World War Three Coming Soon?

[WildCat]

What exactly is it that you're advocating, then? As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, bombing Iran is (a) not likely to stop Iran's nuclear program in the long run, if Iran is after weapons (b) still likely to incite some form of retaliation from Iran.

Sanctions, embargos, diplomatic isolation. Have you never heard of these things?

In the context it was quite clear that I was referring to inter-state military action to try and dominate the region, in response to Dudalb's claim that Iran would 'take over'. Hezbollah and Hamas have no chance of 'taking over' Israel, let alone dominate the region.

So you would have no objection if the US started bombing select Iranian targets? After all, there's no chance of "taking over Iran" by bombing a few nuke sites.

Pakistan funds/funded the friggin' Taliban and others. Unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, which are primarily concerned with regional issues, the Taliban has obvious links to Al Qaeda, a terrorist network with global scope. What should the US do about Pakistan having the bomb?

Pakistan did not sign the NPT. Iran did. Deal with it.

And you may have noticed Pakistan in the news a few times in the last several years.

No, that is not the issue here.

Oh, but it is an issue here. We have a state which supports terrorism and has regional power goals seeking nuclear weapons they are not allowed to have by treaty.

Stamping your feet and insisting it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

Are you proposing that Iran getting the bomb will mean it gives nuclear weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah? Or are you insinuating that since Iran funds Hezbollah this means it is likely to try and invade other countries? I don't think you can make a strong case for either argument, so I'm sure you mean something else I just can't figure out what.

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the only terrorist groups supported by Iran. What's to stop Iran from sending a nuke to NYC in a shipping container, and denying they did it?

It was a typo.
My bad.

Another lie, not really surprising at this point.

 

[Praktik]

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the only terrorist groups supported by Iran. What's to stop Iran from sending a nuke to NYC in a shipping container, and denying they did it?

Excellent point, will the first evidence of an actual Iranian nuke be a mushroom cloud over an American city?

The mind reels...

 

[dudalb]

It seems to be working for North Korea. Compare the rhetoric and proposed plans for dealing with that country, as opposed to dealing with Iran (or how Saddam's Iraq was dealt with).

But then North Korea is extremely isolationist, unlike Iran, which is constanly supporting and funding Terrorist groups like Hamas. Anybody who thinks Iran getting nukes is going to make the situation in the Mid East more stable is just plain stupid.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Sanctions, embargos, diplomatic isolation. Have you never heard of these things?

Well excuse me for assuming that, when you stepped in to an argument I was having with someone who was advocating military action against Iran, and suggested that Iran was 'a belligerent state', that you meant military action.

You could have been clearer. Of course your whole debating tactic is to imply certain positions and then accuse your opponent of 'lying' while simultaneously knocking down strawmen and refusing to clarify your position by answering any questions.

So you would have no objection if the US started bombing select Iranian targets? After all, there's no chance of "taking over Iran" by bombing a few nuke sites.

There's little chance of Hezbollah or Hamas destabilizing the region to the point of serious conflict between the major regional powers.

And, once again, here you go implying support for a position without actually saying it.

You slippery, slippery eel...

Pakistan did not sign the NPT. Iran did. Deal with it.

So did the US, but it still threatened Iraq with first use of nuclear weapons. Since you're so keen on international law, I guess you opposed the invasion of Iraq and would similarly oppose any military action against Iran not sanctioned by the security council?

Oh, but it is an issue here. We have a state which supports terrorism and has regional power goals seeking nuclear weapons they are not allowed to have by treaty.

Stamping your feet and insisting it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

Iranian support of H&H is not the issue at hand, per se.

It could be the issue at hand only by dint of this support of H&H either
a) meaning Iran will give H&H a bomb
b) meaning support of H&H suggests that Iran is a revisionist power that seeks to dominate the region

I find (a) extremely unlikely. As for (b), Iran is clearly a revisionist power, but that is because it finds itself at the short end of the security stick. This is not an indication that it seeks to take anyone over. Nor is it clear how having the bomb would enable them to take over the region in any meaningful way.

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the only terrorist groups supported by Iran. What's to stop Iran from sending a nuke to NYC in a shipping container, and denying they did it?

What Praktik said.

Another lie, not really surprising at this point.

lol

 

[JihadJane]

So you believe a military strike can achieve the ending of the program?

Does Iran have a nuclear weapons program?

 

[geni]

Nope. We are and have been scrupulously obeying the NPT.

Not really. Some of the cold war NATO activities were very boarderline. A lot of preperations made to hand over nuclear weapons to non nuclear states.

 

[geni]

Does Iran have a nuclear weapons program?

Yup. If it was a civilian program they wouldn't be messing around whith the higher enrichment levels or building secret enrichment facilities. They would also have probably accepted russia's offer to supply fuel (playing around with uranium hexafluoride is something best avoided).

 

[geni]

double post

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

But then North Korea is extremely isolationist, unlike Iran, which is constanly supporting and funding Terrorist groups like Hamas. Anybody who thinks Iran getting nukes is going to make the situation in the Mid East more stable is just plain stupid.

Perhaps if Israel were to sign the NPT and have its nukes removed by the UN Iran might feel it doesnt need a nuclear program to counter what it considers an agressive local nation.

Given how well the whole let's build more nukes to counter each other worked for the US and the USSR it could be a viable solution, but fair or unfair, at the moment Israel can pretty much ignore what the rest of the world wants because of US backing. Even without the loaded history, I can see how that would upset other middle east nations who do get told not to get similar toys because they can't be trusted with them.

As for this starting World war three though? Worst case I'd see the larger nuclear nations turning the entire middle east into nuclear glass so that their childish squabbling stops threathening the rest of the world, but I doubt any nation is willing to risk total human annihilation over either Iran or Israel.

 

[Pardalis]

Perhaps if Israel were to sign the NPT and have its nukes removed by the UN Iran might feel it doesnt need a nuclear program to counter what it considers an agressive local nation.

You got it backwards.

Even without the loaded history, I can see how that would upset other middle east nations who do get told not to get similar toys because they can't be trusted with them.

When did Israel ever used them, or threatened to use them?

 

[Pardalis]

I found this interesting article explaining the contradiction between Iran's statements that it doesn't want nuclear weapons, and its actions that show that they are clearly doing everything to have nuclear weapons.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Irans_HardLiners_Are_Looking_To_Justify_A_Nuclear_Arsenal/1969251.html

Khamenei and many other Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. However, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, these official declarations appear to fall within the old tradition of dissimulation known as taqiyyeh or ketman. In a political context, taqiyyeh is the concealment of one's beliefs and actions in potentially hostile situations; under it, a true believer must not allow the "infidel" to know what he is up to at any given time.

[...]


In addition, Khamenei's purported fatwa and other statements that nuclear weapons are banned by Islamic teachings fly in the face of his own earlier statements as president of Iran. In February 1987, when the country was still locked in a bitter war against Iraq, Khamenei told a gathering of Iranian nuclear scientists: "Regarding atomic energy, we need it now.... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your revolution. With this in mind, work hard and quickly."

 

[geni]

Perhaps if Israel were to sign the NPT and have its nukes removed by the UN Iran might feel it doesnt need a nuclear program to counter what it considers an agressive local nation.

How exactly would what you suggest impact saudi arabia or the US? Iran's concerns go well beyond iIsreal.

Given how well the whole let's build more nukes to counter each other worked for the US and the USSR it could be a viable solution, but fair or unfair, at the moment Israel can pretty much ignore what the rest of the world wants because of US backing. Even without the loaded history, I can see how that would upset other middle east nations who do get told not to get similar toys because they can't be trusted with them.

The problem with that argument is that both the US and USSR tended to be run by people who had the continueing existance of their country as their highest priority. Iran is less clear on the matter.

As for this starting World war three though? Worst case I'd see the larger nuclear nations turning the entire middle east into nuclear glass so that their childish squabbling stops threathening the rest of the world, but I doubt any nation is willing to risk total human annihilation over either Iran or Israel.

Iran is.