Iran pushing their luck!

[myata]

I agree, actually, and I said it previously. One option is indeed to "whack" them. In Iran ... and Israel, too. No? Why not?

Edited October 3, 2009 by myata

[Sir Bandelot]

Iran is going to be allowed to run its reactors and continue making enriched uranium. As long as they play the game right and cooperate with the regulators, Obama does not have a problem. He's smiling again. As he put it... "Since Iran has agreed now to co-operate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency... "

Err... Mr. Obama, it appears that they agreed before you started jumping up and down about it.

[DogOnPorch]

myata: Well somebody showed us the lead how it could be done - in Iraq.

The lead? Someone has forgotten the Arab-Israeli Wars out of convenience.

[wulf42]

I agree, actually, and I said it previously. One option is indeed to "whack" them. In Iran ... and Israel, too. No? Why not?

Answer!

Iran=Islamic fanatical wack Job trying to get nukes

Israel=Normal people trying just to survive in an area of

Islamic Fanatical wack jobs. Who have nukes as a deterent

from said Islamic fanatical wack jobs.

[eyeball]

Are you now saying Israel isn't Western influence meddling with Middle-East interests?

No, and if this is what you're attempting to say I said...extraordinary claims require extrodinary evidence...put up, shut up or keep demonstrating that you really can't follow a simple thread.

[Topaz]

Today's news says Iran has the info to make a nuke, but should a nation rush in there to stop them if they haven't actually started to make one? I don't see the US doing it, I see Israel and the US backing them. We have to remember what happened in Japan in WW2 and not let that happen again. Canada does have forces over there and the missiles would be flying right over their heads, if they are lucky and one doesn't fall in Afghanistan. I remember hearing a futurist saying in 2009, the world would have a mini-nuke war, could be Iran and Israel? Hope not. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091003/..._nuclear_report

[myata]

Answer!

Iran=Islamic fanatical wack Job trying to get nukes

Israel=Normal people trying just to survive in an area of

We already know this answer, no need to reiterate.

I = the pride and moral justice of this world

he (whoever dares to oppose me) = utter abomination

Certainly explains why I and I only can have nukes, invade other countries, and generally run the affairs of this world.

----------------------------------------------

One of the points in the previously posted article is that Israel intends to maintain nuclear domination in the region. From both logic of human behavior, and past experience US - USSR, China - India - Pakistan), we know that such position is unstable, and therefore a nuclear opposition in Middle East is probably only a matter of time. We could have attempted to avoid that possibility by insisting (and if necessary, enforcing) that nobody in the region had possession of nukes. Thats is obvioulsy, not our choice, and so, Amen.

[Sir Bandelot]

Today's news says Iran has the info to make a nuke, but should a nation rush in there to stop them if they haven't actually started to make one? I don't see the US doing it, I see Israel and the US backing them. We have to remember what happened in Japan in WW2 and not let that happen again. Canada does have forces over there and the missiles would be flying right over their heads, if they are lucky and one doesn't fall in Afghanistan. I remember hearing a futurist saying in 2009, the world would have a mini-nuke war, could be Iran and Israel? Hope not. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091003/..._nuclear_report

And yet interestingly today General Jim Jones, the current US National Security Adviser in an interview on CNN clearly denied this. As he states, there will be a lot of speculation at times like this, but "we stick by our assessment" (that the nuclear program was halted in 2003 and Iran is no closer to achieving nukes).

So, whose propaganda is this

[wulf42]

Certainly explains why I and I only can have nukes, invade other countries, and generally run the affairs of this world.

Islamic Religious Fanatics cannot have Nuclear weapons because

they are a unstable crazy fanatical Nazi style group of people who

will stop at nothing to force their horrible Islamic beliefs down our throats!

they are no better than the Nazis or do you think Hitler had a just case

for having arms as well......asking a stupid question "why shouldn t they have Nukes too"

is at least assinine did you not see the whole 9/11 thing??? now imagine that with a nuke!!

Iran as most Islamic countries sponsor terrorism...and you think it is okay for them to have Nukes??

give your had a shake....

The argument is actually quite simple>most Islamic countries have fanatical religious nuts

countries like USA,Britain and France do not and have strict regulations on the use of Nukes

Iran would launch a nuke if a butterfly flew by thinking it was a sign from "Allah" to kill all infidels!!

bottomline Islamic countries can t be trusted this is a fact!

Edited October 4, 2009 by wulf42

[GostHacked]

What we do know is a certain A.Q. Khan has helped both North Korea and Iran with their nuclear programs. This is a political problem since Iran signed the NPT...Pakistan and Israel did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

So, if Pakistan is a proliferator why not smack them and bring them into the NPT? Just because they are not signatory to the NPT does not excuse them for this kind of action. And if Pakistan helped NK and Iran.... like i've said before, Pakistan should have been invaded instead.

Serious question, does the fact of a counrty proliferating nuclear technology without it being signagtory to it, make it right and excusable? If Iran was not part of the NPT, this would not even be an issue. But Iran signed into the NPT voluntarily. And will subject themselves to inspections.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/04/...lear/index.html

ElBaradei was cautiously optimistic in his remarks, praising last week's meeting between Iran and world powers about the country's nuclear program.

"We need transparency on the part of Iran," he said. "We need cooperation on the part of the international community. We are at a critical moment. We are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation."

[M.Dancer]

So, if Pakistan is a proliferator why not smack them and bring them into the NPT? Just because they are not signatory to the NPT does not excuse them for this kind of action.[/url]

It may not excuse them but it makes the machinery to address it quite complicated as there are no built it mechanisms for non compliance with a nation not part of the process.

[Sir Bandelot]

A far as NPT goes, and the idea of protecting nukes from being acquired by terrorists, Pakistan is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

[GostHacked]

A far as NPT goes, and the idea of protecting nukes from being acquired by terrorists, Pakistan is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Has been for some time. Sure would not want those Taliban hiding out in Pakistan to get a hold of even one of these puppies. Once Musharef was gone, it made it easier for the taliban and Al-queda to cross the border and hide out in Pakistan. NATO might have displaced all of the Taliban in Alfghanistan, but now they are just taking up shop at the neighbours down the road.

We have no idea what the taliban really has planned anymore. Which to me is more scary than Amedinejad

M. Dancer

It may not excuse them but it makes the machinery to address it quite complicated as there are no built it mechanisms for non compliance with a nation not part of the process.

That just sounds like a lame excuse. Those are the countries that really need to be hauled in and brought on board to the NPT. You can't have NPT work without every single country working towards that goal. Even some of the signatories have broken the rules (I can't cite any at the moment, but I am sure they exist) which makes it even tougher for them to enforce it on someone else who may not be following the rules. Your next terror attack (possibly a nuke attack, or dirty bomb) won't be from Iran or North Korea.

[myata]

Islamic Religious Fanatics cannot have Nuclear weapons because

they are a unstable crazy fanatical Nazi style group of people ....

Iran would launch a nuke if a butterfly flew by thinking it was a sign from "Allah" to kill all infidels!!

bottomline Islamic countries can t be trusted this is a fact!

Is that choice of epithets supposed to make up for the lack of logic? E.g. have you noticed that Iran haven't actually attacked anybody just yet, while somebody else, whose massive arsenal of nukes you wouldn't as much as notice, has been involved, for several decades at least, in a massive buildup of occupied lands, an obvious and clear act of agression?

And. In this, current reality, of all the people who ever happened to possess the nukes so far, including crazy, fanatical and so on, like Russian communists, Chinese whatever, and military hunta in Pakistan, only one has actually used them against people (mostly, or almost entirely, civilians). Guess which one (crazy, or fanatical, no?) it cold have been?

Yes we should all have learned it by now, democratic liberation of the world comes rife with not so peaceful paradoxes.

Edited October 5, 2009 by myata

[bush_cheney2004]

....Yes we should all have learned it by now, democratic liberation of the world comes rife with not so peaceful paradoxes.

Whoever said that democracy guarantees peace? Democracy is just a more organized way to wage war (at many levels). Democracy wins !!

[M.Dancer]

That just sounds like a lame excuse. Those are the countries that really need to be hauled in and brought on board to the NPT. You can't have NPT work without every single country working towards that goal. Even some of the signatories have broken the rules (I can't cite any at the moment, but I am sure they exist) which makes it even tougher for them to enforce it on someone else who may not be following the rules. Your next terror attack (possibly a nuke attack, or dirty bomb) won't be from Iran or North Korea.

Any suggestions to how that is done?

[eyeball]

Any suggestions to how that is done?

Sanctions. Every country either signs onto the NPT or they're sanctioned, to the hilt. Either you're with us or against us, without exceptions. Of course if you allow even one exception what's the point?

[M.Dancer]

Sanctions. Every country either signs onto the NPT or they're sanctioned, to the hilt. Either you're with us or against us, without exceptions. Of course if you allow even one exception what's the point?

Sancitions were imposed on Pakistan. They ran their course and they ended.

Next suggestion?

[eyeball]

Sancitions were imposed on Pakistan. They ran their course and they ended.

What did you expect? Like I said if there is even one exception...

Next suggestion?

No exceptions.

[M.Dancer]

No exceptions.

So you are okay with meddling with other countries.

[myata]

No, how could we!? We only meddle in some countries.

[eyeball]

So you are okay with meddling with other countries.

Nope...that's not what I said.

In the meantime how would you suggest the international community go about granting a country an exemption from the NPT?

[wulf42]

Is that choice of epithets supposed to make up for the lack of logic? E.g. have you noticed that Iran haven't actually attacked anybody just yet, while somebody else, whose massive arsenal of nukes you wouldn't as much as notice, has been involved, for several decades at least, in a massive buildup of occupied lands, an obvious and clear act of agression?

And. In this, current reality, of all the people who ever happened to possess the nukes so far, including crazy, fanatical and so on, like Russian communists, Chinese whatever, and military hunta in Pakistan, only one has actually used them against people (mostly, or almost entirely, civilians). Guess which one (crazy, or fanatical, no?) it cold have been?

Yes we should all have learned it by now, democratic liberation of the world comes rife with not so peaceful paradoxes.

Using the Atomic bombing of Japan as an example is ludicrous...it was a different time

and the effects of nuclear weapons were not fully understood by anyone back then...at that time

it was just a big mother of a bomb...fallout and radioactivity were not fully understood

as they are today.....what is understood is religious Islamic fanatical maniacs and nuclear weapons

mix as well together as matches and gun powder!

[myata]

Sanctions. Every country either signs onto the NPT or they're sanctioned, to the hilt. Either you're with us or against us, without exceptions. Of course if you allow even one exception what's the point?

With one minor addition: current nuclear club members agree and sign up to a timed committment to eliminate their own stocks of nukes, completely, 100%. Without it, the prohibition would look hypocritical - and likely, unenforceable in practice due to varying interests of the current nuke powers.

If that is unattainable dream, I think there will be no other practical choice but to work out a process of "adoption" of new members into the "nuclear" club. It should include guarantees of no distribution of technology. The status quo, whereby some countries could remain outside of either set of rules, is worst of all. The problem is that it is also the most flexible one, allowing nuke powers to remain as ambiguous about who and where they'd want to enforce "non-prliferation" agenda with next time around, as they want to be.

[myata]

Using the Atomic bombing of Japan as an example is ludicrous...it was a different time

Of course, it's entirely irrelevant and ludicrous to discuss - or even notice! - me (and mine) having the bomb. The problem is always with them, the others!

I can have it because... I can.

Nobody else should be allowed to have it because they're bad. Because .. I said so.

World runs very smoothly when there's only one interest (mine) to worry about.

Edited October 5, 2009 by myata