Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion Efforts - 20 minutes ago

[Alexander's Horse]

brilliant idea to get the US armed forces bogged down in Iraq at a time like this - Pakistan successfully testing nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran developing them - thank you neocons

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Molly, are you aware that Pakistan has elections as well?

Are you aware that Musharaf reversed Paki support for the Taleban - and has been twice the subject of attempted assasinations by pro-AQ terrorists?

Yes, Pakistan has HAD elections, and it has also executed a democratically elected head of state, and had military coups. I think we can take it as read I know something about Pakistan's somewhat chequered electoral history since independence.

So Musharraf reversed Pakistan's support for the Taleban.

Bit late, though, wasn't it, given that Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognise the regime and did little to ameliorate the excesses, even from the beginning- witnesses place Pakistan secret services with the Taleban when the last Afghan leader and his brother were murdered, and left to decorate the lamp posts in Kabul.

Now which earlier Pakistani military dictator tried to establish sharia as the new basis for law in Pakistan ?

Oh yes, Zia ul-Haq- way back in 1977 when he launched his coup and Islamization programme.


And now of course Pakistan has the Babur- a cruise missile with the name of the founder of the Muslim Moghul dynasty in India.

I'm sure Delhi finds that mighty reassuring.

[child of Thor]

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.

exactly, untill we are willing to look at and stop our own dirty tactics, we actualy have no moral high ground to stand on.
The advantage we have over countries like Iraq and other non democratic countries, is that we can make our governments do as we wish. Sadly we are apparantly blind and dont wish to look at the realities.

Hopefully this can change and we can start to repair the damage our governments have done in our names around the world - then we can start the realistic project of spreading democracy and peace around the world. We need to clean up our act first to succeed in doing this(which is why the neo-cons will fail, as their whole history is shrouded in dirty dealings and the perpetuation(sp?) of lies).

[Japher]

ok, Iran is being naughty, can we do something about it yet or should we wait for the UN to do nothing again?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Yes, Pakistan has HAD elections, and it has also executed a democratically elected head of state, and had military coups. I think we can take it as read I know something about Pakistan's somewhat chequered electoral history since independence.

So Musharraf reversed Pakistan's support for the Taleban.

Bit late, though, wasn't it, given that Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognise the regime and did little to ameliorate the excesses, even from the beginning- witnesses place Pakistan secret services with the Taleban when the last Afghan leader and his brother were murdered, and left to decorate the lamp posts in Kabul.

Now which earlier Pakistani military dictator tried to establish sharia as the new basis for law in Pakistan ?

Oh yes, Zia ul-Haq- way back in 1977 when he launched his coup and Islamization programme.


And now of course Pakistan has the Babur- a cruise missile with the name of the founder of the Muslim Moghul dynasty in India.

I'm sure Delhi finds that mighty reassuring.

molly i was referring specifically to the elections held under Musharaff, not to Pakistans entire history as a state.

And yes, there have been some very bad people in the ISI - notably Hamid Gul. Whom Perv dismissed. AFAICT Perv is trying to purge those people from the ISI, at the risk of his own life.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher
ok, Iran is being naughty, can we do something about it yet or should we wait for the UN to do nothing again?

The IAEA passed a resolution saying they need to stop enriching uranium. It passed with the support of Russia AND China, who evidently dont share the fondness of some here for the idea of Iranian nukes. The third world countries got on board when a clause was added reaffiriming the rights of countries to PEACEFUL nuclear programs. So it was unanimous. Didnt give a time limit for referall to the UNSC, but the word is that Iran has till September.

We shall see.

[Ramo]

Im sorry then. Gepap apparently felt that the policies of the EU3, and the proposals to sanction Iran were unfair. Given that the thing is going to the IAEA to discuss referall to the UNSC, I thought sanctions were what we were discussing. I can certainly see many arguements against military action, and have advocated it nowhere in this thread. I cant speak for George Bush. Michael Ledeen, the leading hardline neocon who focuses on Iran in the National Review and elsewhere, does not advocate the invasion of Iran.

As I wrote earlier, there was a Hersh article in the New Yorker in January indicating that some sort of military action (though not a full-scale invasion) is a distinct possibility. In fact, we've been doing some covert recon in Iran to indentify WMD targets. According to Hersh's sources, Rummy et al. are under the delusion that a limited invasion targetting their WMD facilities (they estimate that 3/4 of these facilities can be destroyed in air strikes avoiding population centers, etc.) would shatter "aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy" and precipitate a revolution.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

I was going by your own words here.

I certainly didn't intend any sort of order in the negotiations.

I cant find a specific proposal on the table, but its my sense that the Israelis have always been open to discussing regional disarmament as part of peace talks. If that was your question, Im not sure why you referred to Abdullahs proposal.

As the source I quoted earlier indicates, I think your sense is wrong, i.e. disarmament is not on the table until there is a comprehensive peace. The reason I brought up the Saudi proposal was to point out that a reasonable offer for a comprehensive peace was rejected out of hand.

Again:

Arab states want Israel to give up its nuclear capability as part of comprehensive peace talks. Israel, however, insists that the peace process must be completed before it considers relinquishing its nuclear capability.

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2005rc/brief11.htm

I was merely explaining that the political decision to make an alliance of convenience with the MMA hardly makes Perv the equivalent of the Iranian mullahs.

I didn't say that they were equivalent. Just saying that his **** doesn't stink regarding fundamentalism. Remember that the coup occured in the first place partially because Sharif was seen as soft on India regarding Kashmir. But 9/11 (and the associated aid and pressure we have on Perv) changed everything, etc., etc.

[Az]

Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please.

If you claim that if Israel can have them, why not Iran, you claim them to be equivalent in their sense of responsibility and ethical value - The things "nukeworthiness" is judged upon.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Az

Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please.

If you claim that if Israel can have them, why not Iran, you claim them to be equivalent in their sense of responsibility and ethical value - The things "nukeworthiness" is judged upon.

OTOH, if you are asserting some countries have the right of possessing nuclear weapons while others don't, you have a very difficult time of making your case.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please.

If you claim that if Israel can have them, why not Iran, you claim them to be equivalent in their sense of responsibility and ethical value - The things "nukeworthiness" is judged upon.

I'm asking questions. Questions which should be asked and answered.


Why develop weapons that are 'NEVER' going to be used ?

Oh, just to threaten. So if Israel can develop weapons of mass destruction that are 'NEVER' going to be used, then why not Iran ?

I'm not claiming or stating anything about the equivalent moral or ethical value systems in either state- and I defy you to find any such statement in my posts.

When I ask a question, that's all I do.

However I do note that Israel has chosen in the past to act in a similar fashion to terrorists- by sending hit teams into sovereign states abroad, and in those sovereign states killing suspected terrorists held responsible by Israel for killing its citizens, in defiance of the law in those states and international law.

Now I happen to think that people who assassinate Israelis abroad or in Israel really can't complain when they get blown up by telephone or car bombs or shot down in the street, but it does make moral or ethical 'holier than thou' positions harder to take.

[Az]

Why develop weapons that are 'NEVER' going to be used ?

Never said that they will never be used, but will be used in the most severe cases - And Israel has a proven track record of being very very cautious about their use.

Oh, just to threaten. So if Israel can develop weapons of mass destruction that are 'NEVER' going to be used, then why not Iran ?

not just to threaten, but to also use. Answered above, basically.

I'm not claiming or stating anything about the equivalent moral or ethical value systems in either state- and I defy you to find any such statement in my posts.

It's the only plausible explanation.

However I do note that Israel has chosen in the past to act in a similar fashion to terrorists- by sending hit teams into sovereign states abroad, and in those sovereign states killing suspected terrorists held responsible by Israel for killing its citizens, in defiance of the law in those states and international law.

Upholding International law has little to nothing to do with the ethical value of countries, sadly, since International law is only made relevant when it's in the concensus of all permament Sec. Council members, or a large number of them to consider it so.

Now I happen to think that people who assassinate Israelis abroad or in Israel really can't complain when they get blown up by telephone or car bombs or shot down in the street, but it does make moral or ethical 'holier than thou' positions harder to take.

And I say again that ethical values or positions have little to nothing to do with Intl. law -

We don't despise N.K. for kidnapping Japanese or S.K. citizens - we despise them for being an insane dictatorial regime. We didn't despise Hitler and Nazism for attacking and occupying nations, but for the insane plans he had for said territories. We don't despise Stalin for attacking Finland, but for crushing democracy in the SU, and killing and imprisoning millions.

This is made especially clear in the modern, post-WWII war, with the hypocricy of the sec. council.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

Upholding International law has little to nothing to do with the ethical value of countries, sadly, since International law is only made relevant when it's in the concensus of all permament Sec. Council members, or a large number of them to consider it so.

Now I happen to think that people who assassinate Israelis abroad or in Israel really can't complain when they get blown up by telephone or car bombs or shot down in the street, but it does make moral or ethical 'holier than thou' positions harder to take.

And I say again that ethical values or positions have little to nothing to do with Intl. law -

You can say that, but then you'd just be ignoring international legal agreements that have been around for centuries preceding the concept of the League of Nations, let alone the United Nations.

I take it you've never heard of Grotius, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, diplomatic immunity...

Grotius:

http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ13-InternationalLaw.html

The Hague Convention:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm

The Geneva Convention:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

This without reference to other international laws and agreements not pertaining to war such as international copyright, slavery, child labour, and so on.


Of course ethical values have to do with law- why else have laws against slavery or torture or child labour ?

It's the only plausible explanation.

No, the other explanation is that you brought it up to muddy the waters- to make it seem as though I had claimed that the moral and values systems in Iran and Israel were equivalent.

I hadn't.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


As I wrote earlier, there was a Hersh article in the New Yorker in January indicating that some sort of military action (though not a full-scale invasion) is a distinct possibility. In fact, we've been doing some covert recon in Iran to indentify WMD targets. According to Hersh's sources, Rummy et al. are under the delusion that a limited invasion targetting their WMD facilities (they estimate that 3/4 of these facilities can be destroyed in air strikes avoiding population centers, etc.) would shatter "aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy" and precipitate a revolution.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

Its good to have a contingency plan, and certainly to determine how vulnerable the sites are. As for Hersh's sources, I presume they continue to be folks inside CIA who hate Rummy with a passion, and are not above twisting things to put him in the worst possible light. Indeed, they are not above leaking top secret info, in violation of the law. They have not always leaked to Hersh in disagreement with the current admin - they also leaked material some years back justifying the continued holding of Jonathan Pollard. Oddly though, the leaks that make their way to Sy Hersh ALWAYS lean a certain way with regard to middle east politics. Youd think such a widely heralded investigative reporter might OCCASSIONALLY find something that leans in a different direction.


"As the source I quoted earlier indicates, I think your sense is wrong, i.e. disarmament is not on the table until there is a comprehensive peace. The reason I brought up the Saudi proposal was to point out that a reasonable offer for a comprehensive peace was rejected out of hand."


The Saudi Proposal was not a reasonable offer.

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2005rc/brief11.htm

My understanding is that the negotiations would go on parallel tracks. Prior to negotiations there initial position is that they would not disarm till a comprehensive peace is reached. Whether, in the course of negotiations, they would agree to earlier disarmament is an unknown.

and profoundly irrelavant, as Iran refuse to negotiate with Israel over anything. Iran continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Iran continues to support and fund terrorists groups that commit terrorist attacks on Israel, and which oppose the peace process. And Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which would make the destruction of Israel a potential reality. Security against which is to be provided by the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction, with all its questionable assumptions about how the armed forces of an attacked nation would behave after a first strike had destroyed their society - assumptions that were questionable during the cold war, but were good enough due to the caution and fundamental "this worldiness" of the Soviet leaders.

"I didn't say that they were equivalent. Just saying that his **** doesn't stink regarding fundamentalism. Remember that the coup occured in the first place partially because Sharif was seen as soft on India regarding Kashmir. But 9/11 (and the associated aid and pressure we have on Perv) changed everything, etc., etc."

If theyre not equivalent, then this discussion of Pakistan is not particularly relevant here. We can have a long discussion of US-Pakistani relations, or of the dangers from the Pakistani bomb. None of which, IMO, make the question of the Iranian bomb less urgent.

[Az]

You can say that, but then you'd just be ignoring international legal agreements that have been around for centuries preceding the concept of the League of Nations, let alone the United Nations.

I take it you've never heard of Grotius, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, diplomatic immunity...

Grotius:

http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ13-InternationalLaw.html

The Hague Convention:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm

The Geneva Convention:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

This without reference to other international laws and agreements not pertaining to war such as international copyright, slavery, child labour, and so on.


Of course ethical values have to do with law- why else have laws against slavery or torture or child labour ?

I thought we were talking about Intl. law that pertained to relations between nations.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



However I do note that Israel has chosen in the past to act in a similar fashion to terrorists- by sending hit teams into sovereign states abroad, and in those sovereign states killing suspected terrorists held responsible by Israel for killing its citizens, in defiance of the law in those states and international law.

The 9/11 terrorists bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US. Ergo, I, who have bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US, have acted in ways similar to terrorists. I could go on and on. The question is if the action was similar to terrorists in an ethnicall relevant way. Going abroad to kill a suspected terrorist, who is being given effective sanctuary, is NOT equivalent to the deliberate murder of civilians.

In fact under international law, IIUC, said states have a legal obligation NOT to provide sanctuary to terrorists. Unfortunately international institutions dont enforce said law, and so SOME states that are victims of terrorism are forced to act in their own defence. And in general in such actions Israel has acted with great restraint, and every effort to avoid civilian casualties.