What gives?

Views of seven Iranians: BBC web site

The quote in slide #7 is interesting.
"If Iran goes nuclear, it will bomb the world."
OK, so maybe he doesn't speak for the Iranian government.
But if you’re searching for one quote from the “Iranian man on the street” to make you feel better about Iran revving up their reactors, you must take this one quote into account as well.
And Roy T, when has Iran ever stated that they are working toward reducing greenhouse gasses?

quote:

I think that they should be congratulated for wishing to turn to a power production technology that releases only small amounts of carbon into the atmosphere after all has not our leader commanded civil servants to explore this and other paths path for meeting the UK future energy needs?

As far as I know they've not even tried this ruse in their propaganda. You may have beaten them to the punch, but I don't believe the Iran has any interests in righting the "wrongs" of the industrialized polluters.
No way.
I don’t think Iran will play the “brinkmanship” game that W thinks he’s master of, and this will only push us all into deeper trouble than we can handle.
David

#4 Gets you thinking

quote:

India or Pakistan - they’re all the same. All of them are using nuclear energy and it's no problem for them.

If iirc India and Pakistan both nuclear powers, both with nuclear weapons and I think nuclear generation plants and they have been knocking serious lumps out of each other for years over Jammu, Kashmir yet neither has gone ballistic. This may be because both have weapons and both are constrained by the MAD doctrin rather like Europe during the Cold War but I could be wrong on this.

#3 seems to think

quote:

A few years later everyone will need nuclear fuel. Nuclear energy will replace everything else, like petrol too.

To me these thoughts seem much the same as those discussed in the 1950s and 1960s that marked start the UK rush to nuclear power generation as a home grown replacement for oil, gas and coal that would not last for ever.

Energy security is one question to be considered by Tony Blair's ongoing energy review, is not energy security a concern for all and not just the West?

quote:

I don’t think Iran will play the “brinkmanship” game that W thinks he’s master of, and this will only push us all into deeper trouble than we can handle.

This I agree with, it is hard enough trying to second guess another person from roughly the same culture let alone someone who has thoughts and ways of thing that may differ from yours and your avisors.

I think it quite refreshing that all seven views epressed on the BBC site are just as diverse as the views expressed in this thread, if they were not then I would be bricking it.

Naimdropper,

I agree totally. When I was in 6th form General Studies we were given access to some of the information the USA used to decide on whether to use the nuclear bomb. We ended up studying it for a couple of weeks and then deciding to drop the bomb - mainly because we feltit was probably better to kill say 50 000 with two bombs than to suffer double or triple such losses (on both sides) over the next 6 months in a conventional invasion of Japan. The Japanese had no intention of surrender until they realised their situation was hopeless - much like Germany in fact...

Interestingly, America actually weren't confident the bomb would work which is why they didn't give advance notice to permit the Japanese to evacuate the target area although that option was debated. In the end it was felt they would look extremely silly if they warned the Japs who then evacuated Hiroshima and the USA then dropped a bomb which didn't go off!

I'm no great fan of Bush believe me and I wouldn't say he's a force for good in the world but I'm much happier knowing the yanks or even the French have nuclear weapons than I am crazy middle-eastern states. The USA and the Russians have demonstrated that they are capable of keeping a lid on Armageddon for the past 50 years (just) - the Iranians don't have the same track record so I just don't trust them as much - and lets face it the occupants of the middle East haven't exactly impressed the rest of us with their diplomacy skills in recent years.

Perhaps in this case better the devil you know rather than a new one you don't.

Jonathan

Well put, Jonathan.
I had forgotten the part about the uncertainty of the bomb working. The scientests had it working but there is a large gap between the lab and field warfare.
I do remember a lot of criticism over not giving adequate warning.
Here's another thought: Various countries have had "them" for 50+ years now, only used in one war a long time ago.
So why does anyone want them now?

As for Pakistan and India, it is just short of a miracle that they've not blown each other up yet.

David

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
Interestingly, America actually weren't confident the bomb would work which is why they didn't give advance notice to permit the Japanese to evacuate the target area although that option was debated. In the end it was felt they would look extremely silly if they warned the Japs who then evacuated Hiroshima and the USA then dropped a bomb which didn't go off!

If that's true, how can any decent minded person make decision like that?

Spock

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:

Interestingly, America actually weren't confident the bomb would work which is why they didn't give advance notice to permit the Japanese to evacuate the target area although that option was debated. In the end it was felt they would look extremely silly if they warned the Japs who then evacuated Hiroshima and the USA then dropped a bomb which didn't go off!


Jonathan

Oh of course, it is much better to murder in cold blood tens of thousands of wholly innocent men, women and children rather than look silly.

America committed the most outrageous war crime the world has ever seen and has gone unpunished.

Are you still at sixth form?

quote:

As for Pakistan and India, it is just short of a miracle that they've not blown each other up yet.

David,
Could also be that as they each have each other by the balls neither side wants to be the first one to pull the trigger as a rather messy end would be visited upon them both, could this thinking not be applied to say Israel and Iran? You could either give Iran a nuclear delivery system and weapons (as they don't already have them) that would be that equal of that possessed by Israel thus allowing both countries to shelter behind their nuclear shields. Or better still why not remove nuclear arms from Israel to restore the balance between the countries so that neither could go for the first strike option? Why should a nuclear armed Israel and Iran not be as restrained as Pakistan and India are?

quote:

Why should a nuclear armed Israel and Iran not be as restrained as Pakistan and India are?

Why then do many countries have highly restrictive handgun control?
Because people don't trust others with such weapons. And there is a concern by governments that armed people will get tired of the oppression and overthrow them. (And other reasons, of course.)
Discussing whether Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, etc. can restrain themselves is academic. I think the practical answer is "no" but who is to be the "policeman" keeping these arms out of unruly people?
Interesting question.
The Golden Rule applies here. And until the gold and power pass from the West, "we" will have to be the police, I suppose.

quote:

America committed the most outrageous war crime the world has ever seen and has gone unpunished.

That may be true for a single incident in war, but it ended the conflict, saving many other lives (or so it has been postulated).
If you accept that, then do the ends justify these means? What would have to be done to stop the conflict?
War is nasty, nasty business. People get killed and maimed. The means for maiming and killing get more attention than the acts themselves.
Killing and maiming is killing and maiming.
Ugh. I'm going to bed.
David

Iran can now enrich some uranium. Big deal. Leave them alone, see where this goes. Probably "no where" because before the final steps for the bomb could be put in place they will most likely be stopped by force.

Sceptical. The more they are pressured to stop, the more defiant they are going to be. Why flame the situation. Sit back and see (spy).

Erik,

I'm not still in sixth form, though sometimes I wish I was - happy days.

The point I was making is that if the USA had warned the Japs, dropped the bomb and it hadn't worked they would have not been taken seriously which would have made a protracted conventional war inevitable. Faced with the decision on whether to kill 50 000 innocents or 150 000 innocents in a conventional war I think most sane people would choose the former.

It's very easy to sit here in our relatively secure homes debating with ruthless logic but you have to put this in context. The Japanese had committed the most appalling atrocities upon their prisoners - treatment that was cruel and inhumane and totally unnecessary. Allies probably suffered losses of a million men or more getting from the beaches at Normandy to the heart of Germany. If there had been any alternative to this such as the atom bomb I think Churchill, Roosevelt etc would have been fully justified in using it.

If Iran wants to destabilise the middle East by acquiring nuclear weapons I say we're better off dealing with them now than when they have a nuclear capability. History (Hitler?) has taught us that aggressors cannot be reasoned with, they don't go away and the only thing they understand is force.

The world is a better place without Saddam Hussain in power, its better for the Kurds and its better for us. I also think it's better for the Iraqi's though I realise some would argue with that.

At the end of the day I'm not even sure anyone can sensibly argue for either action or inaction. Whichever route you take you never know whether an alternative course would have saved more lives or not. Personally I tend to come back to wanting to minimise the quantity of human suffering. I support whatever action I think will achieve that. I may be wrong and I accept that, it's a judgement call, nothing more or less.

Jonathan

David,

quote:

Why then do many countries have highly restrictive handgun control?
Because people don't trust others with such weapons. And there is a concern by governments that armed people will get tired of the oppression and overthrow them. (And other reasons, of course.)

Arms (nuclear) control is not quite the same as gun control, I feel one can best be viewed as local laws that may differ between jurisdictions ( UK and USA) the other may be viewed as something more that stretches between countries.

quote:

Discussing whether Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, etc. can restrain themselves is academic.

But academic processes do sometimes lead to laws and treaties that work and work well.

The question of whether Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India can restrain themselves is quite a hard one to answer because of the very assumption that Israel (with the overt backing of the USA) can always be trusted with in this case nuclear weapons while other countries not backed by the USA can not. This is a major cause for concern for a good few countries in that part of the world as illustrated in the Guardian link a few pages back.

quote:

I think the practical answer is "no" but who is to be the "policeman" keeping these arms out of unruly people? Interesting question.

Many countries have joined the non-proliferation treaties and for the most part these are hounored while some countries choose to not join and so go it alone. Should countries be forced to join an adhere to the non-proliferation pact or not? I have no problems with some for of policing ideally under the remit granted by the UN or others just as long as the policeman is fair and even handed to all. A policeman who issues threats of summary punishment upon people or countries they think need to be punished is not in my opinion a policeman.

It may well be the right time to coax China into taking a pro-active role upon the world stage with a view to assuming the role of World policeman in the coming years after all they do have a seat on the UN security council but one wonders what would the about to be retired policeman think about this?

Jonathan,
I am all for stabilising the Middle East, why not remove the nuclear weapons from Israel? Job done a nuclear free zone.

Roy,

What makes you think that removing any nukes from the 'Little Satan' would appease Iran? Have they ever demanded a nuclear free Middle East?

Iran's leaders are just as obsessed with the 'Great Satan'.

Regards
Steve

Chaps

I suspect we will do the usual ineffective rubbish of imposing sanctions etc but history as shown that it rarely works.

Iraq proved that military invasion is unpopular which leaves the option for just lobbing in a few bombs on strategic targets. There is no need to send in troops if a few buildings have been flattened.

The argument for whether or not they should be allowed to develop their nuclear programme is well past its sell by date. The view is that Iran is too loose a cannon and if bombing them out is the only way then so be it.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
Roy,

What makes you think that removing any nukes from the 'Little Satan' would appease Iran? Have they ever demanded a nuclear free Middle East?

Iran's leaders are just as obsessed with the 'Great Satan'.

Regards
Steve

Steve,
Has it ever been offered? You never know it just might work.
Of course the The Greater Satan could jump in whenever it wants but the gester by one of the Little Satans will I think go a long way to make the area a better place.

The Greater Satan may still be a problem not only in the Middle East but where ever it can project power hence the thoughts about China. We do indeed live in interesting times.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:
Steve,
Has it ever been offered? You never know it just might work.

LOL

quote:

...The Greater Satan may still be a problem not only in the Middle East but where ever it can project power hence the thoughts about China. We do indeed live in interesting times.

You do of course realize that in addition to their dependence on Middle Eastern oil, China's arms and arms technology are largely supplied by Israel.

China are hardly paragons of virtue themselves either. From Tiananmen Square to their continuing occupation of Tibet, I doubt that they'd be much of an improvement over the US. Not that it is inevitable that they will become the world's superpower - some commentators assume that they will but an equal number believe that the USA's creativity, innovation and lack of restrictions will keep them in that position for a considerable time to come.

Interesting times indeed.

Regards
Steve

quote:

LOL

The problem in that three letters phrase.

quote:

You do of course realize that in addition to their dependence on Middle Eastern oil, China's arms and arms technology are largely supplied by Israel.

Quite right, oil from Iran, Saudi and of late some of the oil producing countries of South America as for the arms I'm sure others will be only too glad to step up and fill any gap left by Israel and others. China aslo has a large home grown arms industry that is causing the US to budget for a shed load of spending for a good few years into the future.

As for Tibet, let he who is not occupying another's land cast the first stone.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:

quote:

LOL

The problem in that three letters phrase.

My implication was that the international community would not believe any assurances that they were given by Iran regarding their cessation of nuclear activities. In the same way, few governments believe that their current nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, as they have assured them it is.

quote:

quote:

You do of course realize that in addition to their dependence on Middle Eastern oil, China's arms and arms technology are largely supplied by Israel.

Quite right, oil from Iran, Saudi and of late some of the oil producing countries of South America as for the arms I'm sure others will be only too glad to step up and fill any gap left by Israel and others. China aslo has a large home grown arms industry that is causing the US to budget for a shed load of spending for a good few years into the future.

Here, I only meant to imply that China's judgements in this area may not be as you might expect. I don't really understand why gaps should be left by Israel or others. Do you mean that if China become the world's superpower, they will cease trade with Israel?

quote:

As for Tibet, let he who is not occupying another's land cast the first stone.

Are you suggesting that we cannot criticize China's occupation of Tibet because of our invasion of Iraq? Surely you don't believe that we intend to stay there.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
Surely you don't believe that we intend to stay there.

With respect, do you know when your President intends to vacate Iraq? The country is in chaos at the moment, leaving Iraq during this time will initially be all out civil war but maybe things will settle down again with time. If the wrong regime gets into power, can always re-invade to start the process all over again. It is like spin the wheel till you get the results you really want.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
With respect, do you know when your President intends to vacate Iraq?

I'm English. We have the Queen who is the constitutional head of the country and an elected Prime Minister but no president.

As for troop withdrawal, I believe that the British troops will be withdrawn when the elected Iraqi government (once in place) request it.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
I'm English. We have the Queen who is the constitutional head of the country and an elected Prime Minister but no president.

Your location was misinterpreted as US.

quote:

As for troop withdrawal, I believe that the British troops will be withdrawn when the elected Iraqi government (once in place) request it.

That is a "simplistic" view.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

quote:

As for troop withdrawal, I believe that the British troops will be withdrawn when the elected Iraqi government (once in place) request it.

That is a "simplistic" view.

Perhaps it is. However, the point is that it isn't the UK's intention to 'occupy' Iraq and therefore Roy T's point above that we shouldn't criticize China's occupation of Tibet ("As for Tibet, let he who is not occupying another's land cast the first stone.") is invalid.

In his talk on Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that Israel is "headed for annihilation" and announced that "Palestine will be freed soon." (Ahmadinejad's definition of Palestine includes Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza.) With a strong hint of a nuclear strike, he likened "the Zionist regime" to a "rotted tree" that can be "blown away in a single storm". - Associated Press

I would suggest that in the light of Iran's nuclear ambitions such talk is unacceptable and a strong message should be sent to the Iranian people that the world does not tolerate this sort of talk by their president. I agree with the proposal made by US Senator John McCain:

MCCAIN INTRODUCES RESOLUTION

This may seem trivial but would actually cause a considerable stir amongst the Iranian people and would be considerably better than any military option at this stage in my view.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
[ How many UN resolutions have the Nazi Israelis ignored?

Erik

I'd consider "Fascist", but Nazi is not a word I'd use to describe Israel.

M

Great!

We have here one guy whose married life made him an expert on Israeli Nazism and the other one who specializes in Israeli Fascism. Are you guys using the same terms to describe England which invaded Iraq and caused 30,000 Iraqis to loose their lives? After all, the Israeli Nazis did not inflict so many deaths on the Palestinians in the last 30 (!!) years of their conflict which is a very real one, unlike the imaginary one that you fabricated as an excuse to invade Iraq.
I guess It makes more sense to use terms like 'misguided policies', 'false intelligence' and 'war on terrorism' when we are describing the elegant British policies, so we can leave all the real ugly stuff when we are referring to Israel.

I am from Israel and I am the first one to recognize and critisize the unjust policies of my country in the occupied territories. What really irks me though is that regardless of the topic (Iran in our case) someone will always find the opportunity to plug in the 'ugly Israeli'. I wonder why, Erik?

In the winter of 2001 your nobel countryman, Mr. Robert Fiske did the same thing. He flew all the way to North Park university in Chicago to enlighten us with his lecture which carried the title: '911 - Ask who but do not ask why'. The crowd (mostly Arab) was elated to hear the two hours lecture that dealt strictly with the 'why'... only the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza caused 911. I was going to ask the honorable idiot (assuming his explanation was right) why didn't Osama just order the jets to fly into Israeli Towers instead, but the gentleman claimed a long flight and would not take questions.

Why don't we all agree that Israel is evil and guilty of everything, so we do not have to mention it again and waste time and space when we are dealing with other topics?

Haim

quote:

Originally posted by HR:

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
[ How many UN resolutions have the Nazi Israelis ignored?

Erik

I'd consider "Fascist", but Nazi is not a word I'd use to describe Israel.

M

Great!

We have here one guy whose married life made him an expert on Israeli Nazism and the other one who specializes in Israeli Fascism. Are you guys using the same terms to describe England which invaded Iraq and caused 30,000 Iraqis to loose their lives? After all, the Israeli Nazis did not inflict so many deaths on the Palestinians in the last 30 (!!) years of their conflict which is a very real one, unlike the imaginary one that you fabricated as an excuse to invade Iraq.
I guess It makes more sense to use terms like 'misguided policies', 'false intelligence' and 'war on terrorism' when we are describing the elegant British policies, so we can leave all the real ugly stuff when we are referring to Israel.

I am from Israel and I am the first one to recognize and critisize the unjust policies of my country in the occupied territories. What really irks me though is that regardless of the topic (Iran in our case) someone will always find the opportunity to plug in the 'ugly Israeli'. I wonder why, Erik?

In the winter of 2001 your nobel countryman, Mr. Robert Fiske did the same thing. He flew all the way to North Park university in Chicago to enlighten us with his lecture which carried the title: '911 - Ask who but do not ask why'. The crowd (mostly Arab) was elated to hear the two hours lecture that dealt strictly with the 'why'... only the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza caused 911. I was going to ask the honorable idiot (assuming his explanation was right) why didn't Osama just order the jets to fly into Israeli Towers instead, but the gentleman claimed a long flight and would not take questions.

Why don't we all agree that Israel is evil and guilty of everything, so we do not have to mention it again and waste time and space when we are dealing with other topics?

Haim

My views on the Illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq are all over several threads here. Yes, I would use the same terms. I agree entirely with you on that. My country is not right because it is my country and neither is yours. The Israeli record on it's treatment of the Palestinians is appalling and is well documented. Insofar as two wrongs do not make a right there can be no possible defense for Israel or Palestinian retaliation. I will always find the opportunity to plug in, as you call it, ugly Israel or ugly Iraq or ugly America or ugly Britain. If you take exception to anything I wrote then please give me a precise quote but please don't make assumptions that because I see evil in your back yard that I dont see it mine. I dont do the patriotism thing anymore, I see right through it. I stick by my description of Nazi Israel.

Interestingly the recent forcible removal of Israelis from the occupied territories caused many Israelis to react with anger at their government thus failing to see that the only difference between how these homes and land were occupied by them in the first place was that the second time around it was more gently done. One would imagine it would have caused those who experienced outrage and anger to realise that The Palestians must have felt the same when they were kicked out but that realisation seemed to have eluded many.

The misguided and erroneous belief that Jews or any other race or nationailty (take heed America)are the chosen people of God is not only wrong it leads to a potential for great abuse by the 'chosen' of the 'non-chosen' and history shows this to be the case. I have heard with my own ears a leading Israeli Rabbi on tv say that any means of getting rid of palestinians from The Promised Land is entirely justified in the eyes of God. It is in this respect that Israel is Nazi as it is this view that is so prevalent amongst it's leaders. That does not mean for a second that I agree with the violence with which some Arabs have retaliated and it never will. Sharon was a war criminal IMO and good riddence to him I say. Bush Too. Blair Too.

Please do not for a second entertain the often used Israeli/jewish tactical reaction to any and all criticsm that I must be anti-semitic or anti-jewish as that tedious little tactic is comtemptible in the extreme. My oldest and dearest friend is Jewish and I adore his whole family.