Iranian Nukes

Steve,

"Yes, basically that is what I believe and I'm not ashamed to say so"

Is this something you believe about lots of governments or just about Iran?

On what basis do you decide if someone is fit to own nuclear weapons? Is democracy enough?

"Anyone that pursues a policy that their's is the only true religion and that others must follow it or die"

That's not the policy of the Iranian government though. It has no wish to convert non-Muslims to Islam let alone kill them.

"Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Iran wants money to suspend its development of nuclear weapons?"

Iran has virtually no leverage with the west and one of its few effective routes to such is by persuing nuclear weapons. It is not doing this beucase it wants to nuke Israel, but rather becuase it wants more political leverage and/or aid and investment (ie money).

I think that a fair assessment of the mainstream political view of the situation.

"Matthew, in a quite remarkable post, this is the most remarkable point made. Please excuse me if I don't comment on it."

Ignoring your rather tedious sarcasm, i think it's simple common sense:

-- Nobody who is a threat to Israel has nuclear weapons.

-- Israel having nuclear weapons encourages its enemies to develop their own.

-- If Israel had no nuclear weapons it's close ally America would still provide an effective nuclear deterrant. There is no scenario where an Arab state could explode a nuclear device in Israel and continue to exist.

Ergo, having nuclear weapons does Israel no good whatsoever. Unless, that is, Israel is prepared to make first use of nuclear weapons against a conventional aggressor (which I do not believe to be the case).

Matthew

Matthew,

We disagree fundamentally on these issues. I don't believe that further discussion here will do anything to illuminate either of us or to change our minds.

Also, I think that I understand your position and believe that you understand mine.

I suggest that we leave it at that.

Best regards
Steve M

Fair enough. Although I disagree strongly that you have an understanding of my position on the basis of our limited discussion of the subject. Unless that is you are generalising?

I don't understands your position, which is why, in addition to posting my view, I asked you some questions.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
... which is why, in addition to posting my view, I asked you some questions.

---

Oh, well that's something I'd misunderstood, for a start.

As it seems you might be interested in knowing my views, I'll try to get back to you later.

Steve M

Tom

You are a man in his fifties, not a 15 year old virgin schoolgirl.

Ever heard the expression.....the end justifies the means.

Regards

Mick

The only way blair winning or not winning the next election would have a bearing on the rights or wrongs of invading Iraq or Iran would be for him to run a single issue campaign on this question. Not even Bush was dumb enough to do this and so not even the 51% of the 60% of eligible voters who voted for him could be said to have endorsed the war.

So Mick, why exactly was the war necessary? The last time I looked in you were saying that it was to secure cheap oil and when I pointed out, that as usual how massively wrong you were you went all sheepish, so let’s put that to one side. Why factually necessary rather than in your opinion or by lazily repeating intelligence which has since been shown to be completely bogus? And sitting in your English town with absolutely no knowledge at all of what is happening in Iran nor their future intentions, can you spell out the case for curtailing Iran’s nuclear development as opposed to those of India, Pakistan, Israel? The only argument presented so far laughingly appears to be that in someone’s opinion the Iranians are evil and dangerous and the others with nukes aren’t.

This approach certainly chimes with Parry’s “The only thing that counts is power”. If you accept that this is the case, then there’s no point in bitching to the powers that be when some guy beats on your wife, when a hostage is killed in Iraq or when any strong country invades a weaker one be it Poland in 1939 or Iran in 2005. According to Parry, might is always right and the weak are always wrong. This is one truly offensive guy.

Did Mick Parry actually call someone else a pompous sneering prat? LOL My toaster’s got more self-awareness

isn't "the end justifies the means" the clarion call of most fascistic dictators? If I could be bothered, a quick search would probably throw up a few of Hitler's henchmen. Even for you, this is awful, a new low.

Harvey

Yes the security of oil was a determing factor in going into Iraq. That is obvious.

The price of crude has rocketed due to the Nigerian strike and American stockpoling but the price is coming down.

Just think what Saddam would have done with oil had he still been in power. He would have used it to his advantage.

The war was justified from every perspective.

Regards

Mick

Tom

I have no intention of going in ever ending circles with you.

I believe the invasion was justified and you do not. So let us leave it there.

Regards

Mick

Mick, a serious question for you: do you think anything at all done by an elected government is morally acceptable, regardless of what it is? Would genocide be morally acceptable if it was carried out by a government with majority support?

-- Ian

Ian

That is a good question and we could spend hours on that one.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
1) I don't see how anyone can argue that Israel (or India, or Pakistan, or France, or the UK) can have nuclear weapons but Iran can't. Becuase "they" are evil and dangerous and "we" are not?

---

To my way of thinking, it is not particaulrly useful to address the issue at the level of abstraction of a country's "right to posses nuclear weapons".

My judgement is that secular democracies such as India, France and the UK (and democracy-of-sorts, Israel) are most unlikely to use nuclear weapons except as a last resort. This is not my judgement about Iran, for obvious reasons...

Consequently, although I should like to see our small blue dot declared a nuke-free zone (supposing, that is, that the objective Martians aren't busy preparing an invasion fleet), I do see it simply as a matter of Iran being very dangerous and Israel, India, France and the UK not being. There's no need to frame it in emotive terms such "we" versus "they" or "good" versus "evil".

quote:

---

2) Anyone really serious about removing Iran's nuclear ambitions would pursue a policy of engagement and disarmament.

(N. Korea is different and more complex as it's basicalyl irrational. Iran probably just wants money and rather less of it than an invasion would cost).

---

I agree that a judicious application of cash might have prevented several past wars but if I had to guess which of North Korea (the fanatical secular dictatorship) or Iran (the fanatical religious dictatorship that wants to destroy Israel) is more likely to behave with irrational aggression then I would guess Iran.

For the record, I see no reason to suppose that the USA has any intention of invading Iran.

quote:

---

3) If Israel took the South African route on nuclear disarmament it seems entirely feasible that this can be linked to non-proliferation in places like Iran who pose a threat to Israel.

---

Israel's rationale for possessing nuclear weapons is to prevent invasion by conventional forces. Also, any non-proliferation agreement would require verification. Consequently, for both reasons I would be most surprised if Israel was prepared to take such a proposal seriously.

quote:

---

4) If Israel didn't have nucleaur weapons it would be less likely to get involved in a nuclear exhcange.

---

I cannot see how you reach that conclusion.

[This message was edited by JeremyD on Sun 21 November 2004 at 18:11.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
That is a good question and we could spend hours on that one.

---

well let's do that then ;-)

A yes or no would do for starters...

-- Ian

Jeremy,

I agree that Iran having Nuclear weapons is bad thing and we should do whatever we can to prevent such an eventuality. Indeed, I doubt anyone would argue with that.

Although I wouldn't suggest unilateral disarmament in Israel's position, I see no reason for Israel to have them. A policy of first use of nuclear weapons against a conventional attack is immoral in my view and also fails to take account that Israel is the overwhelming military power in the region and has the unwavering backing of the world's largest superpower.

"which of North Korea (the fanatical secular dictatorship) or Iran (the fanatical religious dictatorship that wants to destroy Israel)"

N. Korea is run by someone genuinely mad and completely irrational. Iran is run by a repressive, dictatorial theocracy but they are basically rational in the sense that they will not do anything that cuases their inevitable destruction.

"I cannot see how you reach that conclusion"

Becuase Israel having them makes other countries more likely to seek to acquire them and makes argumetns for non-proliferation in the region more difficult to support.

Matthew

Call me naive (chorus in Padded Cell: "You're naive!"), but I don't think the U.S. public is gonna fall for the "let's invade Iran" trial balloon when it's lofted; I think those in the electorate who continue to support the debacle in Iraq (yes Mick: it's a disaster) are doing so just because they have a son serving there or just to save face in the presence of folks who opposed the war. I'd like to think that if the administration did go after Iran (with predictably disastrous result), the Republicans would pay an enormous price at the polls in '06. "You may say I'm a dreamer..."

p.s. The U.S. Army is so overstretched now that I believe an Iranian War is impossible anyway.

[This message was edited by bhazen on Sun 21 November 2004 at 18:49.]

Mr. Parry,

Having read some threads based or enlighted by your wisdom and insight, I can only admire you. I cannot see how either the Bush or Blair administration could reject you if you decided to apply as their pr-manager. Nothing, not any possible argument gets you of your tracks, regardless of how deep in total bollocks they have been laid. So this message is not for you really, as it will have no effect. It's just to amuse the great majority here who think you're an arse. I wish we could have a vote on that. If and when 90% (or more) thinks your an arse, would you take it as a fact and not argue (as you are very keen on having anyone with opposing views to those of leading governements to shut up) and taken further, if the majority decided that you should stay out of this forum (which, granted, would make it far less entertaining), would you?

Sorry for any/all bad english, my 3rd language, no time or interest in looking in to it...

Johan

- - - - -

"the recognition of facts is the beginning of all wisdom."

- J. K. Paasikivi -

quote:

---

It is that sneering and pompous attitude by members of the Democrats who always claim to be more articulate and intelligent etc, that cost them the election.

---

I'm not a Democarat or a Republican Mick, so what does this have to do with your 'Sun Reader' menatlity?

quote:

---

With prats like you, people like me will always be on the winning side, so may I, on behalf of the great silent majority, thank you for helping to get Bush elected.

---

I'm having difficulty with this one Mick (not the prat bit; that really hurt!). As far as I'm aware only US citizens are able to vote in the US election, so I'm not getting how I helped Bush to win? Please clarify.

Your ignorance is truley astounding! I have no argument with your political position. You believe in what you believe. What I do find sad is your 'stay the course regardless' attitude despite the very real evidence that is presented before you to contradict your stance. Do you feel in some way inadequate when it comes to rational debate?

I would like to hear more about the 'winning' side you are on Mick? Do you really believe in the 'your either with us, or against us' doctorine? Do you see yourself as a 'winner' Mick because from what you've written so far you come across as a deeply insecure man who was probably bullied at school.

Colin

I will not discuss anything with someone who has to resort to personal insults.

Tom and I may be poles apart but at least the discussion was civil.

So sorry....no response.

Frame it in a more appropriate manner and I will willingly reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
"Yes, basically that is what I believe and I'm not ashamed to say so"

Is this something you believe about lots of governments or just about Iran?

---

Matthew,

There are many governments that I dislike, Bush's Republican and Sharon's Likud governments, amongst them. However, I have a particular fear of Iran, based on their public stonings and executions and their view, stated many times at a high level, that Israel must be annihilated. I'm sure that Bush and Sharon's governments do not intend the annihilation of any country, although I accept that it may currently be politically fashionable to state the opposite view.

quote:

---

On what basis do you decide if someone is fit to own nuclear weapons? Is democracy enough?

---

I don't decide, Matthew, and, to be honest, I would much rather that no one owned nuclear weapons. However, I have varying degrees of discomfort or fear, depending on who owns them, particularly when they have made their intentions clear.

quote:

---

"Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Iran wants money to suspend its development of nuclear weapons?"

Iran has virtually no leverage with the west and one of its few effective routes to such is by persuing nuclear weapons. It is not doing this beucase it wants to nuke Israel, but rather becuase it wants more political leverage and/or aid and investment (ie money).

I think that a fair assessment of the mainstream political view of the situation.

---

I think that that is an accurate assessment of the mainstream political view of much of Europe. It is a view with which I disagree vehemently. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the mainstream view of most of Europe has been completely, dangerously, disastrously and tragically wrong.

quote:

---

-- Nobody who is a threat to Israel has nuclear weapons.

-- Israel having nuclear weapons encourages its enemies to develop their own.

---

So far so good. I don't disagree with this ...

quote:

---

-- If Israel had no nuclear weapons it's close ally America would still provide an effective nuclear deterrant. There is no scenario where an Arab state could explode a nuclear device in Israel and continue to exist.

Ergo, having nuclear weapons does Israel no good whatsoever. Unless, that is, Israel is prepared to make first use of nuclear weapons against a conventional aggressor (which I do not believe to be the case).

---

... However, I do believe that Israel having nuclear weapons (if, as seems probable, they do) would act as a deterrent to enemies, who have stated an intention to wipe out Israel and 'drive the Jews into the sea', carrying out such a policy.

Israel has been attacked by its neighbours in 1948, 1956, 1967* and 1973. On each occasion they have prevailed militarily. That does not in any way guarantee that they would the next time or the time after.

In the case of the kind of fanaticism displayed Iran, they have stated that they believe that one nuclear strike against Israel would be sufficient to prevent any retaliation. I honestly think that they're crazy enough to believe it.

Regards
Steve M

* although in 1967 Israel fired the first shot against Egypt - although not against Jordan - the war was begun by Egypt's decision to close the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and to order the removal of U.N. troops from the Sinai. As Nasser, the president of Egypt, said: "We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel ... the objective will be Israel's destruction."

Steve M

calling me a prat isn't an insult?

Maybe I touched a nerve?

Colin

Ok I agree that calling you a prat was uncalled for.

I therefore apologise.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

who was probably bullied at school.

---

That's a stupid one. Nothing funny in being bullied, it's a serious problem, no-one, not even Mr. Parry (as a child that is), should suffer from it. Luckily it doesn't automatically lead to insecurity as an adult.

- - - - -

"the recognition of facts is the beginning of all wisdom."

- J. K. Paasikivi -

Mick,

I wasn't offended but I accept your apology. Maybe I shouldn't have stated my 'personal' observations about you and if it upset you I likewise apologise.

The forum should be about informed debate and at worst, handbags at dawn.

quote:

---

That's a stupid one. Nothing funny in being bullied, it's a serious problem, no-one, not even Mr. Parry (as a child that is), should suffer from it. Luckily it doesn't automatically lead to insecurity as an adult.

---

I agree with your sentiments. I was speaking from a professional standpoint (it's my job) and I can show you a pile of evidence that does show that there is a link between bullying and insecurity in adulthood!

quote:

---

there is a link between bullying and insecurity in adulthood!

---

That I do know. Fortunately doesn't apply to me. Or...

- - - - -

"the recognition of facts is the beginning of all wisdom."

- J. K. Paasikivi -