tom Morello, guitarist from Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave, his uncle was Joseph Kenyatta- founder of the modern state of Kenya, and his father was a Mao Mao rebel.)

Kaffir/kafir/kufr = unbeliever in Arabic.

You're both right- kaffir/kafir in Southern Africa particulary is a rascist term used by whites to describe blacks- nothing to do with religion in that respect.


LOL.

NoKo, Iran, Libya have received the tech and material in varying levels. Libyans were taken for a ride with faulty centrifuges. A pissed off Qadaffi spilt the beans. Iran also got the faulty centrifuges, but the smart Iranians figured out another way. NoKo got a bomb itself, albeit without the codes. Saudis were under Pakistani nuclear umberalla. Don't ask me for open source info for these.

Sometime back Gen. Beg of Pakistan proposed a Iran-Pakistan strategic alliance wherein Iran would come under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.


Again, what wrong with that? Just because some states already have nuclear weapons, they're sh*tting their pants when they see oil rich countries arming themselves to the teeth in defence. Nukes have a great habit of deterring an invasion. ;)
Either everyone has them- or no one has them. Level playing field.

And guys- chill with the insults. :(

...
1. Hizbollah detonates a dirty nuke in a Israeli city. Signatures are inconclusive. Iran will use the plausible deniability tactics. What happens next?
That's a problem indeed. The world gets infuriated Americans and Israelis glowing with righteous anger (no irony here). All bets are off.

However, no nuclear power has yet (as of 2005) transferred nuclear weapons to a non-state actor, despite the fact that almost all of them have supported terrorists or engaged in state terrorism themselves (not that a nuke was necessary to sink the Rainbow Warrior, of course.

2. Camps in Iran train militants who cross over to Iraq and carry out terrorist attacks. This is not happening now, but may happen, if there is a full blown civil war with sunnis gaining upper hand over shias. Iran will say that the claims of camps are part of evil zionist imperialist conspiracy and that it will use nukes if there is an attack against the camps, since it is an attack on its sovereignity. What happens next?

In short, a nuclear Iran may very well become like a nuclear Pakistan - a state which brazenly endorses terrorism as a state policy and escapes retaliation.
Some good ol' brinkmanship happens... That's a more realistic scenario.

...

I agree- i over simplified a complex situation. But i stick by my point that because from your point of view (not necessarily YOU mind :D) a form of govt does not meet Westernised democracy doesn't invalidate it any more. The UAE in particular has blended aspects of Western democracy with its own cultural norms- in effect creating a Middle Eastern version of a workable democracy- and the people there do not want US led democracy and are perfectly happy with their own.
Basically, yes... The UAE is an interesting and unusual country, and my good acquaintance is delighted with Dubai (he works there). But that's a separate topic.

Iran has every much the right to develop nuclear technology as any other country. To the US they might be a threat- but to Iran, the US is a threat and they deserve the means to defend themselves. If that means the 'bargaining' chip of "do we or don't we have nukes"- then so be it.

...
Nuclear technology, yes. Nuclear weapons, no. Not that it is too hard to withdraw from the NPT, though...

what a bunch of morons..why did they sign that?

I would have never signed it.
Iran signed the NPT at its inception in 1968.

Iran has as much rights as Israel.
Oddly enough, that was the point of view of the US government circa 1976.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3983-2005Mar26?language=printer

After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.
So, the US offered the Shah ability to go nuclear in six months... :rolleyes:

...

There is already an Islamic bomb. But I hear that it is now under kafir control. It is the reason for much indigestion in certain countries.
Hmm... What did you hear, that the Islamic bomb is under control of certain Red heathen kafirs with slitty eyes? ;)

But it does create fallout if you strike a working plant and breach the core. Hence a nuclear strike. You just didn't use your own bombs in this case.
So what? The ammount of fallout from a nuclear plant exploding is qute minor apparently.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_chernobyl_3

Of course you can argue with it- don't be so dismissive by calling it 'absurd'-makes you look silly ;). Achieving freedom has nothing to do with information- my (and his) point was if a people are oppressed enough- there is nothing that can stop them- no secret police, to torture, no killings - just look at the Battle for Algeria and the FLN.(great film by the way) It is only the people themselves who can decide wether they want to be free- they cannot have that forced on them-

1) because at that rate it comes from an 'ally' helping out in a failing revolution- then the 'democracy' and 'freedom' would not naturally survive without outside interference (and that is not true freedom then)

2)If the 'ally' stays there to make sure 'democracy' and 'freedom' stay- they become 'occupiers' instead of liberators- see Vietnam for such an instance. Then 'freedom' is gone at any rate.

3) The revolution succeeded without the ally's help- therefore the help was never needed and democracy will flourish because the people themselves wanted it so bad, they fought tooth and nail to get it, on their own.

EH!?!?!? :confused: Pray tell, when was Ireland an oppressive country?! And what 'ally' did they have in fighting for independence!

Yeah your right, Nelson Mandela is such an oppressive tyrant alright.
:rolleyes:

Kenya had her Mao Mao rebels to fight for her with no assistace that i know of.

I called it absurd because you said the people don't "deserve" any other government than the one they have now. I also understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. Achieving even relative freedom has everything to do with information. If a people have no idea about the way the rest of the world lives, how can they make ethical decisions or even know that they can change? That was rhetorical.
.
I haven't seen the film you spoke of but I will look for it. However, Algeria and the FLN didn't succeed in gaining their independence from French occupation without the support of allies. Their main Arab ally was Egypt. Ahmed Ben Bella, one of the FLN's founding members and the first vice-premier of Algeria had the full support of Gamel Abdel Nasser, then president of Egypt.

1. Ireland is not an oppressive government however they have been oppressed to the point of spitting their country into two, one the Republic of Ireland and the other the Great Britain occupation of Northern Ireland.

2. LOL, I never said Mandela was oppressive, I said the South African Government was oppressive and continued to be oppressive until economic and foreign influence turned the tides on apartheid.

3. Kenya's Mau Mau rebels were completely decimated by the British troops so their reference has no consequence to Kenyan independence. It was the cost of war that economically strained the British and colonial government which ultimately conceded to Kenyan autonomy.

LOL, my brain is hurting, but I think our little debate started over opposing views on the way we (as Americans) are bringing our form of democracy to Iraq, on a thread that has to deal with Iran's nuclear intentions. My argument is that the majority of our nations economies are intertwined and the slightest fluctuations in the dollar, euro, yen, etc. are felt around the world. IMO, the way to maintain economic stability is to spread democracy in its simplest form, and with democracy freedoms will follow. You speak of "true freedom, " what is that? What nation on earth has true freedom? It's certainly not here in the US, nor do we have pure democracy. Our goal is for self-rule, and we know that those authoritarian regimes believe that if a people are left to self-rule that they will ultimately become pawns to stronger more influential governments. The propaganda they spread turns liberation into occupation which then turns to confusion and ultimately hatred and rebellion. I think the UK is all to familiar with that and I find it oddly hypocritical that many there oppose the US, considering the UK's history of occupation and colonization for pure economic reasons.

However, no nuclear power has yet (as of 2005) transferred nuclear weapons to a non-state actor, despite the fact that almost all of them have supported terrorists or engaged in state terrorism themselves (not that a nuke was necessary to sink the Rainbow Warrior, of course.


It is speculated that AQKhan did transfer something (possibly a dirty nuke) to AQ. It is also speculated that that something was airlifted from Kunduz.


Hmm... What did you hear, that the Islamic bomb is under control of certain Red heathen kafirs with slitty eyes?

Lol.

The certain heathen reds took away their toys immediately after 9/11. The convoys across Karakoram highway was watched with amusement from us at Siachen. They knew that US will move in and snatch the toys, so they took away theirs beforehand. Smart chaps.

What is left is under the other kafir's (yank's) control.

I called it absurd because you said the people don't "deserve" any other government than the one they have now. I also understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. Achieving even relative freedom has everything to do with information. If a people have no idea about the way the rest of the world lives, how can they make ethical decisions or even know that they can change? That was rhetorical.
.
I haven't seen the film you spoke of but I will look for it. However, Algeria and the FLN didn't succeed in gaining their independence from French occupation without the support of allies. Their main Arab ally was Egypt. Ahmed Ben Bella, one of the FLN's founding members and the first vice-premier of Algeria had the full support of Gamel Abdel Nasser, then president of Egypt.

1. Ireland is not an oppressive government however they have been oppressed to the point of spitting their country into two, one the Republic of Ireland and the other the Great Britain occupation of Northern Ireland.

2. LOL, I never said Mandela was oppressive, I said the South African Government was oppressive and continued to be oppressive until economic and foreign influence turned the tides on apartheid.

3. Kenya's Mau Mau rebels were completely decimated by the British troops so their reference has no consequence to Kenyan independence. It was the cost of war that economically strained the British and colonial government which ultimately conceded to Kenyan autonomy.

LOL, my brain is hurting, but I think our little debate started over opposing views on the way we (as Americans) are bringing our form of democracy to Iraq, on a thread that has to deal with Iran's nuclear intentions. My argument is that the majority of our nations economies are intertwined and the slightest fluctuations in the dollar, euro, yen, etc. are felt around the world. IMO, the way to maintain economic stability is to spread democracy in its simplest form, and with democracy freedoms will follow. You speak of "true freedom, " what is that? What nation on earth has true freedom? It's certainly not here in the US, nor do we have pure democracy. Our goal is for self-rule, and we know that those authoritarian regimes believe that if a people are left to self-rule that they will ultimately become pawns to stronger more influential governments. The propaganda they spread turns liberation into occupation which then turns to confusion and ultimately hatred and rebellion. I think the UK is all to familiar with that and I find it oddly hypocritical that many there oppose the US, considering the UK's history of occupation and colonization for pure economic reasons.

:D I enjoyed it too. Sorry about the rashness of one or two of my points. True- the 'true freedom' points is the never ending question.

And thanks for clearing up one or two of the historical slips :D African history was never one of my strong points ;) but re S.Africa- i meant post- apartheid of course, the sanctions would be construed as aiding the change of power.

Anywho, back to the point. I believe that a violation of the NPT can be used as a pretext for war. Can anyone confirm this or not?
:confused:

I believe that a violation of the NPT can be used as a pretext for war. Can anyone confirm this or not?
:confused:

AFAIK, no.

A quick skim at http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm does not tell what are the penalties for violation of NPT.

But if war is decided then I guess it can be used as pretext :D

Ireland.

South Africa (debatable given sanctions i'll agree)

Cuba

USSR

Kenya



Plus

Portugal
Spain
Most about every South American and African independent country.
India

I guess the yanks will go all Ghengis-Khan on them soon...

But if war is decided then I guess it can be used as pretext :D

I agree, though some NPT parties have violated the Treaty in the past, according to the US State Dept. I believe sanctions would be enforced before war declared. If UN sanctions fail, then targeted airstikes would follow, if not by the US, by the Isrealis. They have done so in the past.

When Israel faced a similar threat 20 years ago, it reacted. After French officials denied reports that they were supplying Iraq with the material needed to build a nuclear bomb, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's reactor in Baghdad in a daring air raid in June 1981

The kind of politically ignorant dummies that one can find dime a dozen in islamic countries..

You mean the ones who got scammed into thinking that they would get working nuke tech?


Kaffir/kafir/kufr = unbeliever in Arabic.


Ah, thanks for solving that. Although Psychotic Mongooses has also validated my interpretation. Two meanings then.


NoKo, Iran, Libya have received the tech and material in varying levels. Libyans were taken for a ride with faulty centrifuges. A pissed off Qadaffi spilt the beans. Iran also got the faulty centrifuges, but the smart Iranians figured out another way. NoKo got a bomb itself, albeit without the codes. Saudis were under Pakistani nuclear umberalla. Don't ask me for open source info for these.

So in this particular case, the idea of an Islamist bomb doesn't really pan out. Because the so-called brother scammed his siblings with a car that has no engine. At least if this is proven to be true.


Sometime back Gen. Beg of Pakistan proposed a Iran-Pakistan strategic alliance wherein Iran would come under Pakistan's nuclear umbrella.


Doesn't sound any different from the idea of the US trying for the original nuclear umbrella back in the Cold War Era.


"Islamic bomb" - is not something that is caused by islamophobia, it is the idea that islamists came up with.

You have to wonder if it would actually work though. Doesn't seem like that there's a level of cooperation that would require that to work based on what you've posted.


So what? The ammount of fallout from a nuclear plant exploding is qute minor apparently.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050905/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_chernobyl_3


I don't see any concrete evidence of the death tolls actually being lower than originally published. The IAEA is doing the equivalent of sitting on its ass and saying that less deaths were attributed to it. I don't see any proof of studies.

Additionally, would you like to dispute the amount of radiation that was released on that day? Or the hundreds if not thousands of soldiers who died during the cleanup? And why not look up some sources of people who have actually visited the area after all this while? If memory serves, theres a Russian blogger out there who has the pictures and geiger counter readings to prove that many inhabited areas in the affected zones are still heavily dosed with radioactive dust.

And don't forget the people who were actually standing there, watching as radioactive clouds of vaporised graphite rained down on them. Are you telling me that those people weren't exposed to lethal doses? Chernobyll was in a full sized city you realize.

And look.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

Some exaggerated figures have been published regarding the death toll attributable to the Chernobyl disaster. A publication by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) entitled Chernobyl - a continuing catastrophe lent support to these. However, the Chairman of UNSCEAR made it clear that "this report is full of unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments."

Let's see your IAEA report now.

You mean the ones who got scammed into thinking that they would get working nuke tech?

Yes. Qadaffi got scammed. He literally gave the Pakis planeloads of dollars. He got centrifuges which never gave him the weapons grade Uranium required. :D AQ Khan bought a hotel in Timbuktoo (yes, Timbuktoo, I kid you not) and made off around 20 million dollars on the deal. :p


So in this particular case, the idea of an Islamist bomb doesn't really pan out. Because the so-called brother scammed his siblings with a car that has no engine. At least if this is proven to be true.

But can we take the risk again.

The issue is not just state actors. State actors are easy to manage and control. Take the Pakistani nukes for ex. As long as it is in Pakistani state control (meaning the army) we can manage it by managing the army chief Musharraf.

The problem is when there is proliferation to non-state actors. There is open source info on bomb designs found in camps in Afghanistan. AQ Khan himself is a member of a jihadi group Lashkar-e-Toiba, which is affiliated to Al-Qaeda under the IIF floated by Osama.

Now imagine if he did succeed in transferring a bomb or atleast a dirty bomb to the jihadis. Imagine if the jihadis managed to smuggle the bomb into Israel or India or even the US. Imagine if they detonate it.

Now who are you going to retaliate against? How can you stop a possible second detonation? Pakistan will claim plausible deniability and you cannot bomb them in retaliation.

Imagine Iran having a bomb. Replace AQ Khan with a beard who supports Hizbollah and gives them a dirty nuke.

Do you see the problem here?

Until and unless Iran can demonstrate that it can be a responsible state and renounce its proxies and such non-state actors, Iran cannot be trusted to keep the bomb to itself as deterrant and not proliferate it.

I hope it is clearer now.


Doesn't sound any different from the idea of the US trying for the original nuclear umbrella back in the Cold War Era.

I am not a fan of US foreign policy. But it was cold war, after all and considering the Russkie threat, US needed to spread the umbrella over NATO countries. You cannot argue that US is USSR now and so Islamic countries are justified in having a nuclear umbrella against the US. Well, maybe you can. ;)

I wouldn't be suprised if Iran already has Nuclear capabilities or gets them within the next year...

You mean the ones who got scammed into thinking that they would get working nuke tech?



Ah, thanks for solving that. Although Psychotic Mongooses has also validated my interpretation. Two meanings then.



So in this particular case, the idea of an Islamist bomb doesn't really pan out. Because the so-called brother scammed his siblings with a car that has no engine. At least if this is proven to be true.



Doesn't sound any different from the idea of the US trying for the original nuclear umbrella back in the Cold War Era.



You have to wonder if it would actually work though. Doesn't seem like that there's a level of cooperation that would require that to work based on what you've posted.



I don't see any concrete evidence of the death tolls actually being lower than originally published. The IAEA is doing the equivalent of sitting on its ass and saying that less deaths were attributed to it. I don't see any proof of studies.

Additionally, would you like to dispute the amount of radiation that was released on that day? Or the hundreds if not thousands of soldiers who died during the cleanup? And why not look up some sources of people who have actually visited the area after all this while? If memory serves, theres a Russian blogger out there who has the pictures and geiger counter readings to prove that many inhabited areas in the affected zones are still heavily dosed with radioactive dust.

And don't forget the people who were actually standing there, watching as radioactive clouds of vaporised graphite rained down on them. Are you telling me that those people weren't exposed to lethal doses? Chernobyll was in a full sized city you realize.

And look.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

Some exaggerated figures have been published regarding the death toll attributable to the Chernobyl disaster. A publication by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) entitled Chernobyl - a continuing catastrophe lent support to these. However, the Chairman of UNSCEAR made it clear that "this report is full of unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments."

Let's see your IAEA report now.
Even the source you quote shows minimal casualties due to the Chernobyl explosion. "The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.
The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind.
Some 31 people were killed, and there have since been around ten deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident.
An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. "

31 people dead followed by 10 fatalities due to thyroid cancer. Meanwhile an Iranian nuclear weapon would almost certainly result in a regional nuclear war or an act of nuclear terrorism capable of claiming the lives of tens of thousands to perhaps millions of people.

I stand by my statement that if Iran builds a nuclear reactor the US should bomb it and a few other sites to make an example of them so no other crazy theocracy will be tempted to follow that same path.

I stand by my statement that if Iran builds a nuclear reactor the US should bomb it and a few other sites to make an example of them so no other crazy theocracy will be tempted to follow that same path.

Yes i agree- only the crazed theocracy that is the United States should be allowed possess them :D

Seriously though, what right has the US got to say who can and who cannot get nuclear tech.? The do not own the world- they should have no pull in what goes on outside of their borders.

Yes i agree- only the crazed theocracy that is the United States should be allowed possess them :D

Seriously though, what right has the US got to say who can and who cannot get nuclear tech.? The do not own the world- they should have no pull in what goes on outside of their borders.
I'm not saying that it has to be the USA that bombs them. I'd be fine with a European nation, or Israel, or perhaps the Saudi royal family doing it. Although I don't think the Saudis would do something for the benefit of all mankind, and I don't think most European nations have the balls to act decicively.

I'm not saying that it has to be the USA that bombs them. I'd be fine with a European nation, or Israel, or perhaps the Saudi royal family doing it. Although I don't think the Saudis would do something for the benefit of all mankind, and I don't think most European nations have the balls to act decicively.

You're missing the point (I only used the US because you refered to them).

What right has ANY country to determine whether another can or cannot develop any tech. that they feel like? No one should be able to pull outside of their own borders- US/European/Middle Eastern.

Iran is sovereign like it or not and is supported by its people, again like it or not. No one has the right to decide their development except the Iranians themselves.

You're missing the point (I only used the US because you refered to them).

What right has ANY country to determine whether another can or cannot develop any tech. that they feel like? No one should be able to pull outside of their own borders- US/European/Middle Eastern.

Iran is sovereign like it or not and is supported by its people, again like it or not. No one has the right to decide their development except the Iranians themselves.

I would post a long and well thought out response, but my Fu*king spacebar is being stupid.

DAMN YOU SPACEBAR!

You're missing the point (I only used the US because you refered to them).

What right has ANY country to determine whether another can or cannot develop any tech. that they feel like? No one should be able to pull outside of their own borders- US/European/Middle Eastern.

Iran is sovereign like it or not and is supported by its people, again like it or not. No one has the right to decide their development except the Iranians themselves.
The same right I have to prevent a psycho who has threatened me from buying illegal weapons with which to carry out his threat. Let's not forget that Iran constantly threatens "Death to America" and sponsors one of the world's most infamous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah.

The same right I have to prevent a psycho who has threatened me from buying illegal weapons with which to carry out his threat. Let's not forget that Iran constantly threatens "Death to America" and sponsors one of the world's most infamous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah.

Well now, if you want to open up a can of worms then so be it.
How many times has America threatened various other countries (i grant you not as subtley as the Iranians :rolleyes: ) especially with this whole Axis of Evil lark and 'with us or against us' talk? I feel more threatened by the US then I do from Iran.

Sponsoring terrorism?! The US was voted the Worlds Leading Terrorist Sponsor in 1984 (i think it was 84 but it was definetly the 80's).Contras, Mujahadeen, Pinochet, Nicauragua in general, Panama, Bay of Pigs, anti-Chavez coup, hell even the IRA. Please, don't go on as if states don't try to subvert anothers power. They're better at it then the Iranians i grant you that.

No matter whether YOU or anyone else outside of Iran disagrees with their policies- YOU don't have the right to decide their fate. Only the people living there do.

No if THEY decide to get rid of their govt, then thats their choice and would be respected worldwide because you agree with it- but merely because some don't agree with it currently, there are calls for 'regime' change.

Well now, if you want to open up a can of worms then so be it.
How many times has America threatened various other countries (i grant you not as subtley as the Iranians :rolleyes: ) especially with this whole Axis of Evil lark and 'with us or against us' talk? I feel more threatened by the US then I do from Iran.

Sponsoring terrorism?! The US was voted the Worlds Leading Terrorist Sponsor in 1984 (i think it was 84 but it was definetly the 80's).Contras, Mujahadeen, Pinochet, Nicauragua in general, Panama, Bay of Pigs, anti-Chavez coup, hell even the IRA. Please, don't go on as if states don't try to subvert anothers power. They're better at it then the Iranians i grant you that.

No matter whether YOU or anyone else outside of Iran disagrees with their policies- YOU don't have the right to decide their fate. Only the people living there do.

No if THEY decide to get rid of their govt, then thats their choice and would be respected worldwide because you agree with it- but merely because some don't agree with it currently, there are calls for 'regime' change.
Well, if you want to get down to it, we have the right to defend ourselves from a percieved threat, and we've got the muscle to do it. If Iran does something we find threatening we may exercise the option to stop them.

You want to see all those examples as acts of terrorism, fine. Terrorism is a fuzzy thing. The contras in Nicaragua? It was more of a guerilla war than anything else, and the US took sides. Mujahidin in Afghanistan? Well, they were resisting an invasion by a foreign power. That foreign power happened to be an enemy of the US, so we helped out. At the time the Muj weren't targeting civilians, but rather Soviet soldiers. You want to call that terrorism? Go ahead. The fact remains that the US will do what's in the US' best security interests, and that may include bombing Iraninan reactors, military bases, and some industrial sites in order to show the consequences of nuclear proliferation.

Well, if you want to get down to it, we have the right to defend ourselves from a percieved threat, and we've got the muscle to do it. If Iran does something we find threatening we may exercise the option to stop them.

Ah, so if Iran threathens say, the US, then the US has the right to defend herself by attacking Iran? Ok- i agree.
Conversley then, it must be said that if the US threatens Iran, then Iran has the right to defend herself, no? Both HAVE threatened each other- in public ways (Iran) and using subtle undertones (the US).


You want to see all those examples as acts of terrorism, fine. Terrorism is a fuzzy thing. The contras in Nicaragua? It was more of a guerilla war than anything else, and the US took sides. Mujahidin in Afghanistan? Well, they were resisting an invasion by a foreign power. That foreign power happened to be an enemy of the US, so we helped out. At the time the Muj weren't targeting civilians, but rather Soviet soldiers. You want to call that terrorism? Go ahead. The fact remains that the US will do what's in the US' best security interests, and that may include bombing Iraninan reactors, military bases, and some industrial sites in order to show the consequences of nuclear proliferation.

I was pointing out the old adage that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Hypocritcal as it might seem- the same mujahadeen are now fighting the US in Afghanistan (only under a slightly different name- the Taliban) and are now deemed 'terrorists' at will.

First the US has TO PROVE THAT IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Deja vu, anyone. :p

It is speculated that AQKhan did transfer something (possibly a dirty nuke) to AQ. It is also speculated that that something was airlifted from Kunduz.
It is thankfully not an undisputed fact and, to be nitpicky, dirty bombs are not nuclear, but radiological weapons.


The certain heathen reds took away their toys immediately after 9/11. The convoys across Karakoram highway was watched with amusement from us at Siachen. They knew that US will move in and snatch the toys, so they took away theirs beforehand. Smart chaps.

What is left is under the other kafir's (yank's) control.
Yes, I've heard something along those lines, too.

Ah, so if Iran threathens say, the US, then the US has the right to defend herself by attacking Iran? Ok- i agree.
Conversley then, it must be said that if the US threatens Iran, then Iran has the right to defend herself, no? Both HAVE threatened each other- in public ways (Iran) and using subtle undertones (the US).



I was pointing out the old adage that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Hypocritcal as it might seem- the same mujahadeen are now fighting the US in Afghanistan (only under a slightly different name- the Taliban) and are now deemed 'terrorists' at will.

First the US has TO PROVE THAT IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Deja vu, anyone. :p

If Iran wants to defend herself from the US then it should seek to make peace and compromise, not antagonize us. Iran has options for peacefull nuclear development. They could have reactors and simply buy fuel from the Russians then send the spent fuel back for reprocessing. They could build Thorium reactors like the Indians plan to. Instead they seek technology that is 99.9% identical to nuclear weapon technology. Why?

The US is the biggest dog in the yard. If Iran nips at us we have the ability and the duty (to our citizens and our allies) to bite the hell out of it.

The Muj are now terrorists because they've taken to shooting up busses full of women on their way to school. My idea of a terrorist is one who intentionally targets civilians.

If Iran wants to defend herself from the US then it should seek to make peace and compromise, not antagonize us. Iran has options for peacefull nuclear development. They could have reactors and simply buy fuel from the Russians then send the spent fuel back for reprocessing. They could build Thorium reactors like the Indians plan to. Instead they seek technology that is 99.9% identical to nuclear weapon technology. Why?


Why should one sovereign state kowtow to another purely because the bigger one says so? Thats just bullying! Iran threathens the US, the US threathens Iran. Both are at fault and both have legitimate reasons to attack because of that threat. Maybe instead of sabre rattling and posturing, the US should be one to 'make peace'. The sabre rattling got the hard line conservative INTO power in Iran in the first place!


The US is the biggest dog in the yard. If Iran nips at us we have the ability and the duty (to our citizens and our allies) to bite the hell out of it.

Ap, America THINKS its the biggest dog in the yard. In the next war or so, I feel they are going to get a big surprise. The didn't count on the difficulties in Iraq now- they would be tenfold in Iran.


The Muj are now terrorists because they've taken to shooting up busses full of women on their way to school. My idea of a terrorist is one who intentionally targets civilians.

Fair enough- agreed on that. :)

...

Mujahidin in Afghanistan? Well, they were resisting an invasion by a foreign power. That foreign power happened to be an enemy of the US, so we helped out. At the time the Muj weren't targeting civilians, but rather Soviet soldiers. ...
Actually, they were. Members of the Afghan Party etc. were fair game back then.

Why should one sovereign state kowtow to another purely because the bigger one says so? Thats just bullying! Iran threathens the US, the US threathens Iran. Both are at fault and both have legitimate reasons to attack because of that threat. Maybe instead of sabre rattling and posturing, the US should be one to 'make peace'. The sabre rattling got the hard line conservative INTO power in Iran in the first place!



Ap, America THINKS its the biggest dog in the yard. In the next war or so, I feel they are going to get a big surprise. The didn't count on the difficulties in Iraq now- they would be tenfold in Iran.



Fair enough- agreed on that. :)
1) How should the US make peace with Iran? Should we instantly establish a Sharia based legal system and invite Iranian Mullahs to decide who can and can't run for office? Screw that.

It's up to Iran to ask for peace and make some compromises. After all, Iran's the one who's been chanting "Death to America" for over two decades now. Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil a couple of times in the past eight years.

After Iran overthrew the Shah the US didn't attack them, but their Hezbollah terrorist proxy army blew up a Marine barracks. We're not the agressors any more in this conflict, Iran is. If they dont' want to deal with the consequences of threatening the US they should just knock it off.

2) The US military can destroy any other military force on earth at this time. Also we don't need to invade Iran to disarm them and punish them. That can be done with air power alone.

Actually, they were. Members of the Afghan Party etc. were fair game back then.
In that case I stand corrected.

2) The US military can destroy any other military force on earth at this time. Also we don't need to invade Iran to disarm them and punish them. That can be done with air power alone.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFLMAO


Sure you can. Sure you can.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFLMAO


Sure you can. Sure you can.
Sorry, who's got a better airforce? Who's got more tanks of similar quality? Who's navy stands even half a chance against ours? Though it can be argued that UK and Israel have better trained troops, we outnumber them and they're our allies. Though China has more troops, they're almost all poorly trained conscripts who can't rely on air cover or good armor to protect them. The majority of them will be cut to pieces by cluster bombs before even getting near to the front. I stand by my statement and challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Pakistan, yes, absolutely.

Why.Whats wrong with Pakistan?I'm curious.It better not be just because they're muslim.

I stand by my statement and challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Ok....

They can barley contain a rag tag band of insugents in Iraq. What do think it would be like in Iran- 3 times the size, no minorities waiting to support a liberating army, the whole country ferverantly feeling they are in the right, and no allies to back you up this time (because i guaranTEE you, Britain would not touch the US with a barge pole next time)

Korea- largest army in the world. Granted the US is tech superior but soldiers are needed to hold the ground. Where would they come from? More National Guard units? Pull them out of Afghanistan, pull them out of Iraq?

China- leaving aside the fact they would kick seven shades of shizzle out of anyone who touched their sphere of influence (Korea)- the US/UN high tailed it outta there when China poured its troops over the Yellow River in the Korean War. What makes you think this time it would be any different? Cluster bombs?! Please, quit living the dream.

And Iran- I hope they stand up to US aggression. They have a perfectly workable system of governance that suits their people. If the people want nuclear tech then theres not a whole lot the US can do about it without losing a war and several thousand troops.

The US military is not infallible. Have you already forgotten the lessons that Vietnam taught you :( :(

Why.Whats wrong with Pakistan?I'm curious.It better not be just because they're muslim.
1) They're non-democratic.
2) They use terrorist proxy soldiers to attack India.
3) They harbor extremist Muslims who advocate violence toward non-muslims.
4) They're unstable. (How many attempts have been made on Musharraf's life?)
5) They've demonstrated that they're willing to sell nuclear technology to just about anyone.

Ok....

They can barley contain a rag tag band of insugents in Iraq. What do think it would be like in Iran- 3 times the size, no minorities waiting to support a liberating army, the whole country ferverantly feeling they are in the right, and no allies to back you up this time (because i guaranTEE you, Britain would not touch the US with a barge pole next time)

Korea- largest army in the world. Granted the US is tech superior but soldiers are needed to hold the ground. Where would they come from? More National Guard units? Pull them out of Afghanistan, pull them out of Iraq?

China- leaving aside the fact they would kick seven shades of shizzle out of anyone who touched their sphere of influence (Korea)- the US/UN high tailed it outta there when China poured its troops over the Yellow River in the Korean War. What makes you think this time it would be any different? Cluster bombs?! Please, quit living the dream.

And Iran- I hope they stand up to US aggression. They have a perfectly workable system of governance that suits their people. If the people want nuclear tech then theres not a whole lot the US can do about it without losing a war and several thousand troops.

The US military is not infallible. Have you already forgotten the lessons that Vietnam taught you :( :(
You've changed the subject. We're not talking about containing an insurgency, we're talking about destroying an enemy's military forces. If you're going to bring Iraq into the discussion then you must mention the absolute rout of Saddam's forces in a matter of days.

N. Korea? It would not be too hard to take them appart. They would put up a much better fight than Saddam did, but their airforce would be gone within the first two days. Their tanks would be gone in the next few days, and their troops would be massacred by bombing. Our troops would be more than capable of mopping up remaining N. Korean forces.

The gap between Chinese technology and US technology has widened considerably since the Korean war. US technology is designed to fight an enemy that outnumbered us. USSR and it's Warsaw pact allies were that enemy. China's military would be tough because of sheer numbers, but it would be defeated if it fought the US military.

Iran's nuclear capability can easily be prevented by bombing their reactors before they begin producing Plutonium.

DCD,

The Mujahideen did indeed target civilians of other factions. Notably the ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks and later the Hazara community. Although the US did not endorse it or encourage it, it did nothing to stop it. After all, it was US arms and money that were behind the Mujahideen and US is not blameless.

The Afghan jihad was an unholy alliance of US and islamists and a sorry episode and everybody has blood on their hands - the Mujahideen, the Soviets, the Americans and the Pakis.

Also, you mentioned that Hizbollah blew up Marines. Marines are fair game. Hizbollah is a terrorist group because they have also intentionally killed civilians.

Olantia

It is thankfully not an undisputed fact

Couple of Paki scientists did transfer *something* to AQ. They conveniently escaped to Myanmar and their fate is unknown. AQ Khan is the only guy who has the info and he is yet to be interrogated about this.

DCD,

The Mujahideen did indeed target civilians of other factions. Notably the ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks and later the Hazara community. Although the US did not endorse it or encourage it, it did nothing to stop it. After all, it was US arms and money that were behind the Mujahideen and US is not blameless.

The Afghan jihad was an unholy alliance of US and islamists and a sorry episode and everybody has blood on their hands - the Mujahideen, the Soviets, the Americans and the Pakis.

Also, you mentioned that Hizbollah blew up Marines. Marines are fair game. Hizbollah is a terrorist group because they have also intentionally killed civilians.

.
It disgusts me that we were willing to do business with tyrants and terrorists during the cold war.

...
Olantia


Couple of Paki scientists did transfer *something* to AQ. They conveniently escaped to Myanmar and their fate is unknown. AQ Khan is the only guy who has the info and he is yet to be interrogated about this.
Hopefully it was something not unlike the box of caesium-137 that the Chechens left in a Moscow park ten years ago...

Hopefully it was something not unlike the box of caesium-137 that the Chechens left in a Moscow park ten years ago...

I am afraid it is more than that. There is not much open source info, due to the clampdown in this issue by US.

some links..

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050421-074023-5066r.htm
Three months before Sept. 11, 2001, two Pakistani nuclear scientists were in Kandahar, Afghanistan, conferring with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. When United Press International broke the story, Pakistan said the scientists' three-week visit to Afghanistan had been to advise the Taliban government on "agricultural business." :rolleyes:

-- On Oct. 23, 2001, at the request of the Bush administration, these two scientists were detained for questioning about their activities in Afghanistan. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, the former director of a nuclear reactor, and his associate Chaudhry Abdul Majeed failed their polygraph tests.

-- Pakistan said they lacked the know-how to help al-Qaida develop nuclear weapons. But that was a given. What bin Laden sought was help in developing a dirty bomb -- nuclear materials wrapped in conventional high explosives. Bin Laden told them he had managed to obtain old Soviet fissile materials from Uzbekistan.

-- In his last message before the defeat of the Taliban regime in November 2001, Mullah Omar said nobody could begin to realize the devastation that would soon incinerate the United States. He was probably reflecting what his companion in crime bin Laden told him he had obtained from the nuclear Mutt-and-Jeff team from Pakistan.

-- Two other Pakistani nuclear scientists also traveled to Kabul the month before Operation Enduring Freedom. When news of this visit broke, the government said they were unavailable for questioning, as they were both in Myanmar on another "agricultural project."

-- All four scientists were known as al-Qaida and Taliban sympathizers. Mahmood even said, "The ideal form of government for Pakistan was Taliban," the regime that took Afghanistan back to the obscurantism of the Middle Ages.

Found in Kabul's al-Qaida safe houses after the fall of the Taliban regime were drawings on how to marry the ingredients of a radiological bomb.


http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/nov/23pak.htm

http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper401.html
In December 2001 it came to light that two Pakistani nuclear Scientists (Suleiman Asad and Mohammed Ali Mukhtar) had moved over to Myanmar in November 2001 when US intelligence officials were investigating the involvement of the Pak nuclear scientists with the Al Qaeda network. This report assumes greater significance as Myanmar has acquired recently a nuclear reactor from Russia.

Ofcourse, we can be sure that AQ does not have any nukes or radiation bomb now. The Kunduz airlift was the tradeoff.

Coming to Iran, how sure can we be that Iran won't be giving any to Hizbollah?

The fact remains that the US will do what's in the US' best security interests, and that may include bombing Iraninan reactors, military bases, and some industrial sites in order to show the consequences of nuclear proliferation.

Then why don't you stop all that BS about world stability, human rights and liberation? Nobody is buying that pile of rubbish anymore. The US is acting like a world bully and is trying to put flowers on it.


Sorry, who's got a better airforce? Who's got more tanks of similar quality? Who's navy stands even half a chance against ours? Though it can be argued that UK and Israel have better trained troops, we outnumber them and they're our allies. Though China has more troops, they're almost all poorly trained conscripts who can't rely on air cover or good armor to protect them. The majority of them will be cut to pieces by cluster bombs before even getting near to the front. I stand by my statement and challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

US VS Coalition of the World. That's what will happen if the US keeps that attitude of "Going it alone"

I put my money on the world. Until nukes break out. Then we move onto sudden death.

Just for example, let me pull in a few countries. Russia, China, South/North Korea, India, Pakistan and maybe Europe if they feel like it. Together, I think they'd be able to deliver some serious smackdown until the US gets all hot and bothered and lets the nukes fly.

Yup. Bye bye world.


It disgusts me that we were willing to do business with tyrants and terrorists during the cold war.

And weren't you saying just now that the US will do what's in the US' best interests?

You can't have your pie and eat it.

If it will serve the US's needs to sponsor terrorism, it will do so. If it serves their need to overthrow legitimate democracies and replace them with dictatorships who commit atrocities, they will do so. If they need to perform their own atrocities, the US will do so.

The only reason why so many people think it's a paragon of virtue is because the US administration has had a long history of perfecting the art of lying.

And nothing keeps you on the ball for lying than having to worry about public perception every 4 years.

Yeah, yeah, yeah Iran is 5 years away from nuclear arms capability. The same can be said for most places with working nuclear reactors. So? Big deal.

Then why don't you stop all that BS about world stability, human rights and liberation? Nobody is buying that pile of rubbish anymore. The US is acting like a world bully and is trying to put flowers on it.



US VS Coalition of the World. That's what will happen if the US keeps that attitude of "Going it alone"

I put my money on the world. Until nukes break out. Then we move onto sudden death.

Just for example, let me pull in a few countries. Russia, China, South/North Korea, India, Pakistan and maybe Europe if they feel like it. Together, I think they'd be able to deliver some serious smackdown until the US gets all hot and bothered and lets the nukes fly.

Yup. Bye bye world.



And weren't you saying just now that the US will do what's in the US' best interests?

You can't have your pie and eat it.

If it will serve the US's needs to sponsor terrorism, it will do so. If it serves their need to overthrow legitimate democracies and replace them with dictatorships who commit atrocities, they will do so. If they need to perform their own atrocities, the US will do so.

The only reason why so many people think it's a paragon of virtue is because the US administration has had a long history of perfecting the art of lying.

And nothing keeps you on the ball for lying than having to worry about public perception every 4 years.
What I beleive is in the US' best interests longterm is to promote secular democracy worldwide. That doesn't preclude us using force against threats to our security. I see no contradiction in any of my statements that you quoted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah Iran is 5 years away from nuclear arms capability. The same can be said for most places with working nuclear reactors. So? Big deal.

The big deal arises because Iran has an appalling record on human rights, a history of state-sponsored terrorism, bases the running of its nation around an extremist interpretation of Islam and frequently articulates its hatred for Israel and the west.

The big deal arises because Iran has an appalling record on human rights, a history of state-sponsored terrorism, bases the running of its nation around an extremist interpretation of Islam and frequently articulates its hatred for Israel and the west.
Yeah well there's not a lot of good things that can be said about China, or some of the other A-bomb-wielding Johnny-come-latelys. So? What do you propose be done about it?

What I beleive is in the US' best interests longterm is to promote secular democracy worldwide.

US actions and your beliefs contradict themselves. I do believe it has been listed several times that US actions were directly linked to the toppling of democratically elected govermnents and the subsequent replacement via military dictatorships.

Why? Because the military dictatorship would provide them with favored trade relations that's why.

Where's your democracy there?

Face reality. Politicians rule a country, the same with the US. And politicians usually get there because they desire power. Altruistic ideals in realpolitik are about as mythical as a Unicorn.

The US, will commit whatever it wants to, including dealing with the proverbial devil, so long as it can profit from it. Not because it can make the world a more "free'er" or "Liberated" place. That is a concept that only the most gullible of people would buy.

The world is a much colder, and harder place than you think. Humanity has not progressed so far that it has left behind the instinctive need to subjugate and dominate at the expense of others around it.