What is Iran up to?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dezzo

No I don't. I just think that some people are forgetting that the US/UK/China/France/Russia/Israel/India/Pakistan and South Africa till they dismantled them have also got nuclear weapons as well but not a huge amount is made of that.

A few slaps on the wrist and then its all brushed under the carpet for India and Pakistan and a lot of looking the other way for Israel's weapons.

I remember a great deal was made of India and Pakistan getting nukes, despite them not actually stating they wanted to wipe each other out with them, but have them as a deterrant against the other wiping them out.

So, you object to the US and other countries not wanting a nation who's leader has publicly stated he wants to wipe another nation off the map and has signed the NPT, to get nukes while also showing concern over nations such as India and Pakistan?

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by punky

Well how about this. They are run by homicidical certifiable nut cases who have no regard to life or human/civil rights.

Who says? You only hear what you're allowed to hear. Iran is not the only country in the world with poor human rights. Saudi doesn't exactly shine brilliantly in the field either - but I don't see calls for us to invade them do I? Last time I checked China seemed to be controlling its population via an environment of fear, intimidation and censorship of information - but we're not placing them on the "axis of evil". The human rights issue is plainly not valid. Even though we may not agree with things that go on in certain countries, that does not give us any right to enter them by force. In addition, it does not give a reason why it should mean that they cannot have nuclear power/weapons. Even if they were to produce a few warheads, they're not going to waste them on the own people are they?

Originally Posted by punky

Ahmadinejad has already called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" (his exact words, although he later conceded to allowing them to move to another continent, how gracious of him).

And George Bush has called for Al Jazeera to be wiped off the map. What's the difference? The difference is that George Bush has the ability to do it. That make him more dangerous to me in my opinion.

Originally Posted by punky

If he had the means, I can see him doing it, even it makes a martyr out of himself/his country.

I guess this is the fundamental where neither of know the answer - but I can't see him doing it...it would be suicide for the whole country. And before people pipe up and say that they wouldn't care, and rubbish about paradise and seven virgins et al...stop and think. The people that go around blowing themselves and victims up are not leaders, elders, or controllers. The people who encourage that kind of behaviour are as scared of dying as you or I.

Originally Posted by punky

And a significant portion (maybe even a majority) of the 1.1billion muslims would support Iran on wiping out Israel.

I can only speak about the people from that region I've met...including many Saudis and, like us, they want people to get along peacefully as neighbours. Your average Iranian couldn't care less about Isreal. Sure, they don't like the fact that Isreal was planted in an Arab area - but most Muslims are not affected by it and understand the same as us, the need to get on with now, rather than harping back on the past.

Originally Posted by punky

Everyone has conceded that Saddan was trying to restart his program, all he needed was the time.

I don't. I haven't seen any credible evidence that suggests that Saddam was starting up a new weapons programme, beyond what was permitted under UN resolutions.

Originally Posted by punky

OK, let's ban everyone from having nukes, that way the only people that have nukes are homocidal dictators who have even more incentive to use them.

On this point we agree! I would like to see a world that could get on just enough to agree that we would all just forget the fact that nucelar material can be used as weapons. But it isn't going to happen. And how do you stop the erroneous factor that breaks the rule?

Originally Posted by Damien

Iran should not have Nukes, Full stop.

And what's the basis for your argument?

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Just wait until Bush need a popularity boost.

He doesn't need another boost - he's with us until the end of the term, and then he's off - hopefully making way for someone who likes the idea of a peaceful world that will work towards open discussion rather than open agression.

Originally Posted by BBKing

The difference between Iran and the USA is that when the USA threatens someone you know they're damned well capable of attacking them, they've proved it...

So which country is more likely to resort to nuclear weapons - the one that can fight a conventional war or the one that can't?

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

Originally Posted by andygrif

In addition, it does not give a reason why it should mean that they cannot have nuclear power/weapons. Even if they were to produce a few warheads, they're not going to waste them on the own people are they?

So you're in favour of nuclear proliferation then?

If a country isn't going to use the weapon on it's own, then all that remains is to use it one another country.

So there is every reason for the rest of us to be concerned about that country having nukes.

BTW - by your argument everyone, without regards to their mental health or criminal intent, should be allowed not only to own guns, but to carry them around wherever they go.

Originally Posted by andygrif

And George Bush has called for Al Jazeera to be wiped off the map. What's the difference? The difference is that George Bush has the ability to do it. That make him more dangerous to me in my opinion.

The man who can carry out the threat hasn't. Doesn't seem that dangerous to me.

But I do worry about the idea of giving everyone who makes threats the means to carry them out.

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

The man who can carry out the threat hasn't. Doesn't seem that dangerous to me.

But (and hopefully once the current trial about the people who gave the memo over comes to an end the truth will come out) it may well have been that good ole Tony B finally realised you can say no to Bush when it was suggested "as a joke"

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Even if they were to produce a few warheads, they're not going to waste them on the own people are they?

They might, but they're more likely to waste them on another nation's population, don't you think that's reason enough?

Originally Posted by andygrif

And George Bush has called for Al Jazeera to be wiped off the map. What's the difference? The difference is that George Bush has the ability to do it. That make him more dangerous to me in my opinion.

Lets see, alleged claim that Bush stated he wanted Al Jazeera removed, with out any context, and unless it's occured while I wasn't looking, no actual evidence that this was a plan to be put into action.
Compare that with wiping out an entire nation. Do you not think that what Hitler attempted during his time in power was bad enough or would you have prefered he finished the job?
Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel out, and it is seeking the means to do so, and this doesn't bother you one bit?

Originally Posted by andygrif

I guess this is the fundamental where neither of know the answer - but I can't see him doing it...it would be suicide for the whole country. And before people pipe up and say that they wouldn't care, and rubbish about paradise and seven virgins et al...stop and think. The people that go around blowing themselves and victims up are not leaders, elders, or controllers. The people who encourage that kind of behaviour are as scared of dying as you or I.

Why do you think people like Saddam had a massive nuclear bunker under his palace that he could have survived in if anyone launched nukes agaisnt Bahgdad?
Why do you think we have bunkers in this country to keep the cabinet and monarchy safe if we had been attacked by the USSR with nukes.
Goodness man! There's an entire underground city that was built for such an event!
The Russians and the US did the same, in the belief that if they went to war with nukes, they'd survive.

Originally Posted by andygrif

I can only speak about the people from that region I've met...including many Saudis and, like us, they want people to get along peacefully as neighbours. Your average Iranian couldn't care less about Isreal. Sure, they don't like the fact that Isreal was planted in an Arab area - but most Muslims are not affected by it and understand the same as us, the need to get on with now, rather than harping back on the past.

Then you know some moderate muslims.
I also know moderate muslims, and I also know non-moderate muslims who don't care if what they've been told is true or right, if it suggests Israel is bad and should be wiped off the map, then they're up for it no matter the consiquences.

Originally Posted by andygrif

And how do you stop the erroneous factor that breaks the rule?

With the best means at your disposal.
In some circumstances that will only be diplomacy, such as with NK.
In others, military action can be taken if diplomacy fails.

Originally Posted by andygrif

And what's the basis for your argument?

You don't think that wiping out Israel is reason enough????

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I remember a great deal was made of India and Pakistan getting nukes, despite them not actually stating they wanted to wipe each other out with them, but have them as a deterrant against the other wiping them out.

So you are all for allowing India and Pakistan to have weapons to prevent them from being attacked invaded.

But you will not allow the Iranians the same right?

I find a man pretty dangerous when he starts invading other countries because of 'WMD's' but then switches the ploy to 'the liberation of the people'

I wasn't before aware that liberation and genocide had the same meaning....

[BBKing]

So which country is more likely to resort to nuclear weapons - the one that can fight a conventional war or the one that can't?

1) A country with nuclear weapons
2) A country with a first use doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons

Both conditions are satisfied by the USA*. Neither are satisfied by Iran. Iran is at far higher risk of being on the end of a nuclear strike than either Israel or the USA. In that situation, wouldn't you want to even things up by having a few nukes of your own?

This isn't an argument for proliferation, incidentally, it's an argument for disarmament and diplomacy. The current crop of Dr. Strangelove clones in the Pentagon is not a recipe for anyone's security and you're a fool if you think otherwise.

* Didn't you know that one of Rumsfeld's changes to US doctrine is that tac nukes can be used first? The new US Ambassador to the UN is keen on it, too.

[zovat]

Ok - time to wade into this particular mire....

Originally Posted by dezzo

Ahem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4603136.stm

There have been plenty of other articles from various sources that the plan for after Saddam wasn't thought out in anywhere as much detail as was needed.

This article does not say that they underestimated the job, but that they did not allow for the cultural differences, and therby alienated the populace, making he job more difficult.

I can confirm that the americans did exactly that during the initial invasion - everywhere the brits went, they were made welcome - unless the yanks had been there first, in which case we were harrassed and had stones etc thrown at us - at least until they realised we were not americans...

From what the "man on the ground" was being told - even from day 1 (and before the official war/invasion began) we <the coalition> were there for the long run, and the peace was going to be just as hard as the war.

yes, there was overconfidence on the coalition side - based on the previous encounter with the Iraqi army where they ran from us - but only from the officers and staff - most soldiers work on a very simple priciple do the job in front of you and any soldier will tell you that they expected the Iraqis to fight harder this time (at least all the ones I spoe to prior to the start did) - after all this is their home they are fighting for.


The whole Nuclear issue is a constant battle - there are those that "officially" have Nuclear weapons - the US, Russia, China, France, and th UK - these are the countries that signed to say we will not increase our stockpile - nor will we share the technology with non-nuclear states.

Israel, Pakistan and India have not signed up to this treaty, but are know to have weapons - notably both India and Pakistan openly admit it (pakistan only becme a nuclear power as recently as 1998 (india was 1974) ) whereas Isreal does not - although one of their senior nuclear scientists wrote an article on the Israeli program for the british press so it's hardly a secret...

North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003 - then declared itself a nuclear power.
in 2005 they agreed to rejoin the treaty and scrap its weapons in return for "light water" reactors - they have since stated that until they have the reactors, they will neither disarm, nor re-join the treaty.

Iran however has signed the treaty as a non-nuclear country and IIRC the previous Ayatollah (sp?) issued an edict (fatwah?) forbidding the development of nuclear weapons - however the new boss has renounced that edict, declared an intention to "wipe israel from the face of the earth" and has now re-started its enrichment program.

The enrichment program is not in itself against the treaty - but they were negotiating with the UK France and Germany on safeguard to ensure that this program was not going to be used for weapons - that negotiation is now stalled, and is likely to never be re-started as one of the conditions of the negotiation was a halt on enrichment.

As I see it - they may well develop weapons, as North Korea did, in response to what they see as US aggression - however I feel that they are currently trying to see how far they can push the UN/US.

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Then you know some moderate muslims.
I also know moderate muslims, and I also know non-moderate muslims who don't care if what they've been told is true or right, if it suggests Israel is bad and should be wiped off the map, then they're up for it no matter the consiquences.

The same seems to be true of Americans, many would be glad to bomb away at Iran, and some even France - with their reasons starting at 'I don't like their attitude'

American democracy is a very dangerous thing - with many in the country unable to locate Iraq on a map or even tell you of its localised position - but all of them with an opinion on the matter.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Kliro

So you are all for allowing India and Pakistan to have weapons to prevent them from being attacked invaded.

But you will not allow the Iranians the same right?

I find a man pretty dangerous when he starts invading other countries because of 'WMD's' but then switches the ploy to 'the liberation of the people'

I wasn't before aware that liberation and genocide had the same meaning....

Iran does not want nukes to defend itself, it wants them to launch an attack on Israel and wipe it out.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by andygrif

<snip snip>.

are you graham, are you graham, are you grahaaaam in disguise.... are you graham in disguise..... (or andyl for that matter?)

Top post - expect a post of the month nomination from me

Originally Posted by Kliro

I wasn't before aware that liberation and genocide had the same meaning....

Who has comitted genocide in the name of liberation and where did they do that?

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Iran does not want nukes to defend itself, it wants them to launch an attack on Israel and wipe it out.

Where is your foundation for this?

(apart from the headlines of the sun)

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

1) A country with nuclear weapons
2) A country with a first use doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons

Both conditions are satisfied by the USA*. Neither are satisfied by Iran. Iran is at far higher risk of being on the end of a nuclear strike than either Israel or the USA. In that situation, wouldn't you want to even things up by having a few nukes of your own?

This isn't an argument for proliferation, incidentally, it's an argument for disarmament and diplomacy. The current crop of Dr. Strangelove clones in the Pentagon is not a recipe for anyone's security and you're a fool if you think otherwise.

* Didn't you know that one of Rumsfeld's changes to US doctrine is that tac nukes can be used first? The new US Ambassador to the UN is keen on it, too.

Iran is more likely to be on the recieving end of a nuclear strike?
Right, how many countries' leaders have called for the destruction of Iran and it's entire population?
Now, how many countries' leaders have called for the desctruction of Israel and it's entire population? Ooo Iran for one!

And you don't think we should be stopping them from obtaining the ability to do so?

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Iran does not want nukes to defend itself, it wants them to launch an attack on Israel and wipe it out.

as public enemy once said, "Don't believe the Hype". Public leaders will say what they want to stir up the masses and carry favour, but do you honestly believe that anyone in the middle east would actually launch a nuclear attack on israel? Oh please.