Iran has the right to defend its country.

[UShadItComing]

Do read ANYTHING but the appeaser blogosphere??? The euroweenies negotiated with them for three years and had nothing to show for it - the president there said TODAY that nobody will stop their nuke program. You don't know what you're talking about.

please, the adults are talking.

 

[BigRob]

I've read your remarks to the others and I will just remind you that the US created the trouble in Iran to begin with by installing the Shah against the wishes of the people. But that's old history. The issue now is that the US can't do anything to stop Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons some time in the future and for that reason negotiations are what is needed. I don't see the US being successful in negotiations with Iran though because Iran knows it has now gained an opportunity to control it's own destiny.

I agree we need to negotiate, but only with Europe and China.

Nuclear weapons are traceable but nonetheless, the current situation calls for a policy of fairness in dealing with the Palestinians. I believe the US is moving to accepting that fact now as we speak. Israel of course is not amenable to a policy of fairness and so will need to be dragged kicking and screaming. Bush has caused a situation now where there is little choice on the fact that the Israeli/Palestinian issue is going to have to be remedied.

Tracing a detonated nuclear bomb is a lot more complicated than it sounds. There are many problems with this. Non-state actors can produce a variety of different bomb designs, there are a variety of sources for nuclear material, and the potential that the nuclear material comes from more than one source.

Added to that there is more than one type of nuclear bomb and how they are detonated. There are "gun-type" and "implosion" type devices for example. While hopefully it could be traced, it is never a certainty.

That's being very honest. Does Iran have a right to be capable of defending itself? Too bloody bad about the interests of the US. There are few choices now.

If your argue that Iran has this right, then you must also argue that Israel has the same right, and therefore any attack is justified, or any policy they further in regards to the Palestinians in fine because they are defending themselves.

Iran becoming nuclear armed is not desirable but in the Iranian's view it's necessary because they will not be held ransom to US aggression any longer. And they are determined and focused I believe. So much so that I believe they would become even more determined and focused on their goal if the US were to attack.

All in all, once oil runs out, Iran is out of luck since they continually fail to develop any other economic sectors.

 

[BigRob]

....its the stated aim of Iran to be the world leader of Islam!!?? that's why all the Arab States are worried about Iran and want them dealt with trouble is they can't do it themselves as its Moslem V Moslem which is a big NO.

I think that for all of Iran's claims, their main goal right now is regional hegemony and security.

Saudi Arabia in particular don't want Iran in the assendent as that threatens control of the Holy sites of Mecca and Medina. I reckon this is why Egypt and Saudi refrain from anti-Israeli rhetoric as they need Israel as the full back in the event Iran starts getting adventurous....

Egypt backed off the anti-Israel rhetoric mostly (I think) because Israel defeated them in a war and then the United States bought them off.

Saudi Arabia is rightly weary of Iran, I am not sure if it is because they want Israel to attack Iran so much as that would create a lot of destabilization in the already volitile oil market. Saudi Arabia is in the same boat as Iran, when gas prices get to high, more demand for alternatives comes up and they do not want to allow that.

You mentioned that in order for Iran to control the region they would need the support of the other Arab nations. Do you think they do? I mean, they dont see their Revolution as and "Iranian" revolution, they see it as an "Islamic" revolution. This was the appeal of Ayatollah Khomenini, it was Isalm that was the driving force, therefore they are not appealling to Arab Egyptians, Arab Libyans or Arab Palestinians per-se but to Arab Muslims in general and as Islam comes before state......

I think they do need support from at least some of the other ME countries. I think that if they did not at least feel that needed the support they would not bother to support proxies or continue the anti-Israeli rhetoric as much as they do.

I love the inconsistencies with their rhetoric and who they support. As you quite rightly say they support the Palestinian cause as well as Hamas and Hizbollah, but get this they also supported the Christian militia's in Azerbaijan against the Muslim Shi'i as well as refusing to support the Chechians (all for fear of antagonising the Russians I guess )

First thing I learned from my undergrad in my Middle East Politics is that if you try to predict who will support who based on religious lines you will come up with no answers and a lot of headaches lol.

The nuclear (energy) programme I think is their "defiant" bid for economic self-sufficiency. Again if you look at the Pillars of the Revolution this would be a logical conclusion to those stated aims as will as their desire to raise the level of Scientific Research and Development which they claim was once the reserve of the Islamic world and are trying to reclaim. The four core values or pillars of the revolution are Independent, Justice Religious Peity and Self-Sufficiency thus I guess they are building their nuclear programmes under that stated aim?

I am not sure they are building it for economic self-sufficiency. I think you can make the case, but I think the better pursuit of economic self-sufficiency would be if they used their oil revenue to start building up other sectors of their economy so they could survive without oil. As of yet, they have not really fully adopted this approach. But it is an interesting idea you put forth, I have not really considered that approach, but after all, I am a biased American . Interesting points though.

 

[UShadItComing]

I agree we need to negotiate, but only with Europe and China.

Too bad Rob.

Tracing a detonated nuclear bomb is a lot more complicated than it sounds. There are many problems with this. Non-state actors can produce a variety of different bomb designs, there are a variety of sources for nuclear material, and the potential that the nuclear material comes from more than one source.

Read my lips Rob, they're traceable. But it's not all that important anyway. If terrorists hit the Zionists with a nuke of Russian origin there's nobody who is going to strike back at Russia. This needs to be seem in it's proper perspective and I know you are capable of doing that. I'm not trying to argue with you on this issue as much as I'm trying to explore different scenarios.

Added to that there is more than one type of nuclear bomb and how they are detonated. There are "gun-type" and "implosion" type devices for example. While hopefully it could be traced, it is never a certainty.

The type of fuse is not part of this issue.

If your argue that Iran has this right, then you must also argue that Israel has the same right, and therefore any attack is justified, or any policy they further in regards to the Palestinians in fine because they are defending themselves.

Of course not and I'm surprised you would say that to me now after we have reached at least a little respect for each other. The Israelis have a right to defend themselves of course but that doesn't mean that any policy they further toward the Palestinians is justified. Good grief!

All in all, once oil runs out, Iran is out of luck since they continually fail to develop any other economic sectors.

What sparked that idea? In any case do you not acknowledge that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels?

Do you believe that the Israeli/Palestinian issue needs to be solved and if so then do you believe that it could solve a great deal of the problems in the ME? Barack's words today to Olmert and company weren't encouraging but I took them with a grain of salt. He has no choice to speak in those terms in order to bring the American people along with him in his bid for pres. But after he is elected I believe that he is smart enough to know that the way to save his country is to start to fix the Israel/Palestinian problem. Surely you can understand that it's not a difficult problem to fix if the US takes a different stance and deals in fairness. Not saying that the Zionist lobby wouldn't be able to defeat him but not saying they can overrule the wellbieng of the American people either.

Your thoughts?

 

[BigRob]

Too bad Rob.

Perhaps, but it is my opinion.

Read my lips Rob, they're traceable. But it's not all that important anyway. If terrorists hit the Zionists with a nuke of Russian origin there's nobody who is going to strike back at Russia. This needs to be seem in it's proper perspective and I know you are capable of doing that. I'm not trying to argue with you on this issue as much as I'm trying to explore different scenarios.

They are traceable, but its not as easy as it sounds. But yes, on to the other issue. You are correct to assume that no one will hit back Russia if it is a Russian nuke that would hit Israel, but that is problem with places like Iran going nuclear. Iran could produce a bomb with a Russian signature, Iranian signature, and a American signature, and then pass it off to Hezbollah who uses it on Israel. What then is the reaction to that?

Of course not and I'm surprised you would say that to me now after we have reached at least a little respect for each other. The Israelis have a right to defend themselves of course but that doesn't mean that any policy they further toward the Palestinians is justified. Good grief!

The Israeli interpretation of defense can mean attacking Iran to prevent them from going nuclear, or following their policies on the Palestinian issue to prevent suicide bombings etc...

It is all relative depending on what side you look at the issue of defense from.

What sparked that idea? In any case do you not acknowledge that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels?

Allegedly. And you cannot maintain an economy by exporting nuclear power like you can by exporting oil. They need to come up with other sectors of the economy to develop.

Do you believe that the Israeli/Palestinian issue needs to be solved and if so then do you believe that it could solve a great deal of the problems in the ME? Barack's words today to Olmert and company weren't encouraging but I took them with a grain of salt. He has no choice to speak in those terms in order to bring the American people along with him in his bid for pres. But after he is elected I believe that he is smart enough to know that the way to save his country is to start to fix the Israel/Palestinian problem. Surely you can understand that it's not a difficult problem to fix if the US takes a different stance and deals in fairness. Not saying that the Zionist lobby wouldn't be able to defeat him but not saying they can overrule the wellbieng of the American people either.

Your thoughts?

I can tell you if I knew how to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I would get a raise.

I think part of the problem does lie with the US however. Take Israel for example. There are many groups within Israel, moderates, hardliners etc. Really for the moderates to get anything meaningful done they have to rely on the pressure of the US to silence the hardliners. It did not help the situation when GWB backed off from the situation basically altogether.

Given that, there are elements in both Israel and among the Palestinians that do not want peace. When peace talks seem to be going somewhere they always come in and ruin it. Further, there are power struggles among the Palestinians now as well. Between Gaza and the West Bank you basically have two ruling parties with Fatah and the Hamas. These two groups are exactly great friends either, further complicating the problem.

 

[Libsmasher]

please, the adults are talking.

But so are you.

I've read your remarks to the others and I will just remind you that the US created the trouble in Iran to begin with by installing the Shah against the wishes of the people. But that's old history.

The above cartoonish take on history is an example of why you aren't worth debating.

 

[UShadItComing]

libs please!

 

[The Scotsman]

And as Robert Baer says, what's wrong with Iran having a nuclear weapon? It's not going to ever use nuclear weapons as a first strike against anybody.

Sorry to come back to this but you made a very bold assertion indeed you seem adamant that if Iran had a nuclear weapon that "its not going to ever use" a nuclear weapon in a first strike attack configuration. What is your reasoning behind this? As I said earlier and am sure I'm wrong but ...what the hell! I don't think Iran is currently and actively building a nuclear weapon but if they had one and the circumstances and provocation existed and were critical enough I have no doubt that they would use it in a first strike configuration!

For example Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, Pakistan claiming that it needs nuclear weapons because of an imbalance in regional conventional forces. In 2002 following an Indian incursion into Pakistan, India suddenly and comprehensively withdraw all its ground forces worried about precipitating a nuclear response from Pakistan. Why are you so sure that Iran would not consider a first strike in that it too has a weak military and a massive imbalance in comparison to its' neigbours?





Another more general matter, again slightly off topic but why is America actively not seeking the immidiate disarmament of Pakistan and the absolute closeur of their WMD R&D and production programme? What do you all see as the difference between an Nuclear armed Iran and a Nuclear armed Pakistan?...or indeed a Nuclear armed India for that matter?

 

[BigRob]

Another more general matter, again slightly off topic but why is America actively not seeking the immidiate disarmament of Pakistan and the absolute closeur of their WMD R&D and production programme? What do you all see as the difference between an Nuclear armed Iran and a Nuclear armed Pakistan?...or indeed a Nuclear armed India for that matter?

As long as Pakistan has the bomb, India has to have the bomb. I think that if Musharraf were to lose power, and be replaced by a less moderate leader, you would see increased US and India pressure and rhetoric to do something about Pakistan's program.

I know it had been discussed about a possible US seizure of the Pakistani military program should Musharraf be replaced by the hardline elements in Pakistan. India already open questions the security of the Pakistani program, but given the situation, I think we are more tolerant of the program with Musharraf in power.

 

[UShadItComing]

Sorry to come back to this but you made a very bold assertion indeed you seem adamant that if Iran had a nuclear weapon that "its not going to ever use" a nuclear weapon in a first strike attack configuration. What is your reasoning behind this? As I said earlier and am sure I'm wrong but ...what the hell! I don't think Iran is currently and actively building a nuclear weapon but if they had one and the circumstances and provocation existed and were critical enough I have no doubt that they would use it in a first strike configuration!

If Iran were to gain access to nuclear weapons it would make them immune to attack IMO. If Iran were attacked by the US, as is quite likely when and if the US ever gets itself in a position to do so, and it was a conventional attack without nuclear weapons, Iran responding with nuclear weapons couldn't be considered a first strike. This is of course the utility in possessing nuclear weapons. There really is no sense in supposing that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons because of assured mutual destruction.

Have I addressed you points? I found your grammar a little confusing in places.

For example Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, Pakistan claiming that it needs nuclear weapons because of an imbalance in regional conventional forces. In 2002 following an Indian incursion into Pakistan, India suddenly and comprehensively withdraw all its ground forces worried about precipitating a nuclear response from Pakistan. Why are you so sure that Iran would not consider a first strike in that it too has a weak military and a massive imbalance in comparison to its' neigbours?

Can you restate your question in another way which would indicate that there is some correlation between the events in India/Pakistan and the possibility of Iran considering a first strike with nuclear weapons? Sorry but you lost me with that one.

Another more general matter, again slightly off topic but why is America actively not seeking the immidiate disarmament of Pakistan and the absolute closeur of their WMD R&D and production programme? What do you all see as the difference between an Nuclear armed Iran and a Nuclear armed Pakistan?...or indeed a Nuclear armed India for that matter?

As you probably are aware, when India detonated it's first bomb it was closely aligned with the Soviets. I believe that brought about an eventual closer alignment of Pakistan with the US. That could provide an answer and a clue. I don't see any difference between a nuclear armed Pakistan and a nuclear armed Iran. I would see them both as procuring nuclear weapons as a deterrant to India and Israel respectively.