Iran locked and loaded

Akrasia

ninja900 wrote:

:rolleyes: Here we go again. You've already been told that the hairtrigger policy went out 40+ years ago when the idea that a sneak attack by a force of Soviet/US/klingon/whatever bombers could destroy your ability to retaliate if you didn't attack as soon as a warning arrived. This was only really credible when the main means of retaliating was also by nuclear armed bombers, not ICBMS, MRBMs and especially SLBMs.

The fact that the reported 'close calls' didn't immediately result in the launching of a nuclear strike proves that neither of the superpowers was still employing a 'hairtrigger' policy.

I've already been told have I?
Since 40 years ago?

I guess I should just shut up then.

Or maybe i'll just post a few links to back up what I said.

There is another danger, which compounds the risk of all three: the high-alert, hair-trigger nuclear posture in both countries, which allows missiles to be launched within minutes. This hair-trigger capability would force our leaders to decide almost instantly whether to launch nuclear weapons once they have warning of an attack, robbing them of the time they may need to gather data, exchange information, gain perspective, discover an error and avoid a catastrophic mistake.

President Bush has long understood the danger. In the summer of 2000, in a speech entitled "New Leadership on National Security", candidate Bush said: "The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary vestige of cold war confrontation . . . . Today, for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorised launch. So, as president, I will ask for an assessment of what we can safely do to lower the alert status of our forces."

More than five years later, and 15 years after the end of the cold war, we continue to run these same "unacceptable risks"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/737c5698-472c-11d9-b099-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/4/5/FC0B183D-81BA-4F09-BD8B-DAB7C2DFE8A2.html

The distrust stems partially from disputes such as the Iraq war, but it persists in large part because the United States and Russia remain in each other's nuclear cross-hairs. War planners in both countries remain, believe it or not, preoccupied with preparing to fight a large-scale nuclear war with each other on short notice. Both sides keep thousands of weapons aimed at each other and poised for immediate launch. U.S. spy planes still routinely lurk off the Russian border looking for holes in the air defense network through which U.S. heavy bombers and cruise missiles could fly to drop nuclear bombs on Russia in wartime. Russian missile submarines still find themselves trailed by U.S. submarines as soon as they leave port on patrol. Two massive leadership posts inside mountains in the Urals built to withstand a U.S. nuclear strike are just coming online. Russia is equipping the one at Kozvinsky Mountain with an underground antenna for radioing a launch order to a "dead hand" communications rocket designed to ensure quasi-automatic Russian missile retaliation in the event of a U.S. strike that decapitates the nuclear chain of command.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blair05032003.html

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Both of which are exactly what happened: In all cases, the humans in the loop had a quick think about the situation, and decided that on balance, it would be better to hold fire: i.e. The people on the triggers have been shown to err on the side of caution. Petrov had half a dozen missiles coming at him, so the systems told him, and he did nothing. Of course, he was removed from his postion for failing to carry out his duty to respond, even though it was acknowledged that he was right, but that doesn't eliminate the problem that inherently, humans don't want to nuke the world out of existance. Hence the plot behind movies like Dr Strangelove and Wargames: Take the restraining effect of the human out of the loop, and things become more dangerous.

Oh, and just for the sake of definition, a hair trigger is no more likely to go off by accident than a regular one. Compare a 2lb trigger pull to a 5lb trigger pull on a pistol: Both will require a conscious effort by the shooter to pull back on the trigger. It's just less effort once the decision has been made.

NTM

Are you seriously suggesting that we should feel comfortable with the fact that nuclear war might only be averted if some high ranking military general decides to disregard formal procedure and not launch his weapons if an attack is indicated?
There is absolutely no shortage in history of monsterous or incredibly stupid acts having being carried out by generals because they were following orders or procedures, and you're forgetting that in Dr Strangelove, the crisis was caused by one crusading general taking unilateral action for a crazy reason, what's to stop that happening in real life?

There is far more danger to the world from the Nuclear weapons currently held by the 5 NPT countries, than from the Iranians who by best estimates are at least 10 years away from enriching enough uranium necessary for even one nuclear bomb.

Hogmeister B

I think it's only fair to point out that even if another country destroyed yours with nuclear weapons, retaliating in kind would be a crime equal in magnitude to their attack.

akrasia

Oh God we're not starting to discuss fictional movies now.
Please lads head off to after hours with that type of crap.

akrasia wrote:

There is far more danger to the world from the Nuclear weapons currently held by the 5 NPT countries, than from the Iranians who by best estimates are at least 10 years away from enriching enough uranium necessary for even one nuclear bomb.

It's all a matter of opinion really.
There are those that would believe that neo con quasi Xtian fanatical super powers might try to impose their will on the non Xtian world because they can because they have nukes AND there are those that believe that Iran wouldn't be thrust worthy with them period.

As far as I'm concerned I gave a view already that theres been no non peacefull use of them in the last 62 years and if we keep allowing proliferation to new countries of this device,we'll eventually let someone have the bomb that won't be as happy not using it for 62 years.
In that respect the status quo is my prefered option.
No to Iran with nukes.

Running Bing

I try to make a conscious effort not to get involved in politics or follow political issues these days but something has been troubling me. This post is not about making a political statement, it is a genuine question.


So Iran are suspected of developing nuclear power which they claim is purely for energy. The US is having none of it and the UN are stepping in, but don't the US have nuclear power and Britain have selafield. Now it is clear for me living here in Ireland that a country like Iran is much more of a threat than the US or GB but surely the UN cant discriminate like that?

If the US want countries like Iran and North Korea to stop developing nuclear power should'nt they stop doing it themselves. I am sure for someone living in the middle east the US seems just as much a threat to them as the likes of Iran seem to us.

Am I missing something or do I have the wrong understanding of the situation. If not I find it absolutely baffling and a bit scary.

FYI

Yes it is hypocritical. But the issue of nuclear power is only one facet, the UK is presently updating it's nuclear 'defence' system at a cost of 200 billion dollars. While they give civilian nuclear technology to 'friends' they threaten 'enemies' if they try to do likewise. It is global bullying.

The head of the IAEA made this point:

“It was hypocritical for nuclear powers to preach at non-nuclear states, Dr ElBaradei said. “How does that logic fit, when you read in the newspapers that the United Kingdom is spending $200 billion to modernise its Trident submarines?”” [Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)]

John Pilger wrote:

“Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use.” [Iran: The War Begins, The New Statesman, February 2007]

and in a recent interview with Antiwar.com Scott Ritter stated:

"Well you know what, there's nothing but doubt that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. There is no evidence whatsoever! I need to reinforce that point: There is no evidence whatsoever to back up the rhetoric that the Bush administration has put out there that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.”


http://www.mediabite.org/article_The-authorities-on-criminality---The-West-vs-Iran_556713494.html

Running Bing

FYI wrote:

Yes it is hypocritical. But the issue of nuclear power is only one facet, the UK is presently updating it's nuclear 'defence' system at a cost of 200 billion dollars. While they give civilian nuclear technology to 'friends' they threaten 'enemies' if they try to do likewise. It is global bullying.

The head of the IAEA made this point:

“It was hypocritical for nuclear powers to preach at non-nuclear states, Dr ElBaradei said. “How does that logic fit, when you read in the newspapers that the United Kingdom is spending $200 billion to modernise its Trident submarines?”” [Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)]

John Pilger wrote:

“Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use.” [Iran: The War Begins, The New Statesman, February 2007]

and in a recent interview with Antiwar.com Scott Ritter stated:

"Well you know what, there's nothing but doubt that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. There is no evidence whatsoever! I need to reinforce that point: There is no evidence whatsoever to back up the rhetoric that the Bush administration has put out there that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.”


http://www.mediabite.org/article_The-authorities-on-criminality---The-West-vs-Iran_556713494.html

Wow. That is quite unbelievable.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

Yes, what would happen if a Nuclear, Muslim country known to be harbouring terrorists, and who was involved in an international conflict with another nuclear power, suddenly had an illegal coup, and a military dictator rose to power, and rose to the big red button? Wait, we already know. And they're an American ally. It's a joke. The last time I switched on the TV Musharraf had just fired the chief justice in a personal dispute, America doesn't care about middle eastern democracy.

How is that relevant here? What could the US do about it after Pakistan had the bomb? Very little really apart from hope for the best and try to get what they want out of who is in power. Also, I don't think I ever said the US really cared about "Middle East democracy". I believe I also said I was unsure if democracy would even necessarily make a given country less likely to use nuclear weapons in every case (and this may apply to several countries in the Middle East).

[With regard to that sidetrack about the potential riskyness of people like Stalin or Hitler etc with the bomb, a democratic state should still be (IMO) inherantly less likely to use such weapons than a totalitarian state lead by a single all-powerful leader with little regard for the lives of his own people and less for others].

InFront wrote:

How is the Ayatollah aggressive against the west?

Er, how is he (and his govt.) not? Apparently "we" have it all wrong and probably badly need of Iranian-style government Islam to show us the way (and when systems of government, ideas, ways of organising a society etc are being criticised, Iran's leaders are not referring to just the US, so my use of "we" is appropriate).
Have a look through your own link containing the various thoughts of the supreme leader again.

e.g.

"We did not want and could not take the West as a model. Although the West possessed many things it lacked more important things. There was science but there was no morality; there was no justice. There was advanced technology but it was accompanied by destroying the environment and human imprisonment. There was the name of democracy but actually it was the government of the capital and not democracy. It is the same today."

What we see today in the U.S. and the West as election and democracy is a mere façade.

There was freedom in the West but it was accompanied by cruelty and licentiousness. (unlike Saintly Islamic Iran, ho, ho, ho...)

"But this justice should not be mistaken for the notional justice claimed by the communists of the former Soviet Union or their own satellite states. What I mean is the Islamic justice with its particular definition. Neither should it be mistaken for the Western version of justice – which implies the unrestrained capitalists and those in power and laxity in general. What I mean is the Islamic justice. It is a social, spiritual and individual freedom with Islamic modulation, understanding, guidance and definition."

And apparently, the US has not really progressed in how it treats its black citizens since the days of slavery...

"One of the most tragic works of art is a work entitled Uncle Tom’s Cabin which illustrates slavery in America and which is a popular work even after the passage of two hundred years. This is the real way of the U.S. and its government; not human freedom and equality!"

Of course, you, and maybe some others (ssshhh:)) would, I think, mostly agree with his sweeping summaries and criticisms of "the West" entire as well as the US itself anyway so you see no problems here.

The general official view of Iran's govt. is that the West is evil, its systems, forms of government, ideas etc are inimical to human beings and morality - i.e., they do not like us very much at all really thanks very much!

Then there's stuff like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3245641.stm

Also, even if Ahmadinejad has no real power in Iran, he is a mouthpiece/tool of those who do and he has been given reign to say some genuinely agressive things - going beyond the above criticisms of "the West"/the US and into calls for destroying the Israeli state (peacefully no doubt!), waves of Islamic Revolution sweeping over the globe etc.

I admit that the sabre-rattling is reciprocated by the US and Israel.

InFront wrote:

And why mention terrorism?

Well, I suppose it is one way a nuclear armed state could deliver its weapons to their targets if their rocket/missile/aircraft/submarine technology can't cut the mustard. Or it's something that could happen if a state lost control of their own weapons at some point (not thinking of Iran here).

InFront wrote:

Back in the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq, those who suggested that WMDs were nonsense were looked upon like mad left-wingers or Labour Youth types who would as quickly lie in front of a truck on the road to Rossport as get a job.

I can't speak for others but, believe it or not - at the time I thought alot of the WMD stuff sounded like overegged scaremongering. I also thought the US idea to attack and invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and (supposedly) create a democracy only too happy to sell lots of cheap oil to the US and buddy up to Israel was an extremely bad one - for Iraq's people, for us in Europe, as well as for the US itself.

InFront wrote:

Now, you can look back at this and roll your eyes at how the allegation was largely swallowed up (even the anti-war public), but yet we listen to tales of Iran's nuclear weaponry programme with stony-faced seriousness and an almost automatic under-the-breath fear of Iran. Why is that? It's because fear is the shortest path to belief, and once people start getting afraid, they start believing these allegations, and then the right to attack has been won.

They do have a nuclear program. They do want to enrich their own fuel. Their current leaders are absolute rulers, God-Botherers with grudges, especially against Israel and the US but also against the "West" [see above]. They are located very close to one of the world's great politically unstable powderkeg regions and have powerful enemies (the afforementioned US and Israel) who may yet provoke them in the future. They've reasons to badly want these weapons, and it is easy to see scenarios happen in that particular part of the world where they could then end up being used in anger.
If, Saddam say, had also had such a program and was boasting about enriching fuel and Iraq's nuclear tech prowess while also firing off ever more sophisticated rockets and missiles and issuing bellicose statements and propaganda I would feel similarly antsy, fearful even, about the ultimate direction of any supposedly peaceful nuclear program.

BTW, I should make clear again that I would not agree with any kind of preemptive military attack on Iran to destroy its nuclear program in spite of any fears I would have about what the future holds regarding Iran.

InFront wrote:

Iran has never started a war against the USA or Britain, why would they?

I really dunno at the moment. Maybe the US itself or perhaps Israel would actually kick off the war, push the Iranians into it somehow. Who knows...
Europe is closely identified with the US. Iran's leaders certainly see it as an adjunct if their rantings about the "West" are anything to go by. It is much more likely to be in range of Iran's rockets in the near future and probably easier to deliver a nuke to via third parties also.


EDIT just spotted this one, under democracy, for a bit of a laugh:

Today the system of the Islamic Republic – which is a religious system whose regulations, principles and values are rooted in religion – is a full-fledged democratic system unparalleled by any other Muslim state.

Would you agree with that one from the Supreme Leader?:)

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Oh God we're not starting to discuss fictional movies now.
Please lads head off to after hours with that type of crap.

Well, if you don't want to discuss fiction here, then perhaps you should stop asserting that Iran have a nuclear weapons program that must be stopped. No evidence in favour, plenty of evidence against.

It's all a matter of opinion really.
There are those that would believe that neo con quasi Xtian fanatical super powers might try to impose their will on the non Xtian world because they can because they have nukes AND there are those that believe that Iran wouldn't be thrust worthy with them period.

Do you really think that opinion is a good enough reason to justify going to war?

As far as I'm concerned I gave a view already that theres been no non peacefull use of them in the last 62 years and if we keep allowing proliferation to new countries of this device,we'll eventually let someone have the bomb that won't be as happy not using it for 62 years.
In that respect the status quo is my prefered option.
No to Iran with nukes.

that is a very silly statement. You are implying that we're safe now when in reality nuclear war is probably a bigger threat than ever. You also believe that it's not worthwhile to push for global disarmament. On one hand you're saying that we're safe because only relatively honest and reasonable countries have the bomb (like Russia China and the U.S.?) but they're not reasonable enough to get together and negotiate a new treaty.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Well, if you don't want to discuss fiction here, then perhaps you should stop asserting that Iran have a nuclear weapons program that must be stopped. No evidence in favour, plenty of evidence against.

There is a movies board you know.
Now while we are on the subject of fiction tell me where I've asserted that Iran have a nuclear weapons programme?
I've said I don't want them having nukes and I'm all in favour of preventing them of having Nukes.

Do you really think that opinion is a good enough reason to justify going to war?

No where did I say that it was?

that is a very silly statement. You are implying that we're safe now when in reality nuclear war is probably a bigger threat than ever.

Well thats a laughable retort when you seem to be implying that it's grand if Iran get the nuke,no less grand than the U.S having the Nuke.
My point is simple,if you keep proliferating you are increasing the chances of the jenie getting out of the bottle that was rubbed by less carefull keepers of the Nuke than we have at present.

You also believe that it's not worthwhile to push for global disarmament.

I was being realistic.Of course it would be nice if the whole world sang flowers in your hair sitting round a camp fire toasting marsh mallows.
However in reality the world doesn't work like that and it never will.
To believe otherwise is pie in the sky.
If you want my broader opinion on what I actually do believe,I think that democratic governments are no better than their population as a whole in the way we can expect them to behave.
We can hope them to behave differently like you do but thats not what you should expect to happen.

On one hand you're saying that we're safe because only relatively honest and reasonable countries have the bomb (like Russia China and the U.S.?) but they're not reasonable enough to get together and negotiate a new treaty.

It's pie in the sky to expect them to do so,history teaches us that.

Victor

FYI wrote:

The head of the IAEA made this point:

“It was hypocritical for nuclear powers to preach at non-nuclear states, Dr ElBaradei said. “How does that logic fit, when you read in the newspapers that the United Kingdom is spending $200 billion to modernise its Trident submarines?”” [Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)]

This quote may be erroneous. Total Trident cost has been "£14.5 billion at today’s prices". Refurbishment isn't going to cost 10 times as much.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22United+Kingdom+is+spending+%24200+billion+to+modernise+its+Trident+submarines%22&meta=
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22+nuclear+powers+to+preach+at+non-nuclear+states%2C+Dr+ElBaradei+said%22&meta=


http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

Costs and Funding
5-11. The procurement costs involved in sustaining our independent deterrent capability will need to be refined as work on the concept and assessment phases is taken forward with industry. More accurate cost estimates will be available by the time we come to place a contract for the detailed design of the submarines in the period 2012 to 2014. Our initial estimate is that the procurement costs will be in the range of £15-20 billion (at 2006/07 prices) for a four-boat solution: some £11-14 billion for the submarines; £2-3 billion for the possible future refurbishment or replacement of the warhead; and £2-3 billion for infrastructure over the life of the submarines. There would be savings from a three-boat solution but these would not be in proportion to the reduction in the number of submarines. These costs will fall principally in the period 2012 to 2027. The comparable cost for the Trident system was some £14.5 billion at today’s prices. These costs are also comparable to the procurement costs of major weapons systems such as Typhoon aircraft. Depending on future decisions, there could also be the cost of starting to replace the D5 missile from the 2030s. At this range, any estimate of cost would be highly speculative: the equivalent cost for the Trident D5 missile was some £1.5 billion at today’s prices.

fly_agaric wrote:

Have a look through your own link containing the various thoughts of the supreme leader again.

e.g.

"We did not want and could not take the West as a model. Although the West possessed many things it lacked more important things. There was science but there was no morality; there was no justice. There was advanced technology but it was accompanied by destroying the environment and human imprisonment. There was the name of democracy but actually it was the government of the capital and not democracy. It is the same today."

What we see today in the U.S. and the West as election and democracy is a mere façade.

There was freedom in the West but it was accompanied by cruelty and licentiousness. (unlike Saintly Islamic Iran, ho, ho, ho...)

"But this justice should not be mistaken for the notional justice claimed by the communists of the former Soviet Union or their own satellite states. What I mean is the Islamic justice with its particular definition. Neither should it be mistaken for the Western version of justice – which implies the unrestrained capitalists and those in power and laxity in general. What I mean is the Islamic justice. It is a social, spiritual and individual freedom with Islamic modulation, understanding, guidance and definition."

And apparently, the US has not really progressed in how it treats its black citizens since the days of slavery...

"One of the most tragic works of art is a work entitled Uncle Tom’s Cabin which illustrates slavery in America and which is a popular work even after the passage of two hundred years. This is the real way of the U.S. and its government; not human freedom and equality!"

Of course, you, and maybe some others (ssshhh:)) would, I think, mostly agree with his sweeping summaries and criticisms of "the West" entire as well as the US itself anyway so you see no problems here.

What is this from?

FYI

Victor wrote:

This quote may be erroneous. Total Trident cost has been "£14.5 billion at today’s prices". Refurbishment isn't going to cost 10 times as much.

"THE REAL cost of maintaining and replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system over the next 50 years could top £100 billion - five times higher than the prime minister, Tony Blair, has said.

A new analysis of projected spending based on official figures suggests that the cost of buying and operating a successor to Trident will be around £70bn. Added to that, there is the £30bn it will cost to keep the existing warheads in service until 2023."

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1185412.0.replacing_trident_system_to_cost_100bn.php

That's $200 billion.

Dar

fly_agaric wrote:

How is that relevant here? What could the US do about it after Pakistan had the bomb? Very little really apart from hope for the best and try to get what they want out of who is in power.

So the US would leave Iran alone if they had nukes?

[With regard to that sidetrack about the potential riskyness of people like Stalin or Hitler etc with the bomb, a democratic state should still be (IMO) inherantly less likely to use such weapons than a totalitarian state lead by a single all-powerful leader with little regard for the lives of his own people and less for others].

Hitler was democratically elected - and the people cheered him on as he demolished German democracy.

Er, how is he (and his govt.) not? Apparently "we" have it all wrong and probably badly need of Iranian-style government Islam to show us the way (and when systems of government, ideas, ways of organising a society etc are being criticised, Iran's leaders are not referring to just the US, so my use of "we" is appropriate).

He thinks we have it wrong, but has never launched a war of aggression to forcibly convert a neighbour. On the other hand the US is constantly telling countries they have it wrong AND invading them.

"We did not want and could not take the West as a model. Although the West possessed many things it lacked more important things. There was science but there was no morality; there was no justice. There was advanced technology but it was accompanied by destroying the environment and human imprisonment. There was the name of democracy but actually it was the government of the capital and not democracy. It is the same today."

What we see today in the U.S. and the West as election and democracy is a mere façade.

Hardly a unique world view.

There was freedom in the West but it was accompanied by cruelty and licentiousness. (unlike Saintly Islamic Iran, ho, ho, ho...)

Islam has serious faults (ho ho ho), therefore the west is perfect?

And apparently, the US has not really progressed in how it treats its black citizens since the days of slavery...

"One of the most tragic works of art is a work entitled Uncle Tom’s Cabin which illustrates slavery in America and which is a popular work even after the passage of two hundred years. This is the real way of the U.S. and its government; not human freedom and equality!"

Yes thankfully the US is now 100% racism free.

Of course, you, and maybe some others (ssshhh:)) would, I think, mostly agree with his sweeping summaries and criticisms of "the West" entire as well as the US itself anyway so you see no problems here.

I dislike his sweeping generalisations about the West. Just like I dislike your sweeping statements about Iran.

The general official view of Iran's govt. is that the West is evil, its systems, forms of government, ideas etc are inimical to human beings and morality - i.e., they do not like us very much at all really thanks very much!

The general official view of the US govt. is that Iran is evil, its systems, form of government, ideas etc are inimical to human beings and morality- ie: they do not like the US at all really thanks very much!

Also, even if Ahmadinejad has no real power in Iran, he is a mouthpiece/tool of those who do and he has been given reign to say some genuinely agressive things - going beyond the above criticisms of "the West"/the US and into calls for destroying the Israeli state (peacefully no doubt!), waves of Islamic Revolution sweeping over the globe etc.

I admit that the sabre-rattling is reciprocated by the US and Israel.

I don't think I've ever heard any truly aggressive talk out of Achmadinejad - most of it seems to be in the vein of "you push us, we'll push you back".

They've reasons to badly want these weapons, and it is easy to see scenarios happen in that particular part of the world where they could then end up being used in anger.

It's quite obvious they have reasons to develop, but there is still no evidence that they ARE developing nuclear arms. They are fully entitled under international law to develop nuclear power production capability.

If, Saddam say, had also had such a program and was boasting about enriching fuel and Iraq's nuclear tech prowess while also firing off ever more sophisticated rockets and missiles and issuing bellicose statements and propaganda I would feel similarly antsy, fearful even, about the ultimate direction of any supposedly peaceful nuclear program.

Yes it is worrying, but the solution is not banging the war drums and increasing international tensions. The US has yet to attempt serious diplomatic negotiations. There is no evidence Iran is persuing a nuclear weapons program. Unless such evidence is produced, the US should attempt to negiotiate a fair and balanced inspection regime in order to allay their own fears. They have not done so.

I really dunno at the moment. Maybe the US itself or perhaps Israel would actually kick off the war, push the Iranians into it somehow. Who knows...
Europe is closely identified with the US. Iran's leaders certainly see it as an adjunct if their rantings about the "West" are anything to go by. It is much more likely to be in range of Iran's rockets in the near future and probably easier to deliver a nuke to via third parties also.

So it would be somehow immoral for Iran to strike back if attacked?

EDIT just spotted this one, under democracy, for a bit of a laugh:

Today the system of the Islamic Republic – which is a religious system whose regulations, principles and values are rooted in religion – is a full-fledged democratic system unparalleled by any other Muslim state.

Would you agree with that one from the Supreme Leader?:)

Yes Iran is a democracy: a theocratic democracy. It has issues, but so does every other democratic system in the world. Look at the American electoral college system, or the UK's general elections where a party only needs 25% of the vote to get a majority. Stones, glasshouses.

/Andy\

Dar wrote:

Yes Iran is a democracy: a theocratic democracy. It has issues, but so does every other democratic system in the world. Look at the American electoral college system, or the UK's general elections where a party only needs 25% of the vote to get a majority. Stones, glasshouses.

'Issues' such as executing 16 year olds for 'chastity crimes'? Giving 13 year olds 100 lashes for being in a car alone with a boy? Sorry, but you're ignoring the extent of what is wrong with Iran. I take the same view as Tristane, I'm not psychic, I don't know for definite if Iran has the intention of developing nuclear weapons (although it seems if they had peaceful intentions they would have accepted the French offer to assist them develop nuclear power), but I wouldn't trust a country whereby the above sentences are carried out to hold nuclear weapons.

Dar

/Andy\ wrote:

'Issues' such as executing 16 year olds for 'chastity crimes'? Giving 13 year olds 100 lashes for being in a car alone with a boy? Sorry, but you're ignoring the extent of what is wrong with Iran.

I never said they were saints.

I take the same view as Tristane, I'm not psychic, I don't know for definite if Iran has the intention of developing nuclear weapons

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and you "don't know for definite"?

(although it seems if they had peaceful intentions they would have accepted the French offer to assist them develop nuclear power)

I'm curious as to what the details of the offer were. It would hardly be unreasonable for the Iranians to turn down a deal that left them dependent on the EU for nuclear fuel.

but I wouldn't trust a country whereby the above sentences are carried out to hold nuclear weapons.

TBH I don't trust ANY country with nuclear weapons, but I still havn't heard a shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme - just the same rabble rousing and fear mongering we heard pre-Iraq.

/Andy\

Dar wrote:

I never said they were saints. .

There's a big difference between 'not being saints', and doing what I have mentioned

Dar wrote:

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and you "don't know for definite"? .

So they're NOT looking to develop nuclear power in ANY form that COULD (note I don't say definitely will) lead to the proliferation of nuclear weaponry?

Dar wrote:

TBH I don't trust ANY country with nuclear weapons.

On this we are agreed, but I'd still rather the US have them than Iran if I was forced to settle for the lesser of two evils

Akrasia

/Andy\ wrote:

'Issues' such as executing 16 year olds for 'chastity crimes'? Giving 13 year olds 100 lashes for being in a car alone with a boy? Sorry, but you're ignoring the extent of what is wrong with Iran. I take the same view as Tristane, I'm not psychic, I don't know for definite if Iran has the intention of developing nuclear weapons (although it seems if they had peaceful intentions they would have accepted the French offer to assist them develop nuclear power), but I wouldn't trust a country whereby the above sentences are carried out to hold nuclear weapons.

Do you really think that a U.S. attack will do anything to help the oppressed people of Iran? It will only harden anti western attitudes and fuel fundamentalism making the world a more dangerous place.

Oh, and the Iranian treatment of women and children is appalling, But no more appalling than western treatment of millions of young women and children enslaved in sweatshops making our consumer goods and enabling our 'free way of life'

/Andy\

Akrasia wrote:

Do you really think that a U.S. attack will do anything to help the oppressed people of Iran? It will only harden anti western attitudes and fuel fundamentalism making the world a more dangerous place.

I make no mention anywhere of a US attack on Iran, re-read my posts carefully. My posts concern what I feel are the dangers of allowing Iran to proliferate nuclear weapons. A US attack on Iran at the moment would be potentially catastrophic

fly_agaric

Dar wrote:

So the US would leave Iran alone if they had nukes?

If you mean they wouldn't bomb Iran, I'd say yes, definitely. There you have it! Another good reason for the US to stop threatening military action.

Dar wrote:

Hitler was democratically elected - and the people cheered him on as he demolished German democracy.

Er... Maybe the 20-30% or so who voted for the Nazis did but I'm sure any people who voted for communists were not happy with Hitler's rise to absolute power or the Nazi's actions immediately afterwards (like sending known and suspected "Reds" to prison camps).

Are you making the argument that no state can be said to really be trusted with nuclear weapons?
If so, I'd agree but I still think there is a hierarcy of untrustworthiness.

Dar wrote:

He thinks we have it wrong, but has never launched a war of aggression to forcibly convert a neighbour. On the other hand the US is constantly telling countries they have it wrong AND invading them.

But "the West" is not doing that though is it? The whole "West" isn't even getting on Iran's ass about it's nuclear program - so why do we get the West is evil this, the West is evil that blah blah blah? Persumably even the people they've been getting alot of nuclear help from (Russia) are covered by this rhetoric. Not very diplomatic is it? Not exactly extending the hand of tolerance and mutual friendship for good relations between Iran and Europe in the future is it?

Dar wrote:

Hardly a unique world view.

Yes, but the conviction that the West (*hey!, does that cover little us too?*) has "no morals" and is completely "unjust" and promotes "human imprisonment" (is he talking about wage-slaves, or people who just have to have the latest nokia phone because the shítbox tells them to buy it??) might well be a unique view for a govt. running a country imagined as a friend and ally for Europe in the future (ala InFront).
It's much more the kind of stuff a mortal enemy says about you...

Dar wrote:

Islam has serious faults (ho ho ho), therefore the west is perfect?

LOL. You don't have to be anywhere near "perfect" to beat Iran when it comes to human rights, freedom of religion etc now do you?

Dar wrote:

Yes thankfully the US is now 100% racism free.

True. The fact that racism and bigotry still exists in the US (while Iran's "Islamic Democracy" is a bigotry&prejudice-free zone by comparison if you don't mention the jews) means that, when you look at it objectively, things have not really changed in US black-white relations since people were being shipped out from Africa as slaves.

Dar wrote:

I dislike his sweeping generalisations about the West. Just like I dislike your sweeping statements about Iran.

You were not one of the others (well I didn't ave you in mind anyways).
Give me an example of a sweeping statement I made about "Iran" please? I suppose I made plenty about the people who run it (e.g. they are religious zealots and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, and am not convinced by arguments here to trust them with nuclear technology as far as they can throw a missile!).

Dar wrote:

Yes it is worrying, but the solution is not banging the war drums and increasing international tensions.

Never said banging war drums was a solution. I explicity said I don't think military action is the way to go. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that pretending Iran loves "us" (the "West") really despite what they say, we can be friends, and it'll all be okay in the end isn't much help either.
A nuclear-armed Iran seems almsot inevitable to me at present. Before that, some sort of war between Iran and Israel, possibly involving the US too, also seems inevitable to me. I suppose I'm a pessimist really.

Dar wrote:

So it would be somehow immoral for Iran to strike back if attacked?

No, it would of course be moral for Iran to attack Paris or London if the US or Israel attacked it in the future.

Dar wrote:

Yes Iran is a democracy

Great, but no matter what the Ayatollah may say, I'd much prefer to move to Turkey and become a Turkish citizen than pick up sticks and try to get into Iran if they would have me. But then I'm not a muslim, so I don't count.

Hotblack Desiato

Akrasia wrote:

I've already been told have I?

My apologies, not you but another poster
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52832422&postcount=142

Or maybe i'll just post a few links to back up what I said.

You're mistaken. Just because a weapon system is on high alert (i.e. ready to be fired once the order is given) that doesn't mean that the country concerned will give such an order on a warning of attack. Just because journalists who should know better call the former 'hair-trigger' doesn't make it so.

sovtek

Akrasia wrote:

That assumes 3 things
1. That the Iranians are indeed building nuclear weapons, despite all the IAEA reports to the contrary
2. that it is possible to stop them if they are determined to do so
3. If we do stop them through force of arms or a devastating sanctions regime, that this will make the world a safer place.

None of those 3 assumptions are supported by the weight of evidence.

well the theme of this thread is whether or not America will/should attack Iran on the pretext that they are 'seeking nuclear weapons of mass destruction'
I'm not saying that I think Iran having Nukes is a good thing only that a Nuclear Iran wouldn't be much more dangerous than a Nuclear armed Pakistan or Israel or United States. (I think a new non proliferation treaty should be negotiated that compels all nuclear armed states to disarm and this would be a much better solution in the long term than allowing a chosen few to have the ultimate weapon and to invade anyone who tries to challenge their supremacy.) But the implications of Tristame's position are that we should forcibly persuade or prevent them from pursuing nuclear technology, and in the current geo political climate, that means only one thing, Military action.

Actually the current NPT does compel all signatories to disarm. That requisition just happens to be ignored by the respective governments and their media.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

How is that [Pakistan] relevant here?

I'm pointing out that more volatile countries who are known to be harbouring terrorists (and possibly Usama Bin Laden himself) have a nuclear bomb.

A stable country like Iran - which really has about as much chance of firing a nuke as Canada has - cannot even acquire nuclear energy to generate electricity.

Er, how is he (and his govt.) not? Apparently "we" have it all wrong and probably badly need of Iranian-style government Islam to show us the way

You think that's aggression towards the west?! You think that perceived "aggression" is a reason to paralyse the Iranian economy? And what is sending the US military to the Strait of Hortmutz? What's that?

Also, you'll find far more real, timeworthy aggression towards the west in the middle class suburbs of Qandahar, Karachi, Riyadh and Basra, and within their state buildings than you will find coming from Khameine'i. Iran is possibly the most nationalist and insular of the ME states, certainly since the fall of Saddam. It looks mostly inwards, while it may care about Palestine and Lebanon, it just doesn't care about 'the west' and certainly not Europe or Dublin, as you seem to claim.

Of course, you, and maybe some others (ssshhh:)) would, I think, mostly agree with his sweeping summaries and criticisms of "the West" entire as well as the US itself anyway so you see no problems here.

Well actually if you were looking for aggressive language coming from the Ayatollah Khameine'i, I think you'd be disappointed. You certainly didn't manage to post any of it up here. Generally he isn't a man given to outbursts.

What you posted here could just as easily have been said by an American at the anti-war protests in Washington the other day; his points about limited freedom accompanied by cruelty are especially relevant in terms of the Middle East right now. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue with him on that.

The general official view of Iran's govt. is that the West is evil, its systems, forms of government, ideas etc are inimical to human beings and morality - i.e., they do not like us very much at all really thanks very much!

Yes, I'd agree that is the Iranian position. But again, you think that amounts to aggression - or the height of aggression in the middle east? That's very tame material in comparison to what you'd find elsewhere. It's quite a bland political statement.
The reason that Iran is receiving so much attention is not actually the danger, or perceived danger, that it will develop and use nuclear weapons. the fear is an economically strong ME power, un-interested in the US version of democracy, with money and influence in the region.
"Iran locked and loaded" from the persepective is a sort of rallying of the troops, much like the WMD/ under 45 minutes danger. It appeals to the western selfishness brilliantly, get people to think that the Ayatollah is going to blow out of their homes in Nantes/ Missouri/ Tennessee/ Athlone/ Madrid/ Dusseldorf, and suddenly you've got support, however apparently 'reluctant'. Everybody wants to be in on the danger, it's a self-obsessive jingoism of both fear and excitement.

If, Saddam say, had also had such a program and was boasting about enriching fuel and Iraq's nuclear tech prowess while also firing off ever more sophisticated rockets...etc etc etc

I was wondering when we'd get to the Saddam=Ayatollah Khamein'i bit. Did anyone mention Hitler yet? [edit - yes, a few times now] Islamofascists?

Today the system of the Islamic Republic – which is a religious system whose regulations, principles and values are rooted in religion – is a full-fledged democratic system unparalleled by any other Muslim state.

Would you agree with that one from the Supreme Leader?:)

Absolutely. Whether you care to admit it or not, it is actually a democracy. As the statement says, it's also a religious system so it's not a constitutional democracy as we know a constitutional democracy to be. I don't subscribe to the idea that it's a particularly nice place, or that they've got it right about how they apply their roots in the religion, but there's technically nothing incorrect about the above statement - Guess who Mahmoud Ahmadijejad beat in the (democractic) Elections for the presidency?

The people who are supportive of opposing international law, and while waving their miniature American flags of support for the the blockade of Iran's energy program are ignoring some vital questions. These are glaring breakdowns, a gap where the absence of reasoning is covered over by hypothesis, exaggeriation, and gossip without any real evidence.

1. Knowing the seriousness of a fatwa, it makes no sense that a country which is lead, controlled and administrated by Ayatollahs and clerics would act against such a thing and fire (1) a nuclear bomb (2) on civilians. Can you explain this? Are you expecting them also to convert to Christianity or become Hindus after going against a ruling on God's will? Become atheists?

2. Palestine is the home of the third most sacred site in all of Islam - the masjid al Aqsa. People say that if the Zionists were to damage the area there would be a worldwide deluge of Muslim violence on Israel (that is what the current unrest is about with the archeological dig nearby). Now do you really think that the Iranians would set off a nuke that would harm the shrine? Why would a Muslim do that? Given how it's been fought over in the past and the recent past, do you really think Muslims would tolerate that?

3. Palestinians are Muslims. Why do you think the Iranians would annhilate all of these Muslim lives? And the territory that whatever remaining people inhabit be made into a radioactive waste-ground, including the masjid? Why do you think this, or how can your reasoning get around this?

There are more questions, like where people are getting the idea that Al Qaeda somehow have something to do with Iran, but I think most people who are familiar with recent Iranian history and the history of militant Wahabbism, etc. can understand why that isn't the case.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

Great, but no matter what the Ayatollah may say, I'd much prefer to move to Turkey and become a Turkish citizen than pick up sticks and try to get into Iran if they would have me. But then I'm not a muslim, so I don't count.

Where do you get your information about Iran? Granted, nobody is saying that Iran is the nicest/ happiest place on the globe, but you seem to have some sort of distorted fear that Iran is just the worst place there ever was. Iranians tend to be very politically motivated people, they are often very well educated, the current Iranian administration is very much pro-science and pro-technology. I'm not sure how human rights abuses compare to turkey, but to listen to the popular media you'd think they were hanging homosexuals by the truck load. Maybe you should find out more about Iran before you start getting those sorts of ideas.

I believe this film is to Iran as midnight express is to Turkey when we're talking about information short of being there.
It's come a long way since then I suppose.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

{Iran} really has about as much chance of firing a nuke as Canada has

True at present, yes. If both Iran and Canada actually *had* nukes that ceases to be true.

InFront wrote:

I'm pointing out that more volatile countries who are known to be harbouring terrorists (and possibly Usama Bin Laden himself) have a nuclear bomb.

Do you think that inconsistency exists because a) the US just loves Pakistan, its big ally and trusts it deeply or b) Pakistan currently has them over a barrel in several ways - one of which is the fact that it has nuclear weapons.
Again, what do you think the US can do about that? Make a load of empty threats?

InFront wrote:

You think that perceived "aggression" is a reason to paralyse the Iranian economy?

No. I don't.
But if 1) the Iranian govt. obviously doesn't like us at a pretty deep level - far deeper than just current foriegn policies toward Iran; 2) is building (they say) a nuclear power-only program and developing ever more sophisticated ballistic missiles which will have Europe in range; 3) we don't really trust them, basically because of their view of us as above and how they run Iran/human rights - then why the hell should Europe be under some kind of obligation to sell them stuff which will help them succeed more quickly in their nuclear "power" program and missile effort? It seems absolutely crazy to me.

InFront wrote:

And what is sending the US military to the Strait of Hortmutz? What's that?

US Sabre rattling. US agression.
Not the "West". Not Europe's doing. Would you blame us for that because the US military uses Shannon or something?

InFront wrote:

Iran is possibly the most nationalist and insular of the ME states, certainly since the fall of Saddam. It looks mostly inwards, while it may care about Palestine and Lebanon, it just doesn't care about 'the west' and certainly not Europe or Dublin, as you seem to claim.

Good. Then it shouldn't matter too much if Europe stops selling them stuff they can find a use for in their nuclear program, stops any investment, scientific cooperation etc etc which could help that program and their missile programs on their way.

InFront wrote:

Also, you'll find far more real, timeworthy aggression towards the west in the middle class suburbs of Qandahar, Karachi, Riyadh and Basra, and within their state buildings than you will find coming from Khameine'i.....What you posted here could just as easily have been said by an American at the anti-war protests in Washington the other day

Yes, but as, I think, you reminded us, the Ayatollah actually rules Iran with the Revolutionary Council or whatever.
So this is a bit more weighty and important than the rantings of a "peace"-protester or the bile plenty of less lofty people in other countries may spew about "the West".

InFront wrote:

Well actually if you were looking for aggressive language coming from the Ayatollah Khameine'i, I think you'd be disappointed. You certainly didn't manage to post any of it up here. Generally he isn't a man given to outbursts.

No, no overt aggression in fairness (I'm sure the meeja would just love that...), just lots of unfair generalisation, demonisation etc about something bad called "the West" which he seems to know lots about and counterppoints constantly with Iran.
InFront - you post that like you know the man intimately? Do tell?

InFront wrote:

I don't see how any reasonable person could argue with him on that.

I do argue with him and Ahmadinejad because they are always talking about (or ranting at) "the West" in general, not just specifically the US, the US government, the UK, Israel. He's covering alot of nation states and alot of people there.

InFront wrote:

"Iran locked and loaded" from the persepective is a sort of rallying of the troops, much like the WMD/ under 45 minutes danger. It appeals to the western selfishness brilliantly, get people to think that the Ayatollah is going to blow out of their homes in Nantes/ Missouri/ Tennessee/ Athlone/ Madrid/ Dusseldorf, and suddenly you've got support, however apparently 'reluctant'. Everybody wants to be in on the danger, it's a self-obsessive jingoism of both fear and excitement.

It's the third time now but noone listens. I don't think the US should attack Iran. I don't think Israel should attack Iran. I think its nuts and very, very dangerous. Even the Sabre rattling is making things worse.
If it does happen, those living far away who cheer on a war expecting not to suffer themselves may be disappointed.

InFront wrote:

I was wondering when we'd get to the Saddam=Ayatollah Khamein'i bit.

That was a direct reference to Dar bringing up the Saddam-WMD debacle. I did not bring up Saddam in the first place here...:rolleyes:

InFront wrote:

Absolutely. Whether you care to admit it or not, it is actually a democracy.

So, Europe (and to chuck in the "Islamic" example - Turkey too since the state is secular - maybe more so than the Catholic countries in Europe?) has "sham" democracies and Iran has a "real" "religious" democracy (where the favour you find with Allahs' proxies on Earth ultimately decides if you get to go before the people!). Jesus-please-us!

InFront wrote:

but there's technically nothing incorrect about the above statement

Only if you define "democracy" in a new, special kind of way specific to Iran and its revolution though!
A democracy where a "king" of sorts and his court with Allah-given powers are the ultimate arbiter on who can run for office.
Then of course, nations where no one person/group has final say on who can run for office are all "sham" democraciesby the standards of the "real one"!

fly_agaric

Victor wrote:

What is this from?

All that's from the "Leaders Viewpoints" section (see right menu) of the site http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/index.php for the Ayatollah which InFront* helpfully posted.

*thanks for that InFront, it was very interesting.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

Where do you get your information about Iran?

I get all my info straight from the zionist media that tries to pull the wool over our eyes and fool us all by telling us that Iran is not the best place to live when it is really an "Islamic" paradise-democratic-country? /jk
Sort of...

My "news" sources would be the Beeb (Newsnight, the massive news website), the Irish Times, the Guardian website, the Sunday Times/Timesonline, CNN (website), Sky News sometimes, Reuters website (occasionally).

Over the past few years, as far as I can recall, these sources have given me the "impression" that the govt. of Iran is a theocracy, with a grafted sort of play-democracy where the religious rulers pre-vet the candidates - who don't have much power anyway.
That the govt. places strong limitations on freedom of speech/political organisation in Iran. That the government is oppressive, imprisons and tortures dissidents, opponents. That the govt. discriminates against the (small percentage) of non-muslims in Iran.

Here is what the bleeding hearts at amnesty say about Iran's human rights...
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irn-summary-eng


As for justice (Europe has none!), Iran executes plenty of people which I think is pretty revolting...(oh, I know the US fails abysmally in this regard also).

I also found this. I haven't read these yet but I have a feeling it may be interesting...
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/NewByCountry?OpenView&Start=73&Count=30&Expand=81.1#81.1

Im sure state.gov has a page on Iran full of generally not so good political stuff but that is American so....
Anyway, here it is.

I don't proclaim to be some kind of expert on Iran. Far from it. IMO, you can't know a country fully until you have lived in it for some time - and I'm along way from "knowing" Iran since I haven't even read about its history, or questioned any Iranians about it in depth. In this thread I have been very critical of the political system + the current rulers rather than any other aspects.

I have worked with 2 Iranians in the past, but I didn't learn too much about Iran from them (too busy...). I did gather they both had a massive dislike of the US [focussed on the govt/politics/foriegn policy] but they also seemed to think their own govt., to understate a bit, wasn't the mae west either.

Anyway, my comparisons of the info on Iran and Turkey from above evil meeja sources with a little bit of a closer perspective on Turkey for some personal reasons suggested to me that I might prefer Turkey based mainly on the political/human rights situation.

InFront wrote:

Granted, nobody is saying that Iran is the nicest/ happiest place on the globe, but you seem to have some sort of distorted fear that Iran is just the worst place there ever was.

No. The same media tell me that other places are much worse. I wasn't trying to demonise Iran. If it seemed like that - I'm sorry.

InFront wrote:

Iranians tend to be very politically motivated people,

I suppose for those Iranians who live in Iran that's fine once they make sure they are politically motivated the correct way. If not, maybe apathy, and keeping your head a bit below the parapet could be a better option.:)

InFront wrote:

they are often very well educated, the current Iranian administration is very much pro-science and pro-technology.

We know...:)

InFront wrote:

I'm not sure how human rights abuses compare to turkey.

When I was comparing the two, you know I wasn't talking about Iran's food, or what the people are like, or the weather there or the million other things that can make you prefer one country over another which you can't appreciate fully unless you have an intimate knowledge of the place. Who knows - maybe I'd actually prefer Iran despite the government if I went and lived in both for a few years to compare.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

But if 1) the Iranian govt. obviously doesn't like us at a pretty deep level - far deeper than just current foriegn policies toward Iran; 2) is building (they say) a nuclear power-only program and developing ever more sophisticated ballistic missiles which will have Europe in range; 3) we don't really trust them, basically because of their view of us as above and how they run Iran/human rights

I don't see the point in debating this with you if you simply choose to ignore the obvious facts in front of you and insist "well, we don't like Iran, iran doesn't like us, no electricity for Iran."
Nobody who is arguing your side of the debate, nor you yourself, can explain the pretty major gaps of sense and logical shortcomings that are being presented to you repeatedly. You simply gloss over them and repeat your position; Tristrame links to some 1980s film apparently about Iran; and Judt disappears. Each one, no doubt, assuring yourselves that Iran is a great personal danger.

US Sabre rattling. US agression.
Not the "West". Not Europe's doing. Would you blame us for that because the US military uses Shannon or something?

Firstly, I think any reference to Shannon in a thread speculating about a nuclear Iran isn't even worth considering. There are so many leaps of exaggeration required to link these things that the whole topic becomes muddied with nothing more than empty speculation. Can you explain why, despiteb the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that you think Europe would be endangered by Iran with nuclear power?

InFront - you post that like you know the man intimately? Do tell?

No, I take no more of an interest in him than the next guy. I just find it funny that his leadership goes almost completely ignored in the media simply because he's so reserved in his speech and actions. Few people know who he is, or understand his power in Iran compared to the sideshow that is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

So, Europe (and to chuck in the "Islamic" example - Turkey too since the state is secular - maybe more so than the Catholic countries in Europe?) has "sham" democracies and Iran has a "real" "religious" democracy (where the favour you find with Allahs' proxies on Earth ultimately decides if you get to go before the people!).

If you read what I said, I made the point that it is a valid democracy. However it is not a constitutional democracy as we understand one to be, it is a theological/ bordering on Islamist democracy.

The second post is about human rights in Iran. This really says nothing about nuclear energy, let alone nuclear power and international relations.

banaman

Hobbes wrote:

The only real wild card is Israel in all this.

In answer to which read these:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12375

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12364

http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery03202007.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12365

I'm not sure they add much hope to the situation but at least it shows that Israeli opinion is far from the blind supportive of government b---**** we get from our media.

If they do attack Iran I think its more likely that the US will let the Israelis do it, like the US got the Israeli airforce to take out Saddam's nuclear facilities.

Personally I think the Israelis would be mad to go for it but Its hard to see that they wouldn't if the yanks twisted enough arms.

Victor

banaman wrote:

If they do attack Iran I think its more likely that the US will let the Israelis do it, like the US got the Israeli airforce to take out Saddam's nuclear facilities.

The US and Iraq were allies then.