What else do you want? Israel's threat to use nukes is common knowledge, I initially read it in multiple scholarly sources such as the Fateful Triangle, so if you're still doubting the authenticity of this claim, go do some reading and thanks again for answering my question. You're definitely not the "fair" person people claimed you were
Bush won't exclude Iran nuke strike, no sanctions deal http://za.today.reuters.com/news/ne...ZATP-NUCLEAR-IRAN-20060419.XML&archived=False
I would not be surprised if Iran struck back. either. Frankly it would be more legal for Iran to stirke back than the US to attack. Striking back against an attacker is certainly a form of self defense. I think you would understand this in the US or Israeli context. Don't forget China, Venezuela, Cuba and others. Certanly Russia doesn't feel secure as we surround it and this has been commented on frequently. Actually by any objective measure the US has loved peace less than Iran or N. Korea. Just compare the number of attack,invasion etc. of other countries. I understand that idealistic motives were alleged for these invasions or attacks. What happened to the pretext of even handedness? I certainly understand that on many other measures the US behaves much better.
Glynch, you know - its just sad. I gave a reasonable explanation why I believe as I do, and you just engage the strawman again. Its disappointing because you can't have real debate or discussion that way. Others on the board are now finding out that Creepyfloyd similarly doesn't really care to do anything but retype his own opinions which is why he's quickly finding himself in the same boat as you are - which is largely ignored. I'll make one last try with a few salient points though. Re: neo-realism, Waltz, and Iranian proliferation - The crux of Waltz's argument is that there is little danger because despotic regimes are 'survivors' (in his words) and so would do nothing to jeopardize thier own survival. Yet history is filled with examples of despotic regimes that have done just that and either miscalculated or gone off the deep end. Hitler is a good example of this, Pol Pot, more recently the Taliban miscalculated, Saddam did so in the 80s when he attacked Iran and got a royal ass kicking, again in Kuwait in 91 and again when the US eventually removed him. The list of despotic regimes miscalculating is endless. Further the base of Waltz's argument was that the US and USSR avoided nuclear war because of the bi-polar nature of their relationship, which hardly translates to a nuclear Iran. Even if the argument had validity it would only stabilize the Gulf if Iran had a counterbalancing power like a nuclear Iraq. Israel won't serve that purpose vis-a-vis the other Gulf States. So there is more chance a nuclear Iran destabilizes the region rather than the other way around. The argument that 'it hasn't happend so it won't happen' is the worst kind of logical fallacy. I haven't had a car accident yet, therefore I will never have a car accident - lol. And geeimsobored is right, even if waltz's theory was correct re: stability is still doesn't account for all of the other dangers of proliferation - miscalculation, accidental launch, theft, blackmail etc. Something else to evaluate as well: a mistake in the nuclear arena has much more impact than a conventional one. The US and USSR were VERY close to going nuclear on at least one occasion, but arguably several. That would have ended the world. A nuclear mistake, be in miscalculation or accident, could kill millions in one shot. A conventional war won't do that. So even if have a nuclear weapon stops a conventional war, you have a negative expectation on the equation. Re: Iranian politics - Creepyfloyd says the Iranian regime should be 'hailed as progressive.' Glynch you state you 'hate the Mullahs.' How do you resolve that? Why do you 'hate the Mullahs' and defend them in the same breath? Further, and this is really funny - Creepyfloyd says 'if it is so bad in Iran why haven't the people revolted?' Yet he decries the other 'despotic' regimes in the region - failing to apply the same standard - if its so bad why haven't those people revolted. Please don't say its because the security apparatus is to strong - the Iranian apparatus is just as entrenched and ruthless.
Just like Deckard, I have no problem with the Iranian people. As for why there is contempt for the Iranian regime...well that's just too easy. As for the hostage crisis, there are reasons that diplomats and their staff are considered 'hands-off' by the civilized world. Now I temper my anger over that with the understanding of what the CIA did to prop up the Shah, but more importantly the hostage crisis was many years ago and the same people are not in power in Iran. I judge them based on their present day actions ... which would be laughable...if they did not have access to large weapons.
Having contempt for a regime does not justify its overthrow, regardless of what country it is. A lot of people around the world have contempt for the U.S. government and its policies, hardly justifies its targeting by foreign powers.
Are you really arguing that any of those expect a US invasion? apples and oranges. World policeman vs. Rogue State Are we to be d*mned because we sent our military to Korea? Bosnia? Somalia? Afghanistan? Liberia? Kuwait? Europe (twice)? Do you deny that Iran supports Islamic terrorism? ...oh yeah...peaceloving nation it is. And N Korea is just an aggressor. Period. It's the only way it's sh*tty economy can generate hard currency...blackmail. Now you don't get paid-off if you go an actually attack anyway...but I guess that makes you a peace-loving nation in glynch's definition.
Well, money and power talk. That's how world order was, is, and will be set. Is it right? Absolutely not. But everyone is subjective, and everyone is working for his/her interest first. There is no absolute right or wrong, and it all comes down to who's more powerful. I don't want Iran, N.K, etc any country out there, peace loving or terrorists-supporting, to have nuclear weapons, but I understand that everyone out there wants those weapons. Not necessarily about the ability to protect oneself, but simply to improve your bargaining power and negotiation position.
No one on this board, but there have been some politicians who've clearly stated that they want to 'empower' the Iranian people and give them a chance to topple their current regime, which seems to signal that some covert operations are under way to undermine that regime. Without explicit UN authorization, it's illegal to overthrow the leadership of a sovereign nation, but obviously that's a mere technicality that means next to nothing in the current world order.
uh not really... we invaded serbia and kicked milosevic out without a UN mandate. We invaded Bosnia years ago without a UN mandate as well. Those were both done under NATO's command and control. That being said, toppling Iran's regime would just be foolish at this moment. It's logistically impossible and financially prohibitive.
Yup, that's how the world operates, Iran understands that and they're doing their best to improve their position vis-a-vis their 'enemies'. I can't blame them, but they still have no right to nuclear weapons, they have voluntarily forfeited that right. Now whether or not they're in fact pursuing those weapons is what this whole hoopla is about. If one is to go by what the IAEA have said, Iran has so far done nothing illegal or in violation of the NPT. I understand the world's concern regarding their intentions, but speculation is hardly grounds for 'sanctions' or anything else without proof, which is the dilemma we're in now because the UNSC won't be able to levy sanctions if there are no grounds for sanctions, unless Iran gives them a reason to; this is precisely why the U.S. is currently attempting to rally its allies in case they fail to get what they want done through the UN (which is likely what will happen).
Hopefully we've learned a lesson from Iraq. The lesson should be that you don't impose your way on another people by force. Let it come from within organically. The people of Iraq didn't ask to be ivaded. They didn't ask for our army to come in there, bomb them, and start up a new way of living. Now the country is divided. There are some that like the idea of something new for reasons of honest conviction. There are some who like the idea because of greed. There are some who don't want a new way at all, and there are a lot that aren't sure what they want. When the support for something so radical is spread out like that, it doesn't have much of a chance. Had people united and wanted the overthrow, and to turn Iraq into a western style democracy then we would be having great success there now. As is, it is like we gave them a gift they didn't ask for and are puzzled at why they aren't taking better care of it. We gave them a horse as a gift, when they never asked for a horse. Now they are being forced to clean, feed, water, house, exercise, and provide health care for that horse that they never asked for in the first place. Meanwhile our govt. is saying we will stop feeding, watering, cleaning, housing, exercising, and providing healthcare for the horse when the Iraqis start standing up and doing it themselves. It is kind of a stupid thing to say since they never asked to do it in the first place. I know that we've had so much fun with our horse, we just thought surely they would want one too. They have wanted one at some point, but it should be their decision to make. I just hope we support those in Iran who want real reform and don't force a 'gift' on them that they don't want. In order for it to work, they have to desire it on their own.
NATO is not the same thing as the UN, it's a collective security organization that can act on its own or with UN authorization, but it's in no way associated with the UN, although they frequently do act in unison. Moreover, You must have missed this part of my post: I am not disputing that it's more than doable and has been done before, that's dictated by the current world order.
"Logistically impossible," maybe... "financially prohibitive?" When did budget considerations mean anything to the Bush Administration? They'll just print more money, and ask for the "sacrifice" of the American people, by offering up another tax cut for the well-to-do and big corporations. I'd say a serious attempt at "regime change" in Iran was screwed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that doesn't preclude a rain of missiles and bombs in it's future. Logic would call for negotiations, to come to a peaceful resolution, but logic is obviously in short supply in both the White House and the theocracy of Iran, with it's President that makes statements straight out of the North Korean Book of Idiotic Blather. You want to know how likely military action is against Iran? Look to the price of oil. Keep D&D Civil.
Another Hayes tactic just declares himself the winner or his opponents the loser. Like TJ might say "owned" or "game set match" lol I Hayes again for someone who parses so much and constantly claims others use straw man arguments, it takes a lot of chutzpah to do this, Just because I don't want to attack Iran, pehaps even with nuclear weapons as Bush keeps hinting, doesn't mean I am defending the Mullahs. Maybe this is just your version of the crude "Why do you hate America or love Sadam"if you oppose the Iraq War. Or it could be just another example of your fixation on war and the military in foreign affairs. Perhaps an example will help you understand what seems to be a difficult concept for you. I don't defend Tony Blair, Sharon successor or many other leaders yet I don't advocate attacking them, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. Let me think about your Woflowitz argument which is actually an argument.
Sure you are. I argue that Iran having nukes is dangerous because of the nature of a theocratic regime. You say 'oh yeah, Muslims so crazy.' Please explain how that response is not an attempt to defend the regime in Iran. Your response wasn't 'I don't think we should nuke Iran,' it was specifically a response about the regime.
