Report: Iran has 'extremely advanced' nuclear program

[uh Clem]

It's the outlaw nations that don't sign that need to policing. We came down hard on Pakistan for much less (until we needed them again). Maybe the Pakistanis should start spying on us...

Futher, Israel is not a threat to peace. It is not attacking its neighbors as is Iran.

Israel never invaded Lebanon. Israel did not shell Beirut. Israel did not occupy southern Lebananon for the better part of 2 decades. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem
It's the outlaw nations that don't sign that need to policing. We came down hard on Pakistan for much less (until we needed them again). Maybe the Pakistanis should start spying on us...



Israel never invaded Lebanon. Israel did not shell Beirut. Israel did not occupy southern Lebabon for the better part of 2 decades. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

Israel was attacked by the PLO from Lebanon. Israel were allies with the Christians. Israel has an inherent right of self defense.

Iran, however, is attacking Israel through its support and direction of Hizbollah.

[GePap]

Azazel: the Iranian people certainly did not think so. If remember correctly, they got rid of the Shah.. and he had a much better represion system than the Ayatollahs have been able to pull of. Nothing beat Savak.

Israel made a power play in lebanon in 1982. It lost, and ended up with a worse situation in its northen fronteir vis a vis Lebanon than it started with. And no, while Iran supports and funds hizbullah, they do not run it, anymore than Israel ran the phalangist militias in Lebanon.

As for the issue: The Us can't stop Iran from the development of nuclear power: that is the deal implicit in the NPT: one sides gives up the chance for nukes while getting help for civilian uses of nuclear power. Now, the US has the right to demand Iran follow its end of the bargian, about not getting nukes, though Iran can always pull out, as any state has the right to, and if Iran did pull out of the treaty, we would have no more legitimate argument to try to stop them form having nukes than we have against Israel, india and Pakistan. Unless you believe the NPT is a deal that can't be broken at all, regardless fo the letter of the treaty.

[DaShi]

Jaako:

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Azazel: the Iranian people certainly did not think so. If remember correctly, they got rid of the Shah.. and he had a much better represion system than the Ayatollahs have been able to pull of. Nothing beat Savak.

Israel made a power play in lebanon in 1982. It lost, and ended up with a worse situation in its northen fronteir vis a vis Lebanon than it started with. And no, while Iran supports and funds hizbullah, they do not run it, anymore than Israel ran the phalangist militias in Lebanon.

As for the issue: The Us can't stop Iran from the development of nuclear power: that is the deal implicit in the NPT: one sides gives up the chance for nukes while getting help for civilian uses of nuclear power. Now, the US has the right to demand Iran follow its end of the bargian, about not getting nukes, though Iran can always pull out, as any state has the right to, and if Iran did pull out of the treaty, we would have no more legitimate argument to try to stop them form having nukes than we have against Israel, india and Pakistan. Unless you believe the NPT is a deal that can't be broken at all, regardless fo the letter of the treaty.

GePap, I think the IAEA will ask the SC to impose sanctions on Iran if it begins to violate the NPT. It has already asked for sanctions against NK.

If you recall, the US imposed sanctions on both Pakistan and India when they went nuclear.

Now, I don't believe the US will do anything more than agree to sanctions in the case of Iran. Similar to our positions on NK and Pakistan and India. But, obviously, sanctions alone are not enough of a deterent to keep a state from developing nuclear weapons if they really want them. Further, given the debacle in the current Iraq crisis, I doubt of Security Council would ever authorized use of force against Iran or North Korea unless they disarmed.

This is why states like Japan and Israel, in the bullseye of NK and Iran, respectively, talk of preemptive strikes. Nuclear weapons are tremedously destabalizing.

Now those are my view on what will happen. GePap, et al., do you think the SC should do more? Like authorize a war unless these two countries cease and desist?

[Az]

Yeah, that would have been terrific if the Shah had acquired nukes in, say '77 or '78. Just in time to hand them over to Khomeini!

Oh well, at least today we wouldn't have Saddam to worry about in the Middle East...or much else, either...

I am glad that you agree that the Islamic regime in Iran presents a danger to world stability.

How about if the US enforces the NPT against the one Middle Eastern country known to have nuclear waepons?

we never signed it. could sign it now, probably would mean that we won't let other countries have nukes.

Israel never invaded Lebanon. Israel did not shell Beirut. Israel did not occupy southern Lebananon for the better part of 2 decades. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

Actually, Lebanon is still occupied, but somehow, noone cares, now that it is not Israel. double standards, tsk tsk.

It's the outlaw nations that don't sign that need to policing. We came down hard on Pakistan for much less (until we needed them again). Maybe the Pakistanis should start spying on us...

Since the only reason we didn't sign the NPT is on the US' request, take it up with your government.

Azazel: the Iranian people certainly did not think so. If remember correctly, they got rid of the Shah.. and he had a much better represion system than the Ayatollahs have been able to pull of. Nothing beat Savak.

Actually you're ignoring the inherent opression of the system towards half of the population. In any case, the "Iranian people" did put the Ayatollas into power, but not volountarily. The revolution was hijacked by the extremist muslim elements.

Israel made a power play in lebanon in 1982. It lost, and ended up with a worse situation in its northen fronteir vis a vis Lebanon than it started with. And no, while Iran supports and funds hizbullah, they do not run it, anymore than Israel ran the phalangist militias in Lebanon.

Kind of, sort of correct. Israel made a power play in lebanon, but basically was drawn to it by the Syrian intervention in the civil war.
The second part is true, but the phalangist militas were not targetting any other nation, they were simply our boys in Lebanon.

[uh Clem]

Khomeini was as loony as they get, Azazel, but he's been dead for some time now.

Actually, Lebanon is still occupied, but somehow, noone cares, now that it is not Israel. double standards, tsk tsk.

When Syria receives $90+ billion from US taxpayers (and says thanks by spying on us then selling the info to the Soviet Union), and when I have to wonder whether my own elected officials are more loyal to the US or to Syria, then I'll worry about a "double standard" in Lebanon.

[KrazyHorse]

Israel receives 90 billion dollars from the US?

[KrazyHorse]

Closer to 4-6 billion total (military and direct aid), IIRC.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh. Did you mean over the course of its existence?

[Carver]

Over Israel's existence, that sound's like a close figure. And now the Israelis are proud that they asked for an end to US economic assistance; the only thing being US military assistance is being increased by almost the same amount.

[uh Clem]

Frogger: No. Yes. Yes.

[Ned]

The question remains for everyone, do you think the SC will authorize anything more than just sanctions if Iran acquires nukes?

Of course, sanctions have never worked. So, why bother?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
The question remains for everyone, do you think the SC will authorize anything more than just sanctions if Iran acquires nukes?

Of course, sanctions have never worked. So, why bother?

No, I can't see them authorizing force against Iran. As for sanctions not working, I would have to disagree. They may not work in every case, but they certainly can't be plesant.

[Ned]

Nations learn to live with sanctions because the dishonest avoid them. I understand, for example, that France has done land office business in the past few months re-equiping Saddam.

Why in the world would anyone support sanctions that simply have to be endured? They are almost always ineffective. A some point, the UN simply declares victory by taking accepting symbolic cooperation and moves on.

The UN is hopelessly ineffective.

As we have seen both here on Apolyton and in the world at large, absolutely no one believes the UN can be effective in keeping nukes out of countries like NK and Iran - that is, unless the US is leading the effort. But even then we have seen that the UN is ineffective, and, in fact, is a roadblock to effectiveness.

Imagine if Kennedy had not acted until the SC issued a resolution during the Cuban missile crisis? Nothing would have been accomplished. The only reason Kennedy succeeding was by threatening force.

Iraq is the very first time the US has gone through the UN where its own vital interests were at stake. This has proven to be a fiasco.