NationStates Jolt Archive

United Nations (23 September 2005- 07:43)
The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared in an angry and defiant address to the United Nations last night that his country is the victim of "nuclear apartheid" and set about lambasting Western governments accusing them of being state sponsors of terrorism around the world.

"State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism," President Ahmadinejad insisted to an audience that included a stone-faced British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He vehemently defended Iran's right to continue developing its nuclear capacity.

Wed Sep 21, 3:36 PM ET

TEHRAN -
Iran has yet again raised the stakes in its long nuclear stand-off with the West even at the risk of being referred to the UN Security Council, but this time the regime does not appear to be bluffing.

Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani vowed Tuesday to respond to being hauled to New York by limiting UN inspections and resuming ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment work.

He even warned that Iran might be forced to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Tehran argues should give it the right to pursue its drive to make fuel for atomic power stations.

Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also insisted Wednesday that Iran was determined to master the nuclear fuel cycle, although he said it does not want a confrontation with the West.

"The nuclear fuel cycle is a national demand," Ahmadinejad told a cabinet meeting, the student news agency ISNA reported. "It will take Iran to a higher level of development but the Western powers do not want that."

His comments came as the United States claimed there was growing international support to report Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear activities.

However, a showdown over Western fears that it may secretly be developing nuclear weapons was delayed when Tehran's supporters forced an adjournment until Thursday of a key meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board.

Well good. Iran shouldn't surrender it's rights just because the US is an international douchebag.

Iran is free under the NNPT to develop nuclear power. It is friggin spelled out in article 4. Iran is totally within it's rights, and I'm glad to see they're not backing down on this.

Well good. Iran shouldn't surrender it's rights just because the US is an international douchebag.

Iran is free under the NNPT to develop nuclear power. It is friggin spelled out in article 4. Iran is totally within it's rights, and I'm glad to see they're not backing down on this.

And I'm sure that when Iran detonates it's first thermonuclear device over Tel Aviv, as they have promised in the past, you'll be ready to wash your hands.

And I'm sure that when Iran detonates it's first thermonuclear device over Tel Aviv, as they have promised in the past, you'll be ready to wash your hands.

Yeah, it's not like Israel has a nuclear deterrent of its own or that it has a large nuclear power (the US) as a crucial ally... :rolleyes:

And I'm sure that when Iran detonates it's first thermonuclear device over Tel Aviv, as they have promised in the past, you'll be ready to wash your hands.

So you want to deny them the right to use nuclear power? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

And I'm sure that when Iran detonates it's first thermonuclear device over Tel Aviv, as they have promised in the past, you'll be ready to wash your hands.

Show me a single person of any political or religious importance in Iran is willing to trade Iran for Israel then I might be willing to believe you. Because that's what's going to happen if Iran ever fires a nuclear device as a weapon. MAD still works on a state to state basis.

If Israel goes and bombs Iran in an attempt to stop Iran but fails however, all bets are off.

Show me a single person of any political or religious importance in Iran is willing to trade Iran for Israel then I might be willing to believe you. Because that's what's going to happen if Iran ever fires a nuclear device as a weapon. MAD still works on a state to state basis.

If Israel goes and bombs Iran in an attempt to stop Iran but fails however, all bets are off.all bets are off indeed... If Israel bombs Iran(whitout reason) ...AQ would be justified to nuke Israel...

If Israel strikes Iran...AQ would be justified to nuke Israel...

Assuming they managed to get their hands on a working nuclear device. To date, no working ones have ever been given to them, even though they share a "brotherhood" of Islam. I just don't see any of the existing states delivering a nuclear weapon into the hands of a non-state group. The resulting fallout of a nuclear detonation would be too high and too indiscriminate for anyone who wants to hold onto his position of power (i.e. leaders) and I'm not talking radiation.

EDIT: Although if Israel does bomb Iran without sufficient justification however, that would probably start WWIII the moment Iran gets a working nuke.

Assuming they managed to get their hands on a working nuclear device. To date, no working ones have ever been given to them, even though they share a "brotherhood" of Islam. I just don't see any of the existing states delivering a nuclear weapon into the hands of a non-state group. The resulting fallout of a nuclear detonation would be too high and too indiscriminate for anyone who wants to hold onto his position of power (i.e. leaders) and I'm not talking radiation.if the russian army was not so shamefully underpaid...I would agree with you.

EDIT: Although if Israel does bomb Iran without sufficient justification however, that would probably start WWIII the moment Iran gets a working nuke.Israel and Iran do not share a border...I cant see sufficient justification.

Can you see any?

if the russian army was not so shamefully underpaid...I would agree with you.

Hmmm, nuclear secrets maybe. The fall of the Soviet Union did see a lot of Russian scientists unemployed. But not the nuclear stockpile though. No way in hell the arming codes are going to be given out along with a working bomb. Desperate as the Russian army is for money, they're not that stupid.

If they do give out a bomb though, smart money is that it will be without arming codes and all AQ will have is a very large and expensive hunk of junk. Maybe you could make a radiological weapon with that, but you could get the same effect by raiding a modern hospital for their x-ray equipment.

Israel and Iran do not share a border...I cant see sufficient justification.

Can you see any?

Mmm, if they wanted to badly enough, you can bet that they would manufacture some sort of excuse and drum it into people's head with a serving of nationalism.

But real justification? Short of a declaration of open war, not really.

So you want to deny them the right to use nuclear power? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?
If they only want a reactor for electricity why haven't they chosen to let Russia process their fuel and take back the spent rods? Russia made the offer, Iran declined.

If they only want a reactor for electricity why don't they build a type that doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as part of it's fuel cycle? India's about to build several Thorium fueled reactors. Thorium's three times as common and therefore much cheaper than Uranium and Thorium reactors can't be used to make weapons.

Clearly Iran wants a nuclear weapon, clearly some people here want them to get one just to spite the USA. Nice strategy. Make nuclear war in the middle east and nuclear terrorism worldwide much more likely just to show those damn Americans that they ain't the boss of you.

I'd say the dummest thing for Iran to do is to give up this program... US has shown clearly enough that if they want to attack, they will do it regardless whether their enemy has/has not done what they are accused to. Which means that if US is to attack, they will. If Iran seems to be getting a nuclear weapon, that's a good excuse, but if they don't, well, CIA will come up with another.
Under these circumstanses best Iran can do is to secure their own country and peace by having a weapon that'll make the american intervention impossible, ASAP. If they stop the program, Bush will still keep talking about it and attack.
There will be another Iraq-like situation, in which they admit that they were wrong right after the country has been utterly destroyed, conquered and under civil war.

Or 'least that's how I see it.

I'd say the dummest thing for Iran to do is to give up this program... US has shown clearly enough that if they want to attack, they will do it regardless whether their enemy has/has not done what they are accused to. Which means that if US is to attack, they will. If Iran seems to be getting a nuclear weapon, that's a good excuse, but if they don't, well, CIA will come up with another.
Under these circumstanses best Iran can do is to secure their own country and peace by having a weapon that'll make the american intervention impossible, ASAP. If they stop the program, Bush will still keep talking about it and attack.
There will be another Iraq-like situation, in which they admit that they were wrong right after the country has been utterly destroyed, conquered and under civil war.

Or 'least that's how I see it.

Personally I think that by building a nuclear reactor Iran is making sure that they get bombed by US or Israeli aircraft.

Personally I think that by building a nuclear reactor Iran is making sure that they get bombed by US or Israeli aircraft.Other countries have built nukes...they were not bombed.

NK, Israel, India, Pakistan, SA.

And if they don't, they are accused to have it and will get bombed by US and British aircraft. :rolleyes:

And then be invaded, as usual.

Other countries have built nukes...they were not bombed.

NK, Israel, India, Pakistan...and some say SA used to have.
Other countries don't have "Death to America" as their national slogan. Oh, and N. Korea is on the list to be bombed if they get too far out of line.

Other countries don't have "Death to America" as their national slogan.

Never been to Pakistan, have you? :D

And if they don't, they are accused to have it and will get bombed by US and British aircraft. :rolleyes:

And then be invaded, as usual.
No point in invading. Just bomb the reactor and any sites suspected of housing fuel or centrifuges.

Never been to Pakistan, have you? :D
Personally I'm not happy about having Pakistan as an "ally". I'm against their nuclear program. But I'm not in charge.

N. Korea is on the list to be bombed if they get too far out of line.I am sure :rolleyes: (notice the smily? it means sarcasm :D )

No point in invading. Just bomb the reactor and any sites suspected of housing fuel or centrifuges.

Well if you've already taken that first step, you might as well invade.
Violate sovereignty a teensy bit... or a big bit, doesn't really matter now does it?

I am sure :rolleyes: (notice the smily? it means sarcasm :D )
I guess the "Axis of Evil" thing is only interpreted as a threat when it helps your case, right? Iran boosters like to claim that Iran needs a nuke because the "Axis of Evil" speech marks it for attack by bush, but now all of a sudden it's not a threat against N. Korea. I like you. You're inconsistent.

Just bomb the reactor and any sites suspected of housing fuel or centrifuges.Like I said...bombing Iran would make it justifiable AQ use of Nukes (now or down the road) .

Well if you've already taken that first step, you might as well invade.
Violate sovereignty a teensy bit... or a big bit, doesn't really matter now does it?
Why invade and get into a quagmire when we can bomb from above with impunity?

NK is in safe because they have the nuke already. Bush can do shit. Iran doesn't have it, so they are next in the line. If they want to secure peace, they need weapon strong enough to keep the yankees out.
Iraq is a great example of what can happen to a nation that 1.Has oil, 2.Isn't American ally, 3.Dislikes American influence in the region and 4.Is not a democracy. And doesn't have military strong enough to keep US out. Iran can't get such military, but what they can and should get is a the nuclear weapon.

The damned if you don't and damned if you do outlook hmm? History however tends to depict that you are damned if you don't but not damned if you do. To date, the ones with nuclear armaments have not suffered any real attack on their soil by another sovereign nation. The threat of MAD after all, is still quite strong.

If anything, acquiring the ability for mutual MAD makes for a strong argument for peace.

And I'm surprised at you Drunk Commies. You who support full rights to bear arms among the citizenry would balk when it is scaled upwards to nations? Do you not argue that a citizen with a gun is thus better able to deal with assailants than merely relying on law enforcement?

Then how can you not extend the same viewpoint to other nations willing to search for the technology to construct nuclear power? Additionally, unlike guns, the punishment for using nuclear weapons unprovoked on a nation is far more harsh than the use of guns unprovoked against someone. Beyond the threat of MAD or the desperation brought forth by an invading army justifying the use of such weapons, there is no real reason to use nuclear weapons.

Not even the Mullahs in Iran which you so fear would be willing to exchange their power and their lives to strike at a foe. For that is what will happen in the event of a nuclear exchange that they participate in.

I guess the "Axis of Evil" thing is only interpreted as a threat when it helps your case, right? Iran boosters like to claim that Iran needs a nuke because the "Axis of Evil" speech marks it for attack by bush, but now all of a sudden it's not a threat against N. Korea. I like you. You're inconsistent.Israel Nukes are the Biggest "booster" for the Iranian Nuclear reactors program...

Like I said...bombing Iran would make it justifiable AQ use of Nukes (now or down the road) .
No it wouldn't. Not unless we start carpet bombing civilians or something would it even begin to justify a nuclear attack. But then your point of view is a bit slanted. The fact that I still exist probably justifies a nuclear attack on the USA in your eyes.

NK is in safe because they have the nuke already. Bush can do shit. Iran doesn't have it, so they are next in the line. If they want to secure peace, they need weapon strong enough to keep the yankees out.
Iraq is a great example of what can happen to a nation that 1.Has oil, 2.Isn't American ally, 3.Dislikes American influence in the region and 4.Is not a democracy. And doesn't have military strong enough to keep US out. Iran can't get such military, but what they can and should get is a the nuclear weapon.
Sure he can. NK can't hit us with their nukes. Maybe one or two might make it to the west coast, but that's why we're working on missile defense.

The fact that I still exist probably justifies a nuclear attack on the USA in your eyes.surgical attack...post your adress and you will spare collateral :D :D :eek: :D

The damned if you don't and damned if you do outlook hmm? History however tends to depict that you are damned if you don't but not damned if you do. To date, the ones with nuclear armaments have not suffered any real attack on their soil by another sovereign nation. The threat of MAD after all, is still quite strong.

If anything, acquiring the ability for mutual MAD makes for a strong argument for peace.

And I'm surprised at you Drunk Commies. You who support full rights to bear arms among the citizenry would balk when it is scaled upwards to nations? Do you not argue that a citizen with a gun is thus better able to deal with assailants than merely relying on law enforcement?

Then how can you not extend the same viewpoint to other nations willing to search for the technology to construct nuclear power? Additionally, unlike guns, the punishment for using nuclear weapons unprovoked on a nation is far more harsh than the use of guns unprovoked against someone. Beyond the threat of MAD or the desperation brought forth by an invading army justifying the use of such weapons, there is no real reason to use nuclear weapons.

Not even the Mullahs in Iran which you so fear would be willing to exchange their power and their lives to strike at a foe. For that is what will happen in the event of a nuclear exchange that they participate in.
Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't equal a citizen with a gun. It equals a psychotic criminal who threatened my life and my family trying to get a gun. I'd be tempted to put two in the back of his head preemptively if I see him walking out of the gun store.

Israel Nukes are the Biggest "booster" for the Iranian Nuclear reactors program...
Israel's nukes exist because Israel's neighbors had a bad habit of comming over uninvited before.

Sure he can. NK can't hit us with their nukes. Maybe one or two might make it to the west coast, but that's why we're working on missile defense.

Byebye Tokio, then...

Why invade and get into a quagmire when we can bomb from above with impunity?

And some Americans wonder why their nation is not loved universally... :rollseyes:

Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't equal a citizen with a gun. It equals a psychotic criminal who threatened my life and my family trying to get a gun. I'd be tempted to put two in the back of his head preemptively if I see him walking out of the gun store.

Then you're up for murder. No defence lawyer would touch ya on the preemption grounds :D

I'd be tempted to put two in the back of his head preemptively if I see him walking out of the gun store.the law says you would get Death...or Life-in-Jail.

Israel's nukes exist because Israel's neighbors had a bad habit of comming over uninvited before.that is the case for several countries...

The reason we go after North Korea and Iran for making nukes and not India and Pakistan is simple. India and Pakistan are all like "Hey, we're going to make some big bombs now, is that okay with you guys?", while Iran and North Korea take a different approach.

Bush: Kim, are you building nukes?
Kim Jong Il: What are you talking about? *shifty eyes*
Bush: We have pictures of uranium enriching facilities in your nation. And you don't have any nuclear power plants. What are you doing with that uranium?
Kim Jong Il: Uh... Baking a cake?
Bush: You're building nukes, aren't you!
Kim Jong Il: Uh, no?
Bush: *cracks knuckles*
Kim Jong Il: Alright! I am! And I'm pointing them at YOU! Muhahahahahahaha!!!!

Byebye Tokio, then...
We got Japan's back.

The reason we go after North Korea and Iran for making nukes and not India and Pakistan is simple. India and Pakistan are all like "Hey, we're going to make some big bombs now, is that okay with you guys?", while Iran and North Korea take a different approach.

Bush: Kim, are you building nukes?
Kim Jong Il: What are you talking about? *shifty eyes*
Bush: We have pictures of uranium enriching facilities in your nation. And you don't have any nuclear power plants. What are you doing with that uranium?
Kim Jong Il: Uh... Baking a cake?
Bush: You're building nukes, aren't you!
Kim Jong Il: Uh, no?
Bush: *cracks knuckles*
Kim Jong Il: Alright! I am! And I'm pointing them at YOU! Muhahahahahahaha!!!!
LOL...thats so...err....funny way to post...

BTW...How old are you?

And some Americans wonder why their nation is not loved universally... :rollseyes:
Sometimes you have to do something unpopular in order to prevent worse things from happening in the future. Bombing an Iranian reactor would be one of those unpopular but neccessary things.

Then you're up for murder. No defence lawyer would touch ya on the preemption grounds :D
I know, but sometimes the end justifies the means.

The reason we go after North Korea and Iran for making nukes and not India and Pakistan is simple. India and Pakistan are all like "Hey, we're going to make some big bombs now, is that okay with you guys?", while Iran and North Korea take a different approach.

Bush: Kim, are you building nukes?
Kim Jong Il: What are you talking about? *shifty eyes*
Bush: We have pictures of uranium enriching facilities in your nation. And you don't have any nuclear power plants. What are you doing with that uranium?
Kim Jong Il: Uh... Baking a cake?
Bush: You're building nukes, aren't you!
Kim Jong Il: Uh, no?
Bush: *cracks knuckles*
Kim Jong Il: Alright! I am! And I'm pointing them at YOU! Muhahahahahahaha!!!!

Heeeee! Can I play eith you, can I?!?!?!111 :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mad: :mad: :mad: :gundge: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5:

I know, but sometimes the end justifies the means.
:eek:
A shiver just went up my spine.....

Mao used the same train of thought.... :(

:eek:
A shiver just went up my spine.....

Mao used the same train of thought.... :(
Yeah, and Hitler liked dogs. Liking dogs doesn't make you a Nazi and knowing that some things are so important that they need to be done regardless of the negative consequences doesn't make me Mao.

Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't equal a citizen with a gun. It equals a psychotic criminal who threatened my life and my family trying to get a gun. I'd be tempted to put two in the back of his head preemptively if I see him walking out of the gun store.

So you advocate the extermination of nations based on whether you think they are a threat to you or not? Accusations for psychosis cannot be fairly applied to any of the leadership currently ruling in Iran since aside from religious rhetoric, they do not appear to be doing anything that one would associate with the psychotic. Despotic perhaps, but none have been reported to be doing things like attempting to walk on walls or fly of cliffs by flapping their hands.

Furthermore, your use of the term criminal cannot really apply. That indicates that the nation of Iran has done something that would be considered to be illegal by the world body and has been legislated as such. Unfortunately for your example, no such law was passed that Iran has contravened.

Thirdly, your temptation is nothing more than irrational fear speaking out. Yes, you are within your rights to respond with appropriate force against one who poses an immediate threat to you or your family. But the key term here is immediate threat. Would you be justified if you walked into a rough part of town and decided to shoot up people just because they looked like they belonged to a gang? No lawyer would ever bother to protect you.

Iran in this case, is neither attempting to trespass on US territory nor is it pointing a proverbial weapon at the US. So why then, would conducting air strikes on Iran be justified? Because they might potentially acquire a weapon that they might, in a very unlikely scenario, use in an unprovoked attack on others?

If so, then you clearly contradict yourself in your views. If Iran was a hypothetical person, you would be shooting that person simply because he happened to be window gazing at a gun shop.

It is obvious that your hypothetical person, in respects to his own right to exist, would need an appropriate level of armamanet to respond to the threat YOU yourself, now pose to him.

Perhaps you feel that the right to bear arms freely is a priviledge that only you should have?

Sometimes you have to do something unpopular in order to prevent worse things from happening in the future. Bombing an Iranian reactor would be one of those unpopular but neccessary things.

That is only what you believe. However, there is little real evidence to justify your actions. You cannot after all, justify shooting a person simply because you believe he will do worst things if he lived. Without any real evidence of wrongdoing, what you would have done is simply put, cold blooded murder.

Yeah, and Hitler liked dogs. Liking dogs doesn't make you a Nazi and knowing that some things are so important that they need to be done regardless of the negative consequences doesn't make me Mao.

Never said it made you Mao, what i was implying was that its a dangerous, authoritarian manner in dealing with things. How do we know you're not a power crazed megalomaniac? ;)

The ends never justify the means.

So you advocate the extermination of nations based on whether you think they are a threat to you or not? Accusations for psychosis cannot be fairly applied to any of the leadership currently ruling in Iran since aside from religious rhetoric, they do not appear to be doing anything that one would associate with the psychotic. Despotic perhaps, but none have been reported to be doing things like attempting to walk on walls or fly of cliffs by flapping their hands.

Furthermore, your use of the term criminal cannot really apply. That indicates that the nation of Iran has done something that would be considered to be illegal by the world body and has been legislated as such. Unfortunately for your example, no such law was passed that Iran has contravened.

Thirdly, your temptation is nothing more than irrational fear speaking out. Yes, you are within your rights to respond with appropriate force against one who poses an immediate threat to you or your family. But the key term here is immediate threat. Would you be justified if you walked into a rough part of town and decided to shoot up people just because they looked like they belonged to a gang? No lawyer would ever bother to protect you.

Iran in this case, is neither attempting to trespass on US territory nor is it pointing a proverbial weapon at the US. So why then, would conducting air strikes on Iran be justified? Because they might potentially acquire a weapon that they might, in a very unlikely scenario, use in an unprovoked attack on others?

If so, then you clearly contradict yourself in your views. If Iran was a hypothetical person, you would be shooting that person simply because he happened to be window gazing at a gun shop.

It is obvious that your hypothetical person, in respects to his own right to exist, would need an appropriate level of armamanet to respond to the threat YOU yourself, now pose to him.

Perhaps you feel that the right to bear arms freely is a priviledge that only you should have?



That is only what you believe. However, there is little real evidence to justify your actions. You cannot after all, justify shooting a person simply because you believe he will do worst things if he lived. Without any real evidence of wrongdoing, what you would have done is simply put, cold blooded murder.

We don't need to exterminate Iran. Merely keep them from getting nuclear weapons. If it takes bombing of their reactor and other facilities so be it.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that Iran backs. Iran's a criminal for that.

Iran makes threats. "Death to America", and the various government sponsored rallies, museums, and TV programs that they use to foment hatred of the USA in their countries combined with their aim of developing nuclear weapons constitute a threat.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that Iran backs. Iran's a criminal for that.


Contra's anyone?

Never said it made you Mao, what i was implying was that its a dangerous, authoritarian manner in dealing with things. How do we know you're not a power crazed megalomaniac? ;)

The ends never justify the means.
You're wrong. Sometimes it does. Not in all cases, but look at it this way. The means to stop the Japanese from testing biological and chemical weapons on the Chinese, and stop them from attempting to use them against US civilians * was war in which many people died. I contend that in that case and in others the end does justify the means.

* During the last frenzied months of World War II, Unit 731 prepared a large biological warfare assault on the U.S. involving special balloon bombs planned to carry disease across North America. An operation to use aircraft carried by submarines to drop plague-infected fleas over southern California was planned for September 1945. But the Japanese Emperor admitted defeat and surrendered one month prior. The leadership of the Japanese biowarfare program was after the war granted immunity from war crimes prosecution on the condition that they disclosed information about their research. Source=
http://www.biohazardnews.net/agent_plague.shtml

Isn't US government's current attitude and way of speech pretty close to that? There is a cultural difference of course, and the way they say it in Iran may seem pretty rough compared to western way, but I think US is pretty much as hostile towards Iran as vice versa.

Not to mention YOUR statements...

Contra's anyone?
We backed the contras in a civil war against soviet backed sandinistas. We don't bankroll a group that just bombs civilians and establishes cells in many foreign countries like Hezbollah does.

Isn't US government's current attitude and way of speech pretty close to that? There is a cultural difference of course, and the way they say it in Iran may seem pretty rough compared to western way, but I think US is pretty much as hostile towards Iran as vice versa.

Not to mention YOUR statements...
Well you can't judge my country by my statements. I'm a bit of a hardliner when it comes to defense and I wasn't elected to any office.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that Iran backs. Iran's a criminal for that.the Soviets used to say that: " OBL is a terrorist that USA backs...USA is a criminal for that"

the Soviets used to say that: " AQ/Taliban are a terrorist org that USA backs...USA is a criminal for that"
We only backed them when they were fighting to drive Soviet invaders from their land. Not when they started building cells in multiple nations.

You're wrong. Sometimes it does. Not in all cases, but look at it this way. The means to stop the Japanese from testing biological and chemical weapons on the Chinese, and stop them from attempting to use them against US civilians * was war in which many people died. I contend that in that case and in others the end does justify the means.

Hypocritical actions. The fate of the Chinese 'guinea pigs' had nothing to do with the reasons behind stopping the Japanese. If it was, then something would have been done in the 1930's (esp after Nanjing).

Doesn't detract from the point that many many many leaders use the phrase 'ends justify the means' to placate otherwise dubious detractors. Its a carte blanche for to many evils in the world today- and you are advocating it in the 'good' sense? Its a matter of point of view. Your 'right/wrong' is different from everyone elses- your 'ends' are different from everyone elses and therefore your 'means' are different from everyone elses.

We only backed them when they were fighting to drive Soviet invaders from their land.Hezbollah is fighting to drive The Israel/US puppeteers from their land.

Also...The "Insurgents" are fighting to drive US invaders from their land.

Hypocritical actions. The fate of the Chinese 'guinea pigs' had nothing to do with the reasons behind stopping the Japanese. If it was, then something would have been done in the 1930's (esp after Nanjing).

Doesn't detract from the point that many many many leaders use the phrase 'ends justify the means' to placate otherwise dubious detractors. Its a carte blanche for to many evils in the world today- and you are advocating it in the 'good' sense? Its a matter of point of view. Your 'right/wrong' is different from everyone elses- your 'ends' are different from everyone elses and therefore your 'means' are different from everyone elses.
Oh, we didn't help fight to liberate China from Japan? What nationality do you think the Flying Tigers were? http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/

It may not have been the primary purpose, clearly defense of our own nation has to be our first motivation, but it did factor in.

In this situation the defense of our allies and our own people is at stake. I should hope my government won't endanger us by allowing a nation that's a sworn enemy of ours gain nuclear weapons.

Hezbollah is fighting to drive the Israel/Jewish puppeteers from their land.

the Iraqi "Insurgents" are fighting to drive US invaders from their land.

And the 911 hijackers were what? Fighting to drive the US from the face of the earth?

I'll give you a little hint. The whole Sunni idea of jihad revolves around a first principle of making Dar al-Islam cover the whole earth. To do that, you need to kill or enslave every non-convert.

Ocean, if you're not a Muslim, then when the day of their victory comes, they'll be dancing on your bones.

Hezbollah is fighting to drive The Israel/US puppeteers from their land.

Also...The "Insurgents" are fighting to drive US invaders from their land.
Then why has Hezbollah been setting off bombs in Christian Lebanese neighborhoods? Are the Lebanese Christians part of this crazy zionist/American conspiracy?

Oh, we didn't help fight to liberate China from Japan? What nationality do you think the Flying Tigers were? http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/

It may not have been the primary purpose, clearly defense of our own nation has to be our first motivation, but it did factor in.

In this situation the defense of our allies and our own people is at stake. I should hope my government won't endanger us by allowing a nation that's a sworn enemy of ours gain nuclear weapons.

EXACTLY! Thats my point. It wasn't out of 'oh my god, look at what is happening to those poor poor Chinese. We've got to help them and liberate them!' It was when Jpn threathened the US that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' theory popped into play.
You can't bleat on about 'we did it to liberate China' when you did it to help your own asses!

Iran is not a threat to the US. Saying 'Death to America' for 20yrs, and doing diddely squat to back it up- does not consitute a threat!

And the 911 hijackers were what? they were "bombing" the US. there is an ongoing conflict...I think that is pretty obvious.

the Big question is ...why?

EXACTLY! Thats my point. It wasn't out of 'oh my god, look at what is happening to those poor poor Chinese. We've got to help them and liberate them!' It was when Jpn threathened the US that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' theory popped into play.
You can't bleat on about 'we did it to liberate China' when you did it to help your own asses!

Iran is not a threat to the US. Saying 'Death to America' for 20yrs, and doing diddely squat to back it up- does not consitute a threat!
Flying Tigers were shooting down Japanese fighters and bombers in China in the 1930's. We were helping the Chinese LONG before pearl harbor brought us officially into the war.

Oh, and the Hezbollah cells we broke up in the southeastern USA weren't a threat either I guess.

they were "bombing" the US. there is an ongoing conflict...I think that is pretty obvious.

the Big question is ...why?
There's no question why. They want to drive out US support for regimes that don't live up to Bin Laden's idea of what Islamic government should be so that they can then destabilize those governments from the inside and unify them under a Muslim caliphate. Presumably Bin Laden would rule it.

Then why has Hezbollah been setting off bombs in Christian Lebanese neighborhoods? Are the Lebanese Christians part of this crazy zionist/American conspiracy?are they? good question.

you have 2 sides...and you will get 2 different answers.

For the US/Israel standart answer just take a look at any mainstream US/Israel network..or newspaper.

For the Arab answer just go to Al-Jazeera.com .

Dont ask me to search the answers for you...i do not have time.

ocean, you're so naive about why they want to kill us.

I can imagine the look of surprise on your face the moment you realize that the happy Islamic fellow sitting next to you is a suicide bomber, and you realize he's pulling the pin.

Like most fervent radicals of any group, they would kill you just as soon as sit next to you.

If you think that your beliefs somehow make you immune, think again.

There's no question why. They want to drive out US support for regimes that don't live up to Bin Laden's idea of what Islamic government should be so that they can then destabilize those governments from the inside and unify them under a Muslim caliphate. Presumably Bin Laden would rule it.so OBL wants to get rid of the current Dictators...to unify them and install himself as a Dictator?

is there any current ME government that OBL does not condemn?

are they? good question.

you have 2 sides...and you will get 2 different answers.

For the US/Israel standart answer just take a look at any mainstream US/Israel network..or newspaper.

For the Arab answer just go to Al-Jazeera.com .

Dont ask me to search the answers for you...i do not have time.
And for the truth look at my post.

Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria. They weren't happy about the Syrian pullout from Lebanon, so they're trying to start a sectarian war in Lebanon as an excuse for Syria to move back in and "stabilize" the situation.

so OBL wants to get rid of the current Dictators...to unify them and install himself as a Dictator?

is there any current ME government that OBL does not condemn?
To my knowledge he hates them all because they don't rule according to his interpretation of Islam, but he knows he can't topple them if the US still provides them with aid and weapons.

ocean, you're so naive about why they want to kill us.so...

Who want to kill us?
Why?

Who are they?
Who is "us"?

Hezbollah is fighting to drive The Israel/US puppeteers from their land.

Also...The "Insurgents" are fighting to drive US invaders from their land.

Hezbollocks (pardon the pun).

Hezbollah is targetting Israeli civilians inside Israel. Iran, which is NOT a party to the conflict (heck, majority palestinians are sunnis) , is propping up Hezbollah, to have a foothold in the affairs.

Basically, the shi'te theocracy want to be seen as the saviors of muslims and do not want to concede that space completely to the arab sunni elements.

Hezbollah is a pawn in the pan-shia ambitions of the ayotullahs of Iran.

This is a very less understood phenomenon.

Until and unless Iran does not let go of its use of terrorist proxies, it is not a responsible state which can be entrusted with nukes. They have to demonstrate that they can and they will reign in their dogs.

The US has also supported various proxies in the past, but they have been sensible enough not to give WMDs to them. As much as I sympathise with Iran, I don't think they have demonstrated they are a stable responsible nation.

Flying Tigers were shooting down Japanese fighters and bombers in China in the 1930's. We were helping the Chinese LONG before pearl harbor brought us officially into the war.

Oh, and the Hezbollah cells we broke up in the southeastern USA weren't a threat either I guess.

I know this is off topic but i can't resist...

Then why did the US not do anything regarding the intial Manchuria incident, the general slaughter of innocents in China when jpn occupied it until 1945? Its hypocritical to assume that 'well its ok, we were helping them a BIT' when help should have been outright or none at all. Giving hope and then taking it away is sad.

Hezbollah are Iranian? News to me! I know they are supported by Iran- but by that rational- why was Saudi Arabia not invaded when it was revealed the VAST MAJORITY of the 9/11 bombers were SAUDI!?

Blinkers children, blinkers. Don't dare take them off, or you might see the true threat.

To my knowledge he hates them all because they don't rule according to his interpretation of Islam, but he knows he can't topple them if the US still provides them with aid and weapons.What you just said is most likely True...all of it.

I know this is off topic but i can't resist...Do not worry ...I have always allowed serious "off-topics" on my threads...

I know this is off topic but i can't resist...

Then why did the US not do anything regarding the intial Manchuria incident, the general slaughter of innocents in China when jpn occupied it until 1945? Its hypocritical to assume that 'well its ok, we were helping them a BIT' when help should have been outright or none at all. Giving hope and then taking it away is sad.

Hezbollah are Iranian? News to me! I know they are supported by Iran- but by that rational- why was Saudi Arabia not invaded when it was revealed the VAST MAJORITY of the 9/11 bombers were SAUDI!?

Blinkers children, blinkers. Don't dare take them off, or you might see the true threat.
Like I said before. The US' main concern is it's own security. The fact remains though that we did aid the Chinese early on against the Japanese.

Personally I'd have taken some action against Saudi Arabia, but my president's buddies with them, so there ya go.

Like I said before. The US' main concern is it's own security. The fact remains though that we did aid the Chinese early on against the Japanese.

Personally I'd have taken some action against Saudi Arabia, but my president's buddies with them, so there ya go.

Thank you, thank you, thank you thank you thank you! Thats all i wanted to say about that.

And at least you also see that Saudi Arabia is the threat.

But it is much more of a present threat than Iran.

Thank you, thank you, thank you thank you thank you! Thats all i wanted to say about that.

And at least you also see that Saudi Arabia is the threat.

But it is much more of a present threat than Iran.
I've said both those things before. I said that the US' main concern is it's own security earlier in this very thread!

I've said both those things before. I said that the US' main concern is it's own security earlier in this very thread!

I know.
But it was used in a way that was
A: We help people because we're good and thats what we do. (Denial of the Realist argument)

B:Our definiton of 'good' is the only one.. and so help you God if you don't agree *shakes fist*

And therefore, Iran has a right to security from its agressors (ie the US in this case) in the same vein as the US has a right of security from its aggressors.

The only thing wrong with Iran getting nukes- is the breaking of the NPT. Thats all (in geopolitical circles)

I know.
But it was used in a way that was
A: We help people because we're good and thats what we do. (Denial of the Realist argument)

B:Our definiton of 'good' is the only one.. and so help you God if you don't agree *shakes fist*

And therefore, Iran has a right to security from its agressors (ie the US in this case) in the same vein as the US has a right of security from its aggressors.

The only thing wrong with Iran getting nukes- is the breaking of the NPT. Thats all (in geopolitical circles)
Iran can secure safety from the US by not allowing it's Hezbollah puppets to set up cells here and by not building nuclear weapons. Anything else is inviting attack.

Also just because we look out for ourselves doesn't mean we don't do good for others. You're setting up a false dillema. One doesn't exclude the other.

Iran can secure safety from the US by not allowing it's Hezbollah puppets to set up cells here and by not building nuclear weapons. Anything else is inviting attack.

You say 'allowing it's Hezbollah puppets to set up cells here', i say special forces/CIA/MI5 etc etc not spying on Iran and attempting undermine the state.

Iran get rid of its nukes- US gets rid if its nukes. Level playing field, say what?

Also just because we look out for ourselves doesn't mean we don't do good for others. You're setting up a false dillema. One doesn't exclude the other.

Neo revisionism.

Yes it does mean that. US interests conflict with someone... tough s**t on that someone- US comes first.

I'm not saying thats wrong or anything, thats Neo Realism for ya :p

The US does do good... so long as it benefits the US. That is a hypocritical sense of 'good'.

You say 'allowing it's Hezbollah puppets to set up cells here', i say special forces/CIA/MI5 etc etc not spying on Iran and attempting undermine the state.

Iran get rid of its nukes- US gets rid if its nukes. Level playing field, say what?
Yes, let's put a nation that executes homosexuals, tortures journalists to death, and decides who it's people can vote for based on religion on the same level as a (semi) secular democratic republic. Let's let them have the exact same weapons because obviously they'll do the right thing with them.

Yes, let's put a nation that executes homosexuals, tortures journalists to death, and decides who it's people can vote for based on religion on the same level as a (semi) secular democratic republic. Let's let them have the exact same weapons because obviously they'll do the right thing with them.

But its ok to execute people with the mind of a child? Torture innocents? And assassinate the only non WASP President it had? (granted not proven yet.. but one of these days :p .... )

You're not giving a 'state' enough credit. The primary goal of a state is SURVIVAL. It will not jeapordise(sp?) that survival by acting like a tit. You are treating a state like an individual- not an entity.

Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as anyone else does- bar the NPT.

Neo revisionism.

Yes it does mean that. US interests conflict with someone... tough s**t on that someone- US comes first.

I'm not saying thats wrong or anything, thats Neo Realism for ya :p

The US does do good... so long as it benefits the US. That is a hypocritical sense of 'good'.
I see. We must have made a mint from Tsunami releif efforts. Also the aformentioned flying tigers were clearly in it for the PR benefits. Money given to famine victims in Africa was just done to get them addicted to US grain and create a market for it too, right?

While most of what any country does is to further it's own interests, most nations also do some things out of good will.

I see. We must have made a mint from Tsunami releif efforts. Also the aformentioned flying tigers were clearly in it for the PR benefits. Money given to famine victims in Africa was just done to get them addicted to US grain and create a market for it too, right?

While most of what any country does is to further it's own interests, most nations also do some things out of good will.

Oh FFS cut the bullshit about those Tigers... Geez! Couple dozens of mercenaries flying obsolete planes in some shithole airbase and dropping few bombers... Nepal had more important role in liberating France than Tigers helping China before Pearl Harbour...

I see. We must have made a mint from Tsunami releif efforts. Also the aformentioned flying tigers were clearly in it for the PR benefits. Money given to famine victims in Africa was just done to get them addicted to US grain and create a market for it too, right?

While most of what any country does is to further it's own interests, most nations also do some things out of good will.

Had the US not given to the tsunami relief... what do you think the global response would have been? (OR any state in that context)
Situations of natural disasters (ie Tsunami, Katrina, Ethiopia) can be viewed distinctly from political situations. It is natural human empathy that bonds us in times when we learn humans are fragile and still (despite our tech) weak in comparison to nature. It transcends borders as people send out a hand to each other in sympathy, grief, solidarity and aid.

We've dealt with the Chinese thing sufficently.

No, but anti-AIDS drugs sold to countries with extremely high rates of HIV/AIDS and exthortionate prices is not the best interests of the sufferers now is it?

I agree to a certain extent. Politically, all states do what is best for them. Its life and it sucks.

We don't need to exterminate Iran. Merely keep them from getting nuclear weapons. If it takes bombing of their reactor and other facilities so be it.

Of course the whole bit about nuclear weapons is based on the rather nebulous claim that they will use it immediately in a strike. Refutations below.


Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that Iran backs. Iran's a criminal for that.


The Hezbollah is mostly concerned against Israel IIRC. And if supporting a proxy in a guerilla war makes one a criminal state, then I point to the Mujaheedin which later became the Taliban, a rebel group cum government which the US did proclaim to be a terrorist state at the end of the day. The only difference between the Hezbollah and the Taliban of several years ago was that the Taliban actually ended up ruling a country and managed to push the Soviet Union back.

So, does that make America a criminal by this definition? The support can be said to be the same, if not, even more extensive than that of what Iran stands accused of. Arms supplies, training, funds, all provided by the foremost Intelligence Agency that the US had at it's disposal.


Iran makes threats. "Death to America", and the various government sponsored rallies, museums, and TV programs that they use to foment hatred of the USA in their countries combined with their aim of developing nuclear weapons constitute a threat.

The usual propoganda one uses to rally a people. What of it? It comes in many forms and usually provides a target to identify. American media and political propoganda can also be said to do the same. But that aside, could mere propoganda alone, which is used to forment tailored emotions, be used to actually justify military action?

We saw that trick being used to justify Iraq, by monsterizing an opponent to thereby reduce resistance to the idea that it 'must' be destroyed for 'the good of all'.

But it doesn't change one single thing. Propoganda alone is a poor excuse to justify military action. If a neighbor of yours blustered and shouted at you for pissing on what he percieves to be his part of the fence and you know he has guns, would that be sufficient grounds to shoot him?

You might be able to get a restraining order, but until he actually poses an active or visibly imminent threat, there is no justification, much less logic, to shooting him.

Some Americans often like to preach about how moral and just their nation is. But at the same time, they advocate things like this, where the justification at the very best can be said to be little more than striking first on the unproven assumption that they will strike you.

If this mentality had existed during the Cold War, we would not be sitting here talking about this. We would most likely either be dead or trying to survive in a lawless wasteland.

Perhaps with the return of Cold War, but this time with a great many contenders rather than two giants that crushed those around them, we will see greater multi-laterlism and diplomacy?

Or do you really believe that any ruler of a country would like to see their country and themselves reduced to radioactive waste for no particular gain?

That was the beauty of MAD when it existed. It made sure that if war broke out, EVERYBODY lost. But nobody likes losing do they? Perhaps that is why US administration so strongly opposes any further nations gaining nuclear power. Because they fear that if a war broke out between them and a nuclear power, they would lose as well. And given the number of wars that America has involved itself in beyond it's borders throughout it's existence, it is safe to say that it is better than even odds that it will be a war that it starts.

But with nuclear weapons, the opponent is given a punch that cannot be matched anywhere else. Unless one were to stage from Canada or South America, there is very little that can be done militarily against the United States. And with that guarantee, the US is given the ability to act against any nation as you say, "with impunity".

But with nuclear weapons? The war comes to the homeland then. It does not matter if only one nuclear weapon can reach the coastal cities. A single one detonating would be an immense blow to moral and confidence of the American public in the government. That was why when the Twin Towers collapsed, the American public was in such a shock. For the first time, they witnessed on their own soil, the kind of damage that could be done on the battlefield today. Before, all the wars had been brought to them by the news as something that happened to someone else, or somewhere far away. They were disconnected.

It would have been no different if instead of airliners, a squadron of heavy bombers had commenced a carpet bombing of New York, or Washington DC, or any other city percieved as "safe" from the ravages of war.

But a squadron of heavy bombers would be completely unfeasible. Crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific with military equipment and the intent to wage war would be both a complicated and highly dangerous affair now. In fact, not many nations themselves even have the capability to project their power quickly across such distances.

But nuclear weapons, and Inter Continental ballistic delivery vehicles on the other hand, are different. For with such weapons, a nation does not need to have a blue water navy, or even a land route, to be able to strike at a foe. Nations, big or small, would be able to compete with much larger opponents in terms of sheer destructive potential.

So here we have something that can be seen at the very best, an equalizer of sorts, a surety that if all else is lost, both sides can be made to lose. Nobody wishes to launch a nuclear strike for the very simple reason that if they were to do so, they themselves will lose. That is why a nuclear exchange between America and the Soviet Union never happened, instead, becoming an underground war of proxies, of idealogy, of propoganda and intelligence agencies.

Would Iran knowingly launch a nuclear strike against a similarly equipped opponent, while fully aware of the consequences of such a strike? It would take a woefully ignorant person to not know of such a consequence. Even if one were to use it against an opponent not equipped with it, it would take the blindest of the blind not to know the reaction across the globe it would bring, a reaction, that will most likely be immediately lethal for the aggressor nation.

So why have it then? For the same reason why America maintains an extensive nuclear arsenal of it's own. To ensure that if one were to challenge them with enough force to ensure their loss, they will ultimately make both combatants losers.

Even those who have proclaimed the willingness to use nuclear weapons as first strike weapons have stated that it will only be used in self defense of their sovereignity. None, have stated that it will be used as a first strike weapon in an aggressor war.

Look, Iran has as it's stated goal the elimination of Israel. Israel is a valued US ally. Iran has sent cells of Hezbollah into the US. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/intrel/research/cstpv/pdffiles/USA%20TODAY.hezb.pdf

Iran's been known to transfer weapons to Hezbollah.

Why should the US allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? They may not use them, they may transfer the weapons to Hezbollah and nuke Telaviv or New York thinking that they can later deny involvement. Why should we take that chance?

The US shouldn't allow it and should use airstrikes if neccessary to prevent it.

Why should the US allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?Why should any country be allowed to? (including Israel and NK)

International Law should have no privilege treatments

Look, Iran has as it's stated goal the elimination of Israel. Israel is a valued US ally. Iran has sent cells of Hezbollah into the US. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/intrel/research/cstpv/pdffiles/USA%20TODAY.hezb.pdf


Aside from propping up the Hezbollah, what exactly has Iran done against Israel?


Iran's been known to transfer weapons to Hezbollah.


Not very advanced ones, nor overly complicated ones I should think. Hezbollah after all, has not been documented to use tanks, aircraft, guided anti-air missiles and cryptography equipment have they?


Why should the US allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? They may not use them, they may transfer the weapons to Hezbollah and nuke Telaviv or New York thinking that they can later deny involvement.

And somehow, they would think that everybody would believe said nuclear weapon didn't come from them? The US didn't give the Mujaheedin nuclear weapons either because nobody with a functional brain would have believed that they acquired it from anyone else other than Uncle Sam. After all, it wasn't like they didn't know, but couldn't prove, that the Stinger missiles were being shipped in by the US with their tacit approval.

Besides, why would Iran supply nuclear weapons to Hezbollah. It seems everyone and their auntie knows that Hezbollah gets its weapons from Iran, so if Hezbollah did it, Iran glassing is due to follow.


Why should we take that chance?

Why should we take the chance that guns be made available to the average citizen? They might use it to commit crimes. See where this is going?

Besides, by what right do you deny Iran their nuclear energy program?


The US shouldn't allow it and should use airstrikes if neccessary to prevent it.

By that rationale, the Soviet Union shouldn't have allowed the CIA to provide arms to the Mujaheedin and glassed Washington DC.

Additionally, you are using the assumption of guilt without even examining the evidence, which due to our time factor, only has a possibility of existing. You are making several leaps of connections here.

1: Iran aims to develop nuclear energy. Stated fact. Supported by evidence and statements by Iranian officials.
2: Iran aims to develop nuclear weapons. Conjecture based on the reactor type and the refusal to outsource.
3: Iran aims to develop nuclear weapons to provide them to their proxies. A larger leap in assumption. Assumes that Iran believes that it will be able to get away with it. Also assumes that the Iranian elite have not taken into consideration the 'russian roulette' scenario of an injured nuclear power.

All of this sounds quite familiar don't you think? Change a variable here and there and it could sound like something in 2002. The same kind of justification that was used to move in a large concentration of troops into a certain middle eastern country.

Why should the US allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

Why should the US allow?? WTF is that? Has the US become that arrogant that there is some false assumption that the US is now the world empire that dictates terms to the world?

The US said f*ck the UN, that was okay, but heaven forbid Iran does. The US is the only country to ever use a nuke against another country, why should the world allow the US to have them? It all sounds very arrogant and as if the US is some how the world parent. A vast majority of these countries and peoples have been around a lot longer than the US, I think they have some good indication of the way things in the world work. It is the best insurance policy at this time in history. If you have a nuke, the US won't invade you. I really have serious doubts that Iran plans to use any nuke they may build, I think they see it more as an insurance policy for their own safety against the US. I also think they are right. So far all we have seen is that the USA doesn't go to war with countries that can actually defend themselves, I think every country that wants to stay safe from the US should get real busy on building their own nukes! Go Iran!

Don't know if this was brought up or not. There has been a lot of comparing the Israeli nuclear program to the Iranian nuclear program. First of all, there is no leagal equality between them; Iran is a signatory to the NPT, Israel is not. Therefore, Israel is leagaly allowed to have nuclear weapons while Iran is not. Secondly, Iran is known to be a firm supporter of terrorism, and any nuclear device they build is likely to be forewarded to a terrorist organization. Israel on the other hand, is known not to be a supporter of terrorism. In fact, Israel has been fighting against terror ever since it's independance. Finaly, Israel is a tiny country founded as a safe haven for one of the most persecuted people in the world, surrounded for by endless expanses of enemies, openly stating their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and the jews. Israel needs a powerful deterent to ensure it's survival from hotile neighbors and constantly declares (and demonstrates) it's desire for peace with it's neighbors. Iran doesn't need such a deterent, as it is a huge country, fairly secure from threats. It openly declares it's hostilities towards Israel, and has alluded to it's intent to either give it to a terrorist organization to destroy a city in the West, or to use it themselves against Israel. The way I see it, there just is no comarison between Israel and Iran when it comes to nuclear policy.

Why should any country be allowed to? (including Israel and NK)

International Law should have no privilege treatments
But Israel is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They are not signatories of the NNPT. But other than that, I completely agree. International law is should be an equal oppertunity offender.

Thank you, thank you, thank you thank you thank you! Thats all i wanted to say about that.

And at least you also see that Saudi Arabia is the threat.

But it is much more of a present threat than Iran.

I would like to point out, that DCD was talking about "The End justifies the means", at which point you started arguing about motivation, as if the motivation somehow invalidated his point about the "end justifies the means".

But Israel is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They are not signatories of the NNPT.

Yeah, well the USA made treaties basically null and void when they broke just about everyone they are signatory members to, to invade Iraq. So, using treaties and signatory members as an argument seems to have went out the window. Thank Uncle Sam for that one!

Yeah, well the USA made treaties basically null and void when they broke just about everyone they are signatory members to, to invade Iraq. So, using treaties and signatory members as an argument seems to have went out the window. Thank Uncle Sam for that one!
The point I was trying to make is that using international law as a basis for allowing Iran (or not allowing Israel) to develop nuclear weapons is a load of BS. Don't take my word for it, google it and see for yourself.

The point I was trying to make is that using international law as a basis for allowing Iran (or not allowing Israel) to develop nuclear weapons is a load of BS. Don't take my word for it, google it and see for yourself.

Oh, I don't have to, I know you're correct. I'm just saying that the US really doesn't have any high ground to use the argument of Iran being a signatory member to not allow them to have them, given they've broken a number of treaties that they're signatory members to starting with the Iraq war.

But Israel is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They are not signatories of the NNPT. But other than that, I completely agree. International law is should be an equal oppertunity offender.what about NK?

And to adress the whole 'peaceful nuclear power' argument, no non-nuclear signatory to the NNPT (Iran) is allowed to begin any kind of peaceful nuclear program without accepting safeguards to detect diversions of resources to a weapons program. So even if Iran is only building nuclear reactors (and weapons facilites) for peaceful purposes, wich is highly doubtful in the first place, it is still against the NNPT.

what about NK?
The only states which are not members of the NNPT are Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan. So you tell me: What about North Korea?

The only states which are not members of the NNPT are Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan. So you tell me, is NK a signatory to the NNPT?NK was a signatory.
NK has renounced to the NNPT.

just like that.

And to adress the whole 'peaceful nuclear power' argument, no non-nuclear signatory to the NNPT (Iran) is allowed to begin any kind of peaceful nuclear program without accepting safeguards to detect diversions of resources to a weapons program. So even if Iran is only building nuclear reactors (and weapons development facilites) for peaceful purposes, wich is highly doubtful in the first place, it is still against the NNPT.

I think we have learned the hard way.. at least for me it was hard. That being signatory members to any treaty is sort of irrelevant in the post 9/11 world. It's every country for themselves and that was the benchmark the golden standard that the United States set. Am I happy with it? No, not at all. But has it become a reality much to my dismay? Yes, it has. When you've got the most powerful nation on the planet leaving waste to treaties and contracts and signatory obligations, you can't very well expect anyone else to follow them now either. It really is a free for all now. It is sad and I wish it had not happened. This is why the majority of the world believes that in fact the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.. I hate to admit it, but I agree.

NK was a signatory.
NK has renounced to the NNPT.

just like that.
#45 on the list.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

But Israel is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They are not signatories of the NNPT. But other than that, I completely agree. International law is should be an equal oppertunity offender.at one point the US demands are going to be too much for Iran.

At that point Iran is going to withdraw from the NNPT. (like NK or Israel)

Its going to happen...wanna bet?

I think we have learned the hard way.. at least for me it was hard. That being signatory members to any treaty is sort of irrelevant in the post 9/11 world. It's every country for themselves and that was the benchmark the golden standard that the United States set. Am I happy with it? No, not at all. But has it become a reality much to my dismay? Yes, it has. When you've got the most powerful nation on the planet leaving waste to treaties and contracts and signatory obligations, you can't very well expect anyone else to follow them now either. It really is a free for all now. It is sad and I wish it had not happened. This is why the majority of the world believes that in fact the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.. I hate to admit it, but I agree.

Apart from the abm treaty - which the US publically stated its intention to withdraw from and only appplied to two parties in any case - what treaties has the US broken? That's right none. Stop making these baseless assertions.


(And at least our highest court has never said that domestic law trumps treaty obligations.)

I think we have learned the hard way.. at least for me it was hard. That being signatory members to any treaty is sort of irrelevant in the post 9/11 world. It's every country for themselves and that was the benchmark the golden standard that the United States set. Am I happy with it? No, not at all. But has it become a reality much to my dismay? Yes, it has. When you've got the most powerful nation on the planet leaving waste to treaties and contracts and signatory obligations, you can't very well expect anyone else to follow them now either. It really is a free for all now. It is sad and I wish it had not happened. This is why the majority of the world believes that in fact the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.. I hate to admit it, but I agree.
Yes, because everyone else was following the rules befor the US invaded Iraq... :rolleyes:
I do not want to say that international law has much of a pull on my views, but it seems to on most people here. And most of those people are trying to say that it is leagal for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons. All I am trying to is disprove that myth.

at one point the US demands are going to be too much for Iran.

At that point Iran is going to withdraw from the NNPT. (like NK or Israel)

Its going to happen...wanna bet?First of all, Israel never signed on to the treaty, and North Korea never withdrew, as far as I know (I am still trying to find a more current list, but the damn UN doesn't see fit to put in a working link on it's website.) That being said, what demands on Iran (or for that matter, North Korea) are too much? That it prove that it is devoloping only a peaceful nuclear program and not seeking weapons? That it send the nuclear waste somewhere else (for free fuel, too)? Please, tell me, what should be demanded?

#45 on the list.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

They say NK is still in the list...It does not mean North Korea is.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/10/nkorea.treaty/

Yes, because everyone else was following the rules befor the US invaded Iraq... :rolleyes:
I do not want to say that international law has much of a pull on my views, but it seems to on most people here. And most of those people are trying to say that it is leagal for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons. All I am trying to is disprove that myth.

Which it is, because they signed the NPT. But that's the problem with treaties in the first place. If one party decides to ignore it, there is nothing that can be done short of sanctions - millitary or otherwise. There is no "super-soveriegnty" to deal with this kind of thing.

Apart from the abm treaty - which the US publically stated its intention to withdraw from and only appplied to two parties in any case - what treaties has the US broken? That's right none. Stop making these baseless assertions.

As much as the US likes to bitch about the UN, last time I checked they were still signatory members. So like it or not, you're bound by the UN Charter, yet that didn't stop the USA from breaching it by preemptively striking a sovereign nation, which is a breach of the UN Charter.

Also the USA has breached the NAFTA agreement with Canada on softwood lumber, the WTO and another international body has already both times ruled in favour of Canada. Yet the USA has refused to pay the 5 billion dollars it owes Canada. The list just goes on and on.. really.

The American Constitution says right in it that the American government much respect and hounor all treaties to which it is a signatory member. Well they haven't been doing that. Therefore Bush is breaking the very oath of office he took. It's not rocket science, evidence of it is every where.

Face it, you have a rogue government at the moment.

Yes, because everyone else was following the rules befor the US invaded Iraq... :rolleyes:
I do not want to say that international law has much of a pull on my views, but it seems to on most people here. And most of those people are trying to say that it is leagal for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons. All I am trying to is disprove that myth.

I think that most of the people are trying to say that Iran needs and has right to have nuclear weaponry as insurance against United States. They aren't stupid enough to blast of Tell Aviv and get Teheran glassed. On the other hand, it seems that US is more than stupid enough to attack Iran, as long as their military cannot stand against the US. using conventional means, that's an impossible goal. As soon as they have nuke, they are safe from Bush and Bushist's.

Let's say Iran makes the nuclear bomb and succesfully tests it.

Let's say a month later, Hezbollah announces that they have the nuclear bombs placed in Israeli cities and they want their demands to be met.

Iran will deny that they have any involvement in this and that they have not proliferated.

What do you think will happen next?

In order for this scenario NOT to happen, Iran has to demonstrate that they will behave as a responsible nuclear nation. They have to give up their pan-shia ambitions and reign in their support to their proxies.

Also a nuclear shia Iran will pressure the sunni/wahabi Saudis (who will see their pre-eminence being undermined) to go nuclear. This inturn will make everybody in the region to have nuclear ambitions.

Are we prepared to face such a scenario?

First of all, Israel never signed on to the treaty, and North Korea never withdrew?nvm

#45 on the list.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm
My mistake. North Korea announced intentions to withdraw in 2003.
http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm

I think that most of the people are trying to say that Iran needs and has right to have nuclear weaponry as insurance against United States. They aren't stupid enough to blast of Tell Aviv and get Teheran glassed. On the other hand, it seems that US is more than stupid enough to attack Iran, as long as their military cannot stand against the US. using conventional means, that's an impossible goal. As soon as they have nuke, they are safe from Bush and Bushist's.
Well, most of the problems between Iran and the US come from the whole nuclear thing.

Which it is, because they signed the NPT. But that's the problem with treaties in the first place. If one party decides to ignore it...NK did not Ignore it...They withdrew from it.

Treaties usually have expiry dates...or else they can be withdrew at any date.

NK did not Ignore it...They withdrew from it.

Treaties usually have expiry dates...or else they can be withdrew at any date.
They actually did ignore the NNPT, they anounced intentions to withdraw in 2003, but they are still in. Even if they did withdraw in 2003, they would have had to disregard the treaty in the 1990's in order to develop nuclear weapons. They don't pop up overnight, you konw.

As much as the US likes to bitch about the UN, last time I checked they were still signatory members. So like it or not, you're bound by the UN Charter, yet that didn't stop the USA from breaching it by preemptively striking a sovereign nation, which is a breach of the UN Charter.

Apart from the obvious point about clawbacks and derrogations in respect of the congress's war power, and the US's riders involving soveriegnty - which are placed into every treaty the US signs. I woud still say rubbish in any case. The UN charter is not binding on signitory nations. (Obviously, given that the UN admits entities as signitories to the charter who do not even conform to it as members.) The time to bring this up was fifty years ago. No-one, until the current bruhaha, ever chose to interpret the UN charter the way you are doing until 2002. So no, not a treaty, and no, not binding, because it has been breached - and is continually breached - by other signitories.

Also the USA has breached the NAFTA agreement with Canada on softwood lumber, the WTO and another international body has already both times ruled in favour of Canada. Yet the USA has refused to pay the 5 billion dollars it owes Canada. The list just goes on and on.. really.

Newsflash, NAFTA is not a treaty. It was enacted under article I, section 8 of the constitution, not article II, section 2. Therefore not a treaty. It's a trade agreement.

The American Constitution says right in it that the American government much respect and hounor all treaties to which it is a signatory member. Well they haven't been doing that. Therefore Bush is breaking the very oath of office he took. It's not rocket science, evidence of it is every where.

Face it, you have a rogue government at the moment.

Show me the treaty that we are not abiding by. Other than the ABM you can't. So cut it out. If you want to criticize policy, that's fine. But stop throwing around baseless accustations like "rogue" nation, which are completely unsupported.

Well, most of the problems between Iran and the US come from the whole nuclear thing.

Not really, true most of the recent tension is from that but before this, say 2-3 years ago, most of the problems came from the fact that Iran overthrew the US backed shah and then also took the US embassy etc...
tensions between US and Iran have always been high but were slightly calmed when clinton was is office. Then when bush came on, all flared up again....

IMO, Iran has a right to nuclear tech, its a signatory to the NPT and so has agreed to the treaty. if it allows spot-checks by the IAEA i dont see what the problem is? They can monitor all activity easily.

NK did not Ignore it...They withdrew from it.

Treaties usually have expiry dates...or else they can be withdrew at any date.

I was talking about Iran. Which hasn't to my knowledge, withdrawn.

Well, most of the problems between Iran and the US come from the whole nuclear thing.Ignorance is a big handicap...

Ever heard of the Shah or the SAVAK?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=savak+shah+cia&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&fl=0&x=wrt

Not really, true most of the recent tension is from that but before this, say 2-3 years ago, most of the problems came from the fact that Iran overthrew the US backed shah and then also took the US embassy etc...
tensions between US and Iran have always been high but were slightly calmed when clinton was is office. Then when bush came on, all flared up again....

IMO, Iran has a right to nuclear tech, its a signatory to the NPT and so has agreed to the treaty. if it allows spot-checks by the IAEA i dont see what the problem is? They can monitor all activity easily.
I don't see the problem of Iran having nuclear power as sanctioned by the NNPT either. The problem I see is that Iran has no intention to allow inspectors in, or in a peaceful nuclear program at all.

I don't see the problem of Iran having nuclear power as sanctioned by the NNPT either. The problem I see is that Iran has no intention to allow inspectors in, or in a peaceful nuclear program at all.

But Iran has agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to perform unnanounced spot-checks. A move that to my knowledge very few if ANY other country has done. Surley thats a clear sign of intentions?

I don't see the problem of Iran having nuclear power as sanctioned by the NNPT either. The problem I see is that Iran has no intention to allow inspectors in, or in a peaceful nuclear program at all.I will not see any problems once Iran withdraws from the NPT.

and considering the great pressure the US is putting Iran's head...its not going to take very long.

But Iran has agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to perform unnanounced spot-checks. A move that to my knowledge very few if ANY other country has done. Surley thats a clear sign of intentions?
That's not what the Iranians say.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm

I will not see any problems once Iran withdraws from the NPT.

and considering the great pressure the US is putting Iran's head...its not going to take very long.
What great pressure?....Oh, yeah, that great pressure to give up ambitions for nuclear weapons....full of rewards for compliance....that great pressure....That is the great pressure you were reffering to, right?

That's not what the Iranians say.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm

How old is that document? My guess, VERY!
Id like to bring your attention to recent events, for example this year?

Also, if you take rhetoric from an ex-president to mean something, then when your president says iran must not be able to acquire nulcear power under any circumstances, it must mean, by your method, that iran is gonna get invaded?

How old is that document? My guess, VERY!
Id like to bring your attention to recent events, for example this year?

Also, if you take rhetoric from an ex-president to mean something, then when your president says iran must not be able to acquire nulcear power under any circumstances, it must mean, by your method, that iran is gonna get invaded?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2005.htm
And BTW, it's not only ex-presidents that are saying this.

does the US or even israel allow inspectors to come into top secret military facilities..... somehow i dont think so.

I think the IAEA should be pleased it even got to see one area...... i havnt heard of many countries allowing inspectors into one of their most top secret facilities....

does the US or even israel allow inspectors to come into top secret military facilities..... somehow i dont think so.

I think the IAEA should be pleased it even got to see one area...... i havnt heard of many countries allowing inspectors into one of their most top secret facilities....
Well, the fact that neither Israel nor the US has stated that it is their intention, and ultimate goal to destroy Iran, or any other country by any means necessary kind of gives them the benefit of the doubt as opposed to Iran. Besides, under the NNPT, the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, and as I have stated before, Israel never signed the NNPT.

Even though Iran has a right, in principal, to develop nukes, this developement greatly impugns the United States' interests. Because as a people we are only motivated by our own interests, we should not let Iran develop nukes, by force if necessary.

What great pressure?....Oh, yeah, that great pressure to give up ambitions for nuclear weapons....full of rewards for compliance....that great pressure....That is the great pressure you were reffering to, right?yes I am reffering to bulling...something like this:

US Moves for Preemptive Use of Nukes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

Israel.... the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons...Israel is allowed to have nukes...

Iran has as much rights as Israel. (or will have the minute the withdraw from the NPT)

does the US or even israel allow inspectors to come into top secret military facilities..... somehow i dont think so.


They don't have to.

NPT is basically to give nuclear power to member states and the inspection is to safeguard against secret builing of nukes.

The P5 already have nuke bombs, so there is no point in NPT monitoring them.

US does not have an obligation to have its nuke facilities monitored.

Israel is not a signatory and has no obligation.

But Iran is and they are obliged to.

Simple.

Israel is allowed to have nukes...

Iran has as much rights as Israel. (or will have the minute the withdraw from the NPT)
No, not really. If attacking imaginary enemies is morally equal to detering real enemies, then mabey. But other than that, I don't see how Iran has the same moral right as Israel to develop nuclear weapons.

I don't see how Iran has the same moral right as Israel to develop nuclear weapons.nobody has the MORAL rigth to develop Nukes....NOBODY.

NPT is basically to give nuclear power to member states and the inspection is to safeguard against secret builing of nukes.

The P5 already have nuke bombs, so there is no point in NPT monitoring them.

Israel is not a signatory and has no obligation.

But Iran is and they are obliged to.
Simple.you forgot Poland (North Korea)

you forgot Poland (North Korea)

yes, but the topic and discussion was on Iran, so I limited myself.

Btw, nobody has attempted to answer the two questions I raised

1. Has Iran demonstrated that they will be a responsible nuke power who will not proliferate to other state and non-state actors?

2. A nuclear shia Iran will make the sunni/wahabbi saudis wanna go nuclear. They have Pakistan which can loan them some. This will in turn make other regions in the area wanna go nuclear. It will be a domino effect.

In fact, what we are seeing now is the domino effect of US and UK going nuclear. To preserve parity USSR and France went nuclear correspondingly. USSR going nuclear led to China going nuclear which resulted in India and Pakistan going nuclear.

Don't we have enough nuclear states already?

Any more will lead to more and then more and eventually everynation will be aspiring and covertly acquiring nuclears.

And then all it would need for a global nuke shootout is for one mad man to launch one or one accidental launch and it is the end of life.

Think about it before advocating nukes for Iran as a knee jerk reaction (which is unjustified) to opposition to US policies in the past and present (fully justified).

yes, but the topic and discussion was on Iran, so I limited myself..the topic has become "Nuclear proliferation"...so feel free to answer...If you can.

Btw, nobody has attempted to answer the two questions I raised

I will.

1. Has Iran demonstrated that they will be a responsible nuke power who will not proliferate to other state and non-state actors?

2. A nuclear shia Iran will make the sunni/wahabbi saudis wanna go nuclear. They have Pakistan which can loan them some. This will in turn make other regions in the area wanna go nuclear. It will be a domino effect.

1. No.

2. Yes.

1. Has Iran demonstrated that they will be a responsible nuke power ...?.You can only "demonstrate" that...once you have the Nukes...

Like India or Pakistan have....maybe.

Don't we have enough nuclear states already?You would have more Credibility if you had posted that before your Country got inside the Private Club. ;)
(trough the window)

United Nations (23 September 2005- 07:43)
The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared in an angry and defiant address to the United Nations last night that his country is the victim of "nuclear apartheid" and set about lambasting Western governments accusing them of being state sponsors of terrorism around the world.

"State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism," President Ahmadinejad insisted to an audience that included a stone-faced British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He vehemently defended Iran's right to continue developing its nuclear capacity.
Iran's rights? Which rights are they? The right to kill gay people, do you support that? We don't need more nuclear powers. Since When was the Left in favour of nuclear armament? There are limits to national sovereignty.

That is all.

nobody has the MORAL rigth to develop Nukes....NOBODY.
Really? It sounded to my that you were advocating that Iran pursue nuclear weapons because it had the moral right. I guess that's just me though...

the topic has become "Nuclear proliferation"...so feel free to answer...If you can.
Not much of a difference from Iran. North Korea is a signatory to the NNPT and is subject to ispection of their nuclear facilities. And yes, we do have the right to impose our will on Kim Jong Il because we are the ones proping his regime up.

You would have more Credibility if you had posted that before your Country got inside the Private Club. ;)
(trough the window)
Through the window means legally, right?

Yea, honestly I think it's totally stupid that the US wants everyone else to quit making nuclear weapons. I mean, imagine this as two kids on the playground.

Iran: *finds a few rubber bands and some sticks and a rock and starts trying to put them together*
US: Hey, you can't make a slingshot. You might try to hurt someone with it.
Iran: Look who's talking. *points at the professionally-made slingshot in US's pocket and then to Japan with a giant medical patch over his eye*

yes I am reffering to bulling...something like this:

US Moves for Preemptive Use of Nukes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html
So you mean that saying we will preemptively destroy any nuclear weapons Iran procures before they have a chance to use them is a threat that requires Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Wow. There must be something I'm missing here....

Yea, honestly I think it's totally stupid that the US wants everyone else to quit making nuclear weapons. I mean, imagine this as two kids on the playground.

Iran: *finds a few rubber bands and some sticks and a rock and starts trying to put them together*
US: Hey, you can't make a slingshot. You might try to hurt someone with it.
Iran: Look who's talking. *points at the professionally-made slingshot in US's pocket and then to Japan with a giant medical patch over his eye*

And I am glad that the bulk of the left has finally shown its true colors: It turns out - as many charged and were summarily rebuffed for at the time - that the whole CND movement championed by the left, was in fact rooted in anti-american/west sympathies, and actually had nothing whatsoever to do with the stated aim of reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

And I am glad that the bulk of the left has finally shown its true colors: It turns out - as many charged and were summarily rebuffed for at the time - that the whole CND movement championed by the left, was in fact rooted in anti-american/west sympathies, and actually had nothing whatsoever to do with the stated aim of reducing the number of nuclear weapons.
That's certainly what it seems like, isn't it?

You can only "demonstrate" that...once you have the Nukes...

Like India or Pakistan have....maybe.


I disagree. Iran is simply not in the range of being a stable responsible nation, when it comes to nukes. They cannot give support to non-state actors and have a state sanctioned policy of "Death to XXX" and be considered as a responsible nation to be entrusted with nukes.


You would have more Credibility if you had posted that before your Country got inside the Private Club. ;)
(trough the window)

Hey, India still has a policy of global disarmament of nukes, probably the only nuke power to have this policy. So we do have some credibility on this issue. :p

I understand where you are coming from, but you would have to understand more about deterrance regime and such things when you are talking about new nuclear states.

Reg Iran, there are so many unanswered questions.

What would be a stable deterrence? What is the valley of stability? What would be their nuclear redlines? What would cause a breakdown of deterrence? Would a Iran leader do something that would cause deterrence to breakdown? How does one distinguish between an enemy that is "irrational" and "pretending to be irrational"? What constitutes escalation and what would be escalation control?

Heck, we don't even know where the real power lies, in Tehran or in Qom?

But I agree it is indeed hypocritical of US crying against Iran breaking NPT when they did nothing when China violated NPT and proliferated to Pakistan and Pakistan in turn proliferated to everybody and their cousin.

However, I don't see what good can come out of a nuclear Iran. It will only lead to the scenario I outlined earlier,

A nuclear shia Iran will make the sunni/wahabbi saudis wanna go nuclear. They have Pakistan which can loan them some. This will in turn make other regions in the area wanna go nuclear. It will be a domino effect.

Please look beyond Bush and your opposition to the current adminstration and even the faulty international policies of previous administrations.

I don't see what good can come out of a nuclear Iran. It will only lead to the scenario I outlined earlier.I don't see what good can come out of a nuclear India.

having India+Pakistan with Nukes can lead to several ugly scenarios.

Can you see what good can come out of Indian+Pakistan Nukes????...Because I can see 1000 bad things for every good thing you could ever imagine.

So you mean that saying we will preemptively destroy any nuclear weapons Iran procures before they have a chance to use them is a threat that requires Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Wow. There must be something I'm missing here....I yhink you need to read the article again.

Not much of a difference from Iran. North Korea is a signatory to the NNPT and is subject to ispection of their nuclear facilities. And yes, we do have the right to impose our will on Kim Jong Il because we are the ones proping his regime up.I didnt know you were The Chinese Gov. (I always wondered why your name was 01s :D

Yea, honestly I think it's totally stupid that the US wants everyone else to quit making nuclear weapons. I mean, imagine this as two kids on the playground.

Iran: *finds a few rubber bands and some sticks and a rock and starts trying to put them together*
US: Hey, you can't make a slingshot. You might try to hurt someone with it.
Iran: Look who's talking. *points at the professionally-made slingshot in US's pocket and then to Japan with a giant medical patch over his eye*BWAHAHAHAHAHA ... :D :D :D good one... :D

Paper shredders are wonderful inventions. Before it was put up for investigation, for instance, Enron, in addition to erasing all of its hard drives, shredded millions of pages of documents. It is time for the NPT to join in this illustrious tradition shared by fraudulent companies, those about to be sued, and those with bad ideas.

Paper shredders are wonderful inventions. Before it was put up for investigation, for instance, Enron, in addition to erasing all of its hard drives, shredded millions of pages of documents. It is time for the NPT to join in this illustrious tradition shared by fraudulent companies, those about to be sued, and those with bad ideas.the NPT was a good Idea...a great idea.

It was fumbled by the very country it favored the most...the US

Disclaimer: even if it favored US...it was good for the World.(as good as possible under the circumstances)

Best would be no nukes at all...but we can only hope...one day..

Also a nuclear shia Iran will pressure the sunni/wahabi Saudis (who will see their pre-eminence being undermined) to go nuclear. This inturn will make everybody in the region to have nuclear ambitions.

Are we prepared to face such a scenario?

I say why not? Give every nation in the Middle East the ability to turn the entire region into an uninhabitatable wastealand. Keyword being nation. That in itself, forces a giant sword of domacles over the heads of all these nations. We would in a most likely scenario, see a return of a Cold War except with far smaller participants. No nation there would ever risk a direct confrontation with each other because they know that to do so is to risk annihilation. What about nuclear proxies? Also not feasible. The Middle East is not that large, and the use of a proxy equipped with nuclear armaments would result in fallout affecting not just a target nation alone, resulting in a massive witch hunt and nuclear finger pointing.

The swords of domacles all hung together by a single thread. If one cuts the thread, they all die. Who, would cut that thread then? Only someone who wants the entire Middle East to become a nuclear wasteland. And so far, there is no one among the ruling elite in the Middle East that wants that.

I yhink you need to read the article again.
Could you point out exactly what I need to re-read? I thought I understood it before, but I must have missed a line or two.... :confused:

I didnt know you were The Chinese Gov. (I always wondered why your name was 01s :D
Dah, comrade, I am the Chinese government. We kick you so hard, you forget your own name.[/russian accent] ;)

I don't see what good can come out of a nuclear India.

having India+Pakistan with Nukes can lead to several ugly scenarios.

Can you see what good can come out of Indian+Pakistan Nukes????...Because I can see 1000 bad things for every good thing you could ever imagine.

I have already explained that India nuclearized because China had.

After the Chinese invasion of India in 1962 and occupation of Aksai Chin, we had to go nuclear to ensure parity and prevent further invasions.

How does this apply to Iran?


Has Iran been invaded by any nuclear countries?

Could you point out exactly what I need to re-read? I thought I understood it before, but I must have missed a line or two.... :confused:
you seem to think this new Preemptive doctrine is aimed at Nuclear states...

When its actually aimed at Countries suspected of having "WMD" states...Iraq would have qualified....Many countries in the ME, Asia, Africa, SA could be "suspected" of having WMD...Israel for example has a lot (im not talking about Nukes).

This is just an excuse to bully some "chosen" countries.

Has Iran been invaded by any nuclear countries?

With all the noise the US administration has been making about Iran? Maybe in a year or two.

Has Iran been invaded by any nuclear countries?the US and UK have killied their PM...and installed a puppet Gov...and taken over their Oil.

Does that answers your question?

Dah, comrade, I am the Chinese government. We kick you so hard, you forget your own name.[/russian accent] ;)LOL :D

dont you mean Mandarin accent?

I say why not? Give every nation in the Middle East the ability to turn the entire region into an uninhabitatable wastealand. Keyword being nation. That in itself, forces a giant sword of domacles over the heads of all these nations. We would in a most likely scenario, see a return of a Cold War except with far smaller participants. No nation there would ever risk a direct confrontation with each other because they know that to do so is to risk annihilation. What about nuclear proxies? Also not feasible. The Middle East is not that large, and the use of a proxy equipped with nuclear armaments would result in fallout affecting not just a target nation alone, resulting in a massive witch hunt and nuclear finger pointing.

The swords of domacles all hung together by a single thread. If one cuts the thread, they all die. Who, would cut that thread then? Only someone who wants the entire Middle East to become a nuclear wasteland. And so far, there is no one among the ruling elite in the Middle East that wants that.


There are some complications.

1. Chances are, there might be a madman who comes to the conclusion that

"F*** it, I wanna go meet my 72 in paradise, to hell with y'all".

2. This is also akin to giving the assault rifles to warring tribes fighting with spears. They would only use it to kill each other faster.

3. Even seemingly rational nations have been sucked into the cycle of escalation. You might think, well who would be that stupid to start something that they cannot win.

Well, history is replete of such incidences. The point is, it only takes one accident or a madman to make everything to go boom.

I don't see what good can come out of a nuclear India.I have already explained that India nuclearized because China had..

so your answer is..."Now India has the capability to kill Millions of Chinese or Pakistanis(by pressing 1 button)...Also as a result Pakistan can now Kill Millions of Indians."

How is that good?

you seem to think this new Preemptive doctrine is aimed at Nuclear states...

When its actually aimed at Countries suspected of having "WMD" states...Iraq would have qualified....Many countries in the ME, Asia, Africa, SA could be "suspected" of having WMD...Israel for example has a lot (im not talking about Nukes).

This is just an excuse to bully some "chosen" countries.
"...to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons..." Yeah, the US is out to kill everyone with this new doctrine. :rolleyes: This is merely a mesure to allow the destruction of known WMD stockpiles of hostile nations likely to use them against us or our allies. For instance, Iran gets nuclear weapons and stockpiles them somewhere. We attack those weapons before Iran gives them to a terrorist organization.

the US and UK have killied their PM...and installed a puppet Gov...and taken over their Oil.

Does that answers your question?

That is not invasion.

That would be subversion.

Far worse things have happened to many countries.

Should they all go nuclear?

He vehemently defended Iran's right to continue developing its nuclear capacity.
I can't say that I can blame him. Look what happened to Iraq.

1. Chances are, there might be a madman who comes to the conclusion thatand there is no "madman" in India???

There is some "Madman" in my country...heck...we elected one the call all the shots.

LOL :D

dont you mean Mandarin accent?
Dah, I'm Chinese government.*starts banging on desk*

I don't see what good can come out of a nuclear India..

so your answer is..."Now India has the capability to kill Millions of Chinese or Pakistanis(by pressing 1 button)...Also as a result Pakistan can now Kill Millions of Indians."

How is that good?

You are trying to compare disparate situations.

Iran does not face any invasion, let alone any existential threat, that would warrant it to acquire nuclear bomb.

Far worse things have happened to many countries.

Should they all go nuclear?Like I said...
Your would have sounded more Credible...had you posted that before YOUR country got inside the Private Nuke Club.

Iran does not face any invasion, let alone any existential threat, that would warrant it to acquire nuclear bomb.apparently the Iranian people does not agree with you...

and I am sure the Indian People did not agree with that line of tough...when they were about to Jump the window of the Private Club.

and there is no "madman" in India???

There is some "Madman" in my country...heck...we elected one the call all the shots.

No.

Nuclear doctrines are well established in all overtly nuclear countries. There is a stable deterrence regime between them.

Iran, with its support of non-state actors, cannot have a stable deterrance regime until and unless it lets go of its support to hezbollah and pan-shia ambitions.

And in all fairness, your madman will have to step down in another coupla years. But once a country goes nuclear, everything changes.

Please don't let your irritation and opposition of Bush translate into support for nuclear Iran.

No.

...
Please don't let your irritation ...No.

what I request is that India signs the NPT..and dismantles the Nukes...

I think the Cashmere situation is way to dangerous.

and if there is a NSposter from Pakistan I will tell him the same thing.

apparently the Iranian people does not agree with you...
So, by your line of thought, any country that feels threatened should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Thank god you're not a government official. A quote like that, and the world is one step closer to becoming a ball of glass.

So, by your line of thought, any country that feels threatened should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Thank god you're not a government official. A quote like that, and the world is one step closer to becoming a ball of glass.I feel that all countries should play by the same rules.

You are trying to compare disparate situations.

Iran does not face any invasion, let alone any existential threat, that would warrant it to acquire nuclear bomb.
Nope, no threats whatsoever:

U.S. warns Iran on nuclear threat (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/01/iran.nuclear/)

US's Bolton warns Iran, Syria over Iraqi border (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27297882.htm)

US warns Iran over nuclear plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483799.stm)

Mr Bolton, the US under-secretary of state, said: "There's no doubt that Iran continues a nuclear programme.

"We'll be looking seriously at what to do about Iran," he said at a security conference in Berlin.

Top general warns Iran not to underestimate U.S. military (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-28-abizaid-iran_x.htm)

I feel that all countries should play by the same rules.
Yes. And those rules include that if you openly state that your intentions are to get nuclear weapons to use against someone else, you don't get nuclear weapons.

No..what I request is that India signs the NPT..and dismantles the Nukes...

I think the Cashmere situation is way to dangerous.

and if there is a NSposter from Pakistan I will tell him the same thing.

Then your position should be global disarmament. FYI, I too am for global disarmament.

But since that ain't gonna happen, I would like to see the next best thing, which is no nukes for irresponsible nation.

Let Iran demonstrate that they are a responsible nation first. Responsible in the sense of non-nuclear proliferation to other irresponsible states and non-state actors.

I gotta go..I think you are too blinded by Bush hatred (not saying it is wrong or anything like that, mind you) to see beyond his policies and his antics. Take it FWIW and no offense intented. Cheers.

Nope, no threats whatsoever:

U.S. warns Iran on nuclear threat (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/01/iran.nuclear/)

US's Bolton warns Iran, Syria over Iraqi border (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27297882.htm)

US warns Iran over nuclear plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483799.stm)

Mr Bolton, the US under-secretary of state, said: "There's no doubt that Iran continues a nuclear programme.

"We'll be looking seriously at what to do about Iran," he said at a security conference in Berlin.

Top general warns Iran not to underestimate U.S. military (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-28-abizaid-iran_x.htm)
Again, those 'threats' stem from Irans nuclear program. Those nuclear weapons wont be much of a deterent of invasion if they are the cause of the invasion in the first place.

Yes. And those rules include that if you openly state that your intentions are to get nuclear weapons to use against someone else, you don't get nuclear weapons.there is only one country that has a adopted a Preemtive strikes policy ...there is only one Country that has actually used nukes on civileans.

Nope, no threats whatsoever:

U.S. warns Iran on nuclear threat (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/01/iran.nuclear/)

US's Bolton warns Iran, Syria over Iraqi border (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27297882.htm)

US warns Iran over nuclear plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483799.stm)

Mr Bolton, the US under-secretary of state, said: "There's no doubt that Iran continues a nuclear programme.

"We'll be looking seriously at what to do about Iran," he said at a security conference in Berlin.

Top general warns Iran not to underestimate U.S. military (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-28-abizaid-iran_x.htm)


Note that the threats are because of Iran's decision to acquire nuclear capability.

Fact is Iran did not (and still does not, despite Bush rhetoric) face any existential threat of invasion.

Iran does not face any invasion, let alone any existential threat....3 words(from the mouth of my favorite President :D )
Axis-Of-Evil.

There are some complications.

1. Chances are, there might be a madman who comes to the conclusion that

"F*** it, I wanna go meet my 72 in paradise, to hell with y'all".


To date, no one has come to power in a scenario where he started a fight knowing he would lose it all. Bin Laden after all, never exactly did any of the suicide bombing or fighting personally to risk his own personal skin. Those who get to power usually see it in their best interests to stay in power. Starting WWIII and recieving several thousand rads is not usually the best way to do it.


2. This is also akin to giving the assault rifles to warring tribes fighting with spears. They would only use it to kill each other faster.

In your case however, none of the tribes are actually fighting with each other directly. And besides, assault rifles is still a poor anology since said tribes would be limited to one kill per bullet. MOABs is closer since it then becomes one tribe a bomb.


3. Even seemingly rational nations have been sucked into the cycle of escalation. You might think, well who would be that stupid to start something that they cannot win.

Well, history is replete of such incidences. The point is, it only takes one accident or a madman to make everything to go boom.

History however, has not shown us any such madman who to date, has the ability and will to glass a city and suffer the same fate. The Cold War demonstratobly showed that no matter how much an opponent oppsed another, they were unwilling to suffer complete destruction in a war that at the very best, they would be able to inflict equal devastation on their foes, but no greater.

there is only one country that has a adopted a Preemtive strikes policy ...there is only one Country that has actually used nukes on civileans.
*sigh* The whole 'we used nukes, so we are evil' argument again....Why the hell did I dignify that with a response? :headbang:

"...to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons..." Yeah, the US is out to kill everyone with this new doctrine. :rolleyes: This is merely a mesure to allow the destruction of known WMD stockpiles of hostile nations likely to use them against us or our allies. For instance, Iran gets nuclear weapons and stockpiles them somewhere. We attack those weapons before Iran gives them to a terrorist organization.

You realize that given the wording, Iraq would have fallen under the same umbrella? The same umbrella which would have said, "Ok, nuke them" when there were no stockpiles? This switches from a no first use stance to a first use stance in an scenario where they are an aggressor.

*sigh* The whole 'we used nukes, so we are evil' argument again. Why the hell did I dignify that with a response? History is there to teach lessons.
Learn your lessons...it can only be good for you.

You realize that given the wording, Iraq would have fallen under the same umbrella? The same umbrella which would have said, "Ok, nuke them" when there were no stockpiles? This switches from a no first use stance to a first use stance in an scenario where they are an aggressor.
If there were no stockpiles, what were we seeing with our billion dollar satellites? What I'm trying to say is that the scenario is that we know where the stockpiles are and attack those stockpiles. If we didn't know where those stockpiles were, we weren't going to nuke them.

If there were no stockpiles, what were we seeing with our billion dollar satellites? What I'm trying to say is that the scenario is that we know where the stockpiles are and attack those stockpiles. If we didn't know where those stockpiles were, we weren't going to nuke them..3 words (from the mouth of my Favorite President :D )

Irak has WMD.

History is there to teach lessons.
Learn your lessons...it can only be good for you.
No matter how much history you learn, it will always repeat itself. It's human nature. But if you really want to advocate learning history (which is still a good thing BTW), then mabey you should practice what you preach.

3 words (from the mouth of my Favorite President :D )

Irak has WMD.
If Irak really didn't have WMD stockpiles that we knew about, then we wouldn't have attacked them. Afterall, you can't target what you can't see (or don't know about, for that matter)

No matter how much history you learn, it will always repeat itself. It's human nature. But if you really want to advocate learning history (which is still a good thing BTW), then mabey you should practice what you preach.I did...I learned my very recent history...and I tried to explain my family and friends why they should not want "4-more-years".

I did...I learned my very recent history...and I tried to explain my family and friends why they should not want "4-more-years".
I was refering to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If there were no stockpiles, what were we seeing with our billion dollar satellites? What I'm trying to say is that the scenario is that we know where the stockpiles are and attack those stockpiles. If we didn't know where those stockpiles were, we weren't going to nuke them.

What were we seeing? I don't know, maybe hmm, carefully doctored images perhaps? Or maybe it was actually a trailer park down in California perhaps? Cause we've never actually seen a trace of any of the WMDs Iraq was accused of producing.

Just like the Administration claimed there were "WMDs" in Iraq and invaded on that premise, what is to stop them from making a similarly dubious claim and commencing thermonuclear destruction of the area?

Perhaps Bush and co will next claim that Teheran has nuclear weapons programs in the city itself and glass it?

This is a blank cheque for the use of nuclear weapons to anybody who is willing to spin a story of "WMDs over here". No more, no less.

I was refering to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.I am refering to IraqGate and KatrinaGate.

I GTG...some work needs to be done...

I ll be back for more. :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :D :D

What were we seeing? I don't know, maybe hmm, carefully doctored images perhaps? Or maybe it was actually a trailer park down in California perhaps? Cause we've never actually seen a trace of any of the WMDs Iraq was accused of producing.

Just like the Administration claimed there were "WMDs" in Iraq and invaded on that premise, what is to stop them from making a similarly dubious claim and commencing thermonuclear destruction of the area?

Perhaps Bush and co will next claim that Teheran has nuclear weapons programs in the city itself and glass it?

This is a blank cheque for the use of nuclear weapons to anybody who is willing to spin a story of "WMDs over here". No more, no less.
Fine. Let's assume the president claims there are WMDs stashed in the city itself, which isn't too farfetched since they want to put them where we wont get to them. Let's say that we just stopped caring about collateral damage or civilians or PR or regional stability or anything else. Wouldn't the threat of using nuclear weapons against Teheran, or anywhere else in Iran, scare the government enough to open up to inspections to prove that there aren't any stashed in the city if indeed there aren't any? That would be what a sane leader would do, and it's only fair to point out what a sane leader would do because you are all under the impression that Iran's leaders are sane. Keep in mind, the US doesn't even use 250 lb. conventional dumb bombs anywhere near civilians, so that situation is very unlikely to happen.

Fine. Let's assume the president claims there are WMDs stashed in the city itself, which isn't too farfetched since they want to put them where we wont get to them.

Mmm, lets not forget that claims and reality sometimes differ. A city makes a poor place to store a nuclear weapon however, unless one wishes to glass said city. Security would be difficult, and there really isn't very much you can do to protect it from focused air raids whereas silos and reinforced underground bunkers were built to provide such protection.


Let's say that we just stopped caring about collateral damage or civilians or PR or regional stability or anything else.

The idea of greenlighting nuclear weapons as a first strike use weapon for pre-emptive motives already presents the basis that the person who proposed it no longer cares about collateral damage or civilians or even PR, much less regional stability due to the fact that the contamination will not be limited to the blast zone alone and it's generational effects.


Wouldn't the threat of using nuclear weapons against Teheran, or anywhere else in Iran, scare the government enough to open up to inspections to prove that there aren't any stashed in the city if indeed there aren't any?

Saddam Hussein was willing to open up to inspections for proof prior to the 2nd Gulf War. The current Administration was beyond caring. What makes you think that if they really wanted to wage war against Iran, they would care about inspections?

Warhawks after all, are quite capable of ignoring any views save for their own when it suits them.


That would be what a sane leader would do, and it's only fair to point out what a sane leader would do because you are all under the impression that Iran's leaders are sane.

So far, they haven't done anything that can be really described as insane. Despotic perhaps, oppressive certainly. Intolerant yes. But insane? Not really. They haven't started any wars where it was clear that they would lose or decided to raze their industrial and educational base to the ground.


Keep in mind, the US doesn't even use 250 lb. conventional dumb bombs anywhere near civilians, so that situation is very unlikely to happen.

I do recall several instances of wedding parties in both Iraq and Afghanistan being on the recieving end of air dropped dumb bombs. The air force justified it by saying they recieved enemy fire, but witnesses on the ground disagreed. Additionally, were there not cases of villages being bombed on false tip offs? What do you call that?

You say unlikely. I say quite possible. The moment the administration feels that the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon becomes acceptable, we will most likely see them being deployed very soon on targets of dubious threat.

That would be what a sane leader would do, and it's only fair to point out what a sane leader would do because you are all under the impression that ....Normally people talks like that about Bush