What is Iran up to?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If we dont want them to have nukes then we should disarm but sorry we have no right to judge them on their democracy status and no right to tell them they cant match the weapons we already have. It is no wonder so many people are critical of the US and some now of the UK.

They have called for Israel to be wiped off the map! If we do not Judge them who can.

This is not a issue in which to excute morals, this is an issue of keeping weapons out of the wrong hands and Iran and certainly the wrong hands

---------- Post added at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was at 00:09 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
I trust in a country where I know democracy is working.

Yep a country where anyone can become President as long as they have a billion dollars for campaigning, absolutely anyone, as long as you are not black or a woman, apart from that though it's open to everyone.

They are still up for a vote, both in party and then to the public. They are then kept in check by the two houses. Bush needs approval before going to war

[Hom3r]

Iran is waiting to get it's @r$e bombed

[TheDaddy]

Not sure anything can keep Bush in check but you are right the Americans are certainly well up for a bit of voting.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by david.ewles

Iran is waiting to get it's @r$e bombed

nope, Iran is taking advantage of the situation the Yanks are currently in... ie. a)in Iraq and well busy sorting out Iraq so they dont have the resources and b)due to lack of WMD the political will to sort out Iran isn't there. the Yanks need to pull a rabit out of the hat... for example either lots of proper WMD in Iraq or a proof of a direct link between Iran and September 11th. it'd have to be something major though.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If we dont want them to have nukes then we should disarm but sorry we have no right to judge them on their democracy status and no right to tell them they cant match the weapons we already have.

The current status quo with respect to nuclear arms is stable, with very little risk to anyone.

We don't have to judge their (excuse for) democracy not to want nuclear proliferation, so it is entirely sensible that the UN get to grips with this.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

It is no wonder so many people are critical of the US and some now of the UK.

What, because these countries are calling for the UN to handle the matter? ANd we are not the only countries to express concern.

Furthermore, if we don't oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons, who else don't we oppose to get nuclear weapons?

We don't need another Cold War.

---------- Post added at 09:03 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
I trust in a country where I know democracy is working.

Yep a country where anyone can become President as long as they have a billion dollars for campaigning, absolutely anyone, as long as you are not black or a woman, apart from that though it's open to everyone.

Of course the system of government in Iran is much better. There, any lunatic despot can become president, as long as he has support from the theocrats.

In Iran, no woman could become president either, much less show her face in public.

The only reason that money talks in the American Presidential election is thatthere is so little to choose between the equally feckless candidates, so the one with the best adverts wins. Seems appropriate, since they have such a materialistic culture.

However, if someone with the right charisma and the right message came along, then they could easily win the presidency without spending a fortune.

THAT is democracy.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

So you're in favour of nuclear proliferation then?

No, absolutely not...a point I made by saying:

Originally Posted by andygrif

I would like to see a world that could get on just enough to agree that we would all just forget the fact that nucelar material can be used as weapons. But it isn't going to happen. And how do you stop the erroneous factor that breaks the rule?

I would much rather that no-one had these weapons, but as long as invading countries is on the West's adgenda (and as long as the West is 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons), there will be countries that feel the need to defend themselves or deter invasion.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

If a country isn't going to use the weapon on it's own, then all that remains is to use it one another country.

Or to use them, as we claim to do in the UK, to deter the threat of agression or invasion from other countries.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

BTW - by your argument everyone, without regards to their mental health or criminal intent, should be allowed not only to own guns, but to carry them around wherever they go.

I think that analogy only suggests that you haven't really considered what my argument is. I'm not saying that I think that Iran should have nuclear weapons, I don't like the idea more than you do. But you are judging their behavior from the Western point of view, which you've been told is that Iran is the baddie and we're the goodie. But Iran hasn't invaded any countries without permission lately, we have. So doesn't Mr & Mrs 2.4 children in Iran (someone who wishes us no harm at all right now) think that maybe they're not the ones in the wrong here?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

The man who can carry out the threat hasn't. Doesn't seem that dangerous to me.

Neither has Iran, Syria, North Korea....

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They might, but they're more likely to waste them on another nation's population, don't you think that's reason enough?

And what do you think would happen if they did this? It's ludicrous to suggest that they would use nuclear on their own people. Even the rhetoric spouted off about wiping Isreal off the map is just political flexing, I really don't believe, however much they might like the idea, they would ever do anything about it - namely as it would lead to the wiping off the map of Iran instead - and as I said before, the powerful people have no desire to commit suicide.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Lets see, alleged claim that Bush stated he wanted Al Jazeera removed, with out any context, and unless it's occured while I wasn't looking, no actual evidence that this was a plan to be put into action.

Ditto the statement suggesting the removal of Isreal. The difference is that the 'memo' talking about Al Jazeera has been hurredly covered up so we will not know exactly what happened for a long time. All of which suggests that something rather more sinister than you think.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why do you think people like Saddam had a massive nuclear bunker under his palace that he could have survived in if anyone launched nukes agaisnt Bahgdad?

A nice cosy bunker is not much use to a leader if there is no-one left to lead.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I also know moderate muslims, and I also know non-moderate muslims who don't care if what they've been told is true or right, if it suggests Israel is bad and should be wiped off the map, then they're up for it no matter the consiquences.

Yes, and I am sure that you know that the moderates far outweigh the number of fanatics.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Which [diplomacy] is what has been going on for quite some time now, but Iran seems to be making little effort in that direction.

I agree, and I would much rather Iran would sit round a table a discuss things reasonably. But then if I had the world's largest country constantly making idle threats against me, I might prefer to defend myself first, which gives me a far stronger negotiating position later. I suggest this is exactly what Iran is doing - and is exactly what North Korea did a couple of years back - which wil lead to far greater economic breaks.

And that's what this is all about in the end, isn't it?

Originally Posted by andygrif

I agree, and I would much rather Iran would sit round a table a discuss things reasonably.

Doesn't look like they're ppanning to do anything reasonable any time soon: BBC

Iran has threatened to halt snap inspections of its nuclear sites by the United Nations if it is referred to the UN Security Council.

Looks like they're quite happy to escalate the issue.

Originally Posted by andygrif

But then if I had the world's largest country

Third largest, Russia is the largest, almost 2x as big. And they are usually quite ready to back up Iran. So who is the bigger threat?

Originally Posted by andygrif

constantly making idle threats against me, I might prefer to defend myself first, which gives me a far stronger negotiating position later.

If they're idle threats, then no defence is needed, and if they're for real, well, in that case Iran will be attacked long before it has figured out how to manufacture and use nuclear weapons. (Unless someone helps them, of course...)

Interestingly:

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the move is in keeping with a recent Iranian law obliging the government to pull out of the "additional protocol", if the state is referred.

So the Iranians have even draughted their own legislation to force their own hand - why would they have done that?

The more I find that Iran is opposing and defying the rest of the world, the more I have to assume they're up to no good.

---------- Post added at 14:41 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------

Originally Posted by andygrif

I would much rather that no-one had these weapons, but as long as invading countries is on the West's adgenda (and as long as the West is 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons), there will be countries that feel the need to defend themselves or deter invasion.

For a country to feel it needs a defensive position, it must have placed it self in an offensive position towards 'the West'.

Apart from the ignorant posturing by Iran, they further demonstrate that they are not a government that you can trust, as collectively they have clearly learnt nothing from the history of the last 60 years.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andygrif

<snip>

None of which is a reasoned argument as to why the UN should not be trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by andygrif

I think that analogy only suggests that you haven't really considered what my argument is.

Maybe not, but it is a good analogy of the viewpoint made several times in this thread that because we have nukes, why shouldn't Iran?

Originally Posted by andygrif

I'm not saying that I think that Iran should have nuclear weapons, I don't like the idea more than you do.

In which case, I wouldn't be making excuses for them.

Originally Posted by andygrif

But you are judging their behavior from the Western point of view, which you've been told is that Iran is the baddie and we're the goodie.

Not entirely, I remember very clearly the debacle over the US Embassy in Tehran. And ever since, the Iranians (sorry, their governments/theocrats) have been preaching hate against the West.

Originally Posted by andygrif

But Iran hasn't invaded any countries without permission lately, we have.

Which one? (And don't say Iraq - apart from anything it isn't possible to 'invade with permission' - that wouldn't be an invasion.)

Originally Posted by andygrif

So doesn't Mr & Mrs 2.4 children in Iran (someone who wishes us no harm at all right now) think that maybe they're not the ones in the wrong here?

Only because all they hear is the lunatic ranting of their president and his imam friends. I doubt very much that the 'average' Iranian family know much about the West, other than the demonised view of their leaders.

And even if that was all, do they too believe that having nukes is the answer? Do they too have a complete ignorance of world history?

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

Originally Posted by andygrif

Even the rhetoric spouted off about wiping Isreal off the map is just political flexing, I really don't believe, however much they might like the idea, they would ever do anything about it - namely as it would lead to the wiping off the map of Iran instead - and as I said before, the powerful people have no desire to commit suicide.

If Bush or Blair started talking about 'wiping Iran off the map' I have no doubt that their political career would be over in the turn of a newspaper page. Because we wouldn't tolerate such rash and lunatic ideas to be uttered. Because we know someone might take it seriously.

Well, in Iran, no-one seems to care what lunatic ideas their despot president is spouting across the world. Does that mean they agree? In which case I'm even more worried?

Why should we assume his threats are idle threats? You're telling me that Iran is allowed to take the implied threat from the West seriously, in which case I'm damn well going to take his direct threats very seriously.

---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

For anyone doubting the Iranians' president's thinking, you might check out his website.

He accuses the West of stockpiling AND USING chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Are we to assume from this that once they have nuclear weapons they'll move onto the other ones?

He refers to the West as 'the enemies of Iran' - thereby tarring everyone not willing to simply give in to them with the same brush. Make no mistake - doesn't matter if it's Israel that attacks Iran - we'll STILL get the fallout (pun intended.)

He then goes on to talk about Palestine and trying to tie the issues - at least in the minds of his readers.

And then:

Ahmadinejad noted that not only Palestine, but none of the Islamic states will tolerate the Mother of All Corruptions even for a moment.

Not sure what he means there - I don't think he's referring to this article, so perhaps he means the US?

By doing that, what is he trying to do - see how many of the other Islamic states will back him in this insanity?

And then he dismisses every Western nation's objections:

Given you are so upset over hearing a slogan and resort to military threat, you are neither eligible to stake claim to human rights, nor are you competent to promote security and tranquility across the world.

What? Because we are taking his ranting seriously? Too right we are!

BTW - in a different article from the same site:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a meeting with the outgoing Turkish Ambassador to Tehran Halit Bozkurt Aran here Monday said that Iran and Turkey are in position to strengthen bonds between the East and West in economic, political and security fields.

In which case I just can't wait for Turkey to join the EU. Think of the cheap chicken imports.

The Iranian president is trying to fracture every semblance of peace or progress in the Middle East, and for what? So he can have nuclear weapons? And then what? So he can start throwing his weight around like Saddam did?

I just wish the Iranian people would see the folly of the path he is taking.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Doesn't look like they're ppanning to do anything reasonable any time soon: BBC
Looks like they're quite happy to escalate the issue.

Sadly that's true. But I do think it's for the reason I said before - playing hard ball buys you bigger rewards when you do sit down to talk eventually. And I would be very surprised if the West (as in us and the US) would gather as much support for invading Iran as we did for invading Iraq.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Third largest, Russia is the largest, almost 2x as big. And they are usually quite ready to back up Iran. So who is the bigger threat?

My bad, I meant the world's richest. Which by default makes them the most likely to carry out threats of invasion as they do have money (if not the support) to do it. And you raise a very good point, Russia does tend to side with Iran from time to time...so would their support be with the West or Iran? If it's the latter we're in big trouble aren't we?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

If they're idle threats, then no defence is needed,

Would you take the risk if someone was threatening you?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

The more I find that Iran is opposing and defying the rest of the world, the more I have to assume they're up to no good.

We've done quite a few things that go against global opinion too, don't forget.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

For a country to feel it needs a defensive position, it must have placed it self in an offensive position towards 'the West'.

I had a bit of a light hearted dig at you for using unrelated analogies earlier...so now I'm going to do the same!!! Did the person who had their car nicked do something to provoke the theif? Did the person who was mugged on their way home do something to provoke their attacker? I won't stray into Daily Mail analogies of rape and murder, but I guess you get the point. I know they're not great comparisons, and yes Iran does find itself in a position of hieghtened likelyhood of conflict, but I would suggest any development of weapons (and I really don't think there will be widescale developments if any) would be defensive, rather than offensive.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Only because all they hear is the lunatic ranting of their president and his imam friends. I doubt very much that the 'average' Iranian family know much about the West, other than the demonised view of their leaders.

Exactly! And the opposite is precisely our view of the Middle East, because of the information you are subjected to. That's the problem, on both sides. Neither will listen to each other.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

None of which is a reasoned argument as to why the UN should not be trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

First, I haven't suggested for a second that UN should not be trying to step in and sort the problem out. I think it would be a very good idea if that was to happen. But then if you read what I am actually saying, you'll see that I am not defending Iran - I am questioning the motives in the context of how we behave.

And that's my bottom line, I can answer points of minutae from you and SWW til the cows come home, but I'm not sure either of you actually see the hypocracy of the way the West is behaving. They do one thing, then say it's wrong for others to do the same. And that's what I have the problem with.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andygrif

And that's my bottom line, I can answer points of minutae from you and SWW til the cows come home, but I'm not sure either of you actually see the hypocracy of the way the West is behaving. They do one thing, then say it's wrong for others to do the same. And that's what I have the problem with.

You have a problem with the West adhering to the NPT and objecting to Iran's apparent failure to adhere?

Originally Posted by andygrif

My bad, I meant the world's richest.

Which is Luxembourg (By GDP: http://www.aneki.com/richest.html)

Originally Posted by andygrif

Russia does tend to side with Iran from time to time...so would their support be with the West or Iran?

I think that even Russia is not that excited about having Iran (way to close!) as a nuclear power.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Exactly! And the opposite is precisely our view of the Middle East, because of the information you are subjected to. That's the problem, on both sides. Neither will listen to each other.

I don't accept that - we have more sources of information than just having Bush or Blair tell us what to think. My local priest wouldn't be adding to the mix by stirring it up either.

Originally Posted by andygrif

but I'm not sure either of you actually see the hypocracy of the way the West is behaving. They do one thing, then say it's wrong for others to do the same.

And how do we know Iran is not doing the same? Saying it's for power generation when they actually want nukes?

I agree that attitudes of Western governments seem rather flexible depending on who they're talking about, but I would reiterate that we tend to be more lenient with our friends than we are with those who are not.

I don't accept that the West set out to threaten Iran - that was a response to Iran's threats against Israel and probably by suspected activity over the Iran/Iraq border. Iran has done NOTHING to make peace and stability in Iraq possible. Even if they haven't actively acted against that goal, they have certainly looked the other way for those that have.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You have a problem with the West adhering to the NPT and objecting to Iran's apparent failure to adhere?

Is there much point in me talking if no-one is actually listening?

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Which is Luxembourg (By GDP: http://www.aneki.com/richest.html)

Right.

Nothing more to say really.

That richest list is using GDP which may not be the best measure in some cases

[BBKing]

Luxembourg's GDP/person is totally skewed by the fact that a lot of people commute into country to work (thus increasing the GDP) while actually living in neighbouring countries (thus reducing the population). This is rather an anomalous situation, but that's free movement of labour for you. Good old EU.

Actually, if you look at the EU's regions, London comes out pretty much top, for much the same reason - huge economic powerhouse with lots of people commuting in. GDP/person is not a reliable indicator of an area's wealth on its own.

Anyway, back to Iran and the impossibility of military action being taken and thus the stupidity of threatening it - the head of the Royal Navy seems to agree with me:

Originally Posted by Independent

Admiral Sir Alan West, the head of the Royal Navy, warned that any military action against Iran could have "horrendous consequences" and "must be avoided".

Sir Alan said even air strikes - let alone a full-scale invasion - would be extremely problematic and could have "disastrous" results. Sir Alan was the first Western military commander to express his disquiet over the possibility of an armed intervention in the growing crisis over Iran's nuclear programme. It came amid reports that the US and Israel may bomb the nuclear facilities if Tehran refuses to back down from its belligerent stance over its nuclear testing, despite international anger.

Admiral West said: "The consequence of military action would be quite horrendous. We should not do it, the matter should be resolved some other way."

Talking about a previous example - an Israeli strike at Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak in 1981, Admiral West said: "That was just one target. With Iran you have got to get every single one. There will awful repercussions if that does not happen."