Iran

Doctor Fell

Going back to the original post, yes I found myself in total agreement with what was said. I think he raised some very relevant and important issues/questions about America's behaviour, and highlighted GWB's and America's hypocrisy very clearly. I've no problem with his religious vibes either, as he is clearly showing up Bush as a hypocrite, as he is a Christian but clearly doesn't practice what he preaches. And why shouldn't Iran develop nuclear technology like the USA, Israel etc? As he said, scientific endevour shouldn't be stopped just because it could be used for weapons purposes. And besides, who are the USA to preach about nuclear abstention? I abhor nuclear weaponry like any sane person, but I can understand why faced with the aggression of USA/Israel, they might feel the need to develop such weapons as a deterent. After all, isn't that the excuse every nation uses to develop such weapons? If the USA offered to de-nuke their own arsenal then they would be in a position to preach to Iran. But lets be honest, they are a super-aggressive violent nation (foriegn policy-wise, I have many great American friends!!), so why should Iran buckle to their bullying tactics?
Its a pity more world leaders don't speak the truth like the Iranian president did.

growler

Catsmokinpot wrote:

why would anyone use nuclear weapons against any of us? think about it man these people aren't stupid, they don't think that if they throw nukes at us, we wont throw nukes back. .

and if they don't have any nukes then the problem of them initiating a nuclear attack and any western retatliation will never arise. Simple. Letting them have access to such weapons only creates potential for a nuclear conflict in a region that is already volatile, why run such a risk if it an be avoided ?

Catsmokinpot wrote:

they haven't once said they would attack america, or even implied it. or any of their allies. .

they threatened or implied a threat to international shipping in the straits of hormuz.

If they are willing to threaten international oil shipments with their conventional weaponry then giving them access to bigger bombs only improves their ability to threaten as well as being a deterrant.

bonkey

growler wrote:

and if they don't have any nukes then the problem of them initiating a nuclear attack and any western retatliation will never arise. Simple.

Simple? Tell that to the Iraqis. No nukes, but the issue of western retaliation still arose.

Letting them have access to such weapons only creates potential for a nuclear conflict in a region that is already volatile, why run such a risk if it an be avoided ?

Since the invention of the nuclear bomb, Europe has enjoyed the longest peace-time stretch since, oh, the days of the Roman Empire.

America's "nuclear deterrant" policy works on the idea that nuclear weapons deter people from attacking. They enforce a peace, not endanger one.

America's nuclear deterrant policy works so well, in fact, that they're busy designing new bombs at the moment, so they can keep their arsenal up to date.

they threatened or implied a threat to international shipping in the straits of hormuz.

Iran has been threatened (directly or implied) by the US ever since they overthrew the US-backed Shah over 20 years ago. Whats your point? That all of a sudden, Iran is untrustworthy because they're not just lying down and accepting US animosity like a good little doggy?

If they are willing to threaten international oil shipments with their conventional weaponry then giving them access to bigger bombs only improves their ability to threaten as well as being a deterrant.

Indeed. Its not all that unlike the US making these "no option is off the table" sabre-rattling noises really.

See, this is what gets me.
The US is bending over backwards, telling us how bad it would be for Iran to get nukes. Why? Because if they got them, they could use them to threaten other nations....just like the US is doing to Iran itself right now.

So basically the threat that we need to prevent is that Iran would be able to implement foreign policy in a manner similar to the US.

If this is a problem, then it should be equally problematic that the US not only can engage in this type of coercion, but is engaging in it.

If the US still maintained that its nuclear arsenal would never be used as part of a first-strike doctrine, and only ever in response to a WMD attack (Chem, Bio or Nuke, and not necessarily just aimed at the US), and wasn't looking at building things like mini-nuke bunker-busters etc.....then this argument would be credible.

I see nothing credible in one nation saying that the threat is allowing a second nation to engage in these bullying tactics. If these tactics are unacceptable on the world stage, then don't use them. By using such tactics, the US has tacitly acknowledged that nuclear threats are a valid and legitimate international negotiation tool.

growler

bonkey wrote:

Simple? Tell that to the Iraqis. No nukes, but the issue of western retaliation still arose. .

but no nuclear retaliation, perhaps I should have stated that.

bonkey wrote:

Since the invention of the nuclear bomb, Europe has enjoyed the longest peace-time stretch since, oh, the days of the Roman Empire..

It would be overly simplistic to lay the last 70 years of peace entirely at the door of a nuclear threat, there were many other factors involved.

bonkey wrote:

Iran has been threatened (directly or implied) by the US ever since they overthrew the US-backed Shah over 20 years ago. Whats your point? That all of a sudden, Iran is untrustworthy because they're not just lying down and accepting US animosity like a good little doggy?..

I believe the current Iranian regime's ideology and leadership to be untrustworthy when it comes to nuclear weapons.. yes. Arming one more middle eastern country is likely to lead to the arming and/or sharing of nuclear technologies with even more countries in the region, it would be understandable for the Saudis, Egyptians, Iraqis to seek nukes to maintain the status quo. Given their political volatility, ethnic divisions, numerous armed militias / terrorist groups with unsavoury goals it seems like a massive risk to take, a risk not only to our energy supplies in the west (which is significant) but to the people of the middle east. What if Afghanistan had nuclear technologies during the Taleban days, do you think they would have had any qualms about sharing their toys with Osama ? or would you rather wait and see and run the risk of such weapons falling into the wrong hands, with potentially murderous consequences for western cities / israel ?

bonkey wrote:

See, this is what gets me.
The US is bending over backwards, telling us how bad it would be for Iran to get nukes. Why? Because if they got them, they could use them to threaten other nations....just like the US is doing to Iran itself right now.

So basically the threat that we need to prevent is that Iran would be able to implement foreign policy in a manner similar to the US..

Its entirely understandable why the US and indeed the West, is keen to maintain the present world order, for entirely selfish reasons. But its not just the US who don't want the Iranians to have this technology, not one European country does either. The Russians aren't too bothered, no out of some innate sense of justice, but for their own, entirely selfish reasons too.

One has to draw the line somewhere, a few superpowers has been sufficient to keep the world from large scale war for some time now, adding more superpowers to the mix increases the risk of one of them doing something stupid. If I were a political / military risk assessor I would think Iran would have to be in the top 10 countries I would not want to see have nukes. Strategically because of their ability to threaten the entire middle eastern oil reserves, their borders with the very volatile Afghanistan and Iraq, and ideologically because of their religious leanings.

Hobbes

growler wrote:

I believe the current Iranian regime's ideology and leadership to be untrustworthy when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Why?

I would of thought Pakistan would be more serious a threat of someone letting a nuke off then most of the other countries.

growler

Hobbes wrote:

Why?

I would of thought Pakistan would be more serious a threat of someone letting a nuke off then most of the other countries.

Musharaf is a fairly astute military leader, he's unlikely to oversee a nuclear strike (presumably you mean against India, the traditional enemy?) since India can retaliate in kind. They both already have nukes so no point in debating the pros / cons of that, it maintains the status quo and has stopped what would otherwise have developed into a large scale conventional war over Kashmir.

Musharaf and his military are also US allies, are actively tackling their domestic islamists as part of the war on terror, the current regime itself is not a threat to the west. If fundamentalists held more sway in pakistan, I'd agree with you that they represent such a threat.

bonkey

growler wrote:

but no nuclear retaliation, perhaps I should have stated that.

Perhaps...

Its (unfortunately) not necessarily true. The US has recently made noises about not limiting its use of nuclear weapons to retaliatory strikes nor to strikes (retaliatory or otherwise) against nuclear nations.

In other words, they're slowly trying to set themselves a new standard of "when we feel we need to".

It would be overly simplistic to lay the last 70 years of peace entirely at the door of a nuclear threat, there were many other factors involved.

If it is overly suimplistic to suggest that it is only nuclear that has held the peace in Europe, it is equally overly simpluistic to suggest that simply possessing nuclear weapons somehow forms a credible threat of use. W

hat basis forms this credible threat? Everyone with nuclear weapons, no matter how desperate a corner they've been in, no matter how p1ssed off with anyone else they've been, no matter how despotic or unhinged the people in charge....they've all come to the same conclusion: using them is a bad idea.

The only nation who clearly disagrees with this policy at present is not Iran.

I could understand someone arguing that Iran was becoming or had become as significant a threat as the US, but how one nation openly saying "we won't rule out nuking you" is less of a threat than another nation saying "we only want this for peaceful purposes" (even where we don't believe them) is simply beyond me.

I believe the current Iranian regime's ideology and leadership to be untrustworthy when it comes to nuclear weapons.. yes.

So they're untrustworthy. OK. Are they suicidal? Make no mistake - thats the implication of use of nuclear weapons. While people are quick to point out how willing to die these alleged lunatics are, its amazing how rarely they commit suicide.

I'm not talking about the fanatical "foot-soldier" equivalent, now, I'm talking about the leaders.

Leaders use the death of others and the willingness of others to die. It is unbelievably rare for a leader to engage in an action which guarantees their own death. Its almost unheard of for a leader to engage in an action which almost certainly guarantees the death of their nation. The only leaders who can come close to deliberately and knowingly doing something like that...are people backed into corners with no other options. Rhetoric abotu hating Israel is all well and good, but exactly how many leaders and nations have already thrown themselves on their swords over this irrational hatred they apparently share? Thats right: exactly none.

Arming one more middle eastern country is likely to lead to the arming and/or sharing of nuclear technologies with even more countries in the region, it would be understandable for the Saudis, Egyptians, Iraqis to seek nukes to maintain the status quo.

I don't question the merit of preventing nuclear proliferation. I question the method by which the US is supposedly trying to achieve this goal.

I question the belief that the way to prevent such prolioferation is for the US to continue to modernise its nuclear agenda and further its own desires to make "battlefield nukes" and to make nuclear threats in order to prevent said proliferation....especially when every move it makes towards nuclear-enabled nations shows that having nukes is a far, far preferable position to deal with the US from than either trying to get them or simply not having them.

Given their political volatility, ethnic divisions, numerous armed militias / terrorist groups with unsavoury goals it seems like a massive risk to take,

It strikes me as unbelievably risky to continue to send the message that is currently being sent. I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying do something else.

I'm the first person to agree that we don't want a nuclear-weaponised-world. I'm just never going to agree that the existing policies aganist proliferation are a smart way to avoid that eventuality, especially when we've seen how they've already failed.

a risk not only to our energy supplies in the west (which is significant)

If that was genuinely a concern, then we should be working to alleviate our reliance on said supplies....not working to ensure we can enforce the continuation of supply.

What if Afghanistan had nuclear technologies during the Taleban days, do you think they would have had any qualms about sharing their toys with Osama ?

Yes. I do, actually.

If these nations would be so quick to hand over nuclear technology, why have they been so slow to hand over chemical and biological tech? Why haevn't they handed over straight-forward radioactive material for "dirty bombs". Or, if they have, why haven't these terrorists widely used them?

As you said about peace in Europe...I don't believe its that simple.

or would you rather wait and see and run the risk of such weapons falling into the wrong hands, with potentially murderous consequences for western cities / israel ?

I would rather that we woke up and realised that the current policy mechanism has failed, is continuing to fail, and ultimately cannot prevent this type of doomsday scenario. I'm not even convinced they're an effective method of delay, nor that they're the only (nor even necessarily the most significant) factor preventing nuclear proliferation.

Its entirely understandable why the US and indeed the West, is keen to maintain the present world order, for entirely selfish reasons.

I'm glad we're agreed its selfish as opposed to righteous, correct or justified

But its not just the US who don't want the Iranians to have this technology, not one European country does either. The Russians aren't too bothered, no out of some innate sense of justice, but for their own, entirely selfish reasons too.

You notice who's absent from that list? The biggest threat people keep tellnig us a nuclear Iran would post is to Israel and yet Israel is keeping schtum about its opinion.

I wonder why it could be?

Given their utter lack of reticence to make clear that attacks on them would result in retaliation in kind and so forth in the past, one really has to wonder if they're as worried about Iran nuking them as the US and Europe claim to be.

Personally, I can see numerous reasons why Iran's enrichment policy is undesirable to the west, even if its not for weapons research. For that reason, I don't take the opposition of the EU as necessarily significant.

One has to draw the line somewhere,

That doesn't mean that everywhere the line can be drawn is equally good.

a few superpowers has been sufficient to keep the world from large scale war for some time now,

I would say that ever since we went from a few superpowers to effectively just one that large-scale war has beome less and less distant.

adding more superpowers to the mix increases the risk of one of them doing something stupid.

People often do stupid things when they're threatened. The more the US uses its "only military superpower" weight to bully other nations around and to selfishly preserve the world order that suits it, the more likely is that someone will do something stupid.

If I were a political / military risk assessor I would think Iran would have to be in the top 10 countries I would not want to see have nukes.

If I were a political / military risk assessor, I would be evaluating strategies to forestall / stop nuclear proliferation. I would certainly be looking to move away from the notion that some nations are "safe(r) bets" when it comes to nukes, and others aren't.

Look at Pakistan. Some years ago, Myusharraf was a despotic dictator who couldn't be trusted. Today, he's a valuable US ally who gets rewarded for denying international wishes and developing nuclear weapons as well as the nuclear program resulting in proliferation.

So is Pakistan a safe bet? Is Pakistan in ten years time a safe bet? There are no safe bets, there are just ones which look less risky.

Strategically because of their ability to threaten the entire middle eastern oil reserves, their borders with the very volatile Afghanistan and Iraq, and ideologically because of their religious leanings.

Yup. Iran is well positioned. Its the kinda strategic positioning that makes a nation powerful.

Hey...wouldn't it be great if there was another US-backed coup in there, and democracy got replaced by a US-friendly despotic leader. That would make everything safe again, cause all that power would be in the "right" hands.

Maybe even safe enough to allow Iran to have nukes.

jc

growler

bonkey wrote:

Yup. Iran is well positioned. Its the kinda strategic positioning that makes a nation powerful.

Hey...wouldn't it be great if there was another US-backed coup in there, and democracy got replaced by a US-friendly despotic leader. That would make everything safe again, cause all that power would be in the "right" hands.

Maybe even safe enough to allow Iran to have nukes.

jc

Not impossible and no doubt the preferred solution for the West, and for many in Iran.

I agree with you that I am being entirely selfish in my views. I wouldn't trust Iran with nukes because it is led by God botherers who (although you seem assured of their instinct for self preservation) have publicly declared themselves to have legions of volunteer suicide bombers. I don't want Iran to be able to hold western economies to ransom because they could disrupt the oil trade because that would very negatively impact on my life (and many others in Europe and the West). I don't actually have a problem with the US being the only interventionist superpower because I, "broadly speaking" , agree with their aims (though not always their methods). I don't want to see further nuclear proliferation, and I certainly don't want to see it profilerate in the middle east given the present trend towards a popular shift in ideologies towards fundamentalism.

You argue that nuclear weaponry is a threat only and no one will use it in the knowledge that it will invite their destruction, but I say why risk it at all ? The risk of someone starting a nuclear war if they don't have nukes is 0, the risk if they do is somewhat greater.

Iraq was unfortunate in that there was no WMD to justify the invasion, I can only hope that such military intervention will not happen again given the popular western dissatisfaction with what went on. The Iraqi precedent has done a lot of damage to the UN / Security council authority. If Iran comply with the UN then there should be no reason for them to be subject to military intervention.

Gurgle

growler wrote:

Iraq was unfortunate in that there was no WMD to justify the invasion,

Sorry, what?

As in the people of Iraq were unfortunate because Saddam had destroyed the WMD and could they could have done with them when they were invaded?

Or the US was unfortunate because they invaded a soverign nation under false pretences, against international law and against the UN and failed to find a justification afterwards?

growler

Gurgle wrote:

Sorry, what?

As in the people of Iraq were unfortunate because Saddam had destroyed the WMD and could they could have done with them when they were invaded?

Or the US was unfortunate because they invaded a soverign nation under false pretences, against international law and against the UN and failed to find a justification afterwards?

I don't understand your 1st sentence.

but

it was unfortunate in that it set a terrible precedent by the US and allies, it was unfortunate in that the invasion should never have happened, it was unfortunate in that it removed in the eyes of the ME and much of the west, any kind of perceived moral authority from the US in acting as a global policeman, it was unfortunate because had it not happened then the world might be more likely to support actions against Iran (or next nation tht may actually have wmd).

bonkey

growler wrote:

it was unfortunate because had it not happened then the world might be more likely to support actions against Iran (or next nation tht may actually have wmd).

If I understand what you're saying correctly, its unfortunate that the world has been alerted to the tactic of invading someone who doesn't have nuclear WMDs as now there would be more objections if it was used against Iran????

Is there (credible) proof that Iran even has an active nuclear weapons program? Or are we really looking at another "trust us...they do".

growler

bonkey wrote:

If I understand what you're saying correctly, its unfortunate that the world has been alerted to the tactic of invading someone who doesn't have nuclear WMDs as now there would be more objections if it was used against Iran????

Is there (credible) proof that Iran even has an active nuclear weapons program? Or are we really looking at another "trust us...they do".

There is no proof that Iran is currently seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. My point was that if they were to, given the intelligence failings in the Iraqi situation, the world (as in western public) would be more skeptical and less likely to support military intervention to stop it. Such reluctance, understanable in light of the mess made of Iraq, gives the initiative to those wishing to develop WMD. The "intelligence" leading to the iraqi invasion was obviously false, or manipulated by parties to pursue an anti saddam agenda. Admittedly the US may ignore the mistakes made in Iraq anyway and accept less than 100% proof as sufficient evidence for military intervention.

Hobbes

growler wrote:

There is no proof that Iran is currently seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Latest reported intel puts Iran at creating a Nuclear weapon that would be a threat in 10 years time.

bonkey

growler wrote:

My point was that if they were to, given the intelligence failings in the Iraqi situation, the world (as in western public) would be more skeptical and less likely to support military intervention to stop it.

Ok. That much I get.

I just don't get how from this one can conclude that the right thing to do is then to start trying to stop them from doing something we don't even know that they are doing.

Surely instead the US et al should be building credibility back up by making sure the next time it goes after someone it can offer slam-dunk non-mushroom-cloud-smoking-gun proof that there's a dangerous weapons program about.

I really don't get the "we made a mistake, so this time where we don't even have a mistaken belief to back us up we should make sure". What are they gonna say? We know you've no WMDs, don't think you've a program, so we're gonna invade to make sure?

Seriously...sending such a message is reinforcing the notion that if you have nukes you're safe but of you don't then you're fair game....even if you're not researching them!

growler

Hobbes wrote:

Latest reported intel puts Iran at creating a Nuclear weapon that would be a threat in 10 years time.

not that they're likley to be allowed get to that point.

growler

growler wrote:

I don't understand your 1st sentence.

but

it was unfortunate in that it set a terrible precedent by the US and allies, it was unfortunate in that the invasion should never have happened, it was unfortunate in that it removed in the eyes of the ME and much of the west, any kind of perceived moral authority from the US in acting as a global policeman, it was unfortunate because had it not happened then the world might be more likely to support actions against Iran (or next nation tht may actually have wmd).

I just don't get this kind of logic. The US lead invasion of Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraq had indeed had WMD's. Why? What justification is that? In what way had Iraq presented itself as a threat to Western or even eastern countries in the last 20 years? There was none. With the exception of the attack on Kuwait which the US intervened on (which i still don't understand why), Iraq hadn't created an armed conflict with anyone (unless you include Iran previously). [India/Pakhistan had a nice little conflict going on for decades, and yet neither side was decided to be a threat to the world. Why? They have very strong religious beliefs]

So where does this certain knowledge that if Saddam had WMD's he would have used them? As said earlier, a number of eastern nations have chemical/biological weapon knowledge, and yet that hasn't been used to near its potential.

And then we get back to Iran. All religious aspects aside. Where is the practical evidence that has generated the distrust in Iran?

Could they be Media generated or released by the US government? Its not as if either have been very forthcoming with actual evidence of threats. Have we seen more evidence like was presented before the invasion of Iraq, or have the US government learnt its lesson and resorted to rumormongering, which seems alot more effective............ :rolleyes:

growler

Deleted User wrote:

I just don't get this kind of logic. The US lead invasion of Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraq had indeed had WMD's. Why? What justification is that? In what way had Iraq presented itself as a threat to Western or even eastern countries in the last 20 years? There was none. With the exception of the attack on Kuwait which the US intervened on (which i still don't understand why), Iraq hadn't created an armed conflict with anyone (unless you include Iran previously). . :rolleyes:

think you've answered your own question there.

So in your eyes its perfectly acceptable to invade another nation simply because they were at war sometime in the last 20 years? Sure, in that case, the majority of Africa, S. America, and a fair number of other nations should have been pacified, sorry, I mean brought the joys of freedom and democracy, by US means.

Just wondering though... How does Iran fit in, since it hasn't been started any wars in the last 20+ years..? Where does the automatic disqualification of any trust come into it?

The only distrust I can come up with is ...lets say..... they have threatend to wipe Israel off the map and they have supplied the insurgents in Iraq with arms and money. If you look at it that way the U.S. are entitled to have some mistrust of Iran and their current regime.

InFront

Deleted User wrote:

The only distrust I can come up with is ...lets say..... they have threatend to wipe Israel off the map and they have supplied the insurgents in Iraq with arms and money.

Are you going to back that up?

Yeah no problems, in October 2005 Britain accused Iran of supplying IED's to Insurgents. They used a certain infra red beam and shaped charges which was of Iranian origin.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001733.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1585931,00.html

From the governments side
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4841532.stm

This one is about captured cache's smuggled in from Iran by the Revolutionary corps.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1433933.htm

So, there is more then enough evidence to indicate that Iran is involved.

InFront

From your references:

An Iranian government spokesman rejected the British accusations and said it was opposed to the insurgency in Iraq

No, these do not prove what you said, which is

(a) that Iranian authorities has been providing Iraqi insurgents with money and arms

(b) that Iranian authorities threatened to blow Israel 'off the map'

Your statements are still rubbish and unfounded

growler

Deleted User wrote:

So in your eyes its perfectly acceptable to invade another nation simply because they were at war sometime in the last 20 years? Sure, in that case, the majority of Africa, S. America, and a fair number of other nations should have been pacified, sorry, I mean brought the joys of freedom and democracy, by US means.

I don't think that a warlike history is a necessary qualification for military action no, if Iraq had WMD then the invasion was justifiable as they were an obvious threat to their neighbours and potentially to the wider world should they delevop the delivery mechanisms needed. If any unstable African regime were to develop nuclear weaponry I would hope that the UN would sanction military action to prevent them using it.

Deleted User wrote:

Just wondering though... How does Iran fit in, since it hasn't been started any wars in the last 20+ years..? Where does the automatic disqualification of any trust come into it?

Notice I never said you had to have a warlike history to be up for invasion. The lack of trust stems from their recent sabre rattling, undemocratic government, aggressive rhetoric re suicide attacks on the west , threats to wipe Israel off the map, and the fact that their acquisition of such weapons would lead to a localised ME weapons race.

InFront

growler wrote:

undemocratic government, aggressive rhetoric re suicide attacks on the west , threats to wipe Israel off the map, and the fact that their acquisition of such weapons would lead to a localised ME weapons race.

Im not deliberately choosing to reject your opinions (we seem to have a wide range oif contrasting opinions) but can I just ask you where your information is coming from on the above items? Im not a big fan of Iran or anything, but I think your claims are exaggerated as they are not as concrete as you seem to suggest.

1.If you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that neither is the British monarchy is a democracy. The Iranian President, as much as he is a racist and a holocaust denier, was elected by the people. Granted this doesnt make his country democratic, but do you mistrust Blair for the same principle?

2.His alleged threat to wipe israel off the map seems to be a stupid mistranslation, or hype,

and 3. to say that acquisition of nuclear energy would lead to an arms race in the middle east is not "FACT"

growler

growler wrote:

I don't think that a warlike history is a necessary qualification for military action no, if Iraq had WMD then the invasion was justifiable as they were an obvious threat to their neighbours and potentially to the wider world should they delevop the delivery mechanisms needed. If any unstable African regime were to develop nuclear weaponry I would hope that the UN would sanction military action to prevent them using it.

They were an obvious threat to their neighbours? What suggests that? Massive redeployment of troops to their borders, missiles aimed at their neighbours borders, military bases being set up in countries allied against their neighbours? I hadn't seen any trouble or any indications of an intent to cause to trouble with any of their neighbours. Saddam was too intent on keeping his income to enjoy his life.

The UN didn't sanction the invasion of Iraq until after the fact. There seems to be a tendacy to forget the steps leading up to the invasion. We all saw the weapon inspectors going in, the delays, the avoidance by Saddams administration, etc. However, it wasn't the UN that invaded Iraq. It was a Coalition lead by the US and Britain.

Notice I never said you had to have a warlike history to be up for invasion. The lack of trust stems from their recent sabre rattling, undemocratic government, aggressive rhetoric re suicide attacks on the west , threats to wipe Israel off the map, and the fact that their acquisition of such weapons would lead to a localised ME weapons race.

No. You've indicated that you believe that certain nations aren't trustworthy enough to have access to WMD's. I'm trying to figure out how you've determined who's trustworthy and who's not.

Funny. Just as a comparison to the US. They've been involved with numerous wars within the last 30 years. They've provided alot of sabre-rattling through Bush's speaches against the Axis of Evil, and a number of other nations. Aggressive troop movements, and an actual invasion on one of the members of the Axis of Evil. Threats against N.Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. And they consistently research, develop, produce and put into use new weapons of destruction.

So do you believe the US should be forced to cease having any access to WMD's or the technology?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

The only distrust I can come up with is ...lets say..... they have threatend to wipe Israel off the map and they have supplied the insurgents in Iraq with arms and money. If you look at it that way the U.S. are entitled to have some mistrust of Iran and their current regime.

However the US has coined the term the Axis of Evil, which includes more than one country, and invaded one of them, with pressure being brought to bear on another member. How many insurgency groups has the US financed or trained in the last 30 years? Surely Iran is entitled to alot of distrust of Western influence, especially since its led by the US in this matter...... I wonder do you feel the same level of distrust about the US?

Gurgle

I still don't understand who is at risk from Iran having nukes, if they do build them.

'Israel', everyone shouts.

Iran does not call for the destruction of Israel. Iran objects to the creation of Israel in the middle east, by displacing millions of Arabs, and the subsequent decades of oppression of those people.

As they point out over and over again, the Jews were not victimised by the Arabs, but by the Europeans. If they were to be 'given' a homeland, to prevent any future holocost, it should have been in europe.

I pretty much agree with that sentiment.

Germany was divided into 2 parts after WW2, why not 3 parts with one of them being New Israel?

Anyhow, so who else is Iran going to attack?

From the CIA World Factbook:

Disputes - international:
Iran protests Afghanistan's limiting flow of dammed tributaries to the Helmand River in periods of drought; Iraq's lack of a maritime boundary with Iran prompts jurisdiction disputes beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab in the Persian Gulf; Iran and UAE dispute Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island, which are occupied by Iran; Iran stands alone among littoral states in insisting upon a division of the Caspian Sea into five equal sectors

Can't see anyone getting nuked on those issues.

growler

Deleted User wrote:

They were an obvious threat to their neighbours? What suggests that? Massive redeployment of troops to their borders, missiles aimed at their neighbours borders, military bases being set up in countries allied against their neighbours? I hadn't seen any trouble or any indications of an intent to cause to trouble with any of their neighbours.

the invasion of kuwait, the iran war.

No. You've indicated that you believe that certain nations aren't trustworthy enough to have access to WMD's. I'm trying to figure out how you've determined who's trustworthy and who's not..

In the interests of non proliferation I don't think any more nations should be allowed to develop nukes, if they were I would rather those nations were stable democracies than unstable, undemocratic, **god** fearing, theocracies.

And they consistently research, develop, produce and put into use new weapons of destruction.

Most countries develop weapons for destruction. Whats your point?

So do you believe the US should be forced to cease having any access to WMD's or the technology?

Who do you think would be in a position to force the US to do such a thing? Even if it were possible, I'd answer no, as I've stated before..broadly speaking I agree with the US ideals I may not agree with all their actions, but in the current geo-political situation they are the only power capable of policing the planet.

InFront

InFront wrote:

From your references:


No, these do not prove what you said, which is

(a) that Iranian authorities has been providing Iraqi insurgents with money and arms

(b) that Iranian authorities threatened to blow Israel 'off the map'

Your statements are still rubbish and unfounded

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did call for Israel to be wiped off the map.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm

Oh come on, of course Iran are going to deny that they werent involved in supplying arms to the insurgents. The evidence is completely against their statements. How do you explain the captured weapons cache's arriving from Iran or Iranian technology being used in IED's?

Also, I would be nervous of a country whi in the past has funded and armed a terrorist organisation by the name of Hezbollah.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

'Israel', everyone shouts.

Iran does not call for the destruction of Israel. Iran objects to the creation of Israel in the middle east, by displacing millions of Arabs, and the subsequent decades of oppression of those people.

As they point out over and over again, the Jews were not victimised by the Arabs, but by the Europeans. If they were to be 'given' a homeland, to prevent any future holocost, it should have been in europe.

I pretty much agree with that sentiment.

Germany was divided into 2 parts after WW2, why not 3 parts with one of them being New Israel?

Anyhow, so who else is Iran going to attack?
Can't see anyone getting nuked on those issues.

What are you talking about? The Jewish homeland (Israel) was always historically in the middle east. So are you telling me that the should just set up their home in a chunk of eastern Germany? That would go against their Religion.
As for Iran as I have already said, they have backed the militant organisation Hezbollah. Hezbollah has caused many deaths in Israel. There is no love lost between them.