Iran, the real questions ...

[M.Dancer]

MAD is an extremely effective defence mechanism.

I suppose Iran thinks so too.

MAD isn't very effective on a culture whose chief export aside from oil is....young males who self-destruct.

You're a few candles short of a birthday cake, aren't you?

Now for 20 points and a chance to move on somewhere else....name one iranian suicide bomber in the last 10 years....heck...go 20 even....

[JerrySeinfeld]

MAD is an extremely effective defence mechanism.

I suppose Iran thinks so too.

MAD isn't very effective on a culture whose chief export aside from oil is....young males who self-destruct.

You're a few candles short of a birthday cake, aren't you?

Now for 20 points and a chance to move on somewhere else....name one iranian suicide bomber in the last 10 years....heck...go 20 even....

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what color is the sky in your world.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118456,00.html

[M.Dancer]

MAD isn't very effective on a culture whose chief export aside from oil is....young males who self-destruct.

You're a few candles short of a birthday cake, aren't you?

Now for 20 points and a chance to move on somewhere else....name one iranian suicide bomber in the last 10 years....heck...go 20 even....

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what color is the sky in your world.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118456,00.html

I would have thought if it was their leading export, even one example wouldn't be hard to find...instead you pop in with a third party report that's over a year old?

President Muhammad Ahmadinejad, has issued a call in an Iranian newspaper for the public to join the swelling ranks of Iran’s homegrown suicide bombers

According to the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat, Ayatollah Muhammad Taki Misbah Yazari, a senior figure in Iran's leadership and spiritual advisor of

Come on....you can certainly do better...plug in your toaster and ask it if you can't find any

[bradco]

I voted to continue to buy them off....

If we don't want them to have nuclear weapons than we ought to give them something in return. Anything else will only breed more hatred of the west in the Middle East. Israel, the P5, India and Pakistan don't have much of a right at all to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons. If Isreal is allowed one as a deterrant (which I support) than why shouldnt Iran be allowed one as a deterrant. They have even more powerful countries as enemies. Double standards are only going to inflame the situation between the west and the middle east.

The real questions is what will be the consequences when Israel attacks Iran if we cant buy them off or we dont try....cause there is no way Israel is going to let them arm.

[Figleaf]

I voted to continue to buy them off....

If we don't want them to have nuclear weapons than we ought to give them something in return. Anything else will only breed more hatred of the west in the Middle East. Israel, the P5, India and Pakistan don't have much of a right at all to say who can and who can not have nuclear weapons. If Isreal is allowed one as a deterrant (which I support) than why shouldnt Iran be allowed one as a deterrant. They have even more powerful countries as enemies. Double standards are only going to inflame the situation between the west and the middle east.

The real questions is what will be the consequences when Israel attacks Iran if we cant buy them off or we dont try....cause there is no way Israel is going to let them arm.

Isn't that very sort of aggression a reason Iran would want nukes? If we want a peaceful world, maybe the west should intervene to stop Israel from attacking its neighbors.

[M.Dancer]

Isn't that very sort of aggression a reason Iran would want nukes? If we want a peaceful world, maybe the west should intervene to stop Israel from attacking its neighbors.

...or defending themselves when they are attacked

[Figleaf]

Isn't that very sort of aggression a reason Iran would want nukes? If we want a peaceful world, maybe the west should intervene to stop Israel from attacking its neighbors.

...or defending themselves when they are attacked

Uh ... no. There's no reason to intervene to prevent it when Israel defends (rather than aggresses). History records that Israel has done each from time to time, despite what propagandists of either stripe might say.

Our topic here was Israel attacking Iran to pre-empt its nuclear research, which would be an act of aggression.

I'm sorry if I sound pedantic, but your comment suggested an incomprehension at the most basic level.

[M.Dancer]

Isn't that very sort of aggression a reason Iran would want nukes? If we want a peaceful world, maybe the west should intervene to stop Israel from attacking its neighbors.

...or defending themselves when they are attacked

Uh ... no. There's no reason to intervene to prevent it when Israel defends (rather than aggresses). History records that Israel has done each from time to time, despite what propagandists of either stripe might say.

Our topic here was Israel attacking Iran to pre-empt its nuclear research, which would be an act of aggression.

I'm sorry if I sound pedantic, but your comment suggested an incomprehension at the most basic level.

If you have been making threats to me and you start walking towards me carrying a bat, and I take the inititive and hoof you in the nuts, I am defending myself.

If the Egyptian Navy blocades your red sea port (blocade: an act of war) and the arab league begins massing armies on your border, and you decide to preempt their attack, you are defending yourself.

If Israel forestalls Irans nuclear weapons programme, that is an act of self preservation.

History has shown that people get confused when the facts are selective

It's not pedantic you sound, it's naive

[bradco]

Isn't that very sort of aggression a reason Iran would want nukes? If we want a peaceful world, maybe the west should intervene to stop Israel from attacking its neighbors.

...or defending themselves when they are attacked

Uh ... no. There's no reason to intervene to prevent it when Israel defends (rather than aggresses). History records that Israel has done each from time to time, despite what propagandists of either stripe might say.

Our topic here was Israel attacking Iran to pre-empt its nuclear research, which would be an act of aggression.

I'm sorry if I sound pedantic, but your comment suggested an incomprehension at the most basic level.

If you have been making threats to me and you start walking towards me carrying a bat, and I take the inititive and hoof you in the nuts, I am defending myself.

If the Egyptian Navy blocades your red sea port (blocade: an act of war) and the arab league begins massing armies on your border, and you decide to preempt their attack, you are defending yourself.

If Israel forestalls Irans nuclear weapons programme, that is an act of self preservation.

History has shown that people get confused when the facts are selective

It's not pedantic you sound, it's naive

Preemptive self defense is clearly illegal still under international law. But Dancer brings in an interesting point here. Israel has been threatened by Iran which is a clear violation of 2(4)of the UN charter. Therefore one could argue that any attack against nuclear facilities is not preemptive but a response. Self-Defence is allowed and has been slowly expanded through state practise and opinion juris. Such a strike would still need to meet the proportionality and necessity of the Caroline requirement. If it is limited to nuclear facilities and done at a time to avoid the least casulaties possible it would clearly be proportional. It would meet the necessity requirement to the extent we believe Iran has the intent to use the nuclear weapon not as a deterrent but against Israel in an act of aggression. I doubt it would be used for an act of aggression since this would invite total destruction from the west, specifically the US. However, the past comments made by Iranian leadership probably makes for enough of a legal basis to satisfy the necessity requirement. This case would be fairly significant for international law in being another expansion of the "inherent" right of self-defense that the UN Charter allows for. It would send the message that a violation of internationallaw (this case 2(4)) is enough to allow for self-defense. This could act as an enforcement measure of international law and norms, not necessarily a bad thing.

EDIT: Unfortunatly the wording of article 51 of the Charter will make it almost legally impossible for Israel to put forth an argument (at least a legal one)... self defense is good to go "if an armed attack occurs"....I was hoping it said "if an attack occurs" because then we could argue the violation of 2(4) was an "attack". Those crafters of the UN Charter wouldnt give us the loophole though