Iran takes one more BIG step...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The US deliberate bombing of infrastructure in Iraq was disastrous and totally unethical. A repeat performance in Iran would be equally so. There isn't even a pretext to do such a thing - Iran hasn't even attacked Israel (or anyone else).

When are you talking about regarding the U.S. bombing of Iraqi infrastructure? The Gulf war?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


The responsibility for such deaths is always with the killer. That doesn't mean that killing isn't sometimes neccessary.

It hardly matters in this case, however. Deliberately bombing the infrastructure of states has been proven to be immensely harmful to people who have nothing to do with the machinations of belligerent states. There's simply no justification for such a thing.

Are you saying that there can be no justification for attacking a state's infrastructure, or simply in this case there is no justification?

[Ramo]

How 'bout this for a solution:

The Canucks have nuclear reactors that don't rely on enriched uranium (called, don't laugh, "CANDU"). We offer Iran some of these reactors in exchange for full and regular IAEA inspections. Since Iran claims that they're just after nuclear power, we'd be calling their bluff. If they accept, everyone wins. If they refuse, Khamenei pisses off both the Reformists and the EU, facilitating support for a stronger sanctions regime.

I'm not entirely sold on the harsh sanctions regime thing though.

One thing that is certain is that airstrikes would be monumentally idiotic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Place your bets on what side of the question the EU comes down on.

The EU will be throughly divided, just like it was when the Yanks intervened about Kosovo. It wasn't the EU as a whole that wanted the US to take on the problem (far from it), and it certainly won't be the entire EU that will want the US to bomb Iran.

Considering that there is no such thing as an actual EU diplomacy now (i.e, the decision of the majority doesn't take precedence on the opinion of the minority), the opinion of "the EU" is entirely irrelevant as soon as the Union is divided, and it's back to caring about the opinion of France, Britain, Germany and the like. The EU isn't a country you know.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Iran is openly supporting terrorists groups internationally, and they are telling the international community to go **** off on the NPT.

Two things that would get them into hot water, if not the bombing sites of the USAF, I would think.

You mean they fund guerillas and paramilitaries??? HOLY SH1T!!1!

[SlowwHand]

and it's back to caring about the opinion of France, Britain, Germany and the like. The EU isn't a country you know.

I thought we'd made it clear just how important the opinions of France and Germany were to us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
How 'bout this for a solution:

The Canucks have nuclear reactors that don't rely on enriched uranium (called, don't laugh, "CANDU"). We offer Iran some of these reactors in exchange for full and regular IAEA inspections. Since Iran claims that they're just after nuclear power, we'd be calling their bluff. If they accept, everyone wins. If they refuse, Khamenei pisses off both the Reformists and the EU, facilitating support for a stronger sanctions regime.

I'm not entirely sold on the harsh sanctions regime thing though.

One thing that is certain is that airstrikes would be monumentally idiotic.

Didnt the euros just offer this a couple of days ago, to be told by Ahmadinajad that they were treating Iran like a 4 year old, to be handed candy and walnuts?

The EU WAS pissed off, and is now meeting with the Russians, Chinese, and Americans to discuss a UNSC resolution.

[Kaak]

yeah, the offered "Light water reactors???" or something like that. Iran spat in their face...

[dannubis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


I thought we'd made it clear just how important the opinions of France and Germany were to us.

Then why was it so important to lie to the world, big mouth ?

Freedom fries

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sikander
When are you talking about regarding the U.S. bombing of Iraqi infrastructure? The Gulf war?

Yes.

Are you saying that there can be no justification for attacking a state's infrastructure, or simply in this case there is no justification?

Do not conflate responsibility and justification. If we attack a country's infrastructure and this ends up killing many people, we are responsible for those deaths. That does not neccessarily mean there was no justification; World War II springs to mind as an example of when there was justification in total war that targetted enemy infrastructure. There was no such justification in the Gulf War; Saddam's army proved to be eminiently beatable without such actions.

[chequita guevara]

Day 1 of campaign against Iran: U.S. bombs Shi'ite country.
Day 2: Iraqi Shi'ites revolt and begin attacking U.S. soliders all across Iraq. Kurdistan only part of Iraq where American soldiers are safe.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo
How 'bout this for a solution:

The Canucks have nuclear reactors that don't rely on enriched uranium (called, don't laugh, "CANDU"). We offer Iran some of these reactors in exchange for full and regular IAEA inspections. Since Iran claims that they're just after nuclear power, we'd be calling their bluff. If they accept, everyone wins. If they refuse, Khamenei pisses off both the Reformists and the EU, facilitating support for a stronger sanctions regime.

I'm not entirely sold on the harsh sanctions regime thing though.

One thing that is certain is that airstrikes would be monumentally idiotic.

Except the Iranians won't take that. They have a right to do what they are doing under the treaty, and they will stand up for that right out of national pride.

It might sound peculiar, but they may well never create nuclear weapons. Iran is oddly moral about some things (because it is a religious state) and I think that nuclear weapons may be one of them. I remember reading that Khomenei condemned nuclear weapons as immoral and unIslamic somewhere. He also had a very tolerant attitude towards transgendered people, so it's unfair to portray him as a cookie cutter conservative.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I gave a lot of money to the Apolyton bookie, betting that you would say exactly that, and now I'm a rich man.

Congratulations. I want my cut, however.

[GePap]

As a soverign nation Iran can develop any weapon that it has through international agreement surrendered the right to build. Iran has as much a right to have ballistic missiles as any other state does.

Iran probably is aiming to get nuclear weapons. It is using the guise of the NPT to get the technology it needs to speed up the process. But ssimply stated, if Iran wants nukes and wants to do it legally, all it needs to do is leave the NPT. Then, Iran would have the same rights as any other state not a member of the NPT (like India and Pakistan and Israel) to build nuclear weapons. The issue would be whether members of the NPT would take the necessary steps to fulfill their treaty obligations and cut off all support in nuclear fields, and whatever other limitations on tyrade members of the NPT are supposed to carry out. Sadly the US is working to undermine this by breaking the NPT in possible future dealings with non-member India.

The NPT was set up so that five states would be given a temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons. Those five states were to work to get rid of all their nukes, while everyone would have access to peaceful nuclear power. All five nuclear powers have broken their side of the deal, none plans to get rid of their nukes. If the UK, France, US, China, and Russia are not going to fulfill their final obligation inherent in the deal and get rid of their nukes, why should medium powers keep themselves in a disdatvantage.

As much as the more insane posters here might enjoy thinking about killing tens of thousands of people, all states, even ones with ideas and regimes you dislike, have the right to arm and defend themselves. Don't like it? Work towards a one world government.

[Kuciwalker]

This is about how much anyone that matters cares about Iran's supposed "right" to build nukes:

.