Discussion in 'Iran' started by Gunny, Jan 22, 2008.
Russian logic: someone's going to get the money and it might as well be us.
It is a funny thing, this criticism of Iran for not listening to the international community. I would be surprised by the leader (or public face) of a nation that did NOT want energy sovereignty these days. A deal whereby you get your power from another nation seems foolish when you can create your own power legally - even if the West's rhetoric gets annoying. The main problem for the West is that Iran has a solid right to create and use nuclear power. The other problem is the nobody has a right to say otherwise (with any sort of legal potency).
The problem with Iran is one of credibility. Besides being a terrorist state and dictatorship they are oil rich. They could much more easily invest in refinery technology to refine their own oil and become energy independent. So there is no need to develop nuclear power, especially when doing so is so much more difficult for a country with the extremely limited scientific capital a backwards, 10th century, islamofascist state typically has....
You are mistaken. I do not criticise Iran for not listening to the international community. I criticise the international community for being a paper tiger.
Y'all need to shit or get off the pot. Is there an international community or not? And if so, is not that international community responsible for protecting its members against irresponsible behavior? If it is not, or cannot, then we can just sit back and wait for you to eat your words when Iran starts making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword.
Not much consolation, that.
Well, the thing about that is saying they have 'no need' is irrelevant. It is up to them if they want to create nuclear power. One could argue many nations have no need to do things they do - but we have no right to stop them.
And there are few dictatorships being so targeted as iran - also, 'terrorist' state is a tough sell, when you consider they aren't invading or attacking anyone, and selling arms to other groups involved in armed struggle is common practice by Western standards...
I wasn't referring to you (or anyone in particular) about criticizing - but as for the international community, the UN needs to be democratic if it is to be relevant, having 5 nations with all the power is ridiculous. As for making demands at the tip of a nuclear sword, Iran would be one of quite a few nations with nukes who act aggressively - and would also be by far the weakest in terms of nuclear capability and technology (IMHO).
Really though, if your nation was constantly threatened by other nuclear armed nations - you'd be a fool not to try and level the playing field.
I don't question Iran's motives. They're patently obvious.
I question the motives of those who put blinders on and purposefully refuse to accept that the obvious -- Iran's motives -- exist simply to toss more partisan rhetoric and/or accusations around.
I question an intenational community that has no common goal, and cannot accomplish even the most simple of tasks for the bureaucracy. They won't be finished debating in the US until they're interrupted and forced to look up the TV where President Alphabet or Kohmeini will be announcing they have nuclear armed ICBMs.
The fact that "others" posess nukes, IMO is irrelevant. An Islamic regime that supports Islamic terrorist organizations that are willing to use suicide as a means to bend an enemy to its will is the FAR more dangerous regime to posess them.
Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nuclear weapons as they are a proven international sponsorship of global terrorism and are an irresponsible state (calling for the wanton destruction of another state is only one example). Just like Syria last year, Iraq back in 1981, North Korea, if we or any other reputable intelligence agency has verifiable evidence of a nuclear weapon production site, it WILL be taken out, period.
And yes, the international community has every right to tell a non-compliant state how to behave and impose sanctions if it doesn't, or, in the extreme, take military action to remove the leadership.
One sees this all the time. Point to the verifiable evidence that the US, Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea had nuclear weapons production sites before they actually exploded test devices. Of course there was no verifiable evidence. And unless the Iranians are complete idiots, which they are not, there will be no verifiable evidence from them either. If Iran is to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, their facilities will have to be taken out on the probability that they are nuclear weapons production sites. Big difference from "verifiable evidence."
Russia, China, France and the UK are irrelevant. They all obtained nuclear weapons long before there was technological means to detect or verify anything. All we had back then was HUMINT. In the case of the UK and France, we gave it to them to counter the Russians. Now in the case of India and Pakistan, the problem there was we never really suspected they were even trying very hard so we weren't even looking.
However in Iraq in 1980 and Syria last year, we were sure and the evidence was verifiable and the Israelis did the dirty work. We will be able to tell if Iran is getting too close for comfort and at that time we will use the military option if we have to. So far in N Korea, we've been able to thwart them by simply cutting them off of basic food aid and other necessities over the years.
Separate names with a comma.