Ma Deuce wrote:
That does not excuse the behaviour and policies of the government that replaced the Shah...
I didn't say it did. However, I do keep in mind who's responsible for such things, and I hardly the think the people responsible for what happened have any right on even the coldest day in hell to presume to tell those people what to do ever again. Iran more than any other "rogue" nation needs engagement with the world and encouragement to strengthen it's moderates, not hard-line bullshit to strengthen the theocrats. They're a dying order and need to be left to expire naturally. Any sabre-rattling over Iran's seeking of nuclear weapons (the argument against which is aforementioned extremely unlikely "nuke Israel on a whim for religious reasons ... ") will make shit worse, and a military strike would be disastrous.
The argument against Iran seems to be "there are completely insane people there, even though they aren't in control, and they might get the nukes". But there are nutcases in the US and everywhere else too.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I think everyone is forgetting something important:
this is not "should we give them nukes or not?" this is "should we let them, as a nuclear capable nation, into the organization that allows us to monitor their activity with nuclear materials?"
THEY ALREADY HAVE IT. We either monitor them, or blow them up. It's not a question of "should we give them nukes?"
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
Darth Wong wrote:The argument against Iran seems to be "there are completely insane people there, even though they aren't in control, and they might get the nukes". But there are nutcases in the US and everywhere else too.
But the nutcase Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs pulls the strings Mike. They are the ones really in control, much like the bishops controlled Europe centuries ago. Do you really want nuclear armed fundies?
oh, and Theski, the word you are looking for is Alamagordite. That is the name of the glassy, black element formed at ground zero or a nuclear reaction.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” -Tom Clancy
oh, and Theski, the word you are looking for is Alamagordite. That is the name of the glassy, black element formed at ground zero or a nuclear reaction.
damm you and your IRISH smarts.. Have another drink and kill a couple of brain cells for me..
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
j1j2j3 wrote:Just for the sake of argument then, which country currently not having nukes can be allowed to have them?
Most firstworld nations could handle the responsibility. Most of them have the capability to build them if they wanted, but treaties and lack of necessity makes it so they don't.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
The argument against Iran seems to be "there are completely insane people there, even though they aren't in control, and they might get the nukes". But there are nutcases in the US and everywhere else too.
That and the fact that the nutcases quite likely extend into the command structure whicih has a reasonable chance of making off with the weapons when the government falls (it ain't exactly a bedrock of stability).
Koji:
I think everyone is forgetting something important:
this is not "should we give them nukes or not?" this is "should we let them, as a nuclear capable nation, into the organization that allows us to monitor their activity with nuclear materials?"
THEY ALREADY HAVE IT. We either monitor them, or blow them up. It's not a question of "should we give them nukes?"
They do not already have nuclear weapons, they are just beginning to enrich uranium and will still take significant amounts of time to get up to a point where they can actually build bombs.
Bombing the crap out of the facilities would set them back years at a minimum.
Personally I think we pressed global luck enough when the USSR quietly withered away; but the Soviets did not have the ranks filled with religious fundy's steeped in martyr culture. The question should not be to let Iran into the nuclear club or not; it should be how do we destroy their nuclear program?
I wouldn't let Iran enter the nuclear club until it proved that it would be able to go a week without contemplating the dusting of Isreal or another nation around it.
They can't because they're a bunch of fundie morons and they want to be fundie morons and the like to be fundie morons. So no nuclear bombs for Iran.
I personally would like to see Isreal removed as well.
WE, however, do meddle in the affairs of others.
What part of [ ,, N() ] don't you understand?
Skeptical Armada Cynic: ROU Aggressive Logic
SDN Ranger: Skeptical Ambassador EOD
Mr Golgotha, Ms Scheck, we're running low on skin. I suggest you harvest another lesbian!
Besides, the true leader of Iran is not the reformist President Mohammed Khatemi. The person who holds the title of Supreme Leader is Ali Khameni, who also holds the title of Ayotollah. He is the one with full authority over Irans's armed forces, and therefore any nuclear weapons if Iran had them.
The M2HB: The Greatest Machinegun Ever Made.
HAB: Crew-Served Weapons Specialist
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." --P.J. O'Rourke
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --J.S. Mill
tharkûn wrote:
That and the fact that the nutcases quite likely extend into the command structure whicih has a reasonable chance of making off with the weapons when the government falls (it ain't exactly a bedrock of stability).
That's just filled with assumptions: the government will fall (rather than may fall) in such a manner as to allow someone to 'make off' with 'the weapons'- what weapons? An ICBM? A warhead, what?
They do not already have nuclear weapons, they are just beginning to enrich uranium and will still take significant amounts of time to get up to a point where they can actually build bombs.
Bombing the crap out of the facilities would set them back years at a minimum.
Not to mention radicalize some moderate segments of the government, strengthen the theocrats, and make it even harder for a peaceful solution or moderate government to ever happen.
Personally I think we pressed global luck enough when the USSR quietly withered away; but the Soviets did not have the ranks filled with religious fundy's steeped in martyr culture.
The Iranian military is filled with religious fundamentalists steeped in martyr culture?
The question should not be to let Iran into the nuclear club or not; it should be how do we destroy their nuclear program?
I still haven't seen a cogent, well-reasoned argument as to why we should give a shit about it all.
") will make shit worse, and a military strike would be disastrous.
Have another drink and kill a couple of brain cells for me.. 
,
, N(
