Julie

Oh..

Stan187

No signs of unruly aggression? Support for Hizballah, support for Hamas, support for various anti-Coalition forces in Iraq, including direct action, it's leader has threatened to wipe another sovereign state from the face of the Earth while leading a program pursuing military buildup and nuclear weapons. Yup, I guess besides all that type of stuff, we're pretty juvenile to assume they have anything but peaceful coexistance on their minds.

Israel's nuclear weapons have been a given for a long time. What has suddenly made Iran feel so threatened as to motivate them to have nukes? Did Israel threaten Iran... ever? You've obviously got it backwards. If you think Israel is the root of the problem here, as oppossed to Iran's agenda of dominating the region, then you're most blissfully ignorant.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

ExNavyAmerican

Buu,

Israel's nukes are deployed in nulcear submarines*, and are designed as a last-ditch defence. If they were going to go down, they'd take half the Islamic world with them. They've never threatened to use them any other way. And despite much provocation, have displayed much restraint in their use of weapons.

Stan pinned it in regards to Iran. If they could be anymore threatening, they would have to declare outright Jihad. Let's take care of them before the get that far.

"bomb-bomb-bomb Iran"


EDIT: Nuclear missile capable submarines.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Shipwreck

Israel DOES NOT have nuclear subs.

BS.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

ExNavyAmerican

I know. They're diesel-powered. What I meant is that they could carry nuclear missiles. I should have said "missile boats" instead of "nuclear submarines." Gauff on my part. I will edit the post. They are, however, supposed to gett some nuclear submarines from Germany in 2010.

How so? Are you questioning their capabilites to do a tremendous amount of damage to the Muslim world? Or are you questioning their will to do so if they were on the edge of national existence?

Shipwreck

No, they AREN'T.

ExNavyAmerican

Indeed they are. Look it up.

Shipwreck

I was under the distinct impression that what you claimed earlier was *half the Islamic world*.

Whatever...

Shipwreck

NO. They AREN'T.

The One

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT U.S. , I AM TALKING ABOUT PAKISTAN. I.P.I IS ESSENTIAL FOR PAKISTAN TO MEET ITS INCREASING ENERGY DEMAND.SO,IN A WAR WITH IRAN, IS IT NOT AGAIST THE ECONOMIC INTEREST OF PAKISTAN TO SUPPORT U.S.A.? FROM 2-3 YEARS G.D.P. GROWTH OF PAKISTAN IS AROUND 6-7% AND ENERGY DEMANDS ARE GROWING DAY BY DAY.SECOND THING IS THAT NOW U.S.A IS NOT GIVING PAKISTAN THAT HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY HE WAS GIVING BEFORE AND U.S.A. ALSO DENIES TO DO NUCLEAR DEAL WITH PAKISTAN WHICH HE WAS GOING TO DO WITH INDIA.WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHICH WAY PAKISTAN HAS TO GO AND WHICH WAY THEY WILL GO?

Shek

Because it goes directly against what they are trying to portray - they claim that they don't want to develop nuclear weapons. Withdrawal would be another signal that they do want to develop nuclear weapons (in addition to all the covert work over decades and the denial of the deal where Russia would control the fuel rods from Russia to Iran and back). It would add legitimacy to the position of the US and EU-3 and make it harder for Russia and China to walk the tightrope of for/against sanctions (yes if symbolic, no if they are too tight).

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Stan187

Buddy, please, turn of the caps lock.

JAD_333

The objective of the 'ruling American elite' --you're not biased are you, by any chance--is none other than to maintain and protect US vital interests throughout the world and security at home.

Armed with that fact you should be able to interpret the vast majority of US actions vis a vis the members of the international community.

And your elemental interepretation of any action will almost always be "the US did such and such to protect such and such of its interest."

But there are rare exceptions; Iraq is one. I'll contrast it to Iran which is not an exception.

The US has warned Iran that it will not tolerate her having the capability of building nuclear weapons. So, from your elemental understanding of what motivates US international behavior, you conclude--right--that it is not in the interest of the US for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. You can disagree with the remedy, but you cannot disagree the basic premise.

Saddam's Iraq in 2002 was quite different in that its threat to US national security was, in truth, secondary to a moral cause. Think of a crackhouse being allowed to operate in the neighborhood for years. Despite raids, threats and sanctions, the crackhouse manages to keep operating. Appeals to legal authorities (the UN) only yield more delays and disagreements over what to do.

The US had already decided to remove Saddam early in 2002, unilaterally if necessary; then out of the blue came 9/11. In a way, 9/11 complicated matters, because taking out Saddam would be seen as retribution for 9/11, when it was not. Getting rid of Saddam was getting rid of the crackhouse that was fouling up the neighborhood. It had a strategic element, of course, but it was primarily a moral cause, which anyone in the world could understand.

Now, mind you, I am not excusing the mistakes that the US made in the process. There was plenty of inepitude before and after Saddam was toppled, and the whole exercise led to far more suffering than was intended.

But the point is that US policy toward Iraq was based on a different motivation than its current policy toward Iran. Iran's ostensible drive to obtain nulcear weapons of mass destruction is a clear and present danger to US vital interests. Iran is not a crackhouse. It is a nation doing what many nations try to do. It is seeking to gain a military advantage in its sphere of influence. Clearly, this could lead to serious consequences for the US ecomony and the security of US allies in Europe and elsewhere in the Gulf.

So, one can argue international law, accuse the US of being a bully, and such, but the simple fact is that the US has no choice but to act against Iran IF the US puts its principles regarding protection of its vital interests ahead of all others. No amount of complaining, demonstrating, political manoevering or whatever is going to make any difference when the time comes to act.



This argument is dead on arrival.

Fallacious? Juvenile? You don't get it. The US will not allow Iran to possess the means of making nuclear weapons. Justifications to support Iran's right to possess them will not change anyting.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Parihaka

Good post JAD.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Ophir

To be able to continue collaborating with Russia, I think. Were they to leave the NPT, it would certainly put an end to the Bushehr nuclear power plant in its present incarnation.