Iran Crisis

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.

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.
    

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 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?

just got me thinking...

I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine. He says guns are cowards' weapons (I think he means not just firearms but anything that allows you to be out of the reach of your opponent). My usual answer is that essentially he's saying that anything that makes you more powerful than your opponent is a cowards' weapon...as, for instance, an edged metal weapon would be to a society of wood and stone. (I could go on to say that it's foolish to attach personality characteristics to mere objects, but he's not the kind of guy who could really sink his teeth into that line of debate).

Blacksword wrote: marktheshark wrote: 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? Perhaps I'm playing Devils advocate here, and I'm not trying to bait you, Mark, I'm genuinely interested in your views. I'm sure you realise that..       But, you say nukes are cowards weapons. I'm inclined to agree in principle, but lets not forget why the bomb was invented in the first place. Hitler had an A bomb project which thankfully never came to fruition. The scientists working on the Manhattan project never for one moment considered the moral implications of their work, until they were about to detonate the 'Trinity' test. They were developing a weapon that would hopefully end the war with Japan, and it did. Do you believe that a nuclear attack was the only way to make Japan surrender? If so, do you not think it inevitable that an arms race would ensue, after this Genie was let out of its bottle.

Oh I understand where you're coming from and I agree that we had no choice to invent the damn thing. It was either Hitler or us so naturally we had to.

Could we have cornered the Japanese without the A-Bomb? Eventually yes, but it would've taken more time. We out-manned them considerably but they in turned had an advantage with submarines. If memory serves me, we were already in missile research at the time and if accelerated, conventional missiles alone probably would've done the job. At least I guess, it's been a long time since I read up on this.

As for James' point on a coward's weapon being the case of technological superiority, I don't think that was the case in the European campaign. The Germans were right up there neck and neck with us in the technology dept. We simply out-manned them and were stratgically superior. One of Hitler's most fatal losses was the loss of Rommel and overall the German military was becoming more and more resentful to the Nazi Party. The military morale was just sinking to a new low everyday. To quote Gen. Patton: "You can have all the weapons you want, but what good are they if the soldiers don't want to use them."
    

Blacksword wrote: James Lee wrote: Hands up, who thinks the world would be a better place if Iran had nuclear weapons?Anyone? No, but I dint think the world is any safer with the bomb in Israeli hands either. Israel operates outside international law, with the blessing of the US. That is a dangerous situation, IMO. They could have up to 400 nuclear warheads, capable of striking targets anywhere in the ME, the EU and Russia. Is it really any surprise Iran may want the bomb. Although, I do believe that Iran wants the bomb, it's worth remembering that the IAEA has so far concluded there is no actual evidence of a weapons program.

Edited by NetsNJFan - June 03 2006 at 00:21

^ I'm not saying the bomb is defensive, I'm saying Israel "may or may not having the bomb" is a deterrant

Update:

Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has warned the US that fuel shipments from the gulf region will be severely disrupted if the US makes a 'wrong move' In a speech on state TV he also said the US claims that Iran were seeking to make a bomb were 'sheer lies' and added that Iran would never give up its legitimate and legal right to produce nuclear fuel.

The Iranian governemtn has agreed to study proposals drafted by the six world powers at the UNSC, but 'not in a hurry'
    CBS Report

Edited by Blacksword - June 04 2006 at 08:57

stonebeard wrote: I'll tell you one thing. I will not go to war with Iran. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> Go ahead, draft me. See how much I care. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> If it's not a war I believe in, I won't fight for it. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

Good for you!