Good gracious me, I don't think I'll ever see anything more humorous than glynch transitioning into a REALIST, lol. That's got to be the funniest damn thing ever.
I think your opinions have been petty fact based. You get it from both sides the xenophobic Americans always so willing to believe the worst about Iranians and also from those Iranians who hate the Mullahs so much they cant see straight either. BTW I hate the Mullahs, but can't really think of a situation when short of conquering and several genrations of intermarrigage by the conquerors, religious extremists (from my pesective) have been made more moderate. I do hate the mind control aspect of the Muslim religion with the prayer 5 times a day and all the rules, but I don't like to see it bashed as an excuse for American imperialism.
Hayes, sorry if I don't have the consistency that you have with your obsession with militarism ,apparently held since a teenager.
Just wanted to preserve this the next time you accuse someone of Muslim bashing...don't want you editing it out later Mr. Islam basher. Lol. Non sequitur as usual, glynch.
I realize some people can be incredibly xenophobic when dealing with other countries and nationalities, especially post 9/11 and dealing with the Middle East. That being said, I can't think of a single reason as to why Iran should actually have these weapons. Its one thing to debate Iran's motives for pursuing these weapons. It is an entirely different thing to actually justify their development of nuclear weapons. Face the facts. Deterrence is not a cure all. It still doesn't answer my two objections. 1. That Iran would sell the tech and secrets to other regions and potentially distablize other parts of the world and 2. That accidental nuclear launches would be more likely with a country like Iran that would have none of the safety technology that the major nuclear powers have and that Iran would be on an ultra-hair trigger because of its paranoia of a western attack from the US/EU or Israel. These two objections operate under the assumption that Iran is rational which I'm not quite sure about yet. I personally feel that NO new country should possess nuclear weapons and that we should limit their spread at every turn. Even if you believe the current leadership is rational, its always possible that a future leadership would not be. Just like everyone is worried that if Musharaff ever gets overthrown in Pakistan, that a new regime would not be rational and could not deal with the possession of nuclear weapons in a responsible manner. And Iran doesn't have a "right" to these weapons. They signed the NPT and forfeited that right so they have nothing to complain about. This isn't a question of xenophobia. I don't trust ANYONE with nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons have the potential to annihilate the world, to create infinite destruction. And a fraction of infinity is still infinity. The odds of global war always increase with a new nuclear state, no matter how little the change is. We forget sometimes, the sheer destructive power of these weapons and the fact that we're gambling with life in our hands and there's no reason to gamble with the future of the planet. Israel is already deterred by the fact that every country in the region is opposed to them. They're not going to start pre-emptively using nuclear weapons on anyone, so there really is no need to add more fuel to the fire. One accidental launch or one idiotic leader is enough to set the world on fire.
Iran if any country has the right as it is being threatened with a nuclear attck by the US and pehaps Israel.. BTW do you know that it has been proven that British officlals gave the bomb to Israel. I agree that nobody should have the bomb.. I'm sorry but the crazy Irani theory as a justification is essentially xenophobic. Under the NPT the US does not have the "right"to threaten other coountries with nuclear weapons. It is supposed to be disarming. The US violates the NPT. Is Irans response justified in dealing with another rogue signer to the NPT, i.e, the US. How about their ability to defend themselves against neighobring states like Pakistan or Israel who don't sign. I'm not sure a purely legalistic argument washes in this case. Agree that is why a rogue regime like the curent one in the US with thosands or these weapons is so dangerous. Same applies to Iran. I don't think there is a legal basis for a US attack. It could get out of hand and even without neuclear weapons hundreds of thousands or even millions could die if the entire Middle East become destabilized.
There is no 'right' to have nuclear weapons. Actually it was the French. No, its really not. The realist outlook creepyfloyd advances and that you support depends on the states acting rationally. A theocracy has a much greater propensity to act irrationally than a secular government. That has nothing to do with the fact that Iranians are Persian or 'the other' - it has to do with the form of government. Is it your position that Iran is, in fact, building a nuclear arsenal? And why would they need protection from Pakistan, lol? The only reason they need fear Israel is if they build a nuclear arsenal. When was the last time Israel attacked Iran? Of course Iran has sent soldiers to fight against Israel, and sponsored terrorist groups that engage in suicide bombings against Israel. But when has Israel attacked Iran?
iran's program is under international inspection, which means the facilites are being visited by weapons inspectors from the iaea and individuals involved are being interviewed by them as well, which is more than i can say for any other country.....the npt does give iran the right to fully master the nuclear process including the full uranium enrichment cycle....the us has signed the npt, but they're developing mini- and micro-nukes, yet you remain silent about that....also, if you're going to make accusations about intentions and so on, the burden of proof is on you to back-up your claims with evidence, which you have not...and if you can't then you have no legitimacy in commenting on how you feel others are thinking and what they might do in a given scenario...you can discuss all the hypothetical scenarios you want, but the Kenneth Waltz's argument is valid and the fact of the matter is that no two countries that have ever had nukes have gone to war and if nuclear powers have gone to the brink of war the fact that nukes were involved helped promote a de-escalation of tensions and has thus led to stability via a balance of power....north korea has realized this and they've been given a free pass by the us and the international community because they claim they have nukes and nobody is even thinking about attacking or invadind them.....nukes are the best guarantee a state has to ensure it's own security and the survival of its regime
i only deal in the facts. and those are the facts. stop calling me names. if you have other facts, they are not the right facts. i only deal in the facts.
quit diverting attention away from the point i brought up, i challenge you to find some examples of iran being irrational since the victory of the revolution in 1979 btw, here's some news that'll never make it hear....while the rest of the world tries to starve the palestinians and their legitimately elected government, iran fills the void by providing $50 million in desperately needed aid to the government of palestine: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/w...b181be834b8995&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This is non-sensical. You can't accuse me of being any more hypothetical than you. The argument that because we haven't had a nuclear war yet, deterrence is the solution to everything is simply asinine. Simply put, if no one died yet playing Russian roulette, does that mean that there are no bullets in the gun? Fine, we've been lucky this far, but that doesn't mean that deterrence and MAD are the answer. However, lets break down your post... Ok fine, they have a right to nuclear energy. The IAEA still had reservations about their full intentions. Otherwise they wouldn't have referred the issue to the security council earlier by a wide margin. Iran has not been totally forthright in answering all questions about its program and its intentions but this is a moot issue. My main concern is that you people are actually saying that Iranian proliferation is a good thing. As for the NPT, the US stopped development of mini-nukes. Congress withdrew all funding for mini-nukes research in the last congressional budget. Secondly, the NPT has a built in exception for the 5 original nuclear states that allows them to keep and "maintain" nuclear weapons. I think mini-nukes are absolutely idiotic and should not be developed. Plus, two wrongs don't make a right. Iran still has no right to these weapons. They signed that right away. Give me a break. You have no more insight on the world than I do. Theories like realism are exactly that, theories. They are frameworks that are created to explain international relations. You have no more proof than I do that they would act rationally. What calling out Israel and threatening to blow them up is rational? Even if it is, my objections to deterrence aren't contingent on rationality. The system fails even if iran acts like a rational actor. I've explained that multiple times. But if Iran isn't rational, then the odds just go up even more. Ok once again, this is all hypothetical as well. You can't correlate the two. Fine we didn't have nuclear war, but that doesn't mean that deterrence was the sole factor that was responsible. Fine, while playing russian roulette, I shot a blank. Does that mean everything is ok and there's no shot of dying if I did it again? Of course not. Perhaps, neither the US or the Soviet Union felt like killing people and were somewhat humanitarian. Probably unlikely but nonetheless demonstrates that your claim is just as "hypothetical." Also, Waltz's argument is a joke. Did nuclear weapons keep Pakistan from invading Indian controlled Kashmir in 1999? What about when China occupied and still does occupy parts of Indian Kashmir? It's so arbitrary to say that nuclear weapons were the reason things didn't go bad. I could also say that nuclear weapons were the reason why things COULD have gotten really bad because one side would freak out and feel the need to do a first strike in order to save face and minimize damage. Nuclear weapons can INCREASE tensions as well. Far from decreasing tensions, nuclear weapons increase pressures to be the first one to strike so you can attack your enemy and take out their nuclear weapons silos as to limit their retaliation capacity. And most importantly, this DOES NOT answer my two original objections to Iranian proliferation. 1. that they would sell the technology to areas that can't handle the introduction of nuclear weapons and 2. that there would be a higher probability of accidents. Both aren't "hypothetical" but rather proven by history. Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan sold off secrets to North Korea and China before he was exposed. And thankfully, the US had the leverage to force Pakistan to stop him. We have no influence on iran who could sell to any Tom, Dick, or Harry if they pay up. As for the second scenario, Russia nearly started world war III but thankfully they had an early warning system and a hotline with the US and figured out that a Norweigan rocket flying over Russia was not a US launched nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Iran would have no access to such technology and would have a greater probability of an accidental launch of nuclear weapons.
geeimsobored, China didn't possess any nuclear weapon when a small Kashmir region was seceded to her from Pakistan. It is therefore a terrible example from you to contest Creepy's nuclear deterrence theory. Further, let's not bring the Kashmir dispute to the discussion. At the other side of the (in)equation, India has been occupying a much larger area south of the McMahon Line that is claimed by PRC. A Q Khan didn't sell Nuke secrets to China. You are wrong on this too.
I thought you keep claiming to base your comment on facts? 1. Aren't nations still promising to provide humanitarian funds? (i.e. NOT starving the Palestinians) 2. As many have pointed out, you can have an 'legitimately elected' government that is at odds with other nations...why is that so hard to understand? 3. The Palestinians are not entitled to hand-outs; it is the sole discretion of those nations that choose to share their taxpayer's dollars. Not giving the funds to a suicide-bombing terrorist organization seems like a pretty-low bar. Who cares that Iran gave $50 million? Seems like they should make long-term committments (if their gov deserves as much credit as you heap upon them). And why is it so hard to find replacement funds throughout the rest of the Arab world when they are pumping $$$ out of the ground? No one expected $70 /barrel; can't they share some surplus w/ the Palestinians?
Since when have the Arab leaders been 'stand-up' guys? It would be unlike them to start now...they would rather buy themselves some more Mercedes McLarens.
Oh I guess you want the US to give up theirs. BTW I said IF any country has the right. Handly to only do extreme parsing when convenient. You also failed to address the argument that the US violates the NPT. Why not just define them as having the right to do so. Actually the British were definitelly involved. I just saw an interview of the ex British Cabinet official at that time. Apparently some of his underlings did it without his knowlege. Winning by definition. A familiar ploy.Those Iranis, Muslims they so crazy. I admit it is effective politically in Peoria. Israel has threatened to attack Iran. It does practice exericises. Oh let's just give them the right to threaten to do this by definition. Cool. Well let's see Israel has held Musliim land it has occupied for 35 years against intenational law and world opinion, Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon. Israel attacke Iraq. I's say on balance Israel has invaded other countiries more than Iran since its founding.
I never said it was the only solution to everything, but deterrence has worked thus far and the facts back-up my position so I'm not being hypothetical unlike you Well if it's a moot point, why bring it up? However, I'm glad you finally acknowledged Iran's right to the full nuclear cycle including enrichment as stated in the npt treaty...The fact of the matter is that Iran hasn't done anything illegal and its program is under international inspection, which is more than I can say for any other country, and this wouldn't be the first time that an international organization has been manipulated by stronger countries in order to try and punish a weaker one and frankly the international community has no credibility after all their intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs, which they didn't.....they have lost their legitimacy If it was up to me nobody would have nukes, I would even settle for a nuke-free mid-east, but that's not the reality we live in....You have Israel, which has nukes and has threatened to use them and receives unquestioned support and sponsorship from the US no matter how many times they violate international law, no matter how many times they commit acts of terrorism, no matter how much illegal land they occupy, and no matter how many war crimes they commit.....there is nothing to stop Israel for going around and attacking its neighbors and continuing its destabilizing policies....however, if Iran or any other country would develop nukes, it would add to the genuine long term stability of the region, because Israel would not be able to so wantonly go around and do what it wants....they would have to think twice before they attack Syria or bomb Lebanon for example....as history has demonstrated, it would lead to a balance of power that would enhance stability, because no side would want to escalate tensions to the point where nukes would even be considered...as it stands now, Israeli aggression and colonialism go unchecked, which, along with US actions in the mid-east, are the most destabilizing factors in the region....and this isn't an argument that "two wrongs either make or dont make a right," this is a purely strategic argument that would further stability...also, iran can take the north korean route if they do decide to go down the nuclear weapons path, which they haven't indicated that they want to do....all they have to do is give the iaea 3 months notice that they will be withdrawing from the npt First, the theory I'm referring to is neo-realism Second, you are again dealing with hypotheticals, history backs-up my position and discredits your "what-if" theory...I'm basing my commentary on the facts and I've explained before that no nuclear powers have ever engaged in a war with each other...the small scale conflicts you referred to below pale in comparison to what would happen if an all-out traditional war were to take place and the fact that both countries had nukes helped the two parties realize that de-escalation was in their best interest as opposed to intensification.....your notion that nukes made the situation worse cannot be backed-up with evidence, because there have been plenty of cases where nukes were not involved and similar conflicts have escalated Third, why do you harp on rhetoric, in particular when the actions on the ground prove the exact opposite? Israel threatened to nuke Egypt and Syria when they were getting defeated in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the US said that they would use nukes against Iraq and have made the same claims against Iran...This is what should worry you, not a developing country with one nuclear reactor and I'd like for you to prove to me that Iran is an irrational actor especially in light of threats to use nukes by established nuclear powers If deterrence wasn't the most important or primary factor then please explain to me what is. What is this Russian Roulette analogy you keep referring to? It's ridiculous. Who's playing Russian Roulette and how? In your hypothetical world I guess you can justify anything, but the fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons are very secure, because the ultimate goal of politics is survival and no regime would allow for loose controls that would enable those weapons to get into the hands of non-state actors for example, therefore inviting the wrath of the world on them and losing power in the process nuclear weapons aren't just kept in silos....they can be put on planes, submarines, and ships, so your argument that they would increase tension, because one side wants to attack first to take out the other side's nukes is bogus and I don't think you can come up with a single fact to justify that position. you say Waltz's argument is a "joke," but history is certainly on his side and not on yours What does AQ Khan's intentions have to do with the Iranian intentions? He wasn't selling nuclear weapons, he was selling technological know-how...I see nothing wrong with selling nuclear technology to other states, because that technology is out there if one is willing to pay for it and don't think Khan was the only one selling it, any country with the technology is willing to sell it to anybody who can afford it, including Russian, North Korea, and the US, who just signed a nuclear cooperation deal with India...Who determines what areas can and cannot handle the introduction of this technology? Do you? This sounds like an Orientalist argument....Same things were said when India and Pakistan got nukes, people like you worried that they wouldn't be able to handle it, but the facts and history have disproven those arguments.....my point is that all states take great care to protect their nuclear weapons....Iran, like many other states, has had chemical and biological weapons for a while now, but those weapons are extremely secure and they haven't been sold to "every Tom, Dick, or Harry if they pay up" as you so eloquently put it. Again, you're dealing with hypotheticals that are discredited by history and the facts. if accidents are a concern then a nuclear iran and the us will have to establish a dialogue, which would be a positive development to help coordinate issues like this....these sorts of accidents can happen anytime and anywhere....I'm sure that not all states that have WMD capability have the technology you refer to above, which is all the more reason that countries should engage each other and this could be another positive consequence of nukes...in particular, because of this concern the us has toned down its rhetoric vis-a-vis north korea and has engaged them in negotiations, which serves to bolster my point
Why do you guys have so much contempt towards Iran? And I'm not just referring to Deckard, Cohen, and Hayes, I'm referring to most of you in general. Are you guys still bitter about the hostage situation? Or are you bitter that Iran won't just "behave" and become a US client regime like Kuwait or a US sponsored dictatorship like Egypt? Or is it the fact that they're Muslim and insist on having an Islamic Republic as their form of government? Or does it just come down to Orientalism or cultural differences (i.e. they speak a different language, a lot of them have dark features, there women cover themselves etc...)? Or is it just that you have certain preconceived notions and prejudices that you cannot get past?
Get real... I only have contempt for the Iranian government, not the oppressed Iranian people. It is governed by a theocracy, with a lunatic as President, and the reformers were largely prevented from running for Parliament. Why you have this "lust" for their current government is baffling. And this absurd idea you have that, "if Iran or any other country would develop nukes, it would add to the genuine long term stability of the region," is so rediculous, I find it hard to credit someone with actually thinking that's a good idea. Hey, why not give a few atomic weapons to every country on earth? Between the United States and Russia, we could do that, and have thousands left over. Did you ever see The Mouse that Roared? From reading your posts, I think you must have. Just in case you did, and it left you confused, it was meant as a political satire, not a suggestion that a country the size of San Marino should develop the Bomb. By the way, you've repeatedly said that Israel threatened the use of atomics during the '73 war. Do you have a link for that? Thanks. Keep D&D Civil.
Well thanks for not answering my question.....people like you are the reason that we can't have reasonable debates here with your childish name-calling Why do you have contempt for the iranian government? maybe you can answer that question I only have "lust" for the facts and everything I've said has been factually correct....again, it's people like you that engage in name-calling, inflammatory rhetoric, and other forms of propaganda that take attention away from the issues I believe that nukes promote peace and stability and history and the facts are on my side despite your tacit dismissal....go read kenneth waltz and here's your evidence of israel threatening to use nukes during the 73 war: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm Abstract This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements
