NationStates Jolt Archive

As some of you might know, Ahmadinejad sent a personal letter to Bush (here it is (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_06ahmadinejadletter.pdf), and interesting read!) apparently in an attempt to get a settlement on the nuke issue, although another (perhaps more likely) explanation is that it is a stunt to get more people to agree with Iran's position.

Meanwhile in New York, representatives of the UNSC-Members, plus Germany, met to find a common line. They failed.

So do you think that once Iran has nukes, perhaps the major powers will learn that their differences shouldn't get in the way of trying to establish certan global standards in international politics? Or will things simply continue as they have, with the end being a nuclear middle east, from Egypt over Saudi Arabia to Pakistan on the other end?

By the way, what do you think will happen once Iran gets its nukes? What will happen next?

Another analysis of the situation:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,415350,00.html

By the way, what do you think will happen once Iran gets its nukes? What will happen next?
Turkey follows? http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/4375257.asp

Iran isn't the only muslim country with the technology.

EDIT: They are selecting sites, I believe.

Nothing will change. People in power will always play their little political games rather than reach any intelligent agreement.

(Whether anything actually needs to be done about Iran is another issue altogether.)

Why is Iran having nuclear weapons even such a bad thing at all?

Why is Iran having nuclear weapons even such a bad thing at all?

It's not. Heck, we should even give them to Al Qaeda while we're at it. Nukes for everyone!

It's not. Heck, we should even give them to Al Qaeda while we're at it. Nukes for everyone!
I believe that is called a "slippery slope fallacy".

Why is Iran having nuclear weapons even such a bad thing at all?
They come from a culture that is not afraid of death, ergo they may have the balls to use them despite MAD?

Why is Iran having nuclear weapons even such a bad thing at all?

You better also believe that everyone should be given assault rifles.

I believe that is called a "slippery slope fallacy".

I believe that Iran may use nukes, or sell them to Al Qaeda. Since there is a reasonable chance of Iran selling nukes to Al Qaeda, then it is called a logical implication, not a slippery slope fallacy. If A implies B and B is something bad, then A must also be bad. Al Qaeda having nukes would be too great of a risk to accept.

Since there is a reasonable chance of Iran selling nukes to Al Qaeda...
For this to be true, the two would have to not be diametrically opposed to each other in politics, religion and goals.

goals.

Really? See, "death to the West" seems to be a pretty common goal. You know, the whole "death to America" marches, 9/11, etc. Or perhaps you are saying that Al Qaeda loves America, deep down?

They come from a culture that is not afraid of death, ergo they may have the balls to use them despite MAD?
They come from a culture where a few young men are not afraid to die. The leaders of Iran, like most people, are very afraid of death no matter what they claim to believe.
I believe that Iran may use nukes, or sell them to Al Qaeda. Since there is a reasonable chance of Iran selling nukes to Al Qaeda, then it is called a logical implication, not a slippery slope fallacy. If A implies B and B is something bad, then A must also be bad. Al Qaeda having nukes would be too great of a risk to accept.
If a nuclear terrorist attack was traced back to Iran, they would be finished. It would be suicidal for them to deal with Al Qaeda.
Hell, even if such an attack wasn’t traceable back to Iran, under the current administration or any one like it, we would probably end up at war with Iran because of it in much the same way that we are at war with Iraq as an indirect result of 9/11. It is actually in Iran’s best interest to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists, and don’t think that their leaders don’t know that.

Really? See, "death to the West" seems to be a pretty common goal. You know, the whole "death to America" marches, 9/11, etc. Or perhaps you are saying that Al Qaeda loves America, deep down?
No, I beleive he's saying that Iran doesn't have much of a beaf with the US as long as we don't assist Isreal.

Interesting read. Kind of reduces the image of the rabid loon.

Hmmm maybe it wasn't a failure. Maybe the Pnacers want them to have nukes since the USSR is gone. Nice new cold war?

The leaders of Iran, like most people, are very afraid of death no matter what they claim to believe.

So you're putting you faith in Ahmadinejad's sanity? That's a gamble that most people would not be willing to take. Why do you want the proliferation of nukes? You are vehemently pro-gun, right?

See, "death to the West" seems to be a pretty common goal.
You haven't gotten around reading Ahmadinejad's letter yet, have you?

Tells you pretty comprehensively what he's after.

So you're putting you faith in Ahmadinejad's sanity? That's a gamble that most people would not be willing to take.
Like most people able to obtain and maintain power, he seems reasonable to me, at least when it some to his own self-preservation.
Why do you want the proliferation of nukes?
I am not for or against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. All I know is that since WWII, nukes have been nothing less than a tool of peace. They sure kept us out of war with the Soviets.
You are vehemently pro-gun, right?
As far as being pro-gun applies to the US I am, but the two issues really have nothing to do with each other.

They come from a culture where a few young men are not afraid to die. The leaders of Iran, like most people, are very afraid of death no matter what they claim to believe.
That is 100% the truth, but it is also completely meaningless. The leaders are putting on a show and people are believe it to be true. The Iranian Admin is saying they would sacrifice their lives for their principles and nobody is willing to call the bluff.

If a nuclear terrorist attack was traced back to Iran, they would be finished. It would be suicidal for them to deal with Al Qaeda.

Yeah, but I bet you $10 that if someone blackmarkets a backpack nuke to Al-Qaeda and that seller's great-grandmother visited Iran once, that would be conclusive evidence that Iran has ties to Al-Qaeda.

That is 100% the truth, but it is also completely meaningless. The leaders are putting on a show and people are believe it to be true. The Iranian Admin is saying they would sacrifice their lives for their principles and nobody is willing to call the bluff.
Yep.
Yeah, but I bet you $10 that if someone blackmarkets a backpack nuke to Al-Qaeda and that seller's great-grandmother visited Iran once, that would be conclusive evidence that Iran has ties to Al-Qaeda.
Which you'll see I agree with if you read what immediatly follows the quote you just replied to.

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today
there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on
word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

..

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets.

“A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this
world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”
...

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?



What about us polytheists, Ahmediamjihadi ?

The self-righteousness of this idiot is amazing...

I believe that is called a "slippery slope fallacy".
Not really, as much of the same rhetoric is used by both AQ and Iran when it comes to Israel. Not to mention what else that idiot in Iran has said.

Which you'll see I agree with if you read what immediatly follows the quote you just replied to.

Oh I know ... I was concurring in my own ..... (idiom sir?) idiom!

This
http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/gfx/1998/images/earth-explosion.jpg

Normally I'd weigh in on the side of the moderates and give benefit of the doubt to Iran but.... something about the timing of this seems to, well, politically motivated (and not in a good way).

I feel it was an attempt to split the SC even further (Russia and China from the others) by saying 'hey look, we tried at a compromise *shrug* '' It might have worked for now, bought them a little breathing room.

I'm cautious about this one.

I feel it was an attempt to split the SC even further (Russia and China from the others) by saying 'hey look, we tried at a compromise *shrug* '' It might have worked for now, bought them a little breathing room.

I'm cautious about this one.

This is nothing but playing to the gallery...the domestic and the "Arab street" gallery.

I am beginning to think that the Shi'ite clergy leadership in Iran is in competition with AQ for the leadership of the "ummah" (atleast in consolidating Shias with that rallying point)..