Bush threatens Iran over nukes.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I could see this tortured logic used to justify an attack, if one occurs and Iran pulls out of the NPT


Iran withdraws

Bush attacks- Why?

Because the NPT prohibits developing nukes. The act of withdrawing means that they are intending to build a bomb. Building a bomb is illegal. Since 90 days would not have elapsed in this scenario, the justification would be based on the fact that they are still bound by the treaty. The legal act of leaving the NPT is sufficient proof justifying attack.

Damn the NPT. If iran withdraws, we go in and "correct" their mistake. In fact, we go in for the same reason we went into Iraq: We will not allow a nation to hold our economic and/or security interests at risk. That is unacceptable. The going in part may take time and come under different forms, but it'll be done (even with a liberal democratic president). NO ONE keeps the United States and her interests hostage.

"This comment brought to you by the Bin Laden Justification League- remember Americans ARE dangerous"

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I could see this tortured logic used to justify an attack, if one occurs and Iran pulls out of the NPT


Iran withdraws

Bush attacks- Why?

Because the NPT prohibits developing nukes. The act of withdrawing means that they are intending to build a bomb. Building a bomb is illegal. Since 90 days would not have elapsed in this scenario, the justification would be based on the fact that they are still bound by the treaty. The legal act of leaving the NPT is sufficient proof justifying attack.

Damn the NPT. If iran withdraws, we go in and "correct" their mistake. In fact, we go in for the same reason we went into Iraq: We will not allow a nation to hold our economic and/or security interests at risk. That is unacceptable. The going in part may take time and come under different forms, but it'll be done (even with a liberal democratic president). NO ONE keeps the United States and her interests hostage.

"This comment brought to you by the Bin Laden Justification League- remember Americans ARE dangerous"

:Q

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I could see this tortured logic used to justify an attack, if one occurs and Iran pulls out of the NPT


Iran withdraws

Bush attacks- Why?

Because the NPT prohibits developing nukes. The act of withdrawing means that they are intending to build a bomb. Building a bomb is illegal. Since 90 days would not have elapsed in this scenario, the justification would be based on the fact that they are still bound by the treaty. The legal act of leaving the NPT is sufficient proof justifying attack.

Damn the NPT. If iran withdraws, we go in and "correct" their mistake. In fact, we go in for the same reason we went into Iraq: We will not allow a nation to hold our economic and/or security interests at risk. That is unacceptable. The going in part may take time and come under different forms, but it'll be done (even with a liberal democratic president). NO ONE keeps the United States and her interests hostage.

"This comment brought to you by the Bin Laden Justification League- remember Americans ARE dangerous"

say what you want, but you and I want the same thing for different reasons. I, to secure the realm for american interests. You, to prevent the ayatollahs from spreading their influence and persecuting homosexuals, communists, socialists, and other ills of man.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Sorry to seem dumb here but, if there is an internal overthrow what will the likely result be vis a vis us and Iraq?
My sense from what I've read is that it would be a pro US result.
Non proliferation as I understand it requires the status of quantity remain constant and the tech not transferred. The development, I think, is possible to some extent... is this so?

I think many people equate a less unfriendly government as being pro-US. There are very few nations on this planet where the population could be characterized as pro-US. Every citizen likely places their self-interests before those of another nation. Iran's Muslim oligarchy is a direct result of its despotic, US-backed predecessor. Despite the relative youth of the population most Iranians study history.

I believe the development of nukes is a violation of the NPT if you do not currently have them. Granted, that would mean Rummy's nocturnal emissions about developing NEW tactical nukes might be a violation of the NPT. Regardless, if the US can restock and modify its arsenal I can understand NK or Iran's desire to build their own. If the NPT is a vehicle for keeping the nuke club exclusive it sux (to be without them). If the ultimate goal is to reduce the global threat by controlling ALL production and technology exchanges then some signatories are not holding up their end of the bargain.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Iran is developing nukes, then I agree they are violating the NPT. However, as I said earlier, they have the option of bowing out. It may be that they decide that to be an untenable position, but they do have that option.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I would question the need for Iran to develop nukes . . . I think nuclear power is a good idea since they've got great energy needs, several good long term waste storage sites, and a commodity in high demand (oil). It makes sense to use the cheap Russian graphite reactors. Why not sell them American light water reactors in exchange for compliance/inspections? Americans and Iranians working side by side to build a sustainable (hopefully less polluting) future. NK might even reconsider their current stance.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I could see this tortured logic used to justify an attack, if one occurs and Iran pulls out of the NPT


Iran withdraws

Bush attacks- Why?

Because the NPT prohibits developing nukes. The act of withdrawing means that they are intending to build a bomb. Building a bomb is illegal. Since 90 days would not have elapsed in this scenario, the justification would be based on the fact that they are still bound by the treaty. The legal act of leaving the NPT is sufficient proof justifying attack.

Damn the NPT. If iran withdraws, we go in and "correct" their mistake. In fact, we go in for the same reason we went into Iraq: We will not allow a nation to hold our economic and/or security interests at risk. That is unacceptable. The going in part may take time and come under different forms, but it'll be done (even with a liberal democratic president). NO ONE keeps the United States and her interests hostage.

"This comment brought to you by the Bin Laden Justification League- remember Americans ARE dangerous"

say what you want, but you and I want the same thing for different reasons. I, to secure the realm for american interests. You, to prevent the ayatollahs from spreading their influence and persecuting homosexuals, communists, socialists, and other ills of man.

For the first time in 1531 posts words fail me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Sorry to seem dumb here but, if there is an internal overthrow what will the likely result be vis a vis us and Iraq?
My sense from what I've read is that it would be a pro US result.
Non proliferation as I understand it requires the status of quantity remain constant and the tech not transferred. The development, I think, is possible to some extent... is this so?

I think many people equate a less unfriendly government as being pro-US. There are very few nations on this planet where the population could be characterized as pro-US. Every citizen likely places their self-interests before those of another nation. Iran's Muslim oligarchy is a direct result of its despotic, US-backed predecessor. Despite the relative youth of the population most Iranians study history.

I believe the development of nukes is a violation of the NPT if you do not currently have them. Granted, that would mean Rummy's nocturnal emissions about developing NEW tactical nukes might be a violation of the NPT. Regardless, if the US can restock and modify its arsenal I can understand NK or Iran's desire to build their own. If the NPT is a vehicle for keeping the nuke club exclusive it sux (to be without them). If the ultimate goal is to reduce the global threat by controlling ALL production and technology exchanges then some signatories are not holding up their end of the bargain.

I wondered about our development issues. Why would ours be ok and theirs not... If they develop what we do then all should be ok... Maybe the language specifics tell the story.. I'll check it out.
I don't see what we gain by involving US military in Iran and Don't see a public statement of support for overthrow being a good idea either. Seems to rub salt in the Cleric side who's followers are all to eager to go see Allah while delivering Special Delivery Packages here and there.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would question the need for Iran to develop nukes . . . I think nuclear power is a good idea since they've got great energy needs, several good long term waste storage sites, and a commodity in high demand (oil). It makes sense to use the cheap Russian graphite reactors. Why not sell them American light water reactors in exchange for compliance/inspections? Americans and Iranians working side by side to build a sustainable (hopefully less polluting) future. NK might even reconsider their current stance.

This makes sense...

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would question the need for Iran to develop nukes . . . I think nuclear power is a good idea since they've got great energy needs, several good long term waste storage sites, and a commodity in high demand (oil). It makes sense to use the cheap Russian graphite reactors. Why not sell them American light water reactors in exchange for compliance/inspections? Americans and Iranians working side by side to build a sustainable (hopefully less polluting) future. NK might even reconsider their current stance.

This makes sense...

No...No...thats not the right way to start the war that Bush along with the neo-con's need and want.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would question the need for Iran to develop nukes . . . I think nuclear power is a good idea since they've got great energy needs, several good long term waste storage sites, and a commodity in high demand (oil). It makes sense to use the cheap Russian graphite reactors. Why not sell them American light water reactors in exchange for compliance/inspections? Americans and Iranians working side by side to build a sustainable (hopefully less polluting) future. NK might even reconsider their current stance.

They don't need nuclear power, they have the world's second largest natural gas reserves that are virtually untouched, besides all that oil....

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
If Iran is developing nukes, then I agree they are violating the NPT. However, as I said earlier, they have the option of bowing out. It may be that they decide that to be an untenable position, but they do have that option.

Do you care or not if they leave and develop nukes?

 

[AnImuS]

problem with me iran having nukes under their current government is that they are pro terroist. once they develop nuke technology whats to stop them from selling or giving nuclear materials to the terroist the world knows they support? anybody here want a "dirty bomb" exploding in their town?
I sure ass hell don't and as we know it wont stop at nukes then they will move to the hydrogen bomb, ect etc.
I see some of your posts and get the feeling you dont care and we should just ignore it. and we know how well that turned out in 94(IIRC)...

 

[Moonbeam]

For the first time in 1531 posts words fail me.
------------------------
Well they don't fail me cause I been watching and collecting data on this here Dari and he's a snaky one. Lays down his subtle shots but is too cowardly to present his real face.

That phony posted the garbage about inviting the NK to Japan to witness American anger totally different than the intention of the man who gave the indication. I asked him:

"Tell me, Dari, since I follow what you say, is what Akiba said what you say here: "I think the mayor of Hiroshima should invite all the ayatollahs to see what an angry America is capable of." Is he jacking himself off about how dangerous we can be? Is his intention to threat KN with our might, or was that yours? You and Akiba are like night and day, no?"

You notice he ignored my question. Why, because he thought to cloak his fascist thinking behind the words of a man of peace. Now he posts to Hay:

"say what you want, but you and I want the same thing for different reasons. I, to secure the realm for american interests. You, to prevent the ayatollahs from spreading their influence and persecuting homosexuals, communists, socialists, and other ills of man."

Here we get a glimpse of the demon that holds Dari in sway. He is profoundly phobic, fearful of homosexuality, communism socialism and all manner of phantasmagoria arising from this demonic possession. He is a zealot, a man of mission and cause, a knower of right and wrong, a man standing over a black chasm fearful of falling in. He is the man delusional with cause. "I to secure the realm for american interests." AHAHAHAHAHAHA He can't even show America enough respect to capitalize it, but he HE HE knows its best interests.

Such is his hoax. What he knows is what scares him and how others need to die for it to stop. You poor simpletons are beneath Dari's dignity. He is the realist. All of you are just fools. Go ahead Dari, tell us the truth. Tell us about reality. Tell us how the ends justify the means like only true knowers can.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
For the first time in 1531 posts words fail me.
------------------------
Well they don't fail me cause I been watching and collecting data on this here Dari and he's a snaky one. Lays down his subtle shots but is too cowardly to present his real face.

That phony posted the garbage about inviting the NK to Japan to witness American anger totally different than the intention of the man who gave the indication. I asked him:

"Tell me, Dari, since I follow what you say, is what Akiba said what you say here: "I think the mayor of Hiroshima should invite all the ayatollahs to see what an angry America is capable of." Is he jacking himself off about how dangerous we can be? Is his intention to threat KN with our might, or was that yours? You and Akiba are like night and day, no?"

You notice he ignored my question. Why, because he thought to cloak his fascist thinking behind the words of a man of peace. Now he posts to Hay:

"say what you want, but you and I want the same thing for different reasons. I, to secure the realm for american interests. You, to prevent the ayatollahs from spreading their influence and persecuting homosexuals, communists, socialists, and other ills of man."

Here we get a glimpse of the demon that holds Dari in sway. He is profoundly phobic, fearful of homosexuality, communism socialism and all manner of phantasmagoria arising from this demonic possession. He is a zealot, a man of mission and cause, a knower of right and wrong, a man standing over a black chasm fearful of falling in. He is the man delusional with cause. "I to secure the realm for american interests." AHAHAHAHAHAHA He can't even show America enough respect to capitalize it, but he HE HE knows its best interests.

Such is his hoax. What he knows is what scares him and how others need to die for it to stop. You poor simpletons are beneath Dari's dignity. He is the realist. All of you are just fools. Go ahead Dari, tell us the truth. Tell us about reality. Tell us how the ends justify the means like only true knowers can.

man, you really are looney. My only phobia is to see a world run by gov'ts that over-regulate people. No fear here, crazy.

EDIT: and what Kim Jong-Ill deduces from the Hiroshima trip can be many. While seeing the horrors of nuclear conflict, it'll be a clear reminder that the sun can set in Korea.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well they don't fail me cause I been watching and collecting data on this here Dari and he's a snaky one. Lays down his subtle shots but is too cowardly to present his real face.

Buahaha - coming from Moonbeam? Hahahahahahahahah!!!

Must be tough to focus when you have to look down such a long nose

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AnImuS

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
If Iran is developing nukes, then I agree they are violating the NPT. However, as I said earlier, they have the option of bowing out. It may be that they decide that to be an untenable position, but they do have that option.

Do you care or not if they leave and develop nukes?

For purposes of this discussion, it does not matter. I have purposefully not stated a position, because this thread was not created to define or express my feelings. It is about exploring potential options on both sides, particularly in the framework of action against Iran. After all, Bush controls the troops, and if he says go, they go. The rhetoric now is similar to the pre-invasion speeches of just several months ago. I wanted to explore what options and actions might take, and how Bush would respond based on past behavior. We could take it further of course, but things become even more uncertain as you try to account for actions in response to actions in response to actions and so on.

Now, that did not answer your question, but did frame the context of this thread.

Do I care? Yes.

I do not want nukes in Iran, particularly in the present climate. I also have to balance that desire with morality. While many seem to feel that the survival of the American Way (whatever that is) is so important, that we have carte blanche to attack other countries without legal justification, or as bad, to create a "law" in order to provide some credibility for what was wrong before. Attacking a sovereign country that has a legal right to do something is immoral. Oh how some hate that word. It constrains our behavior, more than law, because to subvert the things you stand for into something else makes you a scoundrel. So we ought to destroy the thing of value in our society in order to save it? It becomes meaningless, and frankly this is how the Nazis came to power. If you think that sort of thing cannot happen because Americans are so superior to those EuroTrash people, you have another thing coming. So many I know are gone now, killed to preserve "America", or at least thought they did. I would not have their good intent undone by some greasy weasel wrapped up in a flag.

Things to remember about Iran. It is not a democracy in the sense we have it, but it is a form of society that they chose. A friendly society? No, not to us, but you ought to know that before the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech, there were factions in Iran, even among the clerics that were trying to moderate the society. They extended a hand not of friendship, but of civility and good will. At least they were trying to make an attempt to normalize relations with the West and let us know their intent. They were reformers in their own country and were gathering strength. Well, Bush slapped that hand away and hard. This caused a withdrawal by those parties. Why would it not? I do not like Bush. Period. Now if some foreign power with the potential means announced it's hostility to our system of government and intent to support it overthrow, I would be mightily pissed. Bush is an ass, but he is my ass. Ripping up the Constitution to get rid of him is something I would hardly consider. That is what Bush did to them. So, goodwill or at least serious potential for it gets beat down. Now Bush invades Iraq. Why? Because he could. Whatever his reason, he decided he could and did. Iraq did not attack us. It was not even a credible threat, but the reason for attacking was that someday it might be one. We are now attacking because of speculation. So..... Iran is now fearful of the US more than ever. The program that languished for a while with varying levels of support now seemed like a good idea. Why?

Bush considers the Iranian government, and by extension, the Iranians to be evil. Evil is a threat. He has precedent for attacking another country so labeled. Since there was less provocation for a war in concrete terms in Iraq than in any major war in a long time, the Iranians probably simply do not believe in the veracity or stability of Bush. If they are going to be attacked, maybe they can acquire nukes before we strike. The assumption on their part has to be that we will. So, the Iranian government is in my estimation trying to acquire nuclear weapons on what it sees as a defense against a belligerent power. Note- I am as sure as can be that this is not the only means they will use. In addition to building their own bomb, you can bet the farm that they would be trying to get black market USSR bombs from Georgia, the Ukraine and such.

So the solution? Bush shuts up. That may be the hardest thing to accomplish of all. If the man stood down and tried to reestablish contact with powers who might be willing to be less hostile, and wait for the inevitable social changes, we would be far better off. That does mean that Iran will probably have nukes, and I do not like it, but the alternative it to pull a Hitler and invade them on some concocted reason involving much flag waving. Remember, Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons if they withdraw from the treaty, which they also have the right to so.

We need to quietly (emphasis on quietly) be active in supporting moderates in Iran, without plotting overthrow, or making it harder for them to justify their position.

Well, you asked.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
For the first time in 1531 posts words fail me.
------------------------
Well they don't fail me cause I been watching and collecting data on this here Dari and he's a snaky one. Lays down his subtle shots but is too cowardly to present his real face.

That phony posted the garbage about inviting the NK to Japan to witness American anger totally different than the intention of the man who gave the indication. I asked him:

"Tell me, Dari, since I follow what you say, is what Akiba said what you say here: "I think the mayor of Hiroshima should invite all the ayatollahs to see what an angry America is capable of." Is he jacking himself off about how dangerous we can be? Is his intention to threat KN with our might, or was that yours? You and Akiba are like night and day, no?"

You notice he ignored my question. Why, because he thought to cloak his fascist thinking behind the words of a man of peace. Now he posts to Hay:

"say what you want, but you and I want the same thing for different reasons. I, to secure the realm for american interests. You, to prevent the ayatollahs from spreading their influence and persecuting homosexuals, communists, socialists, and other ills of man."

Here we get a glimpse of the demon that holds Dari in sway. He is profoundly phobic, fearful of homosexuality, communism socialism and all manner of phantasmagoria arising from this demonic possession. He is a zealot, a man of mission and cause, a knower of right and wrong, a man standing over a black chasm fearful of falling in. He is the man delusional with cause. "I to secure the realm for american interests." AHAHAHAHAHAHA He can't even show America enough respect to capitalize it, but he HE HE knows its best interests.

Such is his hoax. What he knows is what scares him and how others need to die for it to stop. You poor simpletons are beneath Dari's dignity. He is the realist. All of you are just fools. Go ahead Dari, tell us the truth. Tell us about reality. Tell us how the ends justify the means like only true knowers can.

man, you really are looney. My only phobia is to see a world run by gov'ts that over-regulate people. No fear here, crazy.

EDIT: and what Kim Jong-Ill deduces from the Hiroshima trip can be many. While seeing the horrors of nuclear conflict, it'll be a clear reminder that the sun can set in Korea.

My phobia is that of people who underregulate themselves and their own government.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would question the need for Iran to develop nukes . . . I think nuclear power is a good idea since they've got great energy needs, several good long term waste storage sites, and a commodity in high demand (oil). It makes sense to use the cheap Russian graphite reactors. Why not sell them American light water reactors in exchange for compliance/inspections? Americans and Iranians working side by side to build a sustainable (hopefully less polluting) future. NK might even reconsider their current stance.

Iran is sitting on the largest stores of Natural Gas in the world and vents more NG in the production of oil than would be needed to supply the energy needs for the entire country. Why build big expensive a nuclear reactor to produce energy when you are already free burning more usuable energy than you could concievably use? They could concievably buy a few dozen gas turbines on the world market and get 2 times the energy production for 1/100th the cost.

Given the above facts why produce a nuclear reactor other than for nuclear weapons production?

 

[Bthon]

Dari- Have you ever been outside of the USA for an extended amount of time? Like more than a week?

 

[tnitsuj]

Why wouldn't Iran be working all out to produce nuclear weapons now?? I mean look what happened to Iraq. Without a credible deterrent you are ripe pickings for the bigger kid on the block.

The Iraq war has taught the entire world that ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE. Everyone else is at the mercy of the US. Nuclear weapons somewhat level the playing field.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dari: man, you really are looney. My only phobia is to see a world run by gov'ts that over-regulate people. No fear here, crazy.

EDIT: and what Kim Jong-Ill deduces from the Hiroshima trip can be many. While seeing the horrors of nuclear conflict, it'll be a clear reminder that the sun can set in Korea.
-------------------------------------------------------
Who you are is obvious even when you hide. We become what we fear. You have become what you fear and Kim what he fears. To manipulate by fear is to burn like a moth in a flame. Your fear is loss of control. Learn about the Phoenix.
-------------------
CADdy, I wish sometimes you weren't so obtuse but it's OK. I know you mean well. Even poop on a rose bush will eventually bring us a bloom.

 

[Moonbeam]

tnitsuj, how right you are, and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. It's that we become what we fear thing.


Edit: Hayabusarider Your 7:29 am post was a great one by the way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dari: man, you really are looney. My only phobia is to see a world run by gov'ts that over-regulate people. No fear here, crazy.

EDIT: and what Kim Jong-Ill deduces from the Hiroshima trip can be many. While seeing the horrors of nuclear conflict, it'll be a clear reminder that the sun can set in Korea.
-------------------------------------------------------
Who you are is obvious even when you hide. We become what we fear. You have become what you fear and Kim what he fears. To manipulate by fear is to burn like a moth in a flame. Your fear is loss of control. Learn about the Phoenix.
-------------------
CADdy, I wish sometimes you weren't so obtuse but it's OK. I know you mean well. Even poop on a rose bush will eventually bring us a bloom.

What are you responding to? the nose comment? That is certainly not obtuse, infact it is a fairly accurate description of your posting style.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

There ya go again, CAD. Picking on my buddy Moonbeam again... Alls he does is reflects back to the sender the image the sender wants not to see... himself.. and ya picks at the beamer... boo... hisss.