World may back [Israel in] Iran op as part of deal [with palestinians]
- Thread starter p-brane
- Start date
- Status
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Has anything changed? has Iran agreed to the Russian offer?
Russia has consistently verified that Iran has NO nuke program and have essentially guaranteed that the program will remain for civilian use.
(the latest assurance-http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089819.html)
Statfor and Debka? What kind of support for your views can sites like these possibly provide for you?
The absence of any nuance from your posts tells me that you aren't nearly as well-informed as you claim to be. For example, you wouldn't post such one-sided views such as...
Where's your outrage against the forces in africa that massacre muslims simply for being muslims? Nowhere, since it doesn't involve Israelis or Americans. I mean, 800,000 Rwandans we're killed in 100 days by being hacked to death with machetes. Where's the arab and muslim outrage there?
You also have to be smart and honest with yourself about your own biases. You seem to be neither. Or maybe we're supposed to believe that your the reincarnation of both the oracle of delphi and buddha.
To conclude, you're full of it and I feel sorry for you.
Nonetheless, let it not be said that I am unkind. Thus here's my advice for you: Study the professional journals that aren't freely available online. Then we'll see.
I know, it's so hilarious; why should the US or Israel get to have nukes? If Israel can have nukes, so can Iran.
If Israel completely disarms, though, then Iran can be stopped from having nukes.
No, no, no! Norsefire, the USA and Israel are the good guys, and they wear the white hats! So, they get to have the nukes. Iran is a bunch of bad guys and they wear black hats ...and they don't get nothin'. Bad guys never get nothin', and that's the way it should be.
Your momma obviously didn't teach you about right n' wrong, and good n' bad. Didn't you watch "The Lone Ranger" and "Hopalong Cassidy" when you were a kid?
Baron Max
An attack against Iran at this time would be very bad idea, it would rally support for the supreme leader and the president despite their very likely fraudulently election and political coup. Best to leave Iran alone. Iran very likely working on making the bomb, and unlike Israel are likely to use them, I think it would be too difficult politically or militaristically to stop them and is best at this point to let fate happen: perhaps the regime will fall and a less fanatic one will inherit the bomb, perhaps they will remain in power encourage the Sunni Muslims states to get the bomb to protect them selves from iran, encouraging an arms race and a MAD dynamic that remains cold but stressful, perhaps iran does nuke isreal and even a sunni state, well then Iran will likely be nuked by Israel or USA or both into oblivion, at least it will solve the middle east conflicts be vaporizing or irradiating sterile much of it population.
Its called information.
Nuance, what, is this a music lesson? Regarding the statement, If you want to live in a world where you choose not to notice CLEAR and CONSISTENT Israeli aggression, so be it.
If you don`t understand this statement, I cannot help you.
Of course it involves Americans. You are naive.
What are you on about?
What are you on about here again?
Your ignorance is apparent... again. Feel sorry for yourself, its the better deal.
Such as?
Unlike Israel and the US, Iran has not embarked on any WAR of aggression in over 1000 years. Where do you dredge up this notion that Iran is dangerous?
Your argument is similar to saying two policemen have killed before but a deranged man who has threatened others with vague suggestive statement of war or genocide is thus safe simply because he hasn't killed anyone yet.
Fair enough. Regarding Iran, what exactly were the "vague suggestive" statements?
Presumably from the numerous, aggressive acts of assassination, terrorism and intrigue that they have embarked on in the previous few decades. There are other factors than WARS OF AGGRESSION, perhaps?
For that matter the war they had with Iraq, aggressive or not, indicates that they have many dangerous capabilities.
And lately we have the Islamic Republic using paramilitary forces to violently crush peaceful protests, systematically arresting opposition politicians, etc. Not to mention the record of torture and "disappearances" that would make the Shah blush.
The point here is that Israel didn't signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Thus they're not breaking international law. However, Iran did sign it, and in return they of course are entitled to all kinds of perks. Unfortunately they did not live up to their obligations and yet fully availed themselves of these many perks.
Among all of the nuclear powers, expecting only Israel to disarm is unfair and no one has the authority to do so. Israels nuclear arsenal has never really been much of an issue anyway - including to arab countries. This is because they know that israel is a democracy with a government that is representative of their people who want nothing more than peace with all of their neighbours. (After all, why wouldn't they?) rather than a crazy dictatorship or theocracy who want to eliminate the "cosmically evil zionist entity" or bring about the return of the 12th (hidden) imam. Countries such as Saudi Arabia are relying on Israels military to stop any Iranian plans to threaten the region with their illegal nuclear program.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? The US is most certainly a signatory of the NPT. Likewise Russia, China, France, Britain.
The only nuclear powers that haven't signed are India and Pakistan and (assuming they do have an arsenal) Israel.
Also North Korea. Thanks for pointing out that contrary to what I posted, it is only these four states that haven't signed the treaty.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Did you read the article?
No where in the article is any such claim made by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov .
Last update - 17:24 02/06/2009
Russia FM: We'll demand Iran nuclear program stays civilian
By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press
Tags: Avigdor Lieberman, Russia
-------------------
During Lieberman's meeting with Lavrov earlier, the Russian foreign minister said his government would demand an explicit Iranian commitment that its nuclear program be geared for civilian purposes only.
-------------
Lavrov said he told Lieberman about steps Russia is taking along with other UN Security Council members and Germany, but he said nothing about any efforts by Moscow itself.
He said Russia and the other nations "expect a constructive answer" from Tehran on proposals aimed toward reviving negotiations.
---------
Ah, yes, forgot that one. Although North Korea did indeed sign the NPT, and then withdrew back in 2003.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
No, I don't think ANYONE having nukes is good for the world. But more countries having nukes in the world is worse than less countries having them. That is why (1) the USA and Russia are slowly disarming, leaving us with much fewer nukes now than we used to have and (2) preventing another country (Iran) from obtaining nukes, a weapon that does nothing except to destroy, can only be a good thing, not a bad thing.
Any reasonably modern country has "dangerous capabilities". Even some backwards third world countries have "dangerous capabilities". Afghanistan has "dangerous capabilities". If your goal is to prevent Iran from having "dangerous capabilities", you are contemplating mass murder - bombing them back to the stone age, as was attempted in Vietnam and Cambodia.quadro said:
We have gone over this before, and the evidence for these activities is flimsy.
So, self defense is a "dangerous" capability?
Potentially harmful civil unrest is contained by most governments. Why should Iran be different? Torture and Disappearances? Corroborated?
- Status