Hi all - wanted to start a new thread about this, 'cause I've been thinking about this Iran thing lately, and wanted to bounce a few ideas off you, see what you think.

First off, let's kinda set some boundaries for discussion, I mean, when we say a "nuclear Iran" we're referring speciically to nuclear weapons, right?

I mean, I have absolutely no problem with the Iranian People having nuclear power for civilian use, do you?

It's just that we don't trust the Mullah's to administer it, am I right?

So, before we get going into the discussion then, let's pose this question, (or maybe please answer it during your post or something) - would you be okay with a nuclear Iran if the Mullah's weren't in charge?

Like, if they were to adopt a democratically elected government, would you allow it to pursue nuclear weapons?

I know I'm headed straight out of bounds with this, but....

Why exactly does Iran need nuclear power? They have the second largest nat gas reserves on earth, and the 5th largest crude oil reserve on earth. It's not like they need nuclear power to make up for a lack of available energy. Seriously, they're energy flush WELL into the future. That is why I don't trust their fundamental motivation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/iran/oil.htm

__________________
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: RIDE A BIKE

why did our newest ally, pakistan, need a nuclear weapon?

why did we stand by while israel built nuclear weapons but now pretend we have unilateral authority to designate which countries cannot have nuclear bombs?

__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
-Dr Seuss
You should have heard what i meant to say (apologies to Thelonious Monk)
"The police are not here to cause disorder....
...The police are here to preserve disorder."
Hon. Richard J. Daley
Chicago, 1968

Well nonsensator, here's how I sees it. (Move outta the way of the spittoon, thankya ....... SPFFFTTT!!!). All these dictators get nukes, pretty soon other folks'll want nukes. Then whaddaya got?? Nukes all over the (*)(*)(*)(*) place. Nukes in the barnyard. Nukes in the still. Nukes in the silo. Nukes in the hayloft. Then, how long ya think it'll be till one of these here half baked petty dictators fires one off? And then t'other fires back and misses - hits a third guy? Pretty soon, it's like saturday night at the Rusty Tractor Wheel Saloon when all the boys get liquored up - everbody a-fightin everbody else. The way I sees it - better to not let any more folks have nukes - like that Nukyer Non-Proligeration Treaty says. (SPFFFTTT!!!).

Because their much larger neighbor who they have fought 3 major wars with does.

Pakistan is hardly a new ally. Barring the idiocy pulled on them 2-3 decades ago which serioully harmed relations for no good reason they have been an ally of the USA since almost their creation.

Becasue its neighbors (many of who are still at war officially with Israel) have expressed an overt desire to not only destroy their naiton but extermnate their entire population.

The nuclear non-poliferation treat of 1968 was put forward by Ireland and first signed by Finland. Obviosuly a massive *unilateral* plot by the USA to force 189 nations to sign it....




////




For nonsqtr's thing-


A democratically elected government with the same goals as those of the current Iranian Theocracy having nuclear weapons would not be acceptable.
The mere form (or basis of forming) of a government does not immediately excuse it from its expressed goals...which is in Irans case has been the overt sponsoring and support of gobal terrorism ad the expressed esire to not only destroy but extemrinate the population of Israel.

Now of course you and some others will/do use this to bash Bush
..but so far the USA has not overtly invaded a nation in order to annex it, destroy it, or exterminate its populaton..contrary to the BS from some.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

No that's fine - my best understanding is, that the Iranians need oil because they have no refineries. They export crude, but they import gasoline right back. I don't remember the exact numbers right now, but it's pretty significant, it's some number of millions of barrels per day of gasoline, and I seem to remember that the Chinese import was about 20%, and the amount of gasonline re-imported was "roughly the same", so you can figure out the numbers if you know what the Chinese consume (it's "a lot") -

So the practical point is that it takes almost exactly as long to build a nuclear power plant, as it does to build a refinery. And since their economy kinda depends on the exported crude, it kinda makes sense for them to go the nuclear power route.

I dunno - that's kinda my best understanding, that I've gotten from talking to some Iranian-Americans with family back home. There seems to be some popular "resentment" against the US for wanting to take away what they perceive as this legitimate need, although it should be said in the same breath that not many of 'em really like the Mullah's very much and they totally understand the US fears of nuclear weapons in these guys' hands, but they also don't want to see the "legitimate" need left un-met because of that.

so, the pakis get nuclear weapons because india has them
isreal gets them because it fears its threatening Moslem neighbors ... so threatened it attacks their soverign state of syria without provocation
but iran can't develop them because we don't want to allow these weapons in the hands of people who can't control them

an interesting double standard. it's no wonder our standing in the ME is so low. if the non-proliferation treaty is such a sound pact, then why are we abbrogating it? ... ooops, india, pakistan and israel never signed the accord you have trotted out to defend your position. no doubt we have taken a stand against a nuclear-capable iran but how principled is it when we simultaneously wink at pakistan and israel developing weapon systems and side step the limits of the NPT to arm belgium, germany, italy, the netherlands and turkey. in short, our double standard is showing

__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
-Dr Seuss
You should have heard what i meant to say (apologies to Thelonious Monk)
"The police are not here to cause disorder....
...The police are here to preserve disorder."
Hon. Richard J. Daley
Chicago, 1968

Yeah, you're right JB, but what else are we going to do?

I mean, the "practical situation" is that everyone else in the world that has nuclear weapons, is pretty much committed to "not using them".

The Russkies, the Chinese, even the Indos and Pakis, all have said that they wouldn't use 'em.

The Israelis are an exception, and the Mullahs are an exception.

Friggin' great, right? The little guy that everyone hates, and the biggest guy on the block who hates 'em.

I think, that this is another area where Bushie has completely dropped the ball, 'cause even though I give him decent marks in general for his "non-proliferation" efforts (as per the other thread), it's like, "where's our diplomacy"? Bushie's deal so far seems to be "hands-off" of Syria and Palestine and Lebanon - just leave that whole thing up to the Israelis - and it occurs to me that he should be sending his main lady Condi to engage in some freakin' diplomacy over there, or something....

But yeah, have you been following the topic of the other thread over in "World News" about the Syrian thing? That's a pretty spectacular piece of "news", something's going on over there, and I have a feeling that intel is scrambling even as we speak... the nasties are at it again.

So yeah, you're right, it's a double standard, but it's one of those things like, "what else are you gonna do?" It's kinda like supporting the regimes of foreign dictators and so on - "ideologically" you can say that's a good thing or not, but "practically" you have to look at it in terms of a "point of diminishing returns" on the relationship and the engagement -

I mean, Manuel Noriega would be a perfect example, right?

I'd go so far as to say it doesn't even matter so much if it's democratic. It just needs to be a government that sees itself as responsible for its people and that has a stake in the global community. The danger of "rogue states" is in their seperation from world affairs.
What we need to think about is supporting other paths for nations to really get into the loop and gain influence. The status quo is that getting a nuke is the best way for a rogue state to assert itself. Under the status quo, it is foolish for them not to.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

The US discovered their nuclear program only after the Soviets left Afghanistan. We didn't support it as you implied.

Because all of its neighbors publicly admit the destruction of Israel is their ultimate goal?

Because as long as we have the capability we do have unilateral authority? And because Iran has stated that Israel's destruction is their goal?

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.