Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
First you say there's no evidence to say Iran is looking into the matter, when that's rubbished you (effectively) say they should get nukes, and another point you said there is no basis in international law for this, despite OoE's explanation of the NPT (which he's repeated so many times on this forum he's probably drowning himself in scotch in despair). Is there any basis to what you say?
|
The issue with NPT is certainly correct. But really does these technicalities matter. Technicalities is nice to have. For example, the Russian can prove scientifically that the seabed of the roof of the world is linked to their Mother Russia, thus fullfilling the terms of the previous aggrement. But is it really that simple!!!
Technicalities matters not. They matter in Court of Laws and definitly not in the world stage politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Iran could stop the nuke programme and begin serious steps to a free democracy.
|
REALLY ... what is point of that???
whats the point of seting up a free democracy?? Why in the west, people immediatly relate "free democracy" as an immediate-ally of the United States is beyound me!!! ... what if the Iranian people are 80% anti-American. A free democracy would naturally yield an Anti-American government.
Will you have another 1953 coup d'etat, and replace that free democracy with a regime that sees thing eye-to-eye with Washington.
One must wonder what would happen if Egypt and Pakistan turn into free democracies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Certainly I cannot think of any historical precedent for actual conflict between two such nations.
|
Certainly, the case of a forgien country overthrowing your goverment is cause enough for war as much as forgien country invading and occupying your soil (US Embassy in Iran) is itself cause enough for war.
Americans LOVE to beat that 1979-American-embassy drum, and we, Iranian, we love to beat our own 1953 drum. Another thing we have in common (Iranians and Americans), is that we consider other side opinion to equal horseshit. Certainly, I have yet to meet an American that can climb down and say: "We were damn wrong to do it. It was complete violation of another nation soveriegn right. And no It-was-Cold-War-so-it-was-okay babbeling can excuse it"
However, as an analyst, if I could look beyound the BS and look from an analytical point of view, it certainly make sense what the US government did what it had to do: which was after all to protect their intrest. But the same analytical eye will look at the Embassy '79 crisis and say: "that was bound to happen, afterall there was a goddamn revolution and the whole place was going to hell"
Unfortunatly, most Americans see the 1953 event with an
analytical eye, while conviniantly see the 1979 event with their human emotional outburst: their anger at the humilation. Samething could be said of the Iranians that see the humiliation of 1953 event from human point of view, while seeing the Embassy '79 crisis from analytical eye and say:"well it was bound to happen"
Goodday