Iran and nuclear power

[the]

I wish I could believe they would not use the weapons I do not believe they are not producing. I think it unreasonable to threaten the destruction of Israel, yet they offer that with regularity. Jerusalem may not be a target.

Good night all. Hope this thread stays somewhat peaceful, as it is meant for peaceful purposes.

It seems like if they launched them anywhere in Israel then Jerusalem would get hit.

 

[bamf]

What right? When you talk world politics, you no longer operate on the ground of morality that exists in our daily lives. You transcend that realm and become a realist. If you don't, then your talk is fanciful nonsense.

No, subjective morality still exists in the world. The world is full of people, not a meat-market to do with whatever one pleases.

What gives the right of any country to invade another is the right of power. Our military strength gives us this right, because this is how it has been since man's beginning.

Power hardly justifies its own use. Just because one can, does not mean one should. If power was the only right, then as individuals we are nothing. Our opinions would be void because the government has the power. Sure, we vote, but the military has the weapons. If military strength was the right to do what one pleases, the US would be at war with many countries. We have the capabilities to do so, but we don't. It's much more than just power.

Invading other countries to secure personal security is any country's right, not just the West's. The only difference between the West and other countries is the West has more power than most for now. This is changing; China is developing considerable power. Don't blame the one at the top for the way things have always been; the fact that compassion might even come into the USA's decision processes when it comes to national security is something to marvel at.

This is not a right, it's a belief. We have no inherent right to do as we please, because power does not equal right. Power is possibilities, but a global subjective morality still exists.

What if Iran sold a nuclear weapon to Hamas? And Hamas launched it into Israel like quite often happens? Iran would probably be blamed but they'd deny it. It could cause enough confusion for them to get away with it, especially if they had nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, and Hamas all of a sudden had weapons, the world would know exactly where they got them from. What if Hamas got nuclear weapons from Russia? The thing is, nuclear weapons are under constant surveillance. If Hamas used a nuke, and Iran's program was not under surveillance, Iran saying "It wasn't me!" wouldn't stop the rest of the world for a second.

Your philosophy seems to be, let every country in the world have nuclear weapons because that will achieve worldwide peace and prevent them from ever being launched. If you know anything about the nature of man, and how the worst things often occur, then you should realize how foolish this view is.

Thank you for assuming my points of view. In my idealist foolish dreamers world there would be no weapons and we'd all pick daises. I am a pacifist but I am hardly a fool. Iran is no threat to national security. It is a threat to our regional interests ($$$) and that is no reason to go to war. We don't give a rat's ass about the people of Israel, we care about what is in their pocket. Again, Iran is not going to use nuclear weapons, nor are they going to sell them. Doing so would be suicide. It's leverage, complete leverage, and we don't want them to have that.

 

[Razare]

So... what you just said is it's alright for Iran to build nukes because they're doing it for leverage. Why just Iran, why not other countries too?

 

[bamf]

They have the right to pursue and build a national defense, including leverage. Did I say I want them to? I don't want us to "stop" something that is of no danger to us.

I see what you're trying to do. Iran has the right to do it just like every other country has the right to do so. This obviously does not mean I want to see it happen. Countries also have the right to defend themselves. Preemptively acting against a country that is not a risk is not our right.

 

[Razare]

I am not qualified to assess whether Iran's nuclear program would ever pose a risk to the USA in the future. I'm certain it wouldn't in the beginning, but down the road it could, for all I know.

If it could be guaranteed to me that it never would, then I would see no point in invading.

In this instance, I think it's Israel's place to stop them and not the USA's. We have enough on our plate and Israel would face a greater threat from them.

 

[Barliman]

Very specifically- I believe that for the Military Industrial Complex to flourish, war is necessary. Our economy is being propped up by the Military Industrial Complex, and has been ever since WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression.

The other factor that needs to be considered is the Political Elites need to create bogeymen so that we will all be running scared and grateful to the elite for their protection. This strategy for maintaining political control was laid out very specifically by Stalin. This is the actual purposed of the "War on Terror".

We are being softened up with a series of lies by our leaders to prepare us for the attack that they intend to carry out on Iraq for purposes that are primarily related to maintaining control of the oil producing areas, and of containing dissent within their own borders. The stated reasons for concern are a pretext, not to be taken seriously.
In the softening up phase pre the Iraq invasion this was called "FUD" Fear Uncertainty Doubt. Inhale deeply and get used to the stink of it . We all need to be aware of its distinct pungency. The price to be paid for this stupidity will not be paid by the elites, it will be paid for by us, and our loved ones.

 

[Ecton]

I've been assuming there will be a series of rapid air strikes this fall. I think the only variable being debated now is identifying the socioeconomic costs and maximizing outcome.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

[lazy half-assed armchair political analysis] I don't believe that their program is based entirely on peaceful intentions, but at the same time it's hard for me to believe that any president or dictator, no matter how seemingly backwards or hostile their nation may be, would be stupid enough to start a nuclear war. But then again, I live in the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons offensively. D'oh. So let me rephrase that. I don't think any nation would be stupid enough to do that in the presence of established nuclear superpowers. [/lazy half-assed armchair political analysis]

 

[enfp can be shy]

Do you believe that Iran's "reasons" to attack Israel (or anyone) are internal? Any slightly possibility that Iran's just the next tool in the endless war-machine? Don't you find it awkward that as soon as some major war with the US participation is about to end (or relatively under control), another one emerges? Always? (how many decades in a row)

 

[Barliman]

Do you believe that Iran's "reasons" to attack Israel (or anyone) are internal? Any slightly possibility that Iran's just the next tool in the endless war-machine? Don't you find it awkward that as soon as some major war with the US participation is about to end (or relatively under control), another one emerges? Always? (how many decades in a row)

I seriously doubt that Iran will do anything more than rattle sabres and talk big.
The outcome of any nuclear strike would be removal of Iran from the map with a massive nuclear counterstrike, everyone knows that.

The real issue is that our leaders are giving the Iranian leaders the outside enemy they need to maintain their own position.

What our leaders are doing on the face of it is incredibly unskillful, as it is maintaining the strength of the unpleasant regime. I say on the face of it- simply because I beleive that the behaviour of our leaders is very conscious and deliberate and has more to do with their position, and the financial interests of the people who fund their campaigns, than the common interest.

 

[just me]

Some interesting thoughts out there. I like to see how people gather their own intelligence and outline it in their own minds. It is almost like we have become somewhat selective in what we actually listen to or believe. I am glad to see the media is not in control of our brilliant minds.

I copied the other paragraphs I wrote before deleting them for now. I wish to see where this thread leads without my steering if at all possible.

 

[Barliman]

Some interesting thoughts out there. I like to see how people gather their own intelligence and outline it in their own minds. It is almost like we have become somewhat selective in what we actually listen to or believe. I am glad to see the media is not in control of our brilliant minds.

I copied the other paragraphs I wrote before deleting them for now. I wish to see where this thread leads without my steering if at all possible.

Its nice to see it happening.
I think the talk of a "2012 consciousness shift" is true- because it is already happening.
Kind of interesting in a weird way that it ties in with that prophetic stuff- but we appear to be living in a world now where people are understanding that the big media represent big money, and the interests of big money, and that their reportage cannot be taken on face value.

It is not before time though- many lives have been lost or ruined in the pursuit of the current settings.

My own awakening started with the Vietnam War- and then the subversion and overthrow of the democratically elected Whitlam Government in Australia in 1975. It is lovely to finally find people are catching up with what has been worrying me since I was 10 years old. It was getting kind of lonely especially in the "Greed is Good Decade.

 

[just me]

I have decided to end this poll after the weekend due to lack of participation, which is not a problem at all.

 

[88chaz88]

it's iffy ground, it's hard to play world police and say no "Nuke Power For You!", but with so many innocent lives as potential victimsI would have to say "No Nuke For You!"

It's a catch 22. The only countries with the power to decide who has nukes have nukes themselves and are only in that position because they have the nukes.

The biggest of course is the only country to have used the thing they so abhor anyone else in using.

 

[just me]

A little off topic, but here is a somewhat accurate list of nukes and who has them, along with those that have dropped their programs and rid themselves of their nukes because of incentives hard to turn down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Ukraine gave up 5000 nukes to Russia. Think about that. South Africa gave up theirs. Russia undeniably has the most active nukes, not the US, and the two are trying to lower their nukes every year. However, Russia is now aiding Iran in their ambitions of nuclear power, without strict guidelines for spent fuel rods and inspections. Iran is continually arming Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, and God knows who else. Iran is seeking power to do as they would do, which will be the continuance of what they are currently doing. The whole time, the biggest nuclear armed countries are seeking to lower their arsenals. Those with the "power" are seeking to rid the world of nukes.

Does Sharia Law seek the destruction of Israel? Is it based on their stance/interpretation concerning Islam?

 

[just me]

323 views, possibly by many less people; 34 posts, by less people; 12 votes, two believe Iran and ten do not.
Thank you for your participation. Thread closed.