I have not discounted the IAEA. I have objected to you drawing much greater conclusions than their actual statements permit: such as IAEA says they're not capable now, meaning situation=no problem.
quote:This is why nobody is going to pick a nuclear fight with America. Anybody who starts a nuclear war unprovoked has no allies.
Look, the leadership of Iran are a bunch of fundamentalist fanatic Muslims. Which part of "fundamentalist fanatic"-and especially the word fanatic-is so difficult to understand?
They're freaking crazy. Normal standards of behavior do not apply to them, and especially not to the known terrorists of Hamas who they're in bed with.
A nation that makes a habit of calling us "Great Satan" and calling for our death and that of our allies even having nuclear power is seriously worrisome. I don't know where this magical "right" to have nuclear power was manufactured, exactly, but I'd love to hear about that place.
"Rights" imply "responsibilities". You cannot have the one without the other. For instance, I believe in the "right" to bear and own firearms. I do not believe that this "right" if, for instance, I stood up on a ladder on a streetcorner and said with a lunatic gleam in my eye, "I'm gonna bust a cap in you, you, your dog, your pizza-delivery man, and people who make fun of my holy figures."
Maybe that doesn't sound like such a big deal to you. Maybe you're thinking, "Well maybe if we weren't screwing them over so routinely, they wouldn't be saying things like that." (This is an argument that has some merit, much more than 'they've got the right to nuclear power') Me, though? I'm worried about the part where we're giving a pack of matches to the guy who's laughing maniacally with a can of gasoline and pointing to my house.
By "more concerned" I mean "almost to the exclusion of all else". As for CIA missile attacks, your statement is far from representative of the controversial practice. To date it remains unclear especially in the latest case, the "dinner party", whether or not numerous Al Qaeda leadership were killed. The jury's still out on that.
Our attempt at strongarming India seems to be pretty damn stupid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A nation that makes a habit of calling us "Great Satan" and calling for our death and that of our allies even having nuclear power is seriously worrisome. I don't know where this magical "right" to have nuclear power was manufactured, exactly, but I'd love to hear about that place.
"Rights" imply "responsibilities"...etc[/qb]
The right to peaceful nuclear tech is a major part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which Iran is signatory to. Iran having even peaceful nuclear tech worries me too, but there's little the US can do about it diplomatically. The NPT wouldn't have gotten off the ground without excluding peaceful nuclear technology. 187 countries would never have signed a more hard-line treaty.
quote: Third pillar: the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
For some states, this third pillar of the NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major loophole. However the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Third_pillar:_the_right_to_peacefully_use_nuclear_technology Of course, enrichment is a grey area, allowed by the treaty because it has peaceful uses but considered an intermediate step towards nuclear weapons.
Which is why it's so disappointing the Iranians didn't take the Russian compromise, where the Russians enriched uranium for the Iranians on Russian soil. It would have allowed the Iranians to pursue peaceful nuclear tech, without the more dangerous enrichment technology. It's a shame it was rejected, maybe it will be revived at a future date. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear ya, Rakeesh. I don't think the Iranian government is very trustworthy, especially with their current leader, but I still don't think they would start a nuclear war that they would be absolutely sure to lose.
I don't know what to think about the Iranian president. He makes ridiculous statements seeming to want to provoke war. I don't know what his goal is in this, or if there's something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dispute Over Israel Delays Vote on Iran Nuclear Resolution Egypt and other Arab states routinely demand references to a "nuclear free zone" in the Middle East in Security Council documents, arguing that Israel — which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons and unlike Iran has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — should be part of a general security framework in the Middle East that bans such weapons.
In the current debate, Egypt has argued that if a resolution is passed that makes the Security Council a player in considering Iran's nuclear program, it must include language about a nuclear-free Middle East.
But the problem has exposed a split between the Americans who oppose the Egyptian demand and Russia, China and the Europeans who support it.
posted
I think a nuclear Hamas would attack Israel before it attacked America.
Attacking America with nukes gets them less than nothing. It would ensure all aid to Palestine is eliminated for the rest of their existence. It would greatly and vastly empower Israel and return to them an unshakable moral high ground.
There's nothing to be gained for them, especially not when they consider their only true enemy to be Israel, many of them still consider America to be a party that can be swayed one way or the other, and the Palestinians wouldn't move to openly provoke us.
The Israelis would feel the brunt of their attack. And it's that fear that will ensure they always have nukes and will never give them up. They feel it's the only way to make sure they exist, if everyone around them is afraid of being immolated by an Israeli nuke.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the ideas of the NPT and the CTBT are inherently flawed. By attempting to limit nuclear weapons to US, UK, France, Russia and China is not only futile, but also stupid. While I dont think that Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing, I don't think it has anything to do with the NPT or CTBT. Post WW-II, many of the erstwhile colonizing nations attempted to maintain their dominance over the third-world nations by enacting laws and 'treaties' that locked in the status quo in regards to ecnomic and military development. In many instances, this was achieved by offering third world nations short-term financial aid to steer public opinion. Personally, I think that Nuclear-Disarmament is the only way forward, neither the US or Russia needs the thousands of nuclear war-heads that they have stockpiled between them. Even if a "rogue" government (let's say Iran for example) launches a nuclear attack on the US, would it be okay for the US to retaliate with nuclear weapons on the innocent people of Iran? I, for one, don't think so. That being said, it's very difficult (and problematic) for the nuclear have's to tell developing nations not arm themselves with nuclear weapons, because for many, it's a form of making sure that the nuclear have's dont invade them. India, for example, needs to maintain it's nuclear arsenal as long as China is happy and willing to supply Pakistan with nuclear weapons or is maintaining it's own arsenal. One of the main reasons that has kept India and Pakistan from going to war in the last twenty years is the knowledge that both have access to nuclear weapons. That being said, I think that urgent military action does need to be taken against the Iranian Government because I shudder to think what they will do to Israel if they do managed to get their hands on nuclear weapons. From the PM's statements, it's pretty clear that he wants to obliterate the Israelis, and I don't think that's acceptable. I like Russia's offer of supporting the nuclear power-plants, but I would be startled if Russia "stood behind" Iran if they were to start developing nuclear weapons.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
