I need a good reason why Iran shouldn't have nukes?

[MikelArteta]

So do you all want Iran to have nukes? Really? I understand the argument that we have nukes so why can't they but I don't think anyone should have nukes, and I sure as fukk don't want an Islamic insane dictator to have them

Khameni is far from insane

Can Ariel Sharon please awake and son netanyahu again

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Hitchens was dead wrong on the Iraq issue. He was changing the rationale for going into Iraq after the fact by pointing to it's human rights record. I'm sure people will do the same after we invade Iran and are stuck in another endless clusterfukk.

I can't believe you hold this position after being manipulated by your government into supporting a needless war. Wow.

hitchens....a neo-con beloved to the left because he was an atheist. What a joke.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

hitchens....a neo-con beloved to the left because he was an atheist. What a joke.

Hitchens is beloved by the left?

 

[FAH1223]

Khameni is the Supreme Leader, he runs Iran.

Ahmadinejad is a figure head and and a big time troll he's gone next year and whoever his successor is will have the same powers and limitations... minimal in the grand scheme

Iran will not do anything to provoke the US, but they welcome and would enjoy an Isreali attack.

why?

1. becuase isreali attacks will be ineffective and cause minimum damage.
2. an isreali attack gives them allot of leeway and will allow them to increase the pace of the nuclear program, while getting the world to beg them stop it.


The entire Isreali strategy depends on provoking the US into attacking Iran.

wont bite and the Iranians have told the americans inderectly that they will not hit them or their allies if attacked by Isrealis
they will only hit back with shahab 3's and attacks on isreali assets around the world.

So the Iranians are winning the political and economic battle so far..

The sanctions are useless anyway becuase China, Turkey, Russia, India and Pakistan said they will not abide by it, and all of them have started bypassing dollar transactions and trading in thier own currencies.
South Korea and Japan are still trading with Iran and begging the US for exemptions.


The only loser in this sanctions game is Dubai, the sanctions were forced on them by Abu Dhabi and since they owe more than $20 billion to big brother Abu Dhabi. They have to listen, even if it means losing $10 billion a year in sanctions busting... that makes up a large part of Dubai's economy.

The Iranians have also hit back by pre-emptively banning exports to Europe, it wont affect france , germany or the UK
but it will and already is foking the spanish, Italians and Greeks very deeply.
They have taken a big hit and are pissed off with Isreal and the US and UK/France/germany.

 

[THASTUNNA]

Unfortunately we don't live in a world devoid of nukes, so wishing them all away isn't going to work. If Iran has nukes and it acts as a deterrent to them being occupied, yes I want them to have nukes. If Iraq actually had nukes pointed at Israel, what are the odds we would have actually invaded them? They're worse off now than they were with Saddam, and there's 1 million of them dead because of our occupation. Do you want that to happen to Iran?

I do. fukk Iran!!

 

[Gallo]

Hitchens was dead wrong on the Iraq issue. He was changing the rationale for going into Iraq after the fact by pointing to it's human rights record. I'm sure people will do the same after we invade Iran and are stuck in another endless clusterfukk.

I can't believe you hold this position after being manipulated by your government into supporting a needless war. Wow.

If you read his book, essentially, Hitchens argument was that the Saddam needed to be removed for everyones sakes. A 2002 UN report criticized it for "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law", including "summary and arbitrary executions" and "the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances."

To flesh that out a bit - we're talking about a regime that was executing and torturing and raping its own civilians practically as a matter of policy, that killed tens of thousands of them when they tried to rise against it in the early 90s, that only stopped attacking its neighbors in wars that cost millions of lives when its army was blown almost entirely to bits in the first iraw war, that from the late nineties until we threatened them with military action then allowed d weapons inspectors from confirming it wasn't procuring the means to commit bigger atrocities, that therefore faced sanctions that caused the collapse of so many of its services that it could barely be called a "government", but decided to spend what money it had on its security force which made up 50% of the countrys employment, that had taken food donated by the West to feed its starving citizens and instead used it for bribes.

Of course, it was Saddams stupid attitude toward UN weapons inspectors escalating over the late 90s that led most directly to the 2003 invasion. But Hitchens also remembered the Iran/Iraq war, chemical attacks on the Kurds, the invasion on Kuwait, the ruthless reaction to the revolts of the early 90s - all of which led to millions dead and millions of refugees. And for these reasons and the continued oppression of the totalitarian regime and the threat it seemed to pose and the greater threat it would pose during Iraqs instability after Saddams death, led him to conclude that there was a humanitarian basis for military intervention and overthrow.

Now we could bandy on about the post-Saddam strategic failures and Monday morning quarterback about whether it was the right decision or ultimately worth it. I don't care to rehash the Iraq war and I will only do it on this one post. However, military intervention was justified.

 

[Robbie3000]

If you read his book, essentially, Hitchens argument was that the Saddam needed to be removed for everyones sakes. A 2002 UN report criticized it for "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law", including "summary and arbitrary executions" and "the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances."

To flesh that out a bit - we're talking about a regime that was executing and torturing and raping its own civilians practically as a matter of policy, that killed tens of thousands of them when they tried to rise against it in the early 90s, that only stopped attacking its neighbors in wars that cost millions of lives when its army was blown almost entirely to bits in the first iraw war, that from the late nineties until we threatened them with military intervention then allowed d weapons inspectors from confirming it wasn't procuring the means to commit bigger atrocities, that therefore faced sanctions that caused the collapse of so many of its services that it could barely be called a "government", but decided to spend what money it had on its security force which made up 50% of the country's employment, that had taken food donated by the West to feed its starving citizens and instead used it for bribes.

Of course, it was Saddams stupid attitude toward UN weapons inspectors escalating over the late 90s that led most directly to the 2003 invasion. But Hitchens also remembered the Iran/Iraq war, chemical attacks on the Kurds, the invasion on Kuwait, the ruthless reaction to the revolts of the early 90s - all of which led to millions dead and millions of refugees. And for these reasons and the continued oppression of the totalitarian regime and the threat it seemed to pose and the greater threat it would pose during Iraqs instability after Saddams death, led him to conclude that there was a humanitarian basis for military intervention and overthrow.

Now we could bandy on about the post-Saddam mistakes and Monday morning quarterback about whether it was the right decision or ultimately worth it. I don't care to rehash the Iraq war and I will only do it on this one post. However, military intervention was justified.

None of this was given as a justification to go into Iraq pre invasion. WMDs and Iraq's support of Al Quida were used as justifications for war with Iraq.

Saddam's human right's abuses were used to rationalize the Iraq war when we failed to find any WMDs.

I can understand why you don't want to rehash the Iraq war. It was an abject failure that for some reason you are still trying to justify. But any objective person will admit that this war was a mistake and the administration's rationale for war was not valid at best and manipulated at worst.

 

[50CentStan]

Khameni is the Supreme Leader, he runs Iran.

Ahmadinejad is a figure head and and a big time troll he's gone next year and whoever his successor is will have the same powers and limitations... minimal in the grand scheme

Iran will not do anything to provoke the US, but they welcome and would enjoy an Isreali attack.

why?

1. becuase isreali attacks will be ineffective and cause minimum damage.
2. an isreali attack gives them allot of leeway and will allow them to increase the pace of the nuclear program, while getting the world to beg them stop it.


The entire Isreali strategy depends on provoking the US into attacking Iran.

wont bite and the Iranians have told the americans inderectly that they will not hit them or their allies if attacked by Isrealis
they will only hit back with shahab 3's and attacks on isreali assets around the world.

So the Iranians are winning the political and economic battle so far..

The sanctions are useless anyway becuase China, Turkey, Russia, India and Pakistan said they will not abide by it, and all of them have started bypassing dollar transactions and trading in thier own currencies.
South Korea and Japan are still trading with Iran and begging the US for exemptions.


The only loser in this sanctions game is Dubai, the sanctions were forced on them by Abu Dhabi and since they owe more than $20 billion to big brother Abu Dhabi. They have to listen, even if it means losing $10 billion a year in sanctions busting... that makes up a large part of Dubai's economy.

The Iranians have also hit back by pre-emptively banning exports to Europe, it wont affect france , germany or the UK
but it will and already is foking the spanish, Italians and Greeks very deeply.
They have taken a big hit and are pissed off with Isreal and the US and UK/France/germany.

Great post but why u gotta call a troll bruh, that's my favorite world politician









Iran should have nukes, i don't feel like explaining why.

 

[Gallo]

None of this was given as a justification to go into Iraq pre invasion. WMDs and Iraq's support of Al Quida were used as justifications for war with Iraq.

Saddam's human right's abuses were used to rationalize the Iraq war when we failed to find any WMDs.

I can understand why you don't want to rehash the Iraq war. It was an abject failure that for some reason you are still trying to justify. But any objective person will admit that this war was a mistake and the administration's rationale for war was not valid at best and manipulated at worst.

I already explained that it was unfortunate the Bush and Co. used fear rather than the facts I posted. I'm not them so don't ask me to defend them.

I'm not attempting to justify the war as it's already justified on the grounds I posted. The question is was it worth it? Was it the right decision? That's hard to answer. Again, my only hope is that we learned from our post-Saddam failures so we don't repeat them in Iran. And judging by how Obama and our generals have acted in Lybia for example, I think we have.

 

[MikelArteta]

Anyone find it fishy since 1992 Netanyahu been talking about Iran close to gaining a Nuke?

 

[Nascimento]

These threads, while perhaps mildly entertaining, betray a lack of grasp on the issue they deal with and the propaganda that comes along with it. Dudes are really paying attention to what politicians speak in public settings The whole nuclear issue is theater played by both sides, and I will attempt to explain why.

In reality, Iran is nowhere near obtaining a delivery system nor the bomb itself. Hence, a nuclear-capable Iran is a hypothetical consideration in the long term of about 5 to 10 years or more. But, it is in Iran's interest to appear being close to acquiring nuclear weapons, with sites shrouded in secrecy while constantly issuing public denials. The game they are playing comes straight from the playbook of North Korea, who did exactly the same shyt for decades to extract food, fuel and other resources from the West in phony appeasement deals. It simply gives them serious political leverage, credibility and prestige in the Islamic world, allowing them to sit as an equal at a table with the great powers. It plays into the objective of expanding their influence in the region.

So while Iran's nuclear program is useful in that sense, actually acquiring weapons would increase the risk of military action against them and I don't believe they have this intention. The reason is simple: they don't actually need any WMD. Why this is the case is fairly obvious to anyone who has looked at a map of the Middle East.

A heavily mountainous country and the largest and most fanatical conventional army in the region makes an invasion of Iran prohibitively difficult. It's not gonna happen in the foreseeable future, which is this context means never. I think people have the wrong impression after the two Gulf Wars in that they believe the US can just roll over into Iran like they did Iraq. By contrast, the development of WMD was an absolutely vital defensive strategy for Iraq with its indefensible borders, understanding that stopping invasions is the only real use of WMD (keep in mind the principle of MAD).

Besides, Iran already possesses a sort of economic nuclear option, with their ability to block the flow of oil in the Strait of Hormuz. No one really knows how effective their measures would be and how it would play out. But that's precisely the point - neither side wants to run that kind of risk.

Meanwhile, the US is using the nuclear program as justification for escalating sanctions and mounting pressure on the regime. The main objective is of course to weaken the regime and stop Iranian expansion of power in the region, which is what this whole issue is really about.

By the way, anyone doubting the rationality of the Iranian regime (or the North Korean for that matter) has no idea what the fukk is going on in the region and has fallen for simple propaganda.

The US failed to establish a friendly regime in post-Saddam Iraq, because the Iranians seized on a historic opportunity to not only block the formation of a strong Iraqi state - one that has always in the past been a threat to them and thus functioned as a counter-balance in terms of US foreign policy - but to also expand their power in the region. (A big indicator will be whether Assad stays in power in Syria which would in effect maintain Iran's momentum.) Facing pressure from within and a Russian resurgence, the US is backtracking. There may be some sabre rattling from both sides, but trust that it's all theater.

Both sides made their stand. Iran earlier this year with military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, and the US with their naval carrier movement. But nobody is interested in crossing the line as the risks are too great. Ultimately the US really only wants a guaranteed flow of oil, while Iran's objective is to eliminate threats to their regime and to have greater control over how Middle Eastern oil revenues are distributed. I believe that after the election in November, a deal will be brokered that entails mutual accommodation and face-saving in front of their respective constituencies. This is the logical conlusion to draw from the facts on the ground and the actions of all the players.

 

[Robbie3000]

I already explained that it was unfortunate the Bush and Co. used fear rather than the facts I posted. I'm not them so don't ask me to defend them.

I'm not attempting to justify the war as it's already justified on the grounds I posted. The question is was it worth it? Was it the right decision? That's hard to answer. Again, my only hope is that we learned from our post-Saddam failures so we don't repeat them in Iran. And judging by how Obama and our generals have acted in Lybia for example, I think we have.

That's because these "facts" would not have been sufficient to scare the American people into supporting the the War. You know this.

As to the bolded, the only lesson to take away from Iraq is not to fall for neo-con stupidity and war drumming.

 

[Gallo]

That's because these "facts" would not have been sufficient to scare the American people into supporting the the War. You know this.

As to the bolded, the only lesson to take away from Iraq is not to fall for neo-con stupidity and war drumming.

That's an irrelevant point as the WMD argument from Bush and Co. wasn't enough to convince the American people or the international community either. Even stopping genocide in Serbia was unpopular. War is never popular but war was going to happen. Politicians using facts and appealing to our intelligence is asking for bit too much I suppose.

Neo-con post-Saddam strategy was one of the failures, yes. As an ideology my problem with them is one of idealism. Here's hoping they learned pragmatism and humility.

 

[MikelArteta]

These threads, while perhaps mildly entertaining, betray a lack of grasp on the issue they deal with and the propaganda that comes along with it. Dudes are really paying attention to what politicians speak in public settings The whole nuclear issue is theater played by both sides, and I will attempt to explain why.

In reality, Iran is nowhere near obtaining a delivery system nor the bomb itself. Hence, a nuclear-capable Iran is a hypothetical consideration in the long term of about 5 to 10 years or more. But, it is in Iran's interest to appear being close to acquiring nuclear weapons, with sites shrouded in secrecy while constantly issuing public denials. The game they are playing comes straight from the playbook of North Korea, who did exactly the same shyt for decades to extract food, fuel and other resources from the West in phony appeasement deals. It simply gives them serious political leverage, credibility and prestige in the Islamic world, allowing them to sit as an equal at a table with the great powers. It plays into the objective of expanding their influence in the region.

So while Iran's nuclear program is useful in that sense, actually acquiring weapons would increase the risk of military action against them and I don't believe they have this intention. The reason is simple: they don't actually need any WMD. Why this is the case is fairly obvious to anyone who has looked at a map of the Middle East.

A heavily mountainous country and the largest and most fanatical conventional army in the region makes an invasion of Iran prohibitively difficult. It's not gonna happen in the foreseeable future, which is this context means never. I think people have the wrong impression after the two Gulf Wars in that they believe the US can just roll over into Iran like they did Iraq. By contrast, the development of WMD was an absolutely vital defensive strategy for Iraq with its indefensible borders, understanding that stopping invasions is the only real use of WMD (keep in mind the principle of MAD).

Besides, Iran already possesses a sort of economic nuclear option, with their ability to block the flow of oil in the Strait of Hormuz. No one really knows how effective their measures would be and how it would play out. But that's precisely the point - neither side wants to run that kind of risk.

Meanwhile, the US is using the nuclear program as justification for escalating sanctions and mounting pressure on the regime. The main objective is of course to weaken the regime and stop Iranian expansion of power in the region, which is what this whole issue is really about.

By the way, anyone doubting the rationality of the Iranian regime (or the North Korean for that matter) has no idea what the fukk is going on in the region and has fallen for simple propaganda.

The US failed to establish a friendly regime in post-Saddam Iraq, because the Iranians seized on a historic opportunity to not only block the formation of a strong Iraqi state - one that has always in the past been a threat to them and thus functioned as a counter-balance in terms of US foreign policy - but to also expand their power in the region. (A big indicator will be whether Assad stays in power in Syria which would in effect maintain Iran's momentum.) Facing pressure from within and a Russian resurgence, the US is backtracking. There may be some sabre rattling from both sides, but trust that it's all theater.

Both sides made their stand. Iran earlier this year with military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, and the US with their naval carrier movement. But nobody is interested in crossing the line as the risks are too great. Ultimately the US really only wants a guaranteed flow of oil, while Iran's objective is to eliminate threats to their regime and to have greater control over how Middle Eastern oil revenues are distributed. I believe that after the election in November, a deal will be brokered that entails mutual accommodation and face-saving in front of their respective constituencies. This is the logical conlusion to draw from the facts on the ground and the actions of all the players.

 

[MikelArteta]

1992 - Netanyahu states that Iran would have a bomb in 3 to 5 years
1995 - Senior US and Israel officials say Iran will have a bomb in 5 years
1998 - Donald Rumsfeld states Iran will be able to hit USA with an ICBM within 5 years
2004 - Claims that Iran is making plans to put a nuclear warhead on their missiles
2009 - US Ambassador to UN predicts Israel attack on Iran prior to Obama inauguration
2010 to 2011 - Iran readiness to have a bomb within a short time period is disproved.
2012 - we are now months away according to netanyahu

- CSMonitor.com
/print/content/view/print/422252