ELECTION 2008 | The Pub | The Field Mess | The Staff College | Bookmark WAB



Go Back   World Affairs Board > International Strategic Affairs > The Iranian Question
Register FAQ WAB RSS Feed Forum GuidelinesMembers List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!

The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-01-2006, 10:47 AM   #46 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,330
Country:
As per the Islamic lexicon, a kaffir is a 'non believer'

Thanks for clearing that up.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 15:11 PM   #47 (permalink)
Gautam
Banished
 
Gautam's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: London
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
The big deal would be if one of these weapons being made by them became "missing" and then turned up in your major city and detonated because somebody dont like your country or your religions very existence because some jackass said you should be whiped off the map. To me thats quite a big deal when you consider the number of lives involved as well as the destruction it would cause nevermind the "domino" effect it could cause in reprisals. Just ask yourself if life would even be worth living in the aftermath if it happened in your own country? I dont think any of us wants to see that happen. Ever.
Well well this is the typical hypocrate US Foreign Policy line, what was Nixon, Kissinger, Ford & all US presidents right up to Reagan doing when the Pakistani's were busy building missiles & Nuclear bombs with the Chinese help.

Why did the US not do something concrete in the A Q A Khan affair when it became apparent that the ISI was involved.

What was the US doing when the Koreans traded missile technology with Pakistan in return for Nuclear Help.

Well like always US was busy safeguarding its interest.

This so called excuse of a weapon turning up in wrong hands has no worth for many reasons.

One being Pakistan already possesses bombs which they tried 2 sel

secondly pakistan is not really a stable country. If it goes down tomm whats the chances of its nuclear power being in safe hands.

Hence, this whole arguement of nuclear weapons in wrong hands has no value.
Gautam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 15:46 PM   #48 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,330
Country:
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
Well well this is the typical hypocrate US Foreign Policy line, what was Nixon, Kissinger, Ford & all US presidents right up to Reagan doing when the Pakistani's were busy building missiles & Nuclear bombs with the Chinese help.

Why did the US not do something concrete in the A Q A Khan affair when it became apparent that the ISI was involved.

What was the US doing when the Koreans traded missile technology with Pakistan in return for Nuclear Help.

Well like always US was busy safeguarding its interest.

This so called excuse of a weapon turning up in wrong hands has no worth for many reasons.

One being Pakistan already possesses bombs which they tried 2 sel

secondly pakistan is not really a stable country. If it goes down tomm whats the chances of its nuclear power being in safe hands.

Hence, this whole arguement of nuclear weapons in wrong hands has no value.

Ok so lets revisit one point. Outside of this man in Iran have you ever heard of the leader of a world country calling for the inialiation of another country outrite over religious edicts? Lets not count Hitler in this either.

This man fails to realize once the international community decides he will have absolutely zero choice in the matter. And more then likely a military strike is already sitting on somebodys drawing board and not necessarily the Americans if he chooses to ignore it.

The international community will not allow this man to achieve this weapon after making these threats and that you can be assured of. He may build it and hide it. But there will be those watching for that opertune moment to strike. All of his saber rattling will make him look foolish when the smoke clears and his country is damaged not just infastructure wise but face wise in the international community.


What was the US doing when the Koreans traded missile technology with Pakistan in return for Nuclear Help.

What could it do trading technology is one thing building one for another country is something completely different. Pakistan took care of Khan. We do attempt to work together with Pakistan although we have had troubles on both sides. On top of that Kim never threatened another county especially over something religion based which has the world excited over this because of terrorism. And as you may have noticed not only is he quiet no but also sits at the bargaining table these days.

Well like always US was busy safeguarding its interest.

Unfortunately Gautam all of the troubles in the world land on our presidents desk wether we like it or not. We didnt ask for it. It somehow turns out that way. Trust me I wish we would close our boarders and stop all the aid we give and take care of America for a few years. But this we cannot do either as we have obligations to the global community.

The argument of it falling into the wrong hands is a very important argument.

Have you ever considered the old adage " He who wishes to yield power is not worthy of the power he would yield " And "He who wishes not to yield power is its righteous ruler ".

We as men (as in the int. community which includes both me and you and everybody else) would be absolutely irresponsible to let this man gain the means to construct, threaten or detonate a nuclear weapon on this planets surface in the name of his religious beliefs.

I believe they should be granted nuclear power for peaceful means. But this mans means are very far from peacefull and there isint anybody that can justify what he wants to anybody except his thelogian keepers.

Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-01-2006 at 15:51 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 15:48 PM   #49 (permalink)
Monk
Cultural Attache
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: 08-29-05
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
The difference is that the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocals.
There is no difference. Iran wants to break the NPT thats it. They are a sovereign nation and they can decide to do so. I can name other international treaties undermined by the US if you please.
__________________
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

Sir Winston Churchill
Monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 15:51 PM   #50 (permalink)
Monk
Cultural Attache
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: 08-29-05
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Ok so lets revisit one point. Outside of this man in Iran have you ever heard of the leader of a world country calling for the inialiation of another country outrite over religious edicts? Lets not count Hitler in this either.

This man fails to realize once the international community decides he will have absolutely zero choice in the matter. And more then likely a military strike is already sitting on somebodys drawing board and not necessarily the Americans if he chooses to ignore it.

The international community will not allow this man to achieve this weapon after making these threats and that you can be assured of. He may build it and hide it. But there will be those watching for that opertune moment to strike. All of his saber rattling will make him look foolish when the smoke clears and his country is damaged not just infastructure wise but face wise in the international community.


What was the US doing when the Koreans traded missile technology with Pakistan in return for Nuclear Help.

What could it do trading technology is one thing building one for another country is something completely different. Pakistan took care of Khan. We do attempt to work together with Pakistan although we have had troubles on both sides. On top of that Kim never threatened another county especially over something religion based which has the world excited over this because of terrorism. And as you may have noticed not only is he quiet no but also sits at the bargaining table these days.

Well like always US was busy safeguarding its interest.

Unfortunately Gautam all of the troubles in the world land on our presidents desk wether we like it or not. We didnt ask for it. It somehow turns out that way. Trust me I wish we would close our boarders and stop all the aid we give and take care of America for a few years. But this we cannot do either as we have obligations to the global community.

The argument of it falling into the wrong hands is a very important argument.

Have you ever considered the old adage " He who wishes to yield power is not worthy of the power he would yield " And "He who wishes not to yield power is its righteous ruler ".

We as men (as in the int. community which includes both me and you and everybody else) would be absolutely irresponsible to let this man gain the means to construct, threaten or detonate a nuclear weapon on this planets surface in the name of his religious beliefs.

I believe they should be granted nuclear power for peaceful means. But this mans means are very far from peacefull and there isint anybody that can justify what he wants to anybody except his theocrat keepers.
Yes. Good job Dreadnought. Sections of the speech would have made several US politicians proud circa April 2003. I can hear the sabre rattling...........
Monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 15:53 PM   #51 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,330
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
There is no difference. Iran wants to break the NPT thats it. They are a sovereign nation and they can decide to do so. I can name other international treaties undermined by the US if you please.
I sincerely doubt they are as important as NPT. That is something that concerns us all every single country.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 15:58 PM   #52 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers
Military Professional
Moderator
Scotch taster
 
Join Date: 08-06-03
Posts: 15,918
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
There is no difference. Iran wants to break the NPT thats it.
The mechanisim is there for Iran to break the NPT. Thus far, she has not done so. Until she does, there is still the major difference between the NPT and the Koyoto Accords.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
They are a sovereign nation and they can decide to do so. I can name other international treaties undermined by the US if you please.
I can name you one right now. The NAFT with Canada and both the softwood and mad cow issue. Can probably tie in fishing rights also. However, the mechanisms to solve these issues also exists, including withdrawl.

Which again comes to the point that until Iran officially withdraws from the NPT, you cannot compare the two.
__________________
Chimo
Officer of Engineers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 16:10 PM   #53 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,330
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
Yes. Good job Dreadnought. Sections of the speech would have made several US politicians proud circa April 2003. I can hear the sabre rattling...........
Actually I think the above stated opinion was unbiased. If you dont then feel free to criticize?

Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-01-2006 at 16:12 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 16:20 PM   #54 (permalink)
Monk
Cultural Attache
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: 08-29-05
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Actually I think the above stated opinion was unbiased. If you dont then feel free to criticize?
No offense intended Dreadnought but fact of the matter is war with Iran is not in anybody's interest.
Monk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 16:34 PM   #55 (permalink)
Gautam
Banished
 
Gautam's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-28-05
Location: London
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Ok so lets revisit one point. Outside of this man in Iran have you ever heard of the leader of a world country calling for the inialiation of another country outrite over religious edicts? Lets not count Hitler in this either.

This man fails to realize once the international community decides he will have absolutely zero choice in the matter. And more then likely a military strike is already sitting on somebodys drawing board and not necessarily the Americans if he chooses to ignore it.

The international community will not allow this man to achieve this weapon after making these threats and that you can be assured of. He may build it and hide it. But there will be those watching for that opertune moment to strike. All of his saber rattling will make him look foolish when the smoke clears and his country is damaged not just infastructure wise but face wise in the international community.


What was the US doing when the Koreans traded missile technology with Pakistan in return for Nuclear Help.

What could it do trading technology is one thing building one for another country is something completely different. Pakistan took care of Khan. We do attempt to work together with Pakistan although we have had troubles on both sides. On top of that Kim never threatened another county especially over something religion based which has the world excited over this because of terrorism. And as you may have noticed not only is he quiet no but also sits at the bargaining table these days.

Well like always US was busy safeguarding its interest.

Unfortunately Gautam all of the troubles in the world land on our presidents desk wether we like it or not. We didnt ask for it. It somehow turns out that way. Trust me I wish we would close our boarders and stop all the aid we give and take care of America for a few years. But this we cannot do either as we have obligations to the global community.

The argument of it falling into the wrong hands is a very important argument.

Have you ever considered the old adage " He who wishes to yield power is not worthy of the power he would yield " And "He who wishes not to yield power is its righteous ruler ".

We as men (as in the int. community which includes both me and you and everybody else) would be absolutely irresponsible to let this man gain the means to construct, threaten or detonate a nuclear weapon on this planets surface in the name of his religious beliefs.

I believe they should be granted nuclear power for peaceful means. But this mans means are very far from peacefull and there isint anybody that can justify what he wants to anybody except his thelogian keepers.

Nice try but u urself gave up the arguement.

When you said Pakistan took care of A Q Khan, I didn't get what exactly u were reffering 2. Were u refering 2 the house arrest order issues by Mushy uncle. Common this is way more serious than the Iranian issue .

A Q A Khan was selling nuclear blueprints, does that ring any bell, meaning anyone with qualified personnel could have built a nuclear bomb and anyways Iran is still far away from building a nuclear bomb.

If u can justify america's non-intervention in A Q A Khan affair, you yourself speak for the double standards.

Much more is at stake here than an Iranian Nuclear Bomb.

With regards to the comments made by Iranian President, well its not a hidden secret that he is a dickhead afterall. But lets put things in prespective, I have many jewish friends and I guess we all agree on the fact that Iran doesn't have the balls 2 face Israel. They know Israel will kick their ass to stone age which theys showed in the Arab-Israeli war.

And let me make one thing clear, I myself am strongly against a nuclear Iran and in no way am supporting Iran.

All I say is that just like every other country in the world (US, China, UK, Russia) have played each other for personal gains, so does India have a right to do the same.
Gautam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 16:52 PM   #56 (permalink)
Vaman
Banished
 
Vaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-03
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Which again comes to the point that until Iran officially withdraws from the NPT, you cannot compare the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Until they officially declare those agreements invalid, your arguement is invalid.
I agree.
So all Iran needs to do then is to declare the NPT agreement invalid. That should get the US off its back and put an end to all the brouhaha.
But for some reason I dont think thats the issue here.
NPT or no NPT the US still would have been gunning for Iran. The real reasons would be pretty close to what Dreadnought here articualtes : That they are evil people blah blah blah and they would blow up the entire world the minute nukes get into Irans hands.
The legality or the validity of the NPT is of little real concern for me and its as much a swear word that "non-alignment" is for the Americans.

Last edited by Vaman : 02-01-2006 at 16:54 PM.
Vaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 17:15 PM   #57 (permalink)
Vaman
Banished
 
Vaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-03
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
Mulford's statements were an embaressment to India, and he should have kept his mouth shut. This has made the Left and the BJP cry foul...that the NPA is giving in to US demands, thereby making it more difficult for the govt to take a decision w.r.t Iran.
There seems to be a slight contradiction here. You seem to suggest that Mulford comments would have only affected BJP and leftist aligned people. If on the other hand if it affects everyone, then decision making would have pretty straight forward.

On another note, the Nuclear goodies on offer are NOT going to suffice India's energy needs anytime in the future. For gods sake, US's own energy output from nuclear energy as a proportion of overall energy consumed is dismally small. Exactly what do you think they would have had to offer us anyway?

Last edited by Vaman : 02-01-2006 at 17:18 PM.
Vaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 17:41 PM   #58 (permalink)
Jay
Tamizhanban
Senior Contributor
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-06-03
Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 6,191
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontree
Take the case of the recent uproar over the 20 yr old Islander aircraft being sold to Myanmar. The UK does not have any 3rd party clause with us and yet they are threatening to put an embargo on spares for other Islanders used by us. Let us see how the govt handles this - either we tell the Brits to climb a tree and follow or policy or we squirm and agree. Do we have the capability and the resolve for tough talk?....
Indian Air Force planning to set up aerospace group

Rajesh Nair

It would integrate the various components of the force



Air Vice-Marshal D. N. Ganesh — Photo: T. Singaravelou

PONDICHERRY: The Indian Air Force would come out with a "concept document" by next year for setting up an "aerospace group," Assistant Chief of Air Staff Air Vic-Marshal D.N. Ganesh said here on Wednesday.

"The concept, which was mooted three years ago, has picked up momentum recently, and we are giving a thrust to it as part of the Air Force upgradation process," he said in an informal chat with The Hindu .

Explaining the concept, he said, "It is an integration of various components of the Air Force. Our satellites, radars, communication systems, laboratories, low-flying aircraft, high-flying aircraft and helicopters would be integrated."

This would be done taking into consideration various needs such as communication, reconnaissance and battlefield damage assessment.

Concept document

The concept document would provide guidelines on how to go about the process. "The formation would be significant in a war scenario," he said.

The Air Forces of eight countries, including China, have similar systems and the IAF was studying some of the models. "Our men have already visited the United States and got a feel of their system. However, we would have our own model."

On Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi's visit to Sri Lanka, he said, "There is no hidden significance. His visit is not related to the escalation of tension in that country." On reports that the United Kingdom would stop the supply of spares of some aircraft, he said, "The IAF is not dependent on them. It will not have any impact on us.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/02/stor...0206730500.htm
__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2006, 19:18 PM   #59 (permalink)
Blademaster
Military Enthusiast
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: 08-15-03
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
The mechanisim is there for Iran to break the NPT. Thus far, she has not done so. Until she does, there is still the major difference between the NPT and the Koyoto Accords.



I can name you one right now. The NAFT with Canada and both the softwood and mad cow issue. Can probably tie in fishing rights also. However, the mechanisms to solve these issues also exists, including withdrawl.

Which again comes to the point that until Iran officially withdraws from the NPT, you cannot compare the two.
Yes I can. The difference is that if Iran attempts to withdraw from NPT, she will be bombed the **** out by US. In the other case, no one will be bombed the **** out.
Blademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2006, 00:24 AM   #60 (permalink)
lemontree
Bandaid
Military Professional
 
Join Date: 10-04-04
Location: India
Posts: 5,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaman
There seems to be a slight contradiction here. You seem to suggest that Mulford comments would have only affected BJP and leftist aligned people. If on the other hand if it affects everyone, then decision making would have pretty straight forward.
The Indian govt is following the global POV/ perspective, since there is lot to gain from improved relations with the US. It is a test of Indian committment to their POV since the fog and suspicion of the cold-war days. The BJP would have done the same thing if they had been in power, the problem child is the Left. The Left seems to be stuck in a 50s mindset and cannot get out of it.

Quote:
On another note, the Nuclear goodies on offer are NOT going to suffice India's energy needs anytime in the future. For gods sake, US's own energy output from nuclear energy as a proportion of overall energy consumed is dismally small. Exactly what do you think they would have had to offer us anyway?
There is a big difference, since the US uses fuel mainly for its transportion needs while India uses it for power generation. A major portion of Indian electric power comes from thermal power which takes away the much required fuel from the transport sector.
__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!
lemontree is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iran Is Playing a Growing Role in Iraq Economy xerxes Current Affairs 0 03-21-2007 13:00 PM
What War With Iran Would Look Like astralis Political Discussions 0 09-17-2006 16:52 PM
Iran And Possible Developments Gazi The Iranian Question 2 02-26-2006 12:02 PM
Why use force when talk works so well? Leader International Defense Topics 54 12-05-2005 04:29 AM
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences lulldapull International Defense Topics 14 11-20-2004 16:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:46 PM.


Rochen is the business hosting sponsor of World Affairs Board and a provider of reseller web hosting services.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8