Jump to content

IRAN?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps someone could explain the logic of the West's position on Iran: IE, that they are not allowed WMDs? OK, there's the non-proliferation treaty, but was this signed by India, Pakistan and Israel? And who are the US, UK, France, Russia and China, who have nukes' to be telling anyone else, that they can't have them? Seems the usual amount of hypocracy is at work here - either no one should have them OR everyone can have them - after all, it may stop them being invaded! :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran called for a ban on such weapons and for all the middle eastern states to disarm. They took heavy damage during the war and their stated position is they want everyone to stop the development of nuclear weapons and to disarm. They've signed all kinds of treaties to that effect. Meanwhile they are working on enriching uranium and say it's for fuel only.

 

If that's true, fine - and so far, there's no evidence to show they've gone above about 5% which would be for fuel use. If all that is a load of fibs designed to get all the other middle eastern states to disarm whlst Iran makes sneaky bombs and winds up the only country there with nuclear arms and is therefore in a prime position to invade anywhere it likes, then clearly we have a problem on a fairly global scale. If any other state in that part of the world believes Iran is arming up, there'll be an arms race and the odds are someone will use them.

 

So the position is that everyone else is quite happy for Iran to work with uranium to have nuclear energy capability, but everyone is watching to make sure that genuinely is all they are doing. Nobody is singling out Iran as the only place that can't have nukes, they're just the only place claiming anti-nuke status and still messing with the technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errm, not really an explanation of the logic or rather hypocracy of the West LP: It seems that if your a US client State; you are allowed to have "nukes" (Israel, Pakistan, India); but if not, your not allowed (Iran, N/Korea). The US and UK keep pressurising Iran over the issue, which has helped it's Theocracy in establishing a seige mentality and suppress internal opposition; whilst taking a rather softer line with N/Korea - is that because N/Korea actually has nukes and a delivery system to go with it or because N/Korea has no oil? The biggest threat of nuclear use in the M/East is of course Israel, who will no doubt unleash their arsenal when and if they believe Iran has a nuclear capability; indeed, they've already practised the war game (air strikes) for that very contigency. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "safe" about a Country that has had umpteen wars with it's neighbours since WW2, has annexed the land of it's neighbours and indigenous residents, and confiscated their housing; and has a national paronoia about it's security - so much so, that they would use any and every weapon at their disposal in a pre-emptive attack on any neighbour who achieved nuclear parity? :? What is "safe" about two nations that have already fought each other over border disputes, one of which is currently host to a large population of islamic radicals? :? What is "safe" about a Country that used to be the second most powerfull super-power, and has now collapsed into a collection of independent states, with a resentment and paranoia at being surrounded by it's previous arch-enemy? :? The arrogance of the West in saying to the rest of the world, "don't do as we do, but do as we say" is a principal reason for the global resentment that is currently fuelling international terrorism. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you think iran / NK wouldnt pass them to hamas etc? Naive if you think that. Although i understand processed uramium does have a finger print that could be traced.

 

As for Israel werent most of the wars started by others? And hasnt the nuclear capability stopped more i.e mad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the blinkers off observer and stop being biased.

Do we really want a world where "anyone" can have nuclear weapons?

You can't blame Israel for their stance. It's called self-preservation.

 

And sadly, if the bomb hadn't been dropped, the Japs would still be fighting now.

The lesson has been learned from the devastation that occurred, hence "fanatics" should not hvae the bomb.

Yes, the Yanks are arrogant, no doubt with just reason, but they could do with some less gung-ho PR people to improve their image.

Their last president did a lot of damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afraid "passsing on" and/or the proliferation of WMDs is more or less inevitable; why do you think the UK and France developed them - when, as members of NATO they could have sheltered under a US nuclear umberella. No it was all about status and claiming a seat at the top table in the global power play; and of course for third world nations, an insurance against US pre-emptive invasion. N/K has them, plus a developing delivery system, and the US ain't going to do a thing about it (maybe they have no oil!) - hence, an incentive for Iran to do the same. It's frankly irrelevent who are the good guys and who are the bad, cos that can change; what is relevent is either no one has them or everyone does, sort of a bit like whether you should own a gun in the US! As for a pre-disposition to use these weapons, any country prepared to allegedly assassinate their perceived enemies, is certainly capabable of nuclear release, without reference to the US. And while everyone is getting all hyped up about nuclear bombs, there is a far more deadly WMD that is cheaper to produce, kills a lot more people and can easily pass through current security controls IE bio-weapons. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Robert Kennedy in To Seek A Newer World, the book of policy positions published for his 1968 run for the presidency:

 

Those who disparage the threat of nuclear weapons ignore all evidence of the darker side of man, and of the history of the West ? our history. Many times the nations of the West have plunged into inexplicable cataclysm, mutual slaughter so terrible and so widespread that it amounted nearly to the suicide of a civilization. The religious wars of the sixteenth century, the Thirty Years' war in the seventeenth century, the terrible excesses that followed the French Revolution these have been equaled and grotesquely outmatched in the modern twentieth century. Twice within the memory of living men, the nations of Europe, the most advanced and cultured societies of the world, have torn themselves and each other apart for causes so slight, in relation to the cost of struggle, that it is impossible to regard them as other than excuses for the expression of some darker impulse. Barbara Tuchman reminds us that the people of Europe were relieved at the outbreak of World War I: ?Better a horrible ending than a horror without end,? said people in Germany. ?Is not peace an element of civil corruption,? asked the great writer Thomas Mann, and war ?a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?? Englishmen cheered the news of war's outbreak all day and night, and Rupert Brook wrote:

 

Now God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour

Honour has come back

And we have come into our heritage

 

Perhaps only in Germany was similar enthusiasm to greet renewed combat in 1939. But the damage of the second war was greater, especially to noncombatants. The camps and ovens, the murders and mutual inhumanities of the Eastern front, the unrestricted bombing of cities (with deliberate concentration on areas of workers' housing), the first use of atomic bombs ? truly this was war virtually without rules or limits. Its most important lesson for us is perhaps that we have no real explanation for it. We can explain how war broke out. We can understand our own response to the Nazi threat. But we have no reason for the fantastic disproportion between the combatants' war aims and the things that were done, none perhaps but the wrath of war described by Achilles in Book XVIII of the Iliad,

 

that makes a man go mad for all his goodness of reason,

That rage that rises within and swirls like smoke in the heart and becomes in our madness a thing more sweet than the dripping of honey.

 

The destruction of the two World Wars was limited only by technology. Now nuclear weapons have removed that limit. Who can say that they will not be used, that a rational balance of terror will restrain emotions we do not understand? Of course, we have survived into the third decade of the Atomic Age. Despite many limited wars and crises before 1914, Europe had known substantial peace for a century ? and at its end saw war as deliverance. Nuclear war may never come, but it would be the rashest folly and ignorance to think that it will not come because men, being reasonable beings, will realize the destruction it would cause.

 

Of Course this was back when we still had hope that our leaders would do the right thing for the good of the world. We have grown up since then and now know the leaders are just as foolish as ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...