News ANuclear Proliferation in Iran: A Cause for Concern or an Unfair Target?

[Sprinter]

If Iran continued her nuclear project, will US attack it like attacking Iraq?

 

[Astronuc]

I hope not.

 

[deckart]

Do we trust that Iran can have it's own nuclear arsenal and not use it against Isreal?

 

[wasteofo2]

Who would attack a country with a nuclear arsenal?

I think one of the reasons we attacked Iraq out of the three "Axis of Evil" countries was that the Administration probabally knew it didn't have nukes. No one wants to start a nuclear conflict; probabally not even Rumsfeld of Cheney.

Plus, with Iraq like it is, we literally don't have the manpower to invade the country. We could bomb it to hell, but that would just leave anarchy, and whatever order arose from the mess would definitely be very resentful towards the U.S.

 

[alexandra]

Who would attack a country with a nuclear arsenal?
I think one of the reasons we attacked Iraq out of the three "Axis of Evil" countries was that the Administration probabally knew it didn't have nukes. No one wants to start a nuclear conflict; probabally not even Rumsfeld of Cheney.

Plus, with Iraq like it is, we literally don't have the manpower to invade the country. We could bomb it to hell, but that would just leave anarchy, and whatever order arose from the mess would definitely be very resentful towards the U.S.

Does anyone seriously believe that the neocons care about the resulting anarchy and mess and the resentful feelings towards the US? They don't care a damn! The thing is, world capitalism has reached the final stage and total destruction is definitely on the cards now: capitalism is at its most ruthless stage and the bourgeoisie will stop at nothing to secure its short-term profits. Rumsfeld and Cheney are only concerned with that one thing - the US bourgeoisie's domination of world markets, and they will stop at nothing to achieve this... not even the use of nuclear weapons. The US administration has already done this with the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (read up on the history of WWII in a reputable historical source if you don't know what I'm talking about); what makes anyone think they have more scruples now, at this more desperate stage of capitalist competition for profits?

The challenge for US citizens who care to know the truth is to analyse the situation dispassionately, without patriotic lenses. The US government does not stand/fight for 'peace' and 'democracy' - it protects and furthers profitable ventures of its ruling class: that's its only reason for existence. It will do whatever it takes to secure those interests. I'm not even saying anything it (the US government) doesn't openly admit!

 

[wasteofo2]

Does anyone seriously believe that the neocons care about the resulting anarchy and mess and the resentful feelings towards the US?

They're bastards, they're idiots, but I don't think their goal is to just cause anarchy and chaos in a country for no reason. Especially when the American Bourgeoise's interests are already being attacked by people who hate us becuase we have messed up their countries. We're not horribly popular anywhere in the middle east; bombing a huge country into the stone age would give millions of people direct reasons to commit themselves to the cause of destroying the U.S.

They don't care a damn! The thing is, world capitalism has reached the final stage and total destruction is definitely on the cards now:

When around 1-2 billion people don't contribute anything to the Global economy (people in Africa, Central Asia, and other destitute places), I can hardly agree that Capitalism is in it's final stages. There is still tons of cheap labor to go exploit; much more expansion left to do.

capitalism is at its most ruthless stage and the bourgeoisie will stop at nothing to secure its short-term profits.

Wait until there aren't these pools of millions of unemployed people who will work for nothing, then you'll see ruthlessness.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are only concerned with that one thing - the US bourgeoisie's domination of world markets, and they will stop at nothing to achieve this...

How would destroying Iran do anything to help the U.S.? That would only lead to a large country that hates us virulently, and will likely harm our interests in the very near future.

not even the use of nuclear weapons.

I'll bet you $15 that the Bush Administration will not use nukes in Iran. Or, we could just wait about 3 years and see.

The US administration has already done this with the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (read up on the history of WWII in a reputable historical source if you don't know what I'm talking about); what makes anyone think they have more scruples now, at this more desperate stage of capitalist competition for profits?

That was a different Administration, if you'd care to remember. Furthermore, it was a totally different time. There was no threat of a nuclear retaliation at that time. Also, we were involved in an all out war with Japan, and hardly are in the same situation at all with Iran.

The challenge for US citizens who care to know the truth is to analyse the situation dispassionately, without patriotic lenses. The US government does not stand/fight for 'peace' and 'democracy' - it protects and furthers profitable ventures of its ruling class: that's its only reason for existence. It will do whatever it takes to secure those interests. I'm not even saying anything it (the US government) doesn't openly admit!

And might I ask you to analyze the situation without anti-american lenses? Every country looks out for itself, and every country has a certain level of corruption where the upper class has disproportionate control over the government. The U.S. government does bad in the world, certainly, but it is not a force of sheer selfishness and evil.

 

[alexandra]

They're bastards, they're idiots, but I don't think their goal is to just cause anarchy and chaos in a country for no reason. Especially when the American Bourgeoise's interests are already being attacked by people who hate us becuase we have messed up their countries. We're not horribly popular anywhere in the middle east; bombing a huge country into the stone age would give millions of people direct reasons to commit themselves to the cause of destroying the U.S.

Ok, wasteofo2 - what you write here is, of course, very reasonable. The question is, how much reason prevails within the circles of those who hold the power? Have you read the report "REBUILDING
AMERICA’S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" by The Project for a New American Century? Here's a relevant extract:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance. (p.11 of the PDF document accessible at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I realize this doesn't advocate the certain use of nuclear weapons - but the whole project outlined in this report is quite scary, and seems to be informing US foreign policy. Also, specifically on Iran, here's how the thoughts of those in power are going: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20050802.htm - note the very final statement in the last paragraph.

When around 1-2 billion people don't contribute anything to the Global economy (people in Africa, Central Asia, and other destitute places), I can hardly agree that Capitalism is in it's final stages. There is still tons of cheap labor to go exploit; much more expansion left to do.

It's a bit more complex than just the availability of cheap labour, though, in my opinion: just as crucial as cheap production is the existence of markets - it's no good producing tons of goods that very few people can afford to buy. As people lose their jobs or are forced to accept lower-paid jobs and also to pay for basic resources (eg. clean water - currently being privatised on the IMF's stipulations) and essential services such as health and education, they also lose access to purchasing power. You can prop the system up with credit for a while, but eventually the whole thing will implode. What is the current account deficit in the US at the moment? What is happening in terms of personal bankruptcies? What are the statistics on joblessness and poverty?

Wait until there aren't these pools of millions of unemployed people who will work for nothing, then you'll see ruthlessness.

Agreed, wastseofo2 - totally; it's going to get a lot, lot worse - and not in the far distant future... right now.

How would destroying Iran do anything to help the U.S.? That would only lead to a large country that hates us virulently, and will likely harm our interests in the very near future.

This is where, I believe, there may be a slight difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Essentially, the Democrats have a 'kinder face' and understand that one must approach these tasks of bringing the rest of the world to heel more 'politely', or in more covert fashion. Clinton's administration did not attack Iraq in quite the same way, but attack Iraq it did with the sanctions:

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

— John Pilger, Squeezed to Death, Guardian, March 4, 2000
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp

By the way, wasteofo2, what's this "our interests" you write about? Are these foreign policies really in all US citizens' interests? I guess the political perspective I use to analyse with prevents me from seeing the logic of how any government's policies are uniformly in the interests of all people (or even most people) in a country in which different classes exist. I always see things in terms of class interests.

I'll bet you $15 that the Bush Administration will not use nukes in Iran. Or, we could just wait about 3 years and see.

$15... in three years? Well, ok... I hope I lose the bet, though

That was a different Administration, if you'd care to remember. Furthermore, it was a totally different time. There was no threat of a nuclear retaliation at that time. Also, we were involved in an all out war with Japan, and hardly are in the same situation at all with Iran.

Iraq was not at war with the US either - they didn't have WMDs or anything like that even, and look what happened there. Iran does not actually have to be at war with the US to be attacked (no country has to be at war with the US to be attacked, obviously - the US administration does exactly what it feels like wherever it feels like. Except re-China).

And might I ask you to analyze the situation without anti-american lenses? Every country looks out for itself, and every country has a certain level of corruption where the upper class has disproportionate control over the government. The U.S. government does bad in the world, certainly, but it is not a force of sheer selfishness and evil.

My apologies, wasteofo2 and anyone else I may have inadvertently offended. I do not believe that governments act in the interests of 'countries', and I certainly did not intend to insult ordinary American citizens - all my comments and criticisms are aimed at the decisions of those in power.

 

[wasteofo2]

Ok, wasteofo2 - what you write here is, of course, very reasonable. The question is, how much reason prevails within the circles of those who hold the power? Have you read the report "REBUILDING
AMERICA’S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" by The Project for a New American Century?
Here's a relevant extract: I realize this doesn't advocate the certain use of nuclear weapons - but the whole project outlined in this report is quite scary, and seems to be informing US foreign policy.

I think that even the current Administrations knows that they cannot attack Iran, and won't, unless something like Pearl Harbor happens again. I haven't read that report, but I have heard those goals set out be Department of Defense people, and all it seems to say is that America wants to be the best, and that we should try to do it. It sets out the goal to be able to be engaged in multiple conflicts at one, but we're clearly not at that point yet.

Also, specifically on Iran, here's how the thoughts of those in power are going: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20050802.htm - note the very final statement in the last paragraph.

So the CIA doesn't know what they're talking about, what a shock. I dunno, I still just have a certain level of faith that no president would incite a nuclear conflict. Though there is the very real threat of Iran using a nuke on Isreal, what with this President's rhetoric about it. That'd be a rather tough situation to deal with there...

It's a bit more complex than just the availability of cheap labour, though, in my opinion: just as crucial as cheap production is the existence of markets - it's no good producing tons of goods that very few people can afford to buy. As people lose their jobs or are forced to accept lower-paid jobs and also to pay for basic resources (eg. clean water - currently being privatised on the IMF's stipulations) and essential services such as health and education, they also lose access to purchasing power. You can prop the system up with credit for a while, but eventually the whole thing will implode. What is the current account deficit in the US at the moment? What is happening in terms of personal bankruptcies? What are the statistics on joblessness and poverty?

Sure the global economy is quite complex, and markets are indeed very important. But during the entire trend of Globalization, the same sort of pattern has been followed in developing countries. They are exploited by rich countries, until wages are competed up, and said developing country then joins the rank of industrialized, modern nations. Japan did it quite quickly. Germany did it remarkably well after the war. China and India are doing it on a mass scale now. Hell, the U.S. had to do it until the 1900's, except in the U.S.'s case, it was more like the populace was exploited by the rich within the U.S. Though we did make quite a bit of money selling agricultural goods to Europe all throughout our history.

Agreed, wastseofo2 - totally; it's going to get a lot, lot worse - and not in the far distant future... right now.

Funny, I actually think it's going to get quite a bit better in the runup to complete Globalization. Things are certainly better in China and India today then they were 50 years ago, because of investment from foreign companies, allowing their populations to work and earn wages.

 

[alexandra]

Funny, I actually think it's going to get quite a bit better in the runup to complete Globalization. Things are certainly better in China and India today then they were 50 years ago, because of investment from foreign companies, allowing their populations to work and earn wages.

Better for some, certainly - for a very few. Worse for most.
Russian Federation

Even a cursory examination of the social situation in modern Russia reveals a deeply divided society. An array of statistics documents the reality of two different worlds that hardly come into contact with one another. One—the world of wealth and luxury—is inhabited by an insignificant minority. The other—the world of social decline and an arduous struggle for life’s necessities—is inhabited by millions upon millions.

Figures showing the distribution of wealth reveal the glaring nature of this social polarisation. According to government data, the incomes of the very richest members of Russian society are 15 times those of the poorest—one of the highest levels of social inequality to be found among the world’s leading countries. In Moscow, this difference is 53-fold.
According to figures published by the World Bank at the end of last year, 20 percent of the Russian population lives below the poverty line, which is defined as a monthly income of 1,000 roubles (less than 30 euros, or $38).
The great majority of Russian families are teetering on the edge of poverty. The World Bank has calculated that an average decrease in income of 10 percent would produce a 50 percent rise in the poverty rate. The majority of the poor in Russia are to be found among working families headed by adults with average technical professional training, and in families with children.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/russ-m11.shtml

China

Despite its overall economic size, China remains economically backward. Even based on the revised GDP figure, China’s annual per capita GDP is just $US1,490 according to IMF exchange rates, making it 107th in the world—ahead of Vanuatu, Ukraine, Congo, Syria and Angola. By the World Bank’s three-year average exchange rate, the ranking of China’s revised per capita GDP has risen from 132nd to 129th—ahead of Egypt, Vanuatu and Turkmenistan.

Moreover, only a relatively small layer of capitalists and the middle class has benefited from China’s frenzied and chaotic economic development. Twenty years ago, China was among the relatively “equal” societies, now it has become one of the most unequal, with a widening gulf between rich and poor.

A UN report released on December 16 warned that China’s Gini Coefficient—a standard measurement of social inequality—had exceeded the dangerous level of 0.4. “The gap in incomes has opened up within the space of one generation. If resolute measures are not taken now and the chance to manage the problem is lost, poverty will be passed from generation to generation, creating a social schism that will be hard to eliminate,” it stated.

Social inequality is already erupting over into mounting protests by workers and farmers over taxes, official corruption, unemployment, poor working conditions and wages, the state seizure of land and the lack of services. Incapable of meeting the demands of the majority of the population, the Chinese bureaucracy has responded with police state repression.

It is on this highly volatile political and economic mixture, that the world economy is increasingly reliant. China is now the third largest trading nation after the US and Germany. Its huge demand for raw materials, components and capital goods is helping to prop up the economies of Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia and Australia. In order to keep exports competitive and the US market afloat, China, along with Japanese and other Asian central banks, has played a central role in financing the huge US deficits.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/chin-j03.shtml

India

In Oman, Indian-born workers make up half of the country’s 1 million overseas workers. The majority work long hours for low wages, with no insurance coverage or legal protection. Most of the Indian workers in Oman have migrated from the south Indian states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka or come from Maharashtra and the Punjab. Many are employed in construction.

Mani, from Trivandrum, Kerala, has been employed as a cleaner for the last nine months in Oman. When asked what made him seek a job abroad, he said, “I ran a small food store in India which went into insolvency and left me with losses and debt. Then I wasn’t successful in finding another job. My wife is employed as a teacher back in India. She earns barely above 5,000 rupees (US$112) a month. Having two small girls we could not afford to live on her salary alone. So I decided to look for a job in the Gulf.”…

Commenting on life back in India, Mani said in anger, “Life in Kerala is very hard and expensive. Due to tourism, things are more expensive in urban areas. So, once you are unemployed, there is simply no way of surviving. The bulk of trade unions hardly do anything if someone loses his job. Neither do the unemployed get any assistance from the state or central government. [Under the recently passed National Rural Employment Guarantee law] the Congress [government] promises to give employment for 100 days for one individual in each family. The state government back in Kerala has a keen interest in promoting this bill. The whole thing is a farce. These are empty promises from local politicians with little effect.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/oman-o28.shtml

 

[Lisa!]

If Iran continued her nuclear project, will US attack it like attacking Iraq?

Sorry, I'm not psychic!

 

[scott1]

Unfountrtly yes.Probally not in the next but I think Iran is going to contiue and there not going to stop because U.S. Troops are in Iraq and Afghanstain Iran is probally feel thertend by that(which is the same reason why North Korea is building nukes).Fontratlly I don't there's not going an Insugentcy like in Iraq or if there is it won't be as bad.Most of the Iranians support the U.S.
but the people who don't control the government and we learned how to fight Insurgents in the Middle East form Iraq and we also form Iraq not everone likes us invading there country

 

[NewScientist]

Hmmmm

Iran/generic non westernised state seen to have a right leaning, islamic, government, can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

This is the view of most western governments, especially the US. Ever since the Bay of Pigs fiasco where the US/USSR came so close to instigating nuclear war, man has lived in fear of a nuclear bomb being dropped in peace time by non friendly governments, now as terrorism has replaced Communism/Stalinism as the spectre haunting the west, the worry has come to the fore once more.

However, the fear has increased to include the fear of non-state sanctioned groups utilising nuclear weapons for lethal ends; and also state sponsored, though not in a primae facea sense, groups (similar in relationship to Hamas and Palestine).

Furthermore, the world has seen the problems in the USSR following the decline of the communist regime where nuclear facilities have been left to erode with little protection or safe guards. When a 'rogue' nation gains nuclear capability a worry of either selling to terrorists or theft becomes the issue alongside the worry of that state using the weapon themselves.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ever since the Bay of Pigs fiasco...

I may be mistaken but I think you are referring to the "Cuban Missle Crisis"?
The "Bay of Pigs" incident was an Anti-Castro revolution which was made possible by the US but didn't actually involve US troops. I could be wrong but I don't think this was exactly a major nuke issue in the cold war.

 

[alexandra]

I may be mistaken but I think you are referring to the "Cuban Missle Crisis"?
The "Bay of Pigs" incident was an Anti-Castro revolution which was made possible by the US but didn't actually involve US troops. I could be wrong but I don't think this was exactly a major nuke issue in the cold war.

You're correct, TSA - The Bay of Pigs (Cuban name: Playa Giron) was a military attack organised by Cuban exiles who opposed Castro and were based in Miami and was backed by the CIA; it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons and occurred on 17 April 1961.

The so-called "Cuban missile crisis" occurred in October 1962.

 

[NewScientist]

My brain clearly disengaged and crumbled you are correct I am wrong, show me the hole to crawl into!

I meant 'Crisis de los Misiles' - and this was a slightly major nuke issue (42 if I'm correct)!

Sorry again

 

[NafiBear]

If Iran continued her nuclear project, will US attack it like attacking Iraq?

That's nice question, I believe it will never do that. -lol-

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My brain clearly disengaged and crumbled you are correct I am wrong, show me the hole to crawl into!
I meant 'Crisis de los Misiles' - and this was a slightly major nuke issue (42 if I'm correct)!
Sorry again

Not a problem. Just wanted to point that out so you could avoid the mistake in the future.

 

[Sprinter]

If Iran posed nuclear threat to her neighbors, i support USA to incur military action on her.

 

[Tzar]

I think everyone is forgetting a very important point here on this forum. US isn't going to bomb Iran - Israel will do that. Mark my words, if Israel recovers quickly from the loss of its PM, and a new leader is elected who has proper support in the Kneset (the Israeli paliment), Israel will bomb Iran (not with nukes) and destroy its nuclear capabilities. It is did that to Iraq 2 decades ago, and will do it to Iran now. Iran is just too close, and has a leader who is just to crazy, for Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike.

 

[russ_watters]

Better for some, certainly - for a very few. Worse for most.

I'm not going to respond to all that, but you keep saying things like the above while you know it is not true. You know that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago (to say nothing of what it was 50 years ago) because we have discussed it a number of times and you have admitted you know it.

Stop saying things you know are not true.

 

[Emieno]

That's nice question, I believe it will never do that. -lol-

You have to also realize that "this world *I* create" (sey kai yao ngoh dzou)

US military force is strong enough to burn your house down...No, that is not what I really mean.

 

[alexandra]

I'm not going to respond to all that, but you keep saying things like the above while you know it is not true. You know that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago (to say nothing of what it was 50 years ago) because we have discussed it a number of times and you have admitted you know it.
Stop saying things you know are not true.

Calm down, Russ - it is true that we have had many discussions about this issue. Never once have I conceded to your argument that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago - I have conceded to other errors I have made in other discussions on other issues. I would not argue a case that I considered to be untrue; why should I? If all was right with the world, if it truly was getting better for all, why on Earth would I want to argue the opposite case? Truly, I am not mad. So, to clarify...

This is my understanding of global poverty: while GDPs of 'developing' nations show an increase in wealth, this wealth is very unequally distributed. The GDP is a total; this total can increase without having equal benefits for all. While the local bourgeoisies in 'developing' nations may be profiting from capitalism (as attested by rising GDPs, for example), this is happening at the expense of the poor, who are getting poorer and whose living conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate (education, health systems and basic social services are being privatised, making them inaccessible to poor people, for example). This is the case even in the 'developed' capitalist countries, the USA included. Reality is more complex than the simplistic outcome that measures such as GDPs suggest. This, in any case, is my understanding of and position on this topic.

 

[X-43D]

Capitalism has good and bad parts. The good part is that it increases development, the bad part is unequal access to resources such as education, jobs and services.

 

[Art]

Calm down, Russ - it is true that we have had many discussions about this issue. Never once have I conceded to your argument that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago - I have conceded to other errors I have made in other discussions on other issues. I would not argue a case that I considered to be untrue; why should I? If all was right with the world, if it truly was getting better for all, why on Earth would I want to argue the opposite case? Truly, I am not mad. So, to clarify...
This is my understanding of global poverty: while GDPs of 'developing' nations show an increase in wealth, this wealth is very unequally distributed. The GDP is a total; this total can increase without having equal benefits for all. While the local bourgeoisies in 'developing' nations may be profiting from capitalism (as attested by rising GDPs, for example), this is happening at the expense of the poor, who are getting poorer and whose living conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate (education, health systems and basic social services are being privatised, making them inaccessible to poor people, for example). This is the case even in the 'developed' capitalist countries, the USA included. Reality is more complex than the simplistic outcome that measures such as GDPs suggest. This, in any case, is my understanding of and position on this topic.

Poverty is difficult to define. It can be measured in absolute terms with a baseline of 0 in which case it is probable that in percentage terms there are less people living in poverty today than 50 years ago but if measured in relative terms in respect to differential incomes within a given population I believe most folk would agree poverty has increased hugely over the same time period as the process of capitalism necessarily shifts wealth to the already wealthy.
The point being before arguing whether poverty has increased or decreased it seems necessary to agree what the definition of poverty should be.

 

[NewScientist]

Iran - defying foreign protests - has removed seals on nuclear research facilities, and will resume work shortly, an Iranian official says.

So perhaps this question has become far more apt

Link to full sory : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4597738.stm

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Who cares if Iran acquires nuclear weapons technology or not? It's not like Mahmoud would use the nukes to try to wipe any disgraceful blots from the map.. He probably just wants them so that he can admire them for a day and then put them into storage so they collect dust. So let the baby have its bottle.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The point being before arguing whether poverty has increased or decreased it seems necessary to agree what the definition of poverty should be.

That's the real issue here. Alexandra and others use the "disparity of wealth" measure while Russ and others use the base from zero method.

 

[fargoth]

well, I am not so sure that iran won't use their nukes...
they started talking about wiping out israel from the map, their leader is a psycho, in an interview for one arabic station - i can't recall its name - but he said that when he said israel must be destroyed he felt like a saint.

i think this man could throw nukes at israel as soon as he gets them, even though it'll end all the life on this planet.

 

[Lisa!]

well, I am not so sure that iran won't use their nukes...
they started talking about wiping out israel from the map, their leader is a psycho, in an interview for one arabic station - i can't recall its name - but he said that when he said israel must be destroyed he felt like a saint.

i think this man could throw nukes at israel as soon as he gets them, even though it'll end all the life on this planet.

And how on the Earth can he get nukes when Iran's Nuclear activity is under cotrol of IAEA? Note that they don't have nukes right now!

That's pretty funny. Israel wants to bomb Iran because they're afraid Iran *might* get nukes 1 day and bomb them.(while they can't get nukes in this situation) And it sounds quite justifiable to anyone.

 

[NewScientist]

After the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK said

"We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.

The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere. "

 

[fargoth]

And how on the Earth can he get nukes when Iran's Nuclear activity is under cotrol of IAEA? Note that they don't have nukes right now!
That's pretty funny. Israel wants to bomb Iran because they're afraid Iran *might* get nukes 1 day and bomb them.(while they can't get nukes in this situation) And it sounds quite justifiable to anyone.

heh, under the control of IAEA? that doesn't mean they can't do it secretely... anyone heard about mordecai vanunu?
israel supposedly doesn't have nukes, but according to this guy, israel has lots of them...

why do you think iran can't make them too? the UN is a laugh, they have no real power, and no one gives a damn about them.

when iraq built their nuclear plant israel bombed it right away, and i think its justified, if iraq had nukes in the gulf war, the world was at a nuclear winter right about now... the only reason its not happening now to iran is that they got too many plants already, and a one bombing deal is out of the question... the only way is a full scale war, and there's no way israel is going to do that... i don't think anyone would.

so we'll just have to sit and hope that by the time iran would have their nukes they'll have someone else on the throne.
i think it would be much easier to assassinate and secretely replace the government then to force iran to stop persuing nukes.

 

[Lisa!]

heh, under the control of IAEA? that doesn't mean they can't do it secretely... anyone heard about mordecai vanunu?
israel supposedly doesn't have nukes, but according to this guy, israel has lots of them...
why do you think iran can't make them too? the UN is a laugh, they have no real power, and no one gives a damn about them.

UN is a laugh when it comes to what US is going to do since the real power is US.
*shrug*Israel could have Nukes because they have US support.
Anyway I'm not going to waste my time and talk to you about this subject. So let's say Iran has Nukes, they're going to use them. So US has the right to attack Iran. who cares when we're not the 1 who's going to decide on these things!

 

[alexandra]

After the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK said
"We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.
The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere. "

An admirable sentiment indeed - but only believable, alas, if it came from a nation whose government was actually opposed to war and decomissioned/withdrew/eliminated their own nuclear arsenal first. This is what gets me: how on Earth can the government of the only nation of the world that has ever actually used nuclear weapons and currently has the largest and most lethal arsony of all (and no qualms about using it) take this 'holier-than-thou' attitude with other nations? I know, I know - we're not talking ethics here, we're talking 'real' politics. But the irony of it all, the deadly irony!

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Here's a little story. When I went to school we always used to make bad jokes about blowing up the building, killing teachers etc. The teacher might say, "now now Billy, don't threaten your classmates with death threats. That's a no-no." and then that was that. No big deal until you actually did it.

Then a shooting occurred in Columbine high school. Everything changed. Suddenly kids got suspended just for drawing a violent picture.

Maybe one day in the past you could walk through the airport and go "wow, this car rental company's the bomb!" ... Not anymore.

What's the moral of the story? Well how seriously should you take threats?

Is Mahmoud saying these things because he really is that anti-zionist, or does he say them because it gets him popular support, considering how anti-zionist the population there is? Who knows.. But can we just take it lightly?

I was sarcastic about it before, but the reality is Iran is pursuing nukes. Why? I don't think it's so that they can admire the nukes for a day then put them in storage. Being naive like that is what comes back to bite you or your ally in the butt one day later.

alexandra, the difference is that all the people who currently have nukes, are not currently using them. Yes the United States has used them before, it was maybe not the best idea, but the difference was that U.S.A. was engaged in an actual war at the time. Otherwise, right now as we speak, the nukes aren't falling. Pakistan, Britain, Russia etc. are not dropping their nukes. They are sitting on them. If say Germany wanted to nuke Israel, they would.. Now Iran currently is not nuking Israel, but not for the same reason. They aren't holding back because they know it's wrong to use their nukes, they're holding back because they don't have the nukes to use! But they are 1) making threats to destroy Israel, and 2) pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Put two and two together.

On the one hand it may be a hypocritical double standard, but on the other hand, it's also realistic and prudent. It would be nice to treat everyone the same and allow every country to do whatever it wants to do without the fear of catastrophe, but unfortinatily the world we live in does not permit this.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

And how on the Earth can he get nukes when Iran's Nuclear activity is under cotrol of IAEA? Note that they don't have nukes right now!
That's pretty funny. Israel wants to bomb Iran because they're afraid Iran *might* get nukes 1 day and bomb them.(while they can't get nukes in this situation) And it sounds quite justifiable to anyone.

I wouldn't consider just attacking Iran because they might get nukes justifiable, however pursuing nuclear technology not in accordance with the nuclear non proliferation treaty, or in violation of any mandates of their supervision, would justify a pre-emptive war. Yes nuclear supervision is good, but like fargoth mentioned that's not going to be foolproof for stopping the manufacture of a nuke, especially after the enriched uranium is already there, as well as agreements with Syria to get around international pressure for the nuclear technology (which Iran has already made).

Plus Iran already demonstrated they don't respect the supervision anyway. They will do whatever they want to, not what others tell them to. They already broke the seals on their reactors without the go-ahead to do so, remember?

 

[Art]

I wouldn't consider just attacking Iran because they might get nukes justifiable, however pursuing nuclear technology not in accordance with the nuclear non proliferation treaty, or in violation of any mandates of their supervision, would justify a pre-emptive war. Yes nuclear supervision is good, but like fargoth mentioned that's not going to be foolproof for stopping the manufacture of a nuke, especially after the enriched uranium is already there, as well as agreements with Syria to get around international pressure for the nuclear technology (which Iran has already made).
Plus Iran already demonstrated they don't respect the supervision anyway. They will do whatever they want to, not what others tell them to. They already broke the seals on their reactors without the go-ahead to do so, remember?

This opinion is based on myths propogated by western governments following their own agendae. The non proliferation treaty expressly allows nuclear research for civilian use and so nothing Iran has done is in breach of this.
The level of enrichment required for power generation is something like 3% whereas the level needed for weapons grade material is around 97% thus requiring far greater sophistication in knowledge and technology to achieve.
As for the effectiveness of the IEAA, Israel never even signed up to the NPTA as they were busy building nukes so failure to stop them had absolutely nothing to do with shortcomings in the UN inspectorate as they weren't involved in any shape or form.
However the original 6 nuclear powers who all signed up to the agreement are in breach of it as part of the agreement was that these countries would dismantle their nuclear weapons capabilities and none of them has made even the slightest effort to do so, in fact since signing the treaty they have gone on to develop far more dangerous nukes.
It's also worth noting that the only country in the world currently considering using nukes during a conventional war is the good old US of A. They want to relable them 'bunker busters' and use them against hard to get at targets.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

This opinion is based on myths propogated by western governments following their own agendae.

The opinion is based on two things, my morals and the FACTS e.g. the constant threats of Israel's destruction, Iran's agreement with Syria pertaining to storage of nuclear material and other cooperation should international sanctions/pressure ensue, general anti-zionism etc. The media didn't skew this. It's reality, not CNN. This is an age old conflict dating back to biblical days. Only difference is now there (may be) nukes involved. I didn't suggest Iran did breach the NPT. I just said that I would support an invasion if they did. Now they did break the UN seals, who placed the seals on the equipment for whatever reason. Even if the seals should not have been there in the first place, or if Iran does have the right to make all the civilian energy they want, they still broke the seals, which shows they don't honor the supervision or its parameters. Yes I am aware that the USA certainly is not being very nonproliferative itself, but seeing the reality of the situation it isn't hard for me to justify this double standard.

It's also worth noting that the only country in the world currently considering using nukes during a conventional war is the good old US of A.

Really? Even so, does there have to be a conventional war going on in order to use a nuke?

 

[Art]

The opinion is based on two things, my morals and the FACTS e.g. the constant threats of Israel's destruction

Aren't you forgetting Israel's pearl harbour style bombing (i.e. no warning - no declaration of war) of Syria and Iraq's nuclear research sites and there recent threats to bomb Iran? The Arabs may talk a lot but with Israel it seems action speaks louder than words.

This is an age old conflict dating back to biblical days.

The state of Israel has only existed since 1948.

I didn't suggest Iran did breach the NPT. I just said that I would support an invasion if they did.

So then you are agreeing that if Iran chooses to continue developing their capacity to process uranium for use in nuclear power reactors they should be allowed to do so and the US should stop threatening dire consequences if they don't desist from exercising their legitimate right?

Now they did break the UN seals, who placed the seals on the equipment for whatever reason. Even if the seals should not have been there in the first place, or if Iran does have the right to make all the civilian energy they want, they still broke the seals, which shows they don't honor the supervision or its parameters.

The seals were put on as a show of good faith to allow discussions to take place between the EU 3 and Iran. As the final proposals made by the EU 3 were unacceptable to Iran they closed out on the discussions and took off the seals.

Yes I am aware that the USA certainly is not being very nonproliferative itself, but seeing the reality of the situation it isn't hard for me to justify this double standard.

Perhaps in your mind but many of us in this world would like to see the NPT implemented in full and nuclear weapons eliminated in their entirety.

Really? Even so, does there have to be a conventional war going on in order to use a nuke?

If you were familiar with the non-proliferation treaty you would know that the main reason countries sign up to it is because the nuclear powers signed up to never using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear signatory. So the new rules of nuclear use the US gov't are looking for would be in total contravention of what they signed up for.
I personally wouldn't like to see any more countries developing nuclear capabilities but the current arguments against Iran being pushed by Washington are riddled with hypocrisy and downright dishonest.

 

[Tzar]

Aren't you forgetting Israel's pearl harbour style bombing (i.e. no warning - no declaration of war) of Syria and Iraq's nuclear research sites and there recent threats to bomb Iran?

How can you possibly compare Japan bombing US, for no humane reason at all, and Israel bombing Iraq's nucear facilities, for self defence. YES, for self defence. Anyone who undrstands the mentality of Sadam, understands that he would use nukes to bomb Israel at his first chance. And so will that crazy, current Iranian president. He WILL nuke Israel if he gets nukes. Of course my opinion will never be validated because Israel will never allow Iran to get nukes and will bomb it before it does, even if it means a full scale war (which it doesn't). Its not US who will bomb Iraq, its Israel, and it will do it in the next few months.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I seriously doubt Iran will nuke Israel at first chance. We all know that would mean the total destruction of anything anywhere within the Iranian border. The reason they want nukes is so that the rest of us won't mess with them. They don't want the U.S. coming in there the way it happened in Iraq.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

The state of Israel has only existed since 1948.

This is true. The official country of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants have only been on that lot for sixty somethin' years. Before then I think it was a roller hockey rink owned by the vikings who must have conquered the land from the martian empire...

So then you are agreeing that if Iran chooses to continue developing their capacity to process uranium for use in nuclear power reactors they should be allowed to do so and the US should stop threatening dire consequences if they don't desist from exercising their legitimate right?

See that's the problem... legitimate right...That's where we differ. I know it sounds unfair, but I'm biased. My team already has nukes. So does Israel. And we're pals. Israel was on that little chunk of land long before any Arabs came around too. Finders keepers. Yet many Iranians are mad, they want it for their new religion too! They were just a little late. So certain looney individuals hold some kind of anti-zionistic grudge they could just push that red button. Now here in the United States we have unconstitutional state laws that prohibit gun purchase/ownership for people diagnosed correctly/incorrectly) with mental conditions present or past. Hell this guy Mahmoud here says the holocaust never happened!

 

[EnumaElish]

IMHO Iran will (and should) be a harder sell for the U.S. administration.

 

[fargoth]

I seriously doubt Iran will nuke Israel at first chance. We all know that would mean the total destruction of anything anywhere within the Iranian border. The reason they want nukes is so that the rest of us won't mess with them. They don't want the U.S. coming in there the way it happened in Iraq.

with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

 

[russ_watters]

...it is true that we have had many discussions about this issue. Never once have I conceded to your argument that global poverty is half what it was 20 years ago - I have conceded to other errors I have made in other discussions on other issues.

What you conceded was regarding the data - you started changing the definition of "poverty" after realizing what the data showed, but what the data shows is that the number of people living on $1 a day is half what it was 20 years ago. (I probably should have avoided the word "poverty" in my previous post and gone straight to the data) That's the global picture: the American picture is in the income statistics of the US: every income bracket has shown marked improvements in the past ~20 years. Thus your assertion that a very small few have improved and the rest have gotten worse (whether you are talking about the US in particular or the world as a whole) is clearly false.

I would not argue a case that I considered to be untrue; why should I?

I have several ideas about that, but this isn't the place to discuss people's motives.

If all was right with the world, if it truly was getting better for all, why on Earth would I want to argue the opposite case? [emphasis added]

Actually, that's part of your tactics: what you just said there is not equivalent to (or rather, exactly opposite of) what you said before. You said most are getting worse. Adding those universalities is a truly weak - not to mention dishonest - debate tactic.

If all you wish to claim is that the world is not now perfect, fine, I agree - but that is not what you said. You said the world is actually getting worse for most people on an individual economic basis. That is a statement of mathematical simplicity and 1+1=wrong. A person who was making $1 a day 20 years ago and is making $2 a day today, by virtue of 1st grade math, is making more money and able to live better than 20 years ago. $2>$1

So, to clarify...
This is my understanding of global poverty: while GDPs of 'developing' nations show an increase in wealth, this wealth is very unequally distributed. The GDP is a total; this total can increase without having equal benefits for all.

That is true, but it does not directly address the previous assertion of yours...

While the local bourgeoisies in 'developing' nations may be profiting from capitalism (as attested by rising GDPs, for example), this is happening at the expense of the poor, who are getting poorer and whose living conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate (education, health systems and basic social services are being privatised, making them inaccessible to poor people, for example). This is the case even in the 'developed' capitalist countries, the USA included. Reality is more complex than the simplistic outcome that measures such as GDPs suggest. This, in any case, is my understanding of and position on this topic.

You made a number of assertions there that are factually wrong. I won't go over them individually because they are covered by the false blanket assertion you made on the previous page.

Getting more specific about being wrong doesn't make wrong right. The blanket assertion that "the poor...are getting poorer" is factually wrong when you use objective, absolute scales for defining poverty (which is what you did in your previous statement) - Ie, if you define "poor" according to how much money is in your pocket or food is on your table compared with 10 years ago. What you have done in previous threads and are about to do again here is to start with a sweeping statement about absolute prosperity, then argue for it with evidence about relative prosperity.

Poverty is difficult to define. It can be measured in absolute terms with a baseline of 0 in which case it is probable that in percentage terms there are less people living in poverty today than 50 years ago but if measured in relative terms in respect to differential incomes within a given population I believe most folk would agree poverty has increased hugely over the same time period as the process of capitalism necessarily shifts wealth to the already wealthy.
The point being before arguing whether poverty has increased or decreased it seems necessary to agree what the definition of poverty should be.

You are correct, Art, but fortunately alexandra's initial statement was one of absolute prosperity, not relative prosperity. I should have been clearer in pointing that out right away.

Further (and this is an argument for another thread), the idea that "poverty" is something that can even be measured on a relative scale at all is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Lisa!]

1 question: wouldn't it endanger Palistinian's lives as well if some country use Nukes against Israel?

with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

Has he ever mentioned that they should kill all the jews who live in Israel? I mean I've heard he said Israel should be wipped off the map? but has he mentined it should happen by killing them?
Have you ever asked a muslim who's shahid?

*Sounds like I can't avoid this discussion*

 

[Art]

with your logic you can't understand the "shahids" -suicide bombers, these people don't value other's or their own lives... and the current president of iran is one of these madmen... he doesn't care the whole world would be destroyed, he'll have his 72 virgenes anyway for killing all these jews who don't deserve to live in his view.

The powers of the president of Iran are very limited compared to the the powers of the US president and so your fears are baseless.

PRESIDENT
The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. The constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm

 

[fargoth]

The powers of the president of Iran are very limited compared to the the powers of the US president and so your fears are baseless. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm

i guess the supreme leader isn't a zionist lover, and i think he also posses the mentality of islamic fundamentalists, which means he doesn't give a damn about suiciding while killing the "evil sinners" when he'll get the chance.

 

[Art]

This is true. The official country of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants have only been on that lot for sixty somethin' years. Before then I think it was a roller hockey rink owned by the vikings who must have conquered the land from the martian empire...

Or perhaps the 300,000 arabs who despite securing a UN resolution granting them the right to return have been refused permission to do so by Israel.

See that's the problem... legitimate right...That's where we differ. I know it sounds unfair, but I'm biased. My team already has nukes. So does Israel. And we're pals. Israel was on that little chunk of land long before any Arabs came around too. Finders keepers. Yet many Iranians are mad, they want it for their new religion too! They were just a little late. So certain looney individuals hold some kind of anti-zionistic grudge they could just push that red button. Now here in the United States we have unconstitutional state laws that prohibit gun purchase/ownership for people diagnosed correctly/incorrectly) with mental conditions present or past. Hell this guy Mahmoud here says the holocaust never happened!

First off I personally have no problem with Israel and fully support their right to continue to exist as an independant state although to be honest because of the way they behave I am very glad I don't have them for neighbours.
I also believe they have the right to defend themselves against their enemies but all too often their 'defensive' measures in response to terrorist attacks seem more petty and spiteful than effective counter-measures.
As for your admitted dual standards; again as I have already said I would not like to see Iran (or anybody else) developing nuclear weapons but I think this should be achieved in a global context of nuclear disarmament rather than the "he can have them because he's my buddy but he can't cause I don't like him" If the US wants to follow the 'might is right' policy then fine, there's not a lot anybody can do about it at this time but it would be nice if they just came out and said it instead of treating the rest of the world as if we were cretins feeding us pathetic propaganda to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Art]

i guess the supreme leader isn't a zionist lover, and i think he also posses the mentality of islamic fundamentalists, which means he doesn't give a damn about suiciding while killing the "evil sinners" when he'll get the chance.

Any sources or references to support this statement?

 

[fargoth]

Any sources or references to support this statement?

"After meeting Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin in 1998, Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed that Iran would not recognize Israel "even for one hour" and would "continue to struggle against this cancerous growth." In 2000, he explained that the only "remedy" for Israel was "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis," and in a statement reported by Reuters later in the year he called Israel a "cancerous tumor" which "should be removed from the region." The next year, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, widely regarded as a pragmatist, noted that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." For his part, former president Mohammed Khatami, often held up as Iran's leading moderate, has described Israel as "a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world" and argued that "all of Palestine must be liberated.""

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=w051031&s=karshmiller103105"

Or perhaps the 300,000 arabs who despite securing a UN resolution granting them the right to return have been refused permission to do so by Israel.

when israel declared independence every arab country in the region fought against it, do you think it would have been different if the palastinians won the war?
why should a country accept the return of declared enemies who wish the people of the country to die, and don't accept the idea that the land is their's?