Almost sounds like cartoon villains. But no, this is not an outtake from Team America. Its the reality. So what would Kerry to do about this as President?
And who are we to "do anything about this"? Given that the current admin has essentially redefined US foreign policy into might makes right and unilateralist presumption to attack whom it wishes (as well as abandoning long fought for non-proliferation treaties), the Iranians have every legitimate right to safeguard their sovereignty with something to give Washington pause in its agressivistic ways. This is the tone we set for the world so we have only ourselves to blame for the repercussions.
Actually, the US has not abandoned the Non-proliferation Treaty, that is incorrect. Ignoring this error, apparently if someone says "I'm building a nuclear bomb. Death to America!", the correct response is to keep in mind how culturally insensitive it would be for us to complain and then search for ways to blame ourselves. That's one perspective. Any other perspectives? Personally, I would support the use of military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, if all diplomatic efforts failed. Regardless of who gets elected, this issue is going to reach the boiling point. Would Kerry be wrong to keep a military option open?
No we have not "officialy" gone against the NPT but we certainly haven't ben living up to the intention of the treaty. "While the U.S. is making these declarations in a forum where it has made a binding commitment to “good faith” disarmament efforts, its nuclear weapons laboratories and production plants are modernizing thousands of nuclear weapons, providing many of them with upgraded military capabilities. At the same time, the U.S. weapons research and development establishment is working to develop new weapons which will operate through and from space, ranging from ground-based ballistic missile defenses for the near term to space-based weapons for the decades to come. And as the quest for a new generation of high technology weapons intensifies, the role of the nuclear weapons laboratories in their development grows, further entwining these Cold War institutions in the renewed military-industrial complex and dimming the prospects for the elimination of nuclear arsenals." I can't blame any country for feeling a need to protect itself from the US. The fact that Iran is OPENLY purcuing these weapons is a good sign. They could try to do this in secret and then there is no oversight. They are moving ahead with full international oversight which makes it unlikely these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. Nuclear programs are expensive and technologically challenging and even if they deeloped nuclear capability it would pose little real threat to us. We still retain the power to wipe the surface of the earth clean three or four times over. Perhaps the world needs new player to keep the "mutuallly assured destruction" balance. Just a thought...
Ah yes, let us make note that the grammar nazi understands only legalistic precision in terminology. So to rephrase, without sacrificing any of my previous statement's emphasis or intent "Arms Control Treaties". Sorry little PB, obviously the tabloids don't bother informing you of the truth in their efforts to keep you emotively seduced into groupthink warmongering mode... http://www.clw.org/control/bushunilateral.html These are but a few areas where the unliateralist self appointed, powermongering, globalist police state foreign policy doctrine has scrapped long fought for controls in order to further enrich our MIC at a cost as yet to be fully measured in terms of its destructive and destabilising impact on our own society's future and that of other sovereign nations. Little surprise that PB is all set to buy into the fear of claims that they want to come take us over because some imam happens to reply to our demonstrably violent intents on their very doorstep with angry words. Just as much as Saddam would not have thrown his privileged position away by striking the US, neither would Iran's leadership for all their blustering. Perhaps one day, PB, when you grow up and gain some legitimate foreign policy understanding, you might even come to realise the difference between a shaken fist in the air and strategic necessities for mere protection of national sovereignty. The Iranians wont be the last to go this route if the warmongers in Washington are not forced out of power sooner than later.
Maybe if we wern't so wrapped up in Iraq we would be in the position to possibly do something about it. Oh well...coulda, woulda, shoulda....
That's great Lick, glad you got that off your chest. But inconveniently for you, these "few areas" do not include the NPT. The difference between the ABM treaty and the NPT treaty is not grammatical, so I suggest you take a time out from the forum to go learn some of the fundamentals of foreign policy rather than risk making more amateurish blunders. It amazes me the lengths you will go to in order to avoid admitting you made a mistake. Anyway, Pop313, lets not get sidetracked. You said But they aren't openly pursuing them. They claimed their research is nothing more than pursuit of nuclear power (for country awash with oil?), yet they have been revealed to be hiding all kinds of activities which are unecessary for the development of nuclear power, but which are necessary for the development of a nuclear bomb. They have also turned down offers from European countries to provide them with fuel so they would have no need for enrichment facilities. Iran obviously intends to violate the NPT and secretly build nuclear weapons. SM, maybe we should have spent more time on it. Who knows what we are doing behind the scenes. But European countries have been working hard on a diplomatic solution and they are getting ignored by Iran.
Considering that failure to adhere to the most fundamental arms control treaties (which have served international efforts at curbing the production and proliferation of said arms and their components for decades), is part and parcel of disregard for the basic tenets of non-proliferation (or perhaps you are indeed naive enough to believe that major arms producers involved in the renewed development of said platforms and their subsystems would ethically refrain from profiting from their dissemination far and wide through back channels as they have in decades past), once again PB, I suggest tis you who needs to comprehend that such issues exist not in neat compartmentalised vacuums as you would wish but are significantly interrelated. Your failure to grasp the interconnectivity of issues shows how fundamentally unqualified you are to make any commentary on anyone elses meanings.
Yes, over a year ago enriched Uranium was found in Iran and they quickly admitted they were developing weapons, after a breif attempt to deny it. We had warning signs though.... They voiced their concerns as early as 1999 when, before the UN, they openly shared disgust that the NTP was being sidestepped by the US and other countries and that Israel refused IEAE oversight. They then suspended their operations as a sign of peace, but stated that they reserved the right to restart them whenever they felt they needed to. Since that time they have been under IEAE supervision, unlike Israel. http://www.thehilltoponline.com/news/2003/10/31/NationWorld/Iran-Agrees.To.Sign.Nuclear.NonProliferation.Treaty-545208.shtml
One should also note Pop, that the NNPT also carries a clause reserving unto any the of the signatory nations the right to withdraw from the treaty... Having an undeniably militant and self appointed unilateral superpower pursuing a doctrine of aggressivistic threat and neo-colonialist action against sovereign nations in the region in its bid for direct control of whatever remaining resources it cannot control through pliant proxies is, especially for those nations arrogantly branded "the axis of evil" (as if Washington were the embodiment of goodness and light), clearly tantamount to "extraordinary events" jeopardizing the surpeme interests of their countries. The repercussions of the PNAC's arrogant and presumptuous agenda will be on our own heads if this pursuit of empire is not abandoned. Others will undoubtedly follow suit until all the safeguards we have come to count on for peace and security have been entirely nullified.
Scrambling to rationalise your errors again, Lick. Really, it is becoming obvious that this is a subject you would be well advised to avoid until you have achieved at least a basic level of understanding. Dealing with your ignorance is taking up too much of my time. Number one, the ABM treaty was with Russia, not Iraq or Israel or anyone else. And our relationship with Russia remains fine without it. ABMs, also, are not arms. I can't believe I am being forced to explain the obvious. Number two, you described US "failure to adhere to the most fundamental arms control treaties", which is breathtakingly uninformed. While not a signatory to the Test Ban Treaty, the US has maintained a moratorium on nuclear tests which started years before the treaty was signed. How is this not compliance? Number three, the US is part of the the Biological Weapons Convention. You are a perfect example of what happens when fanatic partisan hatred causes a complete inability to comprehend even the simplest facts. Again though, I have let you sidetrack the debate, which is about the NPT. How Ironic that in an attempt to cover up for past mistakes by sidetracking us you have only made more errors. Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus has not violated it. Iran (as was the case for Iraq) has not withdrawn from the NPT, they are violating it. That's simple. I do not consider a cat-and-mouse game where they admit things after we have discovered them to be an effective monitoring program. My idea here is not for people to try to think up excuses for Iran, but to try to suggest what policy EITHER candidate should pursue to deal with this issue. Am I the only one that thinks "Lets enrich uranium. Death to America!" is a cause for concern?
And he misses the entire point of the argument once again, surprise surprise. Most definitely a noisome Murdoch-fed wannabe.
** Point, old friend Think about it from their viewpoint not your own? You are part of the ruling elite of a country lets call it Narl and you now that another country’s (lets call it the ASU) elite hates you. You know that the ASU once help overthrow your country’s legitimate government and put in place a tyrant that you later toppled. The ASU has said publicly that you should be overthrown. It is possible that the ownership of nuclear weapons might deter the ASU from taking overt action against you, (it seems to have worked in the case of Aerok htron another counrty the ASU disliked). Do you think you might think, having them was a good idea? ** So let us reverse things and say that Iran is the largest military force in history and let us say that Iran was threatening the USA’s ruling elite? And let us say that Iran has nuclear weapons and the USA doesn’t. Also let us say for instance that Iran has armies on two of its boarders say in Mexico and Canada (although they are having trouble with Canadian insurgents) and a large fleet off the Californian coast. Do you think the elite of the USA might be nervous? Do you think they might try and build an atomic bomb whatever goddamn treaties it might break? **
** Point you seem to be falling into the idea of the USA’s manifest destiny to do as it wants and have others do as it tells them, because the USA’s heart is true and its goal is just. Think about it? What were the reasons for the many US involvement’s in Latin America? Was it to thwart the threat from evil communism or to protect US access to resources and their financial and commercial interests? **
Bless Iran for developing nuclear weapons. It's probably the only thing that will keep them from being invaded and having their entire country wrecked in the next 4 years. The election of George Bush has shown the world that what they need to do is amass as many terrible weapons as humanly possible - and there can be no logical argument against it at this point. The US is a dangerous rogue nation that other nations MUST be protected from.
I have no interest in trying to empathise with Iran's need to prop up their dictatorship, or for Kim Jong-il to make North Korea safe for his great granchild to extort free oil and food from the USA. All dictators want to ensure their own survival no matter how many "goddam treaties" they have to break. If Milosovic had acquired a nuclear bomb, I'm sure the poor guy wouldn't be in jail right now. Does anyone (excluding Willow) wish Saddam had succeeded in building nuclear weapons in the 1980s? There is a reason the European nations are trying so hard to talk Iran out of developing nuclear weapons - it could start a regional arms race and would be a terrible blow for non-proliferations worldwide. The reason is not that Europeans don't empathise with Iran, or that they want its oil. The reason is that they don't want a lunatic regime with a history of exporting terrorism to have a nuclear weapon. Now either Iran is going to be bribed and coerced out of building nuclear weapons, or we are are going to sit around and talk about cultural sensitivity, ponder banana plantations in el salvador in the 1970s and watch the mullahs get their bomb. When people decide to build nuclear bombs and chant "death to America", its not about manifest destiny. Its not about taking them off Kofi Annan's Christmas card list. Its about security, and that means sending an unmistakeable message that no Iranian nuclear bomb will be built, and all options to achieve that are open.
** Calm down Point and think rather than rant. Do we want ‘bad’ regimes having nuclear weapons, well frankly I don’t want ‘good’ ones having them. But you have to ask yourself at what point and why would a regime use them? The US I’ve been told has some 12,000 nuclear warheads over half of which are ready to fly (the fact that Texas alone has over 500 could be seen as a source of worry -) ) The only way that these regimes would have of surviving a nuclear attack on the US or American forces would be to wipe out all of the US and it’s forces, including the submarine fleet. And do it all at once and with complete secrecy. As far as I know no state has that capability even the CCCP at its height didn’t have that capability. All such a regime could do is cause America or one of it’s allies a hell of a lot of pain before being wiped out. So at what point would such a regime feel that the only option open to them was to cause such pain? As you so eloquently put it .”All dictators want to ensure their own survival” You then have to think about the messages being sent out. If you are seen as an enemy of the US government and you don’t have a nuclear weapon you will possibly be overthrown, but if you do have a nuclear weapon it is most likely you won’t be. That is the kind of atmosphere in which proliferation is more likely to happen than not, I mean even ‘good’ states must be thinking about it, since you might be in this US governments good books, at least at this moment of time, just like Saddam was once, but who’s to say what might happen in the future? You don’t have to empathise with the people running these ‘bad’ regimes to realise what happens when people feel under threat. ** Do we want ‘bad’ regimes having nuclear weapons, well frankly I don’t want ‘good’ ones having them. That’s the point the cat is already out of the bag. You talk of an arms race but that started as soon as the bomb was first made and its power revealed. There are seven states that admit to having nuclear weapons and a number of others that are suspected to have them. I whole heartily agree that we need to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world and think the Non-Proliferation Treaty a very good start but things are not helped by the US talking about axis of evil and regime change, it just make the desire for your own bomb more likely. As to starting an arms race in the region that started a long time ago when Israel developed hers. As to the Middle East you have Pakistan at one end with it’s 50 or so and at the other Israel with her 200. http://pedia.newsfilter.co.uk/wikipedia/l/li/list_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons.html ** Do we want ‘bad’ regimes having nuclear weapons, well frankly I don’t want ‘good’ ones having them. “Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources,” Non-Proliferation Treaty ** Also there are those that argue that the real danger is more about ‘failed’ states rather than ‘rogue’ states. Pre-Empting Nuclear Terrorism in a New Global Order, www.fpc.org.uk/fsblob/314.pdf **
That was no rant, old sport. Rants are something like, oh maybe "The election of George Bush has shown the world that what they need to do is amass as many terrible weapons as humanly possible" And keep in mind you haven't made the slightest effort to answer my question, instead you have tried to drag me into a tangential academic debate about banana plantations and theoretical countries named Narl. Because one of my main points in raising the question is that very few - or perhaps none - of the people here want to answer a simple question like "what policy should we pursue to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons programme". This forum is not for suggesting real solutions for real problems, it is for bashing US and A. This is exactly the kind of evasive non-answer that explains why progressives have so little credibility on security issues. This is not an academic or philosophical exercise. I don't want to know what you would do in a theoretical world, I want to know what you would do in this one. I don't have to ask myself that if they don't have them. Would Saddam "probably" have decided not to use them? Dictators want to ensure their own survival, but that doesn't mean they can't make incredibly bad judgements. Saddam probably thought he was making rational self-preserving decisions over the last 20 years. Right, so the US shouldn't complain about countries sponsoring terrorism because then those countries might get worried and build nuclear bombs. A do nothing strategy to ensure world peace? No. Lets keep in mind here very few states have reason to pursue nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the United States - in fact most proliferation has been to defend against other countries. Call it rationalising then. I don't need to rationalise why burglars carry guns or knives.
** Please Point really try to calm down, when you are you can be one of the most insightful people coming to the forums but when you are not, you seem unwilling to see the nose on you face. Most times you seem able to take in what people say but when you are like this you can come across as seeming incredibly dense. "academic debate about banana plantations and theoretical countries named Narl" If you don’t understand what people are trying to say to you, don’t get peevish, just ask and I’ll try and put it some way you could understand. "real solutions for real problems" but do you understand the problems so that you apply the right solutions? How you think and what you know will colour how you act. "This is not an academic or philosophical exercise" Point you sound like a child complaining at being in the fireworks safely lesson so you can go out and throw ‘banger’ as the girls. ** First let us look again at the charge that once more you seem to be levelling at me, that I’m here to bash the US. I’ve explained my position many times to you on this subject here is just one example You are making a big thing about me criticising the US but I have already given my reasons. I said that the political forums on Hipforums are nearly exclusively filled with Americans, and for that reason the subjects and issues discussed here are more often as not going to have an American perspective or slant. You accuse me of being anti-American but I judge things as I see them and we all tailor our conversations to where we are or the company we are in. When I lived in France I argued with a slant toward French politics here in Britain it has a British slant (I’m also a member of the Green Party). It should also be remembered that I have written things for the forums that reflected my views and criticisms on European issues and history, but frankly it doesn’t get much of a response. As I have commented, many Americans that I have argued with here seem loath to learn or understand American history so trying to discuss that of Britain or European is sometimes near impossible, although some do and it can be wonderful. However as fun as it would be to discuss European issues and history I have to say that the main reason I’m here (as I’ve said many times) is to try and understand the American viewpoint and perspective on politics ** As to the idea of real solutions to real problems, the difficulty is understanding a problem and what people see as the solution. If you don’t understand the nature of the problem how do you know if your solution will make things better or worse? Many people are injured every year because they see the solution to a pan of oil on fire is to pour water on it. They make a bad situation worse because they don’t understand the problem and think they know the solution. As we have already discussed the US solutions to what they saw as a problem in Indochina made a bad situation worse. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=243493#post243493 As we have also discussed many times in many different threads my view is that the solution to the problem of al qaeda terrorism was not the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So what do you believe should be the US solution to what it sees as the problem of Iran? What is it based on? You see a persons knowledge and their way of looking at a problem my have an influence on their solution. You see someone that doesn’t understand cooking oil and sees a fire is likely to think water, but pouring water on a cooking oil fire can have explosive results. ** If the solution is military, what is it? Do you stop at the bombing of the nuclear facilities, or ‘nutralise’ any facility that could be used to produce WMD’s? Also how do you know that they are still not trying for the bomb? But is this US government just trying to stop the Iranians to have a bomb or do they want regime change? The Saddam regime let in the inspectors and declared they had no WMD’s but the US government wanted regime change, so those things didn’t matter. American security, the war on terror and WMD’s, as has been asked many times were they really just excuses to change a regime the US didn’t like and bring in one it did purely to pursue is own strategic and commercial interests? I might agree with the bombing of the nuclear facilities (I did with those of Iraq) but I don’t think that is going to satisfy this US administration. And after Iraq I think only those that truly believe the neo-cons are honourable people and that Saddam was behind 9/11 and that al qaeda is on the run and almost defeated would think differently. So what are being put forward as the reason for confronting Iran, in your posts you say American security, the war on terror and WMD’s. **
