Time to kick Iran

[Matteo Martini]

My point still is:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IRAN TRYING TO POSSESS NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T AGREE TO THE IAEA TREATY

Putin seems to agree with you.

Putin: No definitive proof of Iran's atomic threat

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257271427&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday after conferring with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Iran must be encouraged to make its nuclear program fully transparent, but pointed at the lack of definitive proof that Teheran was seeking to build atomic weapons.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Nobody in the world feels threatened by the possibility of the US using nuclear weapons in a first strike against them. Nobody. Not even Saddam when we were heading towards Baghdad.

Mm..

Mr. Podhoretz is now a senior foreign policy advisor to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who seems to revel in his image as the most hawkish of the Republican hopefuls. Giuliani has publicly stated his position in favor of a pre-emptive military strike and doesn't rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain also are keeping the nuclear option on the table

http://www.jbs.org/node/5880

 

[jsiv]

Because having tens of thousands of Nukes and several nuclear Powerplants while whining about a third-world-country who is playing to the rules to get a nuclear facility - is ridiculous...

* Iran is not a third world country.

* Iran is not fully complying with the IAEA, as you have already been shown.

* It is in Iran's interest to have nuclear weapons, but not as a first-strike strategy. This is a problem, and I have explained my view on this before.

* Ahmadinejad speaks on behalf of the Iranian leadership and by extension does in fact represent the people that "control the nuclear power plant" (unless you think that's the Jews.) He is not just voicing his personal opinion, and it does not fall under "free speech."

* Iran does in fact facilitate armed attacks on another sovereign nation (Israel) through its proxies.

* Iran heavily engages in rhetoric and pressure designed to drive other nations and people in the region against the United States and Israel with the goal of driving them out at gunpoint.

* No one here is advocating an invasion of Iran (yet, anyway.)

* While gays being murdered by the Iranian government is no threat to any of us, it is one of many good reasons why the leadership has to go.

* If the King, Prime Minister and President of Norway appeared on the balcony of the Royal Castle together with the military commanders and shouted "DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS!!!!" to a cheering audience, you, and most of the world, would in fact condemn it, regardless of whether Norway actually has the ability to wipe out all 1.5bn Muslims or not. It would have consequences.

 

[jsiv]

My point still is:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IRAN TRYING TO POSSESS NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T AGREE TO THE IAEA TREATY
AND THEIR INSPECTORS...

Agreed with that

Do you really not see the naivety (if not full on stupidity) of that statement?

 

[Policenaut]

Putin seems to agree with you.

Putin: No definitive proof of Iran's atomic threat

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257271427&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday after conferring with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that Iran must be encouraged to make its nuclear program fully transparent, but pointed at the lack of definitive proof that Teheran was seeking to build atomic weapons.

Putin also seems to want to start Cold War part 2 and install himself as leader of mother Russia for life so I wouldn't be putting any stock in his opinions. He's deathly afraid of that missile defense system. Maybe it would interfere in his long term goals.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mm..

Mr. Podhoretz is now a senior foreign policy advisor to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who seems to revel in his image as the most hawkish of the Republican hopefuls. Giuliani has publicly stated his position in favor of a pre-emptive military strike and doesn't rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain also are keeping the nuclear option on the table

http://www.jbs.org/node/5880

Guess what? No US president has ever ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Why would we? There's no bloody point in tying your own hands - even if you don't plan to, or even plan not to, there's simply no reason to make a promise not to. It's simple game theory: the disadvantages of making such a promise may be small, but there are no advantages to doing so, and so doing that would be a mistake. And all Giuliani is doing is broadcasting the fact that he understands that. Doesn't change anything: that's always been US policy, and nobody expects us to use nuclear weapons first. Nobody.

 

[Oliver]

Do you really not see the naivety (if not full on stupidity) of that statement?

Inasmuch?

 

[Oliver]

* Iran is not a third world country.

Neither is the 10,000 nukes US. What's the point of this remark?

* Iran is not fully complying with the IAEA, as you have already been shown.

Wrong - they're starting new discussions right now. Missed that?

* It is in Iran's interest to have nuclear weapons, but not as a first-strike strategy. This is a problem, and I have explained my view on this before.

Evidence. Not "Bible-Studying-Like-Woo-Evidence".

* Ahmadinejad speaks on behalf of the Iranian leadership and by extension does in fact represent the people that "control the nuclear power plant" (unless you think that's the Jews.) He is not just voicing his personal opinion, and it does not fall under "free speech."

And this is reason enough to start a war for you? Are you kidding me?

* Iran does in fact facilitate armed attacks on another sovereign nation (Israel) through its proxies.

Oh my - my worldview just fell apart...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

* Iran heavily engages in rhetoric and pressure designed to drive other nations and people in the region against the United States and Israel with the goal of driving them out at gunpoint.

Oh, so other nations wouldn't react this way to get the
bullies out of their neighborhood, right?

* No one here is advocating an invasion of Iran (yet, anyway.)

Watch the presidential debates from time to time, will you?

* While gays being murdered by the Iranian government is no threat to any of us, it is one of many good reasons why the leadership has to go.

Yes, I agree. And it's up to them to make this happen.
Not you or anyone else.

* If the King, Prime Minister and President of Norway appeared on the balcony of the Royal Castle together with the military commanders and shouted "DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS!!!!" to a cheering audience, you, and most of the world, would in fact condemn it, regardless of whether Norway actually has the ability to wipe out all 1.5bn Muslims or not. It would have consequences.

Yes, it would. Did you miss the demonstration in Iran against
Ahmadinejad - or don't you care that people are aware of
problems without being attacked by foreigners?

Should the Muslims invade Norway for stupidity? Yes, you
would argue in favor of this as well - or do you choose the
hypocrites way?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Inasmuch?

I've spoken to you before about inasmuch. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

"Inasmuch \In`as*much"\, adv. [In + as + much.] In like degree; in like manner; seeing that; considering that; since; -- followed by as." dictionary.com

 

[Matteo Martini]

Do you really not see the naivety (if not full on stupidity) of that statement?

I meant.
Agreed with:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IRAN TRYING TO POSSESS NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
Sorry for not making it clear

 

[Matteo Martini]

Putin also seems to want to start Cold War part 2 and install himself as leader of mother Russia for life so I wouldn't be putting any stock in his opinions. He's deathly afraid of that missile defense system. Maybe it would interfere in his long term goals.

This is one way to look at it.
The other way is the following:

Bush also seems to want to start Cold War part 2 and keep America` s corporations as policy-dictating of all the world for many years so I wouldn't be putting any stock in his opinions. He's deathly afraid of that Russian-Chinese military cooperation. Maybe it would interfere in his long term goals.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Guess what? No US president has ever ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Why would we? There's no bloody point in tying your own hands - even if you don't plan to, or even plan not to, there's simply no reason to make a promise not to. It's simple game theory: the disadvantages of making such a promise may be small, but there are no advantages to doing so, and so doing that would be a mistake. And all Giuliani is doing is broadcasting the fact that he understands that. Doesn't change anything: that's always been US policy, and nobody expects us to use nuclear weapons first. Nobody.

Excellent.
I do not say who is worse.
Ahmadinejad ( who is a bad guy, but has ruled out the intention to build nukes, and has done it in front of all the world ), or the stupid guys ( Thomson, Romney, Giuliani, .. ) who are frigthening a pacific ( so far ), country, with nukes, despite there is no resolution in the UN allowing any military action ( let alone a nuclear military action ) against Iran?
I would guess the latters are worse.

 

[Matteo Martini]

* Iran heavily engages in rhetoric and pressure designed to drive other nations and people in the region against the United States and Israel with the goal of driving them out at gunpoint.

Does Iran has any power to do that?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Doesn't change anything: that's always been US policy, and nobody expects us to use nuclear weapons first. Nobody.

Unfortunately, you are not a Republican candidate for President, and the real candidates, said other things..

 

[Ziggurat]

Excellent.
I do not say who is worse.
Ahmadinejad ( who is a bad guy, but has ruled out the intention to build nukes, and has done it in front of all the world ),

And you take him at his word... why? Saddam didn't exactly announce his pre-GW1 nuclear weapons programs, nor did Qadaffi prior to giving up his program. Hell, it's not even up to Ahmadinejad. If Khamenei wants a nuclear weapons program, Ahmadinejad can't do anything to prevent it.

or the stupid guys ( Thomson, Romney, Giuliani, .. ) who are frigthening a pacific ( so far ), country, with nukes,

Iran is not "pacific". They are perhaps the largest state sponsor of international terrorism in the world. And Giuliani wasn't making a threat. A threat is of the form "we will use nukes if you don't do such-and-such".

despite there is no resolution in the UN allowing any military action ( let alone a nuclear military action ) against Iran?

So? There's still no bloody point in tying our own hands now. What would be the advantage to us? There would be none.

I would guess the latters are worse.

Of course you would. Your instincts are to side with tyrants, as long as they mouth the proper platitudes and a republican is in the white house.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does Iran has any power to do that?

It has the power to try, and get people killed in the process. And that's exactly what it did with the recent Hezbollah war with Israel.

 

[rocketdodger]

Does Iran has any power to do that?

As our world gets increasingly more complicated, the question of "who" has the power to do "what" is less and less important. More important is "who" *would" do "what" if they *did have* the power, and THAT, I think, is the heart of this issue.

Unless you think, for instance, that a single small yield warhead being detonated in the middle of, say, Tokyo or Mexico City wouldn't be that big of a deal. Or the facilitated release of a nasty pathogen with high mortality rates across world airports. Guess what -- both of those scenarios can be carried out by a single person in today's world.

In Iran's defense, though, there isn't a single country in the west without blood on its hands when it comes to sharing tech with a regime that eventually makes satan and his minions look like mother Theresa. In that light, it *is* a bit unfair to kick Iran out of the poopy party just because they *overtly* discuss their bloodlust -- but then again those that decide what to do with my tax dollars need to be able to maintain "deniability."

 

[rocketdodger]

Please, do not compare the situation of Germany in the 30s, with Iran in the 00s.
Totally different

So are apples and oranges. But changing your tire with an apple is just as stupid as changing it with an orange.

But you are right. Lets instead compare Iran in the 00s with *every other corrupt authoritarian regime in history that has saught technology*. Is that better?

My point (and the point of most others here, I assume) is that if you are walking down a street that features two stores -- one that sells food and one that sells guns -- and a dark, dirty, shady, ominous fellow, who you know for a fact has a history of thuggery and murder, approaches you and asks for some money to buy food from the food store ("to help feed his family," he says), you would have to be a total freaking moron (or completely naive) to do so.

 

[Matteo Martini]

And you take him at his word... why? Saddam didn't exactly announce his pre-GW1 nuclear weapons programs, nor did Qadaffi prior to giving up his program. Hell, it's not even up to Ahmadinejad. If Khamenei wants a nuclear weapons program, Ahmadinejad can't do anything to prevent it.

Why should not you take Ahmadinejad at his word, and take Bush ( the liar about the Iraq-WMD affair ) at this word?

Iran is not "pacific". They are perhaps the largest state sponsor of international terrorism in the world.

??
I think Iran exports 1/100 of the guns that the US exports.
As for being a terrorist, there are pacific people oin South America, who have different ideas..

Bolivia's Morales brands Bush a "terrorist"
Morales is merely saying what the majority of the world believes. For a politician this is a remarkable feat indeed.
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/12/bolivias_morale.html

And Giuliani wasn't making a threat. A threat is of the form "we will use nukes if you don't do such-and-such".

If you do not rule out the use of nukes, that means threathening to use them

So? There's still no bloody point in tying our own hands now. What would be the advantage to us? There would be none.

What would be the advantage of Iran to invade Israel?

Of course you would. Your instincts are to side with tyrants, as long as they mouth the proper platitudes and a republican is in the white house.

Oh, I am " on the side of tyrants "??
You have an I.Q. of about 80.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So are apples and oranges. But changing your tire with an apple is just as stupid as changing it with an orange.

But you are right. Lets instead compare Iran in the 00s with *every other corrupt authoritarian regime in history that has saught technology*. Is that better?

US included?

My point (and the point of most others here, I assume) is that if you are walking down a street that features two stores -- one that sells food and one that sells guns -- and a dark, dirty, shady, ominous fellow, who you know for a fact has a history of thuggery and murder, approaches you and asks for some money to buy food from the food store ("to help feed his family," he says), you would have to be a total freaking moron (or completely naive) to do so.

The US have an history of thuggery and murder far longer that Iran` s.
Study history, please..

Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23
countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53,
Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo
1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala
1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s,
Nicaragua 1980s..

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20
different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a
dozen assassinations of political heads of state..