Iran's Nuclear Program May Have Military Dimensions

Unless the subject is whether or not they are a violent theocratic threat to their neighbors, in which case the circumstance that their theologically addled neighbors have a recent record of extreme violence and are currently and overtly threatening them, and they have no such record with regard to their neighbors, becomes a useful item of evidence or consideration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apparently Zionism is the only revolutionary theory worth exporting.

Personally speaking, if Israel is the best that Jews can come up with, its pathetic. For all their less than humanitarian policies Iran has been absorbing refugees for millenia. During WWII they sent a message to the Nazis, asking them to lay off any Persian Jews [the Nazis assented], during the last 60 years of wars, they have taken in refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

Israel could do worse than follow Irans less than humanitarian policies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow. Staggering bigotry, and unsupported assertions.

Everyone's certainly missed you round the water cooler, Sam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know if nation's have "rights," but that's hardly the issue.

I am not denying that Iran or anybody else can pursue developing nuclear weapons. What I am arguing is the political consequences of allowing Iran -- or anybody else -- to develop nuclear weapons are too strong to ignore.

By that, I mean that in Iran's case there are specific possibilities that should concern the US -- and indeed any other nation -- about nuclear development. And I've outline them in this thread.

I do not have this week's latest rant from Tehran in my in-box, if that's what you mean. The last story I read was an Economist story, in which the reporter heard the "death to" litany dragged out again. We also have Iran accusing the British of stirring up the political dissent last summer and so an so forth. In other words, pretending like what I am saying is "history" is nothing more than a stunt from you.

Wasn't that me who just posted the weapons shipment that was stopped? Are you even paying attention?

 

Except Israel? I agree with the need for concern, but it needs to be applied unilaterally.

I disagree, particularly given the need for similar concern regarding the aggressive behaviour of the accusatory parties.

If you have a recent, explicit rant by the Iranian government, state it. Or shelve the accusation.

The FACTS around this shipment, involving piracy and clearly propagandistic elements, is as yet undetermined.

 

She's right, though.

About Iran taking in refugees, that is. Millions of them, from all those wars on its borders that it did not start.

Its humanitarian record is more commendable than Israel's, and its circumstances (current and historical) provide at least as much justification for a less commendable record.

If it were an issue, with the US for example, the US would be in the wrong here throughout - correct?

It is only by denying that the concept of Iran having rights - say by treaty and mutual obligation between nations - is even worth attention, that the US can justify its policies and actions: agreed?

 

Not with respect to its minorities, I regret to say.

 

Israel already has the bomb. Nothing we can do about it. And talking about it, again, is nothing more than a canard.

So are you arguing that Iran NEEDS a bomb to deter the US, the West and Israel? If that's the case, then you can't argue, at the same time, that the program is not military in nature...

Sure.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/21/iran-leader-spurns-obama-overtures/?page=2

"Khamenei, wearing a black turban and dark robes, said America was hated around the world for its arrogance, as the crowd chanted "Death to America."

There's plenty of actual youtube clips, too. Have a look sometime.

Perhaps, but it fits a pattern you are willfully ignoring in order to preserve your own delusions and flimsy arguments.

No.

No, and if you actually read what I wrote, again, you will see I did not deny Iran had rights, I questioned the concept of the right to build a nuclear weapon (where is such a right codified, Ice?).

 

No, not talking about it is dishonest. The issue of clear double standards remains. And of course we can do something about it. Insist that Israel joins the NPT, etc. If not, Threats, Sanctions, Isolation, Condemnation, Invasion. Like the normal run of the mill Pariah nation.

These can be separated into 2 distinct issues, and addressed individually.

So where does Khamenei or the Iranian government say "Death to America"?

 

Since you are so committed to clear, universal standards, I assume that you are also recommending a similar course of action with respect to India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Or is there perhaps some dishonesty in your failure to talk about them?

 

Absolutely.

No I said unilateral, which includes the US, Russia and China.

 

And what do you imagine that would accomplish?

Hasn't worked on North Korea, to be sure.

Do you really want to treat India as a "Pariah nation?" What do you suppose would be the result of such an approach?

Likewise, Pakistan.

How would any worthy cause be advanced by such an approach?

 

Iran's record with certain of its minorities, while very bad, remains superior to Israel's with certain of its minorities.

Bulldozed communities of the dispossessed, the former inhabitants rounded up and sequestered behind "security" fencing and checkpoints, are not a widespread and characteristic feature of life in Iran, for one example.

But go on - the spectacle of people from the US debating what rights should be granted to Iran, what privileges Iran may have earned or lost by the rhetoric of its politicians and its proper deference toward its betters or lack of same,

and which should be denied, by the armed forces of its enemies sitting on its borders, and without considerations of anything from signed treaty to the implications of the necessary means even entering the conversation,

is more interesting than one would have thought. In a macabre sort of way.

 

A level playing field.

No, it is clear that anyone with the bomb gets preferential treatment, for obvious reasons.

As above, those who have the bomb are untouchable by default. Thus the huge hype around Iran, who by virtue of the fact of NOT having the bomb, can be treated as a Pariah nation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The worthy cause would be along the lines of START 1, but expanded to include all nuclear powers, and ultimately aim for No Nukes whatsoever.

 

No, it's called staying on topic. You should try it.

We can do nothing about it. All you can do is work hard to prevent proliferation, which is what we're doing in Iran. Once a country has a bomb, they do not give it up.

This is exactly what you abhor about the US, now you propose it? You're just playing games, and I'll not take them seriously. Invade Israel?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Mosques are run by the government. Speeches are routinely given that say this and worse. Again, try youtube. If you'r going to sit here and pretend like this isn't common rhetoric, that's you business.

 

Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Spain, and Germany don't have the bomb. So what do you mean by "special treatment"? How about Turkey vis-a-vis Syria? Is there perhaps some other reason that these countries get special treatment?

 

Iran has signed the NPT. No problem, until evidence to the contrary is presented.

Invade,? No that option is only open against Iran who does not have a adequate self defense deterrent. No, apply pressure on Israel. Real pressure where it hurts. In their pockets.

Nonsense. People say the darnedest things due to all religions. Show where "Death to America" is an Iranian government sentiment.

 

Point taken. Simply put, any "Pariah" nation (on the US hit list) with nukes will not get invaded.

 

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

Show me a recent official statement.