Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[vomitus]

Originally posted by Whoha


you're twice the of they ever were.

What on Earth does that mean? Looks like you missed a few words.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


You can make the same arguement about the sun coming up tommorrow. Simply saying "well, it might" isn;t the basis for an argument.

I dont think the affairs of humans and nations are as determined, or as well understood, as the gravitationally determined movements of planets and stars.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Edan
How would we have responded to 9/11 if Afghanistan was a nuclear power?

If Afganistan was a nuclear power, it would never have been a pawn in US-Soviet relations, and never would have become a breeding ground for terrorists.

This whole notion of

terrorist sponser + nuclear capabilty = nuclear terrorist

is completely false.

Groups resort to terrorism when they have been dismissed by those with power.

When Iran becomes a nuclear power, they will have a seat at the table, and people will listen, and they won't have the time or interest in blowing up buses.

[Last Conformist]

So, according to you, Iran sponsors terrorism not because it furthers their goals, but because they're spiteful? I rather doubt that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I dont think the affairs of humans and nations are as determined, or as well understood, as the gravitationally determined movements of planets and stars.

And who are you to say G-D won't decide to end the world tommorrow? Are you omnicient? That's quite a bit of Hubris you got there.

The point remains. "might happen" is not an argument.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Mad Viking

If Afganistan was a nuclear power, it would never have been a pawn in US-Soviet relations, and never would have become a breeding ground for terrorists.

Al Qaeeda moved from Sudan to Afghanistan AFTER the USSR ceased to exist, and the US turned away from the region.

This whole notion of

terrorist sponser + nuclear capabilty = nuclear terrorist

is completely false.

Groups resort to terrorism when they have been dismissed by those with power.

When Iran becomes a nuclear power, they will have a seat at the table, and people will listen, and they won't have the time or interest in blowing up buses.

Odd, then, that the USSR supported terrorists while possesing a vast nuclear arsenal.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
And no one has shown how the Iranian regime is not a rational agent.

It's a frigging theocracy, where the likeliness of a religious fanatic coming to supreme power is extremely high.

Religious fanatics tend not to be rational you know. If the fanatic believes that Allah will protect him and his people from the infidels' bobs, all hell will break loose.

Generally speaking, it is very bad that nukes fall into the hands of countries where so much power can be held by one person without any checks and balances. Because that person, being a mere human, might well turn out to be a delusional crazy.

Theocracies are especially prone to it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And who are you to say G-D won't decide to end the world tommorrow? Are you omnicient? That's quite a bit of Hubris you got there.

The point remains. "might happen" is not an argument.

Im not big on miracles of the kind you seem to be thinking of. You might be surprised, but not all theists have the same POV, or even the same concept of G-d.


I repeat. I dont expect the movements of the stars and planets to be measurably different from what my local astronomers forecast. I very much expect that there will be events in world affairs that WILL be VERY different from what political "scientists" forecast.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a frigging theocracy

And? Theocracies have been rational actors throughout history.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And? Theocracies have been rational actors throughout history.

Which theocracy offered the means to bring about the armaggeddon to the high priest?

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
edit..

Showing that a state says irrational things adds evidence for the risks related to that states behaviour.

edit......

Does that include Bushes "I invaided Iraq because God told me too"?

I'm as worried that he has his finger on the button, as i am Iran may be close to getting nukes, the world is a much less safe place with either fanatic able to do as they will with their war machines imho.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Which theocracy offered the means to bring about the armaggeddon to the high priest?

And this matters because? A rational actor doesn't stop being rational because they have a bigger bomb. The nuke didn't change the USSR and USA from rational actors to non-rational actors.

[Sandman]

Re: the thread title

There's no such thing as a 'responsible' nuclear power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by child of Thor


Does that include Bushes "I invaided Iraq because God told me too"?
.

You're aware he denies saying that?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's a frigging theocracy

And? Theocracies have been rational actors throughout history.

No they haven't. They've been at least as messed up as monarchies, republics, and democracies.