Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant is operational

[OnceMore]

"might makes right"

Ah, the philosophy of the school yard bully.

The problem with this philosophy though, is that usually the person been bullied is push to a point, and lashes out.

 

[ThomasT]

To whom?

It would be a threat to the US interest in being the predominant bully wrt middle eastern affairs, imo. I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that the US wants a certain kind of 'peace' in the ME that, for obvious reasons, doesn't include any ME states except Israel having nuclear weaponry.

 

[ThomasT]

Ah, the philosophy of the school yard bully.

The problem with this philosophy though, is that usually the person been bullied is push to a point, and lashes out.

Which is one reason to prevent any ME state except Israel from developing nuclear weapons.

 

[epenguin]

Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant is operational

Funny name.

 

[zapperzero]

Which is one reason to prevent any ME state except Israel from developing nuclear weapons.

I hope you're trolling. You best be trolling.

 

[OnceMore]

Which is one reason to prevent any ME state except Israel from developing nuclear weapons.

Yea, I'm knew here, so I don't actually know if you're taking the piss, or you're serious.

 

[ThomasT]

I hope you're trolling. You best be trolling.

Yea, I'm knew here, so I don't actually know if you're taking the piss, or you're serious.

Is there some reason to believe that the US doesn't have a vested interest in trying to keep Iran, or any other ME state except Israel, from developing a nuclear arsenal -- and that US policy entails doing whatever might be deemed necessary to keep Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal?

 

[OnceMore]

A vested interest? Maybe they do. But a state cannot, and should not pass another states boarder without premission.

What if Iran decided they had a vested interest in stopping a potential stike from Isreal, backed by the US? Would you agree also that they have a right to strike?

To quote Noam Chomsky “Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

 

[ThomasT]

What if Iran decided they had a vested interest in stopping a potential stike from Isreal, backed by the US? Would you agree also that they have a right to strike?

"Right" and "rights" are meaningless in this context. The government of Iran will do what it deems to be in its best interest to do. And so will the US.

To quote Noam Chomsky “Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”

If only it were that simple. But it isn't. Countries, like individuals, have their self interests which might or might not coincide with other countries. Often they don't. So there's the continual struggle for dominance.

Imho, the US will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

 

[OnceMore]

Imho, the US will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

You are probably right. And if it does happen, lots of people will die. And there will be even more people who will grow up with very anti-American views.

Like I said, it would be better if no one had nuclear bombs.

 

[Evo]

You are probably right. And if it does happen, lots of people will die.

Please post the mainstream article that backs this up. I suggest before you post again that you read the rules for posting in this forum which is stickied at the top of P&WA. Posting opinion as a fact is a violation of the rules.

 

[OnceMore]

Please post the mainstream article that backs this up. I suggest before you post again that you read the rules for posting in this forum which is stickied at the top of P&WA. Posting opinion as a fact is a violation of the rules.

My apologies. What I said was my own opinion.

Since I am aware of this rule now, maybe ThomasT can post his mainstream article that backs up his comment that

Iran is a threat. With nuclear weapons it's an immediately grave and unacceptable threat. Plus they have vast oil reserves. Iran is going to get hit ... in the foreseeable future. Bet on it.

I may be wrong, but this seems to be an opinion posted as fact.

 

[ThomasT]

You are probably right. And if it does happen, lots of people will die. And there will be even more people who will grow up with very anti-American views.

Yeah, it seems that the US is pretty much despised by lots of people in the ME -- and with good reason, imo. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US has been the predominant bully in the international schoolyard.

I certainly hope that the Iran thing doesn't come to something like an all-out war, with occupation and such. But it seems to me that some sort of violence is inevitable.

 

[OnceMore]

I certainly hope that the Iran thing doesn't come to something like an all-out war, with occupation and such.

I hope you are right! :)

I have enjoyed this back-and-forth. Most people I know hate to discuss politics.

 

[ThomasT]

I may be wrong, but this seems to be an opinion posted as fact.

You're right, I should have tacked an "imo" onto any statements that I didn't.

Anybody's (except the people making and dictating policy) ideas about what the governments of the US or Iran (or any country for that matter) should or might do given certain circumstances is conjecture. But I do think that some conjectures can be reasonably assessed as being more accurate than others.

One would hope that violence doesn't become necessary. But it's the ability to do violence that, generally, governs the course of events ... imo.

 

[ThomasT]

I have enjoyed this back-and-forth. Most people I know hate to discuss politics.

By the way, welcome to PF. You'll find a lot of people here willing to discuss politics, and just about anything else I think.

We, the common folks, are forced to hash things out in endless discussions because we don't know what the people in power know.

And then there's PF's primary raison d'etre. It's a great place to discuss any and all things scientific, especially physics.

 

[OnceMore]

By the way, welcome to PF

Thank you very much :)

It's a great place to discuss any and all things scientific, especially physics.

Good good! I am hoping to learn lots, get questions answered and, in turn, answer other peoples questions.

 

[shashankac655]

No. Only Sovereign nations with truly democratically elected governments and leaders should have the "right" to nuclear technology. That being said, I do not really have a problem with Iran contracting the russkies to build and operate a LWR for electricity.

Lets not forget the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat]1953[/PLAIN] Iranian coup d'état (the US and the UK overthrew a Democratically elected Iranian government ,just because it nationalized it's oil fields.)
And now these countries preach other countries about democracy?
Recently some other country paid the price for nationalizing oil companies .
see here
and here
(THESE ARE NOT CRACKPOT LINKS)
and i got 5 points for telling the truth.
Iran might want to have nukes to protect it's oil reserves ,there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[gravenewworld]

Profile: Norman Schwarzkopf Sr.
Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. was a participant or observer in the following events:
August 19, 1953: Iranian Government Overthrown by Rebels and CIA

CIA coup planner Kermit Roosevelt. [Source: Find a Grave (,com)]
The government of Iran is overthrown by Iranian rebels and the CIA in a coup codenamed Operation Ajax. The coup was planned by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt after receiving the blessings of the US and British governments. Muhammad Mosaddeq is deposed and the CIA promptly reinstates Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the throne. The Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, trained by the CIA and Israel’s Mossad, are widely perceived as being as brutal and terrifying as the Nazi Gestapo in World War II. British oil interests in Iran, partially nationalized under previous governments, are returned to British control. American oil interests are retained by 8 private oil companies, who are awarded 40% of the Iranian oil industry. US General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. (father of the general with the same name in the 1991 Gulf War) helps the Shah develop the fearsome SAVAK secret police. [ZNET, 12/12/2001; GLOBAL POLICY FORUM, 2/28/2002] Author Stephen Kinzer will say in 2003, "The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism. The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=norman_schwarzkopf_sr__1


Maybe the US should stop giving into the whims of Israel, stay out of Iran's business, and stop upsetting world order. If we simply minded our own business in the past, we wouldn't have the huge blowback problems we have today.

 

[QuantumPion]

Lets not forget the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat]1953[/PLAIN] Iranian coup d'état (the US and the UK overthrew a Democratically elected Iranian government ,just because it nationalized it's oil fields.)
And now these countries preach other countries about democracy?
Recently some other country paid the price for nationalizing oil companies .
see here
and here
(THESE ARE NOT CRACKPOT LINKS)
and i got 5 points for telling the truth.
Iran might want to have nukes to protect it's oil reserves ,there is nothing wrong with that.

What is your point? That because we interfered with their political affairs in the past that they have the right to have nuclear weapons now? Sorry, but I don't buy that. Europe had colonized many African nations in the past but I don't think that means, say, Ethiopia or Sudan has the right to have nuclear weapons.

 

[zapperzero]

What is your point? That because we interfered with their political affairs in the past that they have the right to have nuclear weapons now? Sorry, but I don't buy that. Europe had colonized many African nations in the past but I don't think that means, say, Ethiopia or Sudan has the right to have nuclear weapons.

Framing this in terms of rights is faintly ridiculous. There is no such thing as a right to own nukes. Signatories of the NPT (of which Iran is one) volunteer to not develop them. That, the Wassenaar agreement and the SALT treaty is just about all the legal framework there is to nukes.

 

[QuantumPion]

Framing this in terms of rights is faintly ridiculous. There is no such thing as a right to own nukes. Signatories of the NPT (of which Iran is one) volunteer to not develop them. That, the Wassenaar agreement and the SALT treaty is just about all the legal framework there is to nukes.

Right. Hence my original post in response to this quote on page 1:

Every country has the right to own nuclear power facilities, not only USA and Israel.

 

[shashankac655]

What is your point? That because we interfered with their political affairs in the past that they have the right to have nuclear weapons now? Sorry, but I don't buy that. Europe had colonized many African nations in the past but I don't think that means, say, Ethiopia or Sudan has the right to have nuclear weapons.

And who decides that? NPT is a fraud,The only reason why the US and other Western countries have signed it is because they do virtual nuclear tests to upgrade their nukes and in turn preach/bully other countries not to conduct nuclear tests. Technically NOBODY has signed the NPT ,it is just a tool of powerful nations to fool other less powerful nations.

PAST? It's not just the past (see the links about libya) ,it's happening even now ,it's called
Neo-colonialism

 

[ThomasT]

And who decides that? NPT is a fraud,The only reason why the US and other Western countries have signed it is because they do virtual nuclear tests to upgrade their nukes and in turn preach/bully other countries not conduct nuclear tests. Technically NOBODY has signed the NPT ... [/url]

Yes, in an important sense the NPT is a sham. And there's no real rule by international law. What exists is a situation in which certain well armed and predominantly powerful countries don't want to allow Iran to become a player in the military nuclear game. And, in the opinions of many pundits, if Iran persists in a perceived trend to develop nuclear military capability, then Iran is going to get hit really hard ... primarily by Israel, with extensive US backing.

One can argue that it's Iran's right to develop nuclear military capability, but in an arena where might, not justice, determines the course of events, Iran is simply not going to be allowed to develop nuclear military capability.

 

[chiro]

Why don't we just make the entire world a 'Minority Report' system.

We might as well just arrest everyone with a pre-crime conviction and prevent everything that will happen to 'protect the world'.

Unbelievable...