Iran Tells Everybody to "Stick It"

[KMA-628]

Personally, I think this is/was/going to be one of the most dangerous issues we have to face today. I know North Korea is an issue as well, but I see them more as folly than anything else....that Kim guy is a joke and I also think he is full of shit. Plus, China doesn't want them to get any power, so I think, with China's help, North Korea isn't going to become a problem.

I see the problem as Iran.

And before any Bush bashing goes on (which I know it will), remember your history. Yes, we created a lot of problems in the middle east, specifically Iran, but don't forget who pretty much started this whole mess (as far as our involvement goes), and it wasn't anybody with the last name of Bush.

Here is a blurb from Iran released in the news today:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Saturday it will never agree to a permanent halt on enriching uranium and warned that a more unstable Middle East would result from a U.S.-backed effort to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"Americans and Europeans will be the first to lose in that case," he told more than 50 nuclear scientists and experts attending the Tehran conference. "It will cause problems for regional energy and for the European economy.

And then followed with:

Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activities last year to create confidence in its negotiations and avoid Security Council referral. But Tehran says the voluntary freeze depends on progress in ongoing talks with the European Union.

Rowhani said Tehran will call off the talks entirely if it sees no signs of progress by the time a committee of Iranian and European negotiators meets March 17-18.

LINKY-POO

To me, Iran is very, very dangerous and represents a threat to the entire world. As far as I am concerned, they cannot be trusted, and even if they agreed to "do what they're told", I don't think they will.

So, as I see it, any talks or negotiations are doomed to fail. Iran will use whatever excuse they can to say that progress wasn't achieved (i.e. talks with the U.S., the E.U. or the U.N.) and that Iran will continue to enrich uranium. Plus, the Security Coucil or the IAEA isn't an option, because Iran already said that won't play that game.

In the short-term, the U.S. isn't in the "danger zone" here. Even after Iran develops nuclear warheads, it would be years and years before they could create a delivery system that could reach us. Their neighbors and the EU community are the ones most at risk--because there isn't anything to stop Iran from using nukes if the feel they are threatened (regardless if the threat is real or manufactured).

I think Iran would actually decide to use a nuke as a first strike weapon.

Granted, it would be dumb, because Iran would get wiped off the face of this planet, but I don't think they care.

So....what do we do?

Nothing?

More talks? If so, by who? And what do the people conducting the talks say that will appease Iran? (that's really the issue here--appeasement of Iran--something that makes me cringe)

Or do we (we = collective) do something else? More drastic? Military (not just the U.S. here)?

Does anyone think the EU or the UN can help?

Is there anything that can persuade Iran?

Or...none of the above? Maybe you think Iran isn't a threat/concern--if so, speak up and tell me why they aren't--I would be interested to know.

Personally, I think it is all a game. The talks go on, everybody claps about progress and achievements.....meanwhile, in the underground bunkers we just heard about, the process continues, and nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles will be developed.

[Willravel]

If it were up to me (thank God it isn't), I would restrict all flights in and out of Iran and watch all the boarders. As long as mutually assured destruction ap[ples to the Iranian governmental officials, they should refrain from attacking. If they try to leave, simple don't allow it. I realize how contradictory this idea runs to my libertarian beliefs, but bear with me.

I think that Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is scared to death right now. When Iraq and Iran went head to head back in 1980, they were evenly matched with Iraq. How long did it take for America to remove the Iraqi government? A few weeks? There is a clear danger to the government of Iran. IUn order to try and deterr America and our allies, it seems logical to try and gain better footing in the area of military power. They can't get a state of the art military or tons of troops, so they try the powerful weapons route. What's the most powerful weapon, striking fear even to America? The nuclear bomb. Don't forget that the last report from the IAEA said that although Iran had not been fully cooperative, there was no concrete proof that Iran was seeking to develope nuclear arms. Aside from respectable organizations like the IAEA, we have to rely on the same intelligence netowrks that told us that Iraq had WMD programs and ties to 9/11. They have lost what little trust they once had. So, as far as I can tell, there is no proof of Iranian nuclear programs. Because of this lack of proof, a war is completly and 100% out of the question, at least a preemptive war. America would be running the risk of not only alienating the rest of the world further, but possibly seeing our former allies take an opposing stand. I don't want to see a war, espically between super powers.

Our best bet is still the EU, who's negotiator made great progress for a time with Iran. Don't forget that on November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said that his country agreed to suspend the uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Aisde from deterrance, the real threat is that Iran suppoirts terrorist groups. I believe that in 1995, the reason America suspended trade with Iran was both the support of terrorist groups and the development of nuclear weapons. I don't want to see "terrorist" and "nuclear wepons" in the same sentence, unless that sentence says that it doesn't want to see them in the same sentence. Heh. That's the wild card.

[Manx]

I find it hard to swallow the line that Iran is the grave threat that is claimed when the U.S. so adamantly supports Israel.

Don't want Iran to seek nukes? Force Israel to get rid of its own. You can't blame Iran for seeking nukes when their enemy neighbor has nukes pointing right at them.

Iran is not much different than Saudi Arabia - except the U.S. has strong business ties to Saudi Arabia.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by Manx

Don't want Iran to seek nukes? Force Israel to get rid of its own. You can't blame Iran for seeking nukes when their enemy neighbor has nukes pointing right at them.

Even if we were able to get Israel to get rid of their nukes, Iran would continue to try and develop a nuclear weapon. Each time you try to remove an excuse Iran uses for developing nukes, they will come up with another one.

Anyway, you could never get Israel to agree to this, so it is moot. Anyway, while I am not thrilled with Israel's weapons program, I would much rather them have nukes than Iran.


Will -

Mutually assured destruction is already a guarantee, well, at least their destruction is. If they used a nuke on anybody, the whole world would probably demand their destruction (ironic, eh?).

Yet, knowing that we could wipe them off the planet hasn't really proven to be a deterrent to anything. You would think it would have an effect, but it just doesn't seem to.

If am up against a super-power that I know I could never win against, agitating them would not be on my to-do list. Yet, Iran is throwing threats around like threats are on a blue-light special at K-mart.



On a different note: We really screwed up intelliegence wise. When we were spying on our old "enemies" and "friends", we only had to worry about making accents sound legit. Sending in white spies into an Arab country is never going to work--regardless of how good their accent is. I don't think we are set-up to handle intelligence gathering in Arab countries. I'm sure we have some capabilites, but they are nowhere near our other "spying" capabilites.

And....it will take years and years to develop such a system.

We are definitely in a weird situation. The best intelligence we can get, sucks. So, what do you do?

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Manx

I find it hard to swallow the line that Iran is the grave threat that is claimed when the U.S. so adamantly supports Israel.

Don't want Iran to seek nukes? Force Israel to get rid of its own. You can't blame Iran for seeking nukes when their enemy neighbor has nukes pointing right at them..

So are you saying it's a good thing that Iran has nukes?

[Manx]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Even if we were able to get Israel to get rid of their nukes, Iran would continue to try and develop a nuclear weapon. Each time you try to remove an excuse Iran uses for developing nukes, they will come up with another one.

Anyway, you could never get Israel to agree to this, so it is moot. Anyway, while I am not thrilled with Israel's weapons program, I would much rather them have nukes than Iran.

Maybe Iran would continue to try to develop nukes - but right now they have a damn good reason for them. Take away that damn good reason and you'll find it is more likely that they will not obtain nukes, both due to a decrease in their own perception of need and an increase in international concern.

And I'm sorry - but it is not "moot" that Israel would not agree to getting rid of their nukes. That would be like saying it is moot that Iran wants nukes. The U.S. gov't just happens to be in the perfect position to force Israel to give up their nukes - stop signing the checks.

Originally Posted by NCB

So are you saying it's a good thing that Iran has nukes?

Not even close.

[jorgelito]

Israel should NOT give up their nukes - that would be suicide.

Further, the lack of Arab-American spies (Korean, Chinese too) is our own fault. I think we dropped the ball here.

Also, Iran is very much a threat, much mire than Iraq was. I still think we invaded the wrong country.

I think talk has failed, miserabley. No country with "rogue" ambitions takes talks seriously. No, it's time to take them out. Either "shock and awe" surgical strike and take out their nukes or all out invasion (if we are so inept, maybe the Israelis can help us and show us how it's really done).

Fuck the allies - we didn't wait for help in Afghanistan (and they offered too), we did it without help in Iraq. We are the worlds best military, Iran should be a snap. Like Iraq was, and Afghanistan. Just going down the check list.

The Chinese are weak and the North Koreans know it. If China can't get it done, I say we show them how. Or we unleash Japan and South Korea across the DMZ. It's obvous diplomacy has failed, it is time for action.

Or, we just don't give a shit and let everyone do what they want: We can go solar and screw them all!! LOL! Arm them all and make a killing (no pun intended) and go in after and take what's left.

[jorgelito]

Iran has NO GOOD REASON to develop nukes. Who's a threat? Kurds? Sunnis? Syria? Iraq? No, if they're threat, they can always gas them. No need for nukes.

No the nukes are for telling us that they want to flex some muscle and threaten Israel.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Israel should NOT give up their nukes - that would be suicide.

Nonsense.  

[alansmithee]

I have an idea-we negotiate with Iran. If they agree to not work on long-range delivery systems (something that can get across the oceans) WE give them nuclear technology. We then let the EU now worry about their nuclear powered friends in Iran.

It an abstract way, i think it's bad if Iran gets nukes. But I don't see us being at risk for a long while. The technology for developing long-range delivery systems is alot more difficult than making the atomic weapons themselves. And it's not like a nuclear weapon is something that someone can stick in their shoes.

[raveneye]

I don't think we should count diplomacy out yet.

Someone in the Administration has had some positive influence on Bush and Rice, because they suddenly stopped disparaging the European negotiation effort. Plus they actually made some noises about the U.S. being involved in offering Iran some concessions (something about spare plane parts and the WTO).

The disadvantage of negotiation is that it seems to lend support to the clerics, who don't deserve any support whatsoever and are politically vulnerable right now. But the advantage is that it puts the ball in the clerics' court. So if they don't run with it, the U.S. is no longer an obstacle in sending them to the Security Council for sanctions.

The main wild card right now is: will the Europeans follow through and send it to the Security Council? Or will they let the negotiations drag on forever?

The possibility of peaceful disarmament sure seems dismal right now. But you never know how much of the talk is real and how much is bluffing. Maybe Iran really is waiting for a sweeter package of incentives from the U.S.? The only way to find out is to keep talking.

[tecoyah]

In my uninformed and terribly narrow opinion, if we look at the BIG picture we will see the actual reasoning behind the need for Iran to develop "Nukes". The United States is a major threat to them, and Nukes allow a form of deterent to invasion. This may be a misdirected venue for them....but desperation breeds extremists.
Something I have noticed in here, is a misunderstanding of the intent behind criticism of the Bush administration. As far as I am concerned at least, I do not point out deficiency because I "Hate" my country, Bush is not the United States of America.
By invading and occupying Iraq we have managed to send a dangerous message to the powers that be in a very fragile, and volatile region of this world we inhabit. Should we decide to continue this message with Syria....what can we possibly expect short of fearful nationalism from the borderline regimes in the Middle East.
Iran covers far more surface area, and has a vastly larger population than Iraq.....thus it would be at the very least, foolish for us to invade. Unfortunately we have a recent history of relatively foolish actions as a country in the eyes of the very nations that would feel threatened.
Personally, and logically, I do not blame Iran for attempting to gain the protection India and Pakistan now have. and were I living in Iran....would expect nothing less from my Government.

[Rdr4evr]

when will the non-sense end, all of this iran is a nuclear threat garbage we seem to be flooded with everyday is propaganda to persuade americans to fear iran as they did iraq, so there is some excuse to justify another war, which will be a greater failure than iraq. even if iran is in the process of producing nukes, which i doubt, i don't blame them in the least, as tecoyah said, if i were living there, i would expect nothing less. as n korea, iran has to protect itself from america and its so called allies fully aware that the war happy administration or their terrorist buddies could attack them at any given time. although i think that's impossible currently as well. america can't pull off a full scale invasion militarily or financially currently, and to do so would probably result in a draft. anyway, whatever, this is all senseless fear of 'the evil middle eastern terrorists' and it's obviously working thus far. *yawn*

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

In my uninformed and terribly narrow opinion, if we look at the BIG picture we will see the actual reasoning behind the need for Iran to develop "Nukes". The United States is a major threat to them, and Nukes allow a form of deterent to invasion. This may be a misdirected venue for them....but desperation breeds extremists.
Something I have noticed in here, is a misunderstanding of the intent behind criticism of the Bush administration. As far as I am concerned at least, I do not point out deficiency because I "Hate" my country, Bush is not the United States of America.
By invading and occupying Iraq we have managed to send a dangerous message to the powers that be in a very fragile, and volatile region of this world we inhabit. Should we decide to continue this message with Syria....what can we possibly expect short of fearful nationalism from the borderline regimes in the Middle East.

This is why I mentioned the "history" in my original post. Iran's nuclear program and nuclear ambitions go back long before Bush was in office.

CLICK HERE for a really long "article" going over Iran and its nuclear program.

Note: They would have had completely functional reactors by the early 80's if Carter had acted with a little more forethought.

[debaser]

Iran is not that big of a threat in the conventional sense, at least not at the moment. The most dangerous course of action they could embark on would be the encitement of the Shia in Iraq. That could put a major hurt on us. As for their military assets, they are certainly more impressive than Iraq, but still laughable. They are scared shitless of us though, and the cornered animal is the most dangerous. I don't lose any sleep over them, so you shouldn't either.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Will -
Mutually assured destruction is already a guarantee, well, at least their destruction is. If they used a nuke on anybody, the whole world would probably demand their destruction (ironic, eh?).

Yet, knowing that we could wipe them off the planet hasn't really proven to be a deterrent to anything. You would think it would have an effect, but it just doesn't seem to.

If am up against a super-power that I know I could never win against, agitating them would not be on my to-do list. Yet, Iran is throwing threats around like threats are on a blue-light special at K-mart.

It's them deterring us, not us deterring them that is driving them. If we attack them prematurely (before there is PROOF), the world will turn on us very quickly. That gives Iran time to develop nuclear weapons. When they do have weapons, and it is proven, they will already have them pointd at something. By the time we know they exist for sure, it will be too late. If we try to stike at them, we run the risk of not stopping all of their nukes from firing. Imagine Rome or Athens being wiped out because we decided to play world-police yet again. We can't hit them without running the risk of being hit back. That is what deterrance really is. That's why America and Russia aren't smoking, glowing holes. If we would have struck at Russia first, we would have been hit. Likewise if Russia would have struck, they would have been destroyed aswell. While it's clearly a delacite and fragile peace teatering on the edge of complete destruction, it is still a peace. Iran will be in the incasion-free club along with every other country that has nukes.

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Iran has NO GOOD REASON to develop nukes. Who's a threat? Kurds? Sunnis? Syria? Iraq? No, if they're threat, they can always gas them. No need for nukes.

No the nukes are for telling us that they want to flex some muscle and threaten Israel.

Who led the most succesful and shocking invasion and removal of a middle eastern regime recently? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Kurds or Sunnis or Syria or Iraq or any other middle eastern group or nation.

Who is the single greatest theat to the theocracy in Iran? Who has shown that they have the power to destroy and invade in the name of democracy - democracy being the opposite of a theocracy, btw - and has their eye on Iran right now?

[Furry]

I see a pattern here... Afghanistan...Iraq...No wonder that they might be pursuing nuclear capabilities.

I don't think that the current US administration has the political capital to spend on another intelligence cock-up, let alone pushing for another war. Patience and goodwill with and towards the US Govt. over here in Europe has worn thin. Step back and let those who have been dealing with things diplomatically continue their work. It might not get the result that the US Govt. want, but now that their bolt has been shot there is no legitimate alternative. Allow the IAEA and the other nations to continue the non-antagonistic route. It's absolutely no good shouting demands from the sidelines - the ball's in the EU's court this time and any "interference" on the part of the US is going to be mightily frowned upon, unless it can somehow go through the UN or other legitimate bodies first.

[roachboy]

i wonder if the bush administration could function at all if it was not busily fabricating threats.
it has used fear mongering as a central element in its policy making and selling since 9/11/2001--in many ways it seems that its "vision" for america is based upon the steady manufacture of things to be afraid of in the world.

iran is not a threat to the us in any coherent sense.
but it is part of the circuit of countries that you can see designated as "enemies" in some abstract sense by the project for a new american century group. so is syria.
that vision is about an imperialist america, a military hegemon, behind which an ordered, ultra-nationalist society is imagined, united behind the Person of the Leader. that vision of one of an american-style fascism.
manufacturing terror, radical nationalism, the fetishism of the military--all of a piece..

on another note:
the possibility that the bushpeople are worried about iran supporting the shi'a parties in iraq crossed my mind---it would make sense in the abstract--but in fact they hate each other.

it would be folly--even by the standards that you have to apply to this administration--were bush to attempt an invasion of iran. it would be a bloodbath.

[jorgelito]

WillRavel,

I understand what you are saying, but I guess it sort of comes down to a chicken/egg thing or catch-22: We (the US, in theory) wouldn't invade a country (i.e.- Iran) unless they have WMD or "nuclear ambition" (this is a rather loose assertion I realize, but just for argument's sake). BUT Iran, fears a US invasion (regardless of intent and decides to develop "nukes" or WMD as a "deterrent", which then invites an inavsion or action.

On the other hand, maybe Iran sees the current Middle East situation as a power vaccum and desires to step in and fill the void and maybe harbors desire as a regional hegemon. With Iraq (previous balancer) out of the way, Iran "suddenly" becomes pretty big.

Additionally, Iran's stated calls for Israel's destruction is indeed a cause for alarm. Add to that Iran's nuclear ambitions, one would definitely wonder what their true motive or intent was.

I suppose it could be a matter of what your viewpoint is also: For example, should we be more proactive in international relations or should we just mind our own business?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

WillRavel,

I understand what you are saying, but I guess it sort of comes down to a chicken/egg thing or catch-22: We (the US, in theory) wouldn't invade a country (i.e.- Iran) unless they have WMD or "nuclear ambition" (this is a rather loose assertion I realize, but just for argument's sake). BUT Iran, fears a US invasion (regardless of intent and decides to develop "nukes" or WMD as a "deterrent", which then invites an inavsion or action.

On the other hand, maybe Iran sees the current Middle East situation as a power vaccum and desires to step in and fill the void and maybe harbors desire as a regional hegemon. With Iraq (previous balancer) out of the way, Iran "suddenly" becomes pretty big.

Additionally, Iran's stated calls for Israel's destruction is indeed a cause for alarm. Add to that Iran's nuclear ambitions, one would definitely wonder what their true motive or intent was.

I suppose it could be a matter of what your viewpoint is also: For example, should we be more proactive in international relations or should we just mind our own business?

I totally agree that it is a chicken egg situation except for one factor: the US invaded Iraq despite the fact that they didn't ahve WMDs. If they actually did have WMDs they mgiht have actually stood a fraction of a chance against the military mgiht of America. If we invade Iran and we're [B]lying[/I] about the nuclear weapons, like we lied about the WMDs in Iraq, we will take Iran just as we took Iraq. We've already shown that we can invade a country based on lies and/or misinformation about threats, then change the story aftarwards to that of some moral reason. We could easily (after pulling out of Iraq) invade Iran and overthrow the theocracy, only to say later that we went in to bring them "freedom" and "democracy".

Why do you think America is allies with the state of Isreal? Why aren't we backing up Iran, like we did when Iraq attacked? Why aren't we disarming Isreal along with Iran?

I think we should either be friends with ALL middle eastern nations or NONE. We can't take sides in what is a Zionist vs. Islam problem. If we were real allies of Iran, we wouldn't be deamonizing them and threatening them. If we were allies with Iran, we might open up trade with them and send in humanatarian organizations. Instead of spending $200billion on a war, we could spend $12billion on peace and not have to worry about them.

The alternative to allying all of them is leaving them completly alone and trying to rely on other, more expensive source of oil.

[DJ Happy]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

To me, Iran is very, very dangerous and represents a threat to the entire world. As far as I am concerned, they cannot be trusted, and even if they agreed to "do what they're told", I don't think they will.

I'm sure Iran feels the same way about the US. Which is probably the main reason they are developing nuclear capabilities to begin with.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if the bush administration could function at all if it was not busily fabricating threats.
it has used fear mongering as a central element in its policy making and selling since 9/11/2001--in many ways it seems that its "vision" for america is based upon the steady manufacture of things to be afraid of in the world.

iran is not a threat to the us in any coherent sense.
but it is part of the circuit of countries that you can see designated as "enemies" in some abstract sense by the project for a new american century group. so is syria.
that vision is about an imperialist america, a military hegemon, behind which an ordered, ultra-nationalist society is imagined, united behind the Person of the Leader. that vision of one of an american-style fascism.
manufacturing terror, radical nationalism, the fetishism of the military--all of a piece..

Manufacture terrorism? So all the terrorist attacks that al-quaeda purpotrated against the United States, up until 9/11/2001 were bogus? made up?

The threat comes from terrorist-friendly islamic nations that have access to WMD's esp. nuclear weapons. Handing those weapons off to the terrorist operatives for a detonation within our boarders, so those of you saying it doesn't matter to the US if Iran has nukes because they have no delivery system are wrong. They do have a delivery sysem and it is called islamic terrorists.

We aren't demanding Israel get rid of their nukes because we aren't worried that they are going to hand them off to terrorists to kill americans.

And we don't need to wait for Iran to have nukes before we deal with them. Thats what the whole pre-emptive policy is all about. We act before something becomes an imminent threat, because once they are, it is too late.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by stevo

Manufacture terrorism? So all the terrorist attacks that al-quaeda purpotrated against the United States, up until 9/11/2001 were bogus? made up?

We are very good at saying the al-qaeda may have been involved then we leave that thought there to boil in the minds of the public. Name 3 al-qaeda attacks purpotrated against the United States before 9/11 that were proven, not just alledged.

Originally Posted by stevo

The threat comes from terrorist-friendly islamic nations that have access to WMD's esp. nuclear weapons. Handing those weapons off to the terrorist operatives for a detonation within our boarders, so those of you saying it doesn't matter to the US if Iran has nukes because they have no delivery system are wrong. They do have a delivery sysem and it is called islamic terrorists.

If they hand off the hukes to terrorists, they lose their control of them. If they don't have control voer the nuclear weapons, they won't be able to deterrr the US. It would be countrproductive to their goal; keeping the US at bay. If they were to be tied to a preemptive strike against an American target, they'd be screwed. If we can go to war with Iraq without any proof, imagine what we could do to Iran with proof.

Originally Posted by stevo

We aren't demanding Israel get rid of their nukes because we aren't worried that they are going to hand them off to terrorists to kill americans.

And what happens if Israel has that religious military coup everyone's been talking about since the late 80s? Then we have nuclear weapons fired at arab cities all over the middle east.

Originally Posted by stevo

And we don't need to wait for Iran to have nukes before we deal with them. Thats what the whole pre-emptive policy is all about. We act before something becomes an imminent threat, because once they are, it is too late.

Pre-emptive policy, espically based on what will probably turn out to be poor intelligence, is a wonderful way to kill innocent people and go against the basic ideals of American jusitce. We can't trust our intelligence organizations, as we saw in Iraq, with foreign policy decisions. If we go after Iran, and they were not a danger to anyone, we are the bad guys AGAIN. I'm getting a little tired of being the bad guy.

The threat isn't immenent in Iran yet. We have no proof. Innocent until proven guilty should not just be limited to the American justice system. It would be hyprocritical to apply that philosophy only when it suits our goals.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Israel has no obligation to disarm it's nuclear programs, they never signed the proliferation treaty, so they are not bound by it. Plus as a country that has been invaded and drawn into 5+ conflicts in the last half century, I don't blame them for having them, keep those "pesky" Arabs from starting shit again.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Israel has no obligation to disarm it's nuclear programs, they never signed the proliferation treaty, so they are not bound by it.

Whether they or anyone signed a treaty or not has no bearing on whether they need nuclear weapons or not.

Plus as a country that has been invaded and drawn into 5+ conflicts in the last half century, I don't blame them for having them, keep those "pesky" Arabs from starting shit again.

I'm not even going to bother with that rewrite of history.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

It might not have any bearing onf whether they need them or not, but it stands on the grounds that they is nothing to deter them, no legal problems that would prevent them from having them.

That's your opinion that it's a rewrite. THe reality was that at their inception as a state they were invaded by 7 regular armies, in 56' they were drawn into conflict at the closing of the straits, in 67' they were drawn into war after 3 different enemy nations began amassing troops on their respective borders, and then 73' when Egypt invaded on the holy day of Yom Kippur, couple all of that with the destablization of Lebanon and it's base for Palestinian terrorism/Syrian military presence is a clear danger to Israel's border and sovereignity.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It might not have any bearing onf whether they need them or not, but it stands on the grounds that they is nothing to deter them, no legal problems that would prevent them from having them.

Every law can be changed if it is necessary to change the law.

That's your opinion that it's a rewrite.

And it's your opinion that it is not. As the Israeli state discussion has taken place countless times to no avail, there seems to be little point in starting it again at this time. And I am getting tired of the "Well that's your opinion" type of posts. Of course it is, that's why I wrote it.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

The law can be changed, but there is the whole issue of Ex post facto. It is not illegal for them right now to have them. As a sovereign state they have every right to have nuclear weapons, it wouldn't even matter if someone changed the law, because guess what, international law only has authority where sovereignity is conceded. It is a lame attempt for you guys to try and use it as an excuse because Israel has no relevance to Iran having nuclear weapons, Iran being a country which did sign the proliferation treaty.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It is a lame attempt for you guys to try and use it as an excuse because Israel has no relevance to Iran having nuclear weapons, Iran being a country which did sign the proliferation treaty.

This is where you get confused with what is the law and what is a need.

That Israel has nuclear weapons is a major reason why Iran would break the law to obtain nuclear weapons.

The law has nothing to do with the purpose - the law is nothing more than an international agreement on what should or should not take place - not what needs to take place.

[Lebell]

KMA,

re: original post.

I don't think that Iran would attack first as a country, as they know what the consequences would be and I dont think they are suicidal.

I DO however see them helping terrorism achieve the next level: nuclear terrorism.

MAD worked with the Soviets because we had definable targets. As more and more countries join the nuclear club, it becomes more and more difficult to know whom to retaliate against in the event of a nuclear bomb going off in Washington or New York.

Do we hit North Korea? China? Iran? Pakistan?

I know it is possible to trace the origin of the fissionable material in the fallout, but too many sources for it are coming online for my liking.

[roachboy]

what interest would you imagine iran would have in doing that, lebell? seriously--what interest?

i mean apart from the catch phrases you hear from the administration, which in general are more about selling their favorite product--fear---than about a coherent view of the government in iran, its actions, etc.

so far as the core of the administration is concerned, iran has been defined as a "terrorist threat" since the hostage thing at the end of the carter administration. what made them a threat in this regard was that they embarrassed the united states. the americans paid them back in spades by arming saddam hussein to the gills over the next decade (remember? i do....) the present administration has no other agenda--iran is as symbolic a target as iraq was.

these clowns set the Agenda:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

george w. bush seems to be doing nothing but looking to implement it.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

What makes them a terrorist threat Roachboy is Iran actively supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Sorry, no "Bushworld" twist or plot, just reality.

[roachboy]

whether that is true or not (i am agnostic on the matter, mojo), it says nothing at all about the question i actually posed: how would it be in iran's interest to provide nuclear weapons to "terrorists"?


as for hezbollah and hamas, i assume that there is a dimension in which they are relevant to the question at hand---actually, i read through your rather smug post again, and it does not make sense to me--what exactly are you saying? say iran has supported these organization (either of which complicates the slogan of "terrorism"--but i suspect that would fall outside your purview, as you seem to support any and all imperialist actions by the united states and all the attending definitions required to justify it)--how exactly would it follow from support (what types?) that iran would pass along nuclear weapons to them?.

on the other hand, sitting and cheerleading as you do in the belly of the world's largest arms exporter--by a multiple of ten--what argument do you really have for limiting the circulation of weapons systems, conventional or otherwise?

[Furry]

Funnily enough, the EU does not brand Hezbollah as a terrorist group, even though Hamas may be a different story. Hezbollah is a political party that has an active paramilitary wing. Screaming "Terrorist!" and going into full- blown paranoia mode does not a terrorist make, neither is it conducive to working things out without raise blood pressure and international tensions. Of the three countries championing negotiation as a way forwards, the UK has experience of dealing with this very scenario. The IRA is (or was, depending on your view of current events) organised in exactly the same way. Tacit US support in the form of your former President Bill Clinton helped with the negotiations that paved the way to the Good Friday Agreements, however any comment from the current incumbent, who has no experience with working things through by diplomatic means, will only hamper efforts to get the situation under some kind of acceptable control.

In response to posts about the NPT, the academic community, who also on occasion fulfill roles as advisors to leaders, consider the NPT as a norm. That is to say that the level of support for that particular convention is so great that it applies to all, even though one may not have signed the original treaty.The Geneva Accords are another example of this. International pressure over US withdrawal from the NPT has led them to quietly shelve plans for tactical battlefield nuclear shells, even though they are no longer officially bound by its terms. In other words, whether or not a treaty has been signed by your country, if the level of worldwide support is great enough, the terms of that agreement are more or less forced upon you. You may still do as you wish under the terms of your own sovereignty, but funnily enough you might suddenly find that people in strategic places stop listening and political doors that were once open become inexplicably shut.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

WillRavel,

We (the US, in theory) wouldn't invade a country (i.e.- Iran) unless they have WMD or "nuclear ambition" (this is a rather loose assertion I realize, but just for argument's sake).

Hopefully not for argument's sake: I'm just curious where you getting this data from; and what timeline your placing on it.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Manx

I find it hard to swallow the line that Iran is the grave threat that is claimed

Originally Posted by alansmithee

It an abstract way, i think it's bad if Iran gets nukes. But I don't see us being at risk for a long while.

Originally Posted by roachboy

iran is not a threat to the us in any coherent sense.

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't think that Iran would attack first as a country, as they know what the consequences would be and I dont think they are suicidal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129390,00.html

In an interview with pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, [Iranian Defense Minister] Ali Shamkhani was asked how Iran would respond if America were to attack its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "There are differences of opinion among military commanders (in Iran). Some commanders believe preventive operations is not a model created by Americans ... or is not limited to Americans. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."

Now everyone can act shocked that one of the board's liberals quoted Fox News (which, by the way, I am not fond of, but it's an AP Story so it doesn't really matter which site I got it from.)

Anyway, I don't think that they would hesitate to use a nuke against our troops in the Persian Gulf if they thought they were about to be invaded.

[KMA-628]

From the BBC:

Palestinian hardline meets in Iran
By Jim Muir
BBC Tehran correspondent

A two-day conference has opened in the Iranian capital, Tehran, in support of the Palestinian uprising against the Israelis.

Held in commemoration of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, father of the Iranian revolution, it brought together many figures regarded by both Israel and the US as hardened terrorists - although Iran and many Arabs hail them as heroic strugglers for liberation.

" Our only weapon is our love of martyrdom and death. We'll never give it up until our goals are achieved "
Ahmed Jibril

Among them were leaders from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas movements, and from the Lebanese Hezbollah.

There was also Ahmed Jibril, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), whose son Jihad was killed last month in Beirut in what was believed to be an Israeli action.

Martyrdom was indeed one of the main themes of the opening speeches.

Attacks 'to continue'

The conference organiser, Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi - who as Iranian ambassador in Damascus was instrumental in setting up the Lebanese Hezbollah in the early 1980s - said that the Palestinian intifada, and especially the suicide bombings, had achieved more than all the Arab wars and peace talks with Israel.

He referred to Israel as "a cancerous tumour implanted in the heart of the Islamic world which must be uprooted before it takes over".

Both Ahmed Jibril and the Islamic Jihad leader, Ramadan Abdullah, told the BBC that suicide bomb attacks would continue because they were the only weapon the Palestinians had in an unequal battle.

"Of course we'll keep up the martyrdom operations," said Ahmed Jibril.

"The enemy has every possible modern weapon, but our only weapon is our love of martyrdom and death. We'll never give it up until our goals are achieved," he said.

"We have no choice but to take the initiative and defend ourselves with ourselves, through suicide operations and in all other ways, which are legitimate as long as the occupation continues," he added.

They regarded the latest peace proposals as nothing more than an empty trick to get the Palestinians to give up the intifada.

They said the Americans were trying to extinguish the flames in Palestine so that they could get on with their plan to strike other Arab countries and movements.

The deputy leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qasem, said that Palestine was the first line of defence for both the Arab and Islamic worlds, and if it fell, they would fall too.

Diplomatic damage

It is not expected that anything practical will come out of this conference.

But it will certainly reinforce Iran's support for hardline elements within the Palestinian arena.

Tehran is certainly not encouraging the Palestinians to re-embrace the US-sponsored peace process.

" Israel must be destroyed "
Banners in Tehran

"The new strategy of bringing the Palestinians back to the negotiating table is only intended to divide the Palestinian groups and suppress the intifada," said Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to the conference.

He described the gathering as "a symbolic and valuable initiative intended to inspire the struggles of the Palestinian people against the occupiers".

Main thoroughfares in many parts of Tehran have for several days been draped with banners bearing the picture of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and one of his slogans: "Israel must be destroyed."

All this could entail diplomatic damage for Tehran, coming as it does at a time when the European Union is debating whether to open serious negotiations on a trade and co-operation agreement with the Islamic republic.

European ministers meet in Brussels on 10 June to discuss a move which some are reluctant to take because of reservations over Iran's human rights record, its Middle East policies, and its alleged attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Yeah, these guys sound like some peace-loving people.

How can anyone question whether or not Iran supports terrorists?

A couple of points:

The US may be the largest exporter of arms--but the comparison doesn't include the fact that a few other "major suppliers" of arms, do so on the black market--kinda hard to make the comparison when who knows what percentage of arms trade is unaccounted for.

Why wouldn't Iran hand off a nuke? If we can't trace it back to Iran, why would they be concerned about selling nukes? It's not like they care how many "infidels" die, they would be too busy dancing and singing in the streets.


Edit: LINK

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Yeah, these guys sound like some peace-loving people.

How can anyone question whether or not Iran supports terrorists?

One man's terrorist is another man's hero. Terrorism: The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. An Arab fundamentalist blowing up an American carrier would be an act of terrorism, because it is intended to take away the feeling of safety that the men on the carrier would ahve had otherwise. Likewise, when American fighters and missles attack the capitol of a nation in a campaign called "Shock and Awe", intending to instill fear in our enemies in order for them to surrender is also an act of terrorism (reread the definition if you don't belive me). What makes the US the good guys and the Arab fundamentalists the bad guys is one thing: control of perception. The US media is here to show how our government can only do heroic and morally just acts, and how our enemies are evil and take human lives out of nothing but blind hate. Likewise, America is protraied in the Middle East (often) as a great evil empire that wants to kill them and take their resources, while the Arab fundamentalists are great heros standing up to the evil giant. The truth lies somewhere between.

We are not in a position to call anyone else a terrorist.

This is about nuclear weapons, not establishing a pattern. If Iran doesn't have nucl;ear weapons, they won't be selling nuclear weapons to anyone. If they are developing them, they still aren't completed yet, so they won't be selling them to anyone. If they have working nuclear weapons, they are a danger to nearby nations. The only reason to attack America is if we continue our unnecessary involvement in their region, disrupting the balance of power. The day Iran hands off a nuke to terrorists in order to strike at America is the day after America threatens to take action against Iran.

I stand by my original post, we should either ally all nations in the Middle Easy or leave completly. If we were allies with all of them, we would be actually working towards the best interests of ALL parties, instead of just Israel for some reason. If we worked towards the common goal of peace and prosparity in the Middle East, we might see real positive change that has the potential for peace between the Jewish and Islamic groups. We need to stop playing these dangerous games that cost lives.

[stevo]

nevermind.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by roachboy

what interest would you imagine iran would have in doing that, lebell? seriously--what interest?

Do you watch the news? Do you read history? While you do not practice religion, do you understand fanaticism?

The majority of people that rule Iran believe with all their heart that the Jews (supported by the US) are the enemy and if they drive them from the 3rd holiest city in Islam, they are guarenteed paradise.

That isn't from the Bush/Rove playbook, that's straight from their mouths, which you can verify by visiting a few radical Islamic websites.

So their interest is SERVING ALLAH. This goes back before the hostages (444 days I remember well) and before the shah and before the creation of Israel to when Mohammed blessed the taking of lands and killing those who opposed them. (You could live in peace under Islam only if you were Christain or Jewish, but THEN only if you paid a tax for the privilege.)

I can't spell it out any more clearly.