Iran's nuke program

[Illuminatus Primus]

I have to agree with Kast. Its in U.S. and Western security and political interests in general to keep the number of nuclear nations as low as possible. Nuclear disarmament is an impossibility, so we must make do with reducing the number of variables whereever necessary. Why should it ever be an American political consideration what Iran's security desires are? Of course we didn't want to Israel to acquire nuclear weapons, as it is extremely destabilizing, particularly with the aid of our allies and by stealing our own secrets, but once they had them, they weren't giving them up. Your argument would suggest that as soon as anyone's opponent develops nuclear weapons (or possibly not even that far) that said nation would have the right to develop nuclear weapons.

Well what about the nations which feel threatened by Iran's weapon programmes. I'd prefer to not have a Middle East nuclear arms race. Your argument would obligate us to permit anyone who felt threatened by nukes to develop them, which essentially is going to result in an endless cascade of nuclear proliferation, as each nation will cause others to be intimidated into weapons development, so on and so forth.

[Axis Kast]

Just fucking lock this thread. Kast can't keep his fucking pie hole shut.

I didn't respond to Deegan, and I dropped the moral issue at your request. I'm not saying anything different than anyone else, asshole.

Citizens of Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon have good reason to fear Israel aggression & whilst it currently has its hand full in Palestine who’s to say what it might do in 10, 20, 30 years?

And yet Israel's population is finite. It's taxed with its own security issues as is, and I can't imagine they'd liquidate the Palestinians to the point that it doesn't overwhelm their capabilities in the future. In fact, I don't see Israel winning another conventional war except with a nuclear threat.

I've yet to see a concrete instance of Soviet nuclear weaponry being left unguarded and improperly stored? Contrary to the insistence of writer's of bad technothrillers and their movie adaptations, there hasn't been a single instance of 'missing' nuclear weaponry out of the former CIS. The only remotely reported instance has been this poorly-sourced, newsmax-esque paranoia about 'suitcase' bombs.

The point about information-sharing remains.

[MKSheppard]

Citizens of Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon have good reason to fear Israel aggression & whilst it currently has its hand full in Palestine who’s to say what it might do in 10, 20, 30 years?

I daresay you won't hear much about Syria's 30 year occupation of
Lebanon, now won't you.

[Aaron]

Frankly, I doubt Israel is planning any wars of aggression. The largest military action they could possibly take inside the next decade – unprovoked – would be an assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities prior to fission. Even if invaded, I doubt they’d seize any new territory given the over-taxed state of their military as is. And the Palestinians have no relationship to the nuclear balance in the Middle East, save that perhaps one or two loonies might be handed dirty material by Iranian agents.

I doubt that Israel is planing any wars right now too. As for the Palestinans being given nuclear material from Iran, it's a risk that the USA would have to take. Are the possibilities of that happening any greater than that happing in the USA? Don't forget the evidence that pointed to the anthrax attacks as the work of a disgruntled US lab employee.

How about the dispersion of fissile material by unaffiliated scientists or fundamentalist personnel?

As I said above, it's a risk that is unavoidable. There's always the chance that material may be handed to terrorists, but I consider the risk of the stuff coming from Iran no greater than that coming from the USA or Russia.

You’ve also got to understand that a retaliatory strike on anyone by Israel would result in a wave of terrorism against them. That wouldn’t deter their counter-attack, but it would create huge problems for the United States – aside from financing reconstruction (if anything’s left to reconstruct, that is).

Well thats Israel's problem now isn't it. Why would the USA have to finance reconstructon? Do they pay to repair property and equipment damaged by suicide bombers now?

And that’s not even touching upon the fact that a nuclear Iran would have greater conventional flexibility as well; we’d think more heavily about the types of punishment we could promise in response to specific Iranian actions in the future.

And why shouldn't Iran be given greater conventional flexibility? If the USA is really the bastion of freedom and justice that they claim to be, then they have no choice but to allow Iran to continue it's programs.

And what if they couldn’t stop it? Russia’s problems after the Soviet Union’s collapse proved false the insistence of men such as Stephen Walt that atomic weapons were so valuable they’d never be left unguarded or improperly stored.

As Vympel has pointed out that has proven to be false.

And my point is that we don’t have to deal with that matter if we deny them the bomb in the first place.

Yes thats true, but it's also denying the Iranians sovereign right to self-defense.

[Axis Kast]

I doubt that Israel is planing any wars right now too. As for the Palestinans being given nuclear material from Iran, it's a risk that the USA would have to take.

No, that’s a falsehood. It’s a risk you feel the United States should be willing to take because you for some reason feel we should put principle before existential security.

Are the possibilities of that happening any greater than that happing in the USA? Don't forget the evidence that pointed to the anthrax attacks as the work of a disgruntled US lab employee.

This is not only a red herring – the culpability of a disgruntled employee in the United States in a handful of incidents does not at all diminish the threat of similar activities by foreign terrorists –, but also terrible logic. The police department doesn’t stop going after all criminals because it invariably fails to catch some. Just because we can’t dismantle the programs of all our potential adversaries doesn’t mean we are bound to tolerate proliferation across the board.

As I said above, it's a risk that is unavoidable. There's always the chance that material may be handed to terrorists, but I consider the risk of the stuff coming from Iran no greater than that coming from the USA or Russia.

And once again, you’re guilty of fuzzy logic.

Well thats Israel's problem now isn't it. Why would the USA have to finance reconstructon? Do they pay to repair property and equipment damaged by suicide bombers now?

Frankly, if any nation was gutted by nuclear hellfire, I think the rest of the world would be bound to contribute to its reconstruction. Israel wouldn’t be any different. Especially not because Washington would consider abandoning the Israeli victims of a terrorist attack a terrible lapse in our commitment to allies worldwide.

And why shouldn't Iran be given greater conventional flexibility? If the USA is really the bastion of freedom and justice that they claim to be, then they have no choice but to allow Iran to continue it's programs.

But the United States isn’t the bastion of freedom and justice that it claims to be. Certainly not to the absolute extreme you seem to think it should be, either. In fact, our leadership would be remiss if it failed to violate the sovereignty of nations such as Iran when the necessity arose. Let one’s enemies grow too powerful, and there’ll be no one left to practice good sportsmanship, so to speak. Remember that Iran is to this day funding terrorists that wish to strike the United States. They have clear ties to the al-Qaeda network. They embody every accusation made against Iraq – to the “T.” They have made themselves our enemy.

As Vympel has pointed out that has proven to be false.

And yet the threat of Iran’s giving material to terrorists or from sprouting leaks in its scientific infrastructure – which the Pakistanis, Russians, and Israelis were adept at doing, and still are – remains.

Yes thats true, but it's also denying the Iranians sovereign right to self-defense.

I don’t give two shits – or one – about Iranians’ “sovereign right to self-defense.”

[Aaron]

No, that’s a falsehood. It’s a risk you feel the United States should be willing to take because you for some reason feel we should put principle before existential security.

Where is the evidence that Iran is attempting to strike at the USA through terrorist means. Is it possible that they resort to these tactics because they have no other resource? The USA has tried since the Sha(?) was overthrown, to topple the Iranian government.

This is not only a red herring – the culpability of a disgruntled employee in the United States in a handful of incidents does not at all diminish the threat of similar activities by foreign terrorists –, but also terrible logic. The police department doesn’t stop going after all criminals because it invariably fails to catch some. Just because we can’t dismantle the programs of all our potential adversaries doesn’t mean we are bound to tolerate proliferation across the board.

I don't understand, why are the existing nuclear powers allowed to keep their arms and develop new ones? Why are not developing countries not allowed to expand their arsenals to defend against the one major power left?

And once again, you’re guilty of fuzzy logic.

Would you care to back that up with an explanation?

Frankly, if any nation was gutted by nuclear hellfire, I think the rest of the world would be bound to contribute to its reconstruction. Israel wouldn’t be any different. Especially not because Washington would consider abandoning the Israeli victims of a terrorist attack a terrible lapse in our commitment to allies worldwide.

Why is the USA obligated to help out Israel in particular, other than their inexplicable love affair with everything that Israel does. Did any countries contributed money for the restoration of NYC after 9/11?

But the United States isn’t the bastion of freedom and justice that it claims to be. Certainly not to the absolute extreme you seem to think it should be, either. In fact, our leadership would be remiss if it failed to violate the sovereignty of nations such as Iran when the necessity arose. Let one’s enemies grow too powerful, and there’ll be no one left to practice good sportsmanship, so to speak. Remember that Iran is to this day funding terrorists that wish to strike the United States. They have clear ties to the al-Qaeda network. They embody every accusation made against Iraq – to the “T.” They have made themselves our enemy.

I think that the USA should put it's money where it's mouth is. That is they should practice what they preach. Opressing the Iraqi people and the Palestianians by proxi doesn't exactly paint them in a good light. Yes I do think that the USA should be a bastion of freedom and justice as it claims to be. Unfortunatly they seem not to care about that anymore, certainly not since Bush Jr. came into the White House. At least Clinton cared about the USA's image abroad.

As for Iran being everything that Iraq was claimed to be. Well than, perhaps they invaded the wrong country. With Iran's record of supporting terrorism it's far more likely that they would contribute to an attack on US interests. But your great leader decided to settle a grudge against the guy who tried to kill his beloved daddy. And lets not forget the oil grab.

And yet the threat of Iran’s giving material to terrorists or from sprouting leaks in its scientific infrastructure – which the Pakistanis, Russians, and Israelis were adept at doing, and still are – remains.

I consider the threat to be the same as coming from the USA, Pakistan, Israel and Russia, as from Iran. There's no proof to suggest that the Iranians would allow nuclear material to fall into anyone elses hands. It would be suicide to allow it to happen.

I don’t give two shits – or one – about Iranians’ “sovereign right to self-defense.”

Yes, you've proven quite nicely that you only care about the USA, strange considering your location is listed as South Africa.

[Axis Kast]

Where is the evidence that Iran is attempting to strike at the USA through terrorist means. Is it possible that they resort to these tactics because they have no other resource? The USA has tried since the Sha(?) was overthrown, to topple the Iranian government.

Iran has not moved to restrict the conduct of terrorist activities by persons within its borders. They are guilty of the same crimes for which we invaded Afghanistan.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -6237r.htm

And, to turn your own ridiculous argument against you, the majority of Canadians occupy land their forefathers took from native American tribes that once roamed freely across what is today modern Canada. Dispossessed, overwhelmingly impoverished, and often relegated to second-class status in the political realm, it can be argued forcefully that these people have no other recourse to make their views and positions heard. Would you, then, refuse to fight them if they began to blow up other Canadians in a bid to restore their own autonomy from your country?

I don’t care whether Iranians think they’re right, or whether they feel threatened by the United States. I care that they are a security threat to my nation – and for that reason, I advocate bombing or otherwise destroying their nuclear facilities before fission has been achieved. I’m not worried about what’s right or wrong; I’m worried about my own security.

I don't understand, why are the existing nuclear powers allowed to keep their arms and develop new ones? Why are not developing countries not allowed to expand their arsenals to defend against the one major power left?

Because we cannot physically stop some nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. The haves, cherishing their power, desire to keep the cabal small by banding together to divert the efforts of the have-nots to change their inferior status. It’s about greed and self-service. Frankly, developing countries are being discouraged or disallowed to build atomic weapons because we don’t trust them. And that’s good policy.

Would you care to back that up with an explanation?

Just because Americans or Russians could smuggle nuclear material without our knowledge in certain circumstances doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about whether Iranians could do the same. I refer you back to the argument about the effectiveness of police agencies.

Why is the USA obligated to help out Israel in particular, other than their inexplicable love affair with everything that Israel does. Did any countries contributed money for the restoration of NYC after 9/11?

Actually, if I remember correctly, Guliani or Pataki turned down offers of foreign assistance from Saudi Arabia.

And rebuilding Israel wouldn’t be a mere matter of our “inexplicable love affair,” as you put it, but a matter in which we joined the rest of the world in picking up the pieces after a disaster. It would be the same thing if South Korea – or even North Korea – were hit by an atomic barrage.

I think that the USA should put it's money where it's mouth is. That is they should practice what they preach. Opressing the Iraqi people and the Palestianians by proxi doesn't exactly paint them in a good light. Yes I do think that the USA should be a bastion of freedom and justice as it claims to be. Unfortunatly they seem not to care about that anymore, certainly not since Bush Jr. came into the White House. At least Clinton cared about the USA's image abroad.

Clinton cared about the U.S. image. He was no less opposed to free proliferation. Don’t kid yourself; no nation will ever be as altruistic or concerned about “fairness” as you wish were the case. In fact, it’s absolutely stupid, because as long as so much as one party is around to throw a wrench in the calculus by doing something self-serving, everyone else is at a loss. If the subject is nuclear weapons, we’re talking about a potentially fatal loss.

As for Iran being everything that Iraq was claimed to be. Well than, perhaps they invaded the wrong country. With Iran's record of supporting terrorism it's far more likely that they would contribute to an attack on US interests. But your great leader decided to settle a grudge against the guy who tried to kill his beloved daddy. And lets not forget the oil grab.

Prove it. Prove that George Bush went to war solely to “get back” at Saddam because of the assassination attempt on his father. Telling the world, “He tried to kill my dad,” doesn’t cut it. Because that’s a legitimate grievance: Iraq sent intelligence operatives to kill a former American head-of-state in a foreign country, in a clear violation of post-Gulf War agreements and U.N. mandates. That statement could have come from Al Gore, for example, and been nothing for you to quip about.

As for the oil, kindly explain to me why even when it failed to imagine the scale of the discontent with America’s intervention, the Bush administration still anticipated that most of Iraq’s oil infrastructure would be devastated. If they wanted oil and oil alone, the answer was to conclude the sanctions and let Saddam pump whatever he wanted.

I consider the threat to be the same as coming from the USA, Pakistan, Israel and Russia, as from Iran. There's no proof to suggest that the Iranians would allow nuclear material to fall into anyone elses hands. It would be suicide to allow it to happen.

And yet the Pakistanis couldn’t keep their scientists on-task. North Korea sells to anyone with the cash to pay. The United States couldn’t prevent Israeli espionage. Hell, the South Africans paid former Nazi scientists, Israeli Jews, and British-descendant “Uitlanders” to make their bombs. Once finished, these people are often scattered to the winds. Even if Iran tries to keep a close hand on its assets, there’s no guarantee they can control it all. Why take the risk if we can cut its program – and many of the participants, presumably – off at the roots with one fell swoop?

Yes, you've proven quite nicely that you only care about the USA, strange considering your location is listed as South Africa.

That’s because I’m an American from New York. For the third time.

[Xenophobe3691]

Israel is relatively secular but much of it’s population and the current government are fundamentalist Zionists

Really? Where do you get this information from?

Whilst religious fundies generally content themselves with persecuting minorities in their own countries Zionism is an expansionist movement the proponents of which have been fighting wars of aggression since 1948.

Wars of Aggression? I can name exactly one instance, and that's after Egypt did everything to piss the Israelis off bar declaring war.

[tharkûn]

Israel is relatively secular but much of it’s population and the current government are fundamentalist Zionists which is in many ways worse than religious fundamentalism. Whilst religious fundies generally content themselves with persecuting minorities in their own countries Zionism is an expansionist movement the proponents of which have been fighting wars of aggression since 1948. I’m not at all happy to see a secular fundamentalist like Sharon with his finger on the button and as long as he has I can see why Iran and Israel’s other near neighbours would also want a deterrence to protect them from future Zionist aggression.

BS. Complete and utter BS.

Who is the current government? Shinui, Likud, and a handful of hardline parties who are only there because Labour decided they couldn't play nice with Likud; but that is likely to change any day now when Sharon sacks the rest of the minor players (the NU are gone and the NRP are likely soon to follow). So who do you have running the government?

Likud - a nonreligious party who will bed either the fundementalists or the secularists (whichever whore is cheaper).
Labour - a nonreligious party who will bed either the fundementalists or the secularists (which whore is cheaper).
Shinui - THE secularists.


"Secular fundamentalist"; does not parse. Sharon is a politician and will whore anything with enough votes. If he has to bed Shas, he will. If can bed Shinui instead, he would like to. Hell he just started sacking ministers to WITHDRAW from Gaza. Where in hell do you get this crap? Did you just pull this out of your arse because you want to villify Sharon? The man is hardliner and a hawk, but I first don't understand what a "secular fundementalist" is (given the definition of fundamentalist: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.) and I truly beleive that Sharon doesn't give a rat's ass about the fundementalists except so far as they tend to be a predictable voting bloc.

As far as Israeli Agression, um what in hell do they stand to gain? It is already sapping the hell out economy to hold onto the current occupied territories, they have peace treaties (garunteed by the US as I recall) with Jordan and Egypt, they have pulled out of Lebannon and failed to invade either Syria or Iraq in recent decades despite multiple provocations. Hell what is Israel going to bomb aside from military targets?

And frankly who gives a damn if Iran wants to threaten the US. Nukes give a helluvalot of extra options for the country in possession. Currently Iran can only go so far before they upset the US enough to commence limited strikes, with nukes they can go a helluvalot farther. Giving Iran more military options, is a bad idea for anyone but Iran and any Iranian allies. Hell it was against the best interests of the US for Israel, Pakistan, and India to acquire nuclear bombs. Their potential range of action increased; that of the US decreased.

[Sea Skimmer]

I've yet to see a concrete instance of Soviet nuclear weaponry being left unguarded and improperly stored? Contrary to the insistence of writer's of bad technothrillers and their movie adaptations, there hasn't been a single instance of 'missing' nuclear weaponry out of the former CIS. The only remotely reported instance has been this poorly-sourced, newsmax-esque paranoia about 'suitcase' bombs.

Suitcase bombs which in weigh over 150 pounds and likely won't work because of there aged fissile material.

[Patrick Degan]

Its in U.S. and Western security and political interests in general to keep the number of nuclear nations as low as possible. Nuclear disarmament is an impossibility, so we must make do with reducing the number of variables whereever necessary.

The U.S. and Russia have been steadily cutting their nuclear arsenals back over the past fifteen years. Libya is giving up its nuclear programme. The Chinese have not really expanded their arsenal in 30 years. Former Soviet republics which had nuclear weapons gave them up. And South Africa decided not to go nuclear even though it has the technological capability to do so. This suggests that disarmament is not an impossibility.

Why should it ever be an American political consideration what Iran's security desires are?

Because how America decides to try to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal may complicate beyond repair our general diplomatic and geopolitical goals in the Mideast region, depending upon how hamfisted and unthinking our methods are.

Of course we didn't want to Israel to acquire nuclear weapons, as it is extremely destabilizing, particularly with the aid of our allies and by stealing our own secrets, but once they had them, they weren't giving them up. Your argument would suggest that as soon as anyone's opponent develops nuclear weapons (or possibly not even that far) that said nation would have the right to develop nuclear weapons.

Then by what theory is Israel's nuclear arsenal justifiable? Or continuing American favouritism of Israel if there are certain classes of nations which cannot be "allowed" to have nukes?

Well what about the nations which feel threatened by Iran's weapon programmes. I'd prefer to not have a Middle East nuclear arms race. Your argument would obligate us to permit anyone who felt threatened by nukes to develop them, which essentially is going to result in an endless cascade of nuclear proliferation, as each nation will cause others to be intimidated into weapons development, so on and so forth.

And this argument opens the way toward obligating aggression against nations which do not represent a direct threat to the United States on the grounds of their perceived nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, the very perception that the U.S. would attack any nation attempting to acquire nuclear weapons capability is likely to trigger the very Mideast nuclear arms race considered so undesirable —and one aimed at detering a U.S. attack as much as attack by regional states. For these reasons, nuclear proliferation is not a problem which can be solved by mindless bombthrowing or lunatic fantasies of conquering our way to a perpetual peace where America remains top dog and everybody else meekly kowtows to our desires.

[Axis Kast]

The U.S. and Russia have been steadily cutting their nuclear arsenals back over the past fifteen years. Libya is giving up its nuclear programme. The Chinese have not really expanded their arsenal in 30 years. Former Soviet republics which had nuclear weapons gave them up. And South Africa decided not to go nuclear even though it has the technological capability to do so. This suggests that disarmament is not an impossibility.

Not really. The United States and Russia are demilitarizing as Cold War strategic imperatives fall away, not looking toward a day when they will bury or dismantle their atomic stockpiles for the last time. Both Washington and Moscow, in fact, remain committed to fielding large, flexible nuclear strike forces, even in this era of unconventional war. The same can be said of China: Beijing might not have spent much money on new warheads over the past several decades, but that by no means suggests that the ChiComs are headed toward a new position about the utility of “the bomb.”

The Soviet Republics are a special case; it was disarmament compelled by their own financial insolubility. Libya is equally invalid a case for spontaneous or willing disarmament; al-Qadhaffi understood himself to be within Anglo-American sights, and bartered his weapons for his economy (and, arguably, his regime). But none of the current nuclear club would ever make a similar choice unless under extreme duress. South Africa is so often taken out of context, it too, is useless for the purposes of your argument. It only let go its nuclear weapons because those responsible “spiked” their own work in order that the black majority wouldn’t be able to get their hands on them.

Then by what theory is Israel's nuclear arsenal justifiable? Or continuing American favouritism of Israel if there are certain classes of nations which cannot be "allowed" to have nukes?

Power is not a matter of justice. There is no universal “right” to nuclear weapons. Israel has them, and it cannot be easily dispossessed. It’s as simple as that.

The powerful decide how the less powerful live – and whether or not they thrive. Quibbling over who should have what will do us no good.

And this argument opens the way toward obligating aggression against nations which do not represent a direct threat to the United States on the grounds of their perceived nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, the very perception that the U.S. would attack any nation attempting to acquire nuclear weapons capability is likely to trigger the very Mideast nuclear arms race considered so undesirable —and one aimed at detering a U.S. attack as much as attack by regional states. For these reasons, nuclear proliferation is not a problem which can be solved by mindless bombthrowing or lunatic fantasies of conquering our way to a perpetual peace where America remains top dog and everybody else meekly kowtows to our desires.

Your initial argument is false. The actions of yesterday need not be repeated today, even if similar circumstances prevail. While it might be hypocritical or inconsistent to pursue different tacks with different adversaries in the same situation, it’s certainly not as impossible as you seem to imply. Taking a given position on Thursday doesn’t mean we’re bound to stick by it on Sunday. If we bomb Iran, we need not bomb, say, Egypt, if it, too, decides to seek a bomb. We might offer certain economic packages or let Israel do it, for example.

[Aaron]

Iran has not moved to restrict the conduct of terrorist activities by persons within its borders. They are guilty of the same crimes for which we invaded Afghanistan.

Then Iran needs to be taken to task as well then. But instead of invasion, perhaps the USA can offer an economic incentive to stop supporting terrorism. Besides the USA is overstretched now as it is, invading Iran would be impossible at this point.

And, to turn your own ridiculous argument against you, the majority of Canadians occupy land their forefathers took from native American tribes that once roamed freely across what is today modern Canada. Dispossessed, overwhelmingly impoverished, and often relegated to second-class status in the political realm, it can be argued forcefully that these people have no other recourse to make their views and positions heard. Would you, then, refuse to fight them if they began to blow up other Canadians in a bid to restore their own autonomy from your country?

I would refuse to fight them persoanlly, I am retired from the military now. And I refuse to fight another Canadian.

I don’t care whether Iranians think they’re right, or whether they feel threatened by the United States. I care that they are a security threat to my nation – and for that reason, I advocate bombing or otherwise destroying their nuclear facilities before fission has been achieved. I’m not worried about what’s right or wrong; I’m worried about my own security.

And what if it turns out that Iran really is just using the plant for electricty generation? The USA would have attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses, again. As for what's right or wrong, I understand that you believe that morality should have no role in politics.

Because we cannot physically stop some nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. The haves, cherishing their power, desire to keep the cabal small by banding together to divert the efforts of the have-nots to change their inferior status. It’s about greed and self-service. Frankly, developing countries are being discouraged or disallowed to build atomic weapons because we don’t trust them. And that’s good policy.

It's funny, the only nation of the nuclear powers that I have heard express concern is the USA. Perhaps the others understand that it would be hipocrasy to object.

Just because Americans or Russians could smuggle nuclear material without our knowledge in certain circumstances doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry about whether Iranians could do the same. I refer you back to the argument about the effectiveness of police agencies.

I agree that worrying about Iran's intentions is justified. I just think that the USA should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Actually, if I remember correctly, Guliani or Pataki turned down offers of foreign assistance from Saudi Arabia.

And rebuilding Israel wouldn’t be a mere matter of our “inexplicable love affair,” as you put it, but a matter in which we joined the rest of the world in picking up the pieces after a disaster. It would be the same thing if South Korea – or even North Korea – were hit by an atomic barrage.

I would hope that other nations would contribute to disaster relief. But givens Israel's actions against it's own people and it's actions abroad, I wouldn't count on it.

Clinton cared about the U.S. image. He was no less opposed to free proliferation. Don’t kid yourself; no nation will ever be as altruistic or concerned about “fairness” as you wish were the case. In fact, it’s absolutely stupid, because as long as so much as one party is around to throw a wrench in the calculus by doing something self-serving, everyone else is at a loss. If the subject is nuclear weapons, we’re talking about a potentially fatal loss.

You do understand that the USA is the self-serving nation in this case, right? They are removing nations rights to self-defense by denying them access to superior weapons. All in the name of their own security.

Prove it. Prove that George Bush went to war solely to “get back” at Saddam because of the assassination attempt on his father. Telling the world, “He tried to kill my dad,” doesn’t cut it. Because that’s a legitimate grievance: Iraq sent intelligence operatives to kill a former American head-of-state in a foreign country, in a clear violation of post-Gulf War agreements and U.N. mandates. That statement could have come from Al Gore, for example, and been nothing for you to quip about.

Yes the Iraqi's tried to kill Bush Sr. But thats no excuse to mislead the country and the world, and start an illegal and unjust war. Regardless of how many treaties and mandates Iraq was in violation of.

As for the oil, kindly explain to me why even when it failed to imagine the scale of the discontent with America’s intervention, the Bush administration still anticipated that most of Iraq’s oil infrastructure would be devastated. If they wanted oil and oil alone, the answer was to conclude the sanctions and let Saddam pump whatever he wanted.

Then why didn't they do that? Why lead the world into an illegal and unjust war? Bush Jr. had a hard-on for taking out Saddam since before 9/11 and he was willing to use whatever deception was necassary to acomplish it.

And yet the Pakistanis couldn’t keep their scientists on-task. North Korea sells to anyone with the cash to pay. The United States couldn’t prevent Israeli espionage. Hell, the South Africans paid former Nazi scientists, Israeli Jews, and British-descendant “Uitlanders” to make their bombs. Once finished, these people are often scattered to the winds. Even if Iran tries to keep a close hand on its assets, there’s no guarantee they can control it all. Why take the risk if we can cut its program – and many of the participants, presumably – off at the roots with one fell swoop?

They should take the risk because it's the right thing to do. The USA has no right to impose it's will on the world, simply because it is the most powerful nation. If Iran develops nuclear weapons it will probably be the better part of a decade untill it can reach the USA with missiles. Besides the threat of MAD will keep them in check.

That’s because I’m an American from New York. For the third time.

I must have missed the first two times, I apologise.

[Axis Kast]

Then Iran needs to be taken to task as well then. But instead of invasion, perhaps the USA can offer an economic incentive to stop supporting terrorism. Besides the USA is overstretched now as it is, invading Iran would be impossible at this point.

Ah, I see. You now admit that Iran needs to be taken to task for its harboring and encouragement of terrorism against the United States – but never should that include depriving them of some universal “right” to possesses some of the deadliest weaponry known to man. Your logic is absolutely flawless.

“Economic incentive?” We’ve seen what economic incentives do to wayward “rogue” regimes. Most recently we saw what they did in North Korea: leave the United States tens of millions short and facing the prospect of an expanded arsenal. Fantastic course of action, that.

Invading Iran would be difficult – if not so impractical as to be considered impossible – even had had we not gone into Iraq. Unlike Saddam’s shell of a country, Iran can, at least, boast of social cohesion as well as a reliable regular military.

I would refuse to fight them persoanlly, I am retired from the military now. And I refuse to fight another Canadian.

And you would have refused orders if, say, you’d been called out to quell riots in Toronto that had overwhelmed municipal and police authorities?

My point, Kendall, is that you implied that Iran’s terrorism was forgivable because it was relatively less powerful than the United States. But that’s absolutely fucking stupid.

And what if it turns out that Iran really is just using the plant for electricty generation? The USA would have attacked a sovereign nation under false pretenses, again. As for what's right or wrong, I understand that you believe that morality should have no role in politics.

I’m sorry; when a country provides safe haven to the murderers of American hostages (and we’re talking 2004, not 1979), I’d say it’s time to consider revoking the benefit of the doubt. Simply put, we can’t take the risk that Iran – which, you may have noticed, apparently tried to maneuver the United States into a war with its neighbor, Iraq, via Ahmed Chalabi – doesn’t have a weapon in mind as the end point of its nuclear development program. If we’re wrong, then that’s too damn bad for Tehran.

It's funny, the only nation of the nuclear powers that I have heard express concern is the USA. Perhaps the others understand that it would be hipocrasy to object.

Perhaps because the Russians are generating revenue by funding Iranian nuclear development, the Chinese are pleased to see additional threats to divert American attention, the Europeans aren’t eager to spend time, money, or blood on an issue they don’t feel directly affects them, and India and Pakistan are too busy sparring with one another? It isn’t that nobody else thinks Iran is as fresh as a daisy. It’s that they don’t fucking care about what Iran is doing.

I agree that worrying about Iran's intentions is justified. I just think that the USA should give them the benefit of the doubt.

There’s an idea. Give the same government that refuses to impede the activities of known terrorists the benefit of the doubt.

I would hope that other nations would contribute to disaster relief. But givens Israel's actions against it's own people and it's actions abroad, I wouldn't count on it.

This is terrific. No, it’s more than that. It’s hilarious. You’ve obviously given yourself over completely to the notion that the world is a friendly place – except for those evil, evil Israelis, at whom you simply can’t resist throwing a barb every other line or two.

You do understand that the USA is the self-serving nation in this case, right? They are removing nations rights to self-defense by denying them access to superior weapons. All in the name of their own security.

That’s exactly what I’m trying to point out. And it’s what we should be doing.

Yes the Iraqi's tried to kill Bush Sr. But thats no excuse to mislead the country and the world, and start an illegal and unjust war. Regardless of how many treaties and mandates Iraq was in violation of.

And I didn’t say that I think we went to war on that basis, now did I? I didn’t say that I thought that was George Bush, Jr.’s sole reason for pursuing regime-change through force, either. I simply pointed out that had anybody else said it, it would have been a scathying proof of Iraqi nefariousness and Saddam’s commitment to do harm. But if the current President speaks it, it simply must be an emotional appeal that’s led him astray. Or so you insist.

Then why didn't they do that? Why lead the world into an illegal and unjust war? Bush Jr. had a hard-on for taking out Saddam since before 9/11 and he was willing to use whatever deception was necassary to acomplish it.

Because the administration believed the reports that were coming across its desk. Because all of the men in government today had experience during the Reagan and Bush eras when the Persian Gulf states came into their own and manifested considerable killing power in the form of weapons of mass destruction, weaponization programs, and unconventional forces. They were obviously influenced by their past – but that doesn’t mean it was because they were attempting to relive the nostalgia of bygone days. It could mean, rather, that they focused on a threat they felt was imminent because of their own experience. But then, you never thought of that.

And, by the way, you’ve yet to conclusively prove – or even tentatively support beyond the assertions themselves – that Bush (A) went to war for oil, or (B) went to war to avenge the assassination attempt on his father.

They should take the risk because it's the right thing to do. The USA has no right to impose it's will on the world, simply because it is the most powerful nation. If Iran develops nuclear weapons it will probably be the better part of a decade untill it can reach the USA with missiles. Besides the threat of MAD will keep them in check.

I don’t give a fuck about “the right thing to do” – especially not when we’re dealing with the nation that’s harboring Nicholas Berg’s killers and an al-Qaeda mastermind. You yourself have admitted that regime-change may be an answer in Iran – and yet at the same time, you refuse to back away from the notion that we should treat them as if in gentlemanly competition rather than facing the question of war.

Rights are an abstraction created by power, maintained by power. Sometimes, they are the result of fortuitous circumstance. They are never, however, granted by some higher power. You’d do well to keep in mind that so long as we play a game in which it is certain others cheat, there’s no point to playing by the rules ourselves, since one never plays simply to go down in flames. In case you weren’t aware, nobody mourns the honorable loser. In fact, they chuckle at his stupidity and blindness.

I don’t care if it will be a decade before Iran can threaten the U.S. mainland with atomic missiles. As long as they can threaten their immediate neighbor – Iraq – or potentially “leak” the scientists and information they’ve amassed, it’s danger enough for action.

[Andrew J.]

Rights are an abstraction created by power, maintained by power. Sometimes, they are the result of fortuitous circumstance. They are never, however, granted by some higher power.

Rights are inherent, not granted or created by any power on earth or otherwise.

You’d do well to keep in mind that so long as we play a game in which it is certain others cheat, there’s no point to playing by the rules ourselves, since one never plays simply to go down in flames. In case you weren’t aware, nobody mourns the honorable loser. In fact, they chuckle at his stupidity and blindness.

That's why you create situations where there are no losers, instead of looking at every damn thing like a zero-sum game.

Nobody mourns the honorable loser, but the dishonorable winner pisses everybody off to the point where they gang up on him and hang his corpse from meat hooks in the street.

[Axis Kast]

Rights are inherent, not granted or created by any power on earth or otherwise.

Not really, no. There is no law that others must respect what you consider should be the extent of your freedom of action and ability to demand services or aid; and, more importantly, no punishment if they walk all over them save what you or those associated with you deem fit to bestow upon them – if you can.

That's why you create situations where there are no losers, instead of looking at every damn thing like a zero-sum game.

Nobody mourns the honorable loser, but the dishonorable winner pisses everybody off to the point where they gang up on him and hang his corpse from meat hooks in the street.

But politics is zero-sum. That is the first tenant of realism. Hell, there’s even a growing debate now over whether economics is zero-sum, considering that one of two parties is always in a better position to do something with a given sum of money or resources, and that new gain is simply relative to one’s standing prior to it.

[Plekhanov]

Israel is relatively secular but much of it’s population and the current government are fundamentalist Zionists

Really? Where do you get this information from?

The fact Sharon is PM is quite a good indicator of this.

Whilst religious fundies generally content themselves with persecuting minorities in their own countries Zionism is an expansionist movement the proponents of which have been fighting wars of aggression since 1948.

Wars of Aggression? I can name exactly one instance, and that's after Egypt did everything to piss the Israelis off bar declaring war.

Erm lets see the 47-49 war where they seized most of Palestine, the 67 war, the 78 and 82 invasion of Lebanon, no doubt you’ll disagree about my interpretation of these wars I think we’ll just have to agree to differ on this issue or we’ll break the embargo. My point is that Israel’s near neighbours have every reason to feel insecure and to want to safe guard their territory with nuclear weapons, I’m not saying that Israel doesn’t have a similar right just Arabs do as well.

[Plekhanov]

Israel is relatively secular but much of it’s population and the current government are fundamentalist Zionists which is in many ways worse than religious fundamentalism. Whilst religious fundies generally content themselves with persecuting minorities in their own countries Zionism is an expansionist movement the proponents of which have been fighting wars of aggression since 1948. I’m not at all happy to see a secular fundamentalist like Sharon with his finger on the button and as long as he has I can see why Iran and Israel’s other near neighbours would also want a deterrence to protect them from future Zionist aggression.

BS. Complete and utter BS.

Who is the current government? Shinui, Likud, and a handful of hardline parties who are only there because Labour decided they couldn't play nice with Likud; but that is likely to change any day now when Sharon sacks the rest of the minor players (the NU are gone and the NRP are likely soon to follow). So who do you have running the government?

Likud - a nonreligious party who will bed either the fundementalists or the secularists (whichever whore is cheaper).
Labour - a nonreligious party who will bed either the fundementalists or the secularists (which whore is cheaper).
Shinui - THE secularists.

Which of these parties haven’t been part of governments that have prosecuted wars of aggression and supported the illegal settlement of the occupied territories? Which of these parties are calling for withdrawal of the settlers and an end to the occupation? Basically which of these parties isn’t Zionist?

"Secular fundamentalist"; does not parse. Sharon is a politician and will whore anything with enough votes. If he has to bed Shas, he will. If can bed Shinui instead, he would like to. Hell he just started sacking ministers to WITHDRAW from Gaza. Where in hell do you get this crap? Did you just pull this out of your arse because you want to villify Sharon?

Withdraw from Gaza and ANNEX half of the West Bank instead after cleansing it of its current Palestinian inhabitants his plan is expansionist and Zionist.

The man is hardliner and a hawk, but I first don't understand what a "secular fundementalist" is (given the definition of fundamentalist: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.) and I truly beleive that Sharon doesn't give a rat's ass about the fundementalists except so far as they tend to be a predictable voting bloc.

The term fundamentalist has traditionally been used to describe people of a religious persuasion it’s true, I prefer to broaden it slightly and apply it to those who unbendingly stick to an ideology regardless of whether the ideology in question is religious or secular. I know Zionism is a secular movement so is communism, what term other than fundamentalist would you use to describe a communist zealot?

As far as Israeli Agression, um what in hell do they stand to gain?

More land maybe?

It is already sapping the hell out economy to hold onto the current occupied territories, they have peace treaties (garunteed by the US as I recall) with Jordan and Egypt, they have pulled out of Lebannon and failed to invade either Syria or Iraq in recent decades despite multiple provocations. Hell what is Israel going to bomb aside from military targets?

Israel is unlikely to start any more wars in the short term but given it’s track record the neighbouring nations have every reason to desire a deterent. Imagine for a second that you are a Syrian (aside from being concerned about your appallingly repressive government and crappy economic situation) would you feel confident having Israel as a neighbour?

And frankly who gives a damn if Iran wants to threaten the US.

When did I say Iran wants to threaten the US? I said Iran wanted a deterrent so safeguard it’s territorial integrity. Take another look at the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US’s history, after deposing the US’s puppet fascist dictator the current Iranian regime has been subjected constant diplomatic aggression, economic sanctions and Sadam’s pointless and brutal US supported war, in return the Iranians have empty rhetoric just who has been the aggressor in this relationship, who is threatening whom? Iran’s main concern is survival it is the US which wants to dominate.

Nukes give a helluvalot of extra options for the country in possession. Currently Iran can only go so far before they upset the US enough to commence limited strikes, with nukes they can go a helluvalot farther. Giving Iran more military options, is a bad idea for anyone but Iran and any Iranian allies.

What exactly do you think Iran is going to try and do to the US? What military options are they going to pursue? The mullahs aren’t idiots they aren’t going to pick any fights with the US but they do want the capacity to defend them selves.

Hell it was against the best interests of the US for Israel,

Which is why the US did so much to stop them getting it?

Pakistan, and India to acquire nuclear bombs. Their potential range of action increased;

Wrong when Pakistan and India both got the bomb their potential for action massively decreased, ever heard of the concept of M.A.D? it’s what stopped WW3 and it is a major factor that stopping them from going to war over Kashmir.

that of the US decreased.

Why is it a bad thing that the US can no longer bomb Pakistan or India with impunity?

[Axis Kast]

Israel is unlikely to start any more wars in the short term but given it’s track record the neighbouring nations have every reason to desire a deterent. Imagine for a second that you are a Syrian (aside from being concerned about your appallingly repressive government and crappy economic situation) would you feel confident having Israel as a neighbour?

Israel is unlikely to start any more wars, period. Not only are their military and economic infrastructures stretched virtually to the limit coping with Palestinian uprisings alone, but the acquisition of new territory would be an unquestionable liability. There’s a reason Tel Aviv declined to keep even such an attractive buffer as the Suez Zone, mind you.

As for wearing Syrian shoes? No, thanks. Syria lost the chance for sympathy when they began supporting terrorist movements oriented against the United States. You’ll understand if I’m disinclined to take their sovereignty into account in matters of regional security and weapons procurement.

When did I say Iran wants to threaten the US? I said Iran wanted a deterrent so safeguard it’s territorial integrity. Take another look at the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US’s history, after deposing the US’s puppet fascist dictator the current Iranian regime has been subjected constant diplomatic aggression, economic sanctions and Sadam’s pointless and brutal US supported war, in return the Iranians have empty rhetoric just who has been the aggressor in this relationship, who is threatening whom? Iran’s main concern is survival it is the US which wants to dominate.

Iran supports terrorism. In no uncertain terms, they are currently doing nothing to stop the activities of al-Qaeda groups within their borders – including the murderers of Nicholas Berg. Are you so far gone that you fail to understand that a nuclear Iran would be beyond reproach for future aggression? Or that it’s not inconceivable that that country, possessing a very mercenary atomic energy program as is, might “leak” scientists or information to Third Parties? Pakistan’s a shining example of just how bad things could get in Iran. Why the fuck should we worry about whether we’re stepping on a state sponsor of terrorism?

What exactly do you think Iran is going to try and do to the US? What military options are they going to pursue? The mullahs aren’t idiots they aren’t going to pick any fights with the US but they do want the capacity to defend them selves.

These are the same questions we could have asked of Afghanistan’s government before September 11, 2001. And that’s beside the fact that the nature of Iran’s program, saturated as it is with foreign personnel, has the potential to spring unintentional leaks.

Which is why the US did so much to stop them getting it?

Successful Israeli espionage doesn’t necessarily equal mindless American collusion.

[Ma Deuce]

More land maybe?

Any land that Isreal could possibly annex is not worth the gain. Why? It would stretch their armed forces to the breaking point (it's already stretched pretty far as it is), and it would make alot of countries angry enough to cut trade to them, putting a a severe choke on their economy. Currently the EU doesn't have the balls to impose full trade sanctions on Isreal (wanna know who's building Israel's new Dolphin class attack submarines? Germany). That would certainly change if Israel launched an unprovoked war of agression. The Israelis are by no means insane or stupid. Israel's previous "wars of agression" were not entirely unprovoked land grabs either:

1956: Launched in secret cooperation with Britain and France (who also provided troops for that operation). Did not result in territorial gain for Israel, and would never have been launched in the first place without the British and French collusion. IIRC, this war was actually planned by France and Britain, after Egypt had nationalized the Suez Canal.

1967: This was undoubtly a war of agression, but it was launched only after Egypt did everthing it possibly could to piss Israel off short of declaring war. Since Egypt and Syria were at the time part of the UAR, war with one automatically meant war with the other. Jordan only joined the war because Nasser lied to King Hussain and told him that Egypt was on the verge of victory when in fact they'd been smashed, so Jordan joined the war to grab whatever it could before Egypt and Syria got it. Instead of joining in the spoils, Jordan got a nasty surprise.

1973: Of course, the Arabs were really only trying to get back the land Israel took from them in 1967, but can you blame Israel for fighting back? If Egypt and Syria had somehow suceeded in defeating Israel's forces and took back the Golan Heights and Sinai, do you honestly think they would have stopped there? (Egypt might have stopped after taking back the Sinai, but I doubt Syria would have stopped after taking the Golan Heights)

1982: Can anyone really blame Israel for going into Lebanon to take out the PLO? The PLO were clearly using the country as a base for their terrorist operations. Also, the PLO and Syrians had treated the Lebanese so poorly (When they were in Lebanon, the PLO often executed people in horrible fashions for "crimes" as simple as being in posession of Israeli currency), that many of them treated the Israelis as liberators.

Since Israel has made peace with both Jordan and Egypt and relations with those countries are generally calm these days, the odds of Israel attacking either of them is next to nil (especially since both Jordan and Egypt are now recipients of US and Western aid, including military aid, which comes in the form of high-tech Western weapons, and training for their personnel).

There is Syria, who IIRC is still technically in a state of war with Israel, but again an actual war with them is unlikely. Beyond the Golan Heights, there is no land that Syria has (that Isreal could take and hold) that would provide Israel with any strategic or economic advantage, and the international consecuences would be far too great. Israel also agreed to withdraw from the Sinai in 1982, and more recently from Southern Lebanon.

One also has to admit that the failure of the Peace Process up to this point is shared between Israel and assholes like Arafat and the Hamas leaders, who were not willing to play nice and accept any compromises of any kind.

I'm no fan of Isreal's policies concerning the Palestinians, but I'm sorry to say your view of Israel's future intentions has little basis in reality.

[Aaron]

Ah, I see. You now admit that Iran needs to be taken to task for its harboring and encouragement of terrorism against the United States – but never should that include depriving them of some universal “right” to possesses some of the deadliest weaponry known to man. Your logic is absolutely flawless.

No I believe that they should be punished for their support of terrorism against all[/] countries. Personally I think the USA needs to understand that they are not the only country on the planet that matters.

“Economic incentive?” We’ve seen what economic incentives do to wayward “rogue” regimes. Most recently we saw what they did in North Korea: leave the United States tens of millions short and facing the prospect of an expanded arsenal. Fantastic course of action, that.

Well you don't know untill you try it, perhaps they would work with Iran. Or perhaps not, it's an option that needs to be explored.

And you would have refused orders if, say, you’d been called out to quell riots in Toronto that had overwhelmed municipal and police authorities?

I would most likely have been in the rear with the gear, I was a Radio Operator and we rarely see front-line service.

My point, Kendall, is that you implied that Iran’s terrorism was forgivable because it was relatively less powerful than the United States. But that’s absolutely fucking stupid.

I think that terrorism is wrong for any nation. But in some contexts it's understandable. The Palestinians use terrorism against Israel because they have no other choice. The Iranian's sponser terrorism because they have no other way to strike at their enemies, it doesnt make it right.

I’m sorry; when a country provides safe haven to the murderers of American hostages (and we’re talking 2004, not 1979), I’d say it’s time to consider revoking the benefit of the doubt. Simply put, we can’t take the risk that Iran – which, you may have noticed, apparently tried to maneuver the United States into a war with its neighbor, Iraq, via Ahmed Chalabi – doesn’t have a weapon in mind as the end point of its nuclear development program. If we’re wrong, then that’s too damn bad for Tehran.

If your wrong then your beloved nation would have started another illegal and unjust war. They would possibly start a civil war in Iran, at the very least the USA would be fighting more insurgents. You know if you'd ever served in the military, you'd know that war is a horrible thing, and not to be embarked upon lightly.

Perhaps because the Russians are generating revenue by funding Iranian nuclear development, the Chinese are pleased to see additional threats to divert American attention, the Europeans aren’t eager to spend time, money, or blood on an issue they don’t feel directly affects them, and India and Pakistan are too busy sparring with one another? It isn’t that nobody else thinks Iran is as fresh as a daisy. It’s that they don’t fucking care about what Iran is doing.

This looks to me like the USA really is embarking on a crusade against Islam, and Islamic nations. If everyone else is willing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons than maybe the USA should allow it. It's not like Iran can attack the USA directly with them. And their nation would be destroyed if they gave them to terrorists.

This is terrific. No, it’s more than that. It’s hilarious. You’ve obviously given yourself over completely to the notion that the world is a friendly place – except for those evil, evil Israelis, at whom you simply can’t resist throwing a barb every other line or two.

No I haven't, when you've been in the army as long as I have then you understand how horrible the world can really be. I just think that the nations of the world need to work towards making a better place. I consider Israel no worse than other repressive nations. Such as the USA in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the former Iraqi regime.

That’s exactly what I’m trying to point out. And it’s what we should be doing.

The USA doesn't have the right to determine these things. That's what the UN is for, to prevent another nation from attacking a nation without the worlds approval.

And I didn’t say that I think we went to war on that basis, now did I? I didn’t say that I thought that was George Bush, Jr.’s sole reason for pursuing regime-change through force, either. I simply pointed out that had anybody else said it, it would have been a scathying proof of Iraqi nefariousness and Saddam’s commitment to do harm. But if the current President speaks it, it simply must be an emotional appeal that’s led him astray. Or so you insist.

Which of the various reasons am I supposed to believe? The reasons for the war changed weekly. Sometimes daily, Bush sowed so much confusion that no one really knows why they went to Iraq in the first place. In Canada the prevailing view is that he went for the oil.

And, by the way, you’ve yet to conclusively prove – or even tentatively support beyond the assertions themselves – that Bush (A) went to war for oil, or (B) went to war to avenge the assassination attempt on his father.

I can't prove either of them and you know it. See the above for my response.

I don’t give a fuck about “the right thing to do” – especially not when we’re dealing with the nation that’s harboring Nicholas Berg’s killers and an al-Qaeda mastermind. You yourself have admitted that regime-change may be an answer in Iran – and yet at the same time, you refuse to back away from the notion that we should treat them as if in gentlemanly competition rather than facing the question of war.

Well if Iran is harbouring these people than the USA should enter into negotiatians to extridite them. Force shouldn't be the first response.

Rights are an abstraction created by power, maintained by power. Sometimes, they are the result of fortuitous circumstance. They are never, however, granted by some higher power. You’d do well to keep in mind that so long as we play a game in which it is certain others cheat, there’s no point to playing by the rules ourselves, since one never plays simply to go down in flames. In case you weren’t aware, nobody mourns the honorable loser. In fact, they chuckle at his stupidity and blindness.

Througout history people have been granted certain rights by their government, and today in most nations they are there. The UN also grants nations certain rights on the international stage, one of which is the right to not be unilaterally attacked. The USA needs to grant these same rights to others in order to be seen as the honourable country that it claims to be.

I don’t care if it will be a decade before Iran can threaten the U.S. mainland with atomic missiles. As long as they can threaten their immediate neighbor – Iraq – or potentially “leak” the scientists and information they’ve amassed, it’s danger enough for action.

So then the USA should revoke Israel's, India'a, and Pakistans rights to their weapons? After all they were developed with out US approval.

[Lord MJ]

I sorry, but I have to agree with Kast here. There is no reason to allow Iran to have Nukes if we can stop them.

As the dominant power the US has a responsibility to not only it's own security and that of it's allies, but the overall stability of the International system as a whole.

The proliferation of Nukes to rogue states will not only cause a massive disruption in the balance of power, as those states would now have more leverage than they would if they had no nukes. But it seriously undermine US authority and power in the international system. We would not be able to act when necessary because of the nuclear threat posed by a rogue.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No I believe that they should be punished for their support of terrorism against all[/] countries. Personally I think the USA needs to understand that they are not the only country on the planet that matters.

This is beyond stupid. So if you're attacked by another power, you're somehow wrong in retaliating on the basis of your security, soveriegnty, and interests?

It isn't the U.S.'s obligation to play global policeman and to right wrongs against others. That's what those nation's citizens are paying taxes into their defense programs are for. Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of the number of quagmires and messes we get ourselves into on others' behalf, and the amount of money squandered on troops in South Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, etc.

Well you don't know untill you try it, perhaps they would work with Iran. Or perhaps not, it's an option that needs to be explored.

No, you suggested it, its your burden of proof to justify that it would work. Remember, you're the one playing armchair politician. I'm sure the masses would love the "waste billions bribing the bad guys to be nice" with no proof that it would work and indeed, counterevidence in the past that it doesn't work at all.

Does this mean I'm suggesting immediate bombing of the Iranians. No, and to suggest such is strawmanning my position. You are defending YOUR position right now.

I would most likely have been in the rear with the gear, I was a Radio Operator and we rarely see front-line service.

Dodge, you'd still be serving and helping suppress fellow Canadians, if not directly from the barrel of a C8 carbine.

I think that terrorism is wrong for any nation. But in some contexts it's understandable. The Palestinians use terrorism against Israel because they have no other choice. The Iranian's sponser terrorism because they have no other way to strike at their enemies, it doesnt make it right.

It doesn't matter why they strike at their enemies! The only reason to bring up ideas like American blowback is to suggest if we want better results in the future, if we want to reduce the number of enemies we have, we should conduct smarter and fairer foriegn policy than we did during the Cold War. But if they attack Americans, its the President's obligation to provide defense for her citizenry and possessions. No one seriously claimed, other than idiots, that just because the al Queda threat was partially a product of CIA blowback that that means we should sympathize with their aim and not move to defend ourselves! What it means is that next time we should be smart so there's never an Al Queda because of our stupidity again.

In Isreal's case, how can anyone claim they don't have the right to deploy troops at checkpoints to check for terrorist bombers. I'm sure if you paid attention you'd notice that they heavy-handed and blind sledgehammer tactics of Israel are what critics take to tasks. Israel shouldn't retaliate by bulldozing hundreds of houses, humiliating and shooting civilians, blowing up terrorist leaders in crowded thoroughfares. That causes blowback. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find Wong or anyone else who would argue that just because one can sympathize with the Palestinians that we should expect the IDF to lay down arms before the likes of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Why? Because it is fucking retarded.

I suppose you think the Wehrmacht should've dropped their weapons before the Red Army in Eastern Europe because the Nazis were eeeviillll? I suppose it doesn't occur to you that Stalin was a totalitarian mass-murderer himself, and the Red Army had this bad habit of raping and pillaging everything everywhere it went. The world isn't as convienent black-white as you imagine it, nor does practical consideration facilitate the kind of policy you seem to niavely embrace.

If your wrong then your beloved nation would have started another illegal and unjust war. They would possibly start a civil war in Iran, at the very least the USA would be fighting more insurgents. You know if you'd ever served in the military, you'd know that war is a horrible thing, and not to be embarked upon lightly.

Who said we have to invade them? Axis Kast himself outlined several methods for dealing with rogue states attempting to construct nuclear arms, but apparently you cannot or refuse to read. Ever hear of air strikes? Commando raids? Covert operations? No one is advocating immediate invasion, and yes, that would be stupid. We should step up intelligence efforts of all types to ascertain the status of their progress and the stability of their program with a consideration taken toward how to stop it if that option is executed. I suppose you never considered how the Israelis dealt with the Iraqi nuclear reactor, no?

This looks to me like the USA really is embarking on a crusade against Islam, and Islamic nations.

No shit, sherlock. What do you think is responsible for the increasing wave of terrorism since the 1970s, reaching a creshendo in the last decade?

But that doesn't mean we have to deal with everything the same. I was against the Iraq war and do not support any new invasions. But invasion and war is not the only solution to terrorism against the U.S.

If everyone else is willing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons than maybe the USA should allow it.

Appeal to authority. All the rest of the Americans not part of the Commonwealth did not enter World War II. Other nations allowed the Nazi war machine to ravish Europe. Why should've we joined? Your logic itself is not valid here.

It's not like Iran can attack the USA directly with them.

No, but they can attack American bases, ships, allies, and our new protectorate next door. It also gives them a potential hegemony over the region, and thus an ability to place a stranglehold on the American economy's lifeblood: oil.

And their nation would be destroyed if they gave them to terrorists.

Assuming we could prove it. Its a lot to explain "we just glassed a nation because we heard chatter on terrorist channels after Philadelphia had a 20 kt hole blown in it." How could we, especially with fuck-ups coming out of Pakistan? And besides, this is exactly why Axis and I support the kind of policy and outlook we do. We'd rather not wait until terrorists got one and used one to retaliate.

No I haven't, when you've been in the army as long as I have then you understand how horrible the world can really be.

Forgive if I don't really take that seriously since you were a Canadian officer. Did you participate in a foriegn theatre or as a UN Peacekeeper? Perhaps I'll change my mind there.

I just think that the nations of the world need to work towards making a better place. I consider Israel no worse than other repressive nations. Such as the USA in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the former Iraqi regime.

And that generalising mentality is exactly what poisons your outlook. Sorry, but the U.S. is not comparable to Iran, Syria, Iraq's former regime, or even Israel. The U.S. is not a racial and religious apartheid by constitutional law. We do not murder millions of our own or other citizens. We do not start wars where we murder and pillage conquered lands indescriminantly. There have been mistakes. The entire Iraq war is an example. But as an American I fucking resent that no-evidence, no-logic, idiot comparison.

As a Canadian, ask which nuclear power you'd prefer on your doorstep: the U.S.A., or Iran. Get back to me on that one.

The USA doesn't have the right to determine these things. That's what the UN is for, to prevent another nation from attacking a nation without the worlds approval.

The UN does not work. It is a defunct, corrupt, undesirable, and dysfunctional administrator of either "international law" or ethics in a general sense.

We have the right to protect ourselves. The U.S. is in a unique capacity to prevent her enemies from reaching a state where catastrophe and war are even possible. And so in that end, I do approve offensive actions under certain circumstances. And the nigh-completion of nuclear weapons by an avowed and historical enemy and ally of our enemies is one of those conditions.

Which of the various reasons am I supposed to believe? The reasons for the war changed weekly. Sometimes daily, Bush sowed so much confusion that no one really knows why they went to Iraq in the first place. In Canada the prevailing view is that he went for the oil.

And, by the way, you’ve yet to conclusively prove – or even tentatively support beyond the assertions themselves – that Bush (A) went to war for oil, or (B) went to war to avenge the assassination attempt on his father.

Neither of which has any evidence or basis in reality (if so, provide it, and I don't mean axiomatic declarations). I prefer the idea they went due to placate neo-con political fantasies and because some actually believed the intel FUBAR.

I can't prove either of them and you know it. See the above for my response.

Ok, in that case. In which case keep the noise to yourself. I don't fucking care about anything you state here which you can't back up with evidence and a web of logic tying it all together.

Well if Iran is harbouring these people than the USA should enter into negotiatians to extridite them. Force shouldn't be the first response.

They won't extradite them. They'll deny they are in the country. And besides, who said we must bomb right away, right now?

Througout history people have been granted certain rights by their government, and today in most nations they are there. The UN also grants nations certain rights on the international stage, one of which is the right to not be unilaterally attacked. The USA needs to grant these same rights to others in order to be seen as the honourable country that it claims to be.

The UN does not have the ability to apply and administrate law. It is a political organ for appealing authority to in the event it supports you, and a forum for diplomats and spin and moan. It is neither desirable nor necessary.

I refuse to accept the basis of "law" determined by simple majority of nations, many of whom are despotic third-world shitholes.

So then the USA should revoke Israel's, India'a, and Pakistans rights to their weapons? After all they were developed with out US approval.

No, you're missing the whole point. Once they have nuclear weapons, you cannot do anything about them for obvious reasons. We can't revoke their right to the weapon anymore than we could the Soviets in the Cold War. Its not that we were happy about Israel's nukes. They stole the technology by spying on us and drastically destabilized the region. India--we chilled our relations and placed sanctions, likewise on Pakistan. We didn't want any of these nations to get nukes, but there was nothing we could do once they did.

Iran does not yet have a weapon, therefore we can do something about it.

[Aaron]

Forgive if I don't really take that seriously since you were a Canadian officer. Did you participate in a foriegn theatre or as a UN Peacekeeper? Perhaps I'll change my mind there.

How does me being a Canadian NCO make my views less valid? Actually I was seriously injured before I could go anywhere. I still spent 6 years training for war, and watching colleagues coming home in body bags. Even training for war you get the idea of how unpleasent it is.

[Andrew J.]

Not really, no. There is no law that others must respect what you consider should be the extent of your freedom of action and ability to demand services or aid; and, more importantly, no punishment if they walk all over them save what you or those associated with you deem fit to bestow upon them – if you can.

I said that they're universal and inherent, not that respecting them is.

But politics is zero-sum. That is the first tenant of realism.

You and your fucking realpolitik. Bismarck wouldn't have thought it was such a good idea if he'd been able to see what it led to in the end. Compromise and mutual benefits are generally more desirable than wars, death, destruction, and generations of bad blood on both side. (Note the "generally" I put in there; extreme cases require action, I know. I don't want you accusing me of Neville Chamberlain levels of complaisance.)