The whole Iran nuclear debate

[Murf]

Insane leaders don't really give a damn about these things, if letting masses of their people die means they can one-up the west, then so be it.

It means that they also die. They might not care for their people, but they'll still be pretty damn keen on self preservation.

You never see any of these leaders strapping the suicide bombs to themselves do you?

 

[[TW]Fox]

No one seems to have addressed the OP's question of whether it is right or acceptable (in our attempts to restrict Iran from having nuclear weapon technology) in state sponsored murder of scientists...as this case is not the first. They would have had wives, children just like normal.

I'm sure there would be moral outrage if our top scientists were getting bumped off. The same way there is always moral outrage when the 'bad guys' do the same things we do.

No, it is not acceptable and undermines our position.

However I don't think its the Americans. It's too crude and obvious.

 

[Robbo]

It means that they also die. They might not care for their people, but they'll still be pretty damn keen on self preservation.

You never see any of these leaders strapping the suicide bombs to themselves do you?

Whether you're right or wrong, it's too much of a risk to take. A WMD attack on a major city would be catastrophic beyond all comprehension.

 

[Johno please?]

I think I post this everytime Iran and Nukes gets mentioned.....

1) International law and the stewardship of the United Nations will have been irretrievably ruined. The mullahs will have broken every solemn undertaking that they ever gave: to the International Atomic Energy Agency; to the European Union, which has been their main negotiating interlocutor up until now; and to the United Nations. (Tehran specifically rejects the right of the U.N. Security Council to have any say in this question.) Those who usually fetishize the role of the United Nations and of the international nuclear inspectors have a special responsibility to notice this appalling outcome.

2) The "Revolutionary Guards," who last year shot and raped their way to near-absolute power in Iran, are also the guardians of the underground weapons program. A successful consummation of that program would be an immeasurable enhancement of the most aggressive faction of the current dictatorship.

3) The power of the guards to project violence outside Iran's borders would likewise be increased. Any Hezbollah subversion of Lebanese democracy or missile attack on Israel; any Iranian collusion with the Taliban or with nihilist forces in Iraq would be harder to counter in that it would involve a confrontation with a nuclear godfather.

4) The same powerful strategic ambiguity would apply in the case of any Iranian move on a neighboring Sunni Arab Gulf state, such as Bahrain. The more extreme of Iran's theocratic newspapers already gloat at such a prospect, which is why so many Arab regimes hope—sometimes publicly—that this "existential" threat to them also be removed.

5) There will never be a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute, because the rejectionist Palestinians will be even more a proxy of a regime that calls for Israel's elimination, and the rejectionist Jews will be vindicated in their belief that concessions are a waste of time, if not worse.

6) The concept of "nonproliferation," so dear to the heart of the right-thinking, will go straight into the history books along with the League of Nations.

pretty good reasons no?

Also the chances of any terrorist acquiring any kind of nuclear material is slim and even slimmer is the chance that they'll be able to use it to any effect, people have been watching too many films.

 

[elmarko]

Whether you're right or wrong, it's too much of a risk to take. A WMD attack on a major city would be catastrophic beyond all comprehension.

Do you not think Americans foreign policy will be the cause of the very thing they are trying to avoid.

Country A will not nuke country B without a reason.

Would it not make more sense to attempt to de-radicalise them - bring them into the international community.

We can't stop them getting weapons forever & I for one would prefer them to be on better terms with the west when they do.

 

[Freakbro]

However I don't think its the Americans. It's too crude and obvious.

I wasn't pointing a finger at who specifically carried out this event, other than 'the west'

But crude and obvious are 2 adjectives which I would generally use to define America, so I wouldn't use that as a reason to discount them

 

[[TW]Fox]

I wasn't pointing a finger at who specifically carried out this event, other than 'the west'

But crude and obvious are 2 adjectives which I would generally use to define America, so I wouldn't use that as a reason to discount them

I think you underestimate the internal power struggle within Iran. I wouldn't say just out of the question that it was a faction within Iran. They were hardly high ranking officials....

Anti western sentiment is good for business politics wise.

 

[Freakbro]

I wouldn't say just out of the question that it was a faction within Iran. They were hardly high ranking officials....

Anything is possible, like it is possible the US knocked down their own towers. But it's far more likely the Saudi's did the towers and the West (Inc Israel) did these assassinations.

Anti western sentiment is good for business politics wise.

As is anti-Iranian sentiment.

 

[elmarko]

Anything is possible, like it is possible the US knocked down their own towers. But it's far more likely the Saudi's did the towers and the West (Inc Israel) did these assassinations.

As is anti-Iranian sentiment.

That's where I'd put my money.

 

[Xiler]

Insane leaders don't really give a damn about these things, if letting masses of their people die means they can one-up the west, then so be it.

Nothing from Irans history suggests they would attack anyone, they havent started any wars or attacks in nearly 100 years. Yet we and our allies have imposed sanctions, attacked their country, overthrown their governments and financed Iraq to attack them.

Would you really want to allow people who have done this to your country in with open arms?

edit: As for Iran having the right to produce a nuclear weapon, yes they do. Is it dangerous? yes. Should it be discouraged? yes. Should we try and talk with them even though they are difficult? yes. Should we go to war with the for it? no.

 

[ilcp]

The problem is almost everyone with nuclear weapons has them purely as a deterrent, and wouldn't be stupid enough to use them, hence the equilibrium. Iran is run as a police state by a complete crackpot with a very aggressive anti-West agenda.

MOTWYW.

so that is why we stopped NORTH KOREA from getting them? or Pakistan and look at the antics of israel it hasnt declared his weapons, doesnt let anyone in to inspect its weapons i.e. UN or whoever but no one bats an eyelid?

Why is it so wrong for IRAN to have weapons but not US when they were the only nation to use them.

 

[[TW]Fox]

edit: As for Iran having the right to produce a nuclear weapon, yes they do.

Actually they don't - legally speaking - as they are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Is it dangerous? yes. Should it be discouraged? yes. Should we try and talk with them even though they are difficult? yes. Should we go to war with the for it? no.

The idea behind sanctions is to AVOID going to war with Iran. Nobody wants to go to war with Iran. The Iranian government are only too happy for the people to beleive this isnt the case though - easy to forget internal issues when you are perceived to be facing a much greater threat..

 

[Xiler]

North Korea and even Pakistan aren't known to support terrorist organisations. There's plenty of evidence to suggest Iran on the other hand have supported terrorist groups and even insurgents in Iraq with arms.

Pakistan is known for playing on both sides terror and anti-terror. They are one of the worst if not the worst place for terrorist activity.

The only reason they allow the US to bomb and attack terrorism in their country is because the US pay the government billions to do so. What good has that done to them? They are on the verge of a civil war because their government keeps taking US money and innocent civilians die in the process.

 

[Paul11]

if there was a choice of bombs being dropped on nuclear facilities to try to stop iran developing nuclear bombs, which would kill many 100's of people or strategically taking out a few scientists, i know which i would choose

 

[bsoltan]

I guess I shouldnt be suprised that yet another OcUK conspiracy theory thread is filled with blatant misinformation but this one rather takes the biscuit given its fundamental to the whole issue!

Iran *are* a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!

Yes indeed. Although they were found in non-compliance of the safeguards. (according to wikipedia).

However India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are not members of the NPT. They definately have nuclear weapons and of course are all completely stable countries and governments...

 

[[TW]Fox]

if there was a choice of bombs being dropped on nuclear facilities to try to stop iran developing nuclear bombs, which would kill many 100's of people or strategically taking out a few scientists, i know which i would choose

They were not even high ranking, influential scientists. Ask yourself why, if the USA really wanted to engage in this sort of thing, they would pick these particular scientists and carry out the killing in such a crude, obvious manner?

Who benefits the most from the high profile seemingly unprovoked death of random scientists of no real consequence to the nucleaer program? I don't think the answer is 'The United States'.

 

[[TW]Fox]

However India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are not members of the NPT. They definately have nuclear weapons and of course are all completely stable countries and governments...

If you think the world is happy about the idea that NK has Nuclear Weapons you are very much mistaken. Similar, if not harsher, sanctions apply to NK as to Iran. Sure, nobody is invading NK but then neither are they invading Iran.

I'd imagine that privately the USA would really rather Pakistan didnt have nuclear weapons either but it's a bit late for that now.

 

[bsoltan]

My (all be it vague) point was that no one makes a thread every few weeks about any of these countries and their weapons and what they'd do with them compared to Iran.

As you've said in the thread. The Iranian Government like to blame the west. It keeps (most of) the population in their hands by constantly showing how bad America/Israel and "The West" are.

There hasn't actually been any proof of who killed the guy, and lets be honest Iran aren't going to let an independant investigation take place, and nor is anyone going to believe what they say about it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

My (all be it vague) point was that no one makes a thread every few weeks about any of these countries and their weapons and what they'd do with them compared to Iran.

Because Iran is in the news, therefore its discussed. There have in the past been threads about NK. The problem is that once a state has developed Nuclear Weapons, it is too late to do anything about it. Iran are the only State currently allegedly in the development stage, therefore its only natural the attention is focused on them.

As you've said in the thread. The Iranian Government like to blame the west. It keeps (most of) the population in their hands by constantly showing how bad America/Israel and "The West" are.

There hasn't actually been any proof of who killed the guy, and lets be honest Iran aren't going to let an independant investigation take place, and nor is anyone going to believe what they say about it.

Quite. So irrespective of who really did it, the end result is that it makes Iran look good and the West look bad, both amongst Iranians and outside observers. How very useful..