watching the democratic debates i was struck how every candidate, save dennis kucinich, pledged to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
iran is a sovereign state, diplomacy which ends in 'you can't have this, but we can' will not work.
what would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?
>>I relate that to criminals (ie. those intent on exterminating the Israelies & us) complaining that the cops ( the Israelies, US, GB, etc ) have too many guns or too much advantage.
For that illustration to work, you have to be able to show that the criminals do actually intend (or really, really want) to exterminate the Israelis and us. Can you do that?
Dave
watching the democratic debates i was struck how every candidate, save dennis kucinich, pledged to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
iran is a sovereign state, diplomacy which ends in 'you can't have this, but we can' will not work.
what would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?
>> >> What if they didn't have the veto to call upon?
>> They do so the question is irrelevant
Academic, but I wouldn't agree irrelevant. I think the spirit of it can be answered by remembering that Bush told the UN America was prepared to act unilaterally on Iraq.
Dave
watching the democratic debates i was struck how every candidate, save dennis kucinich, pledged to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
iran is a sovereign state, diplomacy which ends in 'you can't have this, but we can' will not work.
what would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?
>>There is a huge difference in one nation trying to tell another what they can and cannot do vs. making a country comply to a binding contract they agreed to.
Agreed. And by signing the NPT, didn't Iran obligate themselves (as a non-nuclear weapons state) not to pursue any such activities?
So while the conversation has swerved into "should we attack Iran if we think they might be making nuclear weapons", the original question is answered in the NPT. They said they wouldn't develop them, and like the 180+ other nations that said the same, they should be expected to abide by it.
>>What "proof" would you accept [that Iran wants to make nuclear weapons]?
What have you got? I know some. They pursued nuclear activities without reporting it, in defiance of the NPT. They did not fully disclose their activities, once they were discovered. They have made "gentleman's agreements" regarding nuclear activities and broken them. There is admittedly some circumstantial evidence like this, but is there anything more substantial? Something that goes beyond what other member states have done? Something worth pulling a trigger on?
Dave
watching the democratic debates i was struck how every candidate, save dennis kucinich, pledged to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
iran is a sovereign state, diplomacy which ends in 'you can't have this, but we can' will not work.
what would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?
Thank you, ZeroDay.
As you can imagine, this bullet point list is presented from an anti-Iranian viewpoint. One could align it with a similar pro-Iranian list and still not know much. Good luck finding a neutral-Iranian discussion!
Here's is one that seems to at least switch back and forth between the anti- and the pro-: http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/iran-nuclear-timeline.html
And here is another neutral-ish sounding one: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/iran.html
A 'for instance'. The list you cited says:
September 2, 2005 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
Which is true. But it doesn't mention that Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume uranium conversion a month earlier. The IAEA didn't 'discover' this information; Iran volunteered it. On the other hand, they volunteered the information the day before they resumed enrichment -- hardly a confidence-building move.
Do you think Iran needs to 'build confidence'? The non-proliferation treaty calls non-weapon nuclear activities a 'soveriegn right'. They have allowed inspections. Are they currently not allowing inspectors to have access?
The most recent information I can find on inspections is:
November 23, 2006
The IAEA reports that new traces of uranium were found in Iranian facilities. The IAEA concludes that it "will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues, including through the implementation of the Additional Protocol, and provides the necessary transparency."
Does this indicate inspections took place in 11/2006? Have any been requested and denied since then? (The 'traces of uranium' were determined to have been contamination from the source country of the equipment, not developed in Iran)
Understand, I'm not debating, just trying to understand.
>>the extremist islamic leaders want Isreal wiped out so badly they care NOTHING about retaliation
While they may not like Israel, what reason do you have for believing they are willing to destroy themselves as a nation (or at least risk it) to eliminate them? Or do anything at all to bring about Israel's destruction, for that matter?
Dave
watching the democratic debates i was struck how every candidate, save dennis kucinich, pledged to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
iran is a sovereign state, diplomacy which ends in 'you can't have this, but we can' will not work.
what would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?
>>nation like Iran claims to be developing it for power and refuses to allow inspectors in to monitor it
>>That is just not true
References from both of you would be appreciated.
Dave
watching the democratic debates i was struck how every candidate, save dennis kucinich, pledged to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
iran is a sovereign state, diplomacy which ends in 'you can't have this, but we can' will not work.
what would happen if another country told us we couldn't have nukes?
I'm a bit new to this playground, so please go easy on me.
>>Amadenajad really thinks Allah is telling him to wipe Israel off the face of the map...
>>Iran's president has many times spoke of destroying Isreal
Can someone provide a reference for these? I only know of one "wipe Israel off the map" quote, and it was a result of mistranslation. He wasn't, at the time I'm referring to, talking about taking an action, or even wishing to take one. He was making a prediction about how history would view Israel. Actually, quoting someone else's prediction.
>>It's the UN that is demanding inspections to make sure the enrichment is not for weapons grade plutonium
Hasn't Iran submitted to inspections of its programs in the past? It signed the Additional Protocol, and allowed inspections before its own ratification had occurred. Perhaps they are just recognizing that they are currently in compliance with the law, looking at the results the previous inspection got them, and deciding not to submit again. (Would you want ME to come inspect your house?)
As far as I can tell, Iran has performed one invasion in the past several centuries -- they stormed our embassy. I have yet to determine why. It was apparently not an official government act, but it also appears to have been done with government approval. Additionally, the hostages were later held by the government and not released for some time after that. While egregious, I'm not convinced that this single act of aggression shows the kind of pattern that would warrant taking up arms against a country with no verifiable nuclear ambitions. (If they had verifiable nuclear ambitions, I'm still not convinced we'd be in the right to take action. But much less so without that information.)
Resolution 1696 says that "the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran". How could you ever conclude that something DOESN'T exist? Isn't this essentially the same WMD logic that was used to support the invasion of Iraq?
Apart from their faith being different than ours, why are they viewed as such a threat?
Dave
back in november 2005, col lawrence wilkerson, the chief of staff to mr powell, told the bbc's carolyn quinn he was aware the germans had said that they had told the cia of the unreliability.
"and then you begin to speculate, you begin to wonder was this intelligence spun; was it politicised; was it cherry-picked; did in fact the american people get fooled?," col wilkerson said.
interesting, but not surprising.. they never had hard evidence (how could they?
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
jehovah's witnesses office of public information .
for immediate release .
november 1, 2007 .
It's kind of fun to go read what people have written about the "amazing scientific accuracy of the Quran", too. They use the same sort of reasoning. "This word in the original languages can also mean [x], which is exactly what scientists say is true!" and all the same shtick.
Whoever makes that stuff up for the Bible, must do side work for the Quran-thumpers.
Dave
jehovah's witnesses office of public information .
for immediate release .
november 1, 2007 .
“Does Archaeology Support the Bible?”
"See! Pontius Pilate really existed! Therefore, we KNOW everything else the Bible said is true!"
Should be a laughably enjoyable series...
Dave
as i recall reading in the flock book (maybe i overlooked it).
it is not actually a dfing offense.
it may be "looked down upon" but can you be df'ed?
>>Some here will state that cannot be done, but it can.
For all their cries of "Unity", the truth is that anything can happen. Any given JC on any given day can DF anybody for anything. There's no such thing as "but.. but.. that's not what the rulebook says!"
A person can always appeal, but if your goal in asking the question is to decide if you're going to draw fire, the answer will always be "maybe/probably".
Dave
