News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Anttech]

The Iranian leadership does not hate Jews as long as they live under Muslim rule.
Let us drop the absurd pretence Iran is developing nuclear weapons to support the Palestinians. As I previously stated, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre" .

I never stated that Iran wants Nuc's to help Palestinians. It wants nucs so it can sit at the 'big boys table' in global politics. It wants them for self-preservation, and self-growth.

Iran is against Zionism because it agrees with UN Resolution 3379, it is not against Judaism.

 

[Yonoz]

I never stated that Iran wants Nuc's to help Palestinians. It wants nucs so it can sit at the 'big boys table' in global politics. It wants them for self-preservation, and self-growth.

Even so, is this a power you would trust with a nuclear weapon? Will your belief remain so firm for the next 5, 10, 20 years? Is this a way to make it to the 'big boys table'? Should this behaviour be rewarded? Is this the kind of nation you wish sat at the 'big boys table', backed by a nuclear arsenal?

Iran is against Zionism because it agrees with UN Resolution 3379, it is not against Judaism.

You mean the one that was revoked by resolution 4686?
Whadaya know, the UN is an everything-but-impartial tool
EDIT: Since you mentioned it anyway, allow me to quote the glorious response by a man I admire, Haim Herzog:

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly the same day, 10. November 1975, Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog stated:

"I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That... is Zionism."

In his response he also said that the resolution was:

"another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society. Who would have believed that in this year, 1975, the malicious falsehoods of the 'Elders of Zion' would be distributed officially by Arab governments? Who would have believed that we would today contemplate an Arab society which teaches the vilest anti-Jewish hate in the kindergartens?... We are being attacked by a society which is motivated by the most extreme form of racism known in the world today... expressed so succinctly in the words of the leader of the PLO, Yassir Arafat, in his opening address at a symposium in Tripoli, Libya: "There will be no presence in the region other than the Arab presence..."

Herzog ended his statement with the words:

"For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such."

As he concluded his speech, Herzog tore the document in half.

Here's the video: http://www.herzog.org.il/video/un_speeches.wmv". Note the other bits of the speech:

You yourselves bear the responsibility for your stand before history, for as such will you be viewed in our history. We, the Jewish people, will not forget.
...
For us, the Jewish people, this is but a passing episode in a rich and event-filled history. We put our trust in our Providence, in our faith and beliefs, in our time-hallowed tradition, in our striving for social advance and human values, and in our people wherever they may be.

You see, the UN is only really good at kicking an opponent while they're already down.

 

[kyleb]

Certainly.

Ahh, so you did make the leap from 'centrifuges which can be used in the production of weapons' to 'those centrifuges prove Iran is developing nuclear missiles' without any evidence to do so. Thank you for clearing that up.

No, you do not. I was not addressing that question at all.

I'm still getting the impression that you don't know of any evidence of Iran pursuing any weapons-only nuclear technology though. At least that is what I gather from all of what you sited, the first being highly speculative with qualifications like "is believed to be" along with "Iran appears" and such. Skimming the rest the only hard evidence I found in your quotes was use of uranium hexafluoride, which is claimed as "a clear breach of the NPT" but after reading that report it seems the lack of disclosure was the only breach there, and that is under corrective action. Besides, use of uranium hexafluoride isn't nesscarily evidence of nuclear weapons development either.

 

[Anttech]

Even so, is this a power you would trust with a nuclear weapon? Will your belief remain so firm for the next 5, 10, 20 years? Is this a way to make it to the 'big boys table'? Should this behaviour be rewarded? Is this the kind of nation you wish sat at the 'big boys table', backed by a nuclear arsenal?

Its the only way, let's face it. You either yield to the almighty power of the security council who is controlled more or less by the US, or you do your own thing. Just like India and pakistain. Its not a matter of rewarding (Anyway stop being so hypocritical!) its a matter of having the cards to play global politics..

 

[Lisa!]

OMG! It seems to me that you people are talking about people from another planet. God bless me since I guess it takes so long time for me to comment on posts of thread.





Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way. Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against. See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it. But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war. So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries. don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!

You just keep quiet when your goverments pass laws for using nuclear weapons against un-nuclear states. So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.
I'm sure that no crazy person in the world is going to use nuks against a country with nuks!
Note that I don't want Iran to get nuks but sometimes it seems to me that western countries are going to force Iran to have them.

"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html

Hmmm.. as far as I know enemies are always try to underestimate their hostile, but US is always overrate Iran's capabilities. Doesn't that tell you anything?

 

[Anttech]

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way. Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against. See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it. But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war. So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries. don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!

That is one great post, and you have articulated what I was trying to get other people here to articulate. The sheer hypocracy of it all! Historically and actualised facts would point an 'alien' who came to this planet who was completely non-biased to have a rather different view on who he/she thought were the big bad bullys on the block and who werent.

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps not directly, but if you look at your post within the context of this thread, you could conclude that this is what you thought Iran was going to do..

Anyway THAT is why I wanted to know your stance, so we could clear that up.

If one looks at post #75 and #80, I do not even mention Iran. I did not conclude that I thought Iran was planning to do this.

Iran could also deliver nukes using hot air balloons, or on the back of trained eagles (very small ones), or perhaps using a the regular post. All of which are possible, but unlikely!

Hot air balloons and regular mail are possible, but as one mentioned highly improbable or unlikely. An eagle cannot lift a nuclear device as the smallest possible one (one that could be detonated) is too heavy, so that option is impossible.

I appreciate Lisa!'s input. It must be difficult to read this material, where so many are talking about one's country and the 'speculation' of war.

For the record, I do care very much about about the people of Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, US and everywhere else in the world. I don't think anyone should make war. Unfortunately, not everyone shares that belief.

Certainly the Iranian government woulf probably feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, even if for purposes of deterrence, because of the hostile rhetoric and threats from the Bush administration, and the fact that the US invaded a neighboring country.

Make Peace, not War!

 

[Astronuc]

We could lock GW Bush and Ahmadinejad in the same room and through away the key.

 

[Yonoz]

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way.

If they feel they have something to gain by it, such as in the case their rule will end, yeah I'm pretty sure they will use nuclear weapons. But they don't have to. They can indeed supply a terrorist group with a small nuclear device. They could use a nuclear arsenal as leverage to support their exported terrorism. Suppose Iran had nuclear weapons during this latest conflict and threatened to use them if Israel keeps what it calls self defence. I'm sorry, but that's not the middle east I think you and I should live in.

Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against.

Noone's taken any new action against Iran so far, and I hope it will not amount to that.

See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it.

So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.

But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war.

No, Iran has quite an impressive military as it is, it comes standard since Iran's such a big oil producer (with a penchant for Uranium enrichment). My problem is with nuclear weapons - which, when used, create a tragedy for generations. Suppose the tensions are high between the two countries and both militaries are at high alert. This increases the chances of mistakes happening. Now, considering the middle east's nature of being such a tense spot, do you think, as an ordinary person, that it is wise for Iran to pursue nuclear capability?

So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries.

That is not true. Honestly, I care for my life more than I care for other people's lives, and to different degrees I also care for every member of our race. I feel for the Chechens, I feel for the Tibetans, I feel for the Africans in Darfur, I even feel for the Palestinians. That has nothing to do with my view of which is innocent or responsible in different degrees for the suffering. Tragedies are tragedies are tragedies and we must always work to end them.
Nations need to respect other nations. The Arab world has not respected Israel, and the Iranian leadership is continuing the facade of Arab struggle against the "Zionist threat" impersonated by the 151st largest nation in the world - that's right, 4 places higher than Fiji (Iran's 18th)! Whose worst crimes are miniscule in comparison with those perpetrated even today by Muslims and/or upon Muslims - see Darfur, see el-Hama, see the Kurds and the Ethiopians and the Palestinians themselves, back in Black September and Sabra and Shatila - that's right, the murderers are still living among the Lebanese today. The Iranian justice system regularly carries out punishments that few in Israel would even dream of inflicting upon any living thing. I care for those victims too.

don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!

Oh I appreciate. I even understand it. I don't think any less of you for thinking what you do because I'm aware that we have differences. I only ask that this will become a mutual respect. Iran needs to recognise Israel's right to exist. Iran has the right to its own foreign policy, energy initiatives and even weapons programs - no one is arguing against any of those. But it must realize that the world cannot allow it to possesses nuclear weapons technology because of its own interests. Respect us and we'll respect you. Everyone is playing this game - the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the French - everyone is a dirty player - even Iran, and guess what - Israel too. If Iran wants in on the big stakes it needs to bridge some gaps with the west, developing nuclear weapons is not the way to go. Look at Egypt. Look at Lybia. Look at Turkey and Jordan. They're all prosperous nations. Turkey's a good example of a secular Muslim state (and they too have a dark history). Were you alive before the revolt? My dad lived in Tehran when he was growing up. He loved every minute of it, he told what a great people the Persians are. I hope the Persian people make Iran the modern wonder it once was.

You just keep quiet when your goverments pass laws for using nuclear weapons against un-nuclear states. So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.

Israel never fired a nuclear weapon. I'm just as afraid it will fire one by accident as I am afraid of Iran firing one on purpose.

I'm sure that no crazy person in the world is going to use nuks against a country with nuks!
Note that I don't want Iran to get nuks but sometimes it seems to me that western countries are going to force Iran to have them.

Why does it seem that way to you?

 

[Hurkyl]

Historically and actualised facts would point an 'alien' who came to this planet

Funny how the alien always agrees with the person who decides to bring it up.

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war?

I don't know. Are you absolutely, positively convinced that they won't? If so, then please share; it would be nice to have a good reason not to consider it.

For the record, I don't have much faith in sanity being an adequate preventative measure. Nor am I arrogant enough to think that any sane person must share my values. More explicitly: it's certainly possible that a sane person with a different belief system would find starting nuclear war a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Keep in mind the philosophy that "mutually assured destruction" is the main thing preventing nuclear war -- but do you think that the West will actually destroy Iran if it launches a nuke? More importantly, do you think Iran thinks the West will destroy it if it launches a nuke?


Anyways the point is, wishful thinking should not be the primary motivating force behind our policies. As much as is feasible, all possible courses of action should be considered, and the cost and likelyhood of all possible outcomes should be evaluated.

Alas, that probably won't happen, what with the tendancies of people on all sides of the issue to try and reduce it to an emotional appeal. But I'm still naïve enough to think it's something to be strived for.

 

[Anttech]

Funny how the alien always agrees with the person who decides to bring it up.

hehe.. That was funny.

Jokes aside: :)

would you beg to differ? If you looked at the facts historically over the last century completely from a completely non-biased perceptive, who would you say has the tendacy to invade other countries the most, and force upon them their vaules?

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, I didn't read much of this thread, but...

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war?

One of my friends asked me this weekend what I thought about Iran's nuclear ambitions and I told him that because they are ruled by a coalition of clerics and not an individual madman (ie, N. Korea), there likely is a collective logic behind what they do. Li'l Kim could stub his toe, get mad, and launch a bunch of missiles at Seoul, but such a thing is far less likely when you have a bureacracy - even a fanatical one - to deal with.

For that reason, I think Iran's rhetoric is almost exclusively a bargaining tactic.

 

[Yonoz]

If you looked at the facts historically over the last century completely from a completely non-biased perceptive, who would you say has the tendacy to invade other countries the most, and force upon them their vaules?

Arab nations. Let's play a game called "middle east geopardy". The first topic will be "use of chemical weapons" for $100 - "This Arab nation used chemical weapons against Yemenites in this little known conflict". Anyone?

 

[kyleb]

For that reason, I think Iran's rhetoric is almost exclusively a bargaining tactic.

bargaining for what?

Arab nations.

Well then, that leaves Iran out.

But seriously, since Iran is the subject at hand here, could you sight some examples of Iran invading other countries?

 

[Yonoz]

But seriously, since Iran is the subject at hand here, could you sight some examples of Iran invading other countries?

I can site plenty of exported terrorism. I wish the Iranian regime would be honest enough to declare war and face its enemies directly rather than force other nations to bear the toll of its wars.

 

[Lisa!]

If they feel they have something to gain by it, such as in the case their rule will end, yeah I'm pretty sure they will use nuclear weapons. But they don't have to. They can indeed supply a terrorist group with a small nuclear device. They could use a nuclear arsenal as leverage to support their exported terrorism. Suppose Iran had nuclear weapons during this latest conflict and threatened to use them if Israel keeps what it calls self defence. I'm sorry, but that's not the middle east I think you and I should live in.

You want to tell me that they use nuks against a nuclear country? No matter what they gain they could only use that after their death. And do you think it's difficult for them to supply their terrorists with nuclear divices right now? They just don't need to get nuks by themselves and then give it to their terrorists!
And no Iran wouldn't threat Israel with its imaginary weapons:

1. they do believe that Isral have nuks and for sure they're not going to play with lion's tail!
2. They do not want to ruin their reputation in the world(they think they have that anyway )
3. They don't want all countries(At least US and its unions) join together against them!

So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.

what Iranian/Iran can do towards that? Remeber I'm talking about inconsistent comments from PF'ers and not their government.(Oh their governments )

No, Iran has quite an impressive military as it is, it comes standard since Iran's such a big oil producer (with a penchant for Uranium enrichment). My problem is with nuclear weapons - which, when used, create a tragedy for generations. Suppose the tensions are high between the two countries and both militaries are at high alert. This increases the chances of mistakes happening. Now, considering the middle east's nature of being such a tense spot, do you think, as an ordinary person, that it is wise for Iran to pursue nuclear capability?

Why don't India and Pakistan use nuks against each other? Simple because both side know that a nuclear war has no winner!

That is not true. Honestly, I care for my life more than I care for other people's lives, and to different degrees I also care for every member of our race. I feel for the Chechens, I feel for the Tibetans, I feel for the Africans in Darfur, I even feel for the Palestinians. That has nothing to do with my view of which is innocent or responsible in different degrees for the suffering. Tragedies are tragedies are tragedies and we must always work to end them.

Sure we all do care about other people's lives as long as we do not think they could be a threat for them. It seems to me people here are going to take actions against anyone if they fear their life alittle!

Nations need to respect other nations. The Arab world has not respected Israel, and the Iranian leadership is continuing the facade of Arab struggle against the "Zionist threat" impersonated by the 151st largest nation in the world - that's right, 4 places higher than Fiji (Iran's 18th)! Whose worst crimes are miniscule in comparison with those perpetrated even today by Muslims and/or upon Muslims - see Darfur, see el-Hama, see the Kurds and the Ethiopians and the Palestinians themselves, back in Black September and Sabra and Shatila - that's right, the murderers are still living among the Lebanese today. The Iranian justice system regularly carries out punishments that few in Israel would even dream of inflicting upon any living thing. I care for those victims too.
Oh I appreciate. I even understand it. I don't think any less of you for thinking what you do because I'm aware that we have differences. I only ask that this will become a mutual respect. Iran needs to recognise Israel's right to exist. Iran has the right to its own foreign policy, energy initiatives and even weapons programs - no one is arguing against any of those. But it must realize that the world cannot allow it to possesses nuclear weapons technology because of its own interests. Respect us and we'll respect you. Everyone is playing this game - the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the French - everyone is a dirty player - even Iran, and guess what - Israel too. If Iran wants in on the big stakes it needs to bridge some gaps with the west, developing nuclear weapons is not the way to go. Look at Egypt. Look at Lybia. Look at Turkey and Jordan. They're all prosperous nations. Turkey's a good example of a secular Muslim state (and they too have a dark history). Were you alive before the revolt? My dad lived in Tehran when he was growing up. He loved every minute of it, he told what a great people the Persians are. I hope the Persian people make Iran the modern wonder it once was.

Well I still don't know how this new country suddenly appear in ME. We talked a lot about that but that doesn't convince me at all.(I might be brainwashed here, eh? ) But hey forget about that. I just want to know whether Israel respect other nations and Palestinians? I'll say no. People in Iran are no fan of Israel because they see you even kill little kids and woemn. Ya at least that's what we're watching from our Media. And well less or more that's what you've done anyway.

Israel never fired a nuclear weapon.

Against who should they do that?

I'm just as afraid it will fire one by accident[/color] as I am afraid of Iran firing one on ]purpose.[/color]
Why does it seem that way to you?

 

[Lisa!]

Sorry Gokul43201, people just don'tlet me reply to your post now but I'll do it if 1 of the mentors doesn't lock this thread before that!

I don't know. Are you absolutely, positively convinced that they won't? If so, then please share; it would be nice to have a good reason not to consider it.

Wait a minute! It's you who accuse Iran of using nuks, so since your the 1 who claimed an accusation it must be you to bring proof and reason!
As for me I for example can say, US will use NUks again un-nuclear states since they'd done before but as for Iran well I don't need to think of reasons "since you're not in charge of something as long as no one can prove it". That's what you westerns say not me!

For the record, I don't have much faith in sanity being an adequate preventative measure. Nor am I arrogant enough to think that any sane person must share my values. More explicitly: it's certainly possible that a sane person with a different belief system would find starting nuclear war a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Keep in mind the philosophy that "mutually assured destruction" is the main thing preventing nuclear war -- but do you think that the West will actually destroy Iran if it launches a nuke? More importantly, do you think Iran thinks the West will destroy it if it launches a nuke?


Anyways the point is, wishful thinking should not be the primary motivating force behind our policies. As much as is feasible, all possible courses of action should be considered, and the cost and likelyhood of all possible outcomes should be evaluated.

Alas, that probably won't happen, what with the tendancies of people on all sides of the issue to try and reduce it to an emotional appeal. But I'm still naïve enough to think it's something to be strived for.

Using nuks isagainst Islamic beliefs. Just imagine what sort of crap we read at school:
"a scientists should be a moral person. consider those scientists who developed atomic bombs... Since shouldn't be in the hand of immoral people"
Well I do not agree that the scientists who worked to get atomic bombs were immoral...anyway let's not go to discussion why I still respect them a lot despite that.

 

[Yonoz]

You want to tell me that they use nuks against a nuclear country? No matter what they gain they could only use that after their death. And do you think it's difficult for them to supply their terrorists with nuclear divices right now? They just don't need to get nuks by themselves and then give it to their terrorists!

I'm just wondering if this status quo will be maintained over the next year, decade or century.

And no Iran wouldn't threat Israel with its imaginary weapons:

1. they do believe that Isral have nuks and for sure they're not going to play with lion's tail!
2. They do not want to ruin their reputation in the world(they think they have that anyway )
3. They don't want all countries(At least US and its unions) join together against them!

I'm seriously concerned it will. Remember, it's Iran that's behind the latest suffering in Lebanon.

what Iranian/Iran can do towards that? Remeber I'm talking about inconsistent comments from PF'ers and not their government.(Oh their governments )

First off, Iran could stop sponsoring terrorism. I'm sure Kadafi will be able to give some advice to Khameinei on how to change from a terror producer with WMD factories buried inside mountains into everyone's new friend.

Why don't India and Pakistan use nuks against each other? Simple because both side know that a nuclear war has no winner!

I'm sure that many PF'ers will be happy to provide you with examples of near catastrophies during the cold war.

Sure we all do care about other people's lives as long as we do not think they could be a threat for them. It seems to me people here are going to take actions against anyone if they fear their life alittle!

Perhaps, but only after they try to solve the problem by diplomatic means.

Well I still don't know how this new country suddenly appear in ME. We talked a lot about that but that doesn't convince me at all.(I might be brainwashed here, eh? ) But hey forget about that. I just want to know whether Israel respect other nations and Palestinians? I'll say no. People in Iran are no fan of Israel because they see you even kill little kids and woemn. Ya at least that's what we're watching from our Media. And well less or more that's what you've done anyway.

We have our disagreements and problems, but we don't make death threats against anyone, especially not the Palestinians. We don't see you as one single entity, don't see us as one. So far, Iran's behaviour only distances us from peace.

Against who should they do that?

You said:

So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.

I'm just wondering who tasted nuclear warfare by Israel.

Nuclear weapons are usually not kept ready to be fired. When tensions increase, nuclear powers raise the alertness of their arsenal, increasing the risk of mistakes and malfunctions. That is why I'm worried a nuclear war will unintentionally erupt whether by Israel or by Iran.

 

[Lisa!]

Sorry, I didn't read much of this thread, but...

Neither did I!

One of my friends asked me this weekend what I thought about Iran's nuclear ambitions and I told him that because they are ruled by a coalition of clerics and not an individual madman (ie, N. Korea), there likely is a collective logic behind what they do. Li'l Kim could stub his toe, get mad, and launch a bunch of missiles at Seoul, but such a thing is far less likely when you have a bureacracy - even a fanatical one - to deal with.

For that reason, I think Iran's rhetoric is almost exclusively a bargaining tactic.

And what's the situation in US?
See Russ, these coalition of clerics don't want to lose their power at any price!
Anyway I don't mind if there would be control on Iran's nuclear plans in order to prevent them from getting nuks. But I have to admit that I've decided to leave here if they stop their nuclear plans. well that's because nuclear physics/technology is my favorite area of science. And that's been my interst even before I'd have any idea of what the hell politic is.

 

[russ_watters]

bargaining for what?

This:

On Tuesday, Iran responded to package of incentives from the Security Council's five permanent members and Germany aimed at enticing it to halt enrichment.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm

It's a beautiful thing, really, if you're a rogue nation: Start doing something bad and the UN may just pay you to stop! So even if they have no intention of building weapons, they play the part of the crazy rogue nation because there is no real downside and lots of upside.

 

[Lisa!]

I'm seriously concerned it will. Remember, it's Iran that's behind the latest suffering in Lebanon.

I'm really speechless here!

First off, Iran could stop sponsoring terrorism. I'm sure Kadafi will be able to give some advice to Khameinei on how to change from a terror producer with WMD factories buried inside mountains into everyone's new friend.

well let's say all countries should do that. by terrorists you mean hezbullah, eh?
But waite a minute I don't understand what you're talking about.(sorry my English isn't good so I'm afaid of misunderstanding you)Plese clarify this quote for me
"So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.
"

I'm sure that many PF'ers will be happy to provide you with examples of near catastrophies during the cold war.

I'll be glad too!

Perhaps, but only after they try to solve the problem by diplomatic means.

Ok you know what's going to happen, then!

We have our disagreements and problems, but we don't make death threats against anyone, especially not the Palestinians. We don't see you as one single entity, don't see us as one. So far, Iran's behaviour only distances us from peace.

Sure you do not make threats! You just kill them.

You said:

I'm just wondering who tasted nuclear warfare by Israel.

I was referring to western people not Israel. but tell me whom Israel should use nuks against?

Nuclear weapons are usually not kept ready to be fired. When tensions increase, nuclear powers raise the alertness of their arsenal, increasing the risk of mistakes and malfunctions. That is why I'm worried a nuclear war will unintentionally erupt whether by Israel or by Iran.

The only thing I know is that I think no country should have nuks. People in other countries are alsoafraid of US and other nations to have nuks, they just can't trust their administration! And you know what scare them more than nuclear countries is that since they don't have nuks other countries might not hesitate using nuks against them!

 

[Anttech]

I'm seriously concerned it will. Remember, it's Iran that's behind the latest suffering in Lebanon.

Ehh? How did you work that out? Hezbollah may have got its arms from Iran. Israel got there's from the US, your point is? Hezbollah captured soliders from Israel with the intent of exchanging prisoners. ISRAEL desided to not negotiate, ISRAEL desided to shell the cr@p out of Lebanon. That is what happened. You cannot expect anyone to swallow such a sour pill as that!

 

[kyleb]

This: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm

It's a beautiful thing, really, if you're a rogue nation: Start doing something bad and the UN may just pay you to stop! So even if they have no intention of building weapons, they play the part of the crazy rogue nation because there is no real downside and lots of upside.

There is plenty of downside when the world is looking at kicking their asses and they are left with living under the threat of that or accepting the terms we offer them. Iran isn't the one proposing the bargaining here.

 

[Yonoz]

Sure you do not make threats! You just kill them.

I'd be happy to continue our discussion when you take me seriously.

 

[Yonoz]

Ehh? How did you work that out? Hezbollah may have got its arms from Iran. Israel got there's from the US, your point is? Hezbollah captured soliders from Israel with the intent of exchanging prisoners. ISRAEL desided to not negotiate, ISRAEL desided to shell the cr@p out of Lebanon. That is what happened. You cannot expect anyone to swallow such a sour pill as that!

And I suppose Israel is supposed to swallow the sour pill of an Iranian proxy constantly shelling and attacking it across an internationally recognised border with the complicity of the Lebanese government.
How quickly history is rewritten.
No double standards eh?

 

[Lisa!]

I'd be happy to continue our discussion when you take me seriously.

I think of murdering and death as serious matters!

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Ehh? How did you work that out? Hezbollah may have got its arms from Iran. Israel got there's from the US, your point is? Hezbollah captured soliders from Israel with the intent of exchanging prisoners. ISRAEL desided to not negotiate, ISRAEL desided to shell the cr@p out of Lebanon. That is what happened. You cannot expect anyone to swallow such a sour pill as that!

hizbulla is an organization that calls for the destruction of israel, not the army of lebanon, they showed how they care nothing for lebanon by using weapons from civil areas, which makes our bombs fall on civil areas.

so now let me ask you a simple question, iran and syria calls for the destruction of israel, and so hizbulla. hizbulla gets lots of missiles from iran, and budgets for bunckers in south lebanon. that's were iran is in the story, if not their aid, there would be no war to be done and no civs to be killed. we are not aggressors, and the US doesn't give us weapon to butcher civs, but to protect ours(ofcours that they have their own interests).

so a terror organization has loads of missiles in south lebanon. why would they have thousands of missiles in south lebanon? for what purpose?

obviously people don't get that the two people abducted is nothing but the spark, they were planning on attacking israel with mass of missiles when people of israel walk in the street unaware of any danger. such thing would cause the death of thousands...

so let's call it a counter attack.

 

[Anttech]

And I suppose Israel is supposed to swallow the sour pill of an Iranian proxy constantly shelling and attacking it across an internationally recognised border with the complicity of the Lebanese government.

Yonzo, you shelled Lebanon first, Hezbollah (The resistance/Terrorist) shelled you back... The Lebanese government were not complying they were not getting involved, how could they? They don't control Hezbollah (we have already argued this point, so let's not bother again).. It seems ssssooooooooooooo easy for you to push and spin the blame any which you deside. Yes Iran supplied the weapons, Yes Iran don't like Zionists, but you have to face the simple facts here. YOU shelled Lebanon ISRAEL did that! ISRAEL killed 1500 people for 2 soliders. THAT is what happened! FACT!

 

[russ_watters]

There is plenty of downside when the world is looking at kicking their asses and they are left with living under the threat of that or accepting the terms we offer them.

The downside only exists if:

1. They think the threat of invasion is credible. I don't think it is, and I suspect they do not either.

2. They desperately want nuclear weapons. If they don't desperately want nuclear weapons, then like I said: pretending you do works great as a bargaining tactic.

Iran isn't the one proposing the bargaining here.

Yes, I know. More beauty: if a rogue nation starts threatening people, the UN falls all over itself to reward them. They don't even have to ask!

Extortion really is effortless when the UN is just a bunch of people who like to hear themselves talk.

 

[Lisa!]

I appreciate Lisa!'s input. It must be difficult to read this material, where so many are talking about one's country and the 'speculation' of war.

Thanks but I have difficulty in responding to posts not reading them since I'm not a native speaker!
You know if I know we can't stop a war nore we can start 1 by this discussion. To be honest I'm just bored and that's why I'm here.(I used to be an active meber here since there was lots of things I wanted to ask and well I thought I might be clarify something sometimes)
Honestly I'm going to conclusion that dialogs don't work as long as we don't have consistent standards. If nuks are bad and dangerous, no country shouldn't have them. If you want other nations respect your independence, you should alos respect theirs. So I guess our governments also don't get anywhere by dialogs as long as they just want to impose their own views on each other.
Well I guess I won't come here anymore when I get back to my work again!