Iran Crisis

Blacksword quote:

"I’m not convinced the US has the right to police who has the bomb, just because it was a US invention. The fact that ‘unstable’ regimes already have or seek to have the bomb, is in part the fault of the US and of course the former Soviet Union, not to mention France and the UK. After WWII, father of the A bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, sat on an advisory panel in Washington. He advised on arms control, and always underpinned any recommendation with an insistence that there were very tight controls on who had the bomb. He wanted the US to be in constant negotiation with the USSR over limiting numbers of bombs being produced, as well as an ongoing discussion to ensure that the bomb was never used again. He always maintained that Israel should never be allowed to have the bomb, as this would inevitably lead to A NUCLEAR ARMS RACE IN THE ME!! A view later shared by JFK, but not his successor, President Johnson. Oppenheimer was dismissed by Washington as a pacifist. His philosophy did not fit in with the post war admins plans, and he was eventually outed as a communist sympathiser, and potential Soviet spy, during the McCarthy witch hunts. His position was filled by Edward Teller, who masterminded the H-Bomb project and was more sympathetic to the governments more aggressive approach to ensuring the US always had the upper hand over the Soviets. In short we’ve had ample opportunity to engage with the Arab/Muslim world in the past, but instead we choose to ignore Israels weapons program - which IS illegal - and have perpetuated a double standard in our foreign policy, which has partially led to the current problem. The milk has been spilt and there’s not much use in crying over it. I can only conclude that history has gone this way, because someone somewhere is benefiting from it."

It's because these very reasons that make us even more responsible. Many errors have been made with this coward's weapon and if it means slamming our foot down, then so be it. Hawk as I may be, I hate nukes with a passion. And keep in mind, it's these little ridiculous wars like Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and now the Iraqi War that has actually kept us and anybody else from using them.

I know that doesn't sound very comforting and in reality it DOES suck! But take your pick. 20,000 killed in a conventional war or 20 million in a nuclear exchange. I know this is twisted logic, but it's true and what else are you going to do?

marktheshark wrote: Blacksword wrote: The latest. The US has agreed to join the EU in direct talks with Iran over it's nuclear program. US ready to talk.. A positive move, perhaps, as long as Iran plays ball, now that it's in their court.      Sorry if I don't share your optimism Blackie. But looking at the type of president they have over there, I seriously doubt they're going to play ball. He states that they should have the "right" to have nuclear power. Horse manure, he wants superpower status, nothing more, nothing less. Some people say we don't have the "right" to regulate who posesses this demonic power/weapon. More horse manure, as long as we're the ones who invented the infernal thing, I say yes we do! Fine, let him talk, but I'm not exactly crossing my fingers.

Mark

I’m not that optimistic, I assure you. I was really trying to pass on information, without adding my opinion - at that stage.

To be honest, I have no optimism whatsoever, for two reasons. 1) The Iranians have no intention whatsoever of suspending their enrichment activities, and this is one of the pre-conditions the US has stipulated, before any talks can take place. 2) The US knows that Iran was never going to comply, but Washington must be seen to be going as far as possible down the diplomatic route, and also to be engaging with the EU, the Russians and the Chinese as much as possible.

The Iranians are aware of the delicate political situation in the US and the UK, over the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will capitalise on this as much as they can. I believe they are forcing Americas hand. They know their non compliance will lead to sanctions and possible military actions, and while you may think they wouldn’t want this, any eventual military action on Iran could spark a global energy crisis and recession. It could also precipitate an ME wide conflict, which would cost the US dearly. If the Iranian leader is as unhinged as we believe, then it’s possible he will make this huge sacrifice in order to strike at the ‘Great Satan’ as the US has often been referred to by Iran.

I’m not convinced the US has the right to police who has the bomb, just because it was a US invention. The fact that ‘unstable’ regimes already have or seek to have the bomb, is in part the fault of the US and of course the former Soviet Union, not to mention France and the UK. After WWII, father of the A bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, sat on an advisory panel in Washington. He advised on arms control, and always underpinned any recommendation with an insistence that there were very tight controls on who had the bomb. He wanted the US to be in constant negotiation with the USSR over limiting numbers of bombs being produced, as well as an ongoing discussion to ensure that the bomb was never used again. He always maintained that Israel should never be allowed to have the bomb, as this would inevitably lead to A NUCLEAR ARMS RACE IN THE ME!! A view later shared by JFK, but not his successor, President Johnson. Oppenheimer was dismissed by Washington as a pacifist. His philosophy did not fit in with the post war admins plans, and he was eventually outed as a communist sympathiser, and potential Soviet spy, during the McCarthy witch hunts. His position was filled by Edward Teller, who masterminded the H-Bomb project and was more sympathetic to the governments more aggressive approach to ensuring the US always had the upper hand over the Soviets. In short we’ve had ample opportunity to engage with the Arab/Muslim world in the past, but instead we choose to ignore Israels weapons program - which IS illegal - and have perpetuated a double standard in our foreign policy, which has partially led to the current problem. The milk has been spilt and there’s not much use in crying over it. I can only conclude that history has gone this way, because someone somewhere is benefiting from it.

    

Blacksword wrote: The latest. The US has agreed to join the EU in direct talks with Iran over it's nuclear program. US ready to talk.. A positive move, perhaps, as long as Iran plays ball, now that it's in their court.

Sorry if I don't share your optimism Blackie. But looking at the type of president they have over there, I seriously doubt they're going to play ball. He states that they should have the "right" to have nuclear power. Horse manure, he wants superpower status, nothing more, nothing less.

Some people say we don't have the "right" to regulate who posesses this demonic power/weapon. More horse manure, as long as we're the ones who invented the infernal thing, I say yes we do!

Fine, let him talk, but I'm not exactly crossing my fingers.
    

Logos wrote: ^ I wish people would at least stick to their opinions, even if they don't please other members. If everyone already knows what you think of something what's the point in hiding it anymore.

Discussions between permenant Security Council members, and Germany were held in London yesterday. Our media accidentally forgot to report it, I guess. Thankfully the stability of the ME, global security and the possibility of economic collapse is not really that important..


This article hi-lights the fact that there are big differences in opinion between the Moscow and Washington in the best way forward. Iran is insisting on it's right to a nuclear power program. The Russian idea of allowing the low level Uranium enrichment to take place in Russia, is still on the table, but may be rejected by Iran.

    London talks

Edited by Blacksword - May 25 2006 at 08:12

I'm rooting for Iran in this one.

Not sure, Gecko, how you define integrity in this instance.

NetsNJFan wrote: Blacksword wrote: He was 'alleged' to have called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' though. I dont know if this was ever confirmed. As far as I'm concerned he is no more untrustowrthy as Bush & Blair. It wasn't alleged.   He said it, right in front of a banner that said "A World Without Zionism" - he's a typical Arab leader(King Abdullah excluded, hes a great guy) who are able to use Israel/USA/UK to turn attention away from their own failings.

Ok. I didn't actually see that.

He certainly has failings, I'll not deny it, but I still regard him as no more of a threat than our own leaders.
    

Incidentally, I'm not sure why anyone seriously expected the letter in question to achieve anything. I can't think of any historical precedent for a letter from one sadly deluded religious nutter to another sadly deluded religious nutter having any practical effect.

Gecko - the Guardian has long been known as the Grauniad because of its one-time notoriety for printing errors.