WORLD: Obama Says Iran Can Go Nuclear [Archive]

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 10:05 AM

A president that doesnt want to impose american values on another country? Who'd have thought... Maybe he's just calling their bluff. But this is a shift away from jew nuts and it should be welcomed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_obama_interview

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 37 mins agoLONDON – President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy — provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations"Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious" Obama said.

Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Obama leaves in the evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that "they can embrace and affirm.";

Obama added that there is a danger "when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 10:10 AM

I'll believe it when they allow us to inspect all their sites without restriction and give up all their centrifuges.

If they were that interested only in power they could have another country build them light water reactors that don't leave material that can be used for weapons.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 10:17 AM

Thanks Obama! For undermining 40 years of work over there! (not all good, but still)

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 10:19 AM

I suppose this "40 years of work" was aimed at preventing Iran from nuclear technology by not talking them. The silent treatment has gone swimingly. Angry highschool girlfriend diplomacy--brilliant!

Pharon

06-02-2009, 10:30 AM

redsox39

06-02-2009, 10:32 AM

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 11:16 AM

redsox39

06-02-2009, 11:31 AM

Yes, because there's only one issue at play here. That's the problem with people like you. You focus so hard on one thing because you have no vision and ignore anything else that gets in the way. Close-minded ignorance is no way to approach a problem much less resolve it.

I was more poking fun at your anti-Israel thing there Pizz. Lighten up.

I still don't see how you believe this sitting down and talking crap. You have totally written off ever seeing eye to eye with half the people in this country, but you believe you can get through to a crazy dictator who vows to wipe a country off the map and funds suicide bombers who blow up women and children. Who doesn't believe there are gay people in his country and oppresses his people. The most brilliant negotiator is not going to make a difference and all you do is lend credibility to his cause by talking to him.

But yeah, might as well throw gas on that fire, maybe it will go out.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 11:42 AM

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 11:45 AM

But would Iran use those nukes to unilaterally bomb israel, dont be stupid.

No, but if they could get away with Hamas or Hezbollah doing it by proxy, I don't think they would hesitate.

Morfin

06-02-2009, 11:53 AM

OMG Iran is going to nuke Israel. OMG North Korea is going to nuke South Korea.

Boy, lucky you guys didn't live through the 1950's and the Cold War, you'd have been shitting your pants with fear about those evil Russkies.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 11:59 AM

No, but if they could get away with Hamas or Hezbollah doing it by proxy, I don't think they would hesitate.

Again, that's rediculous. A nuclear bomb would easily destroy an entire city. The only jewish cities that arabs care about are pretty much populated 50/50 jews and arabs. It would not only piss off jews but all the arab nations as well. You cant pinpoint the damage of a rogue nuclear warhead. I mean there are conventional bombs capable of wiping out entire city blocks, why hasnt one been detonated in tel aviv? Plus anything like that would give israel the green light to annihilate Iran which is something that they would gladly do.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:04 PM

Yes because Amajinadad is actually in charge. How's that coolaid? The only thing I have written off is blind war-mongering and I have an adequate basis for doing so, see: the last 8 years. That "lend credibility" argument is bullshit. Look how far they've come without "credibility". They dont give a fuck about whether or not they are seen as credible. They've been doing their own thing regardless and rightfully so. America has no right to police the world. If america wants to get involved an try to resolve world problems, by all means. But they cannot step into a sovereign nation and tell that nation what to do. We cannot stifle scientific development based on an irrational fear. Does Iran want nukes? I dont know. But would Iran use those nukes to unilaterally bomb israel, dont be stupid.

I know...I really have a hard time with that one. Telling another country you can't have what we have. But we aren't dealing with Russia, or even a stable government. We are dealing with a crazy ideal. So, let's assume Amajinadad isn't in charge or won't blow Israel or any Western country to hell. Can you say the same thing about those behind him? You know there are people, in that country, deep down that want to Nuke Israel. And then, like Hanover said:

No, but if they could get away with Hamas or Hezbollah doing it by proxy, I don't think they would hesitate.

Agreed. They already know the world is a bunch of pussies now. So if they just supply the weapons that kill our troops, we won't do anything about it. The Roadside bombs? Iranian. The RPG's? Iranian. The Expolsives and suicide belts? Iranian. So what if the Nukes come from Iran, they didn't actually shoot them, Hamas/Hezbollah/Wrath of Islam did.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:05 PM

Again, that's rediculous. A nuclear bomb would easily destroy an entire city. The only jewish cities that arabs care about are pretty much populated 50/50 jews and arabs. It would not only piss off jews but all the arab nations as well. You cant pinpoint the damage of a rogue nuclear warhead. I mean there are conventional bombs capable of wiping out entire city blocks, why hasnt one been detonated in tel aviv? Plus anything like that would give israel the green light to annihilate Iran which is something that they would gladly do.

lol, oh yeah, the fucking Muslim bombers really give a shit if they kill other Muslims. Jesus Christ, what planet do you live on?

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:07 PM

A planet that isnt controled by irrational fear. It's one thing to launch bombs across a border, it's another thing to wipe out entire cities.
I know...I really have a hard time with that one. Telling another country you can't have what we have. But we aren't dealing with Russia, or even a stable government. We are dealing with a crazy ideal. So, let's assume Amajinadad isn't in charge or won't blow Israel or any Western country to hell. Can you say the same thing about those behind him? You know there are people, in that country, deep down that want to Nuke Israel.

Of course, but there are also people (you) in this country that want to nuke Iran. Does that mean it's gonna happen? Plus how is Iran an unstable government? They are in the midst of democratic elections, they have a court system and infulstructure. Just because their laws and ideals are different than america doesnt make them unstable. Infact their stability is in spite of covert american efforts to create instability.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:12 PM

Of course, but there are also people (you) in this country that want to nuke Iran. Does that mean it's gonna happen?

We aren't run by a dictator either. Its a bit different. And the second we elect someone who vows to wipe another country off the planet, ask me again. Plus, I love how you try to label me an extremist. You the extremist who is pretending, not me. I don't want us to ever use Nukes. I can just use common sense and not try to spin the shit out of things so they will sound right in my mind.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:14 PM

Again, coolaid. There's no spin here. I know what I know and I also know what I dont know. The difference between you and me is that I dont act on assumptions based on fear generated by people with questionable motives.

Kerjack

06-02-2009, 12:18 PM

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:18 PM

Again, coolaid.

Nice Pizz.

You live in this world where fact don't matter and feelings over take you. That's fine.

But the fact that you can't convice me that you aren't absolutely wrong here, makes me chuckle that you think talking with Iran will help.

Why don't you just build them a stage to beat you up on while you are at it?

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:21 PM

Sorry Pizz, I want to be with you on this but the risks outweigh the gains in my mind. Both for us and them. When a nation risks pushing closer to war over an alternative power source of which they don't really have a immediate need that makes one think there is something missing from the picture.

And well, its not hard to find what might be missing here given the energy source and the regions history/current condition. North Korea just wanted clean nuclear power remember, and they really could have used it to. But that is not how it turned out.

God Dammit Kerjack! Quit using facts, history and the lives of millions of people to justify your thoughts! We should focus on "feelings" and try to think what those people might "feel" like if we told them they can't have nukes because it put the whole region in even more danger than they already are. Put down the "coolaid". - Pizz

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:22 PM

What facts? There are no facts, just fearmongering by people who have an econmic interest in waging war.

Morfin

06-02-2009, 12:28 PM

How about this? Obama says that he wants to open a dialogue with Iran regarding their nuclear resources. Reversing years of a diplomatic position where we will not negotiate without preconditions, Obama says he is willing to listen. And, as the original article states,

"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations"Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious" Obama said.I don't see what the problem is. RedSox and Hanover seem to be saying, "This guy has always been an asshole, so let's treat him like one." Obama seems to be saying, "Yeah, maybe he is, but let's hear him out and if he doesn't respond to the U.S.'s overtures, then we'll talk "deeper sanction."

What is the problem with this approach? How has this undermined "40 years worth of work?" Especially since, if we and the CIA had kept its mitts out of Iran in the first place in terms of propping up the Shah, maybe we wouldn't be in the position that we found ourselves in 1979 and maybe today.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:29 PM

Sorry Pizz, I want to be with you on this but the risks outweigh the gains in my mind. Both for us and them. When a nation risks pushing closer to war over an alternative power source of which they don't really have a immediate need that makes one think there is something missing from the picture.

And well, its not hard to find what might be missing here given the energy source and the regions history/current condition. North Korea just wanted clean nuclear power remember, and they really could have used it to. But that is not how it turned out.

What makes you say Iran has no need for nuclear energy? Plus it's not just energy but it is scientific development. We mock other countries because they are poor and underdeveloped (those dirty camelfuckers) but we condem them for trying to move forward out of fear. Like I said, I dont know if Iran wants nukes but I cannot see them using them. Does the US have a need for solar energy? We can burn all the coal we need. North Korea is a communist regeme whose survival and very self worth is based on military power, that has nothing to do with Iran.

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 12:30 PM

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:30 PM

What facts? There are no facts, just fearmongering by people who have an econmic interest in waging war.

Yeah, fuck, who will I sell my stockpile of tanks to if we can't go to war. Jesus, who is drinking the Kool-aide?

This might come as a surprise to you, but I don't work for Haliburton and I don't have a financial stake in war. I just call it like I see it.

And I am trying to find out where I even called for war against Iran. I am against them having nukes.

Don't try to justify your bullshit by words in people's mouths.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:34 PM

What is the problem with this approach? How has this undermined "40 years worth of work?" Especially since, if we and the CIA had kept its mitts out of Iran in the first place in terms of propping up the Shah, maybe we wouldn't be in the position that we found ourselves in 1979 and maybe today.

The problem is that people like redsox have been manipulated by years of "us vs. them" propoganda. There are monsters under his bed but he is too affraid to check if those monsters are real.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:36 PM

North Korea has nothing to do with Iran.

I bet you fell for every "What's on your shirt?" and "Made you look!" joke as a kid, didn't you?

Kerjack

06-02-2009, 12:37 PM

I have no problem with talks but if there is even a ounce of 'give and take' then I think we screwed the pooch. If they want clean power then it has to be of zero risk. No budging on that key point. Basically doing what Hanover said in post #2 would be fine by me.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:38 PM

Yeah, fuck, who will I sell my stockpile of tanks to if we can't go to war. Jesus, who is drinking the Kool-aide?

This might come as a surprise to you, but I don't work for Haliburton and I don't have a financial stake in war. I just call it like I see it.

And I am trying to find out where I even called for war against Iran. I am against them having nukes.

Don't try to justify your bullshit by words in people's mouths.

I'm not saying that you work for Haliburton nor am I saying that you have a financial stake in war. What I am saying is that you have been douped by the people that do. You may call it like you see it but is what you're seeing actually real? I dont think it is. I cannot say that I know it isnt but I would like to find out. You are too affraid to even consider the fact that you may be wrong.

Kerjack

06-02-2009, 12:42 PM

What makes you say Iran has no need for nuclear energy? Plus it's not just energy but it is scientific development. We mock other countries because they are poor and underdeveloped (those dirty camelfuckers) but we condem them for trying to move forward out of fear. Like I said, I dont know if Iran wants nukes but I cannot see them using them. Does the US have a need for solar energy? We can burn all the coal we need. North Korea is a communist regeme whose survival and very self worth is based on military power, that has nothing to do with Iran.

Solar energy can't blow up Canada. Nuclear development is not the only area of research. If we did not already have nukes I would not want to see plants made that could lead to them here either given our track record in the last 8 years.

Morfin

06-02-2009, 12:43 PM

I am against them having nukes.

And Iran is probably against Israel and the U.S. having nukes. And India is against Pakistan having nukes. And Pakistan is against India having nukes.

The U.S. does not have the right (nor should it have the right) to dictate to any country whether they can or cannot have nuclear weapon capability. If that is anyone's domain, it is the U.N.

To the extent that Obama is extending an offer to open a dialogue and maybe ease tensions between Iran and Israel, I do not see a downside. Clearly, there is nothing in the various countries' current positions that indicates any chance of anyone backing down or changing positions. If this can ease the tension and decrease rhetoric, why not try it. If Iran then says, "Fuck you," or rejects openness, then the U.N. can act.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:45 PM

I bet you fell for every "What's on your shirt?" and "Made you look!" joke as a kid, didn't you?

So if someone says, "what's on your shirt?" You just close your eyes and try to punch them in the face? It's actually quite telling that you use an analogy involving the conduct of children, when as adults it's pretty easy to tell whether or not someone asking, "what's on your shirt?" is making a genuine inquiry.

Kerjack

06-02-2009, 12:48 PM

I'm not saying that you work for Haliburton nor am I saying that you have a financial stake in war. What I am saying is that you have been douped by the people that do. You may call it like you see it but is what you're seeing actually real? I dont think it is. I cannot say that I know it isnt but I would like to find out. You are too affraid to even consider the fact that you may be wrong.

Even if that is true. If a child had a gun pointed at me and told me not to drink vitamin enhanced water vs regular water I would think it unwise to do so anyway. Even if the kid is a nut. He is a nut with a gun and I'm not doing to die drinking regular water while waiting for him to gain some sense or for his ADD to kick in and be distracted by something else.

Analogies are the worst tool ever because they are almost certainly flawed but I can't help myself. THEY ARE SO FUN.

freegood

06-02-2009, 12:52 PM

It was telling when the Russians offered to send them nuclear fuel with the bonus of exporting potentially nuclear grade waste that came with it only for Iran to reject the compromise.

This is an interesting first step, but like all the other American statesmen before him, Obama might find himself out of his league.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 12:52 PM

Solar energy can't blow up Canada. Nuclear development is not the only area of research. If we did not already have nukes I would not want to see plants made that could lead to them here either given our track record in the last 8 years.

Foreign policy from a guy who is too affraid to touch a girl. Even given that track record, did we nuke Iraq off the map?

redsox39

06-02-2009, 12:58 PM

To the extent that Obama is extending an offer to open a dialogue and maybe ease tensions between Iran and Israel, I do not see a downside. Clearly, there is nothing in the various countries' current positions that indicates any chance of anyone backing down or changing positions. If this can ease the tension and decrease rhetoric, why not try it. If Iran then says, "Fuck you," or rejects openness, then the U.N. can act.

So you can't see a downside? Really?

Then I don't think you are seeing both sides of this.

Can I see the benefits of meeting with them? Sure. But I think the problems outweigh them.

I guess world leaders where just retarded for hundreds of years, and it took the brilliance of Pizz, Morphin and Obama to make the world see that Jimmy Carter was a genius!!

Morfin

06-02-2009, 01:00 PM

So, tell me the downside, so I can see both sides.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 01:01 PM

So if someone says, "what's on your shirt?" You just close your eyes and try to punch them in the face? It's actually quite telling that you use an analogy involving the conduct of children, when as adults it's pretty easy to tell whether or not someone asking, "what's on your shirt?" is making a genuine inquiry.

lol, hence the, "When you were a kid" part.

It just seems your infatuation with big mean companies and poor little dictators seems a bit on the pollyanna childish side. As if you are are trying to impress people who don't really care but might give you a piece of candy.

Kerjack

06-02-2009, 01:07 PM

Foreign policy from a guy who is too affraid to touch a girl. Even given that track record, did we nuke Iraq off the map?

Did we need to to get our war and our oil?

Also it should be said I'd be more comfortable with letting them do what ever the hell they wanted in their own borders, as I'm not a fan of the minority report mentality, if given that shit does hit the fan and they use directly or allow the use of nukes from their stockpile indirectly if I felt more confident that the people and the world wouldn't cry foul at a 'unmeasured response'.

Should real evidence surface (none of that Iraq stuff) that they where in cahoots, then its obliteration or total compliance ala Japan/Germany WWII. No wiggle room.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 01:12 PM

lol, hence the, "When you were a kid" part.

It just seems your infatuation with big mean companies and poor little dictators seems a bit on the pollyanna childish side. As if you are are trying to impress people who don't really care but might give you a piece of candy.

Indeed, I am a cynic. But where were the cynics when it was sworn up and down that IraQ had nuclear weapons? I'm not against "big mean" companies nor do coddle dictators. There are lots of bad people in the world doing horrible things to other human biengs. And if your intent is to make the world a better place, you should start bitching about the sudan, somalia, and burma. Because bad things are ACTUALLY happening there. But instead you are infatuated with what could happen in a country that wants to advance scientifically. Have you not learned from the the invasion of Iraq? The very same rhetoric made the US an international bully and we still havent recovered.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 01:14 PM

Did we need to to get our war and our oil?

Also it should be said I'd be more comfortable with letting them do what ever the hell they wanted in their own borders, as I'm not a fan of the minority report mentality, if given that shit does hit the fan and they use directly or allow the use of nukes from their stockpile indirectly if I felt more confident that the people and the world wouldn't cry foul at a 'unmeasured response'.

Should real evidence surface (none of that Iraq stuff) that they where in cahoots, then its obliteration or total compliance ala Japan/Germany WWII. No wiggle room.

That's my point. There is no real evidence just fearmongering. Of course the stakes are high but that is no reason to act irrationally.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 01:21 PM

So, tell me the downside, so I can see both sides.

Besides giving him the credibilty he needs so badly, since his support is wavering in his country, it just allows his a larger platform to spew his hate. And who is going to be the country that gives in and makes concessions? Iran? lol, you have got to be kidding.
The best, realistic, end to this meeting is Iran has Nuclear power and we can inspect it if we schedule our visits 6 months in advance.

The Worst is, they tell us to fuck off. He looks strong in front of his people and gains the support he has been lacking for appearing strong in front of that great US Bully. They have the Nuclear power anyway, and turn it into nukes. Every other country that is "friendly" but not really, like China, Russia, etc can take notes. North Korea will launch more shitty missiles into the ocean to celebrate. And we are in the same boat we were in before, just with a rougher sea.

If anyone truly believes that they will not make weapons, you need serious help. It is not "fear" mongering, as Keith Olberman Pizz states. It is just being realistic. Would I want them to have it anyways? No, probably not. Did they earn any points by making outright threats against Israel? Nope.

And if Nuclear "energy" is what is needed to power your country and all the developed countries already have it, why hasn't the US built a bunch more Nuclear Power Plants? In fact, when was the last time we built one?

If Iran put half of the money they have been speading on gaining "nuclear power" on harnessing the Natural Gas they sit on, they wouldn't have to be importing it from Russia and could power their energy needs for a minnimum of 300 years. So, excuse me if I call it like I see it.

Its a move to empower a crazy zealot, and Obama justs wants PR for the crazy, dipshit masses back at home. Obama the great, doing exactly what no one was dumb smart enough to do before! Why didn't anyone else ever think about just talking to them???

But if you really want to know what the downside is...just read military strategy dating back to "The Art of War" all the way up to "It Doesn't Take a Hero". Giving your enemy a platform and raising his credibility is not only retarded, it is dangerous.

Kerjack

06-02-2009, 01:22 PM

That's my point. There is no real evidence just fearmongering. Of course the stakes are high but that is no reason to act irrationally.

Alright, but if we die I get to kick you in the nuts in the afterlife.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 01:26 PM

did we nuke Iraq off the map?

No we didn't. Because that is not what we do. We give a shit about collateral damage and try not to kill civilians on purpose. It happens, but it isn't like we are carpet bombing the farmers market.

Now go back to the Iran/Iraq war. Just read about it for like 5 min. If you think that they would not have nuked the living (glowing)fuck out of each other if they could have, you are crazy. They used every WMD they had and tested a few new ones.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 01:34 PM

Indeed, I am a cynic. But where were the cynics when it was sworn up and down that IraQ had nuclear weapons? I'm not against "big mean" companies nor do coddle dictators. There are lots of bad people in the world doing horrible things to other human biengs. And if your intent is to make the world a better place, you should start bitching about the sudan, somalia, and burma. Because bad things are ACTUALLY happening there. But instead you are infatuated with what could happen in a country that wants to advance scientifically. Have you not learned from the the invasion of Iraq? The very same rhetoric made the US an international bully and we still havent recovered.

I have been to Sudan. I helped my father in law build a radio tower there in 2002. I have had Sudanese Refugees live in my house. Don't fucking talk to me about Africa you fucking wanna be George Clooney. I voluenteer with the largest Sudanese refugee population in the United States.

I help get them jobs and acclimate them to US life. Do you know the entire concept of time is completely foreign to them? they have no idea of being on time, being late, or using a clock. Did you know they don't even have "towns" or "cities" when you ask where they are from? They are from "Camp 23" or "Camp 47". For their whole lives. All because of Islamic Dictators. So yes, I have seen, dealt with, traveled to, and helped directly with Africa's problems.

What is your take on this, I would love to hear it.

Pharon

06-02-2009, 01:38 PM

Afric0wn3D!!

freegood

06-02-2009, 01:43 PM

Now go back to the Iran/Iraq war. Just read about it for like 5 min. If you think that they would not have nuked the living (glowing)fuck out of each other if they could have, you are crazy. They used every WMD they had and tested a few new ones.

The West gave Saddam WMDs and nuclear tech. You can thank the Israelis for blowing up the latter.

I think you're overestimating how much Iran is out to "get us". They can't even launch a missile across the ocean.

Das Kahlua

06-02-2009, 01:44 PM

And Iran is probably against Israel and the U.S. having nukes. And India is against Pakistan having nukes. And Pakistan is against India having nukes.

And yet the US and Israel have never used them against Iran, and neither India nor Pakistan have used them against each other. There is plenty of evidence, however, to show that Iran has provided all sorts of support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah. It is not so hard to believe that said support wouldn't be limited to only conventional arms. Considering that Iran is sitting on a sea of oil, there is not a necessity for them to develop nuclear technology; weaponry would be the next logical goal.

The U.S. does not have the right (nor should it have the right) to dictate to any country whether they can or cannot have nuclear weapon capability. If that is anyone's domain, it is the U.N.

Sure it does. The UN is completely powerless, and Iran knows this. At the end of the day, the US has to look out for itself and its interests, and can't rely on anyone else, the UN included, to protect it. If the US believes that itself or its allies are in danger by Iran having nukes, it has a moral obligation to act.

To the extent that Obama is extending an offer to open a dialogue and maybe ease tensions between Iran and Israel, I do not see a downside. Clearly, there is nothing in the various countries' current positions that indicates any chance of anyone backing down or changing positions. If this can ease the tension and decrease rhetoric, why not try it. If Iran then says, "Fuck you," or rejects openness, then the U.N. can act.

I'm sure Iran will be intimidated by a strongly worded letter from the UN. In the event that this doesn't work, though, there has to be a backup plan. Sitting back and crossing our fingers that Iran wouldn't use any nukes that it might develop is not one.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 01:49 PM

The West gave Saddam WMDs and nuclear tech. You can thank the Israelis for blowing up the latter.

I think you're overestimating how much Iran is out to "get us". They can't even launch a missile across the ocean.

Not so much us, as Israel, or whoever pisses them off next. That Iran/Iraq war was not fought with sticks and stones.

Das Kahlua

06-02-2009, 01:57 PM

The West gave Saddam WMDs and nuclear tech. You can thank the Israelis for blowing up the latter.

I think you're overestimating how much Iran is out to "get us". They can't even launch a missile across the ocean.

They don't need to hit New York or Washington to do serious damage.

Put a dirty bomb in a truck and drive it through a barricade onto an army base in Iraq. Or put one on a tender and pull up next to any ship coming through the Persian Gulf.

With the amount of damage they've been able to do with simple IEDs, a couple of these could be devastating.

Morfin

06-02-2009, 01:59 PM

redsox39

06-02-2009, 02:14 PM

Crebility? To Whom? The World? The First World already sees Ahmadinajad for who he is. The Muslim world, or Iranians, or whomever he is shouting to? Who cares about what they think. They aren't going to change their collective minds.

No, the Credibility to his people. He is not a popular leader, and we have no reason to lend him what he needs. You don't want inside interference in their government? Then we have to take the slow route and let the revolution happen from within, which takes much, much longer.

Das Kahlua

06-02-2009, 02:20 PM

Sorry, RedSox and Kahlua. I have read your posts, and I don't agree.

And as to Iran attacking us, in terms of our defense, that would seem to have been limited to 1979 when they took over our embassy in Tehran in response to our CIA propping up the Shah. Since then, how has Iran attacked us?

Iran has close ties to Hezbollah, a recognized terrorist group, including providing military support and funding. The Council on Foreign Relations agrees.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/

We Americans need to stop thinking that we own the world and have a right to impose ourselves on everyone that we think might pose a danger to us, and we also have to get rid of the cowboy, macho mentality that we are the Godfather and everyone else needs to bow to our demands and kiss our ring. Unless we shed ourselves of that way of thinking, we will continue to sink in the First World's eyes.

The is a vast difference between trying to foist McDonald's and American values on a country and trying to prevent a country with ties to terrorist organizations from getting nuclear weapons. I couldn't care less about what happens in Iran, just so long as what happens there stays there. The second that it starts to spill over and begins affecting the US or its allies, its no longer an 'Iranian issue,' it's our issue as well.

We are not talking about dismantling their military, or banning conventional weapons, a la Germany post WWI, we're talking about preventing a country whose leader speaks of wiping Israel off the face of the Earth as a primary goal from getting weapons that would allow him to do just that.

For decades, we have kept Japan from having nuclear weapons, because of their involvement in WWII, with the guarantee that we would protect them should another country attack. It was a decision that was made for the well-being of the world, brought upon by Japan's past actions, while also making sure that Japan wouldn't become the victim because of it. Iran has no 'right' to nuclear energy or nuclear weapons, and their possessing them is too big of a risk to take.

The Middle East is a nightmare and a war just waiting to happen. Should everyone just sit around, or should someone take the initiative and try to work something out?

No argument here, but following the same path as Carter, negotiations with parties not interested in peace with no force behind them, is also not an effective solution. History tells us that, as does common sense.

freegood

06-02-2009, 02:20 PM

Put a dirty bomb in a truck and drive it through a barricade onto an army base in Iraq. Or put one on a tender and pull up next to any ship coming through the Persian Gulf.

With the amount of damage they've been able to do with simple IEDs, a couple of these could be devastating.

As much as it would deeply suck for American and Iraqi casualties, the aftermath of Iran radiating Iraq would help the US a lot.

It'd be a blank check for us to fuck them up with Sunni blessing.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 02:22 PM

As much as it would deeply suck for American and Iraqi casualties, the aftermath of Iran radiating Iraq would help the US a lot.

It'd be a blank check for us to fuck them up with Sunni blessing.

Yeah, with 10 million innocent people gone.

Pharon

06-02-2009, 02:25 PM

It'd be a blank check for us to fuck them up with Sunni blessing.
Don't you mean Shia blessing?

Rover

06-02-2009, 02:26 PM

And Iran is probably against Israel and the U.S. having nukes. And India is against Pakistan having nukes. And Pakistan is against India having nukes.

The U.S. does not have the right (nor should it have the right) to dictate to any country whether they can or cannot have nuclear weapon capability. If that is anyone's domain, it is the U.N.

To the extent that Obama is extending an offer to open a dialogue and maybe ease tensions between Iran and Israel, I do not see a downside. Clearly, there is nothing in the various countries' current positions that indicates any chance of anyone backing down or changing positions. If this can ease the tension and decrease rhetoric, why not try it. If Iran then says, "Fuck you," or rejects openness, then the U.N. can act.Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their actions here violate that treaty. The IAEA has not been able to verify their peaceful use of nuclear technology. We're not dictating anything unilaterally to Iran. We're just the mouthpiece of the international community because nobody gives two shits about what Paraguay and Mozambique think.

Das Kahlua

06-02-2009, 02:32 PM

Don't you mean Shia blessing?

Well, since technically Shia are a majority in both Iran and Iraq, who knows who would be happy if Iraq were turned radioactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their actions here violate that treaty. The IAEA has not been able to verify their peaceful use of nuclear technology. We're not dictating anything unilaterally to Iran. We're just the mouthpiece of the international community because nobody gives two shits about what Paraguay and Mozambique think.

And the UN hasn't don't anything as a result?! Say it's not so!! My entire world view is shattered.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 02:42 PM

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their actions here violate that treaty. The IAEA has not been able to verify their peaceful use of nuclear technology. We're not dictating anything unilaterally to Iran. We're just the mouthpiece of the international community because nobody gives two shits about what Paraguay and Mozambique think.

Violating treaties doesn't carry the same weight it used to. (See: Iraq)

Besides, for all the anti-US hate over the Iraq invasion, it was for oil, it was for profits, it was for Haliburton, check Europe's dealings with Saddam. Even though he violated the terms they all agreed to, multiple times, they stood to (and did) lose Billions in business from Iraq when we went in.

Why even have the UN, or UN Resolutions and treaties even they don't enforce them?

The UN is the biggest waste of money since the "New Deal".

Since over half of the funding for the UN is covered by the United States, I think we should just get out and let the European fellate themselves over what resolution they will sign and not enforce next.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 03:03 PM

I have been to Sudan. I helped my father in law build a radio tower there in 2002. I have had Sudanese Refugees live in my house. Don't fucking talk to me about Africa you fucking wanna be George Clooney. I voluenteer with the largest Sudanese refugee population in the United States.

I help get them jobs and acclimate them to US life. Do you know the entire concept of time is completely foreign to them? they have no idea of being on time, being late, or using a clock. Did you know they don't even have "towns" or "cities" when you ask where they are from? They are from "Camp 23" or "Camp 47". For their whole lives. All because of Islamic Dictators. So yes, I have seen, dealt with, traveled to, and helped directly with Africa's problems.

What is your take on this, I would love to hear it.

Congrats. You're less of a hypocrite than I've given you credit for. That still doenst make you right.

Das Kahlua

06-02-2009, 03:14 PM

I'm not necessarily opposed to Iran ever having nuclear technology, but where's the fire? What's the rush to let them have it immediately? They don't have a pressing need for nuclear power, and the potential for abuse is through the roof--I just don't see the risk being worth the reward.

It's much easier to prevent them from getting the technology in the first place than it is to control what they do with it once they have it. If they obtain it, and then abuse it, our options are very limited as to what we can do to control the damage. Plus, it's a balance of power issue, as well. Once Iran gets a nuke, every country in the region will feel the need to get one as well, and that's the last thing the Middle East needs right now.

I'm not proposing the US be the world's police, but the 'right' of Iran to have access to nuclear power cannot outweigh the right of the world to not to have to fear being blown up.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 03:41 PM

Pizzle's Fantasy Conversation:

Iran: DEATH TO INFIDELS!!!!
US: We understand your postion, and would like to work to amend a few things to make this relationship more amicable.
Iran: DEATH TO JEWS!!!!
US: Getting Warmer...
Iran: DEATH TO ISRAEL!!!
US: Yes, that is more like it. Glad we had this talk.

What is it with you Americans and your ridiculous paranoia?

Israel hates Iran as much as the other way around. Has Israel nuked Iran? No. Has India nuked Pakistan? Has Taiwan nuked mainland China? All of Ahamdinejad's "death to all Jews" talk serves but two purposes: To rally dumb-arse Muslims, and to show that America, for all her might, can't do shit about it - which in turn makes him more popular among certain Muslims.

You are the only people who have ever used nuclear weapons on other countries. Remember that.

And yet you're absolutely convinced that the second North Korea or Iran have a functional warhead/delivery combo, they will start launching missiles left, right and centre. And invite certain annihilation.

A word of caution, my dear Republicans and hawks:

Not everybody is as crazy and stupid as you are.

Trident

06-02-2009, 03:44 PM

It seems to me, that America may very well trigger a nuclear exchange if it keeps on trying to stop anyone who isn't their friend from having them.

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 03:46 PM

That would be ironic.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 03:47 PM

It seems to me, that America may very well trigger a nuclear exchange if it keeps on trying to stop anyone who isn't their friend from having them.

I didn't know the Brits were so Pro-Iranian Nukes.

I guess, since they are taking over London it makes sense...

Archangel

06-02-2009, 03:47 PM

It's certainly hard to explain to other countries why the guys who invade other nations for no good reason are allowed to have all the nukes in the world, and those who don't, aren't.

Ahmadinejad with nukes doesn't scare me half as much as Cheney or Palin with nukes would.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 03:48 PM

I didn't know the Brits were so Pro-Iranian Nukes.

I guess, since they are taking over London it makes sense...

I just think that as a British intellectual, Trident is more anti-American idiocy than anything.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 03:54 PM

What is it with you Americans and your ridiculous paranoia?

Israel hates Iran as much as the other way around. Has Israel nuked Iran? No. Has India nuked Pakistan? Has Taiwan nuked mainland China? All of Ahamdinejad's "death to all Jews" talk serves but two purposes: To rally dumb-arse Muslims, and to show that America, for all her might, can't do shit about it - which in turn makes him more popular among certain Muslims.

You are the only people who have ever used nuclear weapons on other countries. Remember that.

And yet you're absolutely convinced that the second North Korea or Iran have a functional warhead/delivery combo, they will start launching missiles left, right and centre. And invite certain annihilation.

A word of caution, my dear Republicans and hawks:

Not everybody is as crazy and stupid as you are.

You are so predictable sometimes. Who is being hawkish in this thread? Who has said "let's go to war with Iran so they don't get nukes" in here? So, now, if I am to understand you right, to error on the side of caution is being "Hawkish"?

Before, acting like a cowboy was Hawkish. Now, playing it safe is Hawkish.

I don't give a shit what you think his "purpose" was, what he has repeatedly done is called for the annihalition of Israel. More than once. And so, I don't give a fuck if it was the Prime Minister of Canda saying he wants to wipe out Columbia, if you are going to say shit like "Death to All ____" on an international stage, you shouldn't probably get nukes.

Apparently, after all the classes your smarmy ass took, you missed out on "Common Sense 101".

It really doesn't have to get deeper than that.

And, crazy as he is, the first time that Netanyahu says "Death to Iran" or "Death to all Muslims" I will eat fucking so much crow they will be on the endangered species list and you can blame America for that too.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 03:56 PM

You are so predictable sometimes. Who is being hawkish in this thread? Who has said "let's go to war with Iran so they don't get nukes" in here? So, now, if I am to understand you right, to error on the side of caution is being "Hawkish"?

Before, acting like a cowboy was Hawkish. Now, playing it safe it Hawkish.

I don't give a shit what you think his "purpose" was, what he has repeatedly done is called for the annihalition of Israel. More than once. And so, I don't a fuck if it was the Prime minister of Canda saying he wants to wipe out Columbia, if you are going to say shit like "Death to All ____" on an international stage, you shouldn't probably get nukes.

Apparently, after all the classes your smarmy ass took, you missed out on "Common Sense 101".

QED.

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 03:59 PM

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:00 PM

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:04 PM

The trouble is reasonable men cant understand why unreasonable men are being unreasonable. In a very real sense it's like "send a crook to catch a crook". I genuinely feel for foreign policy doves, they would gladly dig their graves for their executors.

Both the intellectuals of Britain and Weimar Germany failed to notice the threat from the Nazi's until it was too late. It took 'crazy hawks' like Churchill to point out the obvious.

Please show any evidence to me that Ahmadinejad is not a reasonable man. Everything he has done has furthered his political goals, which are Iranian hegemony of the region, and making America look bad. He uses rhetoric like that because the average Muslim is dumber than dirt; but as skilled a political operator as he is, he does not look to me like someone who wants to see his country turned into a parking lot. People in '38 were stupid because it was obvious that Hitler was convinced of the rubbish he spewed - I honestly doubt that this is the case here. Ahmadinejad is a populist, but not a genocidal maniac.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you're a borderline insane war-monger...

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 04:08 PM

Please show any evidence to me that Ahmadinejad is not a reasonable man. Everything he has done has furthered his political goals, which are Iranian hegemony of the region, and making America look bad. He uses rhetoric like that because the average Muslim is dumber than dirt; but as skilled a political operator as he is, he does not look to me like someone who wants to see his country turned into a parking lot.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you're a borderline insane war-monger...

Let me put it this way Arch. If a national leader says "I want to annhilate Jews and wipe Israel off the map" numerous times in public then I take him at his word. I dont sit down with a focus group and say "now what did he really mean?".

Sure he could just be saying this shit to stir up hatred and solidify his own domestic popularity by defying the West. We all ignored him before, but now he's actively seeking out the means to achieve his stated goals you have to think "hang on, maybe this isnt just talk".

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 04:13 PM

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 04:16 PM

BUT HE'S CRAZY!!! EVERYBODY SAYS SO!@#!@$ Also, when has he ever said he wants to annhilate jews or attack isreal? I would like to see a direct quote. I have heard him reference "wipping israel off the map" but that is in terms of the political state of israel. If jews know about one thing, it's demogaugery.

Is this the part where you tell me i've been terribly mislead by the media and he only wants to wipe Israel off the map politically speaking by installing a Palestinian regime and he's never actually said he wants to wipe out the Jews?

Cause i've heard this before.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:17 PM

He's got a good thing going with the Russians regarding the resources in the Caspian Sea region. He's turning Iran - and thus, Shi'a Islam - into a leader in the Middle East. He can walk the streets of Baghdad shaking people's hands when visiting, unlike American politicians, who cower in fear behind walls and bulletproof glass. The entire Muslim world cheers his every thumbing of the nose at the Americans, who are powerless to do anything about him without being the bad guys.

If he nukes Israel, all that was for nothing. If you're leading a pack of illiterate fanatics, you're gonna have to use a certain tone: If anything, he's the opposite of Hitler. Germans for the most part could read and write, they just thought, "he probably isn't serious about those Jews, and hey, at least he's creating jobs"; while the unwashed masses of the Muslim world are totally into his anti-Israel shit, until they notice that, hey, he's creating jobs or something.

I mean, the moderates in Iran couldn't do shit because America would stonewall them every step of the way. So they got someone who got to where he is by heaping shit upon America and Israel.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 04:20 PM

Hows about from the man himself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_IsraelPresident Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[26] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[27][28]

And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[27]

In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" and replied

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29]

Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply "a tiny opening".[29] Another observer however dubbed it an "astonishing" admission "that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel," and a "softening" of Ahmadinejad's "long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance". Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad's part, or an openness by Iran "to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map."[30]

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:21 PM

As I said, Ahmadinejad has never invaded or attacked one single country in the region.

America and Israel, on the other hand...

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 04:23 PM

I guess time will tell who's right.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 04:25 PM

Not if Iran gets bombed.

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 04:28 PM

And if Iran launches against Israel or 'accidently' allows nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists i'm sure you and Arch will tell me America forced them to act.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 04:29 PM

Here's more from the same article.Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) statement that Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[10]

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[11]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."[12]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13]

On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[14]

Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[15][16][17] On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," he said.[18][19][20]

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada who presented a paper at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust conference in Iran, believes the text is a mistranslation.[21]

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[22][23][24]

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner argued that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated:

But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who took issue with the use of the word "map" instead of the phrase "wipe out" and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for misrepresenting Ethan Bronner.[25]

redsox39

06-02-2009, 04:31 PM

QED.

And Latin. Awesome.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:31 PM

And if Iran launches against Israel or 'accidently' allows nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists i'm sure you and Arch will tell me America forced them to act.

It's funny how everyone who isn't foaming at the mouth to bomb people is a peacenik liberal dove homo to you.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:32 PM

And Latin. Awesome.

Took you long enough to find out...

Archangel

06-02-2009, 04:33 PM

It all comes down to this unshakeable belief that one's own side must be good, and if anybody presents competing or even antagonistic world-views, they have to be ipso facto bad.

A little introspection might be in order.

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 04:34 PM

It's funny how everyone who isn't foaming at the mouth to bomb people is a peacenik liberal dove homo to you.

Yeah I guess it is kinda funny. Anyway:

I guess time will tell who's right.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 04:40 PM

I still haven't heard an explanation why a country which propped up fascist dictatorships, invaded countries for their natural resources, shat on all international treaties, tortures people, holds people without trial, and grants immunity to mercenary murderers should be allowed to have nukes, and others shouldn't.

You can wrap it up in all the rhetoric (and I use that word loosely) you want about how wrong I am, but at the end of the day, you have jack shit to show for all your bluster and grandstanding.

Fine, you want to be a dick about it.
ok

I still haven't heard why a person, in a country which tried to wipe out the Jews, should have any credibility when speaking about wiping out the jews.

Seriously, do you even read what you write?

And what International Treaties did we SIGN that we "shat" on that you guys didn't?

Invaded countries for their natural resources? Well, fucking raise your hand if you were a European country that didn't at least try to participate in that. I am sorry, what would the enlightened party of Germany do here? and I mean besides ignore the Obvious until they are Goose Stepping?

Pax Britannia

06-02-2009, 04:42 PM

DONT MENTION THE WAR!

redsox39

06-02-2009, 04:42 PM

As I said, Ahmadinejad has never invaded or attacked one single country in the region.

America and Israel, on the other hand...

Really? Name one country that didn't threaten or Attack Israel that they attacked?

redsox39

06-02-2009, 04:45 PM

It's funny how everyone who isn't foaming at the mouth to bomb people is a peacenik liberal dove homo to you.

Just like it is funny to you that anyone who doesn't see things your way is an unwashed, "illiterate", goat fucker.

redsox39

06-02-2009, 04:55 PM

Archangel

06-02-2009, 05:00 PM

Fine, you want to be a dick about it.
ok

I still haven't heard why a person, in a country which tried to wipe out the Jews, should have any credibility when speaking about wiping out the jews.

Seriously, do you even read what you write?

And what International Treaties did we SIGN that we "shat" on that you guys didn't?

Invaded countries for their natural resources? Well, fucking raise your hand if you were a European country that didn't at least try to participate in that. I am sorry, what would the enlightened party of Germany do here? and I mean besides ignore the Obvious until they are Goose Stepping?
Hahahaha.

So because I'm German, I can't talk about Iran? And this from a person who probably believes that Hitler was German.

Really, you come off as so smart when you go "BUT OTHER PEOPLE DID THAT TOO, ONCE!!!" at every argument.

Also, "shat" is indeed the proper past tense of the verb "to shit", hick boy. You, of all people, do not get to criticise my English. As for the treaties, are you that ignorant? Ever hear of the Geneva or Hague conventions? "ICC" probably doesn't ring a bell either, does it?

Seriously, do not discuss things with me. I find it hard to stoop to your level.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 05:01 PM

Just like it is funny to you that anyone who doesn't see things your way is an unwashed, "illiterate", goat fucker.

If they don't see things my way because they have an informed opinion, that's one thing.

You are quite another.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 05:05 PM

Again, explain to me why America are the good guys in the Middle East. I can't wait to hear this.

Grieves

06-02-2009, 05:20 PM

A president that doesnt want to impose american values on another country? Who'd have thought... Maybe he's just calling their bluff. But this is a shift away from jew nuts and it should be welcomed.You're very naive if you believe that anything has changed in regards to what Iran will be allowed to do. Something will be 'revealed' or staged as an aggression against the U.S. or most likely Israel from Iran and they will be attacked, by Israel. Team Obama knows what they're doing. He's making it appear that he is distancing himself from Israel, with this, and that hilariously bad, and totally scripted, press conference with Netanyahoo a couple of weeks ago. At some point the U.S. will give them the green light to attack and claim that they had no knowledge of it. However, then the U.S. government will stand steadfastly by their ally Israel and we'll be involved in another war we have no business to be in. Obama can flash his best toothy smile and shrug his shoulders claiming his hands are clean. It's sickening.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 05:25 PM

So basically, what Arch and Pizz are saying is, and correct me if I am wrong.

"Ok, he said he wants to wipe Israel off the Map, but he didn't mean it! He was just trying to whip the Islamic Extremists into a frenzy! He really is a very peaceful and thoughtful man who means no ill to anyone."

(unless they want to pay him cash under the table for shit to kill jews and Americans)

So you are saying you are "Pro-Iranian Nukes", Arch? Or are you just blustering to be a dick?

So, when he says Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful that's a total lie but when his (translated) words indicate that he wants israel "wiped off the map", those should be taken at face value and are gospel. You pick and choose what to believe ultimately beliving something that others indicated were misinterpreted.

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 05:33 PM

So, when he says Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful that's a total lie but when his (translated) words indicate that he wants israel "wiped off the map", those should be taken at face value and are gospel. You pick and choose what to believe ultimately beliving something that others indicated were misinterpreted.

No his claims of peaceful nuclear power are lies because the way Iran is going about it, isn't the way you go about developing peaceful nuclear power. Nuclear energy for peace doesn't require highly enriched uranium or plutonium. What he says and what he does with regards to nuclear technology are not meshing.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 05:46 PM

No his claims of peaceful nuclear power are lies because the way Iran is going about it, isn't the way you go about developing peaceful nuclear power. Nuclear energy for peace doesn't require highly enriched uranium or plutonium. What he says and what he does with regards to nuclear technology are not meshing.

Fair enough. This is based on american intelligence or jewish intelligence? Because we know the US has a great track record with regard to WMDs. Plus the US intellegence is mixed on the subject. I think the last report during the bush presidency indicated that they stopped trying to develop weapons in 2002 or 2003. If it's based on jewish intelligence, I dont believe it at all. Plus has he attacked isreal? Has he tried to wipe them off the map? Are those actions meshing with what everyone seems to believe he preaches? Listen, I'm not saying Iran is Pollyanna (what country is?) but the US has no right to dictate how they should run their country based on fearful conjecture especially since they were SO wrong in Iraq.

Archangel

06-02-2009, 05:49 PM

Because we know the US has a great track record with regard to intelligence on military capability.

Yeah, when the guys who swore up and down that we'd find more WMDs than falafel shops in Iraq are telling me about the finer details of Iran's weapons programme, then I, for one, am instantly convinced.

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 05:51 PM

Fair enough. This is based on american intelligence or jewish intelligence? Because we know the US has a great track record with regard to intelligence on military capability. Plus the US intellegence is mixed on the subject. I think the last report during the bush presidency indicated that they stopped trying to develop weapons in 2002 or 2003. If it's based on jewish intelligence, I dont believe it at all. Plus has he attacked isreal? Has he tried to wipe them off the map? Are those actions meshing with what everyone seems to believe he preaches? Listen, I'm not saying Iran is Pollyanna (what country is?) but the US has no right to dictate how they should run their country based on fearful conjecture especially since they were SO wrong in Iraq.

Then go back to one of my original statements regarding Iran and nuclear power. Allow them to purchase low enriched uranium like was already offered by Russia and build light water reactors. Also allow inspectors from the UN unimpeded access to any and all nuclear research sites. If they agreed to those conditions I would probably believe they were pursuing peaceful nuclear power. But when you tell me they are assembling 50,000 gas diffusion centrifuges who sole purpose is to pump out highly enriched uranium and tell me that they need it for peaceful purposes I say you are crazy.
If nuclear power for energy was their sole reason for the program they could easily buy power plant grade fuel and save themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in processing costs instead of building these massive enrichment facilities.

We know they have them because they make no bones about telling people they have them.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3530564,00.html

Archangel

06-02-2009, 05:57 PM

So maybe, Iran is scared of fanatics like Netanyahu running the show in a nuclear Israel, and wants a deterrent?

Not saying that that's how it is, but is it so far-fetched?

Debo

06-02-2009, 06:01 PM

Yeah, when the guys who swore up and down that we'd find more WMDs than falafel shops in Iraq are telling me about the finer details of Iran's weapons programme, then I, for one, am instantly convinced.

This isn't correct. It was called a pre-emptive war because we were going in to stop him from gaining access to nuclear weapons. That is why Bush said "If we wait for the threat to materialize, we have waited too long" in his 2003 SOTU speech.

Here is what we did find:

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
· A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
· Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
· Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

Mustard

06-02-2009, 06:19 PM

After reading the first page of this thread, a thought occured to me that made reading the rest of the thread much easier. That thought was the fact that Iran is a soverign nation, and that no nation, not even the United States (in all of its righteous glory) has jurisdiction regarding this matter. So all of this talk from both sides about this entire topic is really just a giant waste of time for all involved, because in the end, none of anything anyone here says will matter in the slightest, regardless of who may end up being proven correct. In that case, then the only reward will be in the form of "I told you so", and since I think most of us are over the age of 12, that would hardly be a worthwhile victory.

Chew on that for awhile. Go grill a steak or have a diet coke, and don't get worked up about stuff you have no control over.

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 06:23 PM

Mustard

06-02-2009, 06:25 PM

Well shit.

Regardless, everything else I said still holds merit.

freegood

06-02-2009, 06:32 PM

You're very naive if you believe that anything has changed in regards to what Iran will be allowed to do. Something will be 'revealed' or staged as an aggression against the U.S. or most likely Israel from Iran and they will be attacked, by Israel. Team Obama knows what they're doing. He's making it appear that he is distancing himself from Israel, with this, and that hilariously bad, and totally scripted, press conference with Netanyahoo a couple of weeks ago. At some point the U.S. will give them the green light to attack and claim that they had no knowledge of it. However, then the U.S. government will stand steadfastly by their ally Israel and we'll be involved in another war we have no business to be in. Obama can flash his best toothy smile and shrug his shoulders claiming his hands are clean. It's sickening.

this post makes the most sense

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 06:50 PM

This isn't correct. It was called a pre-emptive war because we were going in to stop him from gaining access to nuclear weapons. That is why Bush said "If we wait for the threat to materialize, we have waited too long" in his 2003 SOTU speech.How is this any different with neocon's attitute towards Iran right now? It's not. Hasnt anybody learned from the shit storm in Iraq? But is different!@#!!! Iran is crazy! They have a crazy dictator that wants to blow up the middle east! He has to be crazy! He has a beard and a members only jacket. That shit is crazy yo! We need to be scared of that shit!

Debo

06-02-2009, 07:05 PM

How is this any different with neocon's attitute towards Iran right now? It's not. Hasnt anybody learned from the shit storm in Iraq? But is different!@#!!! Iran is crazy! They have a crazy dictator that wants to blow up the middle east! He has to be crazy! He has a beard and a members only jacket. That shit is crazy yo! We need to be scared of that shit!

Na dawg. We gots to represent hard on that ass. I heard that homie was down at the swap talkin' mad shit about Uncle Sam. It is time to get gangsta up in this motha' fucka'.

Westside [of the globe] 'till I die bitches.

Mustard

06-02-2009, 07:12 PM

Just... don't. Yeah. That would be best.

Phil Theehor

06-02-2009, 07:16 PM

Mustard

06-02-2009, 07:19 PM

Debo

06-02-2009, 07:24 PM

I'm with the doves (& Sink) on this one. What happens inside Iran is Iran's business and nobody else's. They have the right to build whatever the fuck they please, just as we do. Now, if they do build weapons and threaten other countries, we (or whomever feels threatened) have the right to immolate them.

I don't see where we derive the right to dictate to other countries what they can and cannot do.

Does the fact the he has already threatened other countries (i.e., Israel) affect your opinion?

I find it hard to buy his claims that they need nuclear power for domestic energy production when Iran is sitting on top of the third largest pool of oil, and an equally large amount of natural gas, in the world (Yet, they are a net importer of oil. Go figure).

If he was trying to develop a better oil pump, then I might buy what he is saying.

Morfin

06-02-2009, 07:28 PM

Mustard

06-02-2009, 07:32 PM

Does the fact the he has already threatened other countries (i.e., Israel) affect your opinion?
I know I'm not the one being addressed, but I feel compelled to answer: No.
I find it hard to buy his claims that they need nuclear power for domestic energy production when Iran is sitting on top of the third largest pool of oil, and an equally large amount of natural gas, in the world (Yet, they are a net importer of oil. Go figure).
They're hoarding oil and nat gas. Smart strategy, seeing as its a non-renewable resource/commodity. As more gets used worldwide, their reserves increase in value. I know you're a logical businessman, how do you not see this?

Phil Theehor

06-02-2009, 07:38 PM

Does the fact the he has already threatened other countries (i.e., Israel) affect your opinion?

I find it hard to buy his claims that they need nuclear power for domestic energy production when Iran is sitting on top of the third largest pool of oil, and an equally large amount of natural gas, in the world (Yet, they are a net importer of oil. Go figure).

If he was trying to develop a better oil pump, then I might buy what he is saying.

Very fair question, but we're talking about different points. You're saying "Phil, Ameriejhrohqaero is asshole". I don't argue with you, there. He's running a low-rent theocracy that, frankly, the world we be better off without.

My point is that the low-rent theocracy has the right to sovereignty, as do we all. Only when its actions, not words, cross its borders do we have the right to act.

Further, I'm not interested in negotiating with shitbird states. "Diplomacy" usually means us writing them a check to calm the fuck down for a little while. After a while, Lowrentistan, or whatever shithole we're talking about, realizes that it is still a shithole and it's only feasible tool to mollify its citizens is to rattle its sabres once more to shift the focus to an external enemy, away from its own failed state.

And then the cycle starts again.

I say screw that. I'm all for busting out a little Teddy Roosevelt on them. No bluster, no appeasement, just the mutual understanding that misdeeds of a certain magnitude will result in scorched earth (theirs).

Debo

06-02-2009, 07:42 PM

I know I'm not the one being addressed, but I feel compelled to answer: No.

They're hoarding oil and nat gas. Smart strategy, seeing as its a non-renewable resource/commodity. As more gets used worldwide, their reserves increase in value. I know you're a logical businessman, how do you not see this?

They aren't hoarding anything. They can't get their oil out of the ground because they kicked out all of the oil companies that actually know what they are doing. So they are stuck using technology from 20 years ago. If they spent their money on CAPEX for their oil industry they wouldn't need fucking nukes.

Hanover Fist

06-02-2009, 07:46 PM

I cannot find this provision in the 3rd pillar. Can you show me where it gives a signatory the "jurisdiction?"

Article III is what the IAEA is all about. They are the verification arm of the NPT for the UN (while not directly part of the UN they report to the Security council and General Assembly). Countries that are signatories to the NPT must abide by it's articles and the IAEA is the group that is responsible for the verification of it. That is their jurisdiction.

Governors of the IAEA come from the following countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay

Mustard

06-02-2009, 08:21 PM

They aren't hoarding anything. They can't get their oil out of the ground because they kicked out all of the oil companies that actually know what they are doing. So they are stuck using technology from 20 years ago. If they spent their money on CAPEX for their oil industry they wouldn't need fucking nukes.
Um, kicking out all of the oil companies = no oil coming out of their reserves which means ipso facto Iran is hoarding their own reserves.

Now, if Iran has the 3rd largest reserves in the world, and DOESN'T tap into that supply, what does that say to you? Are they just terrible business people, with no understanding of how to generate a profit? Or perhaps there is a motive here, and it is possible they actually know what they're doing?

Strategically, not drilling their reserves is smart in the long term. Not only that, but now because their oil reserves aren't being used to get money from CAPEX or anywhere else, they are "forced" to look for "alternative" methods of energy generation. This gives them a good excuse to try to get nuclear energy capabilities, which we know they will use not only for energy reasons, but also to make nuclear weapons.

All of which I have no problem with.

Debo

06-02-2009, 08:42 PM

Um, kicking out all of the oil companies = no oil coming out of their reserves which means ipso facto Iran is hoarding their own reserves.

Now, if Iran has the 3rd largest reserves in the world, and DOESN'T tap into that supply, what does that say to you? Are they just terrible business people, with no understanding of how to generate a profit? Or perhaps there is a motive here, and it is possible they actually know what they're doing?

Strategically, not drilling their reserves is smart in the long term. Not only that, but now because their oil reserves aren't being used to get money from CAPEX or anywhere else, they are "forced" to look for "alternative" methods of energy generation. This gives them a good excuse to try to get nuclear energy capabilities, which we know they will use not only for energy reasons, but also to make nuclear weapons.

All of which I have no problem with.

Haha. That is like saying that Chavez is the next Bill Gates because he is having trouble getting oil out of the ground in Venezuela.

He didn't kick the oil companies out of Iran because he has a master plan. He did it because he is a psycho that doesn't think through the consequences of his actions...which is another reason not to let him have the bomb.

BIG PIZZLE

06-02-2009, 08:44 PM

YEAH HE SO CRAZY!!!

Debo

06-02-2009, 08:52 PM

YEAH HE SO CRAZY!!!

No, you so crazy!!!

http://www.myurbanmovies.com/moviefiles/Martin%20Lawrence%20you%20so%20crazy.jpg

Mustard

06-02-2009, 09:25 PM

Haha. That is like saying that Chavez is the next Bill Gates because he is having trouble getting oil out of the ground in Venezuela.

He didn't kick the oil companies out of Iran because he has a master plan. He did it because he is a psycho that doesn't think through the consequences of his actions...
I dunno man. Seems to me that your opinion of Ackmadeenijad isn't based on a rational approach. Its as if you're just parroting every person who posts on www.freerepublic.com (www.meatspin.com) While I offer no proof that Ahmadinishad is doing this all as a plan to further his country economically, you offer no proof that he is a blithering, blood-thirsty psycho, hell bent on nuclear war. This conversation is going nowhere, as we might as well be discussing which restaurant to visit, regardless of the fact that our two choices are 10,000 miles away.

Ok look, if you recall anything from comic books about "evil masterminds", one of the commonalities is that they're all pretty fucking smart and coy. And most of them do whatever they can to NOT die in an atomic explosion. Getting to be the leader of any nation, even Iran, would hopefully tend to indicate that this guy has some intelligence, and isn't a fumbling idiot.

Now see, I have a difficult time imagining that a leader with any sort of plan (save suicidal, which makes no sense given the context) to try to bring their nation to prominence would give all of that hard work. He has to know the consequences, and they include 99.9% of his fellow countrymen instantly dying in a nuclear holocaust if he launches even one nuke.
which is another reason not to let him have the bomb...
There is a really good reason the US shouldn't have "the bomb". I.e., we're the only nation that has actually used one... twice. Point is, there are all sorts of good reasons to not let anyone have nukes. Simply because you pull a few good reasons out of a hat with regards to Iran, doesn't mean I can't do the same with regards to every other nation on the planet, us included.

Das Kahlua

06-02-2009, 10:03 PM

I'm with the doves (& Sink) on this one. What happens inside Iran is Iran's business and nobody else's. They have the right to build whatever the fuck they please, just as we do. Now, if they do build weapons and threaten other countries, we (or whomever feels threatened) have the right to immolate them.

I don't see where we derive the right to dictate to other countries what they can and cannot do.

This isn't the case of telling Iran whether they should legalize marijuana, or what color drapes they should buy for the Presidential palace, it's about a country that supports Hezbollah, a recognized terrorist organization, should have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that, by definition, are to be used against other countries.

This isn't about forcing our 'beliefs' on other countries, and it sure isn't about torture or whatever Arch is always talking about, it's about preventing Hezbollah from getting a nuke.

Debo

06-02-2009, 10:06 PM

I dunno man. Seems to me that your opinion of Ackmadeenijad isn't based on a rational approach. Its as if you're just parroting every person who posts on www.freerepublic.com (http://www.meatspin.com) While I offer no proof that Ahmadinishad is doing this all as a plan to further his country economically, you offer no proof that he is a blithering, blood-thirsty psycho, hell bent on nuclear war. This conversation is going nowhere, as we might as well be discussing which restaurant to visit, regardless of the fact that our two choices are 10,000 miles away.

Ok look, if you recall anything from comic books about "evil masterminds", one of the commonalities is that they're all pretty fucking smart and coy. And most of them do whatever they can to NOT die in an atomic explosion. Getting to be the leader of any nation, even Iran, would hopefully tend to indicate that this guy has some intelligence, and isn't a fumbling idiot.

Now see, I have a difficult time imagining that a leader with any sort of plan (save suicidal, which makes no sense given the context) to try to bring their nation to prominence would give all of that hard work. He has to know the consequences, and they include 99.9% of his fellow countrymen instantly dying in a nuclear holocaust if he launches even one nuke.

There is a really good reason the US shouldn't have "the bomb". I.e., we're the only nation that has actually used one... twice. Point is, there are all sorts of good reasons to not let anyone have nukes. Simply because you pull a few good reasons out of a hat with regards to Iran, doesn't mean I can't do the same with regards to every other nation on the planet, us included.

I am not parroting anyone (I have never even heard of that site). I am mocking the apologists on this site because the notion that Iran is somehow a peaceful nation is pure insanity [Insert Pizzle's "He so crazy" comment here].

My point about Iran's oil supply and their inability to pump oil is valid. You haven't refuted anything that I have said. You have come up with theories, but none of them are rooted in reality. I guess that Pelosi and the rest of the Dems that block any attempt to drill for oil domestically have savvy business minds as well.

The debate isn't over whether or not we should have the bomb. It is over whether or not Iran should have the bomb. We can start a different thread to talk about the pros and cons of fat boy and little man.

If you are trying to say that we should have a world without nukes, then I am all for it. But Iran, Pakistan and North Korea have to give up their nukes first. Then we can talk about giving up ours.

Phil Theehor

06-03-2009, 08:18 AM

This isn't the case of telling Iran whether they should legalize marijuana, or what color drapes they should buy for the Presidential palace, it's about a country that supports Hezbollah, a recognized terrorist organization, should have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that, by definition, are to be used against other countries.

This isn't about forcing our 'beliefs' on other countries, and it sure isn't about torture or whatever Arch is always talking about, it's about preventing Hezbollah from getting a nuke.

I certainly see your argument. You are advocating preventative medicine. I see the logic.

My POV here is just an extrapolation of my POV for rules and laws within societies (and this probably belongs more in philo). I don't see how one person derives authority over another-- providing that person isn't punching him in the nose. Similarly, I don't see how one nation (or a group of them) derives authority over another, unless their actions have spilled outside their borders (or appear to be heading that way).

Look, I'm not a dove. I think that if Israel feels legitimately threatened by this, Israel has the right to reduce these douchebags to cinders.

And I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk to people before pushing the button. However, real diplomacy (the effective stuff) won't show up in the paper. It consists of unpublished, back-channel communications where we (or the Israelis) tell this douchebag "this is where the line is" in a way that doesn't mock his wiener on the global stage.

Pharon

06-03-2009, 08:26 AM

I am mocking the apologists on this site because the notion that Iran is somehow a peaceful nation is pure insanity [Insert Pizzle's "He so crazy" comment here].
Man, what an amusing thread.

So far, the only reason I've heard to back up the accusation that Iran isn't peaceful is the following -- that their President has advocated wiping Israel off the map. Did I miss anything?

The response to that is that the man is not anti-Jewish -- he's anti-Zionist, which means he's simply against the idea of Israel as a country -- he (and he's not alone) thinks that the current regime is occupying land that isn't theirs. That it belongs to the Palestinians. Which, by the way, is an entirely different argument.

But does that mean that he would advocate attacking Israel with nukes if he got them? That's the million dollar question.

Considering the fact that Israel is composed of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, I find this possibility highly unlikely. If Pakistan and India can contain themselves, I don't see why it would be any different between Israel and Iran. The concept of wanting and building nuclear weapons is not, by itself, proof that a country wants to detonate them in another country. Having nukes gives you international status and power. That could be the single and only motivating factor here with regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions -- and believe me, it's not about generating electric power. It's about building nukes. But so what?

So what has he said of the subject? Is his rhetoric (nevermind his actions) full of genocidal ideas? Hardly:

"No, I am not anti-Jew," he said. "I respect them very much."

"Let us remember that there in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together," he said.

Later, he added: "We love everyone in the world - Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non-Christians... We are against occupation, aggression, killings and displacing people - otherwise we have no problem with ordinary people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368458.stm
Finally, I think it behooves all of us to remember the most important thing in this conversation -- the President of Iran has absolutely no control over its nuclear weapons or its military. That power belongs to the Supreme Leader -- Ali Khamenei.

Archangel

06-03-2009, 09:19 AM

Again: America good, everybody who disagrees bad.

This is at the bottom of every one of these arguments. However, I've yet to hear how the fuck the above is an absolute truth.

America's history in the region:

America supports the Shah's oppressive rule, gets cheap oil.

Iranian people don't like the Shah, kick him out, replace him with the Ayatollahs.

America is pissed off because the Ayatollahs aren't sucking their cocks. How dare they see things differently.

America looks for another murderous ruler nearby, finds Saddam, declares him to be a good guy, gives him carte blanche to attack Iran, telling him that he can keep whatever oil he finds, as long as he sells it cheaply to the US.

Iran-Iraq war costs up to one million Iranians their lives. Sponsored by the US and Europe.

Saddam doesn't get any oil fields in Iran, looks elsewhere.

Finds Kuwait, another totally non-democratic country, which America and Europe have declared to be one of the good guys because they sell us oil.

Saddam invades Kuwait, is a bit non-plussed when the guys who helped him kill a million Iranians call him the new Hitler and bomb his country because he killed a few hundred Kuwaitis.

America and the world isolate Iraq; Hussein uses the time to kill everybody in Iraq who doesn't like his mustache, things calm down, about 500,000 Iraqi children starve to death because of economic sanctions while Saddam rebuilds his palaces and armed forces. SecState Albright calls half a million dead children "the cost of doing business".

America elects "someone like us" who cannot tie his shoes without mommy; retard decides for no good reason to invade Iraq. Everybody except some Brits and Poles henceforth consider the US to be the single most dangerous country on earth. Half a million Iraqis die as a result of the operation being managed worse than a junior high school dance.

Next, American idiots set their sights on Iran, again.

I dunno, but this looks to me like some people would be rather justified in saying that America should stay the fuck out of Middle Eastern business.

redsox39

06-03-2009, 09:32 AM

So, when he says Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful that's a total lie but when his (translated) words indicate that he wants israel "wiped off the map", those should be taken at face value and are gospel. You pick and choose what to believe ultimately beliving something that others indicated were misinterpreted.

Yeah, if I tell the whole world I want you to die by putting poison in your coffee, and then the next week I tell everyone I want to have you over for brunch and golf...you choose which one you believe.

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 11:32 AM

I dunno, but this looks to me like some people would be rather justified in saying that America should stay the fuck out of Middle Eastern business.

If you had just included us in the 'Oil for Food' scam from the start, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I certainly see your argument. You are advocating preventative medicine. I see the logic.

My POV here is just an extrapolation of my POV for rules and laws within societies (and this probably belongs more in philo). I don't see how one person derives authority over another-- providing that person isn't punching him in the nose. Similarly, I don't see how one nation (or a group of them) derives authority over another, unless their actions have spilled outside their borders (or appear to be heading that way).

Look, I'm not a dove. I think that if Israel feels legitimately threatened by this, Israel has the right to reduce these douchebags to cinders.

And I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk to people before pushing the button. However, real diplomacy (the effective stuff) won't show up in the paper. It consists of unpublished, back-channel communications where we (or the Israelis) tell this douchebag "this is where the line is" in a way that doesn't mock his wiener on the global stage.

As for 'authority,' Hanover said it better than I ever could, but basically they have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the US is one of the governors that has the authority to act.

I guess the basis for my thoughts on this issue is my naturally narrow interpretation of the term 'right.' It seems that these days, absolutely everything is now considered a 'right,' we have the 'right' to healthcare, we have the 'right' the internet, the list goes on and on. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that any country has a 'right' to nuclear energy, and certainly no 'right' to nuclear weapons.

If we start the precedent where we, as a country or international community, can't intercede to prevent a country from getting nukes, where will it end? Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, and also a recognized terrorist group. Would we be out of line to prevent them from getting a nuke? How about Syria? How about Darfur?

No one who is opposed to US intervention in this thread has even tried to refute that Iran supports Hezbollah. Instead, they (for the most part) have resorted to a combination of name calling and bringing up past US mistakes, with some gratuitous Bush references thrown in.

There has to be a line in the sand drawn, a standard that would make a country so radical that we should all be able to agree that they shouldn't possess nukes. If we can all at least agree upon that much, then it's just a matter of degrees.

redsox39

06-03-2009, 11:39 AM

Thats not ever the point right now. I have yet to hear one person even say they are "Pro-Iranian Nukes" in here.

This is just Arch being Arch, blaming everything on America, and never giving out any credit where it is due.

Remember, Germany is the poster child for goodness in the world, and America kills Iraqi babies for fun!

Archangel

06-03-2009, 11:43 AM

Morfin

06-03-2009, 11:48 AM

Actually the 3rd pillar of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (us being the signatories of said agreement), gives us jurisdiction in this matter.

I cannot find this provision in the 3rd pillar. Can you show me where it gives a signatory the "jurisdiction?"

Article III is what the IAEA is all about. They are the verification arm of the NPT for the UN (while not directly part of the UN they report to the Security council and General Assembly). Countries that are signatories to the NPT must abide by it's articles and the IAEA is the group that is responsible for the verification of it. That is their jurisdiction.

Governors of the IAEA come from the following countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay

As for 'authority,' Hanover said it better than I ever could, but basically they have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the US is one of the governors that has the authority to act.

Kahlua: I still don't see where the U.S. has the authority to act unilaterally. The IAEA has that authority, but not the U.S. individually.

The issue isn't whether Iran supports Hezbollah, or not. The issue IMO is that the U.S. cannot and should not dictate to Iran or any other country about whether it can or cannot have nuclear weapon capability -- that is for the IAEA.

Hanover Fist

06-03-2009, 11:55 AM

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 12:06 PM

Kahlua: I still don't see where the U.S. has the authority to act unilaterally. The IAEA has that authority, but not the U.S. individually.

The issue isn't whether Iran supports Hezbollah, or not. The issue IMO is that the U.S. cannot and should not dictate to Iran or any other country about whether it can or cannot have nuclear weapon capability -- that is for the IAEA.

I'm going to try and say this without incurring the eventual 'American elitism' slam, but of the countries in the IAEA, the US, Russia and the UK are the major powers. Uruguay is not going to get anything done in the international community without at least one of those three.

At this point, the US hasn't done anything to stand in the way of Iran, if anything Obama is clearing the path for them, I'm speaking from the perspective of what I would like to have happen. Do I want a team of SEALs to invade Iran and blow up a nuclear plant? Hell no. I'm all for the IAEA taking the lead on this, at least in name, but it would be naive to believe that organizations like the IAEA, NATO and even the UN aren't funded and powered by a small handful of nations. My point is, even if the IAEA were to take on this task, it would most likely be a US/UK-led process.

Since Iran has already violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US is certainly not outside its powers as a governor of the IAEA to lodge a complaint and ask for some serious action. If this avenue is possible, it certainly is the ideal one. If the IAEA refuses to honor its obligations, however, then the US has an obligation to act where other countries are too afraid/unwilling to. In addition, the US should immediately pull out all funding and support for the IAEA, UN and any other organizations that refuse to do what they were created to do.

Certainly, the diplomatic and international option is always the best one, but if that fails I don't believe that the US should be willing to risk Hezbollah getting a nuke just to appease the international community. I place a higher value on life than our 'image in the world.'

Morfin

06-03-2009, 12:08 PM

I never said the US has the authority to act unilaterally. I said the signatories of the NPT have jurisdiction with regards to nuclear power, of which we are one.

Here is the exchange yesterday, in full:
After reading the first page of this thread, a thought occured to me that made reading the rest of the thread much easier. That thought was the fact that Iran is a soverign nation, and that no nation, not even the United States (in all of its righteous glory) has jurisdiction regarding this matter. So all of this talk from both sides about this entire topic is really just a giant waste of time for all involved, because in the end, none of anything anyone here says will matter in the slightest, regardless of who may end up being proven correct. In that case, then the only reward will be in the form of "I told you so", and since I think most of us are over the age of 12, that would hardly be a worthwhile victory.

Chew on that for awhile. Go grill a steak or have a diet coke, and don't get worked up about stuff you have no control over.

Actually the 3rd pillar of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (us being the signatories of said agreement), gives us jurisdiction in this matter.

I don't really care how you qualify it today. The bottom line is that the U.S. has to stop acting like it can do what it wants just because it believes another country is doing something bad. Going it (virually) alone in Iraq has been a disaster in terms of lives lost, the result to date, and in terms of our political capital abroad.

RedSox mentioned "credibility" concerns if Obama meet with Ahmadinajad (i.e., bolstering his credibility with the Iranians during the presidential election). I think the bigger concern is that if America goes in like a big bully again, that will provide Ahmadinajad with the same credibility boost as he says, "See? See? The U.S. is a big, bad bully and wants to destroy Muslims."

Pharon

06-03-2009, 12:12 PM

If you had just included us in the 'Oil for Food' scam from the start, we wouldn't be in this mess.
LOL

I guess the basis for my thoughts on this issue is my naturally narrow interpretation of the term 'right.' It seems that these days, absolutely everything is now considered a 'right,' we have the 'right' to healthcare, we have the 'right' the internet, the list goes on and on. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that any country has a 'right' to nuclear energy, and certainly no 'right' to nuclear weapons.
Would you agree that a sovereign nation has the 'right' to defend itself from its enemies?

Because if you do, then tell me -- what gives another sovereign nation the right to dictate how that country decides to go about implementing its national defense plan? Especially a nation that would probably be considered by that country to BE one of its enemies?

Sounds kind of absurd to me.

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 12:15 PM

I don't really care how you qualify it today. The bottom line is that the U.S. has to stop acting like it can do what it wants just because it believes another country is doing something bad. Going it (virually) alone in Iraq has been a disaster in terms of lives lost, the result to date, and in terms of our political capital abroad.

RedSox mentioned "credibility" concerns if Obama meet with Ahmadinajad (i.e., bolstering his credibility with the Iranians during the presidential election). I think the bigger concern is that if America goes in like a big bully again, that will provide Ahmadinajad with the same credibility boost as he says, "See? See? The U.S. is a big, bad bully and wants to destroy Muslims."

Running a country based on domestic opinion polls is a bad way to operate; running a country based on what the rest of the world thinks is a recipe for disaster.

There are some principles that are worth fighting for, even if they are unpopular. The international community is never going to love the US, we just have to accept that fact and move on. No matter how much money and support we give the rest of the world, it will never be enough, and we'll probably get bashed for it while we're at it. Instead of compromising our principles to win a global popularity contest, we should be comfortable in knowing that it's better to be unpopular and alive than popular and dead.

BIG PIZZLE

06-03-2009, 12:18 PM

LOL

Would you agree that a sovereign nation has the 'right' to defend itself from its enemies?

Because if you do, then tell me -- what gives another sovereign nation the right to dictate how that country decides to go about implementing its national defense plan? Especially a nation that would probably be considered by that country to BE one of its enemies?

Sounds kind of absurd to me.

Where is the threat to the US from Iran? (This sounds exactly like what I said 8 years ago before the US bombed Iraq.) It's a deparment of DEfense not department of OFfense.

Morfin

06-03-2009, 12:19 PM

Since Iran has already violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US is certainly not outside its powers as a governor of the IAEA to lodge a complaint and ask for some serious action. If this avenue is possible, it certainly is the ideal one.

I am in totally agreement, however, that is not what was being posited earlier in this thread.

If the IAEA refuses to honor its obligations, however, then the US has an obligation to act where other countries are too afraid/unwilling to. In addition, the US should immediately pull out all funding and support for the IAEA, UN and any other organizations that refuse to do what they were created to do.

No, the U.S. has no such obligation -- moral, political, or otherwise. To what end, starting to attack Iran or blow up their plants within their borders? Use the CIA?

When there is a direct threat against the U.S., then we can talk obligation -- where the obligation is to U.S. citizens. Where the discussion is to protect our allies, then that obligation ends if our allies as part of the IAEA or UN refuse to act for themselves. It is wrong for the U.S. to take the position that because it backs Hezbollah, which has threatened an ally, that we have the "obligation," "authority," "jurisdiction" to act against another country.

Is Iran justified in attacking the U.S. because of our support of Israel, whose leaders have been saber-rattling with Iran?

Morfin

06-03-2009, 12:28 PM

There are some principles that are worth fighting for, even if they are unpopular. The international community is never going to love the US, we just have to accept that fact and move on. No matter how much money and support we give the rest of the world, it will never be enough, and we'll probably get bashed for it while we're at it. Instead of compromising our principles to win a global popularity contest, we should be comfortable in knowing that it's better to be unpopular and alive than popular and dead.

This is pure, utter bullshit. "Principles worth fighting for"? In this context, that is bullshit. How is favoring diplomacy rather than acting like a bully "compromising our principles?"

I never said we should act on what is popular, but a concept of what we believe is right, does not give us any sort of moral imperative. Because Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, does that mean we are justified in taking that country over and installing democracy? Because other nations are based on religion and we believe in separation of church and state, does that give us the right to invade those countries? No.

The same principles apply here. We may not like it, but just because we are the biggest kid on the playground, and we believe that we are the best gov't and society, doesn't mean that we get to demand that everyone else fall in line. Seems to me, that is how the Mafia and North Korea operates. Like I said before, put the shoe on the other foot -- where the U.S. isn't the most powerful -- how would we like someone else dictating to us how we should govern ourselves?

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 12:28 PM

Would you agree that a sovereign nation has the 'right' to defend itself from its enemies?

Because if you do, then tell me -- what gives another sovereign nation the right to dictate how that country decides to go about implementing its national defense plan? Especially a nation that would probably be considered by that country to BE one of its enemies?

Sounds kind of absurd to me.

Of course I agree that a nation has the right to defend itself, but we're talking about offensive, not defensive, weapons. We're not considering disbanding their military or conventional weapons, only preventing them from getting nukes.

This is not unprecedented. The UK and France did the same thing with Germany post WWI, and the US did it with preventing Japan from getting nukes post WWII; in both cases, there was the understanding that this was a measure to prevent aggression, not to put Germany or Japan in a compromised situation. If either of those countries were attacked, the US, UK and France would have stepped in to prevent it.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a similar agreement to happen with Iran. Furthermore, if they were to dismantle their nuclear program, their biggest threat in the region, Israel, would have no reason to continue aggression.

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 12:37 PM

This is pure, utter bullshit. "Principles worth fighting for"? In this context, that is bullshit. How is favoring diplomacy rather than acting like a bully "compromising our principles?"

I never said we should act on what is popular, but a concept of what we believe is right, does not give us any sort of moral imperative. Because Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, does that mean we are justified in taking that country over and installing democracy? Because other nations are based on religion and we believe in separation of church and state, does that give us the right to invade those countries? No.

The same principles apply here. We may not like it, but just because we are the biggest kid on the playground, and we believe that we are the best gov't and society, doesn't mean that we get to demand that everyone else fall in line. Seems to me, that is how the Mafia and North Korea operates. Like I said before, put the shoe on the other foot -- where the U.S. isn't the most powerful -- how would we like someone else dictating to us how we should govern ourselves?

Comparing political systems and the possession of nuclear weapons is lunacy. We're not talking about overthrowing the government or imposing Western values, we're talking about preventing a country that supports terrorism from getting a nuke. That is the beginning and end of the issue, stop trying to make it out to be more than it is.

If Iran wants nuclear power, fine, then get rid of the centrifuges and build light water reactors, opening all of it to IAEA inspections. Until that all happens, it should be a non-starter. If they're unhappy about that, they shouldn't have supported Hezbollah and threatened Israel in the first place.

All of the principles that have been discussed here, from 'sovereignty' to the 'right of self defense,' assume that we're talking about civilized nations and not states that fund terrorism. Once that line is crossed, all the traditional rules are out the window and new ones have to be implemented.

Pharon

06-03-2009, 12:41 PM

Where is the threat to the US from Iran? (This sounds exactly like what I said 8 years ago before the US bombed Iraq.) It's a deparment of DEfense not department of OFfense.
I don't think Iran is a threat to the U.S. That was my point. I think you misunderstood my post.

Of course I agree that a nation has the right to defend itself, but we're talking about offensive, not defensive, weapons. We're not considering disbanding their military or conventional weapons, only preventing them from getting nukes.
Again, though -- assuming a country DOES have a right to defend itself, what gives ANOTHER country ANY right to dictate how they go about it? As long as they are not attacking us, who gives a shit?

This is not unprecedented. The UK and France did the same thing with Germany post WWI, and the US did it with preventing Japan from getting nukes post WWII; in both cases, there was the understanding that this was a measure to prevent aggression, not to put Germany or Japan in a compromised situation. If either of those countries were attacked, the US, UK and France would have stepped in to prevent it.
Just because we've done it in the past doesn't mean it's right. And I'm fucking tired of acting as the world's policeman. Fuck that. Let countries learn to behave themselves, and the second they attack us, THEN we turn them into a glass desert. But not one moment before.

Furthermore, if they were to dismantle their nuclear program, their biggest threat in the region, Israel, would have no reason to continue aggression.
Israel has no reason to be aggressive right now. I don't see Iranian troops firing missiles into Israel. And until that happens, Israel has no right to attack them.

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 01:14 PM

Again, though -- assuming a country DOES have a right to defend itself, what gives ANOTHER country ANY right to dictate how they go about it? As long as they are not attacking us, who gives a shit?

For all of recorded history before 1945 countries were able to defend themselves just fine without the use of nukes. Now it's impossible to do so, and nukes are necessary for protection? So, shouldn't every country have them, then?

Just because we've done it in the past doesn't mean it's right. And I'm fucking tired of acting as the world's policeman. Fuck that. Let countries learn to behave themselves, and the second they attack us, THEN we turn them into a glass desert. But not one moment before.

Normally I would agree with you, I am also sick and tired of the US bailing out every other country when they get in trouble, but this is a case where we can't afford to be wrong. Our intelligence networks outside of spy satellites are zero, we have little to no assets anywhere in the region, so we would find out if they were planning on using a nuke at precisely the same moment everyone else in the world would, when it was detonated.

Once they develop that technology, it's completely outside our sphere of control, and we're relegated to hoping for the best. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't have that much faith in any country in that region.

Israel has no reason to be aggressive right now. I don't see Iranian troops firing missiles into Israel. And until that happens, Israel has no right to attack them.

After their history, I would never fault them for being paranoid and extra cautious. If they believe that it's vital for their national security that Iran does not get a nuke, I certainly see no reason to either fault them or argue.

Pox

06-03-2009, 01:19 PM

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 01:24 PM

Shit, can anyone tell me why Ahmenijuice or Kim should STOP trying to build the bomb? We took down their Axis o' Evil cribbage partner. What reason would they have to stop building the one weapon that could stop us from kicking their asses too?

Kim Jong Il wants a nuke because their continuous military buildup and socialist policies have bankrupted N. Korea. A nuke would allow them to maintain some level of military superiority over S. Korea without having to maintain such a massive army.

Iran...well, why they want one depends on who you ask, but they definitely want to maintain the balance of power with Israel.

Archangel

06-03-2009, 01:29 PM

Pox

06-03-2009, 01:34 PM

They both might be madmen in other respects, but their pursuit of nukes is 100% rational to me.

redsox39

06-03-2009, 01:37 PM

The bottom line is that the U.S. has to stop acting like it can do what it wants just because it believes another country is doing something bad.

Edmund Burke you are not.

Pharon

06-03-2009, 01:38 PM

For all of recorded history before 1945 countries were able to defend themselves just fine without the use of nukes. Now it's impossible to do so, and nukes are necessary for protection? So, shouldn't every country have them, then?
I don't how the U.S. -- or any other country, for that matter -- has the right to dictate who can and cannot decide to build a nuclear weapon, if they have the means and the inclination to do so. And as I said, nukes are used for other things nowadays than physically detonating them in another country. It's about power and influence, and respect. None of which assumes a greater threat of aggressive behavior internationally.

Once they develop that technology, it's completely outside our sphere of control, and we're relegated to hoping for the best. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't have that much faith in any country in that region.
How is it any different from having faith in your neighbor that he won't knock down your door and blow your head off with his legally-acquired Colt 45? The bottom line is that owning a nuclear weapon does not, on its face, constitute aggression. And if Iran wants to develop that technology, no one has control to stop them -- not without invading them unprovoked.

redsox39

06-03-2009, 01:42 PM

Well then, why sign the Treaty saying they won't?

Hanover Fist

06-03-2009, 01:50 PM

I don't how the U.S. -- or any other country, for that matter -- has the right to dictate who can and cannot decide to build a nuclear weapon, if they have the means and the inclination to do so. And as I said, nukes are used for other things nowadays than physically detonating them in another country. It's about power and influence, and respect. None of which assumes a greater threat of aggressive behavior internationally.

It's pretty easy really. Iran signed the NPT which means that the world dictates that they cannot pursue or develop nuclear weapons. If they didn't want to subject themselves to people telling them to stop what they are doing and come clean on their program then they shouldn't have fucking signed the treaty. Because they did, we (as in the rest of the countries that signed the treaty) Have every right to demand that they cease and desist building a weapon or face sanctions.

Debo

06-03-2009, 09:03 PM

Man, what an amusing thread.

So far, the only reason I've heard to back up the accusation that Iran isn't peaceful is the following -- that their President has advocated wiping Israel off the map. Did I miss anything?

The response to that is that the man is not anti-Jewish -- he's anti-Zionist, which means he's simply against the idea of Israel as a country -- he (and he's not alone) thinks that the current regime is occupying land that isn't theirs. That it belongs to the Palestinians. Which, by the way, is an entirely different argument.

But does that mean that he would advocate attacking Israel with nukes if he got them? That's the million dollar question.

Considering the fact that Israel is composed of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, I find this possibility highly unlikely. If Pakistan and India can contain themselves, I don't see why it would be any different between Israel and Iran. The concept of wanting and building nuclear weapons is not, by itself, proof that a country wants to detonate them in another country. Having nukes gives you international status and power. That could be the single and only motivating factor here with regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions -- and believe me, it's not about generating electric power. It's about building nukes. But so what?

So what has he said of the subject? Is his rhetoric (nevermind his actions) full of genocidal ideas? Hardly:

Finally, I think it behooves all of us to remember the most important thing in this conversation -- the President of Iran has absolutely no control over its nuclear weapons or its military. That power belongs to the Supreme Leader -- Ali Khamenei.

I guess that we shouldn't consider the fact that Iran supports Hezzbollah, which has waged a war against Israel recently (Granted, they got their ass kicked), or that Iran supports the insurgency in Iraq, or that Iran stones people to death (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.stoning/index.html).

You are right that wanting to build nukes doesn't guarantee that they are going to use them. But him saying that he loves the joooos doesn't mean that he won't nuke them.

The bottom line is that Israel isn't going to sit back and let Iran obtain the bomb. They have already unilaterally acted to stop both Iraq and Syria from obtaining the bomb. What makes you think that they aren't going to stop Iran too?

Please note that I am not arguing for military action here. I am arguing for the rest of the world to take a stand. If Iran goes nuclear, where does it stop? Next up will be Saudi Arabia, then the UAE, then Dubai, then....

At some point, someone that doesn't care about mutual destruction is going to get their hands on the bomb and they are going to nuke the shit out of someone. But hey, we might appear insensitive to their feelings if we tell them that they can't join the nuclear club so shame on us.

For a more accurate history lesson, read this (http://www.amazon.com/Power-Faith-Fantasy-America-Present/dp/0393330303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244081013&sr=8-1) book.

redsox39

06-03-2009, 10:32 PM

...So if Nations like Iran get nukes, it isn't a big deal? Right?
Because I have yet to hear anyone say they are PRO-Iranian nukes yet.
So I think. for the most part, we agree this is a shitty situation, and we don't want them to have them.

I am just confused why we are not in agreement here. I know Arch just wants to bash on America, but I don't think even he wants Iran to have Nukes.

PS- Anyone checking out Pakistan and their Nukes? Last I checked, they were shitting their pants that they might lose control of the government and the nukes will be in the hands of al-Fagda.

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 11:00 PM

And not having to maintain such a massive army would mean that some of those guys doing compulsory 20 years of service right now could go till some fucking fields, thereby somewhat alleviating the hunger situation...

And we can't have that shit happen, obviously.

Oh, so it's been the lack of a nuke, not an oppressive socialist regime, that's causing N. Korea's economic shithole?

I'm sure they wouldn't mind subjugating S. Korea under their thumb, to till the fields or whatever else, too. Oh, and having a nuke might just make that dream a reality!

Nosebuckle

06-03-2009, 11:19 PM

...So if Nations like Iran get nukes, it isn't a big deal? Right?
Because I have yet to hear anyone say they are PRO-Iranian nukes yet.
So I think. for the most part, we agree this is a shitty situation, and we don't want them to have them.

No one desires Iran to acquire nukes, but it seems that this is a fact we are going to have to live with, minus military intervention. Since such an option ought not to be used, it's more or less something we will have to live with.

And this isn't an altogether horrible thing; it's already been stated in the thread that possession of nukes doesn't automatically equal imminent use of such weapons, as doing so would invite immediate and complete destruction of Iran. Ahmadjinginginhaad talks a tuff game on Israel and towards the West in general, but like it's been said, he doesn't hold his finger on the proverbial button. Ultimately, Iran isn't suicidal and has no capacity to reliably deliver a nuclear weapon very far, much less Europe and the US.

As far as Hezbollah and other groups which are arms of the Iranian squid, it wouldn't matter if nukes were distributed to them for use against Western targets because they would gladly take responsibility for such massive attacks - responsibility that would of course fall back on the regime itself, thus inviting its destruction.

We should by all means press for diplomatic relations in an effort to persuade them to abandon their nuclear weapon programs; it's a low-cost measure with potentially high rewards. But even the best diplomatic efforts are unlikely to curb their drive for a bomb, thus we should prepare to accept and isolate a nuclear Iran.

Das Kahlua

06-03-2009, 11:21 PM

Nuclear power is apparently too dangerous for us to build any new reactors in the US in the last 30 years. If it's so dangerous, we clearly shouldn't allow the Iranians to have it, for their own good. If it's really not dangerous, we should start building reactors in the US pronto. Either way, we're hypocritical somewhere along the line.

Pharon

06-04-2009, 10:24 AM

I guess that we shouldn't consider the fact that Iran supports Hezzbollah, which has waged a war against Israel recently (Granted, they got their ass kicked), or that Iran supports the insurgency in Iraq, or that Iran stones people to death (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.stoning/index.html).
In the context of Iran being an aggressor to its neighbors? Which of those three things do you think would qualify as one?

You are right that wanting to build nukes doesn't guarantee that they are going to use them. But him saying that he loves the joooos doesn't mean that he won't nuke them.
It's not just Jews who live there. There are plenty of Muslims, too. Ahmadinejad is against the idea of a Zionist state. But I have yet to see him advocate attacking Israel to achieve this goal.

The bottom line is that Israel isn't going to sit back and let Iran obtain the bomb. They have already unilaterally acted to stop both Iraq and Syria from obtaining the bomb. What makes you think that they aren't going to stop Iran too?
I never said they wouldn't. They very well could do just that, even if we use all of our influence to try and stop them. But ultimately, we have no control over their actions -- only our own.

Please note that I am not arguing for military action here. I am arguing for the rest of the world to take a stand. If Iran goes nuclear, where does it stop? Next up will be Saudi Arabia, then the UAE, then Dubai, then....
And?

At some point, someone that doesn't care about mutual destruction is going to get their hands on the bomb and they are going to nuke the shit out of someone. But hey, we might appear insensitive to their feelings if we tell them that they can't join the nuclear club so shame on us.
It's not about appearing insensitive to feelings, but rather rejecting the audacity of claiming we have a right to deny a country the right to defend itself as it sees fit.

Nuclear power is apparently too dangerous for us to build any new reactors in the US in the last 30 years. If it's so dangerous, we clearly shouldn't allow the Iranians to have it, for their own good. If it's really not dangerous, we should start building reactors in the US pronto. Either way, we're hypocritical somewhere along the line.
It's not about being dangerous in operation, but rather what to do with the spent nuclear fuel rods when they're no longer useful but still radioactive -- that's what's holding up the regulating process here in the U.S. However, the current global warming debate might just be a powerful enough force to push it through anyway, real soon.

As a side note, here's a related excerpt from Obama's speech this morning that I found interesting, if anyone was unclear how he stood on the subject:

Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Hanover Fist

06-04-2009, 10:56 AM

Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Obama is right on one point and wrong on another. According to the NPT countries are allowed to pursue peaceful nuclear power with the assistance of other nuclear power countries.
But he is incorrect in saying that no nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. The NPT clearly states that non-nuclear signed nations do not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran by being a signatory has given up it's right to pursue nuclear weapons and has waived it's right to sovereignty as far as verification is concerned.

Iran claims that it is its right by the NPT to pursue peaceful nuclear power which it is, but then it completely disregards the other parts of the NPT which require verification of all parts of its program.
If they wish to pursue nuclear weapons then they need to withdraw from the treaty otherwise they should STFU about the rest of the world sticking their noses in their nuclear business. Being a signatory to that treaty makes Irans nuclear ambitions everyones business.

Pharon

06-04-2009, 12:53 PM

If they wish to pursue nuclear weapons then they need to withdraw from the treaty otherwise they should STFU about the rest of the world sticking their noses in their nuclear business. Being a signatory to that treaty makes Irans nuclear ambitions everyones business.
I completely agree with you on this. But the point I was making (and I think Obama was, too) was a philosophical one -- not a legal one. So while I recognize the NPT to be a legally binding contract on Iran's part, and that they shouldn't be a signatory if they're going to violate it -- I guess I disagree with NPT philosophically in the first place, that other countries -- especially those that DO have nuclear weapons -- can and should be able to dictate to others what they can and cannot (or should not) have. It just seems strikingly hypocritical to me. That's all.

Hanover Fist

06-04-2009, 02:07 PM

I completely agree with you on this. But the point I was making (and I think Obama was, too) was a philosophical one -- not a legal one. So while I recognize the NPT to be a legally binding contract on Iran's part, and that they shouldn't be a signatory if they're going to violate it -- I guess I disagree with NPT philosophically in the first place, that other countries -- especially those that DO have nuclear weapons -- can and should be able to dictate to others what they can and cannot (or should not) have. It just seems strikingly hypocritical to me. That's all.

I believe the spirit behind the NPT was twofold. To stop the spread of nuclear weapons and in turn to encourage countries to comply with it, it makes it clear that it is the responsibility of those countries that are currently nuclear powers that they are obliged to assist the other signed countries in developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
So while those countries that are not nuclear weapon countries are disadvantaged by not being able to develop them, they are also given an advantage that they are given technology and materials to pursue energy generation much more cheaply.

Unfortunately Iran is trying to use the advantageous parts of the treaty while ignoring the responsibility parts of the treaty. While I am uncomfortable with Iran being any sort of nuclear power after seeing the way they run their oil industry and how corruption and infighting have caused the entire oil infrastructure to basically collapse in that country.
If they would completely comply openly with the NPT and the IAEA demands and show that they were truly interested in power generation only, I wouldn't be against them having it.

Das Kahlua

06-04-2009, 02:34 PM

I completely agree with you on this. But the point I was making (and I think Obama was, too) was a philosophical one -- not a legal one. So while I recognize the NPT to be a legally binding contract on Iran's part, and that they shouldn't be a signatory if they're going to violate it -- I guess I disagree with NPT philosophically in the first place, that other countries -- especially those that DO have nuclear weapons -- can and should be able to dictate to others what they can and cannot (or should not) have. It just seems strikingly hypocritical to me. That's all.

I guess I don't see conventional international politics applying to unconventional weapons (WMDs). When one weapon has the ability to irradiate an entire city for the next millennium, extra precautions have to be taken, even if that means some countries are snubbed. This is not a necessity for Iran, it's a wish; they don't need nukes for the continuation of their society, they want them to increase their military power, and thus guarantee themselves a front-row seat in the international community. I don't see how throwing that political hand gernade into the already unstable Middle East is worth Iran's ability to posture.

In a perfect world, should Iran have the freedom to pursue its defense goals without international interference? Absolutely, just as the US, and every country should. Unfortunately, Iran has already crossed the line from using its military for defensive purposes to using it offensively to impose its will on its neighbors. There is no reason to believe that nukes would be off limits for similar goals down the line.

As for the fact that the US has nukes, that is true, but we have been systematically reducing our arsenal over the past several decades. We learned that nukes are only effective as a political/military tool if we have the will to use them; neither Russia nor the US did, which is why the Cold War came to an end without nuclear annhiliation. Can the same be said of these radicals in the Middle East? Should we take that chance?

There's a time and place for higher moral principles. They exist to preserve a safe, civil society, but they only work when all sides are on the same page. If we're the only ones clinging to these values, we might be in the right, but we could be dead right.