Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

Greenspan has a front sit to see Bush's drive for war.

As for you responding to me, you are the only right winger chickenhawk left here with teeth.

I will pull them out:

to me, a good right winger is a right winger who bows to left wingers.

• I'm currently campaigning for Obama.
• I'm for gay rights including the right to marry (many Democrats are opposed).
• I'm for the legalization of marijuana and the end of the drug war.
• I'm for the legalization of prostitution.
• I'm for the increase in minimum wage.
• I support national health care.
• I support a womans right to choose.
• I'm for the separation of church and state.
• I think religion is bunk (there is no god).

If that makes me a right winger then I guess that I'm a right winger.

 

[Matteo Martini]

• I'm currently campaigning for Obama.
• I'm for gay rights including the right to marry (many Democrats are opposed).
• I'm for the legalization of marijuana and the end of the drug war.
• I'm for the legalization of prostitution.
• I'm for the increase in minimum wage.
• I support national health care.
• I support a womans right to choose.
• I'm for the separation of church and state.
• I think religion is bunk (there is no god).

Agreed, let` s say, 85%-90%..

 

[Matteo Martini]

In which case, why not let Russia handle the fuel processing for them? That offer has been extended to Iran, but refused.

They said that the proposal of letting Russia handle the uranium enrichness process was not detailed and not specified at all.
This was news about 1 year ago, and I am going by memory

 

[Matteo Martini]

No. What's childish is to not recognize the real-world constraints under which we opperate which prevent that from happening.

Which is the constraint that prevents George W. ( as well as Putin ), to go in front of the UN and say " we are in favour of making a plan for all countries for getting rid of nukes "?

Of course not. That has never been in dispute, and I've already talked about the issue of China and nuclear weapons. You are adding nothing to the diuscussion, and have not addressed the points I raised in regards to China last time I talked about it, so why are you bringing it up again? You tell me how to get China to disarm, and we'll talk. Otherwise, you've got no point.

You were asking:
Why on earth does fairness require treating dictatorships ( Iran ) and democracies ( the US, .. )the same?
I pointed out that China is a dictatorship too

That's not true, there were several nuclear powers during the cold war, even if divided into essentially two camps.

You did not speak about Cold War.
You wrote:
" Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war. "
I replied:
" That worked out as the nations involved were only two "

But in any case, this is why it's important to limit nuclear weapons from spreading to other countries: we CANNOT depend on cooperation to prevent nuclear war, we can ONLY depend upon self-interest (the only motive which has ever been reliable in predicting a nation's actions), and those calculations and balances become exponentially harder the more players enter the game. Once again, fairness is not what we should be aiming for. Fairness can get us all killed.

So, how does self-interest prevent 200 countries in the world from acquiring nukes?

Did I say war? No, I said enmity. War requires enmity, but enmity does not require war. Do not attribute to me a position I did not express. But in case you're curious, their enmity with us started in 1979.

You wrote that Iran chose the role of enemy.
That is disputable.
1979 is about 30 years ago.
Quite a long time to remember a bad fact, uh?
Ahmadinejad was 23 at that time..

I never said there was.

You are right.
But you wrote:
" And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate. "
You need fairness to have Russia, India and China to cooperate with you to isolate Iran

No, actually, we don't know that. We don't have clear-cut evidence of a violation of the NPT yet, only IAEA regulations. But IAEA regulations are there to try to prevent violations of the NPT. It is reasonable to suspect that the reason for IAEA regulation violations is so that they will be able to violate the NPT by getting nuclear weapons.

So, you are making a lot of assumptions, they are violating the IAEA regulations, in order to later violate the NPT.
What about the US and Russia?
Do they allow inspections by the IAEA in their arsenals?

Under certain definitions of "continuously".

..

Oh, but they are. The IAEA does not monitor our actual nuclear weapons programs (what would be the point? To ensure that we haven't disarmed in secret?), but they DO monitor our civilian nuclear industry.

So, the IAEA is not monitoring your nuclear weapons program, but, is monitoring continuously the Iranian civil program in order to be 100% sure that they do not do what you have already done, acquire nukes, and, even in this situation, you are not happy

One is an enemy dictatorship and one is an allied democracy. I consider those differences to be rather significant, and warranting of different treatment by the US.

The allied democracy did not sign the NPT and has nukes
The enemy dictatorship signed the NPT and has no nukes.
Being friends or not to the US matters..

A nuclear weapon can fit inside a van. They aren't big, they can be dispersed, and you can put them just about anywhere you want. A nuclear weapons program, by contrast, cannot be so hidden.

What about missiles, can they be hidden too?

Of course not - just as you haven't asked China if they would. I don't need to. All I need to do is consider what their interests are. China considers itself as a potential enemy of the United States.

WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?

It is militarily weak compared to the US, and so would lose badly in any war it fought with us. Their defensive strategy relies largely on making war costly enough that we would not ever choose to go to war with them, even knowing we would win. The only way to do that right now is with nuclear weapons. That is their only method for getting anything close to military parity with us. Our relative superiority in conventional military power is so overwhelming that they would be at a GREATER disadvantage if both China and the US were to give up nuclear weapons. So why on earth would they EVER give them up? Because they're nice? Don't make me laugh.

So, since you have done by your self in your room this mental tirade, you do not know know anything about the Chinese` s intentions..

No, it's an obvious consequence of self-interest and power. Relative power matters. Aqcuiring nukes would create far more relative power for a small country if we had no nuclear arsenal than if we maintain the one we have. Therefore the incentive to get them goes up if we disarm. It's simple game-theory analysis. I note that why you seem incredulous about this simple statement, you don't actually have any counter-argument for why it's wrong.

I beg you to note, that mental trips can not be a substitute of evidence..

 

[Oliver]

The latest news about "kicking Iran's ass":

Russia 'worried' by Iran war risk

• Iran scorns French warning of war - 16h 4m ago
• France warning of war with Iran - 1d ago

News - Middle East - French foreign minister in Iran

News - Middle East - In quotes: Reaction to Iran sanctions

 

[Matteo Martini]

Russia 'worried' by Iran war risk

Not only Russia..

China also condemned Kouchner's weekend remarks.

"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing.

"We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs," Jiang said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...18?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2

 

[NoZed Avenger]

If Russia and China hadn't worked so hard to water down economic sanctions, delay UN action, and actively work against those sanctions in place (re: Russia sending banned items to Iran for its nuclear program), then maybe diplomacy would have a better chance of actually working.

They really need to be lecturing themselves at this point.

 

[Oliver]

Not only Russia..

China also condemned Kouchner's weekend remarks.

"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing.

"We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs," Jiang said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...18?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2

If Russia and China hadn't worked so hard to water down economic sanctions, delay UN action, and actively work against those sanctions in place (re: Russia sending banned items to Iran for its nuclear program), then maybe diplomacy would have a better chance of actually working.

They really need to be lecturing themselves at this point.

Sorry, but whatever China or France says - it's the current White House
that is going after Iran without actually going to Iran. That's not even
dishonest in terms of diplomacy - I call it straightway cowardice and
biased according to what I heard so far in terms of contradicting
diplomatic efforts.

Added:

 

[Correa Neto]

With the history of U.S., U.S. should be banned from earth for a number of years.

...snip...

Oh, great... You know, I could write
With the history of [add country name here], [add country name here] should be banned from earth for a number of years.

Not much countries would be left in the world after this "rapture"...

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is the constraint that prevents George W. ( as well as Putin ), to go in front of the UN and say " we are in favour of making a plan for all countries for getting rid of nukes "?

Congress, obviously. He could say that, but without Congress backing him up, he couldn't actually disarm, and nobody would believe him anyways. But in any case, why the hell should he do that? It's a futile, useless gesture, since other nuclear powers are not going to give up their nukes even if we give up ours. I have no idea why you're attracted to this sort of empty posturing, but I prefer to do without it.

You did not speak about Cold War.
You wrote:
" Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war. "

What the hell do you think relations between the US and the USSR, particularly the nuclear standoff, was called? That WAS the cold war. The fact that I didn't say the name doesn't change anything.

So, how does self-interest prevent 200 countries in the world from acquiring nukes?

Good question. And it's not the same answer for every country. But I can tell you one thing that ISN'T the answer: fairness. Fairness has got nothing to do with it. The NPT wasn't fair from the beginning, and countries still signed on. And for the most part, they abided by it too.

You wrote that Iran chose the role of enemy.
That is disputable.

Not if you've been paying attention. "Death to America" is not the chant of a country indifferent to us.

You are right.
But you wrote:
" And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate. "
You need fairness to have Russia, India and China to cooperate with you to isolate Iran

No, you most certainly DON'T need fairness. The three countries you mention are already nuclear powers. The unfairness of the NPT is a benefit to them, not a hindrance. The LAST thing they're interested in is fairness. What we need to get their cooperation is an alignment of their self-interest with ours. And fairness plays no role in that. If something is fair but detrimental to their interests, they will oppose it. If it is unfair but in their interests, they will support it.

What about the US and Russia?
Do they allow inspections by the IAEA in their arsenals?

Like I already said, what would be the point? To make sure we haven't disarmed in secret?

So, the IAEA is not monitoring your nuclear weapons program, but, is monitoring continuously the Iranian civil program in order to be 100% sure that they do not do what you have already done, acquire nukes, and, even in this situation, you are not happy

Oh, but they aren't 100% sure, and in fact they cannot be 100% sure. Are you aware that the IAEA has never, in its entire history, discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program? Never. And it's not because none have ever existed. Before the first gulf war, the IAEA gave Saddam a clean bill of health. It wasn't until after the war that we discovered his nuke program, which was pretty advanced. Likewise the IAEA was saying only a few years ago that Libya didn't have a nuclear weapons program either, but they admitted to it after having a shipment of parts seized. So yes, when Iran violates IAEA rules, damned straight I'm not happy. Why are you?

The allied democracy did not sign the NPT and has nukes
The enemy dictatorship signed the NPT and has no nukes.
Being friends or not to the US matters..

Of course it matters in how we treat them. Why on earth wouldn't it? What country on earth doesn't treat allies better than enemies? And being a democracy or not matters quite a bit too.

What about missiles, can they be hidden too?

Missiles are larger, it's harder to hide them, but it can be and has been done (or do you forget your military history?). The mobility is as much a critical part as the size, and a uranium enrichment facility or a nuclear reactor for plutonium production are not mobile objects.

WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?

Feign outrage all you want to, but notably absent from your response is any argument. China is a potential enemy of the US - not an actual enemy at the moment, but most definitely a potential one. They know that, we know that, the whole bloody world knows that. Hopefully we will not be, but China and the US are both preparing for the possibility. Military expenditures as well as training exercises by both countries make that quite plain.

I beg you to note, that mental trips can not be a substitute of evidence..

That's funny, since you've presented absolutely no evidence for why fairness matters at all in the decision-making process of China. Hell, you haven't even presented an argument for why it might be. When you're done fantasizing about the way you wish the world was, and decide to stop blaming the US for the fact that reality doesn't live up to your dreams, maybe we can have a useful discussion. But so far, you've presented absolutely no counterargument.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alan Greenspan, a five time chairman of Federal Reserve, is quoted from his new book in today's The San Diego Union Tribune that the ...war in Iraq is primarily for oil....

Not exactly.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...18sep18,0,3784.column?coll=la-home-commentary

Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

 

[Gurdur]

....Not if you've been paying attention. "Death to America" is not the chant of a country indifferent to us.....

No such thing as bad publicity? At least if they hate us they still care about us?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Sorry, but whatever China or France says - it's the current White House
that is going after Iran without actually going to Iran. That's not even
dishonest in terms of diplomacy - I call it straightway cowardice and
biased according to what I heard so far in terms of contradicting
diplomatic efforts.

This is all but incoherent.

 

[Oliver]

This is all but incoherent.

Inasmuch? You really think that the WMD-Hype was coherent???

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, but whatever China or France says - it's the current White House
that is going after Iran without actually going to Iran. That's not even
dishonest in terms of diplomacy - I call it straightway cowardice and
biased according to what I heard so far in terms of contradicting
diplomatic efforts.

This makes absolutely no sense. Going to Iran might be useful if the current problems were the result of some lack of understanding. But there's absolutely no reason to think that they are, and you've presented no argument to that effect. If the two parties already understand each other, why would face-to-face meetings change anything? They wouldn't. Iran isn't suffering from an inability to convey its message to us.

 

[Oliver]

This makes absolutely no sense. Going to Iran might be useful if the current problems were the result of some lack of understanding. But there's absolutely no reason to think that they are, and you've presented no argument to that effect. If the two parties already understand each other, why would face-to-face meetings change anything? They wouldn't. Iran isn't suffering from an inability to convey its message to us.

First of all: You remember the Drumbeating concerning Iraq - so you
may understand why I am skeptical of any similar "War-Drumming".

My second point is:

- Iran says that it wants nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons.
- Iran has no nuclear reactor nor nuclear weapons
- Iran is no threat to the US whatsoever

However - Israel could argue that Iran is a threat to them - and
from what I heard so far coming from the US-Media: They are
talking on behalf pro-Israeli interests - not talking about US-Interests.
Because if this would be a US-National Security-Issue - they wouldn't
put even more oil into the already burning fire in the Middle-East.

It's a political charade - and I'm convinced that you know that as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

First of all: You remember the Drumbeating concerning Iraq - so you
may understand why I am skeptical of any similar "War-Drumming".

That's nice. But it's got nothing to do with whether or not we should send somebody to Iran. We can send somebody and still go to war, and we could not send somebody and find some other alternative. You have presented no argument for there being a connection.

My second point is:

- Iran says that it wants nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons.

So? Saddam claimed the same thing prior to the first gulf war, and that was proven to be false. He was caught with more than one nuclear weapons program.

- Iran has no nuclear reactor nor nuclear weapons

You don't need a nuclear reactor to make nuclear weapons, and the issue isn't simply whether Iran has nuclear weapons, but whether or not they are in the process of getting nuclear weapons. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities (and no, that part is not in dispute). Uranium enrichment capability would allow them to produce the fissile material for a bomb without having a nuclear reactor. No nuclear reactor is needed, which makes this statement quite irrelevant.

- Iran is no threat to the US whatsoever

This is simply false. Iran is a threat, and has killed Americans on a number of occasions. You can argue all you want to about how big a threat they are, and what kind of response that threat does or doesn't warrant (and there's plenty of room for disagreement on those points), but you're simply wrong to say that they are no threat whatsoever.

It's a political charade - and I'm convinced that you know that as well.

Get your facts straight and maybe we can talk some more. But right now, all you've done is demonstrated your cluelessness on the topic.

 

[Oliver]

That's nice. But it's got nothing to do with whether or not we should send somebody to Iran. We can send somebody and still go to war, and we could not send somebody and find some other alternative. You have presented no argument for there being a connection.

So? Saddam claimed the same thing prior to the first gulf war, and that was proven to be false. He was caught with more than one nuclear weapons program.

You don't need a nuclear reactor to make nuclear weapons, and the issue isn't simply whether Iran has nuclear weapons, but whether or not they are in the process of getting nuclear weapons. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities (and no, that part is not in dispute). Uranium enrichment capability would allow them to produce the fissile material for a bomb without having a nuclear reactor. No nuclear reactor is needed, which makes this statement quite irrelevant.

This is simply false. Iran is a threat, and has killed Americans on a number of occasions. You can argue all you want to about how big a threat they are, and what kind of response that threat does or doesn't warrant (and there's plenty of room for disagreement on those points), but you're simply wrong to say that they are no threat whatsoever.

Get your facts straight and maybe we can talk some more. But right now, all you've done is demonstrated your cluelessness on the topic.

Are you playing dumb or patriotic?

- Iran says that it wants nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons.
- Iran has no nuclear reactor nor nuclear weapons
- Iran is no threat to the US whatsoever

Your point and especially: evidence besides Woo?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you playing dumb or patriotic?

I see that all you can do is repeat yourself, unable to actually address any of the points I raised. For example, are you even aware that a nuclear reactor is not required to make nuclear weapons? Because you sure don't act like it.

 

[Oliver]

I see that all you can do is repeat yourself, unable to actually address any of the points I raised. For example, are you even aware that a nuclear reactor is not required to make nuclear weapons? Because you sure don't act like it.

No. My point is: What if the Iranians are right and their sole
intention is to have a nuclear reactor and nothing else?