Iran pushing their luck!

eyeball · October 5, 2009

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!

So now that we do understand just how terrible and threatening fallout and radioactivity can be, shouldn't we be just as concerned about any religion that produces both fanatical maniacs and nuclear weapons?

naomiglover · October 5, 2009

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?

A good question.

Dancer and many other pro-zionists seem to think Israel should receive exemption and impunity.

M.Dancer · October 5, 2009

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

No it is, you just aren't bright enough to connect the dots.

Now tell me how prohibiting who and what a nation can trade isn't interfereing?

By what mechanism do you forsee a trade embargo being enforced?

Seems when you have the wonky touchy feelies, it's a little more comlicated than you like.

M.Dancer · October 5, 2009

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

... you are a part of the NPT in goodstanding and receive the benefits of membership or you don't.

You realize of course, that membership in the NPT is not mandatory. I know you said it should be and I know you don't think forcing people to join isn't interfereing and I know you are able to hold two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time without getting a headache...

M.Dancer · October 5, 2009

A good question.
Dancer and many other pro-zionists seem to think Israel should receive exemption and impunity.

That's like saying France shoud not be exempted from the NAFTA....

The illogic is staggering.

wulf42 · October 5, 2009

So now that we do understand just how terrible and threatening fallout and radioactivity can be, shouldn't we be just as concerned about any religion that produces both fanatical maniacs and nuclear weapons?

No because the USA, Britain,France and even Russia and China have Government's that are not religiously

suicidal Islamic Maniac's that blow up anything non Islamic, their constant never ending

terror attacks are proof of their unstability so how on God's green earth could you ever

trust these idiots with nuclear weapons??? answer you can't they wouldn t think twice

to use a Nuke as a quick way to see their 70 virgins or whatever the heck those freaks

Believe....other countries use Nukes as an insurance policy against invasion with the hopes

of never actually having to use them but as a last resort.

Muslim countries would use them because "Allah" they they should!! that is the difference!

Edited October 5, 2009 by wulf42

naomiglover · October 5, 2009

... you are a part of the NPT in goodstanding and receive the benefits of membership or you don't.
You realize of course, that membership in the NPT is not mandatory. I know you said it should be and I know you don't think forcing people to join isn't interfereing and I know you are able to hold two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time without getting a headache...

So then you would be okay with Iran's nuclear ambitions if they pulled out of the NPT. Then, legally, they should be free to pursue their nuclear ambition. Because, as you want to tell us, it is all about the law and you would never apply a double standard.

M.Dancer · October 5, 2009

So then you would be okay with Iran's nuclear ambitions if they pulled out of the NPT. Then, legally, they should be free to pursue their nuclear ambition. Because, as you want to tell us, it is all about the law and you would never apply a double standard.

Yeah I would be okay with that as well as the retaliatation that it would provoke.

Are you okay with a nuclear armed Iran?

naomiglover · October 5, 2009

Yeah I would be okay with that as well as the retaliatation that it would provoke.
Are you okay with a nuclear armed Iran?

No. Just as much as I am not okay with Israel having one.

wulf42 · October 5, 2009

No. Just as much as I am not okay with Israel having one.

Israel has by some estimates over 400 and have for a long time

and surprised they haven t used them yet and won t unless

they have to use the sampson option which if Israel is threatened

to be over run they will take the Arabs out with them! Iran is

a sponsor of terrorism and could never be trusted with anything,

unstable Islamo's with nukes not a good thing!

DogOnPorch · October 6, 2009

Israel has by some estimates over 400 and have for a long time
and surprised they haven t used them yet and won t unless

they have to use the sampson option which if Israel is threatened

to be over run they will take the Arabs out with them! Iran is

a sponsor of terrorism and could never be trusted with anything,

unstable Islamo's with nukes not a good thing!

Indeed. If the Israelis were going to use these apparent atomic weapons, 1973 would have been the time. But they, of course, didn't...perhaps because they turned the situtation around so quickly transforming the Arab surprise attack into yet another bloody defeat...well, the Egyptians got some sand on the east side of the Suez out of the deal which led to the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty. Sadat fired the general who performed this miracle, mind-you. :lol:

myata · October 6, 2009

There's only one (but fatal nonetheless) problem with the "stick should be mine, only" argument, that it works exact same way on the other side. Till we learn (or understand the need) to walk our own talk, people would want the stick for any number of reasons (to "project" power, like us, to defend themselves, from us and others, as a bargaining tool and so on). And on occasion, they'll get what they want.

There're only two options sustainable in the long run:

1) Nukes are bad for our world: nobody is allowed to have them, no exception.

OR

2) Nukes are OK (for us; and by extension, for anybody who could get them).

eyeball · October 6, 2009

Seems when you have the wonky touchy feelies, it's a little more comlicated than you like.

I know, it would be a lot simpler to just make it up as you go. And no, trade sanctions do not interfere in the internal affairs between different people in a country, unless of course you suggest we play poor people off against everyone else by exempting wealthy people, which likely would be your style.

M.Dancer · October 6, 2009

I know, it would be a lot simpler to just make it up as you go. And no, trade sanctions do not interfere in the internal affairs between different people in a country, ....

They interfer with the external affairs of a country. Now if that's okay with you...

eyeball · October 6, 2009

They interfere with the external affairs of a country. Now if that's okay with you...

They impede their ability to trade with other countries is all. The interference of the type I usually reserve my disgust for is in an entirely different class that doesn't even come close to trade sanctions.

Any country that possess' nukes in the absence of any accountability or outside monitoring is interfering with the international community outside their borders.

Sir Bandelot · October 6, 2009

There's only one (but fatal nonetheless) problem with the "stick should be mine, only" argument, that it works exact same way on the other side. Till we learn (or understand the need) to walk our own talk, people would want the stick for any number of reasons (to "project" power, like us, to defend themselves, from us and others, as a bargaining tool and so on). And on occasion, they'll get what they want.
There're only two options sustainable in the long run:

1) Nukes are bad for our world: nobody is allowed to have them, no exception.

OR

2) Nukes are OK (for us; and by extension, for anybody who could get them).

or,

3) Nukes are a necessary evil that now exists and cannot be completely eliminated, ever. So from now on we must have some nukes of our own, to counter theirs. So long as there still is an "us" and them".

myata · October 6, 2009

Look who's concerned with "interfering" now! Could they perchance, be the same people who wanted to dictate who can have nuclear power? And, the stability of government in Afghanistan, to be stabilizied by foreign bayonet? And, the mode of government in Iraq? And, so many many other governments before then?

Here's some help out of the paradoxical interference conundrum though: perhaps, it's not what ("interference") but who ("interferes"), that's at the source of the problem? I.e. some people should be allowed to interfere to their hearts desire. While others - won't! All problems solved. Enjoy!

M.Dancer · October 6, 2009

They impede their ability to trade with other countries is all. The interference of the type I usually reserve my disgust for is in an entirely different class that doesn't even come close to trade sanctions.
Any country that possess' nukes in the absence of any accountability or outside monitoring is interfering with the international community outside their borders.

Backwards, you are a premium bottled water.

Sanctions affect a coountry both internally and externally. Impeding the ability to trade often means hardship for ordinary citizens. They can also lead to war, which if I remember often interferes with the internal and external business of a nation. In a word, you rarely undertsand what it is you want, and when you finally do, you claim not to want it.

The rest of your post is mush.

naomiglover · October 6, 2009

Israel has by some estimates over 400 and have for a long time
and surprised they haven t used them yet and won t unless

they have to use the sampson option which if Israel is threatened

to be over run they will take the Arabs out with them! Iran is

a sponsor of terrorism and could never be trusted with anything,

unstable Islamo's with nukes not a good thing!

I wouldn't trust anyone of them with nukes.

Israel, because of their nature of being an aggressive military country and history of attacking others and the Iranian government's obvious opposition to Israel's government.

Both countries have been asked by the IAEA to have their sites inspected. Iran keeps stalling and seems to hide information while Israel doesn't even respond to the requests from the IAEA.

eyeball · October 6, 2009

Here's some help out of the paradoxical interference conundrum though: perhaps, it's not what ("interference") but who ("interferes"), that's at the source of the problem? I.e. some people should be allowed to interfere to their hearts desire. While others - won't! All problems solved. Enjoy!

Its also how but who is probably the biggest issue. The type of invasive, covert and truely harmful interferance, like that which was committed in Iran in 1953 for example, is more comparable to an adult diddling a child. Just as there is a perceivable difference when a lay person diddles a child and when a priest or teacher diddles a child - the shinier the beacon the greater the sense of betrayal, disgust and harm. The dysfunction whether we're talking about people or countriesis is often just as deep and lasting - as much of the mess the world is in attests.

This is not to say that more developed countries should not try to positively influence or interfere if you like, with less developed one's just as any caring adult might a child that could benefit from some guidance, but without the trust you've just got nothing to work with and persistently denying the abuse only deepens that mistrust.

It goes without saying that I think the defence of geo-political diddling by more powerful countries, especialy those that should know better is analogous to defending someone like Roman Polanski or a priest. Its every bit as depraved. I suppose by putting things in this context I am probably only cornering people like Morris and the mutt and getting their backs up and it probably isn't as constructive a course of action as it might be. If someone has a better way of trying to undestand why the situation in the ME and surrounding region is so FUBAR I'd like to hear it.

eyeball · October 6, 2009

Sanctions affect a coountry both internally and externally. Impeding the ability to trade often means hardship for ordinary citizens. They can also lead to war, which if I remember often interferes with the internal and external business of a nation.

Sanctions don't have to be anymore threatening than simply saying we refuse to sell our resources to diddlers and their enablers. That's it. This would probably hurt us more than anyone but that's the nature of sacrifice when you're upholding your principles and fighting for something you believe in and insist that virtue should trump economics.

myata · October 6, 2009

No, but we can't "not sell", it'd be "interference" and limitation of freedoms, and all the nightmares of the hell itself, the diddlers will tell you. It's only when other diddlers would want a piece of pie, they'd suddenly go all justice, and principle and the rule of law and non-proliferation and whatever else.

M.Dancer · October 6, 2009

Sanctions don't have to be anymore threatening than simply saying we refuse to sell our resources to diddlers and their enablers. That's it.

So in other words you fully support ineffectual symbolic gestures.

myata · October 6, 2009

No, our trademark selective approach is much more "effectual": to some, otherwise, ineffectual sanctions, and to others - a gentle pad on the shoulder. Look how effectual it have been in e.g. stopping illegal settlement activity in Palestinian lands. One decade of effectual friendly negotiations.. two .. third on, and still counting, in years, and thousands of illegal settlers. Always ready to show the lead, by example!

Edited October 6, 2009 by myata

GostHacked · October 6, 2009

So you are okay with meddling with other countries.

Be very careful with that statement, it might bite you.

Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti, ect.

Sanctions affect a coountry both internally and externally. Impeding the ability to trade often means hardship for ordinary citizens. They can also lead to war, which if I remember often interferes with the internal and external business of a nation. In a word, you rarely undertsand what it is you want, and when you finally do, you claim not to want it.
The rest of your post is mush.

Myata

Here's some help out of the paradoxical interference conundrum though: perhaps, it's not what ("interference") but who ("interferes"), that's at the source of the problem? I.e. some people should be allowed to interfere to their hearts desire. While others - won't! All problems solved. Enjoy!

I'd say this is a pretty accurate analysis.