Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion Efforts - 20 minutes ago

[Tattila the Hun]

OOOPssss.....

And i still cannot delete my own post...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
we can only hope those morons blow themselves up in their efforts...

I've waited literally years for you to say something that made sense. FINALLY.

Iran has been a rogue nation for a very long time.
Syria is even worse.

[Sava]

but given the choice, I'd rather nuke Texas than Iran...

[Datajack Franit]

Iran cannot be allowed having nuclear weapons. Nothing else to say about it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Iran cannot be allowed having nuclear weapons. Nothing else to say about it.

Why exactly?

Sounds like there is MUCH more to say about it.

Iran would have nukes today if the dictatorial Shah had remained in power, much like their neighbors Pakistan have nukes today. Iran's sin is being on the US's bad side.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
Iran's sin is being on the US's bad side.

Just like Saddam Hussein.

Bush warned Iran that they can't develop nuclear weapons - while the US is testing nukes and designing new ones.

[GePap]

Its the same bullcrap, that somehow the Iranian regime can't be trusted with nukes aqs much as the other regimes that have them, which I view as utter nonsense, specially since no one ever brings up any worthwhile theories to back up such a spacious arguement.

And then the terrorism canard- wow, so some states actively support political violence vs. People in other states. HOw, well, normal. I fail to see how supporting "terrorism" invalidates you from nuclear ownership, but arming rebels or the corrupt governments trying to stop them, leaing to deaths in far greater numbers make you a responsible member of the international community.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
Its the same bullcrap, that somehow the Iranian regime can't be trusted with nukes aqs much as the other regimes that have them, which I view as utter nonsense, specially since no one ever brings up any worthwhile theories to back up such a spacious arguement.

And then the terrorism canard- wow, so some states actively support political violence vs. People in other states. HOw, well, normal. I fail to see how supporting "terrorism" invalidates you from nuclear ownership, but arming rebels or the corrupt governments trying to stop them, leaing to deaths in far greater numbers make you a responsible member of the international community.

Forgive me, but you sound like a third world version of Charlton Heston.

[GePap]

Sorry for not letting go of the very simple fact that a few states attempting to retain control over a specific weapons technology is a plan doomed from the start to fail, specially not only when their overall notion violates the foundational idea of all modern international relations (that of the soverign state) but also is based on hypocritical and self-serving policies.

If we trully want to stop nuclear proliferation, the solution is total nuclear disarmament. Since none of the monopoly holders, and the states that stayed out of the deal and thus now get to have nukces (Israel, Pakistan, India), is anyone trully surprised that revisionists states might have aims on getting the means for self-defense?

[notyoueither]

I'm not surprised. They shouldn't be surprised either when their facilities get bombed.

I'm sorry, GePap, but I don't agree that the world can afford an extention of whatever misbegotten amendment of the Yankee Constitution allows assault weapons in private hands to nuclear weapons on the global stage.

Incidentally, there is broad agreement internationally on this issue. call it a law if you will.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm not surprised. They shouldn't be surprised either when their facilities get bombed.

.

Will the same hold true for Israel and Pakistan, India and China ?


Pakistan's secret services were with the Taleban when they entered Kabul and drove the Mujahedeen out, for instance.

Pakistan has been accused by India of harbouring Muslim terrorists and sponsoring terror attacks on Indian soil. Pakistan has gone to war with India in the past. Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator.

Clearly, Pakistan is dangerous too.


On the other hand, Iran guarantees political representation to its Christian and Jewish and Zoroastrian minorities, gives the franchise to women, and has elections.


Bomb- not bomb- you decide !

[Az]

Dear God, molly, are you actually defending Iran's "right to bear arms"?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
Dear God, molly, are you actually defending Iran's "right to bear arms"?

I was ?


Whereabouts ?


I simply find the notion that one country that was supposed to be working on the 'Islamic bomb', Pakistan, is our friend- despite its military regime, atrocious human rights' record, support for Sunni terrorists and extremists, war record with regard to India and patchy record with regard to democratic government.


Why is Pakistan therefore 'good' and Iran 'bad' ?

[Az]

I don't think anyone's too happy about Pakistan's nukes, if only for the fact that Mr. Khan later on sold lots of techs to just about everyone buying. The truth is, however, there is nothing you can do about Pakistan's nukes. However, Iran is an enemy, and them getting nukes is a danger to the world.

We also must remember that Pakistan wasn't always a military regime, IIRC.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az


We also must remember that Pakistan wasn't always a military regime, IIRC.

And Iran isn't either, but Pakistan has twice in recent memory had (and has still) a military dictatorship, linked with Islamic terrorists and Sunni fundamentalists responsible for more American deaths than Iran.

It also has friendly links with China and both China and Pakistan have been at war with India- another member of the long range missile and nuclear power club.

Iran has had its diplomats killed by the Taleban regime- a regime which Pakistan recognised and supported.

October 1, 1998

The Iranian

Iran and Afghanistan are on the brink of war. The crisis threatens regional and global peace and stability. At the same time this crisis exposes the need for renewed cooperation between Iran and the United States. Both governments must take advantage of this new window of opportunity to change the unfortunate course of their relations while disarming the conflict.

In August the Taliban militia executed eight Iranian diplomats and a journalist after overrunning the Iranian Consulate during the capture of Mazar-i Sharif.

Oh the irony... 'this crisis exposes the need for renewed cooperation between Iran and the United States.'


And yet somehow 'Iranistan' is the bad guy not allowed nuclear weapons or facilities (despite its elections, and constitution, and lack of a military dictator) whereas Pakistan is our friend.

I'm far from thinking a modified theocracy is somewhere I'd like to live, but it seems there's an awful big double standard in the room that no one's talking about.