Iranian Nukes
Posted by: 7V on 20 November 2004
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Mick P
Colin
I was not bullied at school, I came from an all boys school where bullying was dealt with very quickly, which was years ahead of its time in the sixties. We had a regime of prefects etc and they were chosen on their ability to lead without bullying.
Also, if you ever met me, you would describe me as many things, but never insecure.
Regards
Mick
I was not bullied at school, I came from an all boys school where bullying was dealt with very quickly, which was years ahead of its time in the sixties. We had a regime of prefects etc and they were chosen on their ability to lead without bullying.
Also, if you ever met me, you would describe me as many things, but never insecure.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by sonofcolin
Glad to hear it Mick 
Faceless bravado and denial are key indicators to the behaviour I described (in children), which is whay i pointed it out.
I hope that you also see the irony of it in politics. Bullying nations because you have a bigger stick than they do is also unacceptable, regardless of how you dress it up.
Holding a big stick requires more responsibility.
Faceless bravado and denial are key indicators to the behaviour I described (in children), which is whay i pointed it out.
I hope that you also see the irony of it in politics. Bullying nations because you have a bigger stick than they do is also unacceptable, regardless of how you dress it up.
Holding a big stick requires more responsibility.
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Mick P
Colin
Before the invasion, Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator and now we are only 2 months away from an election out there.
I think we have acted very responsibly indeed.
Yes there have been a few misdeeds, but that happens in war.
If democracy is restored to the Iraqi people, this whole sorry saga will be well worth it.
You are an American and you probably undervalue your freedom, to the Iraqi's that freedom was, until recently, a dream. They deserved our help and we gave it.
We can both be proud of our nations.
Regards
Mick
Before the invasion, Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator and now we are only 2 months away from an election out there.
I think we have acted very responsibly indeed.
Yes there have been a few misdeeds, but that happens in war.
If democracy is restored to the Iraqi people, this whole sorry saga will be well worth it.
You are an American and you probably undervalue your freedom, to the Iraqi's that freedom was, until recently, a dream. They deserved our help and we gave it.
We can both be proud of our nations.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by sonofcolin
No Mick, I am not an american.
There are a number of 'dictators' around the world. Some have bigger teeth than others. Iraq posed not threat (which has been proven beyond doubt) and was a nice soft target after years of sanctions for a shift in US foreign policy post 9/11. Iraq also holds the second largest known reserves of crude (which will pay for the war very nicely) and Sadaam tried to kill Dubyas daddy, so I suppose this could justify a war?! What did the UK or Ukraine or Poland gain? (I'm struggling to remember the rest of the coalition of the willings names) If you think your taxes are being well spent by bringing 'freedom' to the Iraqi people, then I misunderstood you completely.
Of course one of the most ruthless dictatorships is in Saudi Arabia, bossom buddy to the US. But they don't pose a threat, so that's ok. Or do they pose a threat? You decide.
There are a number of 'dictators' around the world. Some have bigger teeth than others. Iraq posed not threat (which has been proven beyond doubt) and was a nice soft target after years of sanctions for a shift in US foreign policy post 9/11. Iraq also holds the second largest known reserves of crude (which will pay for the war very nicely) and Sadaam tried to kill Dubyas daddy, so I suppose this could justify a war?! What did the UK or Ukraine or Poland gain? (I'm struggling to remember the rest of the coalition of the willings names) If you think your taxes are being well spent by bringing 'freedom' to the Iraqi people, then I misunderstood you completely.
Of course one of the most ruthless dictatorships is in Saudi Arabia, bossom buddy to the US. But they don't pose a threat, so that's ok. Or do they pose a threat? You decide.
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by HTK
If I was Iran I think I'd be stockpiling every weapon I could get my hands on, in the face of the Bush onslaught. Not that I’m taking sides with them, but I can’t begin to imagine what it must feel like to be looking up the barrel of Uncle Sam’s ‘democracy’. Maybe if I’d been alive in 1940 I could relate.
Cheers
Harry
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Justin
Would Isreal have a right to take military action against Iran if it thought that Iran was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon?
If your answer is "no" to that question, tell me why?
(1) Is it because you don't think Iran has any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, and is instead really developing civil power stations?
or
(2) Is it because, despite Iran having an interest and desire to develop nuclear weapons, it has no capacity to do so?
or
(3) Is it because despite Iran's desire and capacity to develop nuclear weapons some other interest will cause them not to develop such weapons,
or
(4) Is it because, despite Iran's actual (though prospective) acquisition of nuclear weapons, it would not - given today's circumstances - use them against Isreal?
or
(5) Is it because, despite your sense that Iran would use the nuclear weapon against Isreal, you think Isreal has no right to prevent it?
It seems to me that every person who feels that Isreal has no right to take military action against Iran assuming Iran were about to develop nuclear weapons would fall somewhere along this continuum.
Judd
If your answer is "no" to that question, tell me why?
(1) Is it because you don't think Iran has any interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, and is instead really developing civil power stations?
or
(2) Is it because, despite Iran having an interest and desire to develop nuclear weapons, it has no capacity to do so?
or
(3) Is it because despite Iran's desire and capacity to develop nuclear weapons some other interest will cause them not to develop such weapons,
or
(4) Is it because, despite Iran's actual (though prospective) acquisition of nuclear weapons, it would not - given today's circumstances - use them against Isreal?
or
(5) Is it because, despite your sense that Iran would use the nuclear weapon against Isreal, you think Isreal has no right to prevent it?
It seems to me that every person who feels that Isreal has no right to take military action against Iran assuming Iran were about to develop nuclear weapons would fall somewhere along this continuum.
Judd
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Justin
quote:
Of course one of the most ruthless dictatorships is in Saudi Arabia, bossom buddy to the US. But they don't pose a threat, so that's ok. Or do they pose a threat? You decide.
While I am not suggesting that Iraq posed a threat to the US (it's clear now that it did not pose a threat to anybody) are you suggesting that the principle that we ought not attack countries that pose no threat to us is unsound?
I should think that the absence of a threat is a sufficient condition to refrain from invading a country, no? Or am I wrong about that?
Judd
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Jim Lawson
For sonofcolin a full list of coalition countries:
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
I should think that the absence of a threat is a sufficient condition to refrain from invading a country, no? Or am I wrong about that?
Judd
Justin
Countries invade other countries when it is perceived to be in the national interest of the invader. This perception can be based on many more reasons than just self-defence.
ALL war is about property for at least one party to the dispute.
Deane
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Steve Toy
Jim,
Spain were wiped from the list by the Madrid train bombings.
Al Queada deliberately drew the US into the war on Iraq via 9/11 to do its dirty work for them - eliminating a secular Muslim state from the Muslim World.
Osama Bin Laden wanted rid of Saddam as much as Bush did.
The Yanks were obviously thick enough* to go for the (non-existant) link between Saddam and Al Queada for it to work.
Bush is Bin Laden's glove puppet.
Christian creationist fundamentalism versus Muslim fundamentalism; what a lovely jihad!
Regards,
Steve.
*This only applies to the small minority of American Naim users who elected the twit.
[This message was edited by Steve Toy on Mon 22 November 2004 at 6:36.]
Spain were wiped from the list by the Madrid train bombings.
Al Queada deliberately drew the US into the war on Iraq via 9/11 to do its dirty work for them - eliminating a secular Muslim state from the Muslim World.
Osama Bin Laden wanted rid of Saddam as much as Bush did.
The Yanks were obviously thick enough* to go for the (non-existant) link between Saddam and Al Queada for it to work.
Bush is Bin Laden's glove puppet.
Christian creationist fundamentalism versus Muslim fundamentalism; what a lovely jihad!
Regards,
Steve.
*This only applies to the small minority of American Naim users who elected the twit.
[This message was edited by Steve Toy on Mon 22 November 2004 at 6:36.]
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
... Al Queada deliberately drew the US into the war on Iraq via 9/11 to do its dirty work for them - eliminating a secular Muslim state from the Muslim World.
Osama Bin Laden wanted rid of Saddam as much as Bush did.
The Yanks were obviously thick enough* to go for the (non-existant) link between Saddam and Al Queada for it to work.
... Christian creationist fundamentalism versus Muslim fundamentalism; what a lovely jihad!
Steve,
It's true that many Americans believed that there was a direct link between Al Qu'eda and Iraq. However, to assume that this was the belief of the US administration is naive.
Bin Laden is believed to have personally selected the terrorists that took part in the 9/11 attrocities and he chose that 15 of the 19 should be Saudi Nationals - I believe that, other than the pilots, Saudis comprised all but one of the terrorists.
The US (and Europe) are both oil driven economies. If our supply of oil was suddenly interrupted we would be plunged into economic collapse. By his actions, Bin Laden created doubts in the minds of the US administration about the security of the Saudi regime and thus the Saudi oil supply. This made the invasion of Iraq to 'secure' their oil supply an attractive option for the US.
"Christian creationist fundamentalism versus Muslim fundamentalism; what a lovely jihad!"
Although it's currently popular, particularly amongst the left, to talk of the Bush administration as Christian fundamentalist, is it really true? Certainly there are influential right-wing Christians who have an effect on the policies of the US government but the US is, by its political nature, strongly influenced by various pressure groups.
In any case, your statement suggests a parity between the two types of fundamentalism. I suggest that there would be a big difference between living in a Christian fundamentalist and living in an Islamic fundamentalist country. I know it would be an unfortunate choice to have to make but would anyone here be equally unhappy in either?
Steve M
[This message was edited by 7V on Mon 22 November 2004 at 11:27.]
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
Would Isreal have a right to take military action against Iran if it thought that Iran was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon?
If your answer is "no" to that question, tell me why?
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) ...
(4) ...
(5) ...
It seems to me that every person who feels that Isreal has no right to take military action against Iran assuming Iran were about to develop nuclear weapons would fall somewhere along this continuum.
Judd,
Excellent analysis - deserves comment.
Steve M
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
ALL war is about property for at least one party to the dispute.
Deane,
Did the US intervention in Bosnia fall into this category?
I wonder, with the slaughter taking place in Dafur under the watchful eye of the UN, whether outside military intervention there would be warranted. Is there ever a case for war on the grounds of humanitarian intervention?
Steve M
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by Rana Ali
[QUOTE]I know it would be an unfortunate choice to have to make but would anyone here be equally unhappy in either?
QUOTE]
All muslims I know would not be too happy to live in a fundamentalist (read extremist) society. For us, they are not fundamentalists, there is nothing fundamental about it. They have taken their view and forgotten the context....and interpreting Qu'ranic text is context, context, context. A relative on my wife's side was working in the Bangladeshi Intelligence Service trying to counteract foreign Talibanic activities long before the USA got interested and gave Al Quaida its name.
QUOTE]
All muslims I know would not be too happy to live in a fundamentalist (read extremist) society. For us, they are not fundamentalists, there is nothing fundamental about it. They have taken their view and forgotten the context....and interpreting Qu'ranic text is context, context, context. A relative on my wife's side was working in the Bangladeshi Intelligence Service trying to counteract foreign Talibanic activities long before the USA got interested and gave Al Quaida its name.
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by bigmick
Justin suggests a hypothetical scenario, where Israel ‘thinks’ that Iran was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon and then poses 5 possibilities as why someone would not agree with the pretext. There is nothing wrong with any of the possibilities, but they are not exhaustive, they relate to a hypothetical scenario and so I fail to see the excellent analysis. TBH, I fail to see the point of this thread Steve, as you tried and failed to get this exact proposal to fly a few months ago. IIRC the argument for attacking Iran wasn’t made then and there’s certainly nothing in this thread which adds to the case. If anything the case is even less convincing this time around.
I asked you in the last thread to provide details of explicit, credible and imminent threats by Iran against Israel, the US or anyone and I don’t remember you coming up with anything apart from constantly restating that the Iranian’s stated objective is to push the people of Israel into the sea isn’t an actionable threat by any measure. The long-term aim of Likud is that of Eretz Israel i.e. the annexation and ethnic cleansing of the whole of "biblical Israel", in practice pushing Palestinians across the river into Jordan. It’s tub thumping rhetoric which has been echoed in disputes throughout the world where x is going to push the people of y into the nearest sea/river. So the only real reason left to attack is because we don’t want them to have any nuclear capability for civil or military use. By that logic and to turn Justin’s hypothetical around, if any other country even thought that Israel was likely to strike them, why would an attack on Israel’s nuclear installations have be any less acceptable?
What we need is to do is to try and at least give the impression to the world that this is something more than an Islamophobic witch hunt and Christian crusade and the only way to do that is by being even-handed. The only way to that is to deal with all undesirable nuclear capability in the same manner, by simultaneously sending in inspection teams to all suspected countries, Iran, Israel, NK, Pakistan wherever. No well-trailed lead in to allow obfuscation, no concessions to “friendly” countries and robust international military backup where opposition and deception occur. Then close them down, simple. That way we avoid all of this tedious nonsense, speculating on “what if Israel thought Iran was……..” and “what if Saddam had actually had WMDs…” and “what if Arafat was gay and died of AIDS”? Christ! Until someone comes up with some bloody decent evidence and we start to see some honest brokering, then this situation is going to get a lot worse for everyone.
IIRC, when I last suggested this even handed measure, your response was that no, it would be unworkable, also Israel were the good guys and, everybody else was bad. Again we’re seeing this fuzzy logic here with this dramatic notion that Iranians are intrinsically evil and bent on attacking Israel, intrinsically good, even though Iran would as a matter of course suffer a much greater retaliation. I have no particular love for the Iranian leadership but no one here has provided an iota of evidence to support the notion that they are hell bent on self-destruction. IMO, if there were even the slightest sniff of real evidence that could be polished and dressed up as an excuse, the US would have already been in there.
At the risk of inviting media conspiracy theories again, Israel is perceived as a major threat to world peace and has shown itself to have difficulties restraining it’s use of conventional weapons, so I think that it must be included in the group of countries who should not be trusted with a nuclear capability, for the good of the world and all.
Kim Chong-il on the other hand, clearly mad as a window, considerably more tooled up and should have been the focus of WMD attentions long ago; I wonder why you don’t make much noise about this guy?
I asked you in the last thread to provide details of explicit, credible and imminent threats by Iran against Israel, the US or anyone and I don’t remember you coming up with anything apart from constantly restating that the Iranian’s stated objective is to push the people of Israel into the sea isn’t an actionable threat by any measure. The long-term aim of Likud is that of Eretz Israel i.e. the annexation and ethnic cleansing of the whole of "biblical Israel", in practice pushing Palestinians across the river into Jordan. It’s tub thumping rhetoric which has been echoed in disputes throughout the world where x is going to push the people of y into the nearest sea/river. So the only real reason left to attack is because we don’t want them to have any nuclear capability for civil or military use. By that logic and to turn Justin’s hypothetical around, if any other country even thought that Israel was likely to strike them, why would an attack on Israel’s nuclear installations have be any less acceptable?
What we need is to do is to try and at least give the impression to the world that this is something more than an Islamophobic witch hunt and Christian crusade and the only way to do that is by being even-handed. The only way to that is to deal with all undesirable nuclear capability in the same manner, by simultaneously sending in inspection teams to all suspected countries, Iran, Israel, NK, Pakistan wherever. No well-trailed lead in to allow obfuscation, no concessions to “friendly” countries and robust international military backup where opposition and deception occur. Then close them down, simple. That way we avoid all of this tedious nonsense, speculating on “what if Israel thought Iran was……..” and “what if Saddam had actually had WMDs…” and “what if Arafat was gay and died of AIDS”? Christ! Until someone comes up with some bloody decent evidence and we start to see some honest brokering, then this situation is going to get a lot worse for everyone.
IIRC, when I last suggested this even handed measure, your response was that no, it would be unworkable, also Israel were the good guys and, everybody else was bad. Again we’re seeing this fuzzy logic here with this dramatic notion that Iranians are intrinsically evil and bent on attacking Israel, intrinsically good, even though Iran would as a matter of course suffer a much greater retaliation. I have no particular love for the Iranian leadership but no one here has provided an iota of evidence to support the notion that they are hell bent on self-destruction. IMO, if there were even the slightest sniff of real evidence that could be polished and dressed up as an excuse, the US would have already been in there.
At the risk of inviting media conspiracy theories again, Israel is perceived as a major threat to world peace and has shown itself to have difficulties restraining it’s use of conventional weapons, so I think that it must be included in the group of countries who should not be trusted with a nuclear capability, for the good of the world and all.
Kim Chong-il on the other hand, clearly mad as a window, considerably more tooled up and should have been the focus of WMD attentions long ago; I wonder why you don’t make much noise about this guy?
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by bigmick
On a side note Steve, I don’t know you but, fundamentally different views aside, you seem like a reasonable man. You do however seem totally unable to see a thread out without making some snide remark at the French in particular or Europeans in general, the latest example referring to the European diplomatic efforts in Iran as ineffectual pussy-footing.
First off, this enduring prejudice is as tiresome as it is frequently selective or without base. I find these attacks about as repugnant as I find anti-Semitism and accordingly your various causes are not served well by these remarks.
Secondly, whether anything tangible comes out of these diplomatic efforts remains to be seen, though they appear to have met the agreed deadline to suspend uranium production, so wouldn’t it be better to monitor developments? Given that it was the suggestion of neocons and any supporters they have on these boards that the UN sanctions and arms inspections were likewise ineffectual in Iraq, now shown to be a hollow contention, you’ll understand if your conclusion is taken with a pinch of salt.
You can’t honestly see what’s happened in recent conflicts and think that issues like these are going to be solved by keying in coordinates for missiles. You’re just going to create more people who are willing to strap on explosives and get themselves on buses, trains, planes and all our weaponry and so-called power will count for nothing. What an utterly shit way to have to live whilst Blair, Sharon, the Bush family and cronies are cosseted away from any personal danger.
First off, this enduring prejudice is as tiresome as it is frequently selective or without base. I find these attacks about as repugnant as I find anti-Semitism and accordingly your various causes are not served well by these remarks.
Secondly, whether anything tangible comes out of these diplomatic efforts remains to be seen, though they appear to have met the agreed deadline to suspend uranium production, so wouldn’t it be better to monitor developments? Given that it was the suggestion of neocons and any supporters they have on these boards that the UN sanctions and arms inspections were likewise ineffectual in Iraq, now shown to be a hollow contention, you’ll understand if your conclusion is taken with a pinch of salt.
You can’t honestly see what’s happened in recent conflicts and think that issues like these are going to be solved by keying in coordinates for missiles. You’re just going to create more people who are willing to strap on explosives and get themselves on buses, trains, planes and all our weaponry and so-called power will count for nothing. What an utterly shit way to have to live whilst Blair, Sharon, the Bush family and cronies are cosseted away from any personal danger.
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Justin suggests a hypothetical scenario, where Israel ‘thinks’ that Iran was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon
Interesting use of the word 'thinks', bigmick. Can we take it that you 'think' that it's not Iran's intention to manufacture a nuclear weapon or just that no short term action should be taken on the 'off-chance' that they're not?
Regarding evidence of Iranian threats against Israel, I quoted near the beginning of this thread statements from Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Ali Khameni. I believe that these are quite explicit, credible and imminent, particularly should 'thoughts' on Iran's development of nuclear weapons prove to have some foundation.
I don't agree with your statement of the long-term aims of Likud. Israel is a democracy and Likud is one political party. I believe that much of the occupied territory would be given up in exchange for peace and security and that Likud will accept a Palestinian state. I further believe that had Arafat not been frightened to sell the concept to his people, this situation would already pertain. Incidentally, the word 'Eretz' is Hebrew for 'land'; 'Eretz Israel' means simply 'the land of Israel'.
quote:
What we need is to do is to try and at least give the impression to the world that this is something more than an Islamophobic witch hunt and Christian crusade and the only way to do that is by being even-handed. The only way to that is to deal with all undesirable nuclear capability in the same manner, by simultaneously sending in inspection teams to all suspected countries, Iran, Israel, NK, Pakistan wherever. No well-trailed lead in to allow obfuscation, no concessions to “friendly” countries and robust international military backup where opposition and deception occur. Then close them down, simple.
I don't disagree. I assume that 'wherever' includes India, UK, France, Russia and the US. Shutting the lot down would certainly eliminate the risk of nuclear war. Would you like to tell them or shall I? - (Sorry, this is just my way of saying that I don't think this is a practical option, in the time scale under consideration re. Iran's 'possible' nuclear bomb.)
quote:
At the risk of inviting media conspiracy theories again, Israel is perceived as a major threat to world peace and has shown itself to have difficulties restraining it’s use of conventional weapons, so I think that it must be included in the group of countries who should not be trusted with a nuclear capability, for the good of the world and all.
Here, I strongly disagree. Just because 'Israel is perceived to be a major threat to world peace' does not make it so. Furthermore, I don't at all accept that 'Israel has shown itself to have difficulties restraining it’s use of conventional weapons'. On the contrary, I believe that, on balance, Israel has behaved with considerable restraint.
I suspect that the gulf between us is so great on this issue that continued discussion would be pretty pointless. On the other hand, I would agree with the dismantling of Israeli nuclear weaponry, if it would make a difference to Iran's programme and if similar progarmmes could be prevented in Syria and elsewhere.
quote:
Kim Chong-il on the other hand, clearly mad as a window, considerably more tooled up and should have been the focus of WMD attentions long ago; I wonder why you don’t make much noise about this guy?
Purely ignorance on my part, I'm afraid. I do however make a considerable noise about the situation in Dafur and, FWIW, the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Of course, I would be completely in favour of disarming Kim Chong-il, if it could be achieved.
quote:
On a side note Steve, I don’t know you but, fundamentally different views aside, you seem like a reasonable man. You do however seem totally unable to see a thread out without making some snide remark at the French in particular or Europeans in general, the latest example referring to the European diplomatic efforts in Iran as ineffectual pussy-footing.
First off, this enduring prejudice is as tiresome as it is frequently selective or without base. I find these attacks about as repugnant as I find anti-Semitism and accordingly your various causes are not served well by these remarks.
It is simply the case that I have very little regard for European diplomacy and I believe that French foreign policy in particular is hypocritical 'to the max'. I also hold the United Nations in low esteem and am quite disgusted by their recent overseeing of the massacres in Dafur.
I believe that this is a valid political viewpoint and it is quite widely held. Anti-semitism, on the other hand, along with anti-Muslim or anti-black sentiments or prejudice against any racial or ethnic group, is racist.
Steve M
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Justin suggests a hypothetical scenario, where Israel ‘thinks’ that Iran was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon and then poses 5 possibilities as why someone would not agree with the pretext. There is nothing wrong with any of the possibilities, but they are not exhaustive, they relate to a hypothetical scenario and so I fail to see the excellent analysis.
I'm not sure how you can be under the impression that the list is not exhaustive. Were that the case, there would be a scenario in which you answered "no" to every question - that is, BigMick would have to think (1) that Iran wants to make nuclear weapons, (2) has the capacity to do so, (3) will do so, (4) will launch them against Isreal, and (5) Isreal has a right to respond - but also assert that for some reason, Isreal should not be permitted to take any military action.
Assuming all the above is true, please set forth the principle upon which Isreal could not take action. Please be careful not to provide a reason that falls into one of my non-"exhaustive" questions above (such as your assertion that threats by Iran to destroy Isreal are not credible, which would fall squarely within the ambit of question (4)).
Judd
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by Justin
quote:
At the risk of inviting media conspiracy theories again, Israel is perceived as a major threat to world peace and has shown itself to have difficulties restraining it’s use of conventional weapons, so I think that it must be included in the group of countries who should not be trusted with a nuclear capability, for the good of the world and all.
Isreal has had, by all accounts, nuclear weapons for decades. Moreover, in the span of its existence (during much of which it appears to have had nuclear capablity) it has been attacked by four countries in three seperate wars. It has also been attacked by a series of non-nation-state actors for much of its existence, including non-state actors that were clearly supported by state actors (such as Seria and Iran). And despite these conflicts Isreal has never used a nuclear weapon or threatened to use a nuclear weapon. So, based on what evidence do you maintain that Isreal has not been or would not be a "responsible" nuclear state.
On the other hand, the same question is fairly asked of Iran as well (no reason to shift the burden). What evidence is there that Iran would not be a responsible nuclear state. Since they have not possessed weapons in the past, past conflicts offer no guide. The only thing we have to go on is stated intention. And those stated intentions have been clear precise.
Judd
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
... What an utterly shit way to have to live whilst Blair, Sharon, the Bush family and cronies are cosseted away from any personal danger.
bigmick, how did I miss this?
Anyone capable of dying a bag of flour purple can have a crack at our beloved PM, whilst the past assassinations of Israeli and US presidents lead one to the conclusion that we're considerably safer than they are.
Steve M
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by AlexG:
Dear Armchair Generals
Yeah, you've convinced me.
Please arrange for a full scale nuclear attack on Iran forthwith.
No regards
ag
Unhelpfull.
Judd
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by Justin
quote:
Where as Israel's brilliant record on human rights and compliance with the Geneva Convention etc fills you with confidence? Or do you trust the US enough to keep them on a leash.
And yes that is as equally a provocative remark.
Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm
Isreal's human rights record is not what fills me with confidence that they are a responsible nuclear power. The fact that they have been a responsible nuclear power is what fills me with the confidence that they are.
Is it your honest opinion that a nuclear Iran poses no greater nuclear threat to Isreal than a nuclear Isreal poses to Iran?
Judd
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
_ALL_ war is about property for at least one party to the dispute.
Deane,
Did the US intervention in Bosnia fall into this category?
I wonder, with the slaughter taking place in Dafur under the watchful eye of the UN, whether outside military intervention there would be warranted. Is there ever a case for war on the grounds of humanitarian intervention?
Steve M
Hi Steve
The US intervention in Bosnia was an intervention. I realise it is a moot point whether it is important what we call an event where soldiers/pilots/tank drivers kill people. When I used the word "war" I should have clearly stated that I meant it in the sense of one sovereign nation invading and occupying another. The US never occupied or annexed Bosnia.
I'm sorry I am too ignorant of the situation in Dafur to address a comment to your question.
The UN wasn't very effective in overseeing the massacre in Rwanda though. They just buggered off and they had plenty of warning of what was coming from their man on the ground Romeo Dallaire. Perhaps if a massacre is taking place in Dafur under the watchful eye of the UN it is progress for the UN?
"Humanitarian intervention" is a noble concept. I may just be cynical but I don't consider any of the countries capable of a humanitarian intervention to be capable of flexing their might whilst adhering strictly to a humanitarian agenda.
Deane
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
On the whole I would agree with you, Judd but with a couple of provisos
Firstly Iran hasn't a track record from which to judge. It doesn't tend to attack its neighbours apart from the 12 years Gulf War of the '80s.
Tom,
Iran doesn't tend to get its hands dirty with such attacks. However, it is known to be very active in its support of terrorist organizations which do.
Washington Institute Policy Watch provides an extremely informative and interesting brief paper here but the view that Iran sponsors terrorism is widely held, even outside Washington.
In the context of this thread, I wouldn't be too thrilled if any of the terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran had access to the nuclear button.
Steve M
Posted on: 22 November 2004 by sonofcolin
quote:
Washington Institute Policy Watch
Should read "Neo-Con Think Tank" or according to their website:
quote:
a highly effective think tank devoted to maintaining and strengthening the US-Israel alliance through advocacy in the media and lobbying the executive branch
Hardly the most neutral read, but whatever flicks your switch I guess.