Iran and the right to defend themselves

wes wrote: »

Wow, just wow. You post that article that complete shows you to be wrong, and still state that some how you are right? Read your own article. There is no nuclear program, it was gotten rid of in 2003.

From reading that article, that doesn't appear to be correct.

There is a nuclear weapons program, but it is frozen.
A frozen nuclear weapons program does not equal no nuclear weapons program.

North Korea also froze their missile and nuclear programs before reopening them.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove it existence. Your own link show it doesn't exist any more. So when you state there is no doubt, that statement is simple factually incorrect.

Was it not shown at some stage in 2009 that Iran had a secret nuclear facility which they had been hiding in an underground facility?

I agree this doesn't necessarily mean they have a nuclear weapons program in progress right now, but why hide your nuclear facilities?
Why not do it above board?
It doesn't imbue one with confidence.

I don't know enough about the issue to comment further unfortunately.

Just because the US says something, does not make it true.
WMD in Iraq anyone?
They continually make allegations about Iran but produce zero evidence.

anymore wrote: »

What is it you dont understand about a programme being in suspension or operatingat a reduced level ? And what is it you dont understand about intelligence briefings that are three and a half years old ? That in intelligence terms is history !

The program was frozen. How can a frozen program produce a weapon exactly? You have made claims you can't back up plain and simple. Show me an active Iranian weapons program and get back to me. Also, regarding the intelligence, yes it is 3 years old, but the more recent national security estimates haven't made any claims about a active weapons program.

anymore wrote: »

Here is part of a statement from Defence Secretary Robert Gates in advance of this weeks nuclear summit in Washington.
."We're doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons," Gates said, adding that there probably would be another Security Council resolution with tougher sanctions on Iran.
He called such a resolution important on its own and as a legal platform for others to take their own steps.
"At the end of the day, Iran has to decide that not having nuclear weapons is a better defense strategy than having them," Gates said.

So? The US has made WMD claims before with no proof. This is no different.

anymore wrote: »

Why are the major nations including Russia and China discussing possible sanctions on Iran to persuade it not continue withs nuclear arms ambitions ?

Both those countries have made sure those sanctions have been heavily watered down. They aren't as concered as you claim them to be.

anymore wrote: »

A report from the Hindu Times on the subject:
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article394772.ece

Iran is “not yet... nuclear capable,” admitted Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence, in a media interview released on Monday. Speaking during a pre-recorded interview on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that Iran’s present position was as dangerous as it being a nuclear state given the ambiguities of differentiating between the degree to which nuclear weapons development was achieved in that country.
Alluding that it may not be clear exactly how far Iran has gone with its alleged nuclear weapons programme, he said, “If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? So it becomes a serious verification question, and I do not actually know how you would verify that,” he argued.
During the interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton however avoided a direct question on whether Iran was nuclear capable or not. In response she said, “That's an issue upon which intelligence services still differ. But our goal is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.”

Again no evidence of a active weapons program.

anymore wrote: »

For your benefit, I have underlined the sections which I am sure you will want to focus most upon.
To be of further assistance the terms of interest are " alleged" and " intelligence services still differ".

Great, so no evidence of active program again.

anymore wrote: »

The final three paragraphs from the Hindu Times article are:
From the comments of Mr. Gates and Ms. Clinton it would appear that the Obama administration is convinced that a key goal for the U.S. is to halt any progress in Iran’s nuclear weapons development plans. Mr. Gates argued that the U.S. would probably… get another UN Security Council resolution passed. This would also serve as a legal platform for organizations like the European Union and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against Iran.
Ms. Clinton explicitly favoured the turning the tide of diplomatic pressure against Iran through the UN Security Council. She said, a Security Council resolution would send a “really powerful message”, and Iran has been “beating down the doors of every country in the world “ to try to avoid a Security Council resolution.
However, she said, due to the U.S.’s strategic patience and willingness to keep on this issue, other countries were realising that Iran had failed to cooperate and were in fact responsible for shutting the door.

Again, no evidence of a active program. Please get back to me when you have some. Otherwise, its the typical US nonsense, they have no proof of anything as per usual. We all remember Iraq, and the crap they pulled. They will need a ton of evidence to convince people. So, the best you can provide is a interview, were they claim there is a difference of opinion from there own intelligence agencies, which is not the same as proof of a active program, and considering the US reputation in regard to WMD, I will need a lot more than a difference of opinion between agencies, as proof of a program. In fact if the US didn't have the rep it had in this regard, I would still see a difference of opinion as of very little value in proving the existence of an active WMD program, which the US has yet to prove.

anymore wrote: »

As to Iran's ambitions for Israel, watch the vid below where it is confirmed once again that Iran's intention is to wipe Israel off the map.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_veD-nosxso&feature=related

You never confirmed anything to begin with. Again, wanting regime change is no worse than what the US does all the time. All the stuff you have posted, has confirmed he wants rid of the regime. Also, the President of Iran can't launch a war, only the Supereme Leader can, and he certainly doesn't represent all aspects of the Iranian regime either. So, what he says carries no weight, seeing as he can't implement anything.

anymore wrote: »

Wonderful, truly wonderful !:D:D
You produce old US intelligence reports in support of your claims and now you are ridiculing US intelligence as being unreliable ! Wes it is not my birthday; stop giving me gifts like that - you are supposed to be arguing against me and not assisting me !

Again, show me some proof, any of a active Iranian nuclear weapons program. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove is existence. So get back to me when you have some.

Also, I never ridiculed US intelligence at all, just stating that I would need to see a lot more evidence than what you provided, which was actually no evidence. You really need to stop the straw man argument at this point.

Again, I am sure US inteligence is more than capable of find an Iranian weapons program, but US politicans are more than willing to lie about the evidence they have, or exagerate it. There is a huge difference between government mouth pieces say was found, and what there agencies actually find, as we saw with Iraq war.

So, once again, where is the evidence of active Iranian nuclear weapons program. Still waiting for it!

eoin5 wrote: »

When I hear most people on the Iranian nuclear issue they seem to be thinking along the lines of a new North Korea. While they definitely arent internationally innocent, they have been messed with so much with operation Ajax and the 10 year war and whatnot that I'm not surprised that would want to become a nuclear power from just wanting to defend themselves.

The nuclear deproliferation treaty has only got gestures from the bigger countries, a promise here and a nuclear sub there. I dont like it but I can see why they would ignore it.

Why should they give in to international pressure?

Well, lets see. Hands up who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing... anybody? Anybody?

1) No? Well there's your answer. In my opinion, and the opinion of the vast majority of right thinking people, yet another nuclear nation with weapons of mass destruction would constitute a massive step backward, not forward for the prospects of peace in the Middle East or a nuclear free world. I can see no positive to ANY nation holding a nuclear joker card.

2) The defense argument you proffer however is just stupid. First of all, who exactly in this age of asymetric warfare do they require nuclear weapons to defend themselves from?
Their old enemy Iraq is a basket case and Israel won't be nuking anybody that isn't threatening to nuke or invade them.
Iran are in fact in the most powerful military and strategic position they've been in for decades, with the fewest credible enemies. They have no need of a nuclear deterrent, a desire for one sure, but no need.

3) Nukes make Iran more, not less, likely to suffer a military intervention. Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear arms has exponentially increased their risk of a military misadventure. Just look at where playing hide and seek with weapons inspectors landed Sadam Hussein. Are the mad mullah's prepared for that sort of a game of high stakes chicken? Or it's potential consequences?

4) Iran have never been shy about supporting terrorism and terrorist groups. They are a fascist regime. They are ruled by islamist ideologues with no care or consequence for their own people and.. well I could go on (and on), but the gist of what I'm saying is that they are exactly to kind of people that you don't want with their finger on the button.

Why is it that the only people to defend Iran's position seem to be ideological lefties and unreformed commies? Are they that eager to shiv 'the great satan' that they will crawl into bed with the same facists that, as soon as the Revolution was over, threw every left wing activist in Iran into prison as thanks for their help in ousting the Shah?
If the Islamic reveloution has any valuable lessons for the left to learn, surely it's that your enemy's, enemy is not your friend, they are merely your temporary ally that will stab you in the back at the first opportunity... probably leaving you nostalgic for your enemy

conorhal wrote: »

1) another nuclear nation with weapons of mass destruction would constitute a massive step backward, not forward for the prospects of peace in the Middle East or a nuclear free world. I can see no positive to ANY nation holding a nuclear joker card.

The nuclear deterrant has worked well for those countries that have them.
Therefore, others will so aspire. You can't really blame them.
Tell you what, you get those countries currently stockpiling that particular brand of WMD to rid of their own, and we can use that reality as an actual dis-incentive. You know, instead of just using threats and economic isolation.

2) The defense argument you proffer however is just stupid. First of all, who exactly in this age of asymetric warfare do they require nuclear weapons to defend themselves from? Iran are in fact in the most powerful military and strategic position they've been in for decades, with the fewest credible enemies.

Well that's an easy one to answer.
Those countries in the gunsights of a war-mongering USA that's who.
Duh!
USA is a credible threat to Iran, so too Israel.

3) Nukes make Iran more, not less, likely to suffer a military intervention. Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear arms has exponentially increased their risk of a military misadventure.

It's worked well for N.Korea and Pakistan you'd have to admit.

4) Iran have never been shy about supporting terrorism and terrorist groups..

Redherring. One man's terrorist is another ones Freedom Fighter. You making a self-serving and ultimately meaningless statement.
Nevertheless it has nothing to do with nuclear arms.

Highly Salami wrote: »

True, Ayatollah Khameni is the true force behind Iran's push for nuclear weapons.

Hasn't he issued a Fatwa against the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons?

He also stated in Febuary that:

"Iran will not get emotional in its response to these nonsensical statements, because we have often said that our religious tenets and beliefs consider these kinds of weapons of mass destruction to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haram (religiously banned)"

"This is why we do not believe in atomic bombs and weapons and do not seek them."

Not saying it means much, just saying.

anymore wrote: »

It hasnt worked so well for the hundreds of pakistani men, women and children who have been blown to bits by British and US incursions into pakistan on the guise of necessary intervention to prevent terrorists getting access to Pakistan's nukes.

The US is running there drone attacks from Pakistani military bases. There are actually no incursions, seeing as the drone attacks originate from Pakistan itself:

Google Earth reveals secret history of US base in Pakistan

For the US to operate in such a fashion, from within Pakistan, they clearly have permission from the government. Still doesn't make the drone strike right or anything, but the Pakistani government is very much allowing them to take place, all the while condemning them in public.

anymore wrote: »

Does it make the dead any less dead ? Does it make the point I was making any less relevant if the attacking cratft took off from insde Pakistan rather than elsewhere ?
And what does ' clearly' mean.

I assume, you were arguing that Pakistani Nuclear Weapons were no defence from the US.

I said as the Pakistani government are allowing the drone attacks, so your example doesn't really work. Hell, I am sure the Pakistani government are getting plenty of aid in exchange.

Now, I assume your talking about the Pakistani government, as the people the drones kill don't have a nuclear arsenal, and as such what your saying wouldn't make any sense, as there is no nuclear detterent involved.

BluePlanet wrote: »

The nuclear deterrant has worked well for those countries that have them.
Therefore, others will so aspire. You can't really blame them.
Tell you what, you get those countries currently stockpiling that particular brand of WMD to rid of their own, and we can use that reality as an actual dis-incentive. You know, instead of just using threats and economic isolation. It's worked well for N.Korea and Pakistan you'd have to admit.

Nonsense. How well has it worked out for the USSR (who?) and North Korea? An expensive arms race, political isolation, sanctions are just the least of it. The people that suffer the most of course are those that have to live in these places, under fascist dictatorships that are secure in the knowledge that nobody will challenge them. What you get instead are proxy wars in places like Afghanistan where everybody else gets to suffer for the folly of of a few.
And yes, I can blame them, as I stated, we need less not more nuclear weapons in the world. Thanks Iran for further destabilizing the Middle East, I can blame them a lot actually. As for Pakistan, lets just see how things play out with India before we decide how well that has worked out with them...
And perhaps you missed the nuclear disarmament talks this week? There are 75% fewer nukes in the world then there were at the hight of the cold war, so things are moving in the right direction.

Well that's an easy one to answer.
Those countries in the gunsights of a war-mongering USA that's who.
Duh!
USA is a credible threat to Iran, so too Israel.

More nonsense. Iran are putting themselves in the firing line.
It's a chicken and egg scenario, a paranoid fascist dictatorship wants’ to feel secure, wants to feel like a 'big boy' at the 'big table' and so like any schoolyard bully that thinks they can command respect through force, they pursue a course of action that merely invites a 'big stick wielding short tempered bully' like the U.S. to make their bloated self important and paranoid delusions a self fulfilling prophesy (see Sadam Hussein). If they could manage mind their own business and stop rattling the saber at everybody that calls them an ass they would be safe as houses (the same goes for the U.S. BTW).
What Iran's leaders really want is an external threat that they can use to justify their vice like grip on their populace and a distraction from their domestic failures.

Redherring. One man's terrorist is another ones Freedom Fighter. You making a self-serving and ultimately meaningless statement.
Nevertheless it has nothing to do with nuclear arms.

Your most nonsensical remark so far. How you can think that a nuclear state which supplies weapons to a variety of terrorist groups, like the Taliban or Hezbollah etc is a good idea, I jsut don't understand
How can you think an increasingly isolationist and irrational bunch of whack jobs SHOULD have nukes is a good thing is beyond rational explanation.
You must hold Mr. Charles J. Haughey former IRA gunrunner in high regard, perhaps we should have made supplying the IRA and ETA a state policy? Give them some of the really good stuff and see what might have happened!

As for your suggestion that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Explain the recent scouting and an attempted attack on an 'alleged' nuclear facility by a Pakistani based terrorist group, they don’t have to be given a nuke you know, they just need the odd sympathetic insider to provide access to one, and in a failed state, that is not an insubstantial risk.

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't think it was nuclear arms alone that bankrupted the USSR
How is Iran destabilizing the ME?
It's a weird concept you've got yourself there. Was pre-Saddam Iraq, Kuwaiti emirs, Saudi Royalty an example of this "stability" you talk about?
Or is it the post-Saddam Iraq with all the sectarian mass killings the "stability" your on about?
Please explain.
Yes i think after the Iranian Revolution they were exporters of their doctrines (islamic theoracy), but exporting doctrines is nothing new in the world and ulimately a rather localized issue. Afterall, with Sunni vs Shia their Islamic Revolution wasn't going to stretch too far from their borders.
What, India going to invade? Doubt it. Since both parties joined the nuclear club there's been a lot less military friction between the 2.

I believe I said further destabilizing the Middle East, but yeah, way to up the ante Iran, good job!

So basically you just don't like Iran or Iraq and they shouldn't have the same rights and aspirations the West does?

No I don't like them. Some aspirations they have, why don't the aspire to a corrupt financial system that will bankrupt them while they're at it? I'd rather they aspired to democratic elections or a western secular statehood if they want something to aspire to. And since when has a Nuclear weapon become a right, there are better ways to 'aspire' to maintan the security of your nation state.

Hezbollah stands in elections, they are democratically elected and infact, are currently building homes for people rendered homeless during Israel's last incursion. They are not a terrorist organisation insofar as I am concerned.
Other ME countries also do not consider them terrorists.
That's why i said - One man's terrorist is anothers Freedom Fighter.
Don't you get it? It's a really simple thing to understand.

Yeahhhh, the IRA (sorry, I mean Sinn Fein) stood in Westminster elections too, while there were blowing up small children with bin bombs in Warrington. Some 'freedom fighters'.

So let me sum up your position:

I support a morally bankrupt theocratic state that abuses it's own citizens.
I believe that any state that 'aspires' to weapons of mass destruction are entitled to do so.
I probably believe that America supplying weapons to fascists like the Contra's during the 80's was a bad thing, but Iran giving weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah is a good thing, because I'm a hypocrite.

Summary of your views:

conorhal wrote: »

I support a morally bankrupt Corpo-fascist states that abuse it's own citizens and wage war on other countries based on whims.
I believe that the only states that 'have the right' to possess weapons of mass destruction are Western ones.
I believe that I know what's best politically, including political structures of other counties and cultures in the world. I enjoy my materialist Americana and don't understand that capitalism requires someone else provide the exploited labour and resources.

That about sums it up huh?