http://members.rogers.com/babytm/b1.jpg http://members.rogers.com/babytm/b1p.jpg
he certainly is doing a wonderful job

http://members.rogers.com/babytm/b2.jpg http://members.rogers.com/babytm/b2p.jpg
an EXcellent job!

yes ... truly a world event

Wow. That was dumb.

in case you don't know, this guy is Mohammad al-Baradei, the head of the IAEA (international atomic energy association).

this guy is responsible for checking up on Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.
i commend his inspectors on finding the extra stuff that wasn't declared by Iran (some extra funky centrifuges and a super enriched uranium)

but as far as applying pressure on Iran?
he's a potato head
or a moose

the latest headline:
Iran kidnaps IAEA chief ElBaradei, probes his anus with uranium rod; UN "encouraged" by disclosure...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/international/middleeast/11NUKE.html

United Nations nuclear inspectors have found traces of extremely highly enriched uranium in Iran, of a purity reserved for use in a nuclear bomb, European and American diplomats said Wednesday.
...
On Wednesday, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, acknowledged for the first time that the Iranian military had produced centrifuges to enrich uranium, the Associated Press reported from Teheran. He said they were manufacturing unsophisticated models for civilian users. . . . "It's rather strange, don't you think, that the military gets involved in the electric-power generating business?" asked one senior American official. "Or that they forgot to mention this before, when they were 'fully disclosing' all details of their program?"

i see nobody particularly cares whether Iran goes nuclear...

Oth you are just angry that no one is doing Israel's dirty work for them. The IAEA, and the EU struck a deal with Iran. As did the US/UK with Libya I guess they are Mr.Potato heads as well. Sorry but not all of believe in the supremacy of war.

Oth you are just angry that no one is doing Israel's dirty work for them.
i'm 99% sure that Israel will bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities anyway, since everyone's afraid to even use hard language in resolutions re: Iran's nuclear activities.

this is, what, the 3rd, 4th thing that the Iranians "forgot to mention"?
on top of that, the secretary of the supreme national security council of Iran said that "the world must accept Iran into the nuclear club"

they're saying "we won't show you anything. here, we've shown you enough already so you should trust us enough and leave us alone" yet new "omitted" discoveries are being found on a constant basis.
and the UN is afraid to even use tough language.

who's gonna do the job if not the Israelis?
those beautiful F16-I's we're getting are pretty useful ;)

Sorry but not all of believe in the supremacy of war.
yes
let's trust the good ol' mullahs
after all, they are friendly people with no ill intentions towards anyone
http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4138.shtml

war is not the option i'm talking about. there are many other ways. being tougher with Iran does not mean rolling tanks over the border (although this option should not be shelved either)

"Peaceful" nuclear energy program my ass. Iran has zero capacity for nuclear powered energy production. Furthermore, HEU is diagnostic of a rudimentary weapons program. It is nonexistent in nature and relatively difficult to produce, and it has no use for anything other than weapons assemblies.

Believe what you will oth tis truly irrelevant, Iran is going to keep her nuclear program. Bushrer is not even nearly as important as you think, the vast majority of Iran's nuclear programs are well outside the reach of any Israeli aircraft.

it has no use for anything other than weapons assemblies.
DUH

Iran is going to keep her nuclear program
what are you, rooting for it?
they won't keep it either way.
they either see that they're playing with fire, and their recent attempts at diplomacy (they've been sending their gov't agents to foreign countries, and inviting foreign leaders over to "increase ties") will prove fruitless, when EU and Russia (ok, i don't know about the latter..but it remains to be seen) put diplomatic and perhaps trade sanctions on these fanatics.

i know the europeans are impotent (except in matters of trade), but they're not THAT useless.

either way, if diplomacy won't work, Israel will take care of business.

the Mossad already has the full picture... which the IAEA is uncovering piece by piece. and they know what needs to be bombed, if it gets to that.

throw in the F16-I's into the equation, and the superiority of the IAF (the best pilots in the world :D), the probable American support (moral, intelligence, etc.), and you've got a fail-safe equation!

the Mullahs know all that, so they better take care of business the way Qadaffi did to save themselves troubles

the vast majority of Iran's nuclear programs are well outside the reach of any Israeli aircraft.
i know they've been building their shit underground. but believe me nico, the Jewish genius can overcome anything :D

sabotage can be done in many ways, not just by bombing from the air (altho it would be part of it)

Great, another 'my country rocks, your country sucks' threads.

At least he didn't say "god is on our side".

god is on our side

and it has nothing to do with "your country sucks"
i don't even know what country you're from
seems like you've missed the whole point

No country swimming in oil like that should feel the immediate need for nuclear energy.

Oth did you take classes in the Goebells school of logics? I'd really like to know. What are you saying seriously? You present no argument and you expect us to take this seriously?

nico i don't expect much from you.
and if you want to polute the threat with your usual bullshit, just go to the next thread

I am not polluting anything; look at your first post this whole thing should have been deleted because it has no premise, or basis. What is the topic here? That's all I am asking for? What is the premise, where is the evidence where, where, where? All I see is mere rhetoric's.

i'd appreciate if you wouldn't post here anymore.
cearly you dont' wanna contribute anything other than criticism
if my posts don't meet your expectations or standards, i'm sorry - move on

thanks

so, does anyone has any other opinions on the iranian situation?

Iran indefinitely freezes inspections (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/404221.html)

Iran imposed Saturday an indefinite freeze on international inspections of its nuclear facilities in protest against a critical resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency

world: iran, we found lots of shit you didn't mention. you have to be more honest.

iran: we're upset that people don't believe we're honest enough. we've been so honest up to now. we're insulted! no more inspections until y'all apologize

and lets all Attack IRAQ again!!!!

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=16&a=17

US ambassador to the IAEA
Before the Iranian government would allow the agency inspectors into that facility they took it apart. They took out all the equipment. They repainted it. They did everything," said Mr. Brill. "They dug it up and they tried to hide as much as they could. Nonetheless the agency still found evidence of things going on there that clearly shouldn't have been. . . .

Iran recently told the IAEA that nuclear inspections can't resume until March 27th at the earliest. What do you suppose they're doing in the mean time?

i see nobody particularly cares whether Iran goes nuclear...is it illegal for Iran to be a nuclear power? Israel is so why not Iran?

I agree with pothead that there are flaws with the IAEA, although I don't think an intelligent critique begins with lampooning Mr. Al-Baredei's appearance. Doing the same to a Jewish leader would of course elicit a hail of accusations of anti-semitism.

I would submit that the IAEA must directly inspect and monitor Israel's nuclear WMDs as strenuously as any proliferation issues involving other states, if they are to be credible in their mission.

and why is that?

i see... the 400,000,000 arabs/muslims are facing a strategic threat of INVASION by the 5 million Jews.

it's very nice to deflect criticism to Israel... because obviously it's the source of every trouble in the world.

Israel is so why not Iran?
because Iran is run by fundementalist nut jobs who call themselves "signs of God" ("Ayatollah")
and by this logic, why not have everyone have the bomb?
i mean, Israel has one, so why not give one to Chile, Japan, Nigeria, Sweden... and every one in the middle east. we know what peace loving nations (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/405054.html) exist in the middle east

Easy, there- I did not commit Criticism of Israel: I only suggested they be subject to the same monitoring as any other nuclear state, because this would enhance the credibility of the IAEA.

no it wouldn'

IAEA would be used as a strategical political tool by the despot states to remove israel's best deterent against arab/muslim aggression

in fact it will encourage the hostile arab/muslim states to continue their long-term plan (hey, they're disarming.. why not continue the "struggle"?)
having Israel with nukes is the safest thing for the M.E. and the world

I wouldn't say the same about Iran though

Warning: Actual criticism of Israel follows. Zionist readers may wish to get hackles up and blinders on before proceeding further.

I keep forgetting: There's international standards for everyone else when it comes to weapons, conflict, human rights, etc... and then there's Israel, which is special.

They are God's chosen people. You will be punished by anti semitic lable and pothead wont talk to you. :D :D

it feels like a UN general assembly... seriously...

what's that saying? uhm... "sarcasm is the tool of the weak" or something

is it illegal for Iran to be a nuclear power? Israel is so why not Iran?

Yes I would also like to see the answer to this question. Israel has around 200 nukes, and Jericho II missiles that can attack Teheran. Why shouldn't Iran have her own deterrent? All Iran needs now is a warhead, because she has the Shalab 3.

if you read the whole thread you'll get your answer.

No I read the thread and nothing was presented but Mr.Potatoe heads. I want to know why Israel is allowed to keep 200 nuclear weapons and Iran not one?

because the removal of Israel's nuke will encourage the islamist despotic countries to escalate their ethnic cleansing campaign of driving the Jews into the sea.

there'll be another 1973 scenario.... only more deadly this time
what, you think the hostile arabs/muslim states in the region want peace? HAHAHAHAHHAHAH (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34042)

is it a double standard? hell yeah. "good" countries get to keep VERY MUCH NEEDED PROTECTION and "bad" countries (fanatic, despotic, extreme, fascist, hostile, etc.) don't.
oh yeah.. they REALLY need that protection... 400mil vs. 5mil people... and their conventional arsenal (and even unconventional, except nukes) completely outnumbers the Israeli arsenal

Iran should follow Libya's example instead of their lies and deceipt and their current policy.


aside from protecting Israel from aggression, the nukes are protecting world stability.
a result of another full-scale war between Israel and the arabs will completely polarize the world, cause another oil crisis, require emergency action by many countries, and make a lot of people dead... including a rise in international terrorism in those countries that would seem supportive somewhat towards the Jewish state during wartime.

but anyway, back to Iran and their lies

I want to know why Israel is allowed to keep 200 nuclear weapons and Iran not one?

Israel has shown that it can act responsible with nuclear armaments, and is an ally. Iran has proven nothing and is considered part of the 'Axies of evil'. If Iran were to create and maintain WMD, then it would probably start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, something that isn't needed.

But, you're talking to a person who doesn't want anyone to have any WMD.

Also, talk to the UN run IAEA. Ask them why they don't want Iran to have nukes.
http://www.iaea.or.at/

because the removal of Israel's nuke will encourage the islamist despotic countries to escalate their ethnic cleansing campaign of driving the Jews into the sea.


This is simply not true, what prevents those countries from attacking Israel is the US. What protects Israel is her VERY advanced military, just to put it into context, if we use a generic guideline (# of men) Israel vs. the rest of the region stacks up like this:

Land power
Israel-617
vs.
Iran-204
Egypt-149
Syria-85
S.A-82
Lebanon-16
Jordan-38
=574


All these nations added together do not even come close to Israel in terms of land power. Israel's military budget is officially $5.5 billion but in reality add on $12 billion of American aid it goes up to $17.5 billion only Saudi Arabia spends more, and this is destined to go down.

what, you think the hostile arabs/muslim states in the region want peace?

I don't think any of you want peace, at least not likud. Egypt and Jordan have given u peace, and Egypt is Nasserite, Syria has repeatedly offered peace talks, and a WMD free zone, even going to the UN SC to pass a resolution. Israel would not abide, if anything Israel is the threat, and Iran has every reason to defend herself from attack. Is that right? No of course not, I don’t support Iran getting nukes. But I don’t support them being completely defenseless because it throws parity out of the window.

is it a double standard? hell yeah. "good" countries get to keep VERY MUCH NEEDED PROTECTION and "bad" countries (fanatic, despotic, extreme, fascist, hostile, etc.) don't.


What is this oth? Grade 3? Israel is not a good country, just ask the majority of Europeans. This does not answer my question anyways, why does Israel maintain a 200 strong nuclear force, yet states like Iran who is threatened constantly as well from Israel has nothing? Also Pakistan has around 200 nukes too, and they by your definition a bad country. So then do tell me what’s going on?

oh yeah.. they REALLY need that protection... 400mil vs. 5mil people... and their conventional arsenal (and even unconventional, except nukes) completely outnumbers the Israeli arsenal

Israel's arsenal and training could easily destroy a Syrian force (the only enemy you face). Iran cannot march on to Jerusalem so get over this generalized notion of 400 million vs. 5 million. The numbers have been shown and Israel is far superior in numbers and training. Israeli training and weaponry is so good you could probably double the effectiveness of Israel's fighting force. Israel is not some weak little puppy.

aside from protecting Israel from aggression, the nukes are protecting world stability.


If anything Israeli nukes give impetus for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Syria to start WMD programs. Nuclear weapons provide peace when there is parity.

Land power
Israel-617
vs.
Iran-204
Egypt-149
Syria-85
S.A-82
Lebanon-16
Jordan-38
=574


how did you come up with these numbers :confused:

Egypt alone has approx. 70 million people (they doubled themselves since the 1970s)
plus, they enjoy almost the same american weapons (in quality and quantity)

and generally, i hope you know that from every $6 US is giving to the middle east in weapons, only 1 reaches Israel

in general you downplay the arabs' ability to do this, from a militaristic and diplomatic point of view
which is a complete nonsense. diplomatic barriers never stopped them before. and militaristic barriers? non-existent!
except, maybe, the bomb.

get over this generalized notion of 400 million vs. 5 million
why?
your points, are completely goofy and very far from reality (but i'm sure you are a good person).

Syria has repeatedly offered peace talks
in the NY times.
but Assad refused to come to Jerusalem when was invited (twice) by our President
some bla bla bla for western ears

Iran cannot march on to Jerusalem
they sure as hell are trying (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/iran.htm)

Iran has every reason to defend herself
such as?

I don’t support Iran getting nukes
sure seems like it !

Land power
Israel-617
vs.
Iran-204
Egypt-149
Syria-85
S.A-82
Lebanon-16
Jordan-38
=574


how did you come up with these numbers :confused:

From a very well respected military page, http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/m.asp

Also I gave the Arabs way to much credit it should look more like this:

Israel-617
vs.
Syria-85
S.A-82
Lebanon-16
=
183


These are the only nations left that actually oppose you. So when the real threat is exposed Israel faces Zero threat of a successful invasion. You would cream all of them.

Egypt alone has approx. 70 million people (they doubled themselves since the 1970s)
plus, they enjoy almost the same american weapons (in quality and quantity)

So Egypt has a big population? 60% can read does this help you understand how insignificant those numbers really are. The Israeli's are well ahead of Egypt militarily. The Egyptians get $2 billion worth of American aid per annum, $10 billion less then Israel. Also the capabilities of Egyptian arms are not of the same quality of the Israeli army.

and generally, i hope you know that from every $6 US is giving to the middle east in weapons, only 1 reaches Israel

Surely you can support this with numbers. Because the way I see it, the US only gives military aid to Israel and Egypt (possibly Kuwait). S.A buys it's weaponry from the US, so I don't see how the US gives $5 more to Egypt then she does Israel?

in general you downplay the arabs' ability to do this, from a militaristic and diplomatic point of view

I think you are pumping the Arabs for much more then they are worth militarily. Israel is dominant!

which is a complete nonsense. diplomatic barriers never stopped them before.

It’s stopping them now.

why?
your points, are completely goofy and very far from reality (but i'm sure you are a good person).

No actually my points are supported; your points are as realistic as every man woman and child in China invading Taiwan. ;) *even the disabled, babies, and elderly*

in the NY times.

She offered them oth, point closed.

but Assad refused to come to Jerusalem when was invited (twice) by our President
some bla bla bla for western ears

Assad is long dead, his son has tried to open up the channels Israel was non responsive.

[QUOTE]Iran cannot march on to Jerusalem
they sure as hell are trying (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/iran.htm)

We are talking about normal military units, not terrorism. Do try to stay on topic. Iran physically cannot invade Israel.

such as?

Such as the constant threat to attack Iran's facilities?

sure seems like it

Well it would to you because you don't seem to understand how nuclear weapons work in a geo-political sense. But I am sure that means nothing.

so we disagree on the arabs' [official] capabilities. you downplay it because you're not threatened... that's just fine.

ssad is long dead, his son has tried to open up the channels Israel was non responsive
immediately after giving a nice interview to the NY Times, Assad jr. was invited by the Israeli President (Moshe Katsav) to visit Jerusalem... the same gesture was done to Saddat. he visited Jerusalem and 2 years later there was peace.

anyway, assad declined, was invited again, and declined again

We are talking about normal military units, not terrorism.
terrorism (Hezballah) is a strategic tool of Iran.
conventional "normal" military fighting has transformed itself into terrorism. (or guerilla warfare, if you wanna euphamize it)
and this terrorism is sponsored by the iranian gov't (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/iran.htm)

Such as the constant threat to attack Iran's facilities?
stop building nuclear bombs and there won't be any "threat"!

Actually oth I was wrong those numbers are not the number of men in the military. What that is, is the actual strength of the military taking training, assets, and other things into account.

#'s in the military:

[i]Israel- 550
vs.
Syria-310
Saudi Arabia-200
Lebanon-70
=580


So they outnumber you by 30,000 men, but you outnumber them in strength by 434 points. That clearly shows how well trained Israel's military is, it still supports my stance that Israel by far is superior to these forces.

so we disagree on the arabs' [official] capabilities. you downplay it because you're not threatened... that's just fine.

No, the Arabs states you are dealing with do not represent a threat to you. Terrorism is a significantly greater threat to Israel then a conventional military invasion from Syria (which would fail).

immediately after giving a nice interview to the NY Times, Assad jr. was invited by the Israeli President (Moshe Katsav) to visit Jerusalem... the same gesture was done to Saddat. he visited Jerusalem and 2 years later there was peace.

What happened with Saddat? They got back the Sinai, with about 180,000 settlers illegally habituating the Golan I don't think Israel would give that back. The Syrians could be doing more as well, but so could Israel.

anyway, assad declined, was invited again, and declined again

Visa Versa.

terrorism (Hezballah) is a strategic tool of Iran.

Different thread and different topic, the topic is Iran proper military forces.

stop building nuclear bombs and there won't be any "threat"!

That's not the point the fact that Israel is being belligerent against the Iranians give the Iranians a right to defend themselves. With an Israel that could attack at any time Tehran with a nuclear weapon, and Israel constantly threatening Iran's facilities. Iran has every right to do what is necessary. Is Iran was threatening to attack Dimona I think Israel would do the same thing.

the topic is Iran proper military forces
no, the topic is Iran's deception re: its nuclear adventures

and hezbollah can be considered as Iran's proper military force.
it is funded by Iran, it is given intelligence by Iran, it is being trained by Iran (revolutionary guard), it is given support by Iran, operations are controlled by Iran, and Khomeni's (and Khamenei's) pictures arer hanging in Hezbollah headquarters.
Iran is using hezbollah to fund/train 'palestinians' and Israeli Arabs to commit terrorist attacks (there's your march on Jerusalem, amigo), as well having direct contacts between Iranian 'revolutionary guard' elements with Arafat and his 'government'

just check the link (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/iran.htm) again. i hope you've read it all

fighting with tanks and planes has transformed into guerilla warfare which is much more flexible, discreet, and gives you better press coverage because of the ability to be a "separate entity"
but nonetheless it is used extensively by Iran and Syria too

If Iran was threatening to attack Dimona I think Israel would do the same thing.
and you think the Ayatollahs don't want to?

iran is much more of a threat to Israel than Israel is to iran (if any threat even exists from Israel besides attacking the facility[ies] that produce nuclear weapons in Iran)

nico you are trying to make Iran look like the victims that desparately need protection
that is simply not the case.

no, the topic is Iran's deception re: its nuclear adventures

Ok if it is as such the rest of your comments are irrelevant, Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran's "nuclear adventures" as you so aptly put it. Iran's military does.

everything onwards (in italics) is irrelevant because the threads purpose is nukes not forces

it is funded by Iran, it is given intelligence by Iran, it is being trained by Iran (revolutionary guard), it is given support by Iran, operations are controlled by Iran, and Khomeni's (and Khamenei's) pictures arer hanging in Hezbollah headquarters.

As were the contras in Honduras in the 80's where they part of the US military? Or the Colombian military? No, they aren't the political leadership resides within the organizations themselves. So neither Hezbollah, nor the Contras were part of the supporting states military.

Iran is using hezbollah to fund/train 'palestinians' and Israeli Arabs to commit terrorist attacks (there's your march on Jerusalem, amigo), as well having direct contacts between Iranian 'revolutionary guard' elements with Arafat and his 'government'

That still does not mean that they are officially part of the Iranian military complex. Their political leadership is not in Teheran it is in Lebanon. Just like the contras in Honduras, if you want to make these connections you can't have double standards.

fighting with tanks and planes has transformed into guerilla warfare which is much more flexible, discreet, and gives you better press coverage because of the ability to be a "separate entity"
but nonetheless it is used extensively by Iran and Syria too

To the best of my knowledge neither Iran nor Syria have declared war on Israel. Sure they are used by these states, but they are not these states. There is a difference, Pakistan used the Taliban. ;)

and you think the Ayatollahs don't want to?

Show me that they do.

iran is much more of a threat to Israel than Israel is to iran (if any threat even exists from Israel besides attacking the facility[ies] that produce nuclear weapons in Iran)

The threat exists, beyond the categories you may put on it. I would withdraw my defense of Iran's systems if Israel would do the same. Do you actually expect these states to sit by and allow you to have a nuclear monopoly?

Iran look like the victims that desparately need protection
that is simply not the case.

Iran is the second strongest military and largest economy in the region. But they pale in insignificance to the Israeli's conventional or not. Iran has a right to acquire nuclear weapons and you have not provided a reason why they shouldn't get one.

the reasons are insufficient to you
i guess that's too bad

as for the other issues (non-nuclear), let's start another thread... and i'll respond to all your Q's later

but as far as the nuclear issue, while we may disagree on whether its "right or wrong" for them to be nuclear, unless i misunderstood you, we both agree they shouldn't have the bomb regardless
(I don’t support Iran getting nukes)

so that's that.

and the UN should put much greater pressure, and pass tough UNSCRs against the Ayatollahs. failure to comply and less-than-complete transparancy should result in escalating sanctions

furthermore, the ayatollah regime should be destabilized from outside, to assist the internal elements and the expatriates!
to remove the ayatollah scurge of totalitarianism and religious fanatism from the M.E. (at least from Iran)
but again, this issue should probably be in a separate thread. let's stick to the nuke discussion

thanks

and the UN should put much greater pressure, and pass tough UNSCRs against the Ayatollahs. failure to comply and less-than-complete transparancy should result in escalating sanctions

Of course they should, but so they should on Israel as well. If Israel wants there to be peace she has to stop these double standards, and sadly for Israel. No the states around her will not stop threatening her if she continues to threaten them. The UN, US, Russia, China, and EU should step in to convene a summit on WMD in the ME.

there can't be a single standard for both
a) countries under attack, and
b) countries attacking

there have to be 2 standards (double standard). why is doublestandard considered a bad thing? it may be in other issues, but certainly not in the world of nuclear bombs!

another doublestandard is
a) friends get to have one
b) enemies don't

a) democratic countries would be better at handling nukes
b) despotic ones wouldn't (welcome to the world of A Q Khan...lol)

there are 2 standards for sure
"doublestandard" is a negative buzzword, but as i said, it's very very positive in this case. thank god for doublestandards in the world of nukes!

precisely for this reason, (and for stability's sake, which i've mentioned in previous posts) Israel's facilities should not be inspected.

btw, are any of the facilities of the nuclear-club states inspected? [Russia, China, US, France, Britain, Pakistan, India, NK (!)]

a) countries under attack, and
b) countries attacking


And who is doing what? Neither are attacking each other. But they both threaten each other.

why is doublestandard considered a bad thing?

Because it gives ppl an excuse to do things to make up that double standard. That is why so many Arabs hate the US because it allows this double standard to exist. You may scoff it off, but I think 9/11 has proven that Arab public opinion does matter.

Large percentages of people in predominantly Muslim countries also believe the anti-terrorism effort is driven by the desire of the U.S. to protect Israel. Seven-in-ten Jordanians hold this view, about as many as see the war as an attempt by the United States to control oil in the Middle East (71%). A majority of people in Morocco (54%) and slightly fewer in Turkey (45%) and Pakistan (44%) also see protecting Israel as an important reason for America's actions.


a) democratic countries would be better at handling nukes
b) despotic ones wouldn't (welcome to the world of A Q Khan...lol)


By definition Iran is not a despotism, it does have a democratic process.

precisely for this reason, (and for stability's sake, which i've mentioned in previous posts) Israel's facilities should not be inspected.


Israel's facilities should be inspected as others should be as well. Israel has not admitted it has nukes so it is in the same situation as Iran is.

btw, are any of the facilities of the nuclear-club states inspected? [Russia, China, US, France, Britain, Pakistan, India, NK (!)]

You don't think they want to inspect NK's facilities? Anyways, those other states have signed on to the NPT (which Israel has not which is a MAJOR threat to the world), and those other states have admitted they have nuclear weapons and they have them now. Israel has not admitted to it, thus inspections would be necessary.

I may regret this, but I thought I might buy into this debate as it seems to be at an impass.
In my opinion Israel is far from what I would call a model democratic country, in some respects it is aggressive and is guilty of oppression.
It is also true that Israel has been forced and moulded into the "state" that it is today.
It is also my opinion that Iran does not need nuclear power as it has the capacity to produce enough electricity/energy for it's civilian needs with it's existing hydro-electric structural network.
Iran is also what I'd call a paper democracy, in other words people don't have any real choice as proven in the most recent round of elections which, if I am correct, only consolidated the power of the ruling conservatives.
Israel is a true democracy in that the people can choose between parties with differing agendas and leanings.
I must admit that if I were a mullah in Tehran I would like a nuclear deterent when a right wing fanatic warmonger like Sharon and his Likud party are in power! We have to remember though that Sharon is bound by the rule of law, and the whim of the US and so is unlikely to be the perpetrator in any war of aggression.
That said the US is guilty of the above and is supposed to be "THE" role model that every country should mould itself upon, jeez, there's no hope! :rolleyes: ;)
Anyhow, the point is that although not ideal by any means, the status quo in the mid east since 73 has sort of held (bar US intervention and Iraqi aggression) and Iran gaining a nuclear capacity would seem to me to upset the apple cart with no visable benifits to the region as a whole.
It has also been mentioned that Israel has proven that it can be responsible with it's technology and this is true, as I beleive that it's nuclear capability is purely of a deterent nature.
Israel does have the right to exist, in peace. So does Palastine and Lebanon.
At the moment it is an endless cycle of tit for tat, Palastinians and their organizations retaliating in the only way they can to the far mightier Israeli military incursions into their territory.
As far as I'm concerned they are as bad as each other, if anything Israel is a bit of a bully.
I don't see how adding a fanatical religous regime with nuclear weapons capability into the mix will gain anything possitive, in fact the extreme opposite will be the case.
What really shits me is that I have been to both Israel (88 when the first intafada started) and Arab countries and, in general, the people I met would never think of committing attrocities against anyone. Where does all this bullshit come from?
It comes from the very few at the top who want to consolidate their positions of power, and as seen in Europe the voice of the people when it comes to war is not always , if ever, heeded.
In summery, I don't think the time is right for Iran to gain possesion of nuclear arms, but I also think Israel should play by the same rules as every one else and open itself up for inspection, they may think they are gods choosen people, but on a world stage god is supposed to represent us all (not that I beleive in that crap).
I also don't think that we should blindly buy into the Iran as an axis of evil rhetoric and give the green light to the neo-cons in Washington to commit another aggresive illegal act.
I bet the leadership in Israel at the moment can't beleive their luck, it seems the enemies on the US list, Syria and Iran etc... happens to coincide quite nicely with Israels?!
The above is BTW just IMHO.
Regards,
Mark

foucaulteco:
welcome to the board
i don't agree with some of what you have to say, but you've brought up a very good point.
the current formula has worked since 1973. Iran becoming nuclear will change that balance and may even destroy it.

nico:
By definition Iran is not a despotism, it does have a democratic process
oh please. do i even have to say it...

And who is doing what? Neither are attacking each other
if you re-read my posts you'll see who's attackign who (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/iran.htm).

Because it gives ppl an excuse to do things to make up that double standard. ... statistical quotes...
it does, to an extent,
although i suspect that Arab opinion is influenced by somewhat different factors (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34042)

whether Israel should sign the NPT, i don't know. it wouldn't get them a status like Britain, for example, that them being a nuke power is a given...
so what's the point?
it would give an even stronger pretext for the despotic M.E. nations to step up their diplomatic assault, and make them more extreme.

the doublestandards are needed very much in the nuke world.

Thank you for the welcome.
How boring would this forum be if we did all agree on everything?
Mature debate is the order of the day and this forum seems to fit the bill better than many others I have visited.
Keep up the good work, and keep the bastards honest.

Mr.Potatoe heads.


:D lol . Please be nice to him, did you not like my sarcaism otheadp or Mr.P H. lol

oh please. do i even have to say it...

I think you do:

A government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute power: “Kerensky has a place in history, of a brief interlude between despotisms” (William Safire).

Last time I checked there were powers outside the powers of the Ayatollah. By definition there would be no legislature, and there would be no elected members in the gov't. If you want a despotism you should look to your neighbors like Jordan, and Egypt.

if you re-read my posts you'll see who's attackign who (http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/iran.htm).

Ad Nauseam Oth is your forte sadly, as I have said before. They are independent of the Iran politically thus they are only funded by Iran. I you want to use this logic then I do suggest you start complaining about the Colombian military. ;) They are what we call... proxies!

it does, to an extent,
although i suspect that Arab opinion is influenced by somewhat different factors (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34042)

I really doesn't matter though the Israeli's are giving these states reasons to hate them. These double standards are apparent to anyone everywhere, and this is one of the reasons why Israel is so hated. You basked in this "double standard" now you pay for it.

whether Israel should sign the NPT, i don't know. it wouldn't get them a status like Britain, for example, that them being a nuke power is a given...
so what's the point?

If Israel signed the NPT it would be officially recognized as a nuclear power. In return Israel should try to reduce tensions; the reason why Israel won't sign is because she will officially put herself at the will of other Arab states.

it would give an even stronger pretext for the despotic M.E. nations to step up their diplomatic assault, and make them more extreme.

But not without reason oth, they have a reason to do it. You are giving them fuel, so don't complain.

Israel is so why not Iran?
because Iran is run by fundementalist nut jobs who call themselves "signs of God" ("Ayatollah")
and by this logic, why not have everyone have the bomb?
i mean, Israel has one, so why not give one to Chile, Japan, Nigeria, Sweden... and every one in the middle east. we know what peace loving nations (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/405054.html) exist in the middle eastSo the rule of thumb is?? what?? Don't get me wronge I certainly don't think Iran should have nukes - their nutZ. But who's to say who can and who can not.

I guess the West got them first so they get to say - to some degree.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/25/2004&Cat=2&Num=004
Iranian government officials saying that the US should be considered as an accomplice to the killing of Yassin.

trying to stir up some islamist martyrdom operations eh?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-29-sapphire-usat_x.htm

Zarqawi's Iranian connection: http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200403290858.asp