Iran: A Nuclear Power?

[chergh]

Vass, as you are well aware, I rarely make arguments personal.

I’m not going to apologies Vass; I was the recipient of an angry response.

When faced with facts, some people refuse to acknowledge them and then get angry. Prior to this discussion I thought that was primarily a conservative over reactive personality trait, now I see that ultra liberals can have the same mentality.

One of the most limiting characteristic of the human condition is to believe that all of our assumptions are truths.

There is a vast amount of proof that the Iranians are funding terrorism, both within and without the intelligence community, vehement denial will not change that. You know, on this very forum, Americans are often accused of getting only filtered news, this entire conversation is evidence that this is not purely an American phenomenon.

Unless you live within the range of Iranian missiles, how could you think that your opinion has any bearing on whether or not more nuclear proliferation should be allowed to foster?

Why should any international police force exist, if not for limiting the spread of nuclear weapons?

What power should be given to international police organizations? Should we limit all responses to purely begging and pleading? If a person moved into your neighborhood and starting waving his gun at everyone spouting about how he has the right to do this and will shoot anyone the tries to take it away, what is the most force that should be allowed to be deployed?

I have presented an extreme point of view to make a point, what is the function of the international community’s if we allow the spread of nuclear weapons

If, in the next few years, Iran launches a small ground hugging missile into the southern part of Europe, where will all the ultra liberals hide?

Peace, unfortunately, is held by strength.

So are you trying to use that article you linked to as making the case as to why we should attack Iran?

 

[Lightwave]

Thales I think chergh is finding your argument somewhat contrary.

For example...

One of the most limiting characteristic of the human condition is to believe that all of our assumptions are truths.

Then you finish by saying

Peace, unfortunately, is held by strength.

Which is itself an assumption...

You assume peace is held by strength (military) and that unilateral imposition of the west's laws on Asia is a must...

That is a point for debate and it appears from the discussions that you are unwilling to change this standpoint. To my mind the point of an international community is to spread wealth and education to better improve the living standards of everyone and hopefully assist those individuals to achieve their goals.

I would argue law enforcement is a chasing the tale approach rather than leading approach and not necessarily the most valuable part of an international community.

 

[dan-cat]

Peace, unfortunately, is held by strength.

This is the exact same rhetoric used to justify the Iraq war. It proved to be completely without substance.

I'm not an ultra-liberal, so please try to stop feather and tarring people who won't swallow your 'WMD scare-mongering' anymore. I, for one, am sick of it.

Your article is full of not clears and unsures. Read it again. No substance.

I don't mean to be personal but your use of fear to coerce makes me nauseous.

As with the "You're either with us or against us" clan, I never trust someone
who can't make a point without pre-emptively striking the holders of a contrasting view. It's manipulative, arrogant and unworthy of consideration.

 

[dan-cat]

You assume peace is held by strength (military) and that unilateral imposition of the west's laws on Asia is a must...

They are the sounds of the drums of war, nothing more.

 

[Galaxiom]

Check out the world's oldest book still in print.

The Old Testament exalts holy genocide as the path to the betterment of mankind. Until we can move beyond this pathetic, primitive, self-satisfied, narrow-minded justification for murder we have no future.

Abraham's monster and the whole concept of deity-inspired "prophets" are at the epicentre of the worst failings of humanity. Those who claim "wisdom" beyond critique form the foundation of an insidious, fascist bigotry that poisons our every thought.

Ghandi did not change the world by subscribing to aggression. Mandela came to understand the futility of violence. While our leaders continue to pretend that violence is a solution to violence we will continue to live in a world dominated by violence in the name of peace.

Fighting for peace is as futile as fucking for virginity.

 

[ChipperT]

Check out the world's oldest book still in print.

The Old Testament exalts holy genocide as the path to the betterment of mankind. Until we can move beyond this pathetic, primitive, self-satisfied, narrow-minded justification for murder we have no future.

Abraham's monster and the whole concept of deity-inspired "prophets" are at the epicentre of the worst failings of humanity. Those who claim "wisdom" beyond critique form the foundation of an insidious, fascist bigotry that poisons our every thought.

Ghandi did not change the world by subscribing to aggression. Mandela came to understand the futility of violence. While our leaders continue to pretend that violence is a solution to violence we will continue to live in a world dominated by violence in the name of peace.

Unfortunately Ghandi did niot change the world, or at the most very little. While Ghandi's philosophies are wonderful, few subscribe to them. The human condition has not changed due to him.

In recent history we have heard the mantra "Violence changes nothing" over and over. But unfortunately violence has changed more destinies than anything else. And without war and violence, Europe would have been totally under the heel of Hitler and Asia under the heel of Hirohito. Those are facts.

 

[ChipperT]

There is a vast amount of proof that the Iranians are funding terrorism, both within and without the intelligence community, vehement denial will not change that.

I don't disagree that Iran is a huge backer of terrorism but I very much doubt that Iran would provide nuclear technology to them. I don't think they are that foolhardy. I am much more concerned that Iran would use the technology themselves either in anger or through religious fervor.

 

[chergh]

And without war and violence, Europe would have been totally under the heel of Hitler and Asia under the heel of Hirohito. Those are facts.

So how would hitler have had Europe under his heel without war and violence?

Harsh language?

 

[ChipperT]

So how would hitler have had Europe under his heel without war and violence?

Harsh language?

Silly boy! It took war and violence to defeat Hitler.

 

[Galaxiom]

The human condition has not changed due to [Ghandi].

I hear this over and over blaming "the human condition" as though it is unavoidable.

The fact is that the Abrahamic faiths continue to exalt and glorify bigotted philosophies. To this day they continue to teach children of the glory of mindless devotion.

In recent history we have heard the mantra "Violence changes nothing" over and over. But unfortunately violence has changed more destinies than anything else. And without war and violence, Europe would have been totally under the heel of Hitler and Asia under the heel of Hirohito. Those are facts.

Yes indeed these perpetrators had to be stopped. But perpetrators such as GW Bush and his militarist regime also needed to be stopped. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were precisely the same as Hiltler, Goering and Hess.
Nothing was to stand in the way of their greed.

Nineteen Saudis and one man from UAR attacked the USA on 2001/09/11. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia is the epicentre of extremist Wahabist Islamic culture and the governemnt of Sudia Arabia funds Islamic education in countries across the world, the USA elected to attack Iraq rather than Saudi.

Why Iraq? Because the USA wanted control of the oil and a better foothold in the oil producing Middle East. Why not Saudi? Because they had already compliance from the Saudi royal family.

This is what I am talking about. Total focus on the desire for control of resources without regard for sensible morality. The Hebrews did the same. They wanted the Promised Land so they vilified the people who lived there and hacked "every man woman and child" to death. They concocted pathetic excuses of sophistiated morality as a cover for their own greed.

This is not the "human condition" but the prevailing philosophy enforced by violence and greed and exemplifed by the Abrahamic traditions. Common decency and humanity stands in the shadows of this dominant paradigm.

One of the outstanding tragedies human history is the FACT that the CIA destroyed the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF IRAN in the 1950s. Far from introducing the developement of democracy in the Middle East the USA snuffed it out as it began to flourish, ultimately leading to the current stranglehold of the theocratic "Axis of Evil" in Iran.

All this was done for nothing but greed. It is a hideous sickness and those who tell of it as "human nature" are central to the rot ironically perpetrated by the west in the name of Jesus Christ.

ChipperT you are clearly entranced by the myth of a sense of morality that conceals an insidious truth that the underlying motives of the West are really no different from religious bigotry of the Islamists.

 

[chergh]

Silly boy! It took war and violence to defeat Hitler.

You can't say that without war and violence we would be under the heel of hitler as if it wasnt for war and violence in the first place there would have been no threat from Hitler. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[ChipperT]

You can't say that without war and violence we would be under the heel of hitler as if it wasnt for war and violence in the first place there would have been no threat from Hitler. Your argument makes no sense.

Sure I can. I can say anything I want, whether it makes sense or not.

 

[chergh]

Sure I can. I can say anything I want, whether it makes sense or not.

Maybe you an thales should create a club then

 

[ChipperT]

Maybe you an thales should create a club then

We could do that, I suppose.

Of course, what I meant was that without war and violence participated in by the Allies, Hitler would have dominated Europe (through his own use of war and violence). Of course you knew that and were merely attempting to prolong the debate through the use of crimson clupea, weren't you?

 

[chergh]

We could do that, I suppose.

Of course, what I meant was that without war and violence participated in by the Allies, Hitler would have dominated Europe (through his own use of war and violence). Of course you knew that and were merely attempting to prolong the debate through the use of crimson clupea, weren't you?

Yes but the idea of not fighting back again the nazis is absurd, even to most pacifists, and they are such an extreme example that they make for a very poor justification for almost anything.

 

[Lightwave]

Although Hitler is quite a good example in someways

Uninvited military intervention into another country doesn't tend to work out too well.

Friends of the invaded get naturally pissed off they band together and then go and thump the aggressor.... and feel good about it too...

And if they can't do it in a straight military fashion you just radicalise a whole section of people (including some from your own society) that independently try and thump the aggressor any way they can.

 

[Galaxiom]

Sure I can. I can say anything I want, whether it makes sense or not.

That is exactly how religion works. Make up any story and declare it as absolute truth beyond question no matter how ridiculous the claims.

 

[Thales750]

I'm glad to see participation in this thread.

Here is the distilled version of my observation.

I am not advocating war on Iran.

I am saying that there will be bombs dropped on their nuclear weapons facilities, if they don’t stop their efforts to create enriched Uranium or Plutonium or whatever other highly processed fissionable materials.

And when the facilities are gone, Iran will not do anything about it. They will just be denide entrance to the club.

The only reason N. Korea was let in was their big brother held open the door for them. How’s that worked out for the planet? Even the Chinese are questioning the situation.

A pretty serious backfire for global security.

 

[ChipperT]

I'm glad to see participation in this thread.

Here is the distilled version of my observation.

I am not advocating war on Iran.

I am saying that there will be bombs dropped on their nuclear weapons facilities, if they don’t stop their efforts to create enriched Uranium or Plutonium or whatever other highly processed fissionable materials.

And when the facilities are gone, Iran will not do anything about it. They will just be deigned entrance to the club.

The only reason N. Korea was let in was their big brother held open the door for them. How’s that worked out for the planet? Even the Chinese are questioning the situation.

A pretty serious backfire for global security.

Thales, at this point I seriously doubt that a short bombing campaign would eliminate their capability. I suspect that their capabilities are now dispersed and hardened to such a point that such a tactic would be doomed to failure, otherwise I am sure that Israel would have already done so. I think the best road now open is a concentrated move by all nations to deny import and export capabilities to Iran until they voluntarily curtail their efforts and agree to allow other nations provide the energy production they say they need, along with extensive and intrusive monitoring from this point.

You are absolutely correct about NK. China is now second guessing their protections. Maybe the question will be resolved with the rapidly approaching implosion of the NK society and infrastructure. I only hope that in its death throes, NK does not decide to eliminate its prime nemesis SK in a "use it or lose it" fit.

 

[Thales750]

Thales, at this point I seriously doubt that a short bombing campaign would eliminate their capability. I suspect that their capabilities are now dispersed and hardened to such a point that such a tactic would be doomed to failure, otherwise I am sure that Israel would have already done so. I think the best road now open is a concentrated move by all nations to deny import and export capabilities to Iran until they voluntarily curtail their efforts and agree to allow other nations provide the energy production they say they need, along with extensive and intrusive monitoring from this point.

They (DoD) have publish a statement of a plan. Now I agree with you we see a lot of failed "Military" plans, but mostly they are civilian missions and not military ones. American DoD has gotten very good at small surgical operations since the Cold War days.

Even now, drones are in Iran.