Russia ignores West's Iran fears

[Gurdari]

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.

Ha! proven aggressive states have nukes and are certainly allowed to exist as nuclear powers.
Just 'taking out' a site in someone else's country also sends a clear message
- ignore international law, might makes right, and he who has the biggest gun makes the rules.

That is not a recipe for 'compliance' or peace. Of course if those are not the goals, then all is well.

 

[Gurdari]

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."

That sort of action leaves the world lawless and aggressive - only the most militarized nations will be safe. Thus making the entire world less safe... who wants to create MORE people with a legitimate grievance wanting payback?

If I owned shares in a defense company, maybe I'd be all over that, but I'd rather not live with a precedent that it's okay to attack anyone you want if you THINK they deserve it.

 

[Gunny]

Well it seems to come down to your personal feeling about what Iran would do if they had nukes, though you do seem very sure. The fact that others possess nukes is relevant if one wants any sort of moral authority or to take a non-hypocritical stance. If it boils down to 'we're strong enough to kill you - do what we say' then that itself sends a message to Iran: GET NUKES FAST.

Nah. What it comes down to is a logical conclusion based on the actions of others in like circumstances, and the action of Iran itself over the past 30 years.

The fact that others posess nukes is irrelavant. No other nation that posesses nukes is an Islamic Republic; one that openly supports terrorist organizations that use suicide attacks as a means of waging a war of terror.

The fact that we are "strong enough to kill you" is also irrelvant since it appears half this nation doesn't have the balls to do it.

 

[Zoomie1980]

What are you talking about? We are not discussing the targeting of missiles. Except for your opinion that the public does not need to know, you have ignored the point that I have made repeatedly in this exchange regarding probability and proof concerning nuclear weapons development. Your remarks about the international community, ninety-five percent of the planet's population, display a level of arrogance that is maladaptive to say the least. I am a conservative that in general supports the military and foreign policy of the US, but I recognize the attitude that you pronounce as one reason why so many people hate us throughout the world. Perhaps you do not care, but those of us living in the world of consequences do not have that luxury. It is obvious that we can do almost anything we want, when we want, and that the world "depends on the US." But that is precisely why we should explain our behavior. If at the command of elected political leaders our tax dollars are going to be used to blow away installations in Iran it better damn well be justified, and we are morally obligated to make the case crystal clear in the the US and before world opinion. I have lived in Asia and Europe and I know first hand that even those who despise us look to America for leadership. The conversations are all about us. But leadership is not just doing something because you can. It is showing the best direction based on explanation and persuasion. If we are convinced we are right, then there should be no reason why we would fail to explain in detail and provide all the evidence we possess. In a huge matter like attacking another country, it is not good enough to say we think we should because we have unshared and secret evidence. If intelligence assets are at risk in such a situation, then remove them from danger, and have new assets ready to take their place. In a matter like proving nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities in Iran, protecting an intelligence asset that we refuse to move from danger is a flat-out stupid reason to get creamed in world opinion and have to go it alone. Get the asset to safety and replace, or is being effective and efficient too much to ask? Leadership does not come from arrogance or happen at the point of a military or economic gun; it happens in the world of ideas. Something we used to be good at.

Poeple don't hate us near as much as the media portrays it. One the reasons we had such negative reaction in Europe was we caught Germany and France with their pants down. Those two, along with the Russians were the main participant in Sadaam's corrupt oil for food program and they got embarrassed by it.

In then end, it is always helpful to do a good PR job and explain ourselves, and build coalitions. But when your major allies are involved in corruption with the very target of your operation, it is kind of hard to do that.

And the world still look to the US for leadership and we still provide it. Iraq is finally starting to settle down after the unfortunate mismanagement of of the thing for the past five years. We can finally get back to business in Afghanistan and try and keep a lid on Pakistan.

 

[Zoomie1980]

That sort of action leaves the world lawless and aggressive - only the most militarized nations will be safe. Thus making the entire world less safe... who wants to create MORE people with a legitimate grievance wanting payback?

If I owned shares in a defense company, maybe I'd be all over that, but I'd rather not live with a precedent that it's okay to attack anyone you want if you THINK they deserve it.

Quite the opposite, it makes petty dictatorships and theocracies think twice about spending huge national resources on projects the world's only super power will destroy in a few short minutes when they feel the need. When nation's choose to live outside the peaceful world community they have to be made to pay a price, economic and eventually, militarily, and in the end, we will perform a "regime change" and you will end up with Sadaam's fate. That's has a good way of keeping these people in check.

 

[Dr Grump]

Poeple don't hate us near as much as the media portrays it. One the reasons we had such negative reaction in Europe was we caught Germany and France with their pants down. Those two, along with the Russians were the main participant in Sadaam's corrupt oil for food program and they got embarrassed by it.

In then end, it is always helpful to do a good PR job and explain ourselves, and build coalitions. But when your major allies are involved in corruption with the very target of your operation, it is kind of hard to do that.

And the world still look to the US for leadership and we still provide it. Iraq is finally starting to settle down after the unfortunate mismanagement of of the thing for the past five years. We can finally get back to business in Afghanistan and try and keep a lid on Pakistan.

You are totally clueless about why people now look at you with wonky eyes. It has nothing to do with corruption....buy a clue before posting....

 

[Dr Grump]

Quite the opposite, it makes petty dictatorships and theocracies think twice about spending huge national resources on projects the world's only super power will destroy in a few short minutes when they feel the need. When nation's choose to live outside the peaceful world community they have to be made to pay a price, economic and eventually, militarily, and in the end, we will perform a "regime change" and you will end up with Sadaam's fate. That's has a good way of keeping these people in check.

What about when you toss pots support petty dictatorships and theocracies? By all means do, but please don't preach to us about how you are the land of the free and home of the brave. That's reserved for those that truly are. You don't meet the test....

 

[Zoomie1980]

What about when you toss pots support petty dictatorships and theocracies? By all means do, but please don't preach to us about how you are the land of the free and home of the brave. That's reserved for those that truly are. You don't meet the test....

Yea, that's why everyone either wants to come here or be like us.....

 

[Zoomie1980]

Ha! proven aggressive states have nukes and are certainly allowed to exist as nuclear powers.
Just 'taking out' a site in someone else's country also sends a clear message
- ignore international law, might makes right, and he who has the biggest gun makes the rules.

That is not a recipe for 'compliance' or peace. Of course if those are not the goals, then all is well.

All is well, then. The Mullah's days in Iran are numbered.

 

[Gunny]

You are totally clueless about why people now look at you with wonky eyes. It has nothing to do with corruption....buy a clue before posting....

Depends on who you are calling corrupt. When the shit hits the fan, be it military or otherwise, "the world" whines in unison to the US, "What're you going to do about it?" Invasions of super-wealthy yet militarily defenseless nations, tsunamis, genocides in Africa ... you name it. It gets dumped on us.

Then "the world" sits back and criticizes us for how we handle it ... nitpicking every little detail, and always adding the negative spin.

Or let us do something we think is right on our own, or want something for ourselves and let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. The "evil, imperialist US is at it again."

It sucks to be on top. The bad guys want to kick your ass, as do the good guys.

Where is the condemnation of Iran? Where is the condemnation of Russia? Where is the condemnation of North Korea? It's obvious what is going on, but not one peep about them. It's always us.

I have yet to see anyone on the left condemn France for unethical conduct in accepting cut-rate deals from Saddam in exchange for UN votes. Oh, sure they got bad PR and people didn't buy Evian water for about 6 months, and Bill OReilly went berserk, but where was the official, international condemnation for France's conduct? They undermined the very law they signed on to.

Next time y'all (the world) comes crying to us to "What's the US doing?" think twice. I

I'm of two minds on the subject. Part of me says that where it comes to a government like Iran's posessing the power to destroy the world, we are obligated to ensure they do not acquire such power simply because we do currently have the power to stop it.

The other part says "Fuck y'all." Take care of of yourselves and bail your own asses out of your own damned problems and don't come whining to us. But then that's kinda like watching a mugging in progress and doing nothign about it, isn't it?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Depends on who you are calling corrupt. When the shit hits the fan, be it military or otherwise, "the world" whines in unison to the US, "What're you going to do about it?" Invasions of super-wealthy yet militarily defenseless nations, tsunamis, genocides in Africa ... you name it. It gets dumped on us.

Then "the world" sits back and criticizes us for how we handle it ... nitpicking every little detail, and always adding the negative spin.

Or let us do something we think is right on our own, or want something for ourselves and let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. The "evil, imperialist US is at it again."

It sucks to be on top. The bad guys want to kick your ass, as do the good guys.

Where is the condemnation of Iran? Where is the condemnation of Russia? Where is the condemnation of North Korea? It's obvious what is going on, but not one peep about them. It's always us.

I have yet to see anyone on the left condemn France for unethical conduct in accepting cut-rate deals from Saddam in exchange for UN votes. Oh, sure they got bad PR and people didn't buy Evian water for about 6 months, and Bill OReilly went berserk, but where was the official, international condemnation for France's conduct? They undermined the very law they signed on to.

Next time y'all (the world) comes crying to us to "What's the US doing?" think twice. I

I'm of two minds on the subject. Part of me says that where it comes to a government like Iran's posessing the power to destroy the world, we are obligated to ensure they do not acquire such power simply because we do currently have the power to stop it.

The other part says "Fuck y'all." Take care of of yourselves and bail your own asses out of your own damned problems and don't come whining to us. But then that's kinda like watching a mugging in progress and doing nothign about it, isn't it?

It's what we should have done in Bosnia with Milosovich. He was a Euroweenie problem so let the Euroweenies deal with him. Of course when it come to a$$ kicking a bad guy the Euroweenies have NEVER been able to do that! They looked to use to smack Hitler and then keep Stalin from marching on through Germany to the Atlantic. Left Japan entirely to us. And ever since have come whining to America to bail them out of situation when someone might actually shoot at a precious Euroweenie...

And no, I do NOT consider the UK part of that spineless, gutless crowd of cowards.