Iran

[teamsaint]

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/wach/iran-invades-iraq-to-attack-kurds/

This is threatening to become a bit like 'who committed the least atrocities in the Second World War, Adolf Hitler or 'Uncle Joe' Stalin?'

Getting straight to the point at issue today and not indulging in the usual anti-American rhetoric ... we are not talking just about the US here but virtually the whole world in its concern about the Iranian nuclear programme.

Are you saying there is really nothing to worry about and the rest of the world should just shut up and simply wait and see what happens?

If there is any world left to find out, of course ...

But Iran doesn't HAVE any nukes, or means to deliver them. And they won't have any time soon, because all the scientists who just might make it happen,are being killed by the west.
The west has absolutely mountains of nukes.
If the world is going up in smoke, it will be our bombs.
And of course,in conventional weapons it's win/win for the west......

[scottycelt]

which regime/s is/are civilised? America? UK? Israel?

If so , do you mean civilised, as in "civilising the natives?"#
Apologies if I have misinterpreted.

Yes, I consider the democratic 'regimes' you mention are relatively civilised compared to the current one in Iran ... honestly. :smiley:

Team, if you read #114 I make it perfectly clear that I'm referring to regimes and not populations when using words like 'civilised' ... no apologies necessary, though!

[Bryn]

Sorry, can someone here remind me (my memory's a bit hazy on this) but has any government in the world actually authorized the use of a nuclear weapon or two in anger? No, I'm sure none would ever have resorted to such terrorism. :oh:

[amateur51]

The repetition below might help jog your memory, old chap. It was a couple of pages or so back.

I asked politely for an explanation of the relevance of your comment.

In your own time, of course.


~~~~~~

My apologies for missing this Simon.

Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable.

In 1986 Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician appalled by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, gave British press (Sunday Times principally)details of the Israeli nuclear programme. The subsequent events are clearly laid out in the wikipedia article below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

My point is that if the Israeli nuclear programme was as unstoppable as you assert why did Vanunu put his life and freedom in peril in this way and why has Israel continued to persecute him to this day? My conclusion is that Vanunu's publicising of Israel's nuclear programme might have caused the USA and UN IAEA to put pressure on Israel.

I was proposing that perhaps things were not as clear cut and resolved as you appeared to be suggesting.

I hope that's clear now

But I'm sure you'll come back if it's not :smiley:

[amateur51]

Yes, I consider the democratic 'regimes' you mention are relatively civilised compared to the current one in Iran ... honestly. :smiley:

Are you seriously suggesting that the first election of President George W Bush was a brief shining moment in the history of democracy in that nation, scotty? An example to other would-be democratic nations? :erm:

[amateur51]

Sorry, can someone here remind me (my memory's a bit hazy on this) but has any government in the world actually authorized the use of a nuclear weapon or two in anger? No, I'm sure none would ever have resorted to such terrorism. :oh:

:smiley:

[teamsaint]

Yes, I consider the democratic 'regimes' you mention are relatively civilised compared to the current one in Iran ... honestly. :smiley:

Team, if you read #114 I make it perfectly clear that I'm referring to regimes and not populations when using words like 'civilised' ... no apologies necessary, though!

I don't doubt that the Tehran regime are not a nice bunch to get on the wrong side of.
Our western governments might look civilised from where we are...but looked at from another perspective, less so. The war in Iraq was monumentally destructive. God knows what we are up to in Syria. And plenty of people in the UK, who upset the government(s), end up in a bad way.
I don't see our government as civilised, at all, I am sorry to say. We sell arms all round the world, and get all upset(apparently) when nasty regimes like Bahrain start using them on innocents, or on us. And that is just for starters.

[heliocentric]

Scottycelt, let me just say this once more, nobody here is defending the Iranian régime. Have you got that now?

Just as there has been no defence of the Iranian government, neither has there been any "anti-American rhetoric". There have on the other hand been a few facts mentioned which might be regarded as inconvenient to those who wish to cleave to a version of the situation that sees it as a battle between good and evil. As teamsaint says, what might look "civilised" from our safe perspective might not look quite so civilised to someone whose family wedding has been rudely interrupted by a drone attack.

[scottycelt]

Sorry, can someone here remind me (my memory's a bit hazy on this) but has any government in the world actually authorized the use of a nuclear weapon or two in anger? No, I'm sure none would ever have resorted to such terrorism. :oh:

That was a clear moral dilemma and the decision unlikely to have been taken 'in anger'. Did it shorten the war and thus save more lives? It may well have done, we'll never know, and that includes members of this forum. I think it set a very dangerous precedent though and the appalling carnage of innocent civilians can never be forgotten.

It could also be argued that 'Bomber Harris' was as bad as the Nazis in the destruction of Dresden, but again the counter-argument is that it saved more human life by shortening the war.

The moral dilemma about what to do about an openly belligerent and threatening Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons is not entirely dissimilar. Should there be a preemptive strike if all else fails to prevent the possibility/probability of an even greater catastrophe?

We have now got to the very crux of the latest international moral dilemma ... and sadly for those leaders faced with this awful dilemma it's a hopeless 'lose, lose' situation for them whatever they fatefully decide. They will always be condemned by some commentators and historians for making the 'wrong' decision.

Rather them than me!

[heliocentric]

what to do about an openly belligerent and threatening Iranian regime

You could begin by not being openly belligerent and threatening towards them, especially if you represented a belief system regarding itself as more peaceful and civilised than theirs.

[scottycelt]

Scottycelt, let me just say this once more, nobody here is defending the Iranian régime. Have you got that now?

Just as there has been no defence of the Iranian government, neither has there been any "anti-American rhetoric". There have on the other hand been a few facts mentioned which might be regarded as inconvenient to those who wish to cleave to a version of the situation that sees it as a battle between good and evil. As teamsaint says, what might look "civilised" from our safe perspective might not look quite so civilised to someone whose family wedding has been rudely interrupted by a drone attack.

There is no need to get quite so tetchy. As far as I can see all the venom here has been directed against the Americans and Israelis and no one has actually condemned the Iranian regime, so what am I and others supposed to believe?

If you are not defending the Iranian regime why don't you simply come out and express your support for the international community's attempts to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons?

What exactly is preventing you (and others here) from saying that ... ?

[teamsaint]

I said a couple of times we should try to stop nuclear proliferation, including Iran.
it can be done by making it in their interest not to acquire them.

[heliocentric]

There is no need to get quite so tetchy. As far as I can see all the venom here has been directed against the Americans and Israelis and no one has actually condemned the Iranian regime, so what am I and others supposed to believe?

If you are not defending the Iranian regime why don't you simply come out and express your support for the international community's attempts to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons?

What exactly is preventing you (and others here) from saying that ... ?

I don't regard what has been said about US administrations as "venom" but a presentation of facts. I also see that at no point has anyone expressed support for the Iranian régime and I wonder why you imagine that they have.

Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not the primary purpose of the present aggression against that country. Gaining hegemony in the region and in particular unrestricted access to its oil are the priorities. (If it were so important to prevent unstable and violent régimes from acquiring nuclear weapons it ought really to have been done in the case of Pakistan, but no, there were a few disapproving noises and that was all, and in the past ten years Pakistan has received considerable US assistance in providing security for its nuclear warheads.) There is presently as much evidence of a current Iranian nuclear programme as there was in 2003 of an Iraqi chemical weapons programme, that is to say none. According to you the "international community" is attempting to dissuade Iran from developing these weapons by imposing sanctions, attempting to destabilise it and threatening it with military attack. How can that possibly be expected to work? The answer is almost certainly that it is not intended to "work" but as I said before to provoke Iran into "starting" a war.

[amateur51]

If you are not defending the Iranian regime why don't you simply come out and express your support for the international community's attempts to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons?

What exactly is preventing you (and others here) from saying that ... ?

Could it be your consistently blinkered view of the situation, scotty? Always looking out from the West and tut-tutting away? :erm:

[heliocentric]

consistently blinkered

This is what happens when, as was previously discussed on this thread, people unquestioningly accept that what they see and read in the mass media is the truth. The problem with that approach is that it inevitably leads to glaring contradictions, like the idea that the administration of a country should be led down the path of peace by repeatedly threatening it with war. Whether a foreign leader is regarded by "the international community" as a friend and business partner or an enemy to be disposed of can change very rapidly indeed (Saddam, Mubarak, Gadaffi...) and has nothing to do with how bloodthirsty they are supposed to be or what weapons they are supposed to have, and everything to do with geopolitical advantage.