US rattling the saber

[Darth Wong]

Does Iran have the "right" to develop nuclear weapons? Is that in the Human rights declaration? Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons but not every want is automatically a right.

Does the US have the right to bomb any country it wishes? Is that in the Human Rights declaration? The US wants to bomb countries as it pleases but not every want is automatically a right.

[Bakustra]

What is this idiotic 'allowed' that you keep harping on about

So you assume international law is bullshit?

Frankly, yes. Don't we have a thread at least once a month about how Israel completely ignores the UN and faces no consequence for it?

Rule of the strong? He who is stronger can have anything he wants just because he can? I thought we made laws exactly to prevent this sort of shit, but if you feel otherwise, why not...

National legal systems are based on the massive, overwhelming superiority of the state to any individual or corporation. In fact when this superiority breaks down the nation tends to collapse into anarchy. No such massively powerful authority exists at the level of nation states, and even if it did the notion of giving nation states individual 'rights' is even more dubious than making corporations legal persons. Feel free to live in your fantasy world where the all-powerful International Communist Commission regulates every aspect of international politics though, your opinion can be cheerfully ignored by everyone living in the real world.

So, Starglider, in your view, the Nuremberg trials were illegal and never should have been held? Or for that matter, the ICC should not only never have charged Slobodan Milosevic, but never should have existed in the first place? Sounds to me like you're the one denying reality here, by claiming international law is totally impotent and should rightfully be so. (You'd still be wrong regardless, thanks to the existence of a little concept called a "treaty", but never mind that.)

[Darth Wong]

He's just talking about "might makes right": an old foreign policy argument which is pointless when discussing what's right to do, because it actually makes the whole question moot. It's like arguing about getting a refund at a store and then resorting to saying "give me the refund or I'll shoot you". At that point, it is no longer an argument; it is now armed robbery.

[lazerus]

He's just talking about "might makes right": an old foreign policy argument which is pointless when discussing what's right to do, because it actually makes the whole question moot. It's like arguing about getting a refund at a store and then resorting to saying "give me the refund or I'll shoot you". At that point, it is no longer an argument; it is now armed robbery.

I disagree. I would say it's slightly more akin to the "If we make guns illegal, only criminals would have guns." argument. Yes, it would be better if no one had nuclear weapons, and we're better off the fewer people have nuclear weapons -- but realistically, almost all countries will pursue them as a matter of self-interest, and we don't always have the power to stop them.

[Kane Starkiller]

Does the US have the right to bomb any country it wishes? Is that in the Human Rights declaration? The US wants to bomb countries as it pleases but not every want is automatically a right.

My point is very simple: there are more important things in the world than obsessing over US hypocrisy. A world in which most countries have nuclear weapons would be extremely unsafe and the results of even minor regional wars would be devastating.
Thus a world in which US (and Russia and France and China) hypocritically hog nuclear weapons to themselves, while annoying, is still superior to the other option of "fair world" where everyone has a nuke.
Basically every thread about whether a theocracy like Iran should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons has been derailed into questions about US and its morality. While this is a fair question here it simply serves to evade the original one.

[Simon_Jester]

I disagree. I would say it's slightly more akin to the "If we make guns illegal, only criminals would have guns." argument. Yes, it would be better if no one had nuclear weapons, and we're better off the fewer people have nuclear weapons -- but realistically, almost all countries will pursue them as a matter of self-interest, and we don't always have the power to stop them.

Especially countries who are surrounded by saber-rattlers who do have nuclear weapons.

For my fellow Americans in the audience, imagine that the Martians, with vastly superior weapons technology that our forces could barely make a dent in, invaded Canada and Mexico, occupying those nations. How would the US respond?

We'd be scrambling to develop new weapons to use against the Martians. We'd be sneaking special forces types into those countries to encourage resistance against the occupier. We'd do whatever it took to build up enough of a deterrent to avoid being next on their list.

And this is exactly how the Iranians responded to the same situation when we invaded and occupied countries on either side of them. I fail to see why this should come as a shock. We've put them in a situation where their government has excellent reasons to want a nuclear deterrent, and unless we actually were planning to attack them all along (which would sort of justify their actions in the first place), it's hard for me to see how we're justified in planning to attack them now.

[Starglider]

So, Starglider, in your view, the Nuremberg trials were illegal and never should have been held?

The Nuremberg trials were made possible by the military defeat of Germany. They were held because the victorious allies wanted them to be held, not because there is some inexorable force in the universe that imposes truth and justice.

Or for that matter, the ICC should not only never have charged Slobodan Milosevic, but never should have existed in the first place? Sounds to me like you're the one denying reality here, by claiming international law is totally impotent and should rightfully be so.

I made no comment on the desirability of the current situation. My notions of how a utopian future of total international co-operation should be structured are no more relevant than Stas's. Bitching about how the world 'should' work is utterly irrelevant to current events, when it does not work that way and will not anytime soon.

In actual fact I think international law is great when it actually works, but to date the scope of events in which it can be expected to work is rather limited. Specifically, limited to trade disputes where everyone is playing nice, and cleaning up after the debris has settled. The relevance of international law when one country wants to invade another is pretty much propaganda only.

He's just talking about "might makes right": an old foreign policy argument which is pointless when discussing what's right to do, because it actually makes the whole question moot.

No, that is a completely different concept. For example, I often criticise the USSR for subjugating eastern europe with military might. If I really believed 'might makes right' I would say that this is an excellent example of how strong countries should dominate weak ones.

My problem is specifically with Stas going on about nations being 'allowed' to do something. Opinions on whether something is justified or 'right' are all very well but just that; opinions. There is no 'allowed' in absence of an authority; that is not 'might makes right', it is 'might means being able to ignore people who bitch and whine about what you should be 'allowed' to do'.

[Bakustra]

So, Starglider, in your view, the Nuremberg trials were illegal and never should have been held?

The Nuremberg trials were made possible by the military defeat of Germany. They were held because the victorious allies wanted them to be held, not because there is some inexorable force in the universe that imposes truth and justice.

You were saying that international law is a fiction, and the Nuremberg trials, have, oddly enough, set precedent, almost as though they were a court of law. (PS: Are you saying that there is an inexorable force imposing truth and justice when it comes to intranational law? )

Or for that matter, the ICC should not only never have charged Slobodan Milosevic, but never should have existed in the first place? Sounds to me like you're the one denying reality here, by claiming international law is totally impotent and should rightfully be so.

I made no comment on the desirability of the current situation. My notions of how a utopian future of total international co-operation should be structured are no more relevant than Stas's. Bitching about how the world 'should' work is utterly irrelevant to current events, when it does not work that way and will not anytime soon.

In actual fact I think international law is great when it actually works, but to date the scope of events in which it can be expected to work is rather limited. Specifically, limited to trade disputes where everyone is playing nice, and cleaning up after the debris has settled. The relevance of international law when one country wants to invade another is pretty much propaganda only.

Then don't make nitwit statements about "international communist commissions" or whatever, because you sound like a great many morons who denounce international law as illegitimate for trying to tie the hands of whatever nation they live in.

[Shroom Man 777]

Fact is, Iran are attempting to join the nuclear club. Do we want this to be allowed without military action used to prevent it?

Fact is, America is a rogue nation that's attacking nation after nation after nation. Do we want this to be allowed without military action used to prevent it? Iran's attempt to join the nuclear club is an attempt at security and regional stabilization aimed at protecting their freedom and their democracy against a coalition of evil, rogue nuclear superpowers and terrorist states like America. We cannot let Christian extremists, terrorist-sponsoring superpowers, warmongers and rogue nuclear states threaten the Islamic Way of Life. Thus, Iran must act as the Middle East Police. With a coalition of willing nations like North Korea, China, Russia, Syria and Sudan we can bring peace and freedom - and SHARIAH JUSTICE - to the region. Allah Bless Iran, my fellow Iranians.

Not to mention in the 1980s, the American Axis of Evil was also supporting Saddam Hussein's use of nerve gas against Iran. When the UN Security Council tried to condemn Iraqi nerve gas usage on Iranians, the American terrorists vetoed it and the American/terrorist-sympathizing UK also abstained from voting. This is because they hate the Truth, Freedom, and Halal Pie.

Personally, I don't think I'd be complete against targeted air strikes, unideal though they would be. Its not a moron position, its a position you don't agree with.

Personally, I don't think I'd be complete against Iranian nuclear armament, unideal though they would be. Its not a moron position, its a position you don't agree with.

Exactly. At least back in the Cold War both sides knew the rules and played by them... not so sure about the "let's wipe Israel off the map" Iranian leaders though.

Exactly. At least back in the Cold War, Richard Nixon knew the rules and played by them... not so sure about the "let's invade a whole crapload of nations without giving a fuck about the international community" American leaders though.

They're a bunch of rogue dogs who need to be put in the leash, in my opinion. They're threatening the Islamic Way of Life, Islamic Freedom and Islamic Democracy and Islamic Shariah Law. They're waging a cultural and religious war against our peaceful people, because they're freedom-hating terrorists.

Does Iran have the "right" to develop nuclear weapons? Is that in the Human rights declaration? Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons but not every want is automatically a right. Suppose a country discovers new type of energy allowing it to build a billion MT bomb. Should that be allowed because of its "sovereignty"?
The issue is what are the risks. Clearly a billion MT bomb is unacceptable to the civilization; sovereignty or not we all have to live on Earth. How trustworthy is Iran and if it is allowed to develop nuclear weapons what is stopping the rest of the world from building their own nukes.

Does America have the "right" to invade other countries? Is that in the Human rights declaration? America wants to invade countrues, but not every want is automatically a right. Suppose America discovers a new type of invasion allowing it to invade a billion countries? Should that be allowed because of "America fuck yeah"?

The issue is what are the risks. Clearly American invasions are inacceptable to civilization; America fuck yeah or not we all live on Earth. How trustworthy is America and if it is allowed to invade, what is stopping the rest of the world from invading Georgia other countries?

Obviously there is also a question of how much pain one is justified in afflicting to a country to stop it from attaining nuclear weapons.
Wiping Iran (or Russia) off the map and killing millions or tens of millions to stop a potential future nuclear war would be impossible to justify. However executing relatively limited strike to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and perhaps military while limiting civilian casualties is far more justifiable.
If US had the capability in 1946 to reliably destroy Russia's nuclear research without causing undue damage to civilians then, from US and Western Europe's perspective at least, this would not be an immoral act.

Obviously there is also a question of how much pain one is justified in afflicting to a country to stop it from invading.
Wiping America (or Israel) off the map and killing millions or tens of millions to stop a potential future invasion would be impossible to justify.
However executing relatively limited strike to destroy American facilities and perhaps military while limiting civilian casualties is far more justifiable.
If Iran had the capability in 2001 to reliably destroy America's invasion research without causing undue damage to civilians, then from Iran and Middle East's perspective at least, this would not be an immoral act.

National legal systems are based on the massive, overwhelming superiority of the state to any individual or corporation. In fact when this superiority breaks down the nation tends to collapse into anarchy. No such massively powerful authority exists at the level of nation states, and even if it did the notion of giving nation states individual 'rights' is even more dubious than making corporations legal persons. Feel free to live in your fantasy world where the all-powerful International Communist Commission regulates every aspect of international politics though, your opinion can be cheerfully ignored by everyone living in the real world.

Take your realpolitik and cram it, mango. Stas isn't talking about International Communist Conspiraciies, he's talking about what's moral and shit unlike the crap you're spouting. In your system, Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran or the sponsorship of dictatorial regimes in Latin America, South East Asia, and wherever the fuck else is "right" or "not wrong" simply because of American military and economic might and that's a fucking stupid - and not to mention morally appalling - world view. You might as well go act and posture like Shep and gleefully cackle on how many glow-in-the-dark brown people you'll go on killing for oil or some shit, because at least for all the moral bankruptcy involve someone like Shep at least has some bloody honesty - with simple 1950s military-industrial graph charts instead of pretentious bullshit.

[Kane Starkiller]

Does America have the "right" to invade other countries? Is that in the Human rights declaration? America wants to invade countrues, but not every want is automatically a right. Suppose America discovers a new type of invasion allowing it to invade a billion countries? Should that be allowed because of "America fuck yeah"?

The issue is what are the risks. Clearly American invasions are inacceptable to civilization; America fuck yeah or not we all live on Earth. How trustworthy is America and if it is allowed to invade, what is stopping the rest of the world from invading Georgia other countries?

What does it mean "being able to invade billion countries"? What exactly is the technology? If it is inherently threatening to the world then no of course US shouldn't be allowed. And yes every effort should be made to minimize American casualties if such a strike is decided upon. The question remains who can pull it off?

Obviously there is also a question of how much pain one is justified in afflicting to a country to stop it from invading.
Wiping America (or Israel) off the map and killing millions or tens of millions to stop a potential future invasion would be impossible to justify.
However executing relatively limited strike to destroy American facilities and perhaps military while limiting civilian casualties is far more justifiable.
If Iran had the capability in 2001 to reliably destroy America's invasion research without causing undue damage to civilians, then from Iran and Middle East's perspective at least, this would not be an immoral act.

I'm glad we agree in principle. Although in practice Iran's regime isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to posses military capable of executing such a strike on US not for the sake of US but the rest of the world.

[Darth Wong]

He's just talking about "might makes right": an old foreign policy argument which is pointless when discussing what's right to do, because it actually makes the whole question moot.

No, that is a completely different concept. For example, I often criticise the USSR for subjugating eastern europe with military might. If I really believed 'might makes right' I would say that this is an excellent example of how strong countries should dominate weak ones.

I don't see how that's a completely different concept from saying that natural law flows from power.

[Shroom Man 777]

What does it mean "being able to invade billion countries"? What exactly is the technology?

Does it have to be a revolutionary kind of new technology? Or can it be the proliferation of existing technologies and machines/weapons? Does it have to be technological? Can't it be ideological or socio-political in nature? Nazi Germany didn't invent drastic new technologies to kill millions of people.

If it is inherently threatening to the world then no of course US shouldn't be allowed. And yes every effort should be made to minimize American casualties if such a strike is decided upon. The question remains who can pull it off?

Give me a couple of decades and I'll get back to you on that.

I'm glad we agree in principle. Although in practice Iran's regime isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to posses military capable of executing such a strike on US not for the sake of US but the rest of the world.

Likewise, in practice, America's regime isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to possess military capable of executing such a strike on Iran not for the sake of Iranian interest but the rest of the world.

America supported a tyrant in Iran, and only through the action of Iranian freedom fighters and through revolution was the Shah ousted and did the Iranian founding fathers and Ayatollahs declare democracy and freedom afterwards.

America then supported Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons on Iran, and when the UN was seeking to condemn Iraq for its use of WMDs the Americans vetoed against this. America supported Iraq and the use of WMDs, America has shown itself to be a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of freedom, peace and (Shariah) justice and Halal Pie. America has shown itself to be an enemy of peace and freedom.

America then, afterwards, invaded Iraq illegally and has show its flagrant disrespect for human rights by illegally kidnapping and torturing people in secret prisons. America has shown itself to be an enemy of humanity.

This is, also, does not take into consideration all the other great offenses America has done to the rest of the world. Certainly, Iran hasn't sponsored dictatorships in my country but America has (Marcos). Likewise for Latin America.

I think, all in all, America has done more harm to more people than Iran ever has.

So, yes. In practice America's regime isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to posses military capable of executing such a strike on Iran not for the sake of Iran but the rest of the world.

[lazerus]

To be blunt though, might *does* make right.

There is no international body capable of imposing law and order on nations, akin to the government in interpersonal relations. Nations can band together to attack troublemakers, but that's far more akin to mob justice then any kind of real international law. The interplay between countries can be viewed as the interactions of numerous self-interested actors seeking to maximize their own good. Diplomacy and international law are expressions of the group trying to prevent the free rider problem. For instance, pollution is bad for everyone (causes global warming) and nuclear weapons make everyone less safe -- but cheap industrialization and WMD deterrents are good for the one person who possess them. They are a net-loss of "utility" to the system, but are good for the one person who has them. This makes the basic play concerning them a contest of the will of the countries around them to stop them from getting them, vs their ability to get these things.

That's why China can pollute the world till the oceans glow, and the USA can stockpile enough nuclear weapons to destroy the moon and no one will stop them -- but Iran cannot do either of those things. China and the USA have power -- not only power in the military sense, but in the sense of being tied to people. What hurts the USA hurts the world, and much of the same can be said for China, so most of the First World reaps net benefit from those countries doing things that help themselves at the cost of the rest of the world, and so will not expend serious benefits to prevent that action.

Iran on the other hand, has little military power, few allies, and fewer friends. They are unpopular, mistrusted, and held to be dangerous. There is therefore no incentive to let them keep the weapons other then the trouble they could make it attacked, and a lot of worry about what would happen if they got the weapons.

So why does this mean might makes right? Because "Right" in this context is "What's right for you and your friends." And stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons would be very right for the US and it's friends. Would it be more morally right if we held all countries to an equal moral standard? Yes. But that's never going to happen, never ever. It is fundamentally opposed to the entire idea of diplomacy. People, set on unequal footing, do not play fair. It is not human nature, and barring some radical brainwashing or genetics engineering, never will be. Individuals play fair because the government makes them under threat of imprisonment or violence, and any international body capable of imposing that on countries would effectively be one world government anyway.

So in other words, Iran doesn't get weapons and the US does because Iran is dangerous, unpopular, and weak, and the US is stable, well connected, and powerful. Iran having nuclear weapons is more risky, and it's easier to deprive them of those weapons, so they will be acted upon.

[Kane Starkiller]

Does it have to be a revolutionary kind of new technology? Or can it be the proliferation of existing technologies and machines/weapons? Does it have to be technological? Can't it be ideological or socio-political in nature? Nazi Germany didn't invent drastic new technologies to kill millions of people.

The point of my "billion MT nuke" example was to demonstrate an extreme example where the very existence of a device represents immediate danger to humanity and issues like sovereignty become irrelevant. Even if US had stargates all over Earth that would still not make it a threat to the humanity.

Give me a couple of decades and I'll get back to you on that.

To pull off an attack on US to eliminate its overseas military reach while at the same time keeping the casualties to a minimum? Try a couple of centuries.

Likewise, in practice, America's regime isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to possess military capable of executing such a strike on Iran not for the sake of Iranian interest but the rest of the world.

America supported a tyrant in Iran, and only through the action of Iranian freedom fighters and through revolution was the Shah ousted and did the Iranian founding fathers and Ayatollahs declare democracy and freedom afterwards.

America then supported Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons on Iran, and when the UN was seeking to condemn Iraq for its use of WMDs the Americans vetoed against this. America supported Iraq and the use of WMDs, America has shown itself to be a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of freedom, peace and (Shariah) justice and Halal Pie. America has shown itself to be an enemy of peace and freedom.

America then, afterwards, invaded Iraq illegally and has show its flagrant disrespect for human rights by illegally kidnapping and torturing people in secret prisons. America has shown itself to be an enemy of humanity.

This is, also, does not take into consideration all the other great offenses America has done to the rest of the world. Certainly, Iran hasn't sponsored dictatorships in my country but America has (Marcos). Likewise for Latin America.

I think, all in all, America has done more harm to more people than Iran ever has.

So, yes. In practice America's regime isn't trustworthy enough to be allowed to posses military capable of executing such a strike on Iran not for the sake of Iran but the rest of the world.

But who will execute that strike? And what does the world gain by replacing one power possessing transoceanic military reach with another? In the current example at least Iran doesn't become nuclear. In your example US is invaded (by an unknown force with unknown morality) and simply replaced.
Also external policy is not the only way one should gauge other regimes. After all Rwandan regime didn't do as much damage to rest of the world as US yet somehow I don't think that they should be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

[K. A. Pital]

Man, Shroom and folks are doing a vastly superior job here than I ever could.

I love Starglider talking about international law as an "international communist commision". What's wrong with you? Do the declarations of the UN suddenly become a bad idea because the US is strong enough to say "well I don't fucking care"? That's like saying Luke Skywalker is a bad guy because he can't stand up to Darth Vader when the latter cuts off his fucking hand and instead runs away! Does it make international law a "ridiculous" concept?

Sovereign nations sure have the ability to attack each other; but developing a nuclear weapon and attacking another nations are different things, aren't they? Having a nuclear weapon can be a factor which actually contributes to stability, in fact - even for powers which you may call "unreliable".

Why did the Indo-Pakistani wars fizzle out so quickly once these nations fielded a sizeable nuclear arsenal? Maybe because it's fucking stupid to make war between nuclear states, all right, and no one, not even the Chief Ayatollah, wants to become a glowing crater? But quite certainly no nation wants foreign airstrikes hitting it, or foreign soldiers tramping on it's soil, and to that effect, nuclear weapons were and are being developed in the world.

If I really believed 'might makes right' I would say that this is an excellent example of how strong countries should dominate weak ones.

Replace USSR (China, India, etc.) with the USA, and you wouldn't have a single problem with domination by military force exerted by the USA, am I correct? In that case your real beliefs remain the same, "might makes right". You only oppose imperialism and similar behavior in case it's done by nations other than the USA, correct? How does this selectivity change your core beliefs, then?

The point of my "billion MT nuke" example was to demonstrate an extreme example where the very existence of a device represents immediate danger to humanity and issues like sovereignty become irrelevant. Even if US had stargates all over Earth that would still not make it a threat to the humanity.

And that point is decisively refuted - the atomic bomb posed and still poses inherent danger to humanity. It's development made by the US drastically raised the risk of human extinction by it's own hands. Yet, while the USA has developed the "billion MT weapon" which was the A-bomb in the 1940s, I don't see you ranting against that.

[The Guid]

Kane Starkiller has already pointed this out, but simply talking about how the US has had foreign policy that has, in the past and even in the present, been not entirely morally consistent (to put it lightly) is not to address the point of whether Iran should be stopped from gaining nuclear weaponry using military means. Consider - would it be morally right for a mass murderer to shoot someone who was attempting to murder someone? Yes it would. You could argue that the mass murderer is a mass murderer all you like, but it would not be right for him to stand idle whilst someone was murdered.

The fact is that this action should be weighed up as a moral action in and of itself. Is it right to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons using military means? Personally, I think this comes down to, essentially, weighing up the pros and cons, and likely by knowing for sure what the response from other nations will be.

Iran is considered a dangerous neighbour/rival by at least a few, and arguably many other nations in the region. I think it is entirely self evident that, as with other patterns of nuclear proliferation, its rivals would seek the bomb. Sure, Israel has it already, as does Pakistan. If Iran gets the bomb, I would find it laughable if others were to argue that Saudi Arabia would not. The only reason it wouldn't would be if it had a cast iron certainty that it would remain behind a US defensive shield of retaliation that was not uncertain. Can they be pursuaded of this? Many within Saudi Arabia will realise their relative importance is oil based, and if their oil becomes less important due to gradual diversification of the western energy needs, or simply that THEIR oil runs low then they might need to have their own defence in place. They don't have the technological capacity to create nukes from scratch but its well within their means to buy the technology.

Consider then Egypt and Turkey and what their responses will be. Then consider that if you do have a fully nuclear Iran you have a neighbour of both Iraq and Afghanistan (nations we still, as the West, have a lot of ties and obligations towards, for better of for worse) that you can't risk attacking. How much more brazen might their interferences in these two theatres of war, against Islamic extremism, become? Its a question, yes, but its still a poigniant question.

I'd like to end by pointing out to Shroom that when he is quoting my own words back to me with a raised eyebrow he's making himself look stupid. I never said that not attacking Iran was a "moron" position. I've merely stated that its not a simple cut and dried issue.

[Kane Starkiller]

Why did the Indo-Pakistani wars fizzle out so quickly once these nations fielded a sizeable nuclear arsenal? Maybe because it's fucking stupid to make war between nuclear states, all right, and no one, not even the Chief Ayatollah, wants to become a glowing crater? But quite certainly no nation wants foreign airstrikes hitting it, or foreign soldiers tramping on it's soil, and to that effect, nuclear weapons were and are being developed in the world.

And yet China attacked US forces in North Korea even though US was a nuclear power then and China wasn't. Argentina attacked the Falklands even though UK had nukes.
I think I'm going to need some more evidence before I buy into the whole "nuclear weapons=magical era of peace" thing. What is your evidence that USSR and US or India and Pakistan would go to all out war without nukes? What is your evidence that all has been said about Indian and Pakistani conflict and that a disaster isn't yet to happen seeing as how 36 years (the amount of time India has had nukes) is a bit too early to declare game over on the standoff?

And that point is decisively refuted - the atomic bomb posed and still poses inherent danger to humanity. It's development made by the US drastically raised the risk of human extinction by it's own hands. Yet, while the USA has developed the "billion MT weapon" which was the A-bomb in the 1940s, I don't see you ranting against that.

Wrong. Billion MT bomb threatens the survival of humanity 15kt one doesn't. I wasn't alive in 1945 so I couldn't really do anything about it and now US is too powerful. Does that mean everyone should be allowed to get a nuke now? Never mind the devastating consequences in case of even smaller wars US did it first so it's OK.

[Starglider]

He's just talking about "might makes right"

No, that is a completely different concept. For example, I often criticise the USSR for subjugating eastern europe with military might. If I really believed 'might makes right' I would say that this is an excellent example of how strong countries should dominate weak ones.

I don't see how that's a completely different concept from saying that natural law flows from power.

I'm not sure how to debate that because the whole concept of 'natural law' always struck me as nonsensical. The only 'laws' nature has are the laws of physics. Laws in the legal sense are an artificial human creation. They're generally a good thing, but as I've said, they rely on a state being able to enforce them. In actual fact the state of international law (as applied to nations) is exactly what the state of conventional law would be like if the anarcho-libertarians got their way and abolished the state. Which is to say that it would still exist in some form, but as a patchwork of weakly enforced personal contracts, toothless advisory bodies, formalised protection rackets and rampant vigilanteeism.

not because there is some inexorable force in the universe that imposes truth and justice.

Are you saying that there is an inexorable force imposing truth and justice when it comes to intranational law? )

I find it amusing, although slightly depressing that your only means of arguing me is to pretend I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. It's not as if there's even any vagueness to hide your obvious reversal.

Then don't make nitwit statements about "international communist commissions

Ignore that, I was just tweaking Stas about his 'if only communists ruled the world' attitude, it wasn't directed at anyone else.

[Shroom Man 777]

The point of my "billion MT nuke" example was to demonstrate an extreme example where the very existence of a device represents immediate danger to humanity and issues like sovereignty become irrelevant. Even if US had stargates all over Earth that would still not make it a threat to the humanity.

So in your moral viewpoint, world perspective, or whatever, the only thing actually bad is if a power has the ability to cause the extinction of humanity (or some similarly great catastrophe)?

But if that power can't cause the extinction of humanity, but instead JUST has the power to make unilateral illegal invasions on any country at whim and cause mass suffering to JUST thousands of millions of people, while meanwhile propping inhumane regimes throughout the Third World, then it's A-OK?

If it's not a danger to humanity (i.e. a danger to SPARTAFREEDOMERICA), but is JUST a danger to a bunch of shitty towel-wearing banana-eating brown people living in shitty mudhuts, then it's NO PROBLEMO AMIGOS?

Also, America has been fine with Pakistan getting the bomb. So, what if Iran gets the bomb? What's the difference? At least Iran isn't sanctioning destabilizing terrorist attacks against India or some other regional nuclear nation - unlike Pakistan. OH WAIT! Pakistan is actually one of those shitty dictatorships sponsored by the US of A! So that makes it okay! LOL!

To pull off an attack on US to eliminate its overseas military reach while at the same time keeping the casualties to a minimum? Try a couple of centuries.

It's okay. When the time comes, and you're the ones living in crappy mudhuts, it'll be a great time for some country to bring freedom and democracy to your people.

But who will execute that strike? And what does the world gain by replacing one power possessing transoceanic military reach with another? In the current example at least Iran doesn't become nuclear. In your example US is invaded (by an unknown force with unknown morality) and simply replaced.

And what does the world gain if Iran doesn't become nuclear? A nuclear Iran is a good Iran, since it will bring freedom and security and peace and Shariah justice to the middle east and will act as a deterrence against rogue terroristic warmongering nations from the Coalition of Evil - nations like America. Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend Iranian values, like truth and Shariah justice and Halal Pie.

By replacing one power possessing transoceanic military reach (America) with another (not-America), and by replacing the American regime with another regime, the world gains freedom and democracy and Halal Pie and the threat of terroristic invasions is defeated. Non-American Foreign Interests are also served.

Also external policy is not the only way one should gauge other regimes. After all Rwandan regime didn't do as much damage to rest of the world as US yet somehow I don't think that they should be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

Iran isn't Rwanda. Iran isn't even Pakistan, nor America. Iran is a great country full of God-fearing white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans Allah-fearing brown Arab-Shiite Muslim Iranians (shut up, I know Iranians are of different ethnicity than Arabs). Allah bless Iran. *holds hand to heart* *sheds tear*

Kane Starkiller has already pointed this out, but simply talking about how the US has had foreign policy that has, in the past and even in the present, been not entirely morally consistent (to put it lightly) is not to address the point of whether Iran should be stopped from gaining nuclear weaponry using military means. Consider - would it be morally right for a mass murderer to shoot someone who was attempting to murder someone? Yes it would. You could argue that the mass murderer is a mass murderer all you like, but it would not be right for him to stand idle whilst someone was murdered

Bull-fucking-shit. Iran's not attempting to mass murder anyone. I have a better analogy.

Consider - would it be morally right for a mass murderer (who has illegally invaded nations, and sponsored regimes that used WMDs, i.e. America) to shoot someone who was attempting to gain weaponry to defend itself (Iran) from the mass murderer (who recently illegally invaded nations, and sponsored regimes that used WMDs ON IT)? You could argue that the mass murderer (America) is a mass murderer all you like, but it would not be right for Iran to stand idle and defenseless while the mass murderer mass murdered it.

Iran is like a man who's buying a gun because the neighbor he hated (Iraq) just got murdered robbed and raped by a shit-eating fucked up serial killer bitch (America). Not to mention, previously, that shit-eating fucked up serial killer bitchface (America) supported the neighbor (Iraq) when the neighbor (Iraq) used chemical weapons on Iran.

I think that it is in keeping with the Second Amendment for Iran, and many other countries, to have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from necrophiliac nations like America.

I'd like to end by pointing out to Shroom that when he is quoting my own words back to me with a raised eyebrow he's making himself look stupid. I never said that not attacking Iran was a "moron" position. I've merely stated that its not a simple cut and dried issue.

Actually, no. It looks stupid because your points themselves are stupid, which is the whole point of using your own (stupid) words back at you.

I'd like to end by pointing out to you that when I am quoting your own words back at you to illustrate the hypocrisy of your own words - because when I substitute "America" with any other nation, somehow it becomes objectionable but when it's "America" that's doing it it's A-OK. That's hypocrisy.

[Surlethe]

What's wrong with you? Do the declarations of the UN suddenly become a bad idea because the US is strong enough to say "well I don't fucking care"? That's like saying Luke Skywalker is a bad guy because he can't stand up to Darth Vader when the latter cuts off his fucking hand and instead runs away! Does it make international law a "ridiculous" concept?

No, international law is a 'ridiculous' concept as long as no entity exists to enforce it. As long as most countries can say, "Well, I don't fucking care," international law won't be worth much more than the paper it's written on and the international relations scene will resemble nothing more than an anarcho-libertarian utopia.

I think you and Starglider are misunderstanding each other. You made a moral point: if it is immoral for Iran to get nukes, it was immoral for the US to get nukes in the '40s. Starglider made a practical point: there is nothing to enforce a moral code of laws, so it is irrational to expect countries to abide by them. Neither refutes the other.

[Kane Starkiller]

So in your moral viewpoint, world perspective, or whatever, the only thing actually bad is if a power has the ability to cause the extinction of humanity (or some similarly great catastrophe)?

But if that power can't cause the extinction of humanity, but instead JUST has the power to make unilateral illegal invasions on any country at whim and cause mass suffering to JUST thousands of millions of people, while meanwhile propping inhumane regimes throughout the Third World, then it's A-OK?

If it's not a danger to humanity (i.e. a danger to SPARTAFREEDOMERICA), but is JUST a danger to a bunch of shitty towel-wearing banana-eating brown people living in shitty mudhuts, then it's NO PROBLEMO AMIGOS?

I never said that. I said that a billion MT nuke is much more dangerous than a 15kt nuke and that it is a much greater cause for intervention. Do you disagree?
I never said that US flimsily justified interventions are OK. How is allowing a theocracy to have nuclear weapons an improvement?
Does the fact that the only power capable of constraining theocracies around the world is flawed itself represent a get-out-of-jail-free card for those regimes?

Also, America has been fine with Pakistan getting the bomb. So, what if Iran gets the bomb? What's the difference? At least Iran isn't sanctioning destabilizing terrorist attacks against India or some other regional nuclear nation - unlike Pakistan. OH WAIT! Pakistan is actually one of those shitty dictatorships sponsored by the US of A! So that makes it okay! LOL!

I doubt they were fine as opposed to not being sure they could reliably eliminate their program with acceptable casualties. The difference is that each new nuclear power enhances the chances of a nuclear war. One unstable country already has it. Why add more to the mix? Because it's "fair"?

It's okay. When the time comes, and you're the ones living in crappy mudhuts, it'll be a great time for some country to bring freedom and democracy to your people.

My country already fought a war of independence and democracy. I personally didn't experience much of a war but I did loose a number of relatives and witnessed several airstrikes. In any case I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of the stick.

And what does the world gain if Iran doesn't become nuclear? A nuclear Iran is a good Iran, since it will bring freedom and security and peace and Shariah justice to the middle east and will act as a deterrence against rogue terroristic warmongering nations from the Coalition of Evil - nations like America. Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend Iranian values, like truth and Shariah justice and Halal Pie.

By replacing one power possessing transoceanic military reach (America) with another (not-America), and by replacing the American regime with another regime, the world gains freedom and democracy and Halal Pie and the threat of terroristic invasions is defeated. Non-American Foreign Interests are also served.

If a radical theocracy doesn't become nuclear world gains or rather retains greater safety. Iran is a theocracy and nothing the US does or is changes that.
How are third party interests served by replacing one power for another? You need to be more specific.

Iran isn't Rwanda. Iran isn't even Pakistan, nor America. Iran is a great country full of God-fearing white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans Allah-fearing brown Arab-Shiite Muslim Iranians (shut up, I know Iranians are of different ethnicity than Arabs). Allah bless Iran. *holds hand to heart* *sheds tear*

As I sad: US flaws are not a blank check for every theocracy and dictatorship in the world to do what they want. US is far from perfect but its a democracy with relatively high respect for human rights and freedoms. Iran is a radical theocracy which is also relatively weak so saying "well they haven't invaded anyone" is a weak excuse. Hence my Rwandan analogy. I didn't try to imply that Iran is the same as Rwanda in 1994 but that regimes cannot simply be judged by how many countries they invaded.

[Shroom Man 777]

I never said that. I said that a billion MT nuke is much more dangerous than a 15kt nuke and that it is a much greater cause for intervention. Do you disagree?

Well, a 1 billion MT nuke is ridiculous. But if developing a 1 billion MT nuke is necessary to defend oneself from an evil empire who wants to turn your country into a dictatorship, send Saddam to nerve gas your people, and waterboard every man, woman, child, and pet animal - then a 1 billion MT nuke might be just what the doctor ordered?

I never said that US flimsily justified interventions are OK. How is allowing a theocracy to have nuclear weapons an improvement?
Does the fact that the only power capable of constraining theocracies around the world is flawed itself represent a get-out-of-jail-free card for those regimes?

Iran is a theocracy, so what? My whole point is to show that just because Iran is this or that, doesn't mean that it's even engaged in the same level of aggression as the US of A or other nations like Pakistan. Hell, the American-supported Iraqis were the ones who used WMDs ON the Iranians, even.

So what if it's a theocracy? It's been a victim of American aggression, repeatedly, and needs to defend itself from this. Are you saying that it's bad and not OK for nations to defend themselves from aggressive actions and atrocities? Because that's what Iran is doing, building the ability to defend itself from American terrorism.

If you get rid of the whole world view that everything America does is "good", and acknowledge that a shitload of American actions are "bad", then you'll understand why many nations want to have nukes and other weapons to defend themselves from that shitload of American actions that are "bad".

I doubt they were fine as opposed to not being sure they could reliably eliminate their program with acceptable casualties. The difference is that each new nuclear power enhances the chances of a nuclear war. One unstable country already has it. Why add more to the mix? Because it's "fair"?

Because it's well within their rights to arm themselves with the weapons they need to defend themselves? America propped a dictatorship in Iran, and not too long after that propped the Iraqis who used WMDs on the Iranians, and now the Americans have just invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan and have surrounded Iran. They need those nukes to defend themselves against antagonistic American aggression and atrocities. They have every reason to be afraid of America, just from their history alone, and want to defend themselves.

It's okay. When the time comes, and you're the ones living in crappy mudhuts, it'll be a great time for some country to bring freedom and democracy to your people.

My country already fought a war of independence and democracy. I personally didn't experience much of a war but I did loose a number of relatives and witnessed several airstrikes. In any case I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of the stick.

Sorry about that. I thought you were American. Where ARE you from?

If a radical theocracy doesn't become nuclear world gains or rather retains greater safety. Iran is a theocracy and nothing the US does or is changes that.
How are third party interests served by replacing one power for another? You need to be more specific.

Deterring US interventionism in the Middle East region would serve some interests.

Also, it's in Iran's own interest to protect itself from America.

America is a nuclear nation with unquestionable military might, and has within a handful of years launched two wars - one based on complete lies and deception - within the general vicinity of Iran. In the past, America has supported the Iraqis - who used WMDs on Iran. Before that, the Americans propped up a dictatorship in Iran.

So, tell me, why can't Iran develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from the threat of America?

Is it so hard to grasp, that some people might be afraid and ENDANGERED by American actions and that they need to protect themselves from America?

As I sad: US flaws are not a blank check for every theocracy and dictatorship in the world to do what they want. US is far from perfect but its a democracy with relatively high respect for human rights and freedoms. Iran is a radical theocracy which is also relatively weak so saying "well they haven't invaded anyone" is a weak excuse. Hence my Rwandan analogy. I didn't try to imply that Iran is the same as Rwanda in 1994 but that regimes cannot simply be judged by how many countries they invaded.

Regimes can be judged by how threatening and aggressive they act, and how their actions force weaker nations like Iran to defend themselves from those depravities.

Tell me, why is it wrong for Iran to defend itself - by developing nukes, if necessary - from those American actions? Just because America is a (far from perfect) democracy with respect for human rights and freedoms (except for those human rights and freedoms in Gitmo, or in their sponsored dictatorships), does that mean that every action of America is good and that none of their actions threaten and endanger other nations? Does it make it right for America to threaten Iran? Does it make it wrong for Iran to defend itself?

Radical theocracy, radical communism, radical dictatorship or radical shit, it doesn't matter. Why should its system of government affect whether or not it is right for Iran to defend itself, protect the right and liberties of its people, and fight for freedom, truth, Shariah justice, and Halal pie?

Iran has been oppressed by American-sponsored dictatorships, attacked with WMDs by another American-sponsored dictatorship (Iraq), and is now being threatened by the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has every right to defend itself.

I salute the Iranians in their quest for peace and equality. The Iranians seek a better and safer world! A truly noble cause indeed! *salutes*

[Bakustra]

not because there is some inexorable force in the universe that imposes truth and justice.

Are you saying that there is an inexorable force imposing truth and justice when it comes to intranational law? )

I find it amusing, although slightly depressing that your only means of arguing me is to pretend I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. It's not as if there's even any vagueness to hide your obvious reversal.

No, you're claiming that the only reason that the Nuremberg Trials went through is because the Allies forced it, not because there is some external force imposing justice on the world. So I decided to throw out some bait, and lo and behold, you admit that you believe there is no difference between intranational and international law. So, what in your view gives nations the ability to enforce laws, then? Monopoly of force?

Then don't make nitwit statements about "international communist commissions

Ignore that, I was just tweaking Stas about his 'if only communists ruled the world' attitude, it wasn't directed at anyone else.

It's still a nitwit statement, regardless.

[Kane Starkiller]

Well, a 1 billion MT nuke is ridiculous. But if developing a 1 billion MT nuke is necessary to defend oneself from an evil empire who wants to turn your country into a dictatorship, send Saddam to nerve gas your people, and waterboard every man, woman, child, and pet animal - then a 1 billion MT nuke might be just what the doctor ordered?

It might be what Iranians want but you can't seriously suggest that world should allow the development of such a weapon that can end human race just so that one country might eliminate the risk of future invasion? Every action needs to be examined by benefits and risks. And in this case the risks to humanity are simply too great and nothing justifies it certainly not comparatively insignificant attacks like Saddam's use of chemical weapons.
Secondly should I honestly believe that ayatollahs that currently rule Iran by the will of Alah want to develop nukes because they are angry at US for striking a blow against Iranian democracy in 1953 as opposed to making Iran a regional power?

Iran is a theocracy, so what? My whole point is to show that just because Iran is this or that, doesn't mean that it's even engaged in the same level of aggression as the US of A or other nations like Pakistan. Hell, the American-supported Iraqis were the ones who used WMDs ON the Iranians, even.

So what if it's a theocracy? It's been a victim of American aggression, repeatedly, and needs to defend itself from this. Are you saying that it's bad and not OK for nations to defend themselves from aggressive actions and atrocities? Because that's what Iran is doing, building the ability to defend itself from American terrorism.

If you get rid of the whole world view that everything America does is "good", and acknowledge that a shitload of American actions are "bad", then you'll understand why many nations want to have nukes and other weapons to defend themselves from that shitload of American actions that are "bad".

Iraq invaded Iran that is true and commited many atrocities. After that Iran gained the upper hand and started driving towards Iraq. At that point what should US have done? Let Iran steamroll over Iraq and occupy it? Would that have made Middle East a better place? For Saudis or Turkey or Kuwait?
Even if we accept that Iran really wants nukes only to defend itself that will change because countries appetites inevitably grow as it becomes more powerful. Is Iran influencing Iraq's Shiite population to "defend" itself? Or to expand its power? Is that a good thing regardless of whether US invasion of Iraq was justified in the first place?

Sorry about that. I thought you were American. Where ARE you from?

I'm from Croatia. It's not the first time I was confused for an American.

Deterring US interventionism in the Middle East region would serve some interests.

Also, it's in Iran's own interest to protect itself from America.

America is a nuclear nation with unquestionable military might, and has within a handful of years launched two wars - one based on complete lies and deception - within the general vicinity of Iran. In the past, America has supported the Iraqis - who used WMDs on Iran. Before that, the Americans propped up a dictatorship in Iran.

So, tell me, why can't Iran develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from the threat of America?

Is it so hard to grasp, that some people might be afraid and ENDANGERED by American actions and that they need to protect themselves from America?

How do you know this new power wouldn't be just as interventionist as US or even more? US interventionism in Middle East isn't always necessarily bad, I'm sure Kuwaitis had nothing against the intervention in 1990.
Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq both of which were hosts to a strain of Islam advesarial to Iran and the destruction of Taliban and Saddam's regime was awesome as far as Iran is concerned. Americans have eliminated two major problems for Iranians in quick succession but we are supposed to believe that actually made them so afraid that they had to go and develop nukes? Not to mention that Iranians stirring trouble within Shiite community in Iraq only made Americans stay longer which doesn't make sense if Iranian wish is simply to see big bad Americans go away. It makes a lot more sense if they are not all that afraid of the US and want to expand their power.
"Why can't Iran develop their nukes to defend itself from US?"
I don't believe for a second that that is the full reason they are developing nukes.

Regimes can be judged by how threatening and aggressive they act, and how their actions force weaker nations like Iran to defend themselves from those depravities.

Tell me, why is it wrong for Iran to defend itself - by developing nukes, if necessary - from those American actions? Just because America is a (far from perfect) democracy with respect for human rights and freedoms (except for those human rights and freedoms in Gitmo, or in their sponsored dictatorships), does that mean that every action of America is good and that none of their actions threaten and endanger other nations? Does it make it right for America to threaten Iran? Does it make it wrong for Iran to defend itself?

Radical theocracy, radical communism, radical dictatorship or radical shit, it doesn't matter. Why should its system of government affect whether or not it is right for Iran to defend itself, protect the right and liberties of its people, and fight for freedom, truth, Shariah justice, and Halal pie?

Iran has been oppressed by American-sponsored dictatorships, attacked with WMDs by another American-sponsored dictatorship (Iraq), and is now being threatened by the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has every right to defend itself.

I salute the Iranians in their quest for peace and equality. The Iranians seek a better and safer world! A truly noble cause indeed! *salutes*

Again you are implying that Iran is developing nukes solely to defend itself from US. Even if that truly was their current intention (which I don't buy) intentions change but the capability will remain.
To say that internal working of a country doesn't matter is like saying that it doesn't matter whether a guy is beating his wife and kids at home. He never picked a fight with other guys so it's OK to let him buy a gun.

[Shroom Man 777]

It might be what Iranians want but you can't seriously suggest that world should allow the development of such a weapon that can end human race just so that one country might eliminate the risk of future invasion? Every action needs to be examined by benefits and risks. And in this case the risks to humanity are simply too great and nothing justifies it certainly not comparatively insignificant attacks like Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

Well, thank god Iran's not building billion megaton nukes.

Secondly should I honestly believe that ayatollahs that currently rule Iran by the will of Alah want to develop nukes because they are angry at US for striking a blow against Iranian democracy in 1953 as opposed to making Iran a regional power?

What's wrong with Iran as a regional power? It's no wronger than an America as a global power. Isn't it good to see nations become more influential and prosperous and strong? It's better than them being weak and becoming the subject of foreign exploitation, intervention, and Iraqi nerve-gassing, right?

I'd be happy for the Iranians if their nation gets better.

Iraq invaded Iran that is true and commited many atrocities. After that Iran gained the upper hand and started driving towards Iraq. At that point what should US have done? Let Iran steamroll over Iraq and occupy it? Would that have made Middle East a better place? For Saudis or Turkey or Kuwait?
Even if we accept that Iran really wants nukes only to defend itself that will change because countries appetites inevitably grow as it becomes more powerful. Is Iran influencing Iraq's Shiite population to "defend" itself? Or to expand its power? Is that a good thing regardless of whether US invasion of Iraq was justified in the first place?

For the Iranians, it is.

I'm from Croatia. It's not the first time I was confused for an American.

Man, you sound SO American.

How do you know this new power wouldn't be just as interventionist as US or even more? US interventionism in Middle East isn't always necessarily bad, I'm sure Kuwaitis had nothing against the intervention in 1990.

Saddam was a dick, so intervening and getting rid of him was good. Actually, not supporting Saddam at all in the first place would've been... gooder.

Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq both of which were hosts to a strain of Islam advesarial to Iran and the destruction of Taliban and Saddam's regime was awesome as far as Iran is concerned. Americans have eliminated two major problems for Iranians in quick succession but we are supposed to believe that actually made them so afraid that they had to go and develop nukes?

Yes, because now instead of a US-backed Saddam with nerve gas, now they've got actual-factual Americans on the warpath seemingly moving to surround their country with the American military? And the Iranians haven't developed amnesia, so they still remember that it was the Americans who supported Saddam's use of nerve gas against them, and that it was the Americans who propped the Shah in their country? The conventional militaries of the ME nations couldn't do jack shit against America, so what would a scared Iran resort to?

Not to mention that Iranians stirring trouble within Shiite community in Iraq only made Americans stay longer which doesn't make sense if Iranian wish is simply to see big bad Americans go away. It makes a lot more sense if they are not all that afraid of the US and want to expand their power.

"Why can't Iran develop their nukes to defend itself from US?"
I don't believe for a second that that is the full reason they are developing nukes.

It's a very damned good reason, though.

Again you are implying that Iran is developing nukes solely to defend itself from US. Even if that truly was their current intention (which I don't buy) intentions change but the capability will remain.
To say that internal working of a country doesn't matter is like saying that it doesn't matter whether a guy is beating his wife and kids at home. He never picked a fight with other guys so it's OK to let him buy a gun.

And if Iran wants to increase its regional influence (through nukes), how is this a bad thing?

Alright, I concede that the internal workings of a country should matter. But hey, how bad is Iran compared to the rest of its ME neighbors, or Pakistan for that matter?

And the internal workings of America never mattered, when it came to American actions abroad. America's all so nice and fuzzy and freedomy, but the regimes and dictatorships it supported and the atrocities it perpetuated and continues to perpetuate are as abhorrent as the actions of many of these "Axis of Evil" regimes. Hell, America even used to support some of these Axis of Evil regimes (Iraq).