Time to kick Iran

[Ziggurat]

Where did they do that?

Do you or do you not think it's OK for Iran to get nuclear weapons?

 

[Oliver]

Do you or do you not think it's OK for Iran to get nuclear weapons?

Yes, I think it would be fair to allow them the same rights as
Israel and the US has. Or are you trying to tell me that Israel
would be worried about Iran getting "wiped off the map"?

And no: Iran didn't publicly state to be interested in producing
nuclear weapons. So? paranoid Truther much?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I think it would be fair to allow them the same rights as Israel and the US has.

That's what I thought. In effect, you consider democracies and dictatorships to be equivalent. Good to know.

You know, the obsession with fairness as the ultimate (and in your case apparently the only) virtue is something most people grow out of by age 14.

And no: Iran didn't publicly state to be interested in producing nuclear weapons. So? paranoid Truther much?

What stunning lack of logic you display, as well as dazzling historical ignorance. Why on earth would you expect a country engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program to announce their intention to build nuclear weapons? Are you honestly trying to say that a lack of any such statement indicates that they are not trying to build nukes? That would be quite absurd. Saddam never said publicly, prior to the first gulf war, that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. But we know that he was, he confessed to as much, and we confiscated much of the program. Libya, similarly, never announced their intentions in that regard either, until they decided to give up their program. Neither Pakistan nor India announced their intention to develop nuclear weapons at all, they merely demonstrated to the world that they had already done so.

Oh, and Israel? Not only have they never announced publicly that they have or intend to get nuclear weapons, they've never even tested them. If you want to play the super-skeptic game, on what grounds can you conclude that Israel even has nuclear weapons?

 

[Oliver]

That's what I thought. In effect, you consider democracies and dictatorships to be equivalent. Good to know.

You know, the obsession with fairness as the ultimate (and in your case apparently the only) virtue is something most people grow out of by age 14.

What stunning lack of logic you display, as well as dazzling historical ignorance. Why on earth would you expect a country engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program to announce their intention to build nuclear weapons? Are you honestly trying to say that a lack of any such statement indicates that they are not trying to build nukes? That would be quite absurd. Saddam never said publicly, prior to the first gulf war, that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. But we know that he was, he confessed to as much, and we confiscated much of the program. Libya, similarly, never announced their intentions in that regard either, until they decided to give up their program. Neither Pakistan nor India announced their intention to develop nuclear weapons at all, they merely demonstrated to the world that they had already done so.

Oh, and Israel? Not only have they never announced publicly that they have or intend to get nuclear weapons, they've never even tested them. If you want to play the super-skeptic game, on what grounds can you conclude that Israel even has nuclear weapons?

So what? We all know what happened to Saddams reactor, don't we?
So if Israel is paranoid again as a result of it's own politics, they surely
will destroy Iran's nuclear plant as well, won't they?

What the heck is this Americas problem?

It isn't. No matter how much Propaganda we hear...

 

[Matteo Martini]

And I've given you an answer before. If all you want is a justification to wave around, all you need is the NPT: Iran, Mexico, and Brazil promised not to get nukes. If you're concerned about what actually motivates countries like Iran, then our posession of nukes is irrelevant. Iran's desire for nukes will not diminish in any way if we, or even all the nuclear powers, got rid of ours. That is the reality of the situation, and it is something your "point of view" still hasn't addressed in any way, shape or form.

I have asked a precise question ( even underlined ).
You failed to address my point.
My point is pretty clear.
Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?
I did not speak about the NPT.
I have asked:
Why some countries are allowed to have nukes and other do not?
My point is pretty clear.
I hope you, someday, will like to address my point

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's what I thought. In effect, you consider democracies and dictatorships to be equivalent. Good to know.

So, why is China ( a dictatorship ) allowed to own nuclear weapons, and Bush does not contest this right, while Iran ( not precisely a dictatorship ) is not allowed to hav nuclear power, even if they stated clearly they are not intentioned to get nukes?
I hope in a clear answer from your side, which addresses my point.

 

[Oliver]

So, why is China ( a dictatorship ) allowed to own nuclear weapons?

Ouch!!!

 

[Matteo Martini]

Ouch!!!

BTW
I do not agree that Iran should have nuclear capability..

 

[Ziggurat]

So, why is China ( a dictatorship ) allowed to own nuclear weapons, and Bush does not contest this right,

Two reasons, both of which should be obvious. First off, China already had nukes when the NPT was signed, and so is considered a nuclear power by that treaty. Iran, which is still bound by that treaty, was not a nuclear power when it signed on, and promised not to acquire nuclear weapons. You seem to consistently want to ignore this. There is an explicit legal framework, which Iran agreed to, which does not permit it to aquire nukes but does allow China to have nukes.

There's also a rather obvious and unavoidable practical issue involved. It's not possibly to prevent China from getting nukes, since they already have them. Preventing the acquisition of nukes is easier to do than removing nukes which already exist, as you should well know. And there's also the issue of what cost you're willing to bear to get what you want. Frankly, I would very much like it if China didn't have nukes. But I'm not willing to do what it would take to remove those nukes from China: namely, go to war with China, possibly resulting in the use of those nukes against American forces or our allies. The cost is simply too high. Practical considerations like that matter, Matteo.

while Iran ( not precisely a dictatorship ) is not allowed to hav nuclear power, even if they stated clearly they are not intentioned to get nukes?

I am at a loss as to why you keep refering to Iran's public pronouncements on the issue, as if that really revealed any information. They can state whatever the hell they like to, but they've been caught repeatedly lying about their nuclear program.

 

[Oliver]

BTW
I do not agree that Iran should have nuclear capability..

Neither do I - as long that no one has nuclear WMD's. But at the
same time, I see no good explanation why a country having them
can in any way say: "Nah, you not". That's a no-brainer.

And I doubt that Israel is willing to get rid of even ONE of their
nuclear warheads - while simultaneously whining about any middle-
eastern nuclear facilities because ...

Nuclear reactor = "WMD! ISRAELIHIROSHIMA! OMG! MUSHROOMCLOUDS! ENDOFISRAEL! OMG!!!"

 

[Pardalis]

*sigh*

 

[Ziggurat]

Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?
I did not speak about the NPT.

The fact that you didn't speak about the NPT yourself is irrelevant. It's part of my answer to your question. You're apparently more clueless than I thought, because the connection should have been obvious. But since you need it spelled out for you, I will do so. Signing the NPT was voluntary. Countries which wanted nukes didn't have to sign on. And a few countries didn't - they were legally free to pursue nuclear weapons. But those who did sign as non-nuclear powers made a binding promise not to acquire nukes. That promise is what should prevent those countries from acquiring nukes. Funny how quickly you appeal to international law when you want to constrain American action, but how readily you not only abandon but in fact deny it in other cases.

 

[Oliver]

*sigh*

Why? Did you read the "Al Qaida strategy"-Thread?:

Poll: Al Qaida 9/11-Strategists Won (

1 2)
Oliver (11th July 2007)

 

[Ziggurat]

So what? We all know what happened to Saddams reactor, don't we?

Indeed we do. And so do the Iranians. Their nuclear program does not suffer the same single-point vulnerability that Saddam's early nuclear weapons effort suffered from. I fact, you reveal your ignorance yet again: even Saddam's subsequent efforts (experimenting with enrichment as well as with plutonium recovery from spent fuel rods) didn't suffer the same single-point vulnerability.

So if Israel is paranoid again as a result of it's own politics, they surely will destroy Iran's nuclear plant as well, won't they?

You've really got no clue, do you?

The Osiraq reactor was capable of turning unenriched uranium (U238) into plutonium, which can then be chemically separated to form the heart of a plutonium-based bomb. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities, which will allow them to separate out U235 from U238. This will make it possible to acquire the necessary fissile material without the use of a nuclear reactor. Uranium enrichment facilities are not like reactors. They can be (and in Iran's case, they are) split among many different locations and burried deep underground, to prevent easy elimination by air. So no, it really isn't a sure thing at all that Israel can halt the whole thing whenever they want to.

 

[Oliver]

Indeed we do. And so do the Iranians. Their nuclear program does not suffer the same single-point vulnerability that Saddam's early nuclear weapons effort suffered from. I fact, you reveal your ignorance yet again: even Saddam's subsequent efforts (experimenting with enrichment as well as with plutonium recovery from spent fuel rods) didn't suffer the same single-point vulnerability.

You've really got no clue, do you?

The Osiraq reactor was capable of turning unenriched uranium (U238) into plutonium, which can then be chemically separated to form the heart of a plutonium-based bomb. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities, which will allow them to separate out U235 from U238. This will make it possible to acquire the necessary fissile material without the use of a nuclear reactor. Uranium enrichment facilities are not like reactors. They can be (and in Iran's case, they are) split among many different locations and burried deep underground, to prevent easy elimination by air. So no, it really isn't a sure thing at all that Israel can halt the whole thing whenever they want to.

I have a clue - I understand your point - I understand Israels point.
But I don't understand the US-Point - and I also don't understand
how a country can have the cheekiness to say: "Our WMD's are
good - yours are bad".

So let me ask: Was it the right and wise way how Israel started off
with their plan to declare "independence" and the State of Israel in
the first place?

And why is Iran a threat to America - if Israel has nothing to do with
the US-Point of View?

Maybe you understand why I try to understand the Lobbies role in the
whole mess by now, don't you? - In your neutral Opinion...

 

[Matteo Martini]

The fact that you didn't speak about the NPT yourself is irrelevant. It's part of my answer to your question. You're apparently more clueless than I thought, because the connection should have been obvious. But since you need it spelled out for you, I will do so. Signing the NPT was voluntary. Countries which wanted nukes didn't have to sign on. And a few countries didn't - they were legally free to pursue nuclear weapons. But those who did sign as non-nuclear powers made a binding promise not to acquire nukes. That promise is what should prevent those countries from acquiring nukes.

You keep on talking about the NPT, when I keep intentionally avoinding talking about it.
Since it seems we can not have a discussion unless we talk about the NPT, please, I re-formulate my question as follows:
Why the NPT alloes some countries ( the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China ) to have nuclear weapons, but prevents others to have them?
If the above question is too difficult, I can re-rephrase it again:
Why some countries are allowed, under the NPT, to keep a ( big ) nuclear arsenal, while others are not?

Funny how quickly you appeal to international law when you want to constrain American action, but how readily you not only abandon but in fact deny it in other cases.

I do not want ( nor I can!! ) constrain American action.
In fact, I was speaking in general, I did not even mention America in my last posts..
Getting nervous??

 

[Oliver]

I do not want ( nor I can!! ) constrain American action.
In fact, I was speaking in general, I did not even mention America in my last posts..
Getting nervous??

You're an "America Hater", I guess. Get used to it. There is no other
way to describe your un-patriotic criticism towards US-Politics.

But kidding aside: What do you personally think about the presidential
debates in which candidates state that "Iran is an intolerable threat!" ?

Do you believe that?

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep on talking about the NPT, when I keep intentionally avoinding talking about it.

You can avoid talking about it all you want to, but it answers the question you kept asking, so don't get mad at me because you don't like the answer.

Why the NPT alloes some countries ( the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China ) to have nuclear weapons, but prevents others to have them?

Because those countries were already nuclear powers when the treaty was signed, and because there was a realization that while countries which didn't yet have nuclear weapons might agree not to aquire nuclear weapons in the future, those which had already acquired them were not going to give them up. It's as simple as that, and needs no further justification. Countries which did not have them but wanted to be able to get them had the option of not signing the treaty. And several countries took that option. Iran is not one of them. There is also a process by which countries can withdraw from the treaty, but Iran has not opted for that either (in contrast, North Korea has).

 

[Matteo Martini]

Two reasons, both of which should be obvious. First off, China already had nukes when the NPT was signed, and so is considered a nuclear power by that treaty.

Excellent.
Then your point is:
" if you have been quick enough to get nukes before the NPT was signed, it is OK to have nukes, if you have ben to slow, just your problem "
BTW
I read that the NPT also imposes a ( vague ) obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament.
Are Russia, America and China disarming?

Iran, which is still bound by that treaty, was not a nuclear power when it signed on, and promised not to acquire nuclear weapons. You seem to consistently want to ignore this. There is an explicit legal framework, which Iran agreed to, which does not permit it to aquire nukes but does allow China to have nukes.

I never denied that there is a legal framework.
But, as we have seen in many many examples, at UN level, not always legality = justice
I am talking about fairness here

There's also a rather obvious and unavoidable practical issue involved. It's not possibly to prevent China from getting nukes, since they already have them.

It is not possible to dismantle nukes?
Why?

Preventing the acquisition of nukes is easier to do than removing nukes which already exist, as you should well know.

I do not.
Why is dismantling nukes difficult?

And there's also the issue of what cost you're willing to bear to get what you want. Frankly, I would very much like it if China didn't have nukes. But I'm not willing to do what it would take to remove those nukes from China: namely, go to war with China, possibly resulting in the use of those nukes against American forces or our allies. The cost is simply too high. Practical considerations like that matter, Matteo.

I am not talking about this.
I never said that China should be forced to dismantle nuclear arsenal

I am at a loss as to why you keep refering to Iran's public pronouncements on the issue, as if that really revealed any information. They can state whatever the hell they like to, but they've been caught repeatedly lying about their nuclear program.

Only once, as far as I know.
And, not not under the current administration.

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[25] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.

P.S.
As far as I know, el Baradei is well under pressure from Bush:

ElBaradei had strongly questioned the U.S. rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the time of the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis, when he, along with Hans Blix, led a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, seeking evidence that Saddam Hussein had revived his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. used several diplomatic channels in an attempt to remove ElBaradei's from his position as IAEA director, but however despite months of extensive behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, the U.S. was not able to identify a sufficient number of other countries willing to support ElBaradei's ouster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei

 

[Matteo Martini]

You can avoid talking about it all you want to, but it answers the question you kept asking, so don't get mad at me because you don't like the answer.

Replied below

Because those countries were already nuclear powers when the treaty was signed, and because there was a realization that while countries which didn't yet have nuclear weapons might agree not to aquire nuclear weapons in the future, those which had already acquired them were not going to give them up. It's as simple as that, and needs no further justification.

It does, as I do not think it is fair that, some countries should be allowed to keep their nukes, while others should not be allowed to develop their own.
BTW, one of the three pillars of the NPT is also disarmement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Second_pillar:_disarmament
Are China, Russia, England, US, France, .. disarming?

Countries which did not have them but wanted to be able to get them had the option of not signing the treaty. And several countries took that option. Iran is not one of them. There is also a process by which countries can withdraw from the treaty, but Iran has not opted for that either (in contrast, North Korea has).

So, would you be OK with Iran getting nukes, if tomorrow they withdraw from the NPT?